Friday, August 30, 2013

The Most Clear-Eyed Strategic Thought Is Coming From "The Onion"

It's infuriating, this whole idea of attacking Syria without having some understanding of what will happen, and what will not happen. There is an emerging consensus that this is a really dumb idea, but by the time it expresses itself, the attack will already have been made.

Greg Djerejian:
I am now staunchly opposed having better detected an utter lack of true seriousness by the Obama Administration. The myriad leaks around what type of mission, the palpable trigger-happiness among some, the British debacle (they won't even have their poodle this time, the cat-calls will ring!) and the ‘shot across the bow’ nonsense showcases an Administration unready for an invigorated course correction of its flailing Syria policy. Frankly, I am astonished by the lack of seriousness and mediocrity on display.

...If you mean it for real, however, you quietly go about your business planning a deterrent response that Bashar won’t simply hunker down through, you wait for the UN inspectors to issue their report on reasonable timing (would be graceful, no, at very least given the risks they undertook during their mission?), you at least try to have robust UNSC dialogue (let the Russians be on record that they are opposed, as we know they’ll be, but put in the effort regardless!) you cease with the constant leaks and descriptions and explications of what the policy might be or won’t or whether it will be no fly or no drive or cruise or no cruise or this or that, you don’t force allies to rush ham-handed into Parliamentary debates half-assed even before the UN investigation report finalized, and speaking of Parliaments, you deign to seek some imprimatur of legitimacy from yours; in short, you quietly execute, lay groundwork and let your opponent wonder what the hell is coming after his ostensibly despicable actions, rather than this gussied-up R2P prom-night feel-good gesture.

...This past 72-96 hours have been a titanic embarrassment for anyone who cares about U.S. foreign policy. It appears a rush job to beat the St. Petersburg summitry on a quiet August weekend that everyone hopes will be quickly forgotten, except for the mighty 'lesson' learned. It’s worse than unprofessional and cowardly. It’s contemptible in the extreme. Make it stop.
Even the hawkish morons at The New Republic are against it:
That those, like myself, who believe that the United States should not have the right, and certainly does not have the obligation, to take upon itself the responsibility of “punishing” Assad for his crimes, will of course see an air campaign, however brief or long it proves to be, as a pointless act of moral hubris and geostrategic stupidity, should go without saying. But if anything, those who instead believe that the radical evil of a Bashar al Assad must wherever possible not be allowed to go unpunished or their crimes to go unavenged, are likely to be even more frustrated by the limited military campaign that the administration has made clear is the most it is willing to take. As Leon Wieseltier has written in these pages, if Assad is to be punished but left in place, this means that in reality he will be unpunished.
The folks at "The Onion" have it about right, looking at the situation from Bashar al-Assad's position:
So, where do I begin? Well, this is just the tip of the iceberg, but let’s start with the fact that my alliance with Russia and China means that nothing you decide to do will have the official support of the UN Security Council.
... c’mon, check me out: I’m ruthless, I’m desperate, and I’m going to do everything I can to stay in power. I’d use chemical weapons again in a heartbeat. You know that. And I know you know that. Hell, I want to help you guys out here, but you gotta be realistic. Trust me, I am incapable of being taught a lesson at this point. Got it? I am too far gone. Way too far gone.

Oh, and I know some of you think a no-fly zone will do the trick, but we both know you can’t stomach the estimated $1 billion a month that would cost, so wave bye-bye to that one, too.

...Oh, and speaking of me being toppled from power, let’s say, just for fun, that tomorrow I were to somehow be dethroned. Who’s in charge? Half of these rebel groups refuse to work with one another and it’s getting harder to tell which ones are actually just Islamic extremists looking to fill a potential power vacuum. We’ve got Christians, Sunnis, and Shias all poised to fight one another for control should I fall. You want to be the ones sorting through that mess when you’re trying to build a new government? I didn’t think so.

...I’ll leave you with this: I am insane. Not insane enough to generate worldwide unanimity that I cannot remain in charge of my own country. That would make this a lot easier. No, unfortunately, I’m just sane and stable enough to remain in power and devise cunning military and political strategies while at the same time adhering to a standard of morality that only the most perverse and sociopathic among us would be capable of adopting.

...I’m in this for the long haul. And you will do...whatever it is you’re going to do, which is totally up to you. Your call.

2 comments:

  1. Anonymous7:42 PM

    Something seemed very strange to me about this whole situation from the time the first pictures of gas victims were released. Where were the long-bearded Islamists? There were some beards among the victims but no more than one would find in any Arab country. If Assad wanted to kill off a large number of Islamic insurgents why did he choose a neighborhood of people who look nothing like them? It seemed far-fetched at first to think that insurgents would make a false flag attack against innocent people in order to cause the US to bolster their faltering campaign against the Assad regime. But then these are insurgents who killed a "blasphemer", cut out his heart and took a bite out of it. And with the turmoil of two years of war, military defections and military installations changing hands it is within the realm of possibility that insurgents managed to take possession of nerve gas canisters. This evening on Hardball with Chris Matthews a journalist who has covered the war from the outset expressed his opinion that this is what happened.

    Or maybe the Assad government really did launch the attack. If it was done by the insurgents why hasn't Assad issued a statement to that effect? It would have been the smartest thing he could have done to undercut anti-government forces.

    Too many questions. And until the overall situation become a great deal clearer it seems to me that any military activity would be entirely irrational.

    Just my view from the Oklahoma hills...

    ReplyDelete
  2. My thought is that the Alawite-heavy government (only about 10% of the population) is now so embattled that it no longer really cares whether it hits Islamists or not. Almost anywhere they hit outside their enclaves, they'll hit enemies: whether Islamists, Shiites, Sunnis, Christians, Palestinians, Turks, what have you. And there has been a lot of Russian-Alawite marriages over the years, and so the Russians will back Assad, no matter what happens, right to Gotterdamerung. I don't think there was a false flag attack - those are very rare and usually hit important symbols (e.g., Reichstag Fire). But we haven't thought out what we are doing, and we don't have the level of commitment to prevail against desperate people.

    ReplyDelete