While avoiding the obvious political parallels and alleged situational differences between Iraq and Syria, it must be noted that, if made, such a decision by President Obama would greatly upset any notions of calculated or well-defined foreign policy strategy on behalf of the administration since he took office.
It is difficult to identify any short or long-term benefits of direct US military action in Syria in the context of recent media reporting on the issue. Short of removing a select few regime facilities through carefully mensurated precision airstrikes, the US is guaranteed to better serve its interests in the long-term by instead focusing on fostering closer relationships with its allies in the region, Turkey, Israel, and Jordan, to name a few.
While by no means a 100% solution, such relationships would allow the US to utilize its extensive counterterrorism and military assets in pursuit of finding, fixing, tracking, targeting, and finishing any possible threats to US interests locally. The messy international and domestic politics are avoided barring the usual operational requirements, international actors and power players such as China and Russia are kept at bay, and the US is still able to exert direct control over its national security interests in the region.
It is in the US’ best interest that President Obama comprehends the precedent established by other world players and allies such as Britain and chooses not to pursue direct military intervention in Syria, regardless of any alleged violations of international or humanitarian standards
US Military: Some Thought Required
Given that the UK has voted against any military action and effectively limited Prime Minister Cameron’s ability to unilaterally commit British forces alongside those of the US, it is important to note that Mr. Cameron stated he, “would not take action [in Syria] without the consent of the Parliament and government.” This is a heartening statement that demonstrates Mr. Cameron’s ability to respect the decisions of those he was elected to represent
However, given the posture of US military forces in the region, and the Obama administration’s suggestion that President Obama may still consider military action regardless of the outcome of any UN security council resolutions or Congressional decisions, the precedent of his international counterpart’s decisions and a general consensus of US public opinion place the military in a difficult position.
First (without boring the military readers), the purpose of the military is to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States and its citizens. This is an overused and misunderstood statement (definitely the situation here) that is sure to elicit mixed interpretation, but necessary in the following statements.
Second, it is understood that in today’s rapidly changing world that encompasses a vast myriad of primarily unconventional military action, there are no clear lines or rules that justify US military action across the globe. While there are guidelines and interests that the military is tasked to protect (often under the notion of national security or general US interests), the situation in Syria does not warrant any action past attempts to control the eventual outpour and proliferation of radical and experienced Islamist fighters from the region.
In the context of all of above, the military is placed in a difficult position. On one hand, President Obama’s justification of direct US military action in Syria involves the alleged use of chemical weapons and the international violation that accompanied the alleged attack. However, given a lack of Congressional approval, a lack of UN Security Council endorsement, a lack of typical coalition force support, and the overall negative demeanor of Syria’s messy “intercommunal civil war”, the military must analyze whether or not it is being appropriately and gainfully employed.
What US interest is being protected while pursuing direct military action against regime forces? What international standards are being enforced when (or if, rather) the Assad regime collapses as a result of this action and leaves a power vacuum that eliminates control over chemical weapons stockpiles as well? What alternative courses of action are available that could present a more identifiable purpose and objective for US military forces?
It is in the interest of the United States that its military forces not be committed in support of any direct, overt action against the Syrian regime. Unverified use of chemical weapons use is not sufficient justification to engage in unilateral military action in an already messy civil war. Even with verification of chemical weapons use, direct military action (in support of upholding ‘international norms’ and laws) is not an effective or wise tool to implement in Syria.
Given the second and third-order repercussions of direct and overt US military action (especially in the context of Russia, China, and Iran’s extensive backing of the regime), US interests are better served conducting a focused, well-practiced strategy of counterterrorism efforts in full partnership with friendly nations in the region.
Thanks for listening. ~14Charlie
Bio-I am a junior active duty intelligence officer supporting an airborne-capable ground unit. Not SOF, just a regular intel guy.
COMMENTS