This is not World War II. Assad is not Hitler. This is not the Cold War. Damascus is not West Berlin. Limited strikes wouldn’t accomplish a damn thing in terms of dissuading Assad from using chemical weapons and would do nothing to contain them. The possibility of a US strike making the conflict worse – turning it into a regional war – seems significant. For those and a number of other reasons I’ve come to the conclusion that it would be a bad idea for the US to attack Syria. As I stated in an earlier post, no matter what actions are taken or not taken there will be negative consequences and plenty of opportunity to second-guess, but I believe that refraining is the least bad option at present.
Related readings:
- Dan Drezner, Two takes and one prayer on Syria (Link here if you don’t have a Foreign Policy subscription.):
My take on what to do in Syria has drifted from agnosticism to skepticism over the last week. This authorized DoD leak New York Times story by David Sanger and Eric Schmitt about what the Pentagon is planning to do in Syria ain’t helping.
The taboo against the use of chemical weapons has strengthened over time. This is a good thing. Humans are a pretty barbaric species, so on the whole I tend to approve of any small step towards more civilized behavior. The chemical weapons taboo is one such small step… The trouble with Obama’s liberal desire to enforce the chemical weapons taboo is running up against his realist desire to make sure that Al Qaeda doesn’t have a friendly regime running Syria… the Obama administration doesn’t want to weaken the Syrian military too much. This is an awfully hard balance to strike.
There are a lot of areas of foreign policy where different paradigms can offer the same policy recommendation, and there are a lot of foreign policy issue areas where presidents can just claim “pragmatism” and not worry about which international relations theory is guiding their actions. I’m increasingly of the view, however, that Syria is one of those areas where Obama is gonna actually have to make a decision about what matters more — his realist desire to not get too deeply involved, or his liberal desire to punish the violation of a norm. If he doesn’t decide, if he tries to half-ass his way through this muddle, I fear he’ll arrive at a policy that would actually be worse than either a straightforward realist or a straight liberal approach.
- Dan Drezner, International lawyers give it the old college try
- Robert Reich, Obama’s Political Capital and the Slippery Slope of Syria
- Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA) On Syria: ‘Not Convinced Military Action Is The Answer’
I have many questions the [Congressional] briefings simply did not answer:
Will targeted short term strikes be enough to deter future use of chemical or biological weapons by the Assad regime? I fear that any attack a despot survives can be sold as a victory for him. We have all heard the response, “Is that the best you got?”
Will these attacks discourage other nations, such as Iran, from seeking more powerful weapons themselves? When President Bush threatened Iran and North Korea they did not roll over in fear. Iran stepped up their pursuit of a nuclear weapon and North Korea stepped up their quest for long-range missiles to carry the nuclear weapons they already have.
Will such a strike serve to contain the violence within Syria or make it more likely to involve other nations in the region and beyond?
Will strikes against Assad strengthen his enemies? In this civil war, al Qaeda has aligned against Assad – would our strike help al Qaeda?
How would it affect the long term interests of the United States in the region and elsewhere?
How would it impact our allies in the region?
I understand full well that these questions have no simple answers but I believe that they must be fully considered as part of this discussion.
People view war as a last resort. And I don’t think people think that we’re at that point. So I would step back a little bit.
- Interview with Andrew Bacevich on Taking Action in Syria
Why is waging war the best means of advancing a humanitarian agenda?
Apropos of that last link, perhaps it’s because I spent fifteen years working on chemical and biological weapons defense but it bothers me that containing chemical weapons (with the intent of decommissioning them) has not been widely cited as a legitimate basis for invading Syria. Does chemical weapons counterproliferation matter? My gut reaction is that it does but perhaps not. Is the fact that the Syrians have a stockpile much ado about nothing to those who live outside their borders? Counterproliferation is taken seriously when it comes to nuclear weapons. It should be taken seriously for biological weapons. I believe it should also matter for chemical weapons. Think a few rounds of VX dispersed in a urban environment would be less horrific than a dirty bomb? I’m skeptical. Chemical weapons counterproliferation should qualify as a national interest. If we do nothing about Syria’s stockpile then we take our chances.