Questions and Answers on Syria

 

When the Obama administration began its march toward war with Syria last month, there were numerous questions that were begging for answers. During the weeks of debate, posturing and political maneuvering that have followed, some answers have become more clear and some remain obscured. The initial question for me was what is the evidence that the chemical attack in the suburbs of Damascus was perpetrated by the Assad government? Secretary of State John Kerry has tried to make the case that the links to Assad are undeniable, but no evidence has been produced to substantiate this claim. There are plenty of reasons to be skeptical of the carefully worded unclassified Intelligence Estimate often cited in support of the war, which seems more designed to obscure the facts than to elucidate them. (See here) We are being asked to accept the administration’s judgment on faith. After the Iraq fiasco, this is hard for me. Acceptance is especially difficult since administration officials have told media outlets that the evidence is not a “slam dunk”. (See here)

A second question is what are the strategic outcomes that the administration intends to achieve? This question has had many answers depending on who is answering, when and to whom they are speaking. The answers cover a broad ground; limited strikes to punish the regime, targeted strikes to degrade the regime’s capabilities, strikes intended to shift the military balance and bring the parties to the negotiating table, regime change, send a message to Iran, weaken Iran and Hezbollah in order to protect Israel, uphold U.S. credibility (whatever that means) and prevent a political defeat for Obama. The list grows longer by the day. It is, therefore, not surprising that, in a rare moment of candor, when asked by Senator Bob Corker about the administration’s strategic objectives, Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey replied “I can’t answer that question”.

The answer to the question, how has the U.S. prepared to deal with the unintended consequences of war with Syria, is even less clear. These consequences are numerous. Al Akbar reports, “Informed insiders have confirmed that Syria and Hezbollah plan to retaliate against Israel in the event of an American-led military attack on Syria. Says one, ‘If even one US missile hits Syria, we will take this battle to Israel’.” (See here) If the attacks turn the tide of the civil war will Iran intervene to aid Assad? If the rebels carry the day and begin a raft of revenge killings, how will the U.S respond? Russia has moved warships to the eastern Mediterranean. How will they respond? U.S. intelligence has claimed that, in the event of an attack, Iran has instructed its allies in Iraq and Lebanon to strike at U.S. targets. If the Assad regime loses control of chemical and biological weapons to the al Qaeda linked rebels, how will the U.S. respond? There is no mood in Russia, China or Iran to give the U.S. an easy win. It is instructive of the administration position, that, again in a rare moment of candor, Secretary of State John Kerry responding to a question about the usefulness of a ban on the use of ground troops in the Senate war resolution, said "I don't want to take off the table an option that might or might not be available to a president of the United States to secure our country”.

As former British intelligence officer Alistair Crooke points out in his always insightful commentary, “The precise consequences from lobbing cruise missiles can never be foreseen, and although always, before the event, such interventions are assumed to be quick and painless, it seldom turns out that way in practice”.

Photo by White House

Technorati Tags: Syria,Obama,Middle East

Droning On: Obama’s Targeting Killing Justification

Last month, President Obama delivered a major speech at the National Defense University in which he addressed the U.S. policy on drone attacks. (The full text is here.) The tactic of targeted assassinations of individuals suspected of threatening the U.S. originated during the George W. Bush administration. This tactic has been dramatically expanded under the Obama administration and has become the primary tactic utilized in the “War on Terror”. Not only has the frequency of drone strikes increased, but the geography has also expanded from the war zones of Iraq and Afghanistan to include non-war zones, such as Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. The potential target list has also expanded to include American citizens suspected of posing a threat.

In describing the source of this threat, Mr. Obama offered the “conflict of civilizations” argument saying, “Most, though not all, of the terrorism we faced is fueled by a common ideology — a belief by some extremists that Islam is in conflict with the United States and the West, and that violence against Western targets, including civilians, is justified in pursuit of a larger cause.” In making this argument, he neglected to mention the U.S. invasions of Muslim lands, overall U.S. Middle East policy and previous targeted killings which tend to create more enemies than they eliminate. (Before the targeted killings began in Yemen there were estimated to be less than 100 al Qaeda sympathizers; today the estimate is over 1200)

In his justification for his use of targeted assassinations Mr. Obama said, “…we act against terrorists who pose a continuing and imminent threat to the American people, and when there are no other governments capable of effectively addressing the threat.” and “…despite our strong preference for the detention and prosecution of terrorists, sometimes this approach is foreclosed.”

These arguments, while nuanced and carefully framed, are arguments that could easily been made by Vladimir Putin when he was accused of orchestrating the assassination of former KGB officer Alexander Litvinenko in 2006 in London or by Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet after the car bomb assassination of former Chilean Ambassador Orlando Letelier in Washington D.C. in 1976. Letelier’s American assistant, Ronnie Moffit, was simply “collateral damage”.

Right now the U.S. has a technological advantage in the production of drones, but this is unlikely to last long. Legitimizing a policy of extrajudicial execution of suspected threats in non-war zones is setting a precedent for other governments who might not be as inclined to take the precautions that Obama has outlined. As Georgetown University Professor of International Law, Rosa Brooks, pointed out in her testimony before Congress, “…the United States is effectively handing China, Russia, and every other repressive state a playbook for how to foment instability and -literally -- get away with murder."

The law of unintended consequences has not been repealed.

Technorati Tags: Obama,Drones

Make me do it

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s stonewalling of US demands that he freeze all settlement activity, loosen the blockade of Gaza and improve conditions on the ground in the West Bank has shown that the US has few options for applying pressure on Israel.

The release of the Goldstone Report which outlined allegations of war crimes committed by Hamas and Israel during the 2008 war in Gaza was an opportunity for the US to exert pressure in a way that did not require Congressional action. The US could have signaled its displeasure by abstaining or voting for UN Human Rights Committee approval of the report. Instead, the US intensely lobbied its European allies and the Palestinian Authority to prevent approval. Predictably, Israel and what Rabbi Michael Lerner calls its “ethical cretin” allies attacked the report on all fronts.

Many who support a just solution to the Israel/Palestine problem have called this just another example US political leaders caving in to the Israel Lobby. There may, however, be another explanation.

The Obama administration is engaged in a major political battle over healthcare reform. In this battle every Democratic vote counts. Congressmen and Senators, such as Steny Hoyer, Howard Berman, Evan Bayh and Chris Dodd, who take their marching orders from AIPAC, would not hesitate to torpedo healthcare reform to punish Obama for pressuring Israel. Obama may have been trying to buy time until after the healthcare reform issue is settled.

During the campaign, then candidate, Obama was asked during a small fundraising event in NJ if it were possible to resolve the Israel/Palestine issue without pressuring Israel by reducing or cutting off financial aid. In a manner reminiscent of the parable style of Jesus, Obama answered the question by telling this story.

At the beginning of WW II A. Philip Randolph, President of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, lobbied FDR to promote equal employment opportunities. At the end of the meeting, FDR said “You have persuaded me; I agree with you. Now make me do it”. Randolph responded by organizing a march on Washington and FDR issued Executive Order 8802 which banned discrimination in defense industries and established the Fair Employment Practices Committee.

When the issue of pressure on Israel resurfaces in the spring there may be an opportunity to “Make Obama do it”.

Confrontation with Iran

This week the Iranian nuclear enrichment program was once again front and center on the world stage. On Monday Iranian officials notified the IAEA that they had begun construction of a second nuclear enrichment facility outside the city of Qom. This announcement prompted a flurry of diplomatic activities by the US and its European allies which culminated in a hastily called press conference featuring President Obama, French President Sarkozy and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Each in turn roundly condemned Iran for their “direct challenge” to the NPT regime, “serial deception” and challenge to the entire international community. The western media flashed headlines such as “US and allies warn Iran over nuclear deception” and British “Foreign Secretary David Miliband refuses to rule out military action against Iran nuclear plant”.
Iranian President Ahmadinejad responded that the plant was never a secret and that Iran had lived up to its NPT obligations.
The reality of all this is much more nuanced. The US has been aware of this facility for some time and has elected ignore it. The plant, therefore, is hardly a secret. Iran’s case that has lived up to its obligations has some validity. The treaty as ratified by Iran requires that the IAEA be notified 180 days before the introduction of nuclear material. The 2003 protocol, which Iran never ratified, introduced the requirement to notify the IAEA immediately upon the decision to construct a nuclear facility.
The Iranians may have felt that they were doing something positive ahead of the 5+1 talks scheduled for Oct. 1, since they are probably a year away from introducing nuclear material and may have been surprised by the reaction. They did not, however, count American domestic politics.
Having been stonewalled by Israel and the Arab countries on his Israel/Palestine policy, Obama could not afford to appear weak on another Middle East issue. This allowed the administration hardliners on Iran, such as Hilary Clinton and Dennis Ross, to carry the day and raise the specter of “crippling sanctions” and military action.
With their harsh aggressive rhetoric, the western leaders may have put themselves in a corner from which there may be no easy exit. Since any sanctions regime is not likely to be either effective or “crippling” and the unstable hard-line government in Tehran may welcome the conflict as a way of uniting their divided country, the western leaders may, once again, have to choose between backing down in the face of intransigence or taking military action. Will the Iranians sit idly by awaiting an attack which could destroy their retaliatory capability or will they chose a preemptive first strike?
It seems to me that that I have seen this movie before in Iraq. I didn’t like the ending.