It is without question that the chemical attacks on Syrian opposition forces, refugees and their families is a war crime. Chemical weapons have been banned in the battlefield since the end of World War I. The treaty, known as the Geneva Protocol, was signed by 40 nations in 1925. Russia ratified the treaty as the Soviet Union in 1928. Syria ratified the treaty in 1968 under the leadership of General Salah Jadid, who had just come to power after a successful coup. Two years later, Hafez al-Assad removed Jadid and his puppets from power, establishing modern rule in Syria. Syria's current leader, Bashar al-Assad, is his youngest son.
World War I saw the first use of chemical weapons. It is ironic that yesterday's attack comes nearly 100 years to the day that the U.S. entered the "War to End All Wars."
There have been other chemical weapons treaties since 1928. The world has largely followed those treaties. Unfortunately, like most laws and treaties, if they are not consistently enforced, they are eventually ignored.
Both Iran and Iraq used chemical weapons during their decade long war during the 1980's. Following George H.W. Bush's decision not to depose Saddam Hussein after the first Gulf War, Hussein used chemical weapons to quell Kurdish uprisings in northern Iraq. The world did nothing about the use of chemical weapons in those conflicts, notwithstanding that many women and children died. In recent history, both Assad and Isis have used chemical weapons in Syria and Iraq.
Three years ago, I wrote a post outlining Putin's larger strategy in the middle east. http://libertyswindow.blogspot.com/2014/07/putins-game.html. In essence, Putin has always planned to use Russian military force and political influence to form some beachhead in the middle east. Syria is that beachhead and Assad is its guarantor. So far, the United States has been content with this arrangement. But, that changes when one of the principal guarantees from Russia, the confiscation of Assad's chemical stockpile, is unfulfilled.
President Obama did very little to influence a positive outcome in the wake of the Putin-Assad alliance. It was all talk, some sanctions, and discussions about arming rebels. When Assad crossed Obama's "red line," the President threatened regime change but ultimately did nothing about it. This is different, however. Assad used Russian military assets to disperse his chemical arsenal. The Russians are at least indirectly responsible for violating the long standing ban on chemical weapons use.
It is a game changer and it should be. When major powers break arms treaties, it necessarily requires the other signatories to reevaluate their own restraint. Evil Jihadis using chemical weapons is to be expected. A military Superpower using chemical weapons is a violation of international law that must be answered if we are to continue to subordinate our own interests to similar arms treaties.
Here is what we should NOT do:
1. Bomb Russians
Since yesterday, the usual suspects have been canvassing the cable news networks calling for war with Russia. Lindsey Graham, Deputy Hawk in Chief, was on O'Reilly last night advocating the bombing of Syrian airfields that are also housing Russian planes and personnel. This is neither realistic nor would it be wise. First, as soon as American planes come close to Russian airbases they will be intercepted by Russian fighters or shot down by advanced anti-aircraft weaponry. Even if the U.S. successfully bombed Russian military assets, it would be an act of war and Russia would almost certainly retaliate. As I've said many times before, a third industrial scale war must be avoided at almost any cost. http://libertyswindow.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-race-towards-world-war-iii.html.
2. Rely on the United Nations
The United Nations will do absolutely nothing. The world is wary of "regime change" and the perpetual use of U.S. military power in the middle east. Our schizophrenic approach towards the region over the last thirty years has left the world with the impression that, whatever we decide to do, it will not bring long term stability. One decade it's nation building and the exportation of democracy. The next decade it's withdrawal and ISIS. We have helped create the very conditions that we now oppose in the region. We need to take some responsibly for that and proceed with some caution and deliberation.
3. Win Heart and Minds
The "hearts and minds" strategy has been an utter failure dating back to Vietnam. It is part of a limited warfare strategy that sets narrow targets and narrow goals. It is susceptible to mission creep as local attitudes improve, and it is equally susceptible to guerrilla warfare as local attitudes sour. We have tried to win hearts and minds in the middle east for decades. We lost. They hate us and we just have to accept that. They will hate us until they have no other choice but to like us. That requires more than chocolate bars and the promise to avoid all civilian casualties.
What we should do, if anything:
1. Deploy Decisive Military Force to the Region
If we are going to do anything at all, it should be decisive. It should end middle eastern conflicts in general for decades. It should be to completely destroy terrorism as an ideology and make it so unpalatable to the population that grandmothers turn in grandsons who speak of Jihad.
Lobbing some bombs here and there makes the situation worse. If we are going to end this perpetual conflict, it will require decisive military force. It will also require a long term occupation of the region. While that sounds undesirable, it really is nothing more than following, with more effect, the status quo. We've deployed hundreds of thousands of soldiers to the middle east over the last 20 years. Whether we continue to deploy and withdraw or simply stay really does not matter.
To that end, we should reestablish our presence in Iraq, deploy an ISIS first strategy, crush them in both Iraq and Syria, and then occupy as much territory in Syria as possible. The occupation deprives Russia of additional territory and guarantees protections for civilians.
2. Draw a New Line in the Sand
We do not need any other red lines but, after we have taken as much of the region as possible, we should negotiate a border. Assad can stay in power, it will not matter. He will be governing a postage stamp nation. The U.S. military will have a massive presence in his country and will punish any incursions into the occupied territory. Assad and the Russians can be contained, but not with bombs dropped on huts from F-16s. It will take a sustained effort.
3. Stay
In order to really effect change in the middle east, we will have to stay there into the foreseeable future. Again, our military has been in and out of the middle east for decades. What I am suggesting is nothing new. It is merely a recognition of the fact that the enemy ideology cannot be stamped out without a consistent and sustained effort to do so. Yes, it will cost a fortune, but no more than it has already cost us. In the long run it will cost us much less in both lives and money.
These strategies serve several purposes. We can simultaneously annihilate Jihad and contain Russia. We also punish a dictator who chooses to stockpile and use WMD. We set a new precedent, one that is more likely to be observed in the future. We protect civilians and our allies in the region. We also further isolate Iran.
Moreover, Russia, once they are deprived of any meaningful foothold in the middle east, will have to reevaluate their own global strategy. Vladimir Putin will at least see that force will be met with force, and the United States will answer conflict with the total destruction of the enemy. It is a message that has been lacking from our foreign policy since the 80's. All of this is accomplished without provoking an industrial war with Russia. We need not announce our intentions to the world, we need only to execute the plan.
No comments:
Post a Comment