Syria -- a difficult Choice

So, now, Syria has come to the Front Burner.  A Friend who wondered what would be the correct Choice on Syria also expressed the Inclination that to strike might be the preferred and logical Alternative.

It is a difficult Choice.  However, it does not appear that all of the necessary Variables of the Equation are available in order to make a correct Decision.  It might be appropriate to list just what the available Information is, at this Point in Time.  It also needs to be emphasized that the Information which is available, classified or not, is subject to re-Evaluation, literally, at a Moment's Notice as more Information becomes available.

Here is what we see so far:

The United Nations

It is clear that an International Intervention against Syria, limited or otherwise, is not possible within the Framework of the United Nations.  Russia and China are against a Security Council Resolution authorizing such Action and both have Veto Power.

This makes problematic any Action outside of the Scope of the United Nations, because such Action would be taken precisely because Approval cannot be obtained in the Security Council.  Simply put, one cannot easily make the Argument that the United States would go to the United Nations seeking Approval of such Action and, absent such Approval, it would act outside of the Scope of the United Nations or within another Framework or Coalition.

United States Domestic Policy Considerations

President Obama has set a courageous and correct Precedent by going to Congress to ask for Approval of a contemplated Military Strike.  We discussed the Implications of the Policy in an earlier Article.

Approval in Congress may be difficult but, it may prevail.  Straws in the Wind seem to indicate, however, that there might be some tough Sailing ahead.  Senator McCain, an outspoken Hawk in favor of Intervention, confronted some tough Questions at a Couple of „Town Meetings” which he has just held.  Polls seem to indicate that the Population as a whole is opposed to Intervention, limited as the President said it would be, by something around 48 to 28%.  There is a strange Coalition, composed of Liberal Democrats and Conservative Republicans which oppose Intervention of any Kind, leaving those who are in the „Mainstream” to carry the Weight and Responsibility for giving such Approval to the President.

The Situation in Syria

No one, including the Syrian Government disputes that they posess Chemical Weapons.

Less clear it is who used these Chemical Weapons in the latest Incident in which, according to credible Reports, approximately 1.400 People were killed, many of them, Children.  Truly a horrendous Act.  Some have suggested that the Rebels may have captured some of these Chemical Weapons and used them deliberately in order to entrap the Assad Government.

The United Nations Inspectors' Report will be available shortly and will become an important Factor if it corroborates the Intelligence Reports obtained by the United States establishing that the Assad Government used these Chemical Weapons against Civilians.

Even if the Rebels are aided as a Result of these contemplated Military Strikes, it is by no means a foregone Conclusion that Rebels associated with al-Qaeda or other Fundamentalist Movements would not inordinately benefit from them.  Interesting is the Position taken by a Veteran French Diplomat in an Open Letter to the French Parliament:

31 août 2013

Non aux frappes symboliques et de bonne conscience. Oui aux frappes utiles en Syrie.

31 August 2013

No to Symbolic Strikes (and for Conscience's Sake).  Yes to useful Strikes in Syria.

(Le Monde)

http://syrie.blog.lemonde.fr/2013/08/31/non-aux-frappes-symboliques-et-de-bonne-conscience-oui-aux-frappes-utiles-en-syrie/


(in French)

The Allies

Crucially important are the Allies who would be participating and/or supporting such Strikes.

So far, they are Canada, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and France.  After Canada, however, Things get murky when analyzing these Allies.  Saudi Arabia, which has Regional Political Considerations, that is one Thing.  Turkey which has been an arch-Enemy of Syria and would like nothing more than to have Syria destroyed, is another.  France; France has just announced that they will wait for the United Nations Report which seems to be an eminently sensible Thing to do.

Notably not joining in such a Coalition are Countries which normally can be counted upon:  Germany, Japan, Italy and, most importantly, the United Kingdom, where Prime Minister Cameron's Motion to join in such a Coalition was voted down by Parliament, putting his Government on a rather shaky Footing.

The Damage in Syria has been done.  There may be more Damage done if there are no Strikes.  However, the Likelihood appears to be that there will be more Damage done even if there are such Strikes and that Prudence and Patience are the best Choices as the Order of the Day.




 

A Step in the Right Direction: President Obama requests a Congressional Resolution on Syria

Unexpectedly the News Wires carried the White House Announcement that President Obama has decided to seek Congressional Approval Prior to bombing Syria or engaging in any Type of Military Conflict with Syria.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/31/20270696-obama-will-seek-congressional-approval-before-any-military-action-against-syria?lite

This would appear to signal a signficant Departure from what has been the Norm for several Prior Administrations, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton and, most recently and most disastruously, Bush Jr., who managed to get the United States not in one but two Wars concurrently, one of which is still being fought.

By a strict Interpretation of the Constitution, the Power to declare War rests with Congress. Article 1, Section 8,

„The Congress shall have Power...to declare War.”

This was something which was observed with fairly consistent Regularity until 1941, when Congress declared War on Japan (8 December 1941) followed by Declarations of War on Germany and Italy.  There was even a Time, including up to the Vietnam War Era and beyond, when, officially, such Events were not referred to as Wars but rather Conflicts; obviously, because no War had been declared by Congress and, how could you be involved in a War if there is no Declaration of War?  Duhhhhh!

Over the Course of History, going to War has never been an easy Thing to get into and, often, not an easy Thing to get out of either, the Latter, even more so.

Witness the still on going Conflict in Afghanistan, the Mess in Iraq which is still going on, or earlier, the Vietnam Saga.  Back to Vietnam in a Moment.  First an interesting Footnote.  Although nobody thinks of it in those Terms, from a purely technical Point of View, until today, there is no Peace Treaty which has ever been signed between the United States and Japan or, for that Matter, between the United States and Germany or Italy ending World War II.

Vietnam.  Vietnam was a Situation all its own.  The Involvement began with President Kennedy and deepened under President Johnson.  Faced with a broadening Conflict, President Johnson went to Congress and obtained a Resolution (much as President Obama appears to be seeking now), known as „The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution” (7 August 1964) and proceded to justify all further Actions during the Vietnam Conflict based upon that Resolution.  Only two Senators (Wayne Morse was one of them), voted against it.  There was considerable Debate afterwards over what the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution authorised and what it didn't but one Thing is indisputable; President Johnson had a Resolution.  Nobody after him bothered, even if it meant getting embroiled into Conflicts which were just as messy, or even messier, in Terms of what President Obama was later to refer to as „Blood and Treasure.”

 

The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution

The Situation in Syria is complex.  If one were to listen to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, President Assad of Syria should forcefully be removed immediately, by the United States, of course, with Turkey in a „Supporting Role.”  But it may be easier to speak from Ankara, especially if one doesn't have to pay the Bills.

President Bashar al Assad of Syria is not an Angel.  Far from one.  The Mess in his Country is enormous.  So is the Mess in his neighboring Countries, Egypt, Iraq and, yes, Turkey as well, to name a Few.

Despite what the Evidence laid out before President Obama may indicate, the Situation is complex and laden with Perils.  Moreover, as suggested by German Philosopher and Journalist Peter Scholl-Latour, the Evidence may lead different People to reach different Conclusions and this, with the United Nations Inspectors' Report yet to be made (Peter Scholl-Latour characterises a possible Military Intervention in Syria as senseless and dangerous).

http://www.tz-online.de/aktuelles/politik/scholl-latour-analysiert-syrien-drama-der-militaerschlag-sinnlos-gefaehrlich-tz-3081517.html

(in German)

But, back to President Obama.  Earlier, Critics noted that after „drawing a Line in the Sand” with Syria, he was not left with any good Choices.

As President Obama gets ready to head to Moscow, where the Chinese and others, not to mention President Putin, will also be, to take part in the 2013 G-20 Conference, the Decision to seek a Congressional Resolution on Syria effectively moves the Target Date from last Thursday (as it was urged on President Obama by some), to at least September 9, when Congress is scheduled to return to Washington after a „well deserved” Vacation.  Prime Minister David Cameron who was required to get a Resolution of Approval from the British House of Commons before committing to Military Action against Syria, surprised many, including, not the least of all, himself, by failing to get it.

Perhaps it would be nice for someone to send a Note to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan informing him that if he wishes to remove President Bashar al Assad all on his own, he is welcome to do it but, otherwise, he just needs to cool his Heels and wait until September 9 or maybe a Little later.

Be careful what you wish for

We all recall ,,The Arab Spring'' and the Encouragement which was offered, particularly by Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton to the Forces which toppled Regimes in Tunisia, Egypt and Lybia.  Traditionally, some Long Term Thinking and Analysis of what the Consequences might be when one undertakes a particular Course in Foreign Policy are indispensable.  Many Historians and Political Scientists compare Foreign Policy to a Game of Chess, where thinking several Moves in Advance is essential.

Thus, the Statement reported to have been made today by Egypt's relatively freshly elected President, Mohamed Morsi is quite insightful, we believe:

In a speech that was by turns defensive and conciliatory, he ultimately gave no ground to the critics who now were describing him as a pharaoh, in another echo of the insult once reserved for the deposed president, Hosni Mubarak.

“God’s will and elections made me the captain of this ship,” Mr. Morsi said.

 

(as reported by The New York Times - Emphasis added)

Full Article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/24/world/middleeast/amid-protest-egypts-leader-defends-his-new-powers.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20121124&_r=0
 

 

Traditionally, Secretaries of State have been notably apolitical.  A Secretary of State strived, sometimes more succesfully than at other Times, to further the Interests of the United States to be served for the current and future Administrations, regardless of which Political Party were to come into Power.  Secretaries of State did not harbour Presidental Aspirations.

 

However, all this Amalgamation of Developments in the Middle East already combined with Talk about ,,2016'' and how long Mrs. Clinton will stay on the Job as Secretary of State after having announced her Announcement to leave, for so long and so many Times, might be Ground for one to give thought to the Adage:

 

,,Be careful what you wish for.''

 

To this, we should consider the Thought that Events in Syria and Gaza, not to mention Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and even Turkey, are still unfolding.

The Danger of War

Fifty Years ago, if one were to ask someone on the Street, be it in New York, Washington, Moscow, Paris, London and, yes, probably even in Beijing (then referred to as Peking or Pekin), People would have said, most likely, that the greatest Danger of the Possibility of a War comes from Berlin.  There were good Reasons for this Line of Logic.  Although the Devastation of World War II which killed, according to some Estimates, 45 Million People (25 Million of them Soviets/Russians) in total had ended, there was no Peace Treaty formally ending World War II.  The City of Berlin was divided by a terrifying Wall, Germany was divided by an equally terrifying Fence and East and West (in Europe and in Asia, too) faced each other, in many Spots, through the Barrel of a Shotgun.

As of today, there has still been no Treaty signed formally ending World War II.  Technically, the United States, Russia (as Successor to the Soviet Union), England and France are still at War with Germany, Japan and Italy.  But nobody takes seriously, or even in Jest the Possibility of a Conflict in this Theatre.

In historical Terms, 50 Years is a short Time but in this Span of a little more than 50 Years, the increased and continuing Danger of Conflict in The Middle East has been widening not only in Amplitude but also territorially.  This Conflict which was initially (after the End of World War II) a Conflict basically encompassing the Debate between Israel and the Palestinians has now, under the Banner of Allah and Islam enveloped Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Syria, Pakistan, Lybia and, with perhaps more concern that has been accorded until now, Turkey as well.

Ethnically, the Mix is extremely diverse, involving not only Israeli Jews on the one Side but Pakistanis, Turks, Kurds, Persians and Arabs of various Colourations (including but limited to Sunnis and Shiites), to mention just a Few.  Wars costing Hundreds of Billions of Dollars, if not more, severalfold the Cost of World War II have been fought by Western Powers, including but not limited only to the United States.  Is there an End in Sight?  The current Conflict between Israel and the Hamas Faction of the Palestinians casts Doubt on that Hope.

We hear Talk about one Comprehensive Solution after another, grandiose Achievements, even Nobel Peace Prizes but, all these Things have proven, in Retrospect, to be, at best, just Band Aids.

Is there a Solution?  There doesn't seem to be one in Sight.  However, all Sides should think about the Fact that the gradual broadening in these Conflicts, now not just limited to the Israel/Palestinian Situation but also involving Countries, such as Egypt and Lybia which have basically become unstable after an ill thought out Policy of ,,Arab Spring'' pursued by Mrs. Clinton and others has simply succeeded in making the World a more dangerous Place to be.

The Cadence of these Conflicts is so rapid that one Event overshadows another and we can no longer even focus on some of the Conflicts which are still going on.

The Flareup of the Israeli Situation with Hamas in the Sinai Peninsula has just overshadowed Events in Syria where not much Attention is being paid anymore to what is going on.  Earlier, Syria overshadowed the Instability in Egypt and Lybia (where an American Ambassador lost his Life).  The Goings on in those Countries have pushed to the Back Stage whatever may be going on in Afghanistan, where, the Italians have left long ago, the French left this Week and the Germans as well as the British are getting ready to leave shortly.

A Dialogue, a serious Dialogue on what is going on and what may yet develop is indispensable.  We can only hope that the next Secretary of State President Obama will choose, will be more interested in opening and attracting Voices from All Sides to such a Dialogue, rather than ordering a new Airplane and focusing on setting a Record on how many Foreign Countries he or she will be visiting.

An Argument against the Secretary of State's One Dimensional Approach towards the Situation in Syria

News Organizations, including foreign ones, are reporting with more and more Frequency on the complicated Situation in Syria.

Below is a rather typical Example from NBC News and Reuters, which appeared on 23 August:

The Headline reads:

More foreign Fighters join rebels in Syria as regional Crisis deepens

The full Article including Photographs and Video can be seen at:

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/23/13431460-report-more-foreign-fighters-join-rebels-in-syria-as-regional-crisis-deepens?lite

What is difficult to understand, in View of this is the Secretary of State's One Dimensional Position regarding the Crisis which is essentially to expel President Assad.

To put it another Way, when resolving a Problem, it is necessary to consider what other Problem will be created as a Result of the Solution.

Recently, former Presidential National Security Adviser Dr. Zbigniew Brzeziński stated the Opinion that it is a prudent and cautious Policy Approach to have in Place what and who will follow, before toppling someone.  Recently, a Policy similar to the one in Syria, pursued in Egypt, where President Hosni Mubarak was deposed has resulted in totally unpredictable Results which are still in the Process of unfolding.

The Question, must be emphasized, is not who Mubarak or Assad are or might be but what would follow their Places and to acknowledge the simple Fact that not knowing what will follow can be not only an unpleasant Solution but may lead to totally unpredictable Developments.

It occurs to this Writer that Dr. Brzeziński 's Opinion is one which should be considered and not dismissed out of Hand and the President is giving Weight to the Opinion of others, such as Vice President Biden, Dr. Brzeziński (who unfortunately is not serving in the Administration) as well as others who may be able to formulate something other than the One Dimensional Approach being championed by the Secretary of State.