Posted on 08/27/2013 12:17:48 PM PDT by DanMiller
Red lines should not be drawn without anticipating their likely consequences or what will have to be done if they are crossed.
President Obama seems not even to have considered either.
Are we going to war in the Middle East? By all accounts I have read, we seem likely to do so shortly; military intervention is not a matter of if, but when. If we do intervene militarily, there will be attempts to make the war short and sanitary. That is likely a delusional hope.
In April, I re-posted a Stratfor article about the red line mess and offered this view:
Great care needs to be taken to avoid drawing ill defined “red lines” which, if crossed, may result in solutions worse than the problem or in no significant action at all. The Obama Administration appears to have drawn its red line as to the use of chemical weapons in Syria with inadequate thought to the nature of any “something to be done if crossed” that would be viable militarily, economically, politically and with due regard to the probable consequences.. . . .
[G]etting involved in a serious conflict with achievement of ill-defined or impossible goals in mind can be much worse than sitting on the sidelines. Happy dreams of planting western style “democratic” government in Islamic lands where “freedom for all” is anathema are unrealizable; illusions of reality, based on the way we would like the world to be rather than on how it is, lead to disappointment and worse. We should have seen by now that the probability of useful success in Syria closely approaches zero.
Our most recent military effort that resulted in successfully planting Western style notions of democracy was in Japan, which the U.S. and to some extent her allies had only recently defeated severely in World War II. World War II against Japan was not begun with that goal in mind. Transformation of the quite homogeneous Japanese culture was stimulated economically by the Korean Conflict that began in June of 1950. In consequence of U.S. – U.N. military efforts in Korea, millions of Japanese gained employment and many millions of dollars flowed into the Japanese economy. There seems to be little if any reason to hope for, much less to expect, any comparable circumstances in Syria.
Drawing a Syrian red line in such circumstances was ill advised because it has subjected – and it should have been expected that it would subject — the U.S. to creditable charges of dithering, ineffectual and otherwise incompetent bluster. Those charges have doubtless been heard – and credited with happiness if not relief – by the ruling powers in such rogue nations as North Korea and Iran, the former with an already at least modest arsenal of nuclear weapons and the latter nascently so. North Korea loves to bluster and its leaders may be sufficiently irrational to take their own bluster seriously — with dire consequences for them, their nation and for many others elsewhere. Iran’s blustering has thus far generally been limited to denying that it is seeking nuclear weaponry, with occasional threats to demolish Israel thrown in. If and when Iran does get such weapons, it will affect, adversely, whatever balance of power exists in the Middle East; the consequences will likely be worse than that.
The following article appeared at Stratfor on August twenty-seventh and is re-posted here with permission. All elements in bold face type reflect my emphasis, not the author's.
______________________________
By George Friedman
Images of multiple dead bodies emerged from Syria last week. It was asserted that poison gas killed the victims, who according to some numbered in the hundreds. Others claimed the photos were faked while others said the rebels were at fault. The dominant view, however, maintains that the al Assad regime carried out the attack.
The United States has so far avoided involvement in Syria's civil war. This is not to say Washington has any love for the al Assad regime. Damascus' close ties to Iran and Russia give the United States reason to be hostile toward Syria, and Washington participated in the campaign to force Syrian troops out of Lebanon. Still, the United States has learned to be concerned not just with unfriendly regimes, but also with what could follow such regimes. Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya have driven home the principle that deposing one regime means living with an imperfect successor. In those cases, changing the regime wound up rapidly entangling the United States in civil wars, the outcomes of which have not been worth the price. In the case of Syria, the insurgents are Sunni Muslims whose best-organized factions have ties to al Qaeda.
Still, as frequently happens, many in the United States and Europe are appalled at the horrors of the civil war, some of whom have called on the United States to do something. The United States has been reluctant to heed these calls. As mentioned, Washington does not have a direct interest in the outcome, since all possible outcomes are bad from its perspective. Moreover, the people who are most emphatic that something be done to stop the killings will be the first to condemn the United States when its starts killing people to stop the killings. People would die in any such intervention, since there are simply no clean ways to end a civil war.
U.S. President Barack Obama therefore adopted an extremely cautious strategy. He said that the United States would not get directly involved in Syria unless the al Assad regime used chemical weapons, stating with a high degree of confidence that he would not have to intervene. After all, Syrian President Bashar al Assad has now survived two years of civil war, and he is far from defeated. The one thing that could defeat him is foreign intervention, particularly by the United States. It was therefore assumed he wouldn't do the one thing Obama said would trigger U.S. action.
Al Assad is a ruthless man: He would not hesitate to use chemical weapons if he had to. He is also a very rational man: He would use chemical weapons only if that were his sole option. At the moment, it is difficult to see what desperate situation would have caused him to use chemical weapons and risk the worst. His opponents are equally ruthless, and we can imagine them using chemical weapons to force the United States to intervene and depose al Assad. But their ability to access chemical weapons is unclear, and if found out, the maneuver could cost them all Western support. It is possible that lower-ranking officers in al Assad's military used chemical weapons without his knowledge and perhaps against his wishes. It is possible that the casualties were far less than claimed. And it is possible that some of the pictures were faked.
All of these things are possible, but we simply don't know which is true. More important is that major governments, including the British and French, are claiming knowledge that al Assad carried out the attack. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry made a speech Aug. 26 clearly building the case for a military response, and referring to the regime attack as "undeniable" and the U.S. assessment so far as "grounded in facts." Al Assad meanwhile has agreed to allow U.N. inspectors to examine the evidence onsite. In the end, those who oppose al Assad will claim his supporters concealed his guilt, and the insurgents will say the same thing if they are blamed or if the inspectors determine there is no conclusive evidence of attacks.
The truth here has been politicized, and whoever claims to have found the truth, whatever it actually is, will be charged with lying. Nevertheless, the dominant emerging story is that al Assad carried out the attack, killing hundreds of men, women and children and crossing the red line Obama set with impunity. The U.S. president is backed into a corner.
The United States has chosen to take the matter to the United Nations. Obama will make an effort to show he is acting with U.N. support. But he knows he won't get U.N. support. The Russians, allies of al Assad and opponents of U.N.-based military interventions, will veto any proposed intervention. The Chinese -- who are not close to al Assad, but also oppose the U.N.-sanctioned interventions -- will probably join them. Regardless of whether the charges against al Assad are true, the Russians will dispute them and veto any action. Going to the United Nations therefore only buys time. Interestingly, the United States declared on Sunday that it is too late for Syria to authorize inspections. Dismissing that possibility makes the United States look tough, and actually creates a situation where it has to be tough.
This is no longer simply about Syria. The United States has stated a condition that commits it to an intervention. If it does not act when there is a clear violation of the condition, Obama increases the chance of war with other countries like North Korea and Iran. One of the tools the United States can use to shape the behavior of countries like these without going to war is stating conditions that will cause intervention, allowing the other side to avoid crossing the line. If these countries come to believe that the United States is actually bluffing, then the possibility of miscalculation soars. Washington could issue a red line whose violation it could not tolerate, like a North Korean nuclear-armed missile, but the other side could decide this was just another Syria and cross that line. Washington would have to attack, an attack that might not have been necessary had it not had its Syria bluff called.
There are also the Russian and Iranian questions. Both have invested a great deal in supporting al Assad. They might both retaliate were someone to attack the Syrian regime. There are already rumors in Beirut that Iran has told Hezbollah to begin taking Americans hostage if the United States attacks Syria. Russia meanwhile has shown in the Snowden affair what Obama clearly regards as a hostile intent. If he strikes, he thus must prepare for Russian counters. If he doesn't strike, he must assume the Russians and Iranians will read this as weakness. [My emphasis added.]
Syria was not an issue that affected the U.S. national interest until Obama declared a red line. It escalated in importance at that point not because Syria is critical to the United States, but because the credibility of its stated limits are of vital importance. Obama's problem is that the majority of the American people oppose military intervention, Congress is not fully behind an intervention and those now rooting the United States on are not bearing the bulk of the military burden -- nor will they bear the criticism that will follow the inevitable civilian casualties, accidents and misdeeds that are part of war regardless of the purity of the intent.
The question therefore becomes what the United States and the new coalition of the willing will do if the red line has been crossed. The fantasy is that a series of airstrikes, destroying only chemical weapons, will be so perfectly executed that no one will be killed except those who deserve to die. But it is hard to distinguish a man's soul from 10,000 feet. There will be deaths, and the United States will be blamed for them.
The military dimension is hard to define because the mission is unclear. Logically, the goal should be the destruction of the chemical weapons and their deployment systems. This is reasonable, but the problem is determining the locations where all of the chemicals are stored. I would assume that most are underground, which poses a huge intelligence problem. If we assume that perfect intelligence is available and that decision-makers trust this intelligence, hitting buried targets is quite difficult. There is talk of a clean cruise missile strike. But it is not clear whether these carry enough explosives to penetrate even minimally hardened targets. Aircraft carry more substantial munitions, and it is possible for strategic bombers to stand off and strike the targets.
Even so, battle damage assessments are hard. How do you know that you have destroyed the chemicals -- that they were actually there and you destroyed the facility containing them? Moreover, there are lots of facilities and many will be close to civilian targets and many munitions will go astray. The attacks could prove deadlier than the chemicals did. And finally, attacking means al Assad loses all incentive to hold back on using chemical weapons. If he is paying the price of using them, he may as well use them. The gloves will come off on both sides as al Assad seeks to use his chemical weapons before they are destroyed.
A war on chemical weapons has a built-in insanity to it. The problem is not chemical weapons, which probably can't be eradicated from the air. The problem under the definition of this war would be the existence of a regime that uses chemical weapons. It is hard to imagine how an attack on chemical weapons can avoid an attack on the regime -- and regimes are not destroyed from the air. Doing so requires troops. Moreover, regimes that are destroyed must be replaced, and one cannot assume that the regime that succeeds al Assad will be grateful to those who deposed him. One must only recall the Shia in Iraq who celebrated Saddam's fall and then armed to fight the Americans. [My emphasis added.]
Arming the insurgents would keep an air campaign off the table, and so appears to be lower risk. The problem is that Obama has already said he would arm the rebels, so announcing this as his response would still allow al Assad to avoid the consequences of crossing the red line. Arming the rebels also increases the chances of empowering the jihadists in Syria.
When Obama proclaimed his red line on Syria and chemical weapons, he assumed the issue would not come up. He made a gesture to those in his administration who believe that the United States has a moral obligation to put an end to brutality. He also made a gesture to those who don't want to go to war again. It was one of those smart moves that can blow up in a president's face when it turns out his assumption was wrong. Whether al Assad did launch the attacks, whether the insurgents did, or whether someone faked them doesn't matter. Unless Obama can get overwhelming, indisputable proof that al Assad did not -- and that isn't going to happen -- Obama will either have to act on the red line principle or be shown to be one who bluffs. The incredible complexity of intervening in a civil war without becoming bogged down makes the process even more baffling.
Obama now faces the second time in his presidency when war was an option. The first was Libya. The tyrant is now dead, and what followed is not pretty. And Libya was easy compared to Syria. Now, the president must intervene to maintain his credibility. But there is no political support in the United States for intervention. He must take military action, but not one that would cause the United States to appear brutish. He must depose al Assad, but not replace him with his opponents. He never thought al Assad would be so reckless. Despite whether al Assad actually was, the consensus is that he was. That's the hand the president has to play, so it's hard to see how he avoids military action and retains credibility. It is also hard to see how he takes military action without a political revolt against him if it goes wrong, which it usually does. [My emphasis added.]
Read more: Obama's Bluff | Stratfor Follow us: @stratfor on Twitter | Stratfor on Facebook
"Obama's Bluff is republished with permission of Stratfor."
_____________________
My further observations:
President Obama apparently drew His "red line" with little if any thought to the potential consequences. Evidently, He hoped that a sermon delivered from His Presidential bully pulpit would suffice -- for both international and domestic political purposes. It seems not to have and now He is much more than "a dollar short and one day late."
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm68ga5yR4w]
The results of President Obama's incompetence in drawing Hisour Republic's red line, while more than one day late and a dollar short in anticipating its consequences, will be far worse than those in Grand Pa Jones' song. The consequences -- whatever they may be -- will damage us all, both domestically and internationally.
President Obama now has little choice but to try to figure out what to do, how to do it and what the consequences of His actions are likely to be. If He turns out to be wrong, He will have substantially worsened the already tense and highly flammable situation in the Middle East and got us into a war with little if any thought having been given to how to win or even to what "win" means. The likelihood is high that He will turn out to have guessed more consistently with His fantasies than with reality and hence that His guess will be wrong.
UPDATE
Here is a link to an article by Barry Rubin on America's Impending Defeat in Syria. It begins,
It’s really pretty simple. The American people understandably don’t want to go to war with Syria, not to mention Syria’s patron of Iran and especially not to put into power the Muslim Brotherhood and murderous Islamists. Going to war is a serious matter to say the least. There’s no assurance how long it will take, how many lives it will cost, and what turns it may take.It ends,
Finally, ask yourself one question: Will the United States under Obama dare a confrontation with Iran, Syria, and Russia to keep up American credibility, deterrence, and confidence of allies who it is already opposing on Egypt?Of course not. This is already a president who could barely decide to kill Usama bin Ladin.
Please read the rest.
So the Obamadork gets to do the famous Boehner BendOver...eh?
I hope Russia will step between us and Syria with sufficient force to keep the communist in our White House from doing more damage. I don’t want our troops to die fighting the Russians, but I don’t consider that a serious risk when the pansy in DC faces down a real man in the Kremlin. A far bigger risk is if we go into Syria. I don’t want our soldiers to die just so Obama can put Islamic extremists in power in one more country.
We are so screwed with King Zero and his merry band of court jesters pretending to know anything about foreign policy. It's like someone who's good at checkers thinking he can take on a chess Grand Master.
Nothing and that may well be what happened.
What do we care what happens in Syria?
Aside from the probability that what happens there may further undermine the already worse than tenuous situation in the Middle East -- where Israel is located -- and make the United States look like idiots, not much.
The best thing for Israel here is if the rebels and assad’s forces continue to fight on. While fighting a domestic war, neither are in a position to challenge Israel.
The short answer will be no response if the military actions are limited to a few days and selected targets. The impact on Assad will be minimal and Obama can claim the moral high ground.
The real question is whether the military intervention is meant to be just symbolic or be a game changer in terms of the outcome of the war. If a no-fly zone is enforced, then the stakes are raised. Even then, Syria would be very reluctant to respond against the US and its allies fearing an even more devastating retaliation.
Israel wiped out Syria's nuclear facility in 2007. No response from Russia, Iran, or Syria. Anyone who attaches much credence to threats by Syria and Iran doesn't know the the region. The "Mother of All Battles" will not follow a military attack by the US.
When two of your enemies are busy slaughtering each other, you leave them alone.
Choice? I believe it was intended.
He thinks he’s sending a message to Egypt, acting all hard.
The Egyptians have figured him out, however, like Pootie.
McCain on Cavuto now:
without a doubt we can get weapons to the right people
WMD weren’t in Iraq, but they are in Syria
need to call it a coup in Egypt
more BS
BS
BS
It’s a sure sign that the sun is setting when small men cast large shadows.
Obama makes his macho red line statement and some group in Syria challenges him, resulting in massive innocent death. It would seem that the use of WMD was either to test Obama or to draw the US into the fight. Why else use them now?
Regardless, once again we have a remarkably ignorant foreign policy that likely resulted in the death of innocent people and when pursued further will mean American deaths.
Red lines should not be drawn without anticipating their likely consequences
*********
Being a liberal means never having to acknowledge consequences, or being accountable for anything.
“I don’t want our troops to die fighting the Russians, but I don’t consider that a serious risk when the pansy in DC faces down a real man in the Kremlin. “
You seriously think that jerkoff in the Kremlin is a real man? He’s just another tyrant with delusions of being a Czar, who routinely murders his own opponents in the most cowardly of ways.
Don’t confuse a thug and animal like Putin for a man.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.