Local Blogs

Raucous Caucus

By Tom Cushing

E-mail Tom Cushing

About this blog: The Raucous Caucus shares the southpaw perspectives of this Boomer on the state of the nation, the world, and, sometimes, other stuff. I enjoy crafting it to keep current, and occasionally to rant on some issue I care about deeply...  (More)

View all posts from Tom Cushing

Syria: Several Options, all of them Lousy

Uploaded: May 14, 2013
Humanitarian crises tug at the heartstrings. The pennies-a-day campaigns of CARE have been working on TV since Lassie was a pup. ASPCA cranks up the Sara MacLachlan songs on behalf of shelter animals (even if it does next to no sheltering, itself), and Red Cross brings home the plight of disaster victims everywhere. Folks just want to help.

So when unrest in a media-saturated place like the Middle East (as opposed to, say, the isolated Congo) erupts into a full-fledged Syrian civil war, it's on the news nightly. As the terrible toll climbs past the current 70,000 dead (as opposed to the BBC estimate of over 2-million souls in the ongoing Congolese war), pressure mounts on government to intervene. And, more than just the $650 million in assistance that has already flowed from the US to civilian relief efforts for refugees of the conflict – the goal is to make the war stop.

The only question is 'How?' It's a dilemma where politics collides with our better angels. There may be no practical way for the US to intervene, without yet another all-in commitment that is unlikely to be considered 'worth it' in retrospect.

Recent history bears out the point: humanitarian intervention is never presented in a cost/benefit case; it's presumed to be free. The public is never confronted with stark choices: would 'peace' in Syria be worth 10 American lives, 500? Your son-or-daughter? A $Billion, $100 Billion?

President Clinton reluctantly entered the conflict in the former Yugoslavia, after the horrors of the Srbenica massacre. While the US-led NATO effort was quickly successful, he got little political credit for it. When he attempted an intervention in Somalia, however, he absorbed enough damage from the 'Blackhawk-down' incident that the US stood-by in the later genocide of 800,000 people in Rwanda.

President George W. Bush announced an "ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world" and sought to spread democracy, but his Administration's two massive invasions demonstrated how difficult that goal can be, even for the world's primary Super-Power.

The incumbent has been notably cautious, as ending two exhausting and expensive (every way) wars has preoccupied his foreign policy. Mr. Obama was reticent to take any kind of lead role in the Arab Spring, and showed no enthusiasm for efforts to rid the world of Moammar Gaddhafi in Libya. When finally prodded to air strikes by the imminent slaughter of civilians there, the clamor against that move was loud and immediate – at least until the gambit unequivocally succeeded.

The humanitarian urge cuts a broad swath through the land, but not a deep one. Especially not now, with matters elsewhere as yet unresolved satisfactorily. As a final note of caution, there's the principle that if you do Nothing today, you can still do something tomorrow – but if you do Something today, it can't be undone -- and it leads you down an unpredictable path.

So, despite all that, if Mr. Obama were to heed the call to arms, what are the options?

Most decisively, the US with allies could invade and destroy Assad's chemical weapons, and his air force, including some 200 (est.) Scud missiles. Those weapons and facilities are geographically dispersed, however, and hidden, often in civilian areas. They would be hard to find quickly, and all bets about their use against allied forces would be off. It's also likely that our troops would have to fight both government and rebel soldiers, many of whom are as hostile to the Great Satan as they are to their ruler. The most effective fighting force among the estimated 70,000 rebels is the 5,000-strong Al Qaeda affiliate Al Nusra. Thus, it's hard to find much of a quorum for this option, even among the most vocal interventionistas (looking at you Senator McCain, every Sunday morning).

If we want to avoid a full-on 'boots' approach, howsabout a no-fly zone? Syria, however, employs a relatively sophisticated Russian-built anti-aircraft system, also dispersed. Although cruise missiles could handle a part of the job of neutralizing it, it seems unlikely that any such set of strikes could be surgical or cost-free in terms of American and civilian lives.

Another smaller step would be arming the rebels with American weapons. But who are those guys? They are a diverse and fractious bunch of at least thirty passionate militias, with neither common traditions nor any central organizing principle beyond their hatred of Assad. Even the tiny Christian community is said to have organized a militia for self-preservation. It is not at all clear that, in the aftermath of a hoped-for civil war victory, these disparate groups wouldn't set upon each other with equal ferocity. We have seen in Iraq how much harder it is to win the peace than the war – the grievances of Syria's numerous other ethnic groups against Assad's Alawite minority, and each other, are a monstrous barrier to any postwar unification. I don't think the US is prepared to, or should, preside over such a situation.

Further (if necessary), it would also be impossible to control or even trace those armaments. What's to be done the first time a stray American product downs an Israeli passenger jet – or one from Delta Airlines?

Diplomacy, then, appears to be the best among lousy options – and it, too, is a very long shot. There is an initiative aborning for the US and Russia to lead peace talks, but, for starters, the US demand for a pre-condition involving Assad's departure is as deeply opposed by the Russians. And that's before we even get down to the regional state rivalries and the divisions within the country itself. Those groups have shown little enthusiasm for the process.

In the largest picture, there is no over-arching, principled doctrine among the world's powers about how to approach such problems, and the Obama Administration has not enunciated or led any multilateral initiative to establish such guidance. Civilian aid has been flowing, but little has been done militarily because it's so hard to make a case for any specific option. Where we go from here is anybody's guess, except that the awful agony of the Syrian people will proceed apace.

What's your view of what ought to be done?

(This note drew heavily from several sources, notably Dexter Filkins' loooong article in the New Yorker.)

Synopsis: see title.

Comments

Posted by spcwt, a resident of Danville,
on May 15, 2013 at 11:15 am

Tom forgot the other option on Syria: Distraction.

Tom's missive this week reminds me of that movie "Wag the Dog" with Dustin Hoffman, about how the government tries to focus people's attention on military conflict so they don't pay attention to scandals at home.

Syria's been in the news for over a year. Why write about it now?

I wonder what Tom's column would've been about this week had the IRS retaliated against liberal groups?

I wonder if Tom will ever write about the Justice Department illegally wiretapping AP reporters for months?

Republican hysterics over Benghazi are childish. But why did the White House make up that story that Benghazi was caused by an anti-Muslim YouTube video?

Tom's not the only one trying to change the national conversation.


Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of Alamo,
on May 15, 2013 at 12:00 pm

S-P: you know what, I alMost wrote a peremptory comment for you yesterday along the lines above, although I only anticipated that you'd say "if he really cares about the First Amendment..."

And I do -- like you, I am appalled at the seizure of the AP documents by the DOJ, and I will write about it this week, when a few more actual facts are actually known. I have much lower expectations for the IRS generally, but that's wrong, too. It smacks of the Enemies List of prior Administrations.

These things are wrong on the merits, and they lend largely undeserved credibility to the tin-foil hatters. Some wearers might even go so far as to suggest a conspiracy of distraction!

There. How's that?

BTW, the reason I wrote about Syria this week is that I got interested in it, and I thought others might be interested in what I had learned. This blog tries to be topical, but we're not 'first responders' on these items. Hell, my phone records haven't even been seized -- at least as far as I know they haven't.

So, be patient my friend. This topic is another thing on which I anticipate we'll agree.


Posted by Frank DiRusso, a resident of San Ramon,
on May 17, 2013 at 3:50 pm

Right on "spec etc"----nary a word on the IRS questioning religious groups on who their members are and who they pray to-----supreme silence on how Obama's half bro raped his 12th wife--age 17--and got a quickie 30 day IRS "charity" approval!!!!


Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of Alamo,
on May 18, 2013 at 6:52 am

Hi Frank: I'm afraid you'll have to handle those two yourself. There are a few dark corners of the 'web where I don't often go.


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Not Endorsements
By Roz Rogoff | 9 comments | 1,228 views

A second half of life exceptionally well lived
By Tim Hunt | 1 comment | 648 views