Forum for discussing national security issues.
Syria Crosses The “Red Line”… Now What?

Syria Crosses The “Red Line”… Now What?

POTUS / Syria

SYRIA CROSSES THE “RED LINE”

NOW WHAT?

 

Colleagues: The employment of chemical weapons by the Assad regime will necessitate a retaliatory action. This point paper provides background on the conflict, summarizes allied/Arab positions, looks at tepid domestic support for military action, and analyzes U.S. options. Perhaps of most interest will be my speculation as to Assad’s rationale for employing chemical weapons, knowing that such strikes would have zero military impact and would necessitate a response from the West. Perhaps, I argue, the Syrian regime is attempting to drive a wedge between what it might see as a possible US-Iranian rapprochement following the election of the “moderate” Rouhani as President in Iran, and to prevent any US-Russian condominium that would result in forcing Assad out of power. Invite your thoughts.

By Tyrus W. Cobb

BACKGROUND

  • The United States and other Western powers have concluded that the government of Syria launched a strike on rebel and civilian targets on August 21 using banned chemical weapons. The UK, France and Germany agreed, labeling the strike a “mass killing” and one that is “morally indefensible”.
  • Hundreds were killed in the strikes on the outskirts of the capital, Damascus, including many children. Hundreds have suffered horrible symptoms.
  • The Bashar al-Assad regime denies responsibility and says it will allow U.N. inspectors to enter the area. However, that comes long after the attacks and evidence of chemical weapons use may have dissipated. The government also is not providing the inspectors with adequate protection. The Assad regime blames the strikes on the insurgents fighting to topple his rule.
  • The attacks come amidst a drawn out and deadly civil war. More than 100,000 have been killed. The UN says the 2-year old conflict has already caused the world’s largest refugee crisis since the Rwandan genocide in 1994. More than 1.7 million have registered as refugees; over half are children and ¾ of them are under 11. Another 2 million children have been displaced within the country. The refugee exodus has filled tent camps to overflowing in Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq and Egypt.

 

NATO AND ARAB COMMITMENTS

  • The UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, returned from vacation to respond to the crisis and pledged full support. Cameron specified that any action taken “would have to be proportionate and legal”. The PM also said that retaliatory strikes would be limited to efforts “to further degrade and deter the use of chemical weapons”….Germany’s foreign minister (Germany was criticized for its refusal to take part in the Libyan bombing campaign) has been sounding very aggressive on Syria, calling the Aug 21 attacks a “crime against civilization”. French President Francois Hollande vowed to “punish” the Assad regime, adding that “the mass use of chemical weapons cannot go unanswered”.
  • In Cairo, the Arab League, which has long opposed the Assad regime and has strongly supported the Syrian opposition, said it held “the Syrian regime fully responsible for this heinous crime” and demanded that Assad be brought to justice. Of course, the League stopped short of endorsing an international military response. The League’s trepidation reflected regional unease over any Western military intervention. The statement suggests that the US would face no opposition from the League if things go well, but leaves Arab governments with political cover if things go badly!

 

SYRIAN CHEMICAL ATTACKS FURTHER DRIVE A WEDGE BETWEEN THE US AND IRAN/RUSSIA 

  • The issue has deepened the divide between the US and Russia, Syria’s main international ally and sponsor. Moscow warned that a military intervention in Syria could have “catastrophic consequences” for the region and called on the global community to show “prudence”.
  • Diplomats in Iran are warning that hoped for nuclear talks with Iran’s new “moderate” President Hasan Rouhani would die. They also warn that any military intervention would strengthen the hand of hard liners, including Ayatollah Khamenei and the Revolutionary Guards.
  • Note: I can’t help but speculate that maybe this was Assad’s intention. After all, the strikes using chemical weapons had little or no military utility and Assad certainly knew that the use of these instruments would surely invoke a military response. He may also have been looking over his shoulder at the statements of the new Iranian President, Rouhani, worrying that Iran’s commitment to Syria might be a casualty of a rapprochement. Likewise, while Moscow gave Syria verbal support and moved a couple warships around the Med, the amount of military and economic aid that Russia previously furnished Assad was fairly minimal. Would the use of chemical weapons provoke a Western response that would force Iran and Russia into a corner and provide greater support for Syria? Maybe…just speculating here.

 

US PUBLIC OPINION ON THE CRISIS

  • There is no widespread support for any American military action, despite the horrendous nature of the employment of these weapons. Possible military intervention in Syria is also running into fierce opposition among members of Congress, from both parties. Many are demanding that the President seek Congressional authorization for any intervention.
  • There are also calls for the US and its Allies to seek a resolution of support from the UN Security Council. Given the opposition of Russia and China, this would be an effort doomed to fail. Still, Americans seem uneasy not only about intervention, but doing so without some broader international and/or Congressional approval.
  • White House aides have cited the 1999 Kosovo campaign as a possible model. Lacking Russian support, the US acted under a NATO umbrella. That could happen here….Unilateralism is also an option. In 1998, President Clinton, without seeking any approval, ordered missile strikes on Sudan and Afghanistan in retaliation for Al Qaeda’s East Africa embassy bombings.

 

US/ALLIED OPTIONS FOR RETALIATORY ACTION

  • President Obama had earlier declared that the use of chemical weapons represented a “red line” that if crossed demanded retaliatory actions. The White House has confirmed that it is considering a range of military options and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel stated that the US has “moved assets into place to be able to fulfill and comply with whatever options the president wishes to take”.
  • The more ambitious the objective, the more resources will have to be committed. In addition, the more the US gets invested in the conflict, the more likely it will be tied to the aftermath. Given the lack of public and Congressional enthusiasm for another military intervention in the Mideast, the US and its allies will most likely undertake operations with a limited scope.
  • Most likely the U.S, possibly with its allies, would limit its retaliatory strikes to punishing Assad by hitting high value targets, including those associated with the disposition of chemical weapons. This might include command and control centers, but possibly also airfields and anti-aircraft missile sites.
  • The most likely would be strikes by Tomahawk missiles launched by US Navy assets just offshore. Hitting chemical weapons stockpiles would probably not be an option given that it would lead to extensive civilian casualties. The US already has enough forces to commence operations now, including four Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, soon to be augmented by two carrier groups. USAF assets are being moved into the region. In addition the US could launch B-2 bombers that would stealthily penetrate the Syrian integrated air defense network to drop bunker-busing bombs with minimal risk.
  • Should the US and its Allies seek to go after hardened C3 sites and other leadership facilities that would entail the employment of fixed-wing aircraft, that would be a more risky undertaking. So would imposing “no fly zones” or designating and protecting “safe areas” inside Syria. Suggestions have been heard that actually seizing chemical weapons might be an objective. If so, that would require thousands of “boots on the ground” and the deployment of special ops forces.
  • US military leaders have been very cautious in their recommendations, both before and after the chemical weapons strikes. They advise that any intervention would not be cheap, costing more than a billion dollars a month (CJCS Dempsey). The Chairman has also warned about “unintended consequences” of intervention.
  • Any strike against existing chemical weapons facilities would likely only marginally set back Syria’s overall military capabilities or its special weapons programs. Strikes would be punitive in nature and not intended or likely to accomplish any militarily important goals. The strikes would be largely “symbolic” and not alter the balance of forces on the ground, which has shifted significantly over the past few months in the regime’s favor as the rebel coalition’s effectiveness has diminished.
  • Again, the only likely concrete outcome is that Iran and Russia will strengthen its commitment to Assad!
  • The US, its Allies and the Arab League will also likely provide increased support for the faltering rebel coalition. However, to be effective, that support must be extensive and long-lasting, meaning that we will be financially and militarily more committed than before.
  • The most urgent need is for greater humanitarian support. It must be more proactive, involve more international partners, and provide assistance for the neighboring countries bearing a heavy burden.

 

CONCLUSIONS

  • Syria has crossed the “Red Line”. Whether or not the President should have drawn that line is immaterial now; the US and its allies must retaliate.
  • However, given the lack of public support for intervention on a meaningful scale, and the absence of Congressional or UN mandates/approval, the strikes will be very limited in nature and designed to be punitive. They will not achieve meaningful military objectives.
  • Washington will be particularly concerned that Israel not allow itself to be drawn into the conflict. Assad may want that to happen and may authorize chemical strikes to occur on the common border to inflame Israeli opinion. Keeping Israel out of this conflict must be a major Western objective lest Assad achieve what he wants—to wean the Arabs away from supporting actions against his regime.
  • The US will inevitably be further drawn into this conflict. We certainly should be providing more humanitarian relief. We need to work with the rebel coalition to ascertain if there is any reasonable chance that more secular forces can be drawn to leadership roles (I doubt that can happen, but we should try).
  • Finally, we need to be deeply involved in diplomatic conversations with Russia and indirectly with the new leadership in Iran, with the objective of attempting to insure that Assad’s reckless actions do not stymie our larger security interests.
  •  Tyrus W. Cobb

Reno, August 29

[email protected]

Comments welcome