How Would You Define Success in Syria?

Whether or not they are justified, U.S. air strikes would likely fail to achieve significant goals.

Syrian President Bashar Assad , left, meets with U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell in Damascus on Saturday May 3, 2003. Speaking to the media before the meeting , Powell  said that future relations hinge on whether Damascus takes steps to becoming a true middle east partner.
National Journal
Charlie Cook
Add to Briefcase
Charlie Cook
Sept. 9, 2013, 4:51 p.m.

It takes a lot to over­shad­ow the loom­ing fisc­al battles in Wash­ing­ton, but Pres­id­ent Obama’s de­cision to seek con­gres­sion­al ap­prov­al for air strikes against the re­gime of Syr­i­an Pres­id­ent Bashar al-As­sad for us­ing chem­ic­al weapons against his own cit­izens has man­aged to do it.

There are eight le­gis­lat­ive days left to pass a con­tinu­ing res­ol­u­tion to avoid a gov­ern­ment shut­down, and then sev­en more to avoid de­fault­ing on Treas­ury bonds, so those is­sues would seem to trump any oth­er — ex­cept at­tack­ing a for­eign coun­try. Mem­bers of Con­gress are com­ing back from their dis­tricts re­port­ing that vari­ous con­stitu­ency groups that nev­er agree on any­thing are uni­fied in op­pos­i­tion to an at­tack. The groups may each op­pose the idea for slightly dif­fer­ent reas­ons — or reach the con­clu­sion through vari­ous paths — but they all ar­rive at the same place. New polling re­leased from CNN, ABC News/Wash­ing­ton Post, and for USA Today by the Pew Re­search Cen­ter show mount­ing op­pos­i­tion. In the Pew/USA Today poll, op­pos­i­tion to U.S. air strikes grew 15 points from 48 per­cent in the Aug. 29-Sept. 1 poll to 63 per­cent in the Sept. 4-8 sur­vey, while sup­port for the strikes re­mained es­sen­tially the same (29 per­cent in the former, 28 per­cent in the lat­ter), and the un­de­cided dropped from 23 per­cent to 9 per­cent. The new­er sur­vey in­dic­ated that 45 per­cent strongly op­posed air strikes, com­pared with just 16 per­cent who were strongly in fa­vor. A U.S. at­tack on Syr­ia at this point would seem to vi­ol­ate the “Pow­ell Doc­trine,” coined by former Gen. Colin Pow­ell, in con­sid­er­ing mil­it­ary con­flicts: First, does the United States have a vi­tal na­tion­al se­cur­ity in­terest that is threatened? Second, does the U.S. have a clear at­tain­able ob­ject­ive? Third, have all the risks and costs been fully and frankly ana­lyzed? Fourth, have all oth­er non­vi­ol­ent policy op­tions been fully ex­hausted? Fifth, does the U.S. have a plaus­ible exit strategy to avoid end­less en­tan­gle­ment? Sixth, have the con­sequences of our pro­posed ac­tion been fully con­sidered? Sev­enth, do the Amer­ic­an people sup­port the ac­tion? Eighth, and fi­nally, does the U.S. have genu­ine, broad in­ter­na­tion­al sup­port for the ac­tion?

Key­ing off of the Pow­ell Doc­trine, the CNN poll asked re­spond­ents if they thought that an at­tack would or would not achieve sig­ni­fic­ant goals for the U.S.; 26 per­cent said it would, 72 per­cent said it would not. When asked if it is in the na­tion­al in­terest of the U.S. to be in­volved in the con­flict, 29 per­cent said it is, 69 per­cent said it isn’t. If an at­tack on Syr­ia were to res­ult in — as prom­ised — a re­tali­at­ory at­tack on Is­rael or U.S. in­terests around the world, an es­cal­a­tion without strong pub­lic sup­port would bring back pretty hor­rible memor­ies of the Vi­et­nam con­flict.

One per­son well worth listen­ing to is the Rev. J. Bry­an Hehir, cur­rently on the fac­ulty of Har­vard’s Kennedy School and formerly on the fac­ulties of the Har­vard Di­vin­ity School and Geor­getown Uni­versity, who also is the former head of Cath­ol­ic Char­it­ies USA. Hehir is a renowned au­thor­ity on the sub­ject of the “just war,” which ex­am­ines when a war is mor­ally jus­ti­fied and when it is not. He has quite a fol­low­ing among mil­it­ary and in­tel­li­gence of­fi­cials for his abil­ity to ap­ply lo­gic and reas­on­ing to chal­len­ging ques­tions on the use of mil­it­ary ac­tion. While Hehir be­lieves that the ac­tions of As­sad clearly meet the cri­ter­ia for a just ac­tion against him, in a phone in­ter­view Monday af­ter­noon he was troubled when ap­ply­ing some of the oth­er tests he uses to as­cer­tain wheth­er an at­tack is ap­pro­pri­ate. Is an at­tack the last re­sort? Is the pro­posed at­tack pro­por­tion­al, or likely to do more good than harm? Is there a prob­ab­il­ity of suc­cess, and for that mat­ter, what is suc­cess? If the in­ten­tion is to dam­age, de­ter, and de­grade the Syr­i­an re­gime’s mil­it­ary cap­ab­il­it­ies, can a “lim­ited” at­tack — with lim­ited pretty much be­ing a eu­phem­ism for sym­bol­ic — be suc­cess­ful in ac­com­plish­ing that? Would two or three days of cruise-mis­sile at­tacks ef­fect­ively do that? Would stealth bombers need to be util­ized to have a real im­pact, and if so, is that still lim­ited?

Hehir is still work­ing through those prickly ques­tions, but he clearly seemed skep­tic­al that all of the tests could be met to qual­i­fy a re­sponse as a “just” re­ac­tion. He is ex­pec­ted to re­lease a thor­ough ex­am­in­a­tion of these is­sues mid­day Tues­day.

Of course, if the new Rus­si­an pro­pos­al that an in­ter­na­tion­al or­gan­iz­a­tion take con­trol of Syr­ia’s stock­pile of chem­ic­al weapons pans out, the whole situ­ation could be­come de­fused and shift Con­gress’s fo­cus back to fisc­al is­sues. We can only hope.

What We're Following See More »
CNN/ORC Has Clinton Up 5 Points
23 minutes ago

Hillary Clinton leads Donald Trump 49%-44% in a new CNN/ORC poll out Monday afternoon. But it's Gary Johnson's performance, or lack thereof, that's the real story. Johnson, who had cleared 10% in some surveys earlier this fall, as he made a bid to qualify for the debates, is down to 3% support. He must hit 5% nationwide for the Libertarian Party to qualify for some federal matching funds in future elections.

Rapper Jay Z to Perform Concert for Clinton
34 minutes ago
Log Cabin Republicans Don’t Endorse Trump
36 minutes ago

While the organization praised him for being "perhaps the most pro-LGBT presidential nominee in the history of the Republican Party," the Log Cabin Republicans refused to endorse Donald Trump for president. The organization, which is the largest gay organization in the United States, said that Trump failed to earn its endorsement because he surrounded himself with anti-LGBTQ people "and committed himself to supporting legislation such as the so-called 'First Amendment Defense Act' that Log Cabin Republicans opposes."

Congress Needs to Deal With Impending Nuclear Plant Closures
1 hours ago

Energy Secretary Ernesto Moniz is warning Congress "that Congress and businesses need to act with more urgency to work out a medley of challenges in promoting nuclear power." A number of nuclear plants are currently on track to close around 2030, unless their licenses are extended from 60 years to 80 years, something that could jeopardize the success of the Clean Power Plan. Moniz called on Congress to pass legislation creating interim storage facilities for used nuclear power.

Trump Pocketed Insurance Money Following 2005 Hurricane
2 hours ago

Donald Trump has said he received a $17 million insurance payment in 2005 following Hurricane Wilma, which he claimed did severe damage to his private club in Florida. However, an Associated Press investigation could not find any evidence of the large-scale damage that Trump has mentioned. Additionally, Trump claimed that he transferred some of the $17 million to his personal account thanks to a "very good insurance policy."


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.