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 »
Republican Polling Shows Close Race
Roundup: National Polling Remains Inconsistent
6 hours ago

The national polls, once again, tell very different stories: Clinton leads by just one point in the IBD, Rasmussen, and LA Times tracking polls, while she shows a commanding 12 point lead in the ABC news poll and a smaller but sizable five point lead in the CNN poll. The Republican Remington Research Group released a slew of polls showing Trump up in Ohio, Nevada, and North Carolina, a tie in Florida, and Clinton leads in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Virginia. However, an independent Siena poll shows Clinton up 7 in North Carolina, while a Monmouth poll shows Trump up one in Arizona

Colin Powell to Vote for Clinton
9 hours ago
Cook Report: Dems to Pick up 5-7 Seats, Retake Senate
10 hours ago

Since the release of the Access Hollywood tape, on which Donald Trump boasted of sexually assaulting women, "Senate Republicans have seen their fortunes dip, particularly in states like Florida, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Nevada and Pennsylvania," where Hillary Clinton now leads. Jennifer Duffy writes that she now expects Democrats to gain five to seven seats—enough to regain control of the chamber.

"Of the Senate seats in the Toss Up column, Trump only leads in Indiana and Missouri where both Republicans are running a few points behind him. ... History shows that races in the Toss Up column never split down the middle; one party tends to win the lion’s share of them."

Clinton Reaching Out to GOP Senators
14 hours ago

If you need a marker for how confident Hillary Clinton is at this point of the race, here's one: CNN's Jeff Zeleny reports "she's been talking to Republican senators, old allies and new, saying that she is willing to work with them and govern."

Trump Admits He’s Behind
14 hours ago

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.