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 »
FLINT FUNDING STILL AT ISSUE
Spending Bill Fails to Clear 60-Vote Hurdle
1 hours ago
THE LATEST
SURPASSED 80 MILLION VIEWERS
Monday’s Debate Was Most Watched Ever
2 hours ago
DEBATE UPDATE
‘WASN’T PREPARED’
Hill Republicans Don’t Like What They See in Debate
2 hours ago
THE LATEST

"It was obvious he wasn't prepared." “He only mentioned her email scandal once." "I think he took things a little too personal and missed a lot of opportunities to make very good debate points." That's just a smattering of the reactions of some elected Republicans to Donald Trump's debate performance.

Source:
MOST WATCHED EVER?
Little Ratings Drop-Off from Beginning to End of Debate
4 hours ago
THE LATEST

The conventional wisdom is already emerging that Donald Trump opened last night's debate well, but that he faded badly down the stretch. And most viewers apparently witnessed it. "The early Nielsen data confirms that viewership stayed high the entire time. Contrary to some speculation, there was not a big drop-off after the first hour of the 98-minute debate." Final data is still being tallied, but "Monday's face-off may well have been the most-watched debate in American history. CNN and other cable news channels saw big increases over past election years. So did some of the broadcast networks."

Source:
FUNDING RUNS OUT ON FRIDAY
Federal Agencies Prepare for Govt Shutdown
6 hours ago
THE LATEST

As Congress continues to bicker on riders to a continuing resolution, federal agencies have started working with the Office of Management and Budget to prepare for a government shutdown, which will occur if no continuing resolution is passed by 11:59 p.m. on Friday night. The OMB held a call with agencies on Sept. 23, one that is required one week before a possible shutdown. The government last shut down for 16 days in 2013, and multiple shutdowns have been narrowly avoided since then. It is expected that Congress will reach a deal before the clock strikes midnight, but until it does, preparations will continue.

Source:
×