The Best Option in Syria? No Military Intervention, Security Insiders Say

Experts say Obama made right decision to ask Congress for approval.

A Free Syrian Army fighter fires his weapon during clashes with Syrian troops near Idlib, Syria Friday, June 15, 2012. 
National Journal
Sara Sorcher
Add to Briefcase
Sara Sorcher
Sept. 9, 2013, 5:30 p.m.

The best mil­it­ary op­tion in Syr­ia is no mil­it­ary in­ter­ven­tion at all, Na­tion­al Journ­al‘s Na­tion­al Se­cur­ity In­siders say.

Des­pite Pres­id­ent Obama’s call for a lim­ited mil­it­ary strike to pun­ish Syr­i­an strong­man Bashar al-As­sad for us­ing chem­ic­al weapons, a plur­al­ity of 34 per­cent of In­siders are against it. “No one has yet ex­plained how in­volve­ment in someone else’s sec­tari­an civil war, with despic­able char­ac­ters dom­in­at­ing both sides, would serve U.S. in­terests,” one In­sider said.

“The United States should only use mil­it­ary force as part of a broad­er strategy to strengthen more mod­er­ate and plur­al­ist­ic­ally ori­ented op­pos­i­tion ele­ments and to com­pel a swifter end to the con­flict (wheth­er through ne­go­ti­ations or on the bat­tle­field),” an­oth­er In­sider said. ” “¦ Bar­ring such a strategy, a nar­row pun­it­ive strike over chem­ic­al-weapons use threatens to im­plic­ate the United States in Syr­ia’s war without im­pact­ing that war in any mean­ing­ful way.”

One-third of In­siders pre­ferred a broad­er in­ter­ven­tion to tilt the con­flict in fa­vor of the op­pos­i­tion. “Simply pun­ish­ing As­sad is mean­ing­less. We will pay some price one way or the oth­er. If we are go­ing to do something, let’s be sure it’s worth the cost,” one In­sider said. A nar­row in­ter­ven­tion, an­oth­er ad­ded, “would show the United States to be a pa­per ti­ger afraid of get­ting in­volved more deeply in the con­flict and would have no im­pact on the Syr­i­an re­gime. Either take ac­tion to tilt the bal­ance in fa­vor of the sec­u­lar, na­tion­al­ist op­pos­i­tion, or re­main neut­ral.”

Only 27 per­cent of In­siders said a nar­row in­ter­ven­tion as Obama de­scribed was the best op­tion. “If the pur­poses be­come too broad, strikes are less likely to take place and, if they do, less likely to suc­ceed,” one In­sider said. “Mak­ing counter-chem­ic­al-weapons use the main pur­pose of strikes will in­crease the like­li­hood that they will take place, help de­ter fu­ture Syr­i­an chem­ic­al-weapons use, and have a help­ful de­terrent im­pact on Ir­an and North Korea — two vi­tal West­ern se­cur­ity in­terests.”

A 9 per­cent minor­ity pro­posed re­gime change as the goal of mil­it­ary in­ter­ven­tion. “A re­gime which uses weapons of mass de­struc­tion should be re­moved from power,” one In­sider said.

Sep­ar­ately, two-thirds of In­siders sup­por­ted Pres­id­ent Obama’s move to ask Con­gress for ap­prov­al to launch a lim­ited mil­it­ary strike. “Obama’s abil­ity to deal with Syr­ia will be greatly strengthened if Con­gress votes to au­thor­ize his ac­tions,” one In­sider said. “Of course, one can’t help won­der­ing, after watch­ing how he came to ask for con­gres­sion­al ap­prov­al, wheth­er he has doubts about his own policy and wants Con­gress to either join him in own­ing the policy, or help him get out of the box his state­ments have put him in (in the same way Prime Min­is­ter Camer­on let Par­lia­ment change his policy for him).”

“It is about time Con­gress was asked, and will have to an­swer, for a spe­cif­ic mil­it­ary ac­tion,” an­oth­er In­sider said. “Con­gress has will­ingly ab­dic­ated this role for too long.”

A vo­cal one-third minor­ity was against Obama’s de­cision. “A delayed re­quest for con­gres­sion­al sup­port shows a com­mand­er in chief not fully com­mit­ted to us­ing mil­it­ary power in this in­stance,” one In­sider said. “Pres­id­ent blinked the U.S. in­to a corner and now must be pre­pared to ig­nore or walk away with tail between legs if Con­gress blocks ac­tions.”

As an­oth­er In­sider put it: “Amer­ic­ans ex­pect their com­mand­er in chief to be de­cis­ive, not out­source the tough de­cisions to Con­gress.”

1. U.S. mil­it­ary ac­tion in Syr­ia should be:

(64 votes)

  • There should be no U.S. mil­it­ary in­ter­ven­tion at this time 34%
  • A broad­er in­ter­ven­tion to tilt the con­flict in fa­vor of the op­pos­i­tion 30%
  • A nar­row in­ter­ven­tion to pun­ish As­sad for us­ing chem­ic­al weapons 27%
  • Re­gime change 9%


“The U.S. should hold a dip­lo­mat­ic circle around the Syr­i­an situ­ation; us­ing force re­in­forces the leg­acy of Amer­ic­an in­ter­ven­tion and ex­acer­bates anti-Amer­ic­an­ism.”

“Our in­terests in Syr­ia do not war­rant the com­mit­ment of U.S. blood and treas­ure.”

“The primary Amer­ic­an in­terest is not pre­vent­ing the use or pro­lif­er­a­tion of weapons of mass de­struc­tion; the primary in­terest is in halt­ing the destabil­iz­ing im­pact of this burn­ing con­flict on the neigh­bor­hood. Obama’s non­in­ter­ven­tion strategy has failed to bring the con­flict any closer to res­ol­u­tion — per­haps mil­it­ary force, prop­erly ap­plied, could help force an end.”

“The U.S. should fol­low the Brit­ish lead for a change.”

“Will in­ter­ven­tion bring down the re­gime? In that case, will al-Nusra re­place it? If no re­gime change, what good is a pin­prick at­tack? Have we thought through all the rami­fic­a­tions? I doubt it.”

“It is hard to ima­gine that we have not already passed the point of no re­turn re­gard­ing the abil­ity to pos­it­ively in­flu­ence a de­sir­able out­come through mil­it­ary ac­tion. Bluntly put, punch­ing someone in the face un­til they do what you want only works if they know what you want. What are we want­ing As­sad to do?”

“Amer­ica’s fifth war in 15 years re­quires a bet­ter stra­tegic ra­tionale.”

“The pres­id­ent has said no re­gime change, no change in the mil­it­ary bal­ance, no fur­ther U.S. in­volve­ment. But we also know that we can’t hit chem­ic­al stocks dir­ectly. With so many con­straints, mil­it­ary ac­tion will be im­pot­ent and only make us look fool­ish.”

“Syr­ia is a fic­tion like Yugoslavia — both cre­ated out of co­lo­ni­al powers in World War I. This is a blood­bath; it will go on for some time, sadly. We can do little if any­thing to stop it.”

“The de­bate on Syr­ia should have Clause­witz turn­ing in his grave. Polit­ics are totally miss­ing. At bot­tom, hawks think lim­ited strikes could open the door to re­gime change; norm-main­tain­ers and cred­ib­il­ity mavens seem to think strikes to pre­serve norms and ‘cred­ib­il­ity’ won’t in­flu­ence Syr­i­an civil war. Bet­ter pun­dits, please.”


“Pin­prick strikes make no sense what­so­ever. They will sig­nal ir­res­ol­u­tion rather than de­term­in­a­tion.”

“Our goal for mil­it­ary ac­tion should be to get As­sad to the ne­go­ti­at­ing table. We can­not achieve re­gime change with air strikes, nor do we want the cur­rent rebels to win. For mil­it­ary ac­tion to have any worth, it needs to be ac­com­pan­ied by activ­it­ies cur­rently banned from the Sen­ate bill — from polit­ic­al ac­tion in the coun­try to more free­dom of ac­tion that would force As­sad to the table; there­fore, it’s highly un­likely to cre­ate the change we need.”

“If you’re go­ing to use mil­it­ary force, do so to make a dif­fer­ence, not just send a mes­sage.”

“Go big or go home.”

“The pro­posed strike is in­ev­it­able. But if it’s left to just a one-time strike, the hu­man­it­ari­an dis­aster of Syr­ia will go on and on and on. The one real solu­tion is re­gime change, but by the rebels, not the West. And for that to hap­pen, the U.S. must get busy arm­ing the rebels. Cer­tainly, there is a risk of arms fall­ing in­to the wrong hands, but let the Syr­i­an Free Army deal with pre­vent­ing that. They know the act­ors far bet­ter than any of us will.”

“If the U.S. doesn’t change the bal­ance of power in­side Syr­ia, it won’t have pun­ished As­sad enough.”


“Our sup­port­able in­terest is to pro­tect the norm against WMD use. Achiev­ing our grander in­terest in a stable, more demo­crat­ic, or friend­li­er Syr­ia is im­possible at this junc­ture, even if we were not ex­hausted from Ir­aq and Afgh­anistan. And we are.”

“That said, the ef­fect of any ac­tion that has been sub­jec­ted to the tor­tu­ous pro­cess that has en­sued will be at­ten­u­ated to the point that ques­tions its rel­ev­ance.”

“It is time to level the play­ing field by tak­ing out As­sad’s air forces, in­clud­ing his Rus­si­an-sup­plied at­tack heli­copters.”

“Cov­ert ac­tion un­der­lies this overt use of mil­it­ary force, and giv­en the com­plex­ity of al­lied re­ac­tion (es­pe­cially Tur­key, Is­rael, Jordan, KSA, and oth­ers) as well as that of the Rus­si­ans, prob­ably will re­main the primary means to af­fect an out­come.”


“And it should have been done much earli­er when “only” a few thou­sand were be­ing slaughtered. This doesn’t mean you need to put ‘boots on the ground,’ but does mean you have a co­her­ent strategy to parry your en­emies (like Ir­an) and rid the world of im­mor­al bar­bar­i­ans like As­sad.”

“Very im­port­ant to se­cure and des­troy chem/bio as­sets be­fore they come to U.S.”

2. Pres­id­ent Obama’s move to ask Con­gress to ap­prove mil­it­ary ac­tion was:

(64 votes)

  • Right 65%
  • Wrong 35%


“The polit­ics of do­ing it and ask­ing for­give­ness later are too hard. Bet­ter to have the Con­gress with him.”

“Obama’s abil­ity to deal with Syr­ia will be greatly strengthened if Con­gress votes to au­thor­ize his ac­tions. Of course, one can’t help won­der­ing, after watch­ing how he came to ask for con­gres­sion­al ap­prov­al, wheth­er he has doubts about his own policy and wants Con­gress to either join him in own­ing the policy or help him get out of the box his state­ments have put him in (in the same way Prime Min­is­ter Camer­on let Par­lia­ment change his policy for him).”

“It was both right and wise.”

“A con­gres­sion­al vote is ap­pro­pri­ate, but this should have been the policy be­fore the ad­min­is­tra­tion vir­tu­ally com­mit­ted it­self to use force, rather than after. By an­noun­cing this so late, the ad­min­is­tra­tion looks ir­res­ol­ute and un­der­mines any cred­ib­il­ity or repu­ta­tion­al be­ne­fit they might get from a strike. If the Con­gress votes yes, this se­quen­cing risks com­bin­ing all the dis­ad­vant­ages of act­ing with all the dis­ad­vant­ages of not act­ing. They need to de­cide on a policy and im­ple­ment it without all the ap­par­ent waff­ling.”

“What we per­ceive to be a nar­row strike, if it is one, will not be seen as such in the re­gion, ex­cept pos­sibly by Is­rael. With Con­gress nearly para­lyzed with polit­ic­al di­vi­sions, it will be im­port­ant for us to have a na­tion­al de­bate that cla­ri­fies our pur­poses and firms up our re­solve one way or an­oth­er. Obama’s de­cision in this case need set no pre­ced­ent, par­tic­u­larly in light of the pres­id­ent’s de­cisions in the case of Libya.”

“In­volving the Con­gress and for­cing wider pub­lic dis­cus­sion of policy choices that are con­tro­ver­sial and con­sequen­tial will strengthen Amer­ic­an demo­cracy. If strikes do take place, re­spect for our coun­try’s de­lib­er­at­ive and in­clus­ive in­tern­al pro­cesses will be great­er, and own­er­ship of the res­ult­ing policy and ac­tions will be bolstered.”

“It is about time Con­gress was asked, and will have to an­swer, for a spe­cif­ic mil­it­ary ac­tion. Con­gress has will­ingly ab­dic­ated this role for too long.”

“Right ac­tion, but he is reap­ing the res­ults of his in­at­ten­tion to re­la­tions with Con­gress. If they feel like they are ir­rel­ev­ant un­til he really needs them, their re­ac­tion would be un­der­stand­able. This is one case where a bus tour or cam­paign to com­mu­nic­ate dir­ectly with the Amer­ic­an people is in­ad­equate, im­prop­er, and in­ap­pro­pri­ate … but it has been his tool of choice in deal­ing with Con­gress. Let’s see what hap­pens now.”

“It took him too long, but he did the right thing.”

“It is the way a con­sti­tu­tion­al demo­cracy is sup­posed to op­er­ate.”

“This is ob­vi­ously the right ac­tion that should have been un­der­taken on day one. If Boehner/Mc­Con­nell sink this, the next mas­sacre is on them. If they do ap­prove, Obama has a far stronger hand. Obama has a fun­da­ment­al weak­ness in that he can’t make a de­cision. Even when he makes the rIght de­cision to go to Con­gress, it’s too slow and too tor­tured. He doesn’t look or act like a lead­er. It’s not a Har­vard de­bate so­ci­ety.”

“It’s about time Con­gress is forced to do its job.”

“Right, but re­gret­table: The ad­min­is­tra­tion had so mis­man­aged the prob­lem that it needed a time-out to sta­bil­ize and re­build sup­port.”

“The ac­tion was right — but the White House’s re­fus­al to take the case to the Amer­ic­an people and to make a strong case to Con­gress sug­gests the pres­id­ent may have done it in or­der to lose more than for the right reas­ons.”

“But the tim­ing is all wrong. This should have been done much earli­er in or­der to gain buy-in from the le­gis­lat­ive branch and achieve do­mest­ic and in­ter­na­tion­al unity against the rogue Syr­i­an re­gime.”

“The pres­id­ent’s move was right but badly handled. He should have gone to Con­gress from the be­gin­ning. March­ing every­one to the pre­cip­ice of mil­it­ary ac­tion only to then de­cide for con­gres­sion­al ap­prov­al was am­a­teur­ish. That said, it was bet­ter than not do­ing it at all.”

“If noth­ing else it will be good for the re­pub­lic to fi­nally have the Con­gress hold some de­gree of re­spons­ib­il­ity for a mil­it­ary ac­tion, and per­haps set a well-de­served pre­ced­ent for le­gis­lat­ive con­sulta­tion pri­or to the use of mil­it­ary force.”

“But un­ne­ces­sary.”

“Obama’s in­stincts are cor­rect. This needs con­gres­sion­al ap­prov­al. We can­not keep stum­bling in­to wars without pub­lic sup­port.”

“El­ev­enth-hour con­verts to con­sti­tu­tion­al gov­ern­ment should be wel­comed wherever they emerge.”


“Ele­ment of sur­prise lost while not re­ceiv­ing ap­prov­al would be tan­tamount to the Sen­ate’s re­jec­tion of the Treaty of Ver­sailles in terms of U.S. status in the world.”

“There’s a reas­on that the Con­sti­tu­tion tilts to­ward the ex­ec­ut­ive for these kinds of ac­tions.”

“One of the most in­com­pet­ent dis­plays since the late 1970s.”

“While it was polit­ic­ally smart to bring this dys­func­tion­al Con­gress in­to the blame circle, he has po­ten­tially set a pre­ced­ent that sub­sequent pres­id­ents will curse him for far in­to the fu­ture.”

“The pres­id­ent does not need au­thor­iz­a­tion to con­duct a lim­ited strike. If he opts for a broad­er, more sus­tained en­gage­ment to tilt the bal­ance in fa­vor of the op­pos­i­tion, then get­ting the buy-in of Con­gress is es­sen­tial. But my guess is that is not an op­tion he will con­sider.”

“If it af­fects a U.S. vi­tal in­terest, it should not wait for con­gres­sion­al de­bate and erodes hard-fought con­sti­tu­tion­al gains by the of­fice of the pres­id­ent across sev­er­al ad­min­is­tra­tions.”

Na­tion­al Journ­al’s Na­tion­al Se­cur­ity In­siders Poll is a peri­od­ic sur­vey of more than 100 de­fense and for­eign policy ex­perts. They in­clude: Gor­don Adams, Charles Al­len, Thad Al­len, James Bam­ford, Dav­id Barno, Milt Bearden, Peter Ber­gen, Samuel “Sandy” Ber­ger, Dav­id Ber­teau, Steph­en Biddle, Nancy Bird­sall, Mari­on Blakey, Kit Bond, Stu­art Bowen, Paula Broad­well, Mike Breen, Mark Brun­ner, Steven Bucci, Nich­olas Burns, Dan By­man, James Jay Cara­fano, Phil­lip Carter, Wendy Cham­ber­lin, Mi­chael Cher­toff, Frank Cil­luffo, James Clad, Richard Clarke, Steve Clem­ons, Joseph Collins, Wil­li­am Court­ney, Lorne Cran­er, Ro­ger Cres­sey, Gregory Dahl­berg, Robert Dan­in, Richard Dan­zig, Daniel Drezn­er, Mack­en­zie Eaglen, Paul Eaton, An­drew Ex­um, Wil­li­am Fal­lon, Eric Farns­worth, Jacques Gansler, Steph­en Gan­yard, Daniel Goure, Mark Green, Mike Green, Mark Gun­zinger, John Hamre, Jim Harp­er, Mi­chael Hay­den, Mi­chael Her­son, Pete Hoek­stra, Bruce Hoff­man, Linda Hud­son, Paul Hughes, Colin Kahl, Don­ald Ker­rick, Rachel Klein­feld, Lawrence Korb, Dav­id Kramer, An­drew Kre­pinev­ich, Charlie Kupchan, W. Patrick Lang, Cedric Leighton, James Lind­say, Justin Lo­gan, Trent Lott, Peter Mansoor, Ron­ald Marks, Bri­an Mc­Caf­frey, Steven Metz, Frank­lin Miller, Philip Mudd, John Nagl, Shuja Nawaz, Kev­in Neal­er, Mi­chael Oates, Thomas Pick­er­ing, Paul Pil­lar, Larry Pri­or, Steph­en Rade­maker, Marc Rai­mondi, Celina Realuyo, Bruce Riedel, Barry Rhoads, Marc Ro­ten­berg, Frank Rug­giero, Kori Schake, Mark Schneider, John Scofield, Tammy Schultz, Steph­en Ses­t­an­ovich, Sarah Se­wall, Mat­thew Sher­man, Jen­nifer Sims, Con­stan­ze Stelzen­müller, Frances Town­send, Mick Train­or, Su­z­anne Spauld­ing, Ted Stroup, Richard Wil­helm, Tamara Wittes, Dov Za­kheim, and Juan Za­r­ate.

What We're Following See More »
White House to Give McMaster Carte Blanche
1 hours ago
Trump To Rescind Trans Protections
3 hours ago

Donald Trump is planning to reverse an Obama-era order requiring that schools allow students to use the bathroom that coincides with their gender identity. Trump "has green-lighted the plan for the Justice Department and Education Department to send a “Dear Colleague” letter to schools rescinding the guidance." A case is going before the Supreme Court on March 28 in which Gavin Grimm, a transgender high school student, is suing his high school for forbidding him to use the men's room.

Russia Compiling Dossier on Trump’s Mind
4 hours ago

Retired Russian diplomats and members of Vladimir Putin's staff are compiling a dossier "on Donald Trump's psychological makeup" for the Russian leader. "Among its preliminary conclusions is that the new American leader is a risk-taker who can be naïve, according to a senior Kremlin adviser."

Trump Addresses Threats On Jewish Community Centers
6 hours ago
Trump Set To Issue New Travel Ban
6 hours ago

Donald Trump is set to issue a new and more focused executive order clarifying the scope of his travel ban, hoping that the order will survive legal challenges. The new order would focus on the same seven countries, "but would only bar entry to those without a visa and who have never entered the United States before. Unlike the original order, people from those countries who already have permanent U.S. residency (green cards) or visas would not face any restrictions." Some lawyers believe the government will now have much stronger standing, though lawyers who challenged the initial order see the same core problems with the forthcoming ban.


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.