Stay Out of the Syrian Quagmire

President Obama’s decision to press for a “limited” military attack on Syria because President Assad’s forces apparently used chemical weapons  against Syrian civilians on August 21 (and earlier) is a terrible idea.

Some opponents of military action question the alleged extent of the chemical attack, and some even question whether it took place at all. I am persuaded that a chemical attack did take place, and that the Assad government launched it, but whether the facts of the attack are still in dispute is irrelevant. Even if all the gruesome details presented by President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry are true, the use or possession of chemical weapons by Syria do not for a minute constitute a threat to the security of the United States or its allies -- the only justification for the United States to make war on another nation, no matter how thuggish its leader may be. 

Supposedly the “limited” US response to Assad’s provocation will be to attack key installations and command structures with Tomahawk cruise missiles. Firing a barrage of Tomahawk missiles at Assad’s military forces is an act of war, not the minor gesture, “sending a message,” that its proponents try to portray.

A Tomahawk cruise missile is a large and lethal weapon, a 20-foot long unmanned bomber, launched from a surface ship or a submarine, weighing nearly 3,000 pounds and capable of delivering a half-ton high explosive warhead or a package of cluster bombs with pinpoint accuracy over a range as great as 1,500 miles. (An earlier version, now withdrawn, carried a 200 kiloton nuclear warhead). It’s reasonable to suppose that Defense Department planners have been able to come up with dozens of potential targets for even a “limited” strike by Tomahawk missiles, and that these would be supplemented by aircraft attacks as well. 

Tomahawks are not a new weapon; they have been in service since the 1970s, have been used in both Gulf Wars, in Bosnia, and Libya, Afghanistan, Yemen and the Sudan. More than 6,000 of them have been manufactured, and about 2,000 used in combat.  There are still 4,000 left for use against Syria and other targets needing to be “sent a message.”

An attack on Syria would have profoundly negative consequences for critical American objectives in the region and around the world, among them:

Defusing Iranian nuclear concerns: Seeing to it that Iran does not develop nuclear weapons is one of the United States’ paramount concerns. The non-proliferation regime is already weakened by the actions of North Korea. If Iran would turn from its present nuclear power development to bomb-making it would greatly increase tensions in the Middle East, and encourage others to follow suit.

Israel, which asserts that Iran is well on the way to developing nuclear weapons, claims an Iranian bomb would upset the balance of power in the Middle East. (It certainly would; Israel, which secretly developed an arsenal of hundreds of nuclear weapons more than 50 years ago, would no longer have a monopoly in the region, and has persistently pressed the US to go to war with Iran if necessary, to prevent it from developing a bomb).

Despite pressures from the hawkish government of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu,  President Obama has consistently declared that the way to prevent an Iranian bomb is through diplomacy, not military action.  Iran’s new President Hassan Rouhani his made it clear he is ready for improved relations with the West and a resolution to the nuclear impasse. 

But an American attack on Iran’s ally Syria would almost certainly put an end to any efforts in this direction, and would be likely to reinvigorate Israeli pressure on the US to attack Iran’s nuclear installations as well. Even those skeptical of Israeli assertions that Iran is already developing a bomb believe that Iran is approaching the point where it could do so if such a decision were made. A US attack on Syria might push Iran past that tipping point.

Arab-Israeli talks: the latest round of discussions between Israel and the Palestinian authority has not gotten off to a promising beginning in the presence of new Israeli settlement-building activities, but at least the discussions are nominally going on, even though presently in recess.  It’s hard to see how peace talks could continue if an attack on Syria results in Syrian retaliation against Israel, as Assad has threatened in response.

US-Russian relations, testy for a variety of reasons, can only worsen in the wake of an attack; a wiser course would be to enlist Russia, as its president Vladimir Putin has already suggested, into finding a diplomatic approach to the issue of Syrian use of chemical warfare through a diplomatic exploration of ways to expand the effectiveness of the 1925 Geneva Protocol and the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention against the possession and use of chemical weapons. An obvious objective would be to persuade Syria -- and Israel, which has not joined the 1993 convention either -- to complete process of ratification.

Afghanistan:  President Obama has committed the US to withdraw all combat forces from Afghanistan next year.  He will need the cooperation of  Russia and Afghanistan's neighbors Iran and Pakistan to accomplish this. Will he get it?

The Rest of the World: A US attack on Syria would reinforce the now decades-old image of a trigger-happy America that sees war as a first, not a last resort. It would weaken still further America’s image as a beacon of hope and exemplar of democracy that increasingly is seen more as slogan than reality.  Already fading hopes that President Obama would somehow be different from his predecessors would be further eroded.

Obama’s Domestic Agenda:  Just as Lyndon Johnson sacrificed his Great Society dreams to continue the war in Vietnam, Obama risks losing what momentum he had gained on finally passing an immigration bill and perhaps even on fully implementing the Affordable Care Act, along with a long list of other unfinished business. His political opponents will take comfort in the widespread loss of support from his base that he will suffer if he presses ahead on this foolhardy plan, far more than if he recognizes it’s a totally unnecessary distraction and refocuses on what matters to him.

The Democratic Party:  Democrats seeking re-election to the House and Senate in 2014 already know their constituents overwhelmingly oppose going to war over Syria. If the President perseveres in his plans, he will further fragment the party, possibly leading to the loss of control of the Senate and making impossible an already uphill fight to regain control of the House.  And whichever Democrat is the Presidential nominee in 2016 will face a difficult time consolidating support from a disillusioned party – especially if the Republicans finally stop shooting themselves in the foot and actually nominate an electable candidate.

Finally, what would be the benefits of a US attack on Syria?  Allegedly it would deter Assad from subsequent use of chemical weapons, but exactly how or why has not been explained. Nor is anyone claiming it would stop him from continuing to fight his domestic opponents, including the civilians he is slaughtering daily by other means.

Perhaps the only party that would benefit unambiguously from the use of Tomahawks on Syrian forces would be the Raytheon corporation that manufactures the missiles. That’s not sufficient reason to unleash them.

If the United States has any legitimate objective to pursue in Syria, it is a humanitarian one, and that can best be advanced through a concerted diplomatic effort, through the United Nations, necessarily including all interested parties, including Russia and Iran.

Obama was right to go to Congress for approval of any military action, and if Congress, as I fervently hope, does not support his proposed attack, he will be wise to heed its advice and, like Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron, embrace the wiser choice of a diplomatic solution.

But then, say his supporters, he would lose credibility!  Can’t a stronger case be made that he is already fast losing his credibility – with America’s allies, with the once-hopeful Prize Committee who awarded him the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, and with the many Americans who voted for him in 2008 and 2012 because they believed he would somehow be a different – and better – president than George W. Bush?  That he would turn America away from its instinctive resort to war whenever a potential international disagreement arose, and restore a national focus on bettering the lives of all Americans?

----------------------

Barack Obama was to be the president of hope and change. We are still hoping, but the change we all were hoping for appears more elusive by the day. The dwindling number of Americans who thought his presidency would be different, better, and more visionary than those of his predecessors need him to reconsider and to reverse this wrong-headed, impulsive lunge toward war. 

Surely he wants to leave behind a better legacy when he completes his term of office.