Opinion - Syria: A No Win Situation for the United States?

[UPDATED 8/31/2013]

Tomahawk launch from Arleigh Burke class destroyer

Its been widely reported the Obama Administration is considering "punitive strikes" against the Assad Government in response to the August 21st chemical weapon attack near Damascus. The proposed strike against Syria would target the delivery systems of chemical weapons rather than the storehouses of chemical agents themselves in addition to destroying critical command and control nodes for the Syrian military. The expressed intent of these strikes by the Administration is to punish Assad for the use of chemical weapons not an attempt at regime change or direct intervention in support of the Syrian rebels. The issue is not whether or not the United States has the military capabilities necessary to conduct an operation of this nature. Even with the effects of the Sequester and no support from NATO allies, US armed forces have more than enough assets in the region to conduct a unilateral cruise missile strike. Although the exact number of Tomahawks each Arleigh Burke class destroyer carries is classified, it is estimated each destroyer typically carries 45 missiles (Defense News, 2013). A total of five US destroyers are in the region: the USS Stout is en route to join the four already stationed destroyers near Syria. The following chart from Global Security shows US assets in the region:

The real issue is, to what extent, if at all, does a punitive strike against Assad advance US interests?

Historically speaking, "punitive strikes" have not benefited the United States. The Clinton Administration conducted at least two punitive strikes both of which occurred in 1998: Operation Desert Fox against Iraq and Operation Infinite Reach against Al Qaeda targets in Sudan and Afghanistan. Both of these operations were largely ineffective and were a precursor to major military operations involving US ground troops followed shortly thereafter partially as a result of the failure of these punitive strikes.

"...the Clinton administration launched four days of cruise missile and bombing strikes against Iraq. Saddam Hussein's regime had failed to comply with United Nations resolutions and weapons inspectors for a year. The goal was to 'degrade' Baghdad's ability to manufacture weapons of mass destruction and to destabilize Hussein's hold on power. The impact was negligible. Hussein held on for five more years, until the George W. Bush administration launched a ground invasion that cost hundreds of billions of dollars and nearly 4,500 American lives over the next eight years." - Robin Wright, 2013

Operation Infinite Reach which was launched in response to the US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. Al Qaeda training camps, facilities, and Osama Bin Laden were targeted by US Tomahawk cruise missiles. The operation was largely a failure as both Bin Laden managed to escape (possibly due to Pakistani intelligence tipping him off) and Al Qaeda continued to remain a credible threat to the United States. These previous examples of punitive strikes are relevant for the possible mission in Syria as they provide a realistic perspective of what to expect.

The notion that the United States can conduct a short, highly successful militarily campaign with little resources over a period of days and proceed to easily exit shortly thereafter has little historical precedent. The United States has a habit of entering conflicts incrementally with the end result negatively affecting the national interests of the country. Fareed Zakaria summarizes the historical trend first observed by scholar Samuel Huntington in regards to incremental US involvement:

"In the mid-1980s, the scholar Samuel Huntington pondered why the United States, the world’s dominant power — which had won two world wars, deterred the Soviet Union and maintained global peace — was so bad at smaller military intervention. Since World War II, he noted, the United States had engaged militarily in a series of conflicts around the world, and in almost every case the outcome had been inconclusive, muddled or worse.

Huntington concluded that we rarely entered conflicts actually trying to win. Instead, he reasoned, U.S. military intervention has usually been sparked by a crisis, which put pressure on Washington to do something. But Americans rarely saw the problem as one that justified getting fully committed. So, we would join the fight in incremental ways and hope that this would change the outcome. It rarely does. (More recent conflicts where we have succeeded — the 1990 Persian Gulf War, Grenada and Panama — were all ones where we did fight to win, used massive force and achieved a quick, early knockout.)" - Fareed Zakaria, 2013

Already the United States has started the process of incremental involvement within Syria as a result of increased aid given to rebel forces. A punitive strike would further commit the United States in the Syrian conflict even if the intent is not to directly aid the rebels by striking Assad. Direct support of Syrian rebels is not necessarily in the best interests of the US. In a letter to Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y,  Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey, concluded that even if the rebels prevailed, they would not support US interests in the region and should consequently not receive major US support.

'"Syria today is not about choosing between two sides but rather about choosing one among many sides...It is my belief that the side we choose must be ready to promote their interests and ours when the balance shifts in their favor. Today, they are not." - Martin Dempsey, 2013

Toppling the Assad Government by directly supporting the rebels is not in the interest of the United States if it means a radical Islamist government replaces the Assad Government. Moderate elements within the of the Free Syrian Army do not represent the entirety of rebel forces fighting in Syria. Within the last two years, the number of  foreign fighters under the command of radical Islamist groups has noticeably surged. Although Jabhat al-Nusra, an official affiliate of Al Qaeda operating within Syria, is often named by media reports, several radical Islamic groups exist within Syria: the Islamist State in Iraq and the Levant, Al Qaeda in Iraq, Ahrar Al-Sham, Abdullah Azzam brigades, Fatah al-Islam and Jordanian Salafi-jihadists (O’Bagy, 2012). This is not to say radical Islamists makeup the majority of rebel groups in Syria, but their influence has increased considerably over time and their effectiveness in combat relative to other rebel units is also noteworthy.

Source: Jihad in Syria, Elizabeth O’Bagy, 2012

By launching cruise missiles at key command and control sites, the United States would be "unintentionally" aiding rebel forces including Islamist extremists. At the moment, many analysts give the edge on the ground to Assad. Since the reinforcement of 15,000 Hezbollah troops from Lebanon, regime forces have gained momentum and have started to retake lost territory. Recently, regime forces have seized the strategically important city of Qusayr which effectively provides Assad's forces greater access to the Iran backed Hezbollah forces (Malas, Dagher, Barnes, 2013). Depending upon the intensity of the strike, Assad will be weakened and loose momentum but its highly improbable that a cruise missile strike alone would be enough to dislodge Assad even with a follow-up of coordinated rebel attacks. It is probable that the effect of the strike will lengthen then conflict, not shorten it. So what does Obama hope to accomplish with a punitive strike?

Source: Wall Street Journal

 The only individual that has explained a viable and coherent interpretation of US strategy in regards to Syria, that I have come across, is Daniel Drezner from Foreign Policy:

"the goal of that policy is to ensnare Iran and Hezbollah into a protracted, resource-draining civil war, with as minimal costs as possible.  This is exactly what the last two years have accomplished.... at an appalling toll in lives lost. This policy doesn't require any course correction... so long as rebels are holding their own or winning. The moment that U.S. armed forces would be required to sustain the balance, the costs of this policy go up dramatically, far outweighing the benefits.  So I suspect the Obama administration will continue to pursue all measures short of committing U.S. forces in any way in order to sustain the rebels." -Daniel W. Drezner

Although morally deplorable, Drezner's interpretation of US policy, if in fact it is the position of the Obama Administration, does advance US interests in a number of important ways:

• Iran continues to commit resources in Syria and grows weaker the longer the conflict persists 
• The more foreign Islamist fighters the Syrian conflict draws, less new foreign fighters participate in insurgency operations within US allied nations e.g. Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc. (overflow to Iraq is a potential issue however)
• Hezbollah is predominantly concerned with Syrian conflict rather than conducting new operations against Israel 
• A weaker Syrian Government would prove advantageous in a conflict between Israel and Iran or the United States and Iran as Syria is the only true regional ally of Iran 

The caveat of Drezner's interpretation of US policy is cost. A cruise missile strike is unlikely to put the lives of US military personnel at risk but the financial costs of such an operation are considerable. In conclusion, the United States should only conduct a cruise missile strike in Syria if cost is kept much lower than the ~$600 million dollars spent on Operation Odyssey Dawn. The strikes will aid US interest's from Drezner's perspective as it will likely prolong the conflict (weakening Iran) but its not entirely clear Obama is trying to weaken Iran by aiding the rebels. The harsh reality is, the sectarian conflict in Syria is likely to continue for a decade. The Alawite sect minority that controls the Syrian regime (Assad and most high ranking Syrian Government officials are Alawite) is the last of three minority ruled dictatorships in the Middle East. The civil war within Lebanon lasted 15 years and the civil war in Iraq lasted ten years and the violence still continues even after the US withdraw. Once again, Fareed Zakaria does an excellent job explaining the current situation in Syria and why the violence will continue for the foreseeable future:

After this cruise missile strike, the United States MUST NOT commit further resources to Syria aside from limited aid to rebels; the benefits of major US involvement simply does not outweigh the potential costs. It would have been preferable to not enter Syria in the first place but the ultimatum issue by the President puts American credibility on the line which affects America's entire sphere of foreign policy relations e.g. China. Many argue the cost of being perceived as flimsy and not following through with issued ultimatums is of little consequence. Global perceptions, especially among the adversaries and competitors of the United States matters a great deal. For example, when Reagan was first elected into office, the Soviet Union did perceive him to be a great threat. In 1981 he fired 11,000 air traffic controllers who were on strike after threatening to fire them if they did not return to work. Regan's decision to fire air traffic controllers and follow through with his ultimatum had a surprisingly large effect on Soviet relations:

"The Soviet Union was watching. They saw how the American president dealt with a national security issue, saw that his rhetorical toughness could be matched by tough action. They absorbed this, and thought about it. That's why George Shultz, Reagan's last and most effective secretary of state, said that the PATCO decision was the most important foreign policy decision Ronald Reagan ever made.” - Cody Carlson, 2012

The Soviet Union subsequently took Reagan more seriously on national security matters thereafter. The fact is, credibility of the presidency and the country itself is now on the line and US credibility has effects on every other aspect of US foreign policy. Most significantly, China is watching. How will US ultimatum's and warnings given to China in the future be perceived if we don't follow through with our statements?

I realize the United States lost too much blood and treasure in Iraq for little gain, the country needs to recover over the next decade and focus more on domestic development. Furthermore, the fight for democracy within Syria is ultimately the responsibility of the Syrian people, not the responsibility of the United States. However, as the President said, there is a cost to doing nothing. There are no "win win" options for the United States in regards to Syria, only realpolitik strategic calculations to determine how best to minimize loss.

Sources 

1. Obama’s Syria policy is full of contradictions, Fareed Zakaria, 2013.  http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-06-19/opinions/40068077_1_intervention-outcome-regime
2. Chemical Arms Tactics Examined, Margaret Coker, 2013.  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324324404579041481523249144.html
3. Syria: One More Reason for a Return of Grand Strategy, Lazarus, 2013.  http://www.informationdissemination.net/2013/08/syria-one-more-reason-for-return-of.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+InformationDissemination+%28Information+Dissemination%29
4. British Prime Minister David Cameron loses parliamentary vote on Syria.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-administration-prepares-intelligence-case-on-syrian-use-of-chemical-weapons/2013/08/29/3002f180-10b6-11e3-bdf6-e4fc677d94a1_story.html
5. Syrian Rebel Commanders Fear Aftermath of Airstrikes, Jay Solomon, 2013.  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324906304579039380265339524.html
6. US Military Has Myriad Ways to Strike Syria in Potential Operation, Michael Lipin, 2013.  http://www.voanews.com/content/us-military-has-multiple-ways-to-strike-syria-in-potential-operation/1737526.html
7. The risk of taking on Syria, Robin Wright, 2013.         http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-0829-wright-syria-consequences-20130829,0,7387106.story
8. Jihad in Syria, Elizabeth O’Bagy, 2012.         http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/Jihad-In-Syria-17SEPT.pdf 
9. Why Obama is arming Syria's rebels: it's the realism, stupid, Daniel W. Drezner, 2013. http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/06/14/why_obama_is_arming_syrias_rebels_its_the_realism_stupid?wp_login_redirect=0
10. Dempsey: Syrian rebels won't back U.S. interests, Aamer Madhani, 2013. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/08/21/dempsey-syrian-rebels-wont-back-american-interests/2680923/
11. This week in history: Ronald Reagan fires 11,345 air traffic controllers, Cody Carlson, 2012.  http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865560028/This-week-in-history-Ronald-Reagan-fires-11345-air-traffic-controllers.html?pg=all