{"id":6442,"date":"2013-09-10T10:51:23","date_gmt":"2013-09-10T17:51:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/?p=6442"},"modified":"2013-09-10T10:51:23","modified_gmt":"2013-09-10T17:51:23","slug":"syrian-knowns-and-unknowns","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/syrian-knowns-and-unknowns\/","title":{"rendered":"Syrian Knowns and Unknowns"},"content":{"rendered":"

by Victor Davis Hanson \/\/\u00a0PJ Media<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"A
A sign displays a message about Syria at the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington August 28, 2013, in Washington, D.C. (Rena Schild \/ Shutterstock.com)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

1)<\/strong>\u00a0Red lines:<\/b>\u00a0Does anyone believe we would be on the eve of a war with Syria had not Barack Obama on two occasions \u2014 echoed on two others by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton \u2014\u00a0warned Bashar Assad of red lines<\/a>\u00a0surrounding the use of WMD?<\/p>\n

Take those empty threats away, and one of two things would have more likely happened. First, there might\u00a0not<\/i>\u00a0have been use of WMD, given no need to test or humiliate a perceived weak Obama. Or we would still be arguing over who actually used them. Not long ago, Senators\u00a0Obama<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Kerry<\/a>\u00a0would have lambasted the present impending intervention as a rush to war for the restoration of a president\u2019s ill-advised forfeiture of credibility.<\/p>\n

Fairly or not, the war\u00a0is now seen<\/a>\u00a0as one to save the credibility of Obama\u2019s pontification and Kerry\u2019s sermonizing.<\/i><\/p>\n

2)<\/strong>\u00a0Authorizations:<\/b>\u00a0To go to war, a president usually seeks at least one of four requisites: authorizations from both houses of Congress, clear public support for action, plenty of allies, and\u00a0cover from the UN<\/a>\u00a0in the form or a resolution or at least long discussion. Obama had obtained\u00a0none<\/i>\u00a0of the four \u2014 despite arguing in the past that all four were necessary to do precisely what he is now doing.
\n<\/b><\/p>\n

Why do the American people, the Congress, our allies, and the proverbial \u201cinternational community\u201d on this rare occasion unite in not seeing the logic of Obama\u2019s war?<\/i><\/p>\n

3) The Military:<\/b>\u00a0Should not the chairman of the Joint Chiefs be an architect of the intervention? Yet Chairman Dempsey has made an astounding array of disturbing statements on Syria: \u201cI think intervening in Syria would be very difficult. \u2026\u00a0 And I think that the current path of trying to gain some kind of international consensus is the proper path, rather than take a decision\u00a0to do anything unilaterally.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n

His concerns about the task are thematic in everything he says: \u201cThe U.S. military has the capability to defeat that system, but it would be a greater challenge, and would take longer and require more resources. \u2026 The air defense picture in Libya is dramatically different than it is in Syria. \u2026\u00a0Syria has five times more air defense systems<\/a>, some of which are high-end systems.\u201d And he warned,\u00a0\u201cThis is about a 10-year issue<\/a>, and if we fail to think about it as a 10-year regional issue, we could make some mistakes.\u201d He summed up, \u201cWe have learned from the past 10 years, however, that it is not enough to simply alter the balance of military power without careful consideration of what is necessary\u00a0in order to preserve a functioning state.<\/a>\u00a0\u2026 We must anticipate and be prepared for the unintended consequences of our action. \u2026 Syria today is not about choosing between two sides but rather about choosing one among many sides.\u201d<\/p>\n

I cannot recall, on the eve of war, the nation\u2019s top military officer so pessimistic about the chance of achieving anything significant.<\/p>\n

If our top commander seems dubious, who then is going to lead us unabashedly to victory?<\/i><\/p>\n

4) The Middle East is the Middle East:<\/b>\u00a0Syria reminds us of the Middle East paradoxes:<\/p>\n

A) We don\u2019t like either pro-American (e.g., Mubarak) or anti-American\u00a0(e.g., Gaddafi) dictators.<\/p>\n

B) We don\u2019t like populist Islamic theocrats (e.g., the Iranian theocrats, Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas).<\/p>\n

C) We don\u2019t like chaos and rule by militias (e.g., Sudan, Somalia, Libya).<\/p>\n

D) We accept but do not promote monarchs (e.g., Jordan and the Gulf sheikdoms).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

So we keep hoping for a fifth way of pro-American \u201creformers\u201d that come to power through elections (like a partisan Maliki or corrupt Karzai). But to achieve choice E, we must invade, overthrow tyrants, occupy the country, force reforms and protect the weak legitimate government \u2014 something we are doing in Afghanistan and did in Iraq, but apparently never wish to do again.<\/p>\n

So what are we doing in Syria \u2014 given that bombing may lead to chaos or help al-Qaeda, but not empower pro-Western reformers enough to grasp power, hold elections, and institutionalize legitimate consensual elections?<\/p>\n

Does anyone believe that the insurgents are mostly pro-Western reformers, will come to power by our bombing Assad, and will form a legitimate consensual government that appreciates American help?<\/i><\/p>\n

5) Iraq?<\/b>\u00a0Syria, the administration promises us, is not Iraq. Yes, in terms of blood and treasure it probably will not be as deadly as Afghanistan or Iraq. But the latter two were more costly than Libya because the aims were so much more sweeping \u2014 the creation of constitutional systems, not just the destruction of tyranny and a laissez-faire attitude about the very bad things that follow our bombing and killing. I wish there were a third way, but so far those are the two stark bad choices.<\/p>\n

Tomahawks and Hellfires might even remove Assad, but they most assuredly will not lead to even mediocrities like Karzai and Maliki, warts and all, but rather to something like \u2026 who knows what? (See the choices below.)<\/p>\n

Second, Bush went into Iraq on four premises:<\/p>\n

One, he had over\u00a070% public support<\/a>\u00a0after a year of discussions and debates. Two, he had overwhelming congressional support, so much so that the 23 writs that were passed went beyond even his own\u00a0casus belli.\u00a0<\/i>Three, he labored (in vain) at the United Nations. Four, he had 40 allies in his coalition of the willing.<\/p>\n

All that effort was because Bush had an aim (removal of Saddam Hussein), a methodology (invade and occupy the country in a way we did not in 1991 or during the 12 years of no-fly-zones), and a desired result (some sort of consensual government, or something like the status of the Maliki government\u00a0when Bush left office<\/a>\u00a0in January 2009). You can call it stupid, but there was an \u201cit\u201d to call stupid. There is no such entity in relation to Syria.<\/p>\n

Most Americans supported the Iraq war until the insurgency in 2004 made the implementation of the strategy too costly. Then only a few of us believed that far worse than fighting an unpopular war were the consequences of losing an unpopular war we were in.<\/p>\n

Promising not another Iraq (or for that matter Afghanistan and Libya) is no substitute for explaining the objective, the means, and the desired result.
\n<\/i><\/p>\n

6) Politics:<\/b>\u00a0There are five groups weighing in on the Syrian war.<\/p>\n

First, there are the genuine anti-war liberal Democrats who believe that war, unless we are attacked, is never an answer. Even though Obama is one of them, they (most of the liberal Congress,\u00a0The Nation<\/i>, academics, etc.) will oppose all U.S. interventions \u2014 even his.<\/p>\n

Second are the libertarians and paleocons. They too oppose most U.S. interventions, often on grounds that they rarely serve U.S. interests, enlarge the state, and created imperial responsibilities antithetical to our republican roots. They (The American Conservative<\/i>,\u00a0Reason<\/i>, Rand Paul, etc.) would oppose Syria if a Republican advocated it.<\/p>\n

Third are the mainstream Democrats. They mostly oppose all conservative-inspired U.S. interventions, though not always, at least not always at first. They almost never oppose an intervention\u00a0orchestrated by a Democratic president<\/a>. They (Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid,\u00a0New York Times<\/i>,\u00a0Washington Post<\/i>, etc.) see any defection from a Democrat-inspired war as injurious to a wider Democratic domestic agenda.<\/p>\n

Fourth are Republican establishment figures and neocons, who accept the tragic role of the U.S. as an enforcer of the postwar world. They yearn for the old days of bipartisan interventions to spread democracy and American power and culture, and believe that a Syrian or Libyan bombing against tyrants is both ethical and humane \u2014 and enhances U.S. stature, They\u00a0(John Boehner,\u00a0Weekly Standard<\/i>,\u00a0National Review<\/i>,\u00a0Commentary<\/i>,\u00a0Wall Street Journal<\/i>, etc.) deemed it is as important when in the minority to support the opposition-led intervention as it is when in the majority that the opposition should support them.<\/p>\n

Fifth are independents, conservative Democrats, and unpredictable Republicans who believe that each intervention depends on the circumstances, the likely outcomes, and, especially, the people in charge. In this case, Obama\u2019s Syria makes no sense at all to these group (a hodgepodge crew from the last three categories).<\/p>\n

Unfortunately for the president, groups one, two, and five vastly outnumber groups three and four.<\/p>\n

In the president\u2019s favor, he at last achieved his previously disingenuous goal of bipartisanship: a majority of Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, really do oppose him.<\/i><\/p>\n

7) Outcomes:<\/b>\u00a0There are endless outcome scenarios. Let us list just a few of \u00a0them:<\/p>\n

a) Assad is killed or flees; chaos erupts: Somalia, Sudan.<\/p>\n

b) Assad is killed or flees; Islamists seize power: Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran .<\/p>\n

c) Assad is killed or flees, militias ruin the country: Libya.<\/p>\n

d) Assad sticks it out and wins: Syria reverts to a worse form of pre-2011.<\/p>\n

e) Assad and the insurgents keep endlessly fighting: Afghanistan.<\/p>\n

f) Assad is killed or flees; moderates take over: a temporary version of Iraq<\/p>\n

g) Russia intervenes with supplies and a no-fly zone: who knows?<\/p>\n

h) Hezbollah attacks U.S. interests: Obama does what?<\/p>\n

i)\u00a0 Iran sends missiles and terrorists at U.S. assets: Obama does what?<\/p>\n

j)\u00a0 Assad and Hezbollah launch their missiles at Israel: Israel responds.<\/p>\n

k) Assad comes to the peace table and agrees to an international brokered settlement.<\/p>\n

l)\u00a0 Assad is killed or flees, and the UN and \u201cinternational community\u201d occupy the country.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I believe that the few good scenarios are improbable and the far more bad ones far more likely.
\n<\/i><\/p>\n

None of us like Bashar Assad. His demise would in theory weaken our enemies like Iran and Hezbollah and be a proper punishment for decades of Assad regime murdering and slaughter. But I don\u2019t how this administration, at this particular time, and with its changing rationales, has the knowledge to make Syria a more pro-American or better place, the savvy to win Congress, the American people, and allies to its cause, or the competency and will to carry out its own plans. Rethinking the intervention, and trying something different than bombing because of ill-advised Obama red lines is the more sober and ethical course.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by Victor Davis Hanson \/\/\u00a0PJ Media   1)\u00a0Red lines:\u00a0Does anyone believe we would be on the eve of a war with Syria had not Barack Obama on two occasions \u2014 echoed on two others by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton \u2014\u00a0warned Bashar Assad of red lines\u00a0surrounding the use of WMD?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false,"jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false}}},"categories":[127],"tags":[12,249,210,74,1053,888,1040,527,1016,1037,1030,76],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p466Sb-1FU","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":6483,"url":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/syria-in-a-nutshell\/","url_meta":{"origin":6442,"position":0},"title":"Syria in a Nutshell","author":"victorhanson","date":"September 13, 2013","format":false,"excerpt":"by Victor Davis Hanson \/\/\u00a0NRO's The Corner\u00a0 We are contemplating going to war in Syria to help the opposition a lot and to hurt Assad some, or to help the opposition some and hurt Assad a lot, or to hurt Assad some and help the opposition some, or to force\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Syria"","block_context":{"text":"Syria","link":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/ahref=\/index.php\/categories\/angry-reader\/categorylink\/a\/the-world\/the-middle-east\/syria\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":6487,"url":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/syria-in-the-age-of-myth\/","url_meta":{"origin":6442,"position":1},"title":"Syria in the Age of Myth","author":"victorhanson","date":"September 17, 2013","format":false,"excerpt":"by Victor Davis Hanson \/\/\u00a0PJ Media\u00a0 Myth I. Conservatives opposed to bombing Syria are isolationists. Hardly. It would be better to call conservative skepticism a new Jacksonianism that is not wedded to any Pavlovian support for intervention or particular political party. Instead, Jacksonians wish to husband U.S. power and prestige.\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Syria"","block_context":{"text":"Syria","link":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/ahref=\/index.php\/categories\/angry-reader\/categorylink\/a\/the-world\/the-middle-east\/syria\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":924,"url":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/syrian-ironies\/","url_meta":{"origin":6442,"position":2},"title":"Syrian Ironies","author":"victorhanson","date":"March 9, 2012","format":false,"excerpt":"by Victor Davis Hanson National Review Online The more Bashar Assad butchers Syrian dissidents, the more the world community expresses outrage \u2014 while it does little to stop the bloodletting. Why? Ironies on top of ironies 1.\u00a0The politics of intervention. Republicans might seem the most likely to push for an\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Syria"","block_context":{"text":"Syria","link":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/ahref=\/index.php\/categories\/angry-reader\/categorylink\/a\/the-world\/the-middle-east\/syria\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":5931,"url":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/hope-for-change-in-syria\/","url_meta":{"origin":6442,"position":3},"title":"Hope for Change in Syria","author":"victorhanson","date":"May 9, 2013","format":false,"excerpt":"Once again, Obama has proven more of an idealist than an implementer. by Victor Davis Hanson National Review Online Remember when President Obama used to warn Syria\u2019s Bashar al-Assad to stop his mass killing and step down? Moammar Qaddafi\u2019s dictatorship had just collapsed under Western bombing. The murders of Americans\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Syria"","block_context":{"text":"Syria","link":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/ahref=\/index.php\/categories\/angry-reader\/categorylink\/a\/the-world\/the-middle-east\/syria\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":6074,"url":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/intervention-in-syria-is-a-very-bad-idea\/","url_meta":{"origin":6442,"position":4},"title":"Intervention in Syria Is a Very Bad Idea","author":"victorhanson","date":"June 18, 2013","format":false,"excerpt":"by Victor Davis Hanson National Review Online Syria is turning out to be a sort of Spanish Civil War of our age, with Hezbollah and Iran playing the role of fascist Italy and Germany, and the Islamic nations and jihadists that of Stalin\u2019s Russia, as the moderates disappear and the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Syria"","block_context":{"text":"Syria","link":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/ahref=\/index.php\/categories\/angry-reader\/categorylink\/a\/the-world\/the-middle-east\/syria\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":3360,"url":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/a-middle-east-policy-in-shambles\/","url_meta":{"origin":6442,"position":5},"title":"A Middle East Policy in Shambles","author":"victorhanson","date":"April 10, 2011","format":false,"excerpt":"by Victor Davis Hanson National Review Online Almost every promise, almost every reset proclamation from Barack Obama about the struggles against, and those within, the radical Muslim world has either been withdrawn or proven bankrupt. On the day the president announced his reelection bid, his administration renounced its loud promises\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Foreign Policy"","block_context":{"text":"Foreign Policy","link":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/ahref=\/index.php\/categories\/angry-reader\/categorylink\/a\/obama-administration\/foreign-policy\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6442"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6442"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6442\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6444,"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6442\/revisions\/6444"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6442"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6442"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6442"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}