Tag: Syria
Turkey’s role in Syria
The Middle East Institute held its fourth annual conference on Turkey Friday, as Prime Minister Erdogan sought to bring an end to demonstrations against him through a combination of negotiation and crackdown. An impressive group of speakers and regional experts tackled today’s most pressing issues, including dynamics with Iran and Iraq, the future of Turkish-Kurdish relations, and the ongoing conflict in Syria. Of particular note was a morning panel titled “Crisis in Syria: Can Turkey Rise to the Challenge?”
Prior to the Arab Spring, Turkey favored a “no problems with neighbors policy.” Seeking to avoid costly military entanglements and rivalries, Turkey embraced economic partnerships and pursued mutual interests with regional partners in order to strengthen its geopolitical position. The current protest movement notwithstanding, Turkey is perceived as a model worth emulating that balances democratic institutions with the role of Islam. Its model has been favored by both the West and moderate forces in the greater Middle East. Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
At last
In a statement this evening, deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes said:
Following a deliberative review, our intelligence community assesses that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons, including the nerve agent sarin, on a small scale against the opposition multiple times in the last year. Our intelligence community has high confidence in that assessment given multiple, independent streams of information. The intelligence community estimates that 100 to 150 people have died from detected chemical weapons attacks in Syria to date; however, casualty data is likely incomplete. While the lethality of these attacks make up only a small portion of the catastrophic loss of life in Syria, which now stands at more than 90,000 deaths, the use of chemical weapons violates international norms and crosses clear red lines that have existed within the international community for decades. We believe that the Assad regime maintains control of these weapons. We have no reliable, corroborated reporting to indicate that the opposition in Syria has acquired or used chemical weapons.
The consequences that follow from this are, however, not yet clear. Ben said this much:
Put simply, the Assad regime should know that its actions have led us to increase the scope and scale of assistance that we provide to the opposition, including direct support to the [opposition] Supreme Military Council. These efforts will increase going forward.
The rest is left vague:
The United States and the international community have a number of other legal, financial, diplomatic, and military responses available. We are prepared for all contingencies, and we will make decisions on our own timeline. Any future action we take will be consistent with our national interest, and must advance our objectives, which include achieving a negotiated political settlement to establish an authority that can provide basic stability and administer state institutions; protecting the rights of all Syrians; securing unconventional and advanced conventional weapons; and countering terrorist activity.
That last bit in governmentese is the “end-state” we seek. It is important, as courses of action are designed with the end-state as their target.
Rumint (or maybe I should call it pressint, but I’m not providing a link because I despise the Wall Street Journal pay wall) has it that Washington is contemplating both arming the opposition and establishing a no-fly zone in northern Syria, along the Turkish border. These are the two options least likely to provoke the Russians and Chinese. Certainly maintaining their participation in the P5+1 talks with Iran is an unstated part of the end-state Obama seeks.
I’m not sure what to make of this statement being put out by Ben, who is close to the President but a couple of steps down in the White House pecking order. I imagine someone higher up didn’t want the privilege, since the steps to be taken are still not fully defined. Certainly the president could not have put out a statement of this sort without being ridiculed for indecisiveness, lack of resolve and being behind the curve. It may well be that Ben pushed for something to be said and ended up with the not entirely edifying responsibility.
The reluctance to act is palpable. But we are on what some think of as a slippery slope. The question is how far we will go. Only time will tell.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Syria options
With Washington still undecided what to do about Syria, it is time to look again at military options. The regime is doing well enough on the battlefield that it won’t be much interested in a serious negotiated solution. The opposition won’t want one on the terms the regime would accept.
I see three basic military options at this point:
- Arm the rebels. It takes time. It will kill more people. The arms may fall into the wrong hands and be used for the wrong purposes. But it makes the Syrians responsible for their own fate and may strengthen relative moderates, if we can get weapons into the right hands. Some might prefer it be done covertly, though it is unlikely to stay secret for long. Nothing does these days.
- Safe haven/humanitarian corridor/no-fly zone. These are all to a first approximation the same thing. If successfully instituted, they would presumably save lives and enable the opposition to begin governing, as the Kurds did in northern Iraq under Saddam Hussein. But they require patrolling by US (or allied) aircraft, which means the Syrian air defenses have to be taken down first. That is an act of war that would provide invaluable intelligence to the Syrians (and therefore also the Iranians) on our operating capabilities and signatures. Safe havens did not work well in Bosnia–it was their failure that led to the bombing that turned the tide of war, not their success.
- Nail the Syrian air force, Scuds and communication nodes. This too would be an act of war, but one that does not require continued patrolling. It might even be possible without taking down the Syrian air defenses (the Israelis don’t seem to have bothered with that in nailing missile shipments to Hizbollah or Syria’s clandestine nuclear reactor). But we won’t get everything. The Syrians will bunker their more precious items under ground and park their tanks and artillery next to schools and mosques, fearing they will be the next targets. If the Bosnian war is to be taken as a guide, it would be best also to go after military communication nodes. The regime’s ability to coordinate its forces, which depends on communications, is a big advantage over the fragmented opposition.
Options 2 and 3 require the use of US forces, which needs to be justified on the basis of vital American interests. Two are most in evidence right now:
- A regime victory in Syria would be a major regional triumph for Iran, ensuring its link to Hizbollah in Lebanon, putting pressure on Iraq to toe ever more Tehran’s line, and endangering Israel.
- Continued fighting will weaken state structures in the Levant, including Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Turkey. The resulting chaos could create a breeding ground for Al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists.
The use of force, presumably without UN Security Council approval, would infuriate Russia and China. Their cooperation is still important to the P5+1 nuclear negotiations with Iran. Russia’s cooperation in maintaining the Northern Distribution Network is important to the drawdown of American troops from Afghanistan.
Then there are the American people. War weary and budget fatigued, they are not anxious for another Middle East war, especially since domestic oil production is up dramatically and dependence on Middle Eastern producers declining.
Not a pretty set of options, but if we do nothing at this point we’ll have to live not only with our consciences but also with the results.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks, June 10-14
1. Drones and the Future of Counterterrorism in Pakistan, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Monday, June 10 / 5:00pm – 6:30pm
Venue: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, D.C. 20036
Speakers: Frederic Grare, Samina Ahmed
The future use of drones in Pakistan is uncertain after President Obama’s recent speech on national security. Washington has now satisfied some of the demands of Pakistan’s incoming prime minister, Nawaz Sharif. But while drone strikes were seen in Islamabad as a violation of the country’s sovereignty, they were also arguably an effective counterterrorism mechanism. Samina Ahmed will discuss the future use of drones in Pakistan. Frederic Grare will moderate.
Register for the event here:
http://carnegieendowment.org/2013/06/10/drones-and-future-of-counterterrorism-in-pakistan/g7f0
2. Tyranny of Consensus: A Reception with Author Janne E. Nolan, Century Foundation, Monday, June 10 / 5:00pm – 6:30pm
Venue: Stimson Center, 1111 19th Street Northwest, 12th Floor, Washington D.C., DC 20036
Speakers: Janne E. Nolan
In “Tyranny of Consensus,” Nolan examines three cases-the Islamic Revolution in Iran, the proxy war with the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, and the 1998 embassy bombings in East Africa-to find the limitations of American policy-makers in understanding some of the important developments around the world. Assisted by a working group of senior practitioners and policy experts, Nolan finds that it is often the impulse to protect the already arrived at policy consensus that is to blame for failure. Without access to informed discourse or a functioning “marketplace of ideas,” policy-makers can find themselves unable or unwilling to seriously consider possible correctives even to obviously flawed strategies.
Register for the event here:
http://tcf.org/news_events/detail/tyranny-of-consensus-a-reception-with-author-janne-e.-nolan
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Power, Power and Rice
While some are predicting (or hoping for) big changes in American foreign policy in the liberal interventionist/human rights first direction with the appointments of Susan Rice as national security adviser and Samantha Power as UN ambassador, I doubt it.
Both have already left marks on US foreign policy, Samantha through the Atrocities Prevention Board and Susan in the Libya intervention and many other efforts at the UN, including the successful use of its Human Rights Commission to report on atrocities in Syria. I wouldn’t suggest these are enormous departures from the past, but they certainly reflect the view that saving foreigners from mass atrocity has its place in US p0licy and needs to be given due consideration along with more traditional national interests of the military, political and economic varieties.
The main “to intervene or not” issue today is Syria. Susan and Samantha have both already been involved in internal debates on Syria, where President Obama ignored the advice of Hillary Clinton, David Petraeus and Leon Panetta. They all advised a more interventionist stance. It is the president, not the advisers, who is choosing not to try to stop the Syrian civil war, largely because of issues unrelated to Syria: Russian support on the withdrawal from Afghanistan and in the nuclear negotiations with Iran, not to mention the American public’s war weariness and the parlous budget situation. No doubt someone at the Pentagon is also telling him that allowing extremist Sunnis and Shia to continue killing each other in Syria is in the US interest. Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Wishing doesn’t make it so
Yesterday’s report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syria to the UN Human Rights Commission is an extraordinary piece of work, even if I find myself balking at its treacly opposition to arms supplies. Do they really think blocking the availability of weapons to the opposition would limit the violence?
But that is a quibble. The report in many other respects is a paragon of international community virtue. It catalogues the horrors of the war with precision and restraint:
This report documents for the first time the systematic imposition of sieges, the use of chemical agents and forcible displacement. War crimes, crimes against humanity and gross human rights violations continue apace. Referral to justice remains paramount.
While documenting abuses on both sides, the report is clear about proportions:
The violations and abuses committed by anti-Government armed groups did not, however, reach the intensity and scale of those committed by Government forces and militia.
RSS - Posts
