Making the Case for Syria Intervention

Sen. Bob Casey had an op-ed in Foreign Policy yesterday calling on the United States to "provide non-lethal equipment to vetted elements of the Free Syrian Army." It appears the Obama administration isn't quite ready to do that, as Secretary of State Kerry announced the U.S. would provide military rations and medical equipment. Unfortunately, it's another too tentative step by the Obama administration regarding Syria. I've had my conversion on this issue and I just keep hoping the administration would catch up. Apparently so does Sen. Casey.

As much as I agree with giving non-lethal aid to vetted (how do we do that, I'm not sure) elements of the FSA, there are still a couple things I disagree with in his op-ed. First, I just don't agree with this statement:

Inaction could have grave regional consequences and serve to empower Iran at a time of nuclear uncertainty and embolden Hezbollah, a terrorist organization that has proven its ability and intent to strike in and outside the Middle East.

Now maybe, maybe if Assad is able to crush this rebellion the above statement would be true, but I think we're over the tipping point. There is no going back to status quo ante (you share a blog with a lawyer long enough). Coming from that perspective, state implosion holds little prospects for Iran or Hezbollah. Perhaps they could benefit from the chaos, but they're all in with Assad and his regime, which would make any pivot to a new puppet really difficult. No, the real danger in the unmanaged implosion of Syria is the rise of an Islamic extremist state or safe haven. Sen. Casey fails to mention that threat and instead it feels like he's pandering by raising the specter of Iran (though I'd likely say the same thing if he invoked AQ too).

The second thing I question is if indeed our substantive aid, at this point, would really gain us many friends among the Syrian people. Or rather, would we just be laying the groundwork for the next authoritarians? Now this isn't a reason to not do it, but to think we give them non-lethal and maybe even lethal aid and then they're our friends when Assad falls is a bit of wishful thinking. It's especially wishful thinking in light of our Afghan and Libyan experiences in the most recent past. Again, not a reason to do nothing, but not a good reason to sell it to the American people.

On the whole, I'm with Sen. Casey here and it's hard to sell this sort of thing to the American people, but some of the reasons he outlines misstate the real threat or overstate the real benefit. Let's give the FSA non-lethal aid straight away, but let's be real honest on the situation when we do it.

On Syria: I've Changed My Mind

The New York Times is reporting today that President Obama may be reconsidering his earlier decision to not arm the rebels in Syria. Over the past several weeks, I've been wondering where I stood on this and realized something. I've changed my mind. I believe we should be providing material military assistance to select factions of the Syrian rebel force in several ways. I'll get to how I think we should assist, but first thought it would be more important why I changed my mind.

For me, there are four reasons we should now assist, when in the past I have avoided this. First, I'm always hesitant for the US to get involved with a rebel group until some turning point has been reached. In Syria, it meant the odds needed to be greater that Assad's regime would fall versus maintaining control. Here two weeks back the rebels made overtures to Assad to come to a negotiating table and end the fighting. I believe, to this point, Assad has simply not responded. No pronouncements of defiance, no refusal, just silence. I read this as a sign he wants to keep that door open. When a proud man feels a noose overhead, it's never a good idea to spit at the hangman. But you also don't act in defiance if you know the probability your regime will fall is slightly greater than the alternative. I'm confident, at this point, that there's no going back. Assad's government will fall, it's just a question of lives lost and time.

The second reason is this article citing former Secretary of State Clinton noting that Syrian rebels are receiving messages from parts of Pakistan known to be outposts of Al Qaeda. This is a serious problem because it means those disreputable elements in Pakistan may be assisting some factions in Syria with foreign fighters with an Islamic extremist character and little interest in a secure, moderate Syria post-Assad.

This leads me to the third reason. Put simply the Al-Nusra Front. A fighting group the US has deemed a terrorist organization, they have been highly effective fighters against Assad's government with solid gains on their record. This reason, taken with the last reason, mean we're looking at a hellish brew of Islamic extremist groups winning battles, having arms, and looking to be key parts of a post-Assad regime.

The fourth reason comes from the New York Times piece, citing how Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah are helping prop up their client, Assad. And there's this story of an Iranian Guard commander being killed in Syria. I'm quite confident that already some of our allies in the region are helping get some arms into Syria, likely with our tacit approval. Generally speaking, I detest proxy conflicts. I think it's a dastardly way to fight and damage a foe when you lack the means of conviction to do it face to face (Disclaimer: I am not saying we're better off with a hot war with Russia, Iran, or Hezbollah. More a statement of ideological inclination then policy conviction). But my detesting of the method doesn't preclude the realist in me from thinking we should sit out maintaining purity and losing strategically. I think if there are meddlers, at this point, we ought to meddle as well, insomuch as our Syrian rebel allies would like.

I've pulled a one eighty on this issue. I think we should send arms, military advisers, and political advisers to Syria. I think the rebels need better weapons and better military training. I think we also need civilians on the ground now working with the rebel leadership we have identified as our allies and begin equipping them with the civil society knowledge they'll need to be an attractive alternative to Al Nusra and its Salifist sympathizers.

We've seen this play out before. A country held under the thumb of a dictator and his repressive security apparatus fights and throws off the chains of its dictator. But time and again, we've seen how the revolution was the easy part. It's the governing and compromising that proves a challenges. In so far as the United States can serve as a model and occasionally a helping hand, it should. I was content for the US to sit on the sidelines of this conflict for a long time, but now it's time to get into the game.

Orwell & Iran

Over at Foreign Policy there's an interesting, if a big navel gazing, piece from Roland Elliott Brown. He works to draw parallels from Animal Farm and 1984 to Iran's captured revolution and current state. It's a great read that tries to coax how a novel intended to represent a communist revolution can be expanded to include a theologically driven one.

That Which Wasn't Said at the Hagel Confirmation Hearing

Over at the Washington Post, Max Fisher has tallied up how often some key words were used during the marathon confirmation hearing from SecDef nominee, former senator, Chuck Hagel.  As I noted in  yesterday's closing thought, it seemed like Israel was mentioned a lot.

According to Max Fisher, Israel was mentioned 178 times, just nine ahead of the mark Iran set. Beyond what was mentioned, there were some notable absences from the questions the Senators asked. The number of times Yemen, Mali, Al Qaeda, or drones were mentioned was five. That's five times if you combine all those subjects.

It's a gross figure and many of these topics might have been sitting behind references to terrorism (76 mentions, or less than half as many mentions of Israel) and certainly a confirmation hearing is about prodding the nominee on his or her record. To that end, one anticipated many mentions of Israel and Iran based on past statements by Sen. Hagel. 

But I find it almost unconscionable that a nominee for Secretary of Defense wasn't questioned about Al Qaeda or the two countries they are at their strongest, and it's near dereliction of duty by these senators to not seek some sort of stance on drones from a potential new secretary of defense. Then again, maybe that's a settled argument and I just haven't agreed on the settlement.

A Seized Boat, Yemen, and Iran

Yemeni authorities, with assistance from the US military, seized a dhow in Yemen's territorial waters. The boat was loaded with weapons, explosives, and cash. Yemeni authorities believe the boat's cargo originated in Iran, and the US agrees with that intelligence assessment. If that suspicion is confirmed, it would further complicate US-Iran relations.

The trouble is the Yemeni government has long used Iran as a boogey man, sometimes rightly, but often times to win political points. As to the goal Iran might have, most likely they are trying to "needle the Saudis" in every way possible.