After Democrats supported war with Iraq's Saddam Hussein for a number of reasons besides the intelligence that said he had active chemical weapons programs and stockpiles, we did not find active programs or recently manufactured chemical weapons. Yes, we found the raw materials, facilities, and personnel ready to resume production, but there were no WMD.
That lack of WMD allowed Democrats to recant their support for war and insist that only the presence of chemical weapons justified the war against Iraq under Saddam's control. Which is a problem for President Obama on Syria. Having insisted that only chemical weapons would have kept them in support of the Iraq War, actual use of chemical weapons by Assad in Syria paints Democrats into a corner to support war against Assad.
It seems like we are moving toward a Kosovo/Libya blend of war. We'll gather a core of Western nations around France and Britain to join us in air and missile strikes on Syria:
The US has a group of three destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean, which it has bolstered with a fourth, the USS Mahan. Britain has four warships, the Navy’s flagship HMS Bulwark, a helicopter carrier and two frigates off Albania. France has Rafale and Mirage jets based in the United Arab Emirates which could potentially reach Syria, though the US airbases at Incirlik and Izmir in Turkey and the RAF base at Akrotiri in Cyprus are more likely launch points for any offensive.
And we have a small force of F-16s, Patriot missiles, and a forward divisional headquarters in Jordan, plus lots of stuff in nearby NATO Europe.
If we don't have two cruise missile submarines (with about 150 cruise missiles each) in range, I'll be shocked.
Turkey (which has said it would join a non-UN authorized coalition), Cyprus (with a British air base and a place to house refugees or evacuated people), Jordan (which already hosts US forces), and Gulf Arab states (which already send arms to Sunni rebels) will provide territory and token forces (and will defend their own territory, as appropriate).
No Democrats will mock this coalition or complain about the lack of UN blessing or even bring up the War Powers Act.
My question is whether all this talk of a "no-fly zone" is really about a no-fly zone or is an aerial campaign against Assad's forces and assets. Remember, we tricked the UN into granting us authority to implement a "no-fly zone" that we quickly changed from preventing Libyan planes from flying to becoming the rebel air force which we used to bomb Khaddafi's ground forces.
I suspect we are edging into a Kosovo-style NATO-based coalition with a Libya-style air campaign with few special forces on the ground and no possibility of US ground forces going into Syria. A one-off attack doesn't do anything to alter the war and simply helps President Obama argue he "did something."
And yet, we might strike a king without trying to kill him, in worship of that false god of "proportionality:"
Obama and his aides have taken pains to answer the final question as conclusively as possible. No "boots on the ground. No “no-fly zone.” This is the rare international crisis in which American officials publicly and loudly take options off the proverbial table.
But this is so stupid that if boggles my mind that we might follow that script. If Assad thinks that he was able to ride out that brief retaliation easily enough, Assad will use chemical weapons again and again, figuring the worst we will do is fling some cruise missiles in response.
But if the logic of using military force effectively wins out over politics and we try to defeat Assad, the war will begin with a surge of missiles to hit Syrian air defense assets which will be followed by strike missions, and perhaps we defend the border areas from the air to allow rebels to organize in safe zones within Syria.
But we won't have the advantage of having the entire theater close to the sea where we could easily reach every target (as in Libya). Assad could inflict casualties on us with more and better forces (but we're still way better, have no doubt). Assad might actually fire at our ships if we get too close to shore.
Hell, Assad might fling chemical-tipped missiles at targets (maybe at our forces) in Turkey and Jordan, or even Israel to desperately split the Arab members of our coalition away.
I still find it ridiculous that we are finally moved to action over several hundred dead from chemical weapons after well over 100,000 dead by more usual methods weren't enough.
I find it ridiculous that we haven't been vigorously supporting non-jihadi rebels from the beginning, in the ridiculous notion peddled by Secretary of State Clinton that we might "militarize" the Syrian crisis if we did so!
So we'll belatedly act directly when we could have waged war indirectly.
Remember, the best response should be to open up the arms spigots. Despite press coverage that says Assad regained momentum this summer, I did not see Assad as capable of breaking the rebels with this offensive. Assad has not. And the rebels are still pressuring the Assad government.
General Dempsey even stated this directly:
The Syrian government seems to have made gains in the country’s civil conflict in recent weeks, taking over more urban areas—and now, new reports point to the use of chemical weapons by the government. But the United States' top general says Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s recent “momentum” is unsustainable.
“[Assad] appears to be gaining momentum, but I don't think it'll be sustainable,” Gen. Martin Dempsey told "On the Radar" in a sit-down interview recorded before the most recent reports of a major chemical attack.
Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, described the Syrian war as one that “ebbs and flows” and said that, although Assad may have superior weaponry and has made gains in urban areas, these advantages will not be enough to ultimately defeat the opposing rebels.
Strategypage has the same conclusion, noting--as I did--that Assad may know he is not winning and that is why he resorted to chemical weapons despite the risk of American intervention:
Despite the reinforcements provided by Iran (Shia mercenaries from all over and Hezbollah units from Lebanon) the rebels are still advancing. This may explain the alleged army use of nerve gas recently, as conventional methods and lots of troops had not been able to remove rebels from several Damascus suburbs or halt the terrorist attacks inside the capital.
There is no reason Assad should survive this war. Despite mistakes that brought us to this point, if President Obama has finally decided to do something to make sure Assad does go, our president deserves our support as our forces go into action. We should want to win. That's what I've been saying all along, after all.
