Secretary of State Kerry wants some quick air strikes on Syrian air fields. The Department of Defense doesn't want discreet air strikes on Syrian air fields without extensive bombardment of air defense sites; and wants to know what we do after those air field strikes.
I don't think Assad's air power is decisive enough for us to intervene against that part of Assad's arsenal. But if Kerry could articulate an objective for directly intervening in the air that approached victory, I could be persuaded.
But Kerry does not seek to achieve victory:
Kerry, ... while arguing that these shipments may become a “force multiplier” in the conflict, thinks that only a show of American air power will convince Assad and his Hezbollah allies that the U.S. is making a serious attempt to level a playing field that has been tilting their way for some time[.]
If we have reason to intervene in a war, we should have reason to intervene in order to help one side win. Intervening to simply prolong the fighting is kind of cruel, isn't it? Sure, at some level having al Qaeda and Hezbollah shooting at each other with Assad being run through the grinder in the process is kind of neat. But we can't calibrate a war that finely. Better to decide who'd we'd rather lose the war and assist the other side in beating the side we want to lose. And if we can get some of our enemies to defeat other enemies? That's pretty darned neat, too, you must admit.
And really, wouldn't Assad be comforted rather than frightened that our objective is--as Kerry wants--simply to balance the fight rather than seek Assad's defeat? If the worst I knew I had to face was a level playing field, I think I'd keep trying to win rather than agree to a peace that leaves me with less than victory. I swear, this nuance stuff just doesn't make sense to me, sometimes.
I think we should want Assad to lose. So help the rebels win. Send them RPGs, heavy machine guns and 23mm anti-aircraft cannons, recoilless rifles, anti-tank mines, medium and heavy mortars, and long-range rockets. But no anti-aircraft missiles. Worry about the jihadis within the Sunni side victors later. And then battle them, of course.
UPDATE: Keep Kerry away from war decisions. His existing responsibilities in Iraq (because our military isn't there) argue for him to spend more time on Iraq and perhaps to suggest we end the Syria Revolution rather than level the playing field so it can drag out. Iraq is at risk:
Iraq is being buffeted by both sides in the civil war raging across its border in Syria and Baghdad's official policy of neutrality is at risk as the conflict spirals into a region-wide proxy war, its foreign minister said.
I can never forgive President Obama for appointing this man to this position.
UPDATE: While it is difficult to actually type these words, Fareed Zakaria addresses the folly of calibrated military force for the purpose of nuanced diplomatic gains. It's worth a read. The keys burn my fingers as I write that. But honor requires me to not just pick on the idiocy.
UPDATE: Is "stupid" a job requirement in this administration's foreign policy apparatus?
On the bright side, since they are all liberals nobody will insist this is a racist trait reflecting all who share their liberal views.
And I added the link to the initial article. Sorry.
UPDATE: Thanks to Stones Cry Out for the link. Yes, what does it say about who is doing the hiring?
