Let's Not Do Syria

For John, BLUF:  Let's not do Syria, but we may have to.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

Mr Lee Smith,♠ writing in the Weekly Standard, talks about the US, Israel and Syria (and other nations.  The title is "Our Strategic Ally's Strategic Clarity:  Israel sees Syria as part of its Iran problem—why doesn't Obama?"

Israel’s air campaign this past weekend, its two strikes Friday and Sunday on Syrian targets, shows where the Obama administration has gotten Syria wrong.  Over the last few weeks, the White House has framed its Syria policy, or its lack of one, in terms of Bashar al-Assad’s chemical weapons arsenal and the growing strength of the Islamist opposition, including al Qaeda affiliates.  With these talking points, the administration has managed to tie up its critics on two fronts.

First, the debate over whether or not Assad crossed Obama’s red line by using chemical weapons has obscured the fact that for over two years the White House has failed to take an active position in Syria and advance American interests by toppling an Iranian ally.  The longer deliberations over the chemical weapons/red line story drag on the better it is for an administration that is simply using it to play for more time—to do nothing.

Second, concerns over the growing presence of Islamist elements among the rebels shelters the administration from critics who charge that its Syria policy is a strategic disaster, as well as from those who say it is a moral failure.  By repeatedly emphasizing, and likely over exaggerating, the strength of al Qaeda, the White House means to show that any strategic gains to be had in setting back Iranian interests in Syria would be offset by empowering Islamist fighters.  As for the humanitarian argument, the administration’s implicit rejoinder is that since such a large part of the rebellion is made up of al Qaeda, these are not really innocent civilians who deserve American help.  As the conventional wisdomnow has it, “there are no good guys in Syria.”

So, here is Mr Smith's bottom line:

The latest attacks on Syrian targets, like Israel’s January raid on an arms convoy destined for Hezbollah, are all part of the same campaign.  It shows that Israel sees Iran’s regional project strategically, and Syria as part of greater whole.  Why doesn’t the White House?

But, this is not the only way of viewing things.

Lee Smith clearly belongs to the group who wants Obama to "do something about Syria" , which means, to them, military action.  I disagree that Obama has no policy on Syria; it's just not what the war party wants to hear.  The Administration's approach is clear: (1) no US ground forces in Syria, (2) no US support for radical Islamic militias, (3) support for Jordan, a long-time ally that is threatened by refugees and arms trafficking, (4) help NATO ally Turkey cope with its own large refugee situation, (5) train select militias and provide non-weapon military equipment/intelligence, (6) work closely with the nascent exile Syrian government-in-waiting and (7) station SOF and USMC in or near Jordan to be available should the Syrian situation appear headed towards either Assad collapse and religio-ethnic turmoil or a dominant position of a radical Islamic coalition.  Given the sluggish US economy, the deficit (actually declining) and the impact of the sequester, I would think bi-partisan support for NOT adding more defense operational missions with large price tags would be easy.  But, apparently not.

So, how are we doing?  Where should we go?

	R2P Demands we intervene in Syria now.
	Lee Smith is correct and we need to take a more strategic view of Syria.
	The unknown person with 7 points nails it.
	We need to help Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and Israel with refugees, but otherwise hands off.
	Something else that I describe in the comments.
pollcode.com free polls

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Lee Smith is a Senior Editor at The Weekly Standard and a visiting fellow at the Hudson Institute, writes extensively on Arab and Islamic affairs and U.S. Middle East policy.