What Are We Doing Vis-a-Via Syria?

For John, BLUF:  Do you have any money invested in Syria?  WHy should you care?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

There are two interesting aspects to President Obama's decision to provide small arms and ammunition to the Syrian rebels, three actually.  Per this article from the International Herald Tribune the decision was not lightly taken, and when taken was because of serious pressure on the White House to do so (and also to not do so).

Anne-Marie Slaughter, a former director of policy planning♠ in Mr. Obama’s State Department, said her onetime boss so clearly wanted to be a domestic president and yet could not remain at a distance from the Syria conflict because it could set the Middle East in flames. Already, she noted, it has helped destabilize Iraq, Lebanon and Turkey and flooded refugees into Jordan.

This paragraph reminds one of the fact that the 911 attack reoriented President George W Bush from Domestic Attention and attention to issues with Mexico and Latin America to issues on the other side of the globe.  The United States needed a President with a Western Hemisphere orientation, but it was all lost early in the Administration.

Then there is the question of why exactly we are sticking our toe into these waters.  That is best summed up by Professor Zbigniew Brzezinski:

Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was President Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser, said he was “baffled” by Mr. Obama’s decision to become more deeply involved. “What exactly is our objective?” he asked. “It’s not clear to me that every nondemocratic government in the world has to be removed by force.”

The Syria war is a struggle for power, not democracy, he said. “Is that something we should be engaged in?”

The third issue is that of Hezbollah, the Lebanon based Shia group that uses terrorism as its tool for advancing its agenda.  Perhaps one should say agendas, since it has one with regard to Israel and another with regard to Lebanon, and now one with regard to Syria, in concert with Iran.  To what degree do we wish to engage Hezbollah?

Going back to Porfessor Brzezinski, "What exactly is our objective?"  That is the key question.  How would you answer that?

	Replace him now. Assad is an Evil man and whoever follows will be better.
	Assad is a brutal dictator. However, he keeps the tribal fighting under control, mostly.
	Assad is not any worse than an al Qaeda replacement.
	Assad is not any worse than a Muslim Brotherhood replacement.
	Arab Spring Democratic forces will win out if we help.
	This is a local Arab fight and we should stay out.
	This is a local ethnic issue, with many factions, and we should stay out.
	Syria? Where is that?
pollcode.com free polls

As one of my friends noted:

The Administration is trying to be half-pregnant, while the Iranians are all in.  The stakes are huge.  We'll see how this works out.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Policy Planning is the State Department think tank.  It was as Director of Policy Planning that George Kennan developed the Cold War "Containment Strategy", for made public as an article in Foreign Affairs magazine in an article by "Mr X".  Now Professor Anne-Marie Slaughter held an important position in our national security apparatus.  Ms Slaughter is also famous for her Summer 2012 article in The Atlantic, titled "Why Women Still Can't Have it All".