Ready, Aim, Fire! When Assad is dead and Syria is free.

#Syria #Assad #Damascus #FreeSyria #Kerry #Congress #Obama 

   There are two basic theories of international relations, idealism and realism. Idealism is a belief that international law and international resolutions can solve the problems we face and that international governing bodies, mainly the United Nations can effectively address the perils of the world and mitigate international conflict. 

  Realism argues that states, like individual actors are self interested and recognizes that the international governing bodies are not substantially strong enough to address security issues because self interest persists in the voting behavior on the UN security council meaning that UN actions are often inadequate at enforcing international norms and at times, security or humanitarian crisis are at odds with the national interests of UN countries. 

  With realism as our model of understanding international behavior an interesting observation is the reality that nuclear armed nations have never gone to war with each other.  Its among the closest things to a scientific law in international relations.    Jervis Theory argues that nuclear armed nations will not fight each other as long their leadership is rational and they populations held accountable.  During the cold war this was the topic, and all sorts of strike, counter-strike capabilities and how they would alter the calculus of the other came into play.  

   Post 9/11, experts in Jervis Theory recognized that non-state actors with nuclear weapons, especially if wielded by rogue leaders that irrational, or terrorist group leaders lacking civilian populations they concerned with exist, then jervis theory falls apart.  And so the threat analysis shifted away from Russia and wars with nuclear armed countries to the nexus of rogue leaders, weapons of mass destruction and terrorist groups.  That is why we went after Saddam who was a rogue leader with weapons of mass destruction and Al-Qaeda, a group we saw as willing to use such weapons if they could procure them.  While the weapons of mass destruction were not as far along as intel estimates suggested and the described locations on certain occasions were wrong, Saddam had wmds and while his involvement with Al-Qaeda was limited, the threat assessment was not wrong.  While the post invasion nation building efforts were loaded with mistakes, the initial decision to go to war was not.  The attacks prompted Gaddafi in Libya to give up his nuclear weapons to the United States and for Iran to halt its uranium enrichment programs.  

   The most likely reality is that the regime in Syria, lead by Bashar Al-Assad has used chemical weapons against rebels fighting in Damascus.  Even if it were Al-Qaeda aligned rebels using chemical weapons they procured from Iraq or Syria, the threat assessment persists and the need to eliminate the wmds is of higher priority than defeating either the terrorist groups or the rogue leader.  If Barack Obama were to have avoided backing up his insistence that using chemical weapons would cross a thin read line, his threats to Iran about their nuclear program would also cease to be credible.  There is no clear positive outcome in Syria, especially in light of recent events in Egypt and so the idea of aggressively facilitating rebel victory or leading on some false hope that an acceptable democracy will emerge in Syria is incorrect and irresponsible.  The chemical weapons need to be destroyed and cruise missiles outside of retaliatory reach from Syria is the safest way to accomplish that end.  

  With Israel's defenses prepared and close coordination with Turkey and Jordan, destroyers in position America is ready to let its Tomahawk missiles do the talking.  The targets are everything related to the chemical weapons programs of Syria and the battalions or regiments known to have a direct impact in their handling along with the command and control.  The goal of the attack is to show that the usage of Chemical weapons will not go unpunished.  While the ends are limited, it backs the credibility of America and its leadership that actions contrary to our presidents word will have severe consequences.  It is important that coordination is made with regional counter-terrorism units to launch preventative against Hezbollah and other  groups that pose retaliatory risks within the United States.  

  Military command should consider what other weaponry in our arsenal can be used to effectively reduce the war fighting capability of Assad and eliminate his arsenal of chemical weapons and their delivery systems.  America will also need to stay in close correspondence with international allies, particularly in the region and be ready to provide assistance to defend against the irrational behavior of Assad's regime.  Congress should consider legislation backing the operation and possibly a formal declaration of war.

   The risks of striking at the Syrian regime are less risky than the statement that inaction would make.  While there is always a risk of escalation, discipline to limit the strikes to the limited end of wiping out chemical weapons and avoiding getting too heavily involved in the fighting on the ground is the prudent and wisest move, with targeting of Assad either by cruise missile, predator drone or even special forces the next choices of escalation are full on invasion and the clearing of Damascus, and installation of the free syrian government as peace agreements with the military and technocrats of Baathist regime are made and the Sunni rebels turn on the Al-Qaeda linked remnants of the opposition.   For now, however, I would advise playing it safe and lobbing cruise missiles to punish from a safe distance and hold the credibility of your word.