Everyone's a Loser in Syria

With Russia's entry into the bag of dog doo that is Syria, the chattering classes are all astir over who's up, who's down, who's winning and who's losing.  Russia is the usual nominee for winner.  But what exactly has Russia won?  It can't win the war.  Between ISIS, the Kurds and various other rebel groups, most of Syria is no longer in the hands of the Assad regime.  Russia can't afford to commit the tens of thousands of ground troops, equipment and air power that would be needed to retake and hold all this ground, and the Assad regime's army appears too depleted to mount the major offensives that would be needed.  All Russia can do is prop up an Assad rump regime in western Syria that would be under constant attack.  That would mean an indefinite commitment to a war with no end in sight and no possibility of a Russian victory.  

Russia's puppet in Syria, Bashar al-Assad, isn't a winner; he has only avoided becoming a big loser.  His diminished army can't reconquer what he's lost in Syria.  Russian air strikes will allow him to bolster his lines and tighten up his defenses.  But a few dozen Russian air craft don't begin to provide enough air power to support an offensive that could retake all of Syria.  At the same time, Assad's authority is diminished.  Now, he will have to do whatever Putin tells him to do, and like it, as well.

The Iranians, who apparently negotiated an alliance of sorts with Russia, have had their weakness revealed.  For all their bluster and unacknowledged efforts to build nuclear weapons, they don't have the strength to prop up a two-bit dictator in a small nation.  They had to call in first, their Hezbollah allies, and then Russia.  Maybe the Iranians are claiming a propaganda victory.  But they just ceded power to Vlad the Invader, and it's generally a bad idea to give power to an aggressive despot.  Has the Islamic Iranian government forgotten that one reason Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi allied himself so closely with the United States was because the Russians wanted to take over Iran after World War II?

The Shiite dominated government of Iraq has cozied up to Russia and allowed Russian military planes to fly over Iraqi air space in order to reach Syria. Maybe it had no choice; its Iranian handlers could have told it to cuddle up to Putin.  But, reality is you can't be an ally of America and an ally of Russia.  If the Iraqis snuggle up to Putin too much, America may not provide as much military equipment or intelligence to Iraq as it once did.  It may see less value in supporting a Shiite government in Baghdad and perhaps more value in supporting the Kurds.

The Sunni rebel groups--ranging from ISIS to the various metastasizes of al Qaeda to the tiny and shrinking handful of moderate rebels supported by the United States--are ships out of luck.  They can't win, not with Russian military assets located in and protecting western Syria.  They will be battered by Russian air power, and will have to hunker down.

Saudi Arabia and its Sunni allies have quietly been supporting various of Assad's opponents, hoping to unseat him and install a Sunni-friendly government.  That ain't happening now, not with Russian soldiers in Latakia.

The Kurds have enjoyed notable success in Syria, carving out safe havens for themselves and others who aren't Sunni or Shiite crazies.  But Russian air power will likely preclude further Kurdish gains.  The Kurds will have to concentrate on holding what they have.

Turkey has been fighting Russia for centuries.  Now, with Russian military aircraft in Syria, the Russians just flanked Turkey and can hit it from two sides.  Not that Putin has expressed any unfriendly intentions toward Turkey, but given the centuries of war between these two nations, nothing needs to be said.

Israel has been fighting various Russian allies almost since its inception.  Never, however, have Russian military assets been so closely positioned to Israel.  Had Iran been so brazen as to station military aircraft in Latakia, Israel's more advanced air force would have swarmed in the next morning before dawn and walloped the warm living yogurt out of the Iranians.  But Israel cannot attack Russian forces.  It can only watch, and hope that Syria proves to be a hopeless morass for Russia.

And last, but not least, the United States has seen its modest influence in Syria diminish even more.  By propping up Assad, Putin precludes any possibility of an American victory.  Not that it matters since, at this point, America isn't even really engaged in Syria.  The Obama administration issues a steady stream of press releases about Syria, but it's doing little more than talking. Since it's not engaged in Syria, it doesn't have the leverage to get the Russians out.  Hopes that Russia will join hands with the U.S. in attacking ISIS are delusional.  ISIS has weakened America's position in the Middle East.  Why would Putin want to weaken ISIS, which is doing the dirty work for him?  All he needs to do is prop up Assad, his puppet in Syria, while ISIS and America batter away at each other, neither able to conclusively defeat the other.

In the end, the absence of anyone strong enough to impose peace and order in Syria means that the country will be de facto partitioned.  That's what happened to Yugoslavia.  It's what's happening now in Iraq.  The flood of refugees into Europe will continue.  The truth is everyone is a loser in Syria.

How To Beat ISIS

It's clear that conventional warfare won't beat ISIS.  The Iraqi Army is a joke, and not a very funny one.  Whatever it does, it doesn't fight.  The Shiite militias in Iraq can't be expected to succeed in the mostly Sunni areas of Iraq now controlled by ISIS,  because they present too much risk of sectarian conflict.  The U.S. isn't going to send in ground troops to fight for the Baghdad regime (nor should it).  The Kurds, like the Shiites, can't effectively take and hold Sunni majority areas.  So how to beat ISIS?

Stop fighting World War II.  There isn't a conventional force available that can realistically be expected to beat ISIS, and probably won't be one for the foreseeable future.  Instead, hoist the Islamic insurgents on their own petard.  Sponsor insurgency against ISIS.

The problem ISIS has is that it is trying to establish a caliphate--an actual country representing the promised land of ISIS's ideology.  ISIS doesn't merely conquer.  It endeavors to establish governments, social order and a functioning economy.  If it succeeds at nation building, its legitimacy will be heightened. 

The United States, although the most powerful nation in the world, is in the uncomfortable position of being weaker in Iraq and Syria than ISIS.  Time to take a page from insurgents going back to Ho Chi Minh and Mao Tse-Tung.  When you're weak, go asymmetric.  America doesn't have armored columns to roll into ISIS-land.  The armor was surrendered by the Iraqi Army to ISIS.  Giving the Iraqis more conventional weapons may turn out to be provisioning ISIS even more.  Remember that to this day, Iran flies American F-14 and F-4 fighter-bombers. 

Instead, America should foment rebellion against ISIS.  This would be rebellion by the Sunni population in the areas where ISIS governs.  ISIS imposes a very harsh, medieval form of Islam, complete with diverse and sundry outrages such as televised beheadings, burnings, shootings, and so on.  As time passes, more and more of the population under ISIS's heel will likely harbor desires to turn their Kalashnikovs on their draconian overlords. Organized nations provide easy targets for insurgencies, since governments have to operate openly.  Their facilities, personnel and infrastructure can all be attacked.  ISIS would expend substantial resources trying to defend itself internally, leaving fewer resources for further territorial aggresion.  Predictably, ISIS would respond to insurrection harshly, and that in turn would harden hearts and minds among the oppressed.  The rebellion would continue apace.

Of course, American-supplied weapons for such an insurgency could some day be turned against America.  That was a problem in Afghanistan, when the CIA helped to arm and train Afghan rebels fighting the Soviet occupation.  But would we be better off with a Soviet/Russian controlled Afghanistan today?  What would a guy like Vlad the Invader (you know, that Putin fellow) do if he had Afghanistan as a launching pad for further territorial aggression?

We have no effective conventional options in Iraq.  Let's go unconventional.  Let's go asymmetric.

Fighting ISIS: Are We Ready To Invade Syria?

As Congress mulls the issue of authorizing the President to wage war against the Islamic State, there is a lot of discussion of how much involvement U.S. troops should have.  Should they be involved in training, advisory roles during combat, or actual combat?  But these may put the cart before the horse.  Before talking about where on the battlefield U.S. troops should be located, we should talk about what it would take to win the war. 

The Islamic State's attractiveness to its young, disaffected recruits is that, more than anything else, it is a caliphate--an actual geographic location where Islam in its supposed purest form can prevail.  ISIS offers a promised land to go to, a place where you can not only go yourself, but take your family and raise your children (as some jihadists have done).  You aren't just fighting for a cause.  You and your family can live a life of holiness and purity. 

The caliphate is a safe haven for ISIS jihadists.  Defeating ISIS requires conquering its territory--all of its territory, in Iraq and in Syria.  There is no debate over whether U.S. troops should operate in Iraq--they already are, and nobody argues they shouldn't.  But the elephant in the discussion is what to do if the U.S. and its allies succeed in pushing ISIS out of Iraq and back to its lair in Syria.  America currently has no proxy troops to attack and seize the ISIS heartland in Syria.  No other forces in Syria--the Assad regime, the moderate rebels, non-ISIS Islamic extremists, the Kurds, or anyone else--can defeat ISIS in Syria.  But if ISIS is able to maintain its safe haven in Syria, it can persist and even renew its conquering ways if and when America tires of endless troop commitments in the Middle East.  The only way to suppress ISIS is to seize control of its safe haven in Syria.

Simply authorizing the President to wage war against ISIS for three years, as he has requested, only tells ISIS that it needs to hold the fort in Syria for the next three years.  Under present circumstances, it may well be able to do that.  One reason the U.S. lost the Vietnam War was it had no way to effectively control Communist safe havens in Laos and Cambodia.  Not having a strategy for eliminating ISIS in Syria precludes victory.  We need to hear from the President and other proponents of waging war against ISIS how the war will be won in Syria.

Barack Obama's Curious Redistribution Ideas

President Obama recently spoke critically of the gap between the rich and the poor.  He has endorsed an increase in the federal minimum wage, from $7.25 up to $10.10.  He has argued for stronger enforcement of the labor laws.  He seeks universal pre-school.

Predictably, Republicans stood in opposition.  More government spending isn't the answer, they contend.  Economic growth is the tide that will lift all boats, they say.

Republicans, whether they are right or wrong, have nothing to worry about.  Barack Obama, whatever he may say, isn't really serious about changing the distribution of income or wealth.  He favors reducing the cost of living adjustment for the Social Security, military and federal retirement benefits that tens of millions of Americans depend on.  Cutting back on retirement benefits worsens the distribution of income and wealth.

There were some federal tax increases that took effect this year.  But the income tax increase on high level earners was accompanied by an increase in Social Security taxes (which are regressive).  So what was the net effect?  Most likely, very little or no redistribution.

The Affordable Care Act would have a redistributive effect because of its health insurance subsidies for low income participants.  If only people could enroll  . . . .

Barack Obama has serious credibility issues.  He drew a line in the dust over the use of poison gas, and Assad stepped over it.  Obama squirmed, complained, and then let the Russians broker a deal.  He didn't have the management skills to implement his signature legislative achievement, the Affordable Care Act.  He negotiated some sort of deal on nukes with Iran, although that deal seems to have implementation issues as well.  As negotiators talk, Iran continues to enrich.  If you're looking for action from the White House on redistribution of income or wealth, don't hold your breath.  Keep saving and investing, because you're on your own.

Are We Stuck With a Powerless Government?

Despite its image as an overbearing ogre, the federal government may be largely powerless these days.  The President has managed to undercut himself with an astonishingly bad non-launch of the federal health insurance exchange.  Is there anyone in his administration with executive or management ability?  Could anyone in his administration succeed as evening shift supervisor at the local McDonald's? 

On the foreign policy front, the President managed to set his foot downrange and pull the trigger over Syria's use of poison gas.  Only an embarrassing intervention by Russia prevented the President from a real morass of a morass.  Now, the administration touts a deal with Iran to freeze its nuclear program, even though it can continue to enrich uranium to the 5% level.  Not very frozen, but perhaps global warming is having an impact.  One wonders whether this deal with Iran is a sign of strength or weakness on the part of the President.

Meanwhile, over on Capitol Hill, Congress remains essentially non-functional.  The Democratically controlled Senate was able to approve the appointment of a few judges by changing its rules, although scowling Republicans made many dire and threatening predictions that the Dems would be sorry for doing this.  Nothing like a love fest to make folks feel collegial.  As for the federal budget and the debt ceiling, they aren't likely to trigger new crises, but will be resolved by kicking the can down the road.

The only institution that seems to be doing anything is the Federal Reserve.  And even it may be losing some of its mojo.  The most recently released minutes of the Open Market Committee meeting in October have been interpreted to mean that the Fed may be thinking about pulling back soon on quantitative easing.  Antacid sales on Wall Street have jumped.  If the efficacy of Fed money printing is diminishing, we may find ourselves in a public policy Sahara with very few water holes.

A powerful government can be scary.  A powerless one can be scarier.  The problem is this isn't a horror movie and we can't get up and leave the theater if we don't like the show.

One and Done in Syria, Right? Right? . . . Come on, right?

Once upon a time, there were some nasty guys known as al Qaeda.  In August 1998, they bombed the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.  Over 200 people were killed, including 12 Americans.  In order punish the baddies, President Clinton order cruise missile attacks on al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan which supposedly made chemical weapons.  Dozens of cruise missiles were fired and hit their targets.  After that, al Qaeda was never heard from again.

Unfortunately, the last part isn't true.  Al Qaeda, as we all know, survived in Afghanistan, killed some 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001, and triggered wars that have turned out to be America's longest military conflicts.  Over 4,800 Americans died in Iraq, and more than 2,000 in Afghanistan.  American personnel are now engaged in fighting al Qaeda or its affiliates in South Asia, the Middle East, the Arabian Peninsula, North Africa, and who knows, maybe even Southeast Asia (there are Muslim insurgencies in Indonesia and the Philippines).   There is no end in sight for America's war against violent Islamic radicals.

President Obama and his supporters seem to think they can conducted a limited strike in Syria to punish Bashar al-Assad for using chemical weapons, and then be done with it.  Who are they kidding?  The bad guys in this scenario grow beards on the other cheek; they don't turn it.  Iran, Syria and Hezbollah are all promising retaliation if America launches cruise missiles.  Americans and American facilities in Iraq, Afghanistan, and probably other places are likely to be on the hit list.  American allies like Israel, Turkey, and other nations may be attacked.  Sooner or later, Assad or one of his allies will do something that will require further American action.  That's what happened with al Qaeda 15 years ago.  The 1998 cruise missile strikes on al Qaeda's training camps led to the 9/11 bombings, which then led to a war we're still fighting.

There is no chance--as in zero percent--that a U.S. cruise missile strike against Assad's forces will be the last word.  President Obama has yet to explain how he will deal with the many retaliatory responses from the bad guys, all without putting boots on the ground in some distant place and without entangling us in another endless war against people who can outlast us because it's their home.  In all likelihood, he has no explanation, because there is no way to contain America's involvement in Syria once we cruise in. 

As Americans know from hard experience, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, and President Obama has the road we're now on very well paved.   Good intentions aren't the only thing that counts.  Competence and diligence matter, too.  You have to have a strategy to win--convincingly and quickly.  If you don't have such a strategy, don't dive into a war.  Ask the 58,000 Americans who died in Vietnam and the 4,800 who died in Iraq about this point.  There doesn't seem to be much strategic thinking going on in the White House; just political maneuvering in the hope of preventing the President from losing credibility for shooting from the hip.  Some of the U.S. troops in Afghanistan today were seven or eight years old at the time of the 9/11 bombings.  Today's parents of elementary school students should pay close attention to the discussion of U.S. military action in Syria.

How Does Obama Define Success in Syria?

Barack Obama has flinched.  Not once.  Not twice.  But three times in the last year or so.  Each time, he rattled the saber at Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Assad called Obama's hand, and Obama flinched.  Now, evidently rattled himself by the unexpected rejection of military action by the British Parliament, Obama seems to be looking around for someone to offer a fist bump.  French President Francois Hollande has been supportive, but Obama has called for Congress to pass a resolution endorsing a military response to Assad's use of chemical weapons on Syrian civilians.

The Democrats, who control the Senate, are feeling queasy, but may support a narrowly crafted resolution.  The Republicans, who control the House, are skeptical and may reject the resolution. 

The Administration has offered a variety of negative reasons for striking Assad's forces, arguing that bad or negative consequences will ensue if the U.S. does not strike.  Chemical weapons are horrible and are prohibited by international law.  The United States, and especially the President would lose credibility.  The Iranians would be emboldened in their quest for nuclear weapons.  The North Koreans would be emboldened to pull more septic content.  The Russians would be emboldened in any number of ways. 

Chemical weapons are horrible.  But does the President see himself as a referee, seeking to penalize Assad for face masking?  Is the President's plan to throw down a yellow flag, move Assad back a few yards, and then let the slaughter continue?  Is it okay for Assad to continue his nationwide massacre if he just limits himself to conventional weapons?  Why don't we issue striped uniforms to the U.S. military and give them whistles to blow along with cruise missiles to fire?

As for credibility, Assad is in a fight for his very life.  He couldn't give a rat's left ear what Obama does, because Obama won't put U.S. boots on the ground and hasn't even provided military support to the Syrian rebels that he promised months ago.  Obama doesn't present a significant threat to Assad.  Maybe Assad's forces will refrain from obvious use of chemical weapons for a while and employ more conventional but plenty lethal weaponry to kill many more Syrians.  But nothing Obama is contemplating will make him more credible to anyone who matters.

The Iranians are, if the vaguely sourced information published by the press over the past few years is accurate, hellbent on building nuclear weapons on the fastest possible schedule.  It won't matter a bit what Obama does in Syria.  A U.S. military strike there will only lead the Iranians to more comprehensively disguise their activities.  But it won't dissuade them in the least from halting their nuclear program.

The North Koreans are constrained by the presence of 26,000 U.S. troops stationed along the demilitarized zone in the Korean peninsula.  North Korea can't do anything substantial to South Korea or any other nation without affecting these troops.  As long as those troops are there, what Obama does or doesn't do in Syria isn't significant.

As for Russia, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is ex-KBG.  If there was an intelligence service that knew how to spot and exploit human weakness, it was the KGB.  Putin surely has Obama figured out--the man isn't bold.  He's not a risk taker.  He wants to be on the winning side no matter who that is or what happens (this is how the U.S. wound up being detested by everyone in Egypt--we tried to be everyone's buddy and ended up no one's buddy).  Obama is like the political equivalent of Microsoft--very successful, but not so likely to continue that success in the future because of an aversion to taking real risks.  Whatever carefully calibrated and narrowly focused military strike Obama now orders isn't going to convince Putin that Obama is anything except a smart, but cautious man trying to stay on his feet in a back alley brawl.  The smartest man in the alley might win the brawl, but the meanest man is the one you have to watch out for.

To persuade Congress and the American people that military action in Syria is justified, President Obama has to present positive reasons.  We need to know how we succeed, how we win.  Waging war for the purpose of stopping bad people from being bad isn't likely to work, unless one is prepared to wage total war and completely conquer the enemy, as America did to Germany and Japan in World War II.  No one has suggested that America conquer Syria.  For the past fifty years, America has dived into military adventures for poorly conceived reasons, and not surprisingly done poorly.  The only clear case for offensive military action--the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan-- was thoroughly botched by the second Bush Administration when it failed to deal definitively with Osama bin Laden after trapping him in late 2001 at Tora Bora.  We're still suffering the consequences of that failure.  If President Obama wants our support for a strike in Syria, he should tell us how we attain victory.  If there is no victory that can be defined or attained, we should hold our fire.