Consequences

The NBC report that Bashar al Asad is preparing chemical weapons for use has generated a contradictory response:  President Obama, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon and NATO Secretary General Rasmussen have all warned there will be consequences.  My Twitterfeed concurs that use of chemical weapons would be “suicidal” for Bashar.

But there is little that can be done once these weapons are out of their storage sites and loaded on airplanes or missiles, as the report ambiguously suggests might be the case.  The numbers of troops required to secure the Syrian chemical weapons stocks is on the order of 75,000.  It is clear enough that U.S. troops have not yet been deployed in these numbers anywhere near Syria in preparation for their seizure.

That wouldn’t be a sufficient or appropriate response in any event.  It would put a substantial number of American troops in harm’s way without any guarantee of success.  So what might we be thinking of doing?

My guess–but it is only that–is regime decapitation.  Any order to use chemical weapons will have to come from the top.  If the Americans have done nothing else in the almost two years of killing, they should at least have discovered Bashar’s hiding places.  Using cruise missiles, the U.S. can destroy dozens of sites with extraordinary precision.  Whether or not Bashar himself is hit (remember how many times we missed Qaddafi?), his ability to continue in command is likely to be severely degraded, as they say.

Another thought is to pour arms into the revolutionary forces in the hope that they will be able to seize the remaining chemical weapons.  But without specialized training and equipment, that really would be a suicidal course of action.  It is far more likely that chemical weapons will scare a large part of the population out of Syria, creating enormous problems for its neighbors, Turkey, Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan.

The problem with either proposition is that we have no idea what would come next.  Decapitation would precipitate a rush both within the regime and from the outside to try to seize control of the state apparatus.  The most likely winners are guys with lots of guns.  That includes the Syrian security forces as well as the more heavily armed and capable revolutionaries, who come from the Sunni Islamist end of the political spectrum.  If neither wins a definitive victory, the civil war would intensify, with terrible consequences both inside Syria and in the region.  There is a real risk that punishing Asad will generate an outcome even more inimical to U.S. interests.

There is still a real possibility that reports of imminent chemical weapons use are false or exaggerated.  But if they are true, someone had better be thinking of a better idea than I’ve had about what “consequences” are appropriate, feasible and productive.  Bashar al Asad and lots of other autocrats will notice if he uses chemical weapons and there is no reaction.  That would further undermine U.S. and NATO credibility, which is already at a perigee.

There is a report today that the Russians and Americans are meeting hastily to discuss Syrian chemical weapons.  If the possibility of their use pushes Washington and Moscow together to a political solution, that would be a really good outcome for all concerned, except Bashar al Asad and his regime.

PS:  Ambassador Ford says it is above his paygrade to decide what is to be done in the event Syrian uses chemical weapons.  Certainly the implication of American military action is strong.