Serious is as serious does

John Kerry can be downright eloquent when he wants:

…our understanding of what has already happened in Syria is grounded in facts, informed by conscience and guided by common sense….

President Obama believes there must be accountability for those who would use the world’s most heinous weapons against the world’s most vulnerable people. Nothing today is more serious, and nothing is receiving more serious scrutiny.

His statement today is more than a red line that can be blurred depending on future circumstances.  It is a clear pledge to do something serious about a red line already crossed.

The diplomatic fur is flying fast and furious, according to the Secretary’s account.  That’s as it should be.  The Administration needs to construct as wide an international and domestic consensus for what it wants to do as possible, including Congressional backing and a UN Security Council resolution if possible.  Speed is not as important as developing momentum.  If President Obama wants to be taken seriously, whatever befalls Bashar al Asad and his regime now must be sufficient to prevent him from ever again even contemplating use of chemical weapons.

That should not however be the only goal.  Bashar’s depredations against civilians are occurring every day, even when chemical weapons are not used.  Syrian artillery and aircraft are attacking population centers, hospitals, schools and other civilian facilities.  Each and every one of these attacks is a war crime.  Very few of the 100,000 Syrians killed in the last 2.5 years have been victims of chemical attacks.  Are the lives of those maimed and killed in bombings and shelling less valuable than those who suffered so horrendously from nerve agent?  Is the international prohibition of attacks on civilians not as important as the prohibition on use of CW?

I don’t imagine that Bashar al Asad can necessarily be gotten rid of with American air attacks, which are as far as the Administration is prepared to go.  But I do think the goal of whatever we do should be broader than accountability for gassing civilians.  The playing field has tilted in recent months in favor of the regime, due mainly to Iranian, Hizbollah and Russian support for the Syrian security forces.  It needs to be tilted back in the other direction if there is to be any hope of the negotiated outcome to which John Kerry is committed.  Whether that is done with air attacks or with weapons and intelligence supplied to the opposition, it needs to be done.

We’ve seen this scenario before:  air attacks in Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan helped indigenous forces on the ground to at least begin to win the day, resulting in negotiated outcomes in Bosnia and Kosovo and regime change in Afghanistan.  None of these outcomes would, however, have been sustainable without boots on the ground, including substantial numbers of Americans.  That is almost unthinkable in Syria and certainly not what Americans or their President want, though some Americans to guard and dismantle the chemical weapons stocks may be necessary.  So the Administration would do well to consider what is to be done if intervention succeeds in bringing about a political solution.  What then?  Who will stabilize Syria and ensure that the post-Asad period is not even more violent than the current civil war?

The UN has some pledges of troops if there is a peace to keep.  But they are far short of the numbers needed for a country of 21 million people (before more than a million of them became refugees) suffering severe ethnic and sectarian cleavages after a more than 40-year autocracy.  Rallying troop-contributing countries is going to be the Secretary of State’s next Sisyphean task.

Serious is as serious does, not only in warfare but also in peacefare.