Tag: United States
The Libya analogy does not stop at Benghazi
For those tempted to consider Syrian pleas to establish a “safe area” to protect civilians, Safe Area for Syria: an Assessment of Legality, Logistics and Hazards, prepared for the Syrian National Council and the Free Syrian Army by the London-based Strategic Research & Communication Center, is a must-read. It suggests:
At present, the most achievable option would be to establish a “safe area” in the country to provide refuge for embattled civilians from other cities and towns, a base of operations for the designated political leadership of the Syrian opposition as well as a military command centre — in other words, a Syrian Benghazi.
The pre-requisite is
…a pre-emptive aerial campaign would have to be waged to neutralize the regime’s air defence systems, particularly in Aleppo and Lattakia and in and around Damascus.
Safe areas come under attack because that is where the enemy is. The Syrian proposal is not intended to be a safe area like Sarajevo, which during the Bosnian war was declared but no military action taken to protect it until after it was attacked. Our Syrian colleagues are telling us the safe area they want would require in advance a significant air operation over much of Syria to prevent the shelling and air attacks that naturally result when a “safe area” is declared.
I won’t delve too deeply into the legal side of the paper, except to say that it dreams up some pretty far-fetched schemes because it is clear no UN Security Council resolution authorizing such a safe area can pass over Russian objections. It is hard to picture any of these schemes passing muster with Pentagon lawyers, and even less with the White House.
But if I am wrong and it turns out they are willing to bite the bullet and destroy Syrian air defenses, the military action won’t stop there. We’ll soon need to take out Syrian armor and artillery, which will be used to shell the safe area. And we’ll be doing this at the same time that the Free Syrian Army goes on the offensive. Sound familiar? The Libyan analogy does not stop at Benghazi.
What is the alternative? You see it on unfolding on the ground today in Syria. The Arab League observers are reportedly in Homs, where the Syrian security forces have wrecked a great deal of damage. I hope we are encouraging them to stay there, and to spread out to other areas that have been under siege. I also hope they can communicate directly with people outside Syria. The presence of the observers will encourage large demonstrations, and increase the risk to the regime of using violence. The Syrian security forces will play “cat and mouse,” but it is a game the mouse always loses if it goes on long enough. The Arab League just has to make sure it is a tireless and omnipresent cat.
PS: Reports today suggest that some Syrian security forces have left Homs as the observers arrived and that the protest there today is large. Here is what was going on before arrival of the observers:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Accountability is not only for the bad guys
A Libyan e-penpal writes
As you know the Russians proposed two days ago a project at the U.N. to investigate on the Libyan victims committed by NATO according to Russia. We as Libyans are proud of the involvement of NATO and the United States who freed us with our Libyan fighters from the deposed dictator “Gaddafi”. Even if there were casualties, we as Libyans are confident that it is by pure mistake or by premeditation of the dictator’ forces, who put weapons and artilleries in civilian homes. Everyone in Libya and in the entire world knows the attitude of the Russians when the revolt against “Gaddafi” began February 17, 2011. What we can say is the total hypocrisy of the Russians. Once again, we thanks the U.S.A. and NATO.
I am grateful for the confidence this Libyan and many others place in NATO and the U.S. During my visit to Libya in September I was often stopped on the street to be told how much the intervention was appreciated. Certainly the Russians are less interested in getting to the facts of the matter and more interested in embarrassing NATO.
But I have to confess that I would like to see NATO do its own unclassified after action assessment of civilian damage, cooperatively with the new Libyan authorities. Whether or not we ever conduct an operation exactly like this one again, doing a serious assessment would provide vital information for protection of civilians in the future.
So far, NATO has apparently left the investigating to nongovernmental organizations and the press. They do an admirable job, but what they cannot do is figure out how to decrease harm to civilians in future operations. I have no doubt but that NATO intends to do that–there is just no mileage in killing civilians for the Alliance–but it also has to take the trouble to determine exactly how mistakes occur in order to correct them.
If NATO continues to resist a public inquiry, it will feed the Russian propaganda mill. Better to sit down with the Libyan authorities, the NGOs and the New York Times to figure out how a serious investigation can be conducted. Then go do it. Anyone who claims undertake military action as part of the “responsibility to protect” should be willing to do that much. And the present Libyan authorities, who no doubt fear that such an investigation will extend to the behavior of some of the anti-regime rebels, need to begin to assemble the facts that will eventually be needed to sort out who did what to whom.
Accountability cannot be limited to the bad guys.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Could we go to war by mistake again?
I was on C-Span this morning talking about Iraq. The program is now up on their website. A lot of questions focused on the past: why we went to war in Iraq, who should be held accountable for the mistake and whether oil was a motive. The moderator, Rob Harrison, tried to keep the focus on the future, but he was only partly successful.
While I too worry more about the future than about the past–there is more you can do about it–I regard it as healthy to ask why we made a mistake like invading Iraq.
I am convinced oil had little to do with it–we were getting oil from Saddam Hussein, and we are getting some oil from Iraq now. Few American companies have benefited from Iraq’s new openness to foreign oil companies, and most of those are active in Kurdistan. The stuff is sold on a world market at market prices. No need to invade anyone to get it.
One caller suggested we were unhappy with Saddam because he wanted customers to pay for oil in a currency other than dollars. Lots of oil producing countries have tried that trick, which has been abandoned as often as it has been adopted. The day will come, but it is not here yet. And it is certainly nothing to go to war about.
There are two other explanations for the mistake that strike me as far more likely: the argument that a democracy in Iraq would transform the region and concern about weapons of mass destruction (WMD). There is no doubt that many within the Bush 43 administration were arguing the former. They were dead wrong: the Arab world regards today’s Iraq as a catastrophe, not a model democracy. The Arab spring owes nothing to Iraq. But the argument likely carried some weight in 2002-3.
The more decisive argument was WMD. I can’t know what was in George W. Bush’s head, but in the public sphere that was the argument that was prevalent, and prevailed. We had only recently been attacked, on 9/11 (2001, for those too young to remember!). The Bush 43 administration claimed that Saddam Hussein was harboring international terrorists and pursuing nuclear and biological weapons (he was known to have chemical weapons, and to have used them against Iraqi Kurds). It was a small step to concluding that he represented a grave and imminent threat to the United States, which is what Colin Powell argued at the UN Security Council. Condi Rice won the day with her warning that the smoking gun might be a mushroom cloud. I doubt she or Colin Powell knew the premise they were acting on was wrong.
We are now facing in 2011, and soon 2012, the same argument with respect to Iran, more than once. This does not mean that the argument is wrong. There is lots of evidence that Iran is trying to assemble all the requirements, including non-nuclear high explosive technology, to build atomic weapons. There is nothing like the cloud of uncertainty that surrounded Iraq’s nuclear program. But still we need extra care to make sure that we have pursued all other avenues to stop Iran from going nuclear before deciding to use our military instruments.
There is ample evidence that the Obama administration has in fact done this:
1. We’ve tightened sanctions, and gotten others to tighten theirs.
2. We’ve offered negotiations, which so far have been fruitless.
3. Cyberattacks and assassinations targeted against key technologies and people, respectively, occur often.
4. Support is flowing to the Iranian opposition, perhaps even to ethnic separatists.
5. We’ve repeatedly said that no options are off the table.
Trouble is, none of this guarantees that Tehran won’t go ahead anyway, hoping that possession of nuclear weapons, or more likely all the technology required to build them, will end American attempts to topple the theocratic regime.
If so, we still have to answer one further question: will military action make us better off, or not? Certainly in Iraq it did not. It is easy enough to imagine that the Arab spring might have swept away Saddam Hussein, as it has other autocrats. Iran’s green movement, quiescent as it is for the moment, could still be our last best hope, not so much for ending the nuclear program as for removing the fears that have fueled it since the days of the Shah. Military action would do serious damage to dissent in Iran, especially as it will have to be repeated periodically to prevent Tehran from repairing damage and moving ahead with redoubled determination to build nuclear weapons.
If there is anything worse than going to war by mistake, it is doing it twice.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Maliki as Rigoletto
It isn’t funny, but it is still hard to recount what is going on in Iraq with a straight face: the prime minister has accused a vice president of helping (or ordering?) terrorists to try to kill him, the vice president and a deputy prime minister have fled to autonomous Kurdistan to avoid arrest, and their coalition in parliament has withdrawn its members but continues to occupy its ministerial posts. Then this morning bombs explode at more than a dozen sites in Baghdad targeted mainly at Shia This terrorist response to the prime minister’s accusations ironically tends to confirm them.
All of this comes with dramatic sectarian and ethnic overtones. If Iraq were an opera, it would be composed by Verdi, not Mozart. Rigoletto, who manages to bring about all the outcomes he most fears, comes to mind.
It is hard to picture a happy ending. Michael Knights suggests several possible denouements. First: Prime Minister Maliki and Vice President Hashimi might still work a deal to restore the status quo ante. I doubt it, as five judges have supposedly signed Hashimi’s arrest warrant. Hard to forget about that, or about today’s bombs.
Second: the Kurds betray Hashemi and throw their support behind Maliki and his Shia allies, in exchange for concessions on their own demands. There will be hell to pay for this in the Sunni community, as Knights also suggests. And the Kurds have been fooled more than once by Maliki’s promises. It is doubtful they are prepared to be fooled again.
I think the best outcome is in fact Knights’ third, which he regards as an outside possibility: fall of the Maliki government in a parliamentary vote, with Kurds and the Sunni-based alliance Iraqiyya voting him out with support from the Shia-based Sadrists. But the bombings today will encourage Maliki in his worst instincts. Mass arrests? Martial law? Anything he can do to prevent Iraqiyya politicians from showing up in parliament will help preserve his hold on power.
Unfortunately the most likely outcome is an attempt by Maliki to use the forms of parliamentary democracy while establishing a de facto autocracy, as Reidar Visser suggests. This would be a sad fulfillment of many prophecies.
There is a tendency to blame it all on the Americans. I don’t see it that way. Iraq’s sectarian and ethnic divisions were not invented in Washington, which withdrew troops from Iraq only after an extraordinary effort to stabilize the country. What is going on now is essentially invented in Baghdad.
I have been relatively sanguine about the prospects for Iraqi democracy, despite all its difficulties. Even now, it is notable that the arrest warrant for Tariq al Hashemi, the vice president, was signed, apparently by five judges. Saddam Hussein did not bother with such niceties. He used extra-judicial killings to enforce his rule. But it is hard to see a good outcome when the protagonist is so bent on moves that will destroy rather than cure his precious offspring. I repeat what I said six months ago:
Ultimately, whether Iraq continues to develop as a democracy or lapses into something more like its unfortunate past depends on the Iraqis themselves. They seem ambivalent. Some of them, at least on some days, appreciate the freedom they enjoy today, which far exceeds the norm in the Middle East as well as Iraq’s own past. They want more democracy, not less, as recent street protests have demonstrated.
Others, or maybe the same people on other days, are impatient with democratic processes and cry out for “action”—someone who will fix all that ails the country without bothering to consult, legislate or show respect for human rights. Any serious effort to restore autocracy in the whole country would be met with dramatic opposition, most likely organized on an ethnic or sectarian basis.
My guess is that the appreciation of democracy will prevail over the hope for a quick fix. We should certainly do what we can to try to help ensure that outcome.
Today my guess would be reversed: the hope for a quick fix may prevail over democracy. It is up to the Iraqis. We can do little to prevent that outcome.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Time to make the inevitable happen right
Theatlantic.com published this piece of mine today, under the title 5 Ways the U.S. Can Help Syria:
Dec 22 2011, 8:19 AM ET The Obama administration appears closer to acting, but it will have to do more than carry over old ideas from Libya or elsewhere
The White House yesterday said again, this time in a written statement, that the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad regime does not deserve to rule Syria.
We urge Syria’s few remaining supporters in the international community to warn Damascus that if the Arab League initiative is once again not fully implemented, the international community will take additional steps to pressure the Assad regime to stop its crackdown. Bashar al-Assad should have no doubt that the world is watching, and neither the international community nor the Syrian people accept his legitimacy.
What are these additional steps? Is this a bluff? Or have they got something in mind?
If the White House is planning something, let’s hope it doesn’t simply go back to some shopworn ideas that wouldn’t have any real relevance to the situation in Syria. A no-fly zone? The Syrians aren’t using aircraft to attack demonstrators. Safe areas? They will quickly become targets for shelling by the regime, as they did in Bosnia and will have to be protected with force. This may be what those who call for them hope, but we should not be tricked into it. Corridors for deliver of humanitarian assistance? There seems to be no lack of food, water and shelter.
But we do have options. Here are a few less talked about notions that might have an impact:
1. Make sure the Arab League observers have real access. This means guiding them to places where we see concentrations of military force. It means making sure that they can communicate instantaneously with their home governments without being eavesdropped on by Syrian security forces, including by uploading text and photos. It means using diplomatic pressure to counter any intimidation or restrictions they encounter.
2. Ensure that the Syrian National Council and protesters inside Syria continue to communicate and collaborate. There are already efforts in this direction, but they will need to be redoubled. The regime will offer “dialogue,” hoping to split the opposition and find a way to remain in place for a promised transition period. There can be no serious transition with Bashar al-Assad inside Syria. This was Yemen’s mistake, and we should avoid it.
3. Help maintain the opposition’s nonviolence. The regime has ratcheted up its killing to hundreds per day, including many army deserters or others who have refused orders to fire on demonstrators. This makes it exceedingly difficult for the opposition to maintain nonviolent discipline, but in force-on-force clashes the demonstrators are bound to lose more than they win. Violence also disincentivizes people from joining the demonstrations, limiting their numbers and making them easier prey for violence by the security forces (see, for example, Egypt). More Syrians should be trained in nonviolence outside the country; they can then return and train others.
4. Encourage the Syria National Council to present its transition plans publicly. The opposition group in exile is working on them already, and maybe they are not perfect yet. But the time has come for the SNC to tell the country what is supposed to happen after Bashar al-Assad falls. The constitutional framework the Libyan Transitional National Council presented last August made an enormous contribution to improving the prospects for a successful outcome. The failure of the Egyptian military to present and stick with a comparable plan has been enormously delegitimizing. The Syrians should try to follow the Libyan path, not the Egyptian one.
5. If you must consider force, aim it at the security forces’ headquarters, including their communications capabilities. It would be a mistake to respond to attacks on civilians with responses targeted against those who perpetrated the attacks, who may be conscripts acting on orders. The killing in Syria is instructed, not spontaneous. Destroying the regime’s capability to communicate with and coordinate its forces would be far more effective.
Former Middle East advisor to the Obama administration Dennis Ross, fresh from a White House that still seems behind the curve on Syria, is touting the notion that the regime is doomed. I agree, but it makes a great deal of difference how it goes down. If it falls to a unified and nonviolent opposition, one with representatives from different sects and ethnic groups and a plan for the transition period, Syria has a chance to imitate Tunisia, admittedly a much smaller and more homogeneous society. But if the process is drawn out, with sectarian and ethnic violence as well as looting of state assets, the chances for a halfway democratic and unified Syria will be sharply reduced.
Time to make the inevitable happen the right way.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
That was a signal, not a Biden gaffe
If you’ve been wondering whether there are really secret talks going on with the Taliban, Vice President Biden’s “gaffe” yesterday is confirmation: “the Taliban, per se, is not the enemy,” he said.
This is not a change in policy, but it is certainly a shift in emphasis. When President Obama announced the surge of troops into Afghanistan two years ago, he made it clear we were targeting not only Al Qaeda but also the Taliban. We sought, he said, to reverse the Taliban’s momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government, on our way to disrupting, defeating and dismantling Al Qaeda. He added that “We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens.”
The lyrics have changed, if not the tune. Now we are talking with the Taliban, with help from the Germans, whether the Afghan government likes it or not. I am not hearing a lot of talk about respect for human rights or even the requirement to abandon violence. It would appear to be sufficient for the Taliban to foreswear support to Al Qaeda and give up on toppling the Karzai government. Here is the fuller context of what Biden said:
…we are in a position where if Afghanistan ceased and desisted from being a haven for people who do damage and have as a target the United States of America and their allies, that’s good enough. That’s good enough. We’re not there yet.
Look, the Taliban per se is not our enemy. That’s critical. There is not a single statement that the president has ever made in any of our policy assertions that the Taliban is our enemy because it threatens U.S. interests. If, in fact, the Taliban is able to collapse the existing government, which is cooperating with us in keeping the bad guys from being able to do damage to us, then that becomes a problem for us. So there’s a dual track here:
One, continue to keep the pressure on al Qaeda and continue to diminish them. Two, put the government in a position where they can be strong enough that they can negotiate with and not be overthrown by the Taliban. And at the same time try to get the Taliban to move in the direction to see to it that they, through reconciliation, commit not to be engaged with al Qaeda or any other organization that they would harbor to do damage to us and our allies.
Note that the White House backed him up. This was a signal to the Taliban that there is a door to a deal with the Americans that did not previously exist. If, as is rumored, Afghan detainees at Guantanamo are transferred to Kabul’s control, that will be a clear indication that we think the Taliban ready to walk through. Confidence building measures of this sort are an important part of the diplomatic game. A prisoner transfer would help the Taliban to sell the idea of a deal to their cadres and supporters.
The road ahead is still not an easy one. The options for a real deal with the Taliban are not appetizing. And the reaction to Biden’s trial balloon suggest it will be hard to sell to many people in the U.S. What if those prisoners are transferred and then released, or they escape? That’s not something the Obama administration will want to see happen in the lead-up to a presidential election.
So there is still a lot of uncertainty and risk on the path to a negotiated exit from Afghanistan. But that was a signal, not a Biden gaffe.
RSS - Posts
