A Powell/Weinberger analysis of a U.S. attack on Syria.
Before we get involved in another war, it's worth asking some hard questions. Not surprisingly, I haven't been able to come up with a better set of questions to ask than those asked by Colin Powell and Caspar Weinberger. So here are their questions, and my proposed answers.
- Is a vital National Security interest threatened?
Yes, but only because Obama was careless with his "red line" rhetoric. There is a national security interest in having our warnings taken seriously. On the other hand, striking Syria will also threaten vital National Security Interests. So we're now in a "pick your poison" situation. - Do we have a clear attainable objective?
A clear objective? Yes. We want a stable, reliable regime in Syria that isn't totally hostile to the United States or Israel. Is that attainable through military action? No. - Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
It's impossible to "fully analyze" risks and costs. That way lies paralysis by analysis. I'm willing to believe that costs in matériel and risks to american armed forces have been well analyzed. I'm far less sure about "collateral damage" analysis, and I have no faith in the analysis of either the short-term reaction nor the long-term political consequences. - Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
It's never possible to "fully exhaust" all non-violent means. Still, if you assume Bashar al-Assad ordered or approved the use of chemical weapons, it's hard to see where more diplomatic pressure or "imaginative diplomacy" will have any effect. Eventually al-Assad may do something that Russia can't stomach or deny; but I'm not betting on it. - Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
No, but that's true whether or not we choose military action at this time. We've already seen that in Egypt. - Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
This is asking the "costs" question in a different way. I'm sure they've been considered. I just don't trust politicians to be guided by such considerations. - Is the action supported by the American people?
You can read the polls as easily as I. I don't support military action, and I believe I'm in the majority here. - Do we have genuine broad international support?
Any illusion of such support should have been shattered by the vote in Parliament. Military action in Syria may make a few friends feel better about us, but will create even more hatred for us in the region.