By Bilal Y. Saab, Special to CNN
Editor’s note: Bilal Y. Saab, a non-resident Middle East scholar at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, is the executive director and head of research of the Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis (INEGMA) North America. The views expressed are the writer’s own.
Pentagon staffers are scratching their heads, at least according to conversations I have had with defense analysts and planners. The president of the United States has asked them to come up with a military plan to strike Syria with apparently no strategic objective in mind, no exit strategy, and no serious blueprint for wider war should the operation go awry. No wonder the U.S. public is so confused and allies in the region are so nervous.
What U.S. President Barack Obama does have is a vague intent to punish Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for using chemical weapons and deter him from using them again. This objective would have been perfectly reasonable and achievable had Obama not also specifically instructed the U.S. military to preserve the al-Assad regime and calibrate the strike so as to avoid any response from al-Assad that could drag the United States into a broader conflict in the Middle East. Talk about threading the needle.
There are numerous unknowns – both domestic and regional – that could shred Obama’s plan to pieces. But there are also some things that are anyway bound to increase the risks of escalation, regardless of how limited Obama wants the strike to be: al-Assad is fighting for his life, which makes him erratic; Syria is a chemical powder keg; al Qaeda’s affiliates are the strongest anti-Assad forces on the battlefield; and the civil war has effectively turned into a regional proxy war, the outcome of which will impact the strategic interests of U.S. adversaries Russia, Iran and Hezbollah.
But don’t waste your time trying to call for a reset of this administration’s approach toward Syria. Obama seems intent on pursuing military action on the cheap to restore some of his credibility vis-à-vis his adversaries. With so little clarity and strategic guidance from the president, it is now solely up to the U.S. military to bail the commander-in-chief out and prevent the worst from happening.
More from CNN: Public against strike resolution
To reduce the chances of things spinning out of control following U.S. military action, Obama has telegraphed his intentions to al-Assad (and to the Syrian president’s allies). The administration even specified to Syria the primary weapon of choice: sea-launched cruise missiles. Rarely in the history of warfare do you see such an unambiguous transfer of critical information specifying end and means from the attacker to the defender. Even traditional arms controllers would be puzzled by the level of transparency that Obama has exhibited. But judged against the president’s stated objective, which is to deliver a shot across the bow, this approach, while bizarre and counterintuitive, has been rational (although al-Assad or his allies could still miscalculate).
So what could a U.S. military strike accomplish? And what are the risks of going after the wrong targets or shooting too hard?
Regime buildings. Obama could punish al-Assad by destroying his Defense or Interior Ministry, Air Force Intelligence Directorate or other key government, military and intelligence facilities. But by now, it is assumed that many of these buildings have been emptied and (at least senior) staffers have relocated. True, the strikes could still degrade the regime’s ability to hold large meetings and coordinate policy and strategy, but destroying the regime’s central facilities carries some risks. For example, such facilities are considered powerful symbols of the regime, and their destruction could leave al-Assad humiliated and tempted to retaliate.
Regime leadership. If U.S. strikes end up killing leading regime figures, the repressive capacity of the Syrian government could be severely damaged. However, the death of relatives and/or close associates could reduce al-Assad’s incentive to head to the negotiating table. After all, the regime is very much a family affair, and al-Assad might react brutally if his hot-tempered brother Maher, who heads both the Republican Guard and the army's elite Fourth Armored Division, is killed. While all regime figures have blood on their hands and should be held accountable for their crimes, some might be more inclined than others to reach a political deal when things start falling apart. Systematic elimination of all Syrian regime figures by the United States would hurt U.S. policy.
Command and control centers. “I like to say that without communications, all I control is my desk, and that is not a very lethal weapon,” U.S. General T.S. Power reportedly said way back in May 1959. In war, the first thing an attacker wants to strike is his opponent’s command, control, communications, and intelligence (C3I) capabilities, with a view to isolating the other side’s forces.
More from GPS: Obama team has mishandled Syria
But if the U.S. military wipes out the C3I network of the Syrian military (most likely it could not with just cruise missiles), there is a real chance of the situation escalating. Under attack and unable to communicate and coordinate with the central leadership, Syrian commanders on the ground could resort to extreme measures if cornered, such as launching chemical weapons. Therefore, if and when the United States strikes, whatever chance of averting escalation to chemical weapon use could depend on the continuous flow of Syrian communications. Finally, widespread destruction of Syrian C3I could reduce the likelihood of early conflict termination if al-Assad strikes back and war erupts, because it would impede transmission of any cease-fire order.
Chemical weapons sites. Given the tremendous risks, it bears repeating that the last target the United States wants to strike is chemical weapons sites. Hitting such targets could cause massive air contamination and lead to the deaths of many of the civilians that the United States is supposed to be trying to defend (cruise missiles, while highly accurate, do not have the incendiary capability to destroy the poisonous substance). This problem is exacerbated by the fact that chemical weapons are in some cases believed to be stored close to densely populated areas.
So what is left for the United States to hit? Given the president’s limited operational aim, the most logical targets to go after should be purely military in nature. If Obama wants to achieve deterrence by denial, he has to degrade al-Assad’s ability to use chemical weapons (something noted in the latest Senate resolution on Syria). The targets for such a mission are the delivery systems his regime has available, such as aircraft, artillery, rockets, missiles and ground transportation vehicles.
The problem is that effective destruction of delivery systems would require a more comprehensive military campaign, and a maximalist objective, which is the defeat or surrender of al-Assad’s army, something not currently in the cards. True, Obama could target al-Assad’s land forces, including tank units, armored brigades, supply depots and possibly some nodes in its sophisticated but redundant air defense system. But absent clear strategic guidance, effective targeting and tactical military action becomes extremely challenging.
Ultimately, there is no way to know for sure whether al-Assad will be deterred in the future, how he prizes his military assets, and how much he is willing to absorb the hits without hitting back in some fashion. By now we know that he wants to survive and cling to power, and so the fact that his choices are even worse than those confronting the Obama administration might be of some comfort to the United States.
Still, when the U.S. is confronted by a foe whose behavior has caused the death of more than 100,000 of his own people and the displacement of millions, it is hard to be confident exactly what he might do next.
Do we vote yes?
This is Syria’s civil war and others should stay out of it. As for the world’s cry that 100,000 Syrians have died, well each country should look upon their own civil war history surely to find more blood-shed than that in Syria. For example, in the 19th Century American civil war nearly 1,000,000 people died – though scores of slaves became free by the end. Nonetheless, the US has no valid claim for intervening in Syria’s civil war simply because the current number of deaths is unacceptable – it still is. Therefore, every country should leave Syria alone.
syria should not give up its chemical arms look at gaddafi he gave up his chemical weapons and ballistic missile program and saddam and iraq also destroyed its chemical weapons both of the gaddafi and saddam ended up dead. syria should keep its chemical weapons as protection and deterence.
f u c k russia all the jews in israel come from s c um b a g eastern europe this is a trick russia wants to steal other countrys legimite right i tell the russians go home to gay russia and take a d i c k up the a s s.
I believe that yes, it is a terrible thing that Syria has lost so many civilians already, but agree that countries, especially the U.S., should mind their own business right now. What about how many people we've lost over these years because we went over to Iraq and Afganistan– and that actually had to do with the U.S. I don't see how this does right now. I understand that attempting to help Syria might be the morally right thing to do to save other civilians, but I say what about our own citizens that are ignored and not treated equal? Native Americans for example and how the U.S. has forced them to live over the years, etc. So in summary, I think the U.S. just needs to worry about our own problems first before we take on those of another country and create more problems for ourself.
shia Iran cult government Iraqi almaleki shia government Syria shia thugs along with Hezbollah stole billions and killed more than 1 million Sunni kurds and Christians already those evil thugs killed 1444000 in Syria alone..and usa are silent!!!!!!!!!!!!attack them now before it is too late Syria sent most of the weapon to be hidden with Hezbollah and Iraqi shia wake up usa...,,,,
Aviod the swimming pools, or you'll let all the water out.
Imagine if there was this kind of discussion in the Syrian media.
We would say it was nation of terrorists!
The author questioned the "level of transparency that Obama has exhibited" in his war planning. Didn't it occur to the author that it was just a smoke screen, together with the beat of war drums? He was reluctant to attack right from the beginning. So the – seemingly – extemporaneous remark John Kerry made in London did achieve the effect as anticipated. Obama knows the risk of a military action in Syria and he can be tight-lipped, if he chooses to. So we'll see what Russia and the US will do with Assad.
The Global Public Square is where you can make sense of the world every day with insights and explanations from CNN's Fareed Zakaria, leading journalists at CNN, and other international thinkers. Join GPS editor Jason Miks and get informed about global issues, exposed to unique stories, and engaged with diverse and original perspectives.
Every week we bring you in-depth interviews with world leaders, newsmakers and analysts who break down the world's toughest problems.
CNN U.S.: Sundays 10 a.m. & 1 p.m ET | CNN International: Find local times
Buy the GPS mug | Books| Transcripts | Audio
Connect on Facebook | Twitter | GPS@cnn.com
Buy past episodes on iTunes! | Download the audio podcast
Check out all of Fareed's Washington Post columns here:
Obama as a foreign policy president?
Why Snowden should stand trial in U.S.
Hillary Clinton's truly hard choice
China's trapped transition
Obama should rethink Syria strategy
Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
RSS - Posts
Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.
Join 4,858 other followers