Saturday, August 31, 2013

Does President Obama's Plan To Strike Syria Make Strategic Sense?

Protesters outside the White House (Jason Reed/Reuters)

Why Obama's Plan to Strike Syria Makes No Strategic Sense -- James Joyner, The Atlantic

Even a humanitarian operation demands a logical premise and a well-designed goal. The administration's proposal has neither.

Having backed himself into a corner by declaring a "red line" that has now been crossed, President Obama is by all appearances ramping up for military action in Syria. As best we can tell from the not inconsiderable leaks coming from Washington and elsewhere, the planned strikes would use aerial assets, last only a short period, and decidedly not be aimed at achieving our declared strategic goal.

The president has repeatedly articulated, going back to August 2011, that there is but one acceptable end state: "Assad must go." Dean of the University of Denver’s Josef Korbel School of International Studies and former ambassador Christopher Hill may well be right that this declaration "was not carefully arrived at" and has "boxed us in," it nonetheless remains the administration's policy.

Read more ....

My Comment: I have mentioned before that I do not understand what is the end-game for the U.S. in the event that they decide to conduct a military strike against Syria. And while I will give the White House the benefit of the doubt (for now) .... I will admit that I am deeply skeptical.

1 comment:

fred said...

the end game is perfectly clear. Might not believe in it. Might not think it will work. But it has been announced: hit hard as punitive measure to tell Assad any further use of chemical warfare will bring another hit.