I do not generally find myself in agreement with Robert Kagan Kaplan but his recent column in The Atlantic is sound advice. Applying Sun-Tzu’s advice:
The side that knows when to fight and when not will take the victory. There are roadways not to be traveled, armies not to be attacked, walled cities not to be assaulted.
to Syria, he remarks:
The United States does not chase after war bands in Yemen as Darius did in Scythia, but occasionally it kills individuals from the air. The fact that it uses drones is proof not of American strength, but of American limitations. The Obama administration must recognize these limitations, and not allow, for example, the country to be drawn deeper into the conflict in Syria. If the U.S. helps topple the dictator Bashar al-Assad on Wednesday, then what will it do on Thursday, when it finds that it has helped midwife to power a Sunni jihadist regime, or on Friday, when ethnic cleansing of the Shia-trending Alawites commences? Perhaps this is a battle that, as Sun Tzu might conclude, should not be fought. But Assad has killed many tens of thousands, maybe more, and he is being supported by the Iranians! True, but remember that emotion, however righteous, can be the enemy of analysis.
The question that must be asked is “So, you remove Assad. What then?”
That last question never gets answered these days. In prior days it was answered by saying, “Once the dictator is removed, democracy will flourish!”
I’m reminded of dialogue from Lawrence of Arabia:
“Look, sir, we can’t just do nothing.”
“Why not? It’s usually best.”
I think the position is correct for Syria, as it is now evident it was for Iraq. However I think it leaves open the question of a circumstance of sufficient strategic or humanitarian weight to compel vigorous military engagement. I don’t think, ice, the issue is simply one of hopes of flourishing democracy, however realistic or delusional. Is Iran securing a nuclear weapon with strike range sufficient?
Drew, I never suggested that Iraq or Afghanistan could be transformed into democracies, but the argument was made. And made by people in authority. Hasn’t worked out.
As for Iran, the real questions are: If Iran gets nukes and the ability to use them, will they use them? If you think the answer is yes, then the time to bomb them flat is probably now. And anything short of nukes is likely to be insufficient to stop their program. (The reality is that we cannot invade and hold significant parts of Iran with the military we’ve got now.)
If the answer is no, then other actions are probably warranted prior to any (all?) military action. Miscalculations either way will result in a lot of waste.
Count me as shocked. The neocons have been going full bore against Iran and its proxies. They were the ones intent on invading Iraq, sure that we could turn it into Sweden. They are the ones who have been pushing for us to re-invade Iraq, and never leave. Is Kagan defecting? Dissension in the ranks?
Steve
Oops. No wonder. it is actually Kaplan and not Kagan. This from Bacevich is also good.
http://aep.typepad.com/american_empire_project/2015/06/washington-in-wonderland.html
Steve