In an assessment … on July 19, Dempsey outlined possible scenarios and the risks they bring. Dempsey said U.S. involvement, even if it’s limited in nature, would probably lead to an extended stay.
“Once we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next. Deeper involvement is hard to avoid,” he wrote.
Dempsey explains that risks include retaliatory attacks by the al-Assad regime, civilian casualties and “extremists” – including al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Iran – gaining more control and access to weapons, including chemical weapons.
…
“In a variety of ways, the use of U.S. military force can change the military balance, but it cannot resolve the underlying and historic ethnic, religious and tribal issues that are fueling this conflict,” Dempsey wrote. “It is my belief that the side we chose must be ready to support their interests and ours when the balance shifts in their favor. Today, they are not.”
…
Gen. James Mattis, former head of U.S. Central Command, said at a security conference in July that “this is going to be a full-throated, very, very serious war” if the U.S. becomes involved.
…
[Dempsey] also wrote that controlling chemical weapons would require more resources than just air and cruise missile strikes. He said it would need to be coupled with “thousands of special operations forces and other ground forces” to secure critical sites.
So - the military strategists expect extended stay, “full-throated war” and thousands of soldiers on the ground. Of course, generals discuss a military action that is more than strictly symbolic and actually produces some kind of results. Silly generals…
Wow. This is significant. In the past, generals on the eve of a possible war have always expressed their lack of concern about the outcome and said the important thing was to have fun.
Dempsey appears to make some pretty big leaps of faith. He states that we’d require troops on the grounds to secure WMD sites. Only trouble is, nobody is proposing that we secure the sites, just eliminate them. He states the deeper involvement is hard to avoid. Funny how we didn’t get in too deep in Libya. The proper role for generals is to do what the secretary of defense and president tell them to do. Not to say they they can’t raise operational issues and concerns, but they need to shut the hell up about policy.
No, we are not proposing to eliminate them. That’s probably why he wants to secure them. Weakening Assad means he has less control of those horrible, horrible WMDs that everyone seems so concerned about.
Obama isn’t proposing to occupy Syria, just to damage Assad’s ability to commit mass murder and give him incentive not to repeat the atrocity. So we lob some missiles and knock out some of Assad’s capability, just basically throw some sand in his gears. Will it completely eliminate the WMD threat? No, but it will reduce his capability. Do we have to secure the sites? No, just destroy what we can.
It is foolish – positively foolish – to discount professional advice because something seems so easy to a dilettante. This maxim applies whether you are talking about refinishing your floors or dropping bombs on other countries.
Let’s say we want to bomb a suspected CW bunker. So, you’re happy with just letting the stuff be released in a giant plume? Well, that seems pretty counter-productive. Ok, then let’s bomb the security posts around the bunker. Well, shit, we just left a stockpile of CW undefended for whoever wants it. Pretty soon it becomes apparent that the only real way to secure chemical weapons is to seize them. Air power doesn’t seize stuff very well.
Are you just defending Obama in order to defend him, or are you on board with bombing Syria? I ask because you’re not making much sense-- you don’t go around bombing CW sites.
You do realize that this could have just as easily been an argument against opponents of the GWII: “Hey, what do you know about modern warfare? If the Bush caibnet is okay with a less than six figure invasion force, it’s foolish of you to disagree!”
I’ll admit I’m no expert on chemical weapons. If it is possible to destroy them without killing everyone within a mile radius, I say do it. Does the heat of a bombing change the chemistry? I don’t know. If bombing them makes a toxic cloud of death, what is the kill radius? I don’t know. If the experts say you can’t destroy them from the air, then destroy the capability to deliver them. Knock out the airstrips, knock out the trucks, whatever. IF we do something, it should be what we can do without committing troops on the ground. I’m not 100% sold on taking action, but I think it’s inappropriate for active officers to comment publicly on pending decisions to be made by their civilian superiors.
