http://www.timesdispatch.com/opinion...9416e8d20.html
U.S. Special Forces may be the answer in Syria
BY KEVIN GRAY | Posted: Sunday, September 8, 2013 12:00 am
I have been adamant over the past two years that the U.S. should not remain idle during the Syrian civil war, not only as thousands of
lives are lost, but as regional stability is threatened and an outcome beneficial to American interests becomes increasingly less likely.
Though saddened by the terrible event that forced a more active American approach, I am glad that the debate has come to the forefront.
However, I’m afraid retaliatory and punitive air strikes (the targets to which have already been shown on the cable news networks with
odd specificity, apparently operating under the assumption that no one watches CNN in Damascus) will be a perfunctory effort and
ultimately serve only as a preventative measure against the loss of U.S. credibility.
In his statements on Aug. 31, President Obama outlined what he would hope to accomplish and the way in which he would have it
accomplished: “We would not put boots on the ground. Instead, our action would be designed to be limited in duration and scope. But
I’m confident we can hold the Assad regime accountable for their use of chemical weapons, deter this kind of behavior and degrade
their capacity to carry it out.”
The question of the efficacy of potential air strikes has been commented upon by many more qualified to do so than myself, but it is
hard to see the merits even supposing the desired effect is achieved. Holding the Assad regime accountable neither benefits the rebels
nor furthers American interests. If a response from the U.S. that is limited in duration and scope would act as a deterrent against future
chemical attacks, then surely it should follow that the threat of such a response would do the same (which obviously it did not).
In fact, as Foreign Policy’s Peter Feaver suggests, it is even conceivable that a limited U.S. response is precisely the outcome the
Assad regime is hoping for, potentially calculating “that Obama’s manifest desire not to intervene in the civil war will yield a tepid U.S.
strike that Assad can easily withstand. Defying the United States and living to boast about it might be the game-changer Assad needs to
demoralize the rebels into making major concessions.”
follow that the U.S. should continue its policy of non-intervention in Syria? Not necessarily. An option which has not
been thoroughly explored is the insertion of U.S. Army Special Forces.
to that post...very well said, IMVSHO.
Linear Mode
