SyriaAdministration's Syria plan: limited operation with “downstream” effect
Three leading administration officials yesterday presented, in general detail, the plan of attack on Syria. The plan emphasizes the destruction of delivery vehicles – missiles, rockets, planes and their airfields, and artillery pieces – used in the delivery of chemical weapons. The three officials – Kerry, Hagel, and Dempsey — agreed that such an attack, even if its purpose would be to degrade the regime’s ability to deliver chemical weapons, would have “downstream” effect: these delivery vehicles also deliver conventional munitions, so their destruction would more generally degrade the regime’s ability to fight, thus making the battlefield between the regime and the rebels more level. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is today drafting a new resolution which would permit up to ninety days of military action against the Syrian government and bar the deployment of U.S. combat troops in Syria but permit the deployment of a small rescue mission in the event of an emergency. The White House also would be required within thirty days of enactment of the resolution to send lawmakers a plan for a diplomatic solution to end the violence in Syria.
Three top Obama administration officials, in a 4-hour hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Tuesday, told lawmakers that the purpose of the planned military strike against Syria would be to “degrade” the Assad regime’s ability to carry out chemical weapons attacks.
Secretary of State John Kerry, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey did not explicitly say it, but it became clear that the plan involves destruction of the ability of the regime to deliver chemical weapons on target, rather than the destruction of the chemical weapons themselves, or the destruction of chemical weapons depots.
Because the emphasis was on the destruction of delivery vehicles – missiles, rockets, planes and their airfields, and artillery pieces – the three agreed that such an attack, even if its purpose would be to degrade the regime’s ability to deliver chemical weapons, would have “downstream” consequences: these delivery vehicles also deliver conventional munitions, so their destruction would more generally degrade the regime’s ability to fight, thus making the battlefield between the regime and the rebels more level.
The difficulty the three officials had was to persuade skeptical senators that the contemplated attack plan, at the same time, would achieve several goals:
- It would powerful enough to inflict pain on the regime for using chemical weapons and deter it from using such weapons again
- It would be powerful enough to dissuade the regime and nits allies from retaliating
- It would be power enough to send a message to Iran, North Korea, and other rogue states
Yet:
- It would be limited enough so as not to topple the Assad regime
- It would be carried out in a way which would not risk a deepening U.S. involvement
- It would be tailored so that the “”downstream” consequences would help the “right” rebels rather than the al Qaeda-affiliated ones
Kerry, who was the main speaker for the administration, stressed that the administration was not asking for congressional backing to “go to war.”
“Our military objectives in Syria would be to hold the Assad regime accountable, degrade its ability to carry out these kinds of attacks and deter it from further use of chemical weapons,” Hagel said.
Gen. Dempsey said his goal would be to leave the regime weaker after any assault.
“On this issue, that is the use of chemical weapons, I find a clear linkage to our national security interest,” said Dempsey, who has never concealed his skepticism about the wisdom of military intervention
