December 21, 2018
I need to comment on the Syrian situation.
Before I start, two points. First, “what” we do and “how” we do it are different. I detest how we are doing things, and have nothing new to argue here that critics are not already screaming about, including Mattis.
Second, the Kurds. No discussion of Syria or ISIS can ignore the role the US helped put in place for the Kurds in both Iraq and against ISIS in both countries.
Having said that, our existing policies in Syria right now are completely mystifying. Step back. Europe is being destabilized by migration from Syria, and probably Libya and Iraq as well. But nobody’s going home until there is a home to go to.
The new, 31 year old chancellor of Austria formed an alliance with Neo-Nazis with roots in Hitler’s Germany, largely because of the immigration/migration issue. Can you even imagine that? Check out the threats to democratic liberalism in Hungary and Poland. Of course, France and Britain have their own migration issues. Both had historical colonial roots in all of these Arab locations. People in flight from war are a big factor in Europe’s troubles.
How do you solve these issues, at least partially? You allow forces unhindered by the US to complete the job of re-stabilizing a Country so its citizens can live there, get fed there, and find jobs there. Such needs cannot be fulfilled when the countries have been broken through active, unending warfare and simply don’t work. We may not like that government. We may not like the form of government. We may think their leaders are bad guys. But, when we ineffectively interfere do we really make things better? We are basically an invader country in Syria. Since WW II we have essentially had very little interest in Syria or the Assad family. During that time, Syria was generally more free than, for example, Saudi Arabia. The forces fighting Assad will not prevail. Assad has the Russians, the country with whom the Syrians have been a client state since the days of Nasser in Egypt, in the 1950’s. The Russians recognized Syria in 1944. They created a friendship treaty in 1946. They developed a twenty year treaty, with four automatic five year extensions, in 1980. They established a mission critical Russian naval base in Tartus in 1971. Syria is critical to Russian interests. It did not start with Putin. And all the talk that throws Russia and Iran together as great pals. Where does that come from? Russia is as worried about Islamic terrorism as is the United States. By the way, while we are on it, so are the never heard from Chinese, with huge issues in the Western part of China. And ISIS? ISIS is no friend of Russia, nor Turkey. Now Russia has their nose deep into Syria. If we get out, ISIS is their problem. And Turkey’s problem. Oh, and Afghanistan?? Let’s extend this discussion. Eighteen years! The core battle was won in two months. So, seventeen plus years to find a political solution. There is no political center there not called the Taliban that could last six months without the US, anymore than the South Vietnamese government could last for two years after we got out. And here’s an interesting point. These pre-modern people called the Taliban have controlled a huge area between Pakistan and Afghanistan forever. It was called the Northwest Frontier. More or less half of the area is in Afghanistan and half is in Pakistan. Neither country has ever controlled the area. It is huge, about 71,000 square KMs. The British never controlled it. The people who live there even have two names: Pashtuns if they live on the Afghanistan side and Pathans if they live on the Pakistan side. They are essentially the same people, clinging much more to each other than to either country. (I lived in Lahore, Pakistan in 1965 and was taught these facts.) And they are pre-modern, and fundamentalist Muslims. Are they all Talibans as well? Probably not. That political force emerged only in recent decades. But they know how to co-exist and function in a Taliban controlled political culture. This is why Pakistan cannot really solve the Afghanistan/Taliban problem for us. According to Woodward, in his Trump book, the best McMaster’s could offer Trump in his strategic plan for Afghanistan was another two to four year plan, requiring more forces and money. And he admits it’s a stalemate. And he admits we have no plans to make it otherwise. The CBO estimates that Iraq and Afghanistan will cost the US $2.4 trillion dollars. Virtually every dollar of that is borrowed. Moreover, unlike building bridges, there is no lasting economic benefit to 90% of those expenditures. There is no multiplier effect. Why do you suppose there is no money for huge US based infrastructure plays? Afghanistan is costing US $45 billion a year right now.
Here is what we will get from future Syrian involvement: a Russian-Syrian alliance will be the political power in Syria, today, tomorrow, ten years from now, regardless of how long we stay, and how much we spend. The suffering will not even start to stop until we get out. Yes, there will be a hard transition period. But that is unavoidable, as it was in Vietnam. Frankly, Russia, the US, European allies, Turkey, Iran and maybe even China will come to an agreement regarding how ISIS is kept down. Here’s what we will get for every next day we spend in Afghanistan: the Taliban will be the political power in Afghanistan six months after we get out, or ten years and $500 billion more in investment. The forces against the Taliban have had almost eighteen years to prove they could compete. How has that worked out? It almost never works out. Yes, these subjects are loaded with tragedy. Our men and women, killed and terribly injured. Our in country allies who will either need to get out, or will need to figure out a way to integrate into whatever government and society emerges as the stable force. Yes, we may hate the government and never understand how the huge numbers of people could tolerate a government as seemingly evil as the Taliban. But we can’t change that. I have always felt that there is one US message for the Taliban: We are leaving. In time you will come out of your villages and caves and move back into government buildings in Kabul and elsewhere where you were before. And here is our message. Then you become vulnerable to us again. And if ever again any force attacks the US from your territory, we will blow you out of those buildings as quickly as we did the last time. How did that work out for you? What did that cost you? Do you prefer caves? We play offense very well. We are shitty at Nation Building, as is everyone else who hold the values of democratic liberalism. (The Roman Empire was not so encumbered.)
Finally, the Kurds. We must find a way to protect them. We must find a deal with Turkey. Also, we need to create a special immigration policy for the people in Afghanistan or Syria who have put their lives on the line to support their own, and US interests, in these countries. Anything else would be immoral.
Regarding “how” one goes about changing policy, there must be ten better ways to do that than the Twitter choice made this week by you know whom. But this is not the same as “what” we should be doing. There may be a lasting lesson here. Who ever said the word “disruptor” was a nice word. It is a terrible, painful, unsettling word. It means a great deal of pain is about to be distributed in order to make something much better in the future for many more people. But, we need a disruptor because we can’t shake these policies – economic interests. Sadness. Humanitarian concerns that only make things worse, but are moral at their core. Image. “Political” failure – not military. These are deeply set interests and can only be dislodged through a form of disruption that will make everyone gasp! My last point. We should be concentrating on “how” we do this, at what pace, and against what precise process goals and constraints, and in consultation with our major allies, who are as deeply stuck as are we, and will require some degree of disruption. Have a nice day.
