Issues Under Fire: Importance of Clarifying U.S. Priorities in Syria

Issues Under Fire: Importance of Clarifying U.S. Priorities in Syria 

As the United States continue air strikes in Syria, while ramping up special operation missions on the ground, the Obama administration's allies are busy weighing the international legality of moving forward with military intervention. The Brits are in a rather heated discussion over mission creep, as their Foreign Affairs Committee warned, " any benefits of air strikes in Syria would be more than outweighed by the risk of legal ambiguity, political chaos on the ground, military irrelevance and diplomatic cost". 

Apparently unconcerned with the finer points of international law governing such circumstances, the Obama administration seems intent upon waging war in Syria against the Bashar al-Assad government and only using ISIS as an excuse to be there. Since the Obama administration failed to seek and obtain a U.N. mandate to enter Syria, the U.S. is proceeding without establishing clear objectives or a coherent strategy. 

Considering the Obama administration has made no secret of pushing for regime change in Syria, its difficult to determine if ISIS is the top priority, or Bashar al-Assad is the primary target. If ISIS and other drivers of islamic terror are the persons of interest, there should be no problem coordinating and cooperating with Russia, Iran or Syria's government's forces. Everyone would be on the same page. 

If combating Islamic terror to help bring about a political solution in Syria is the primary goal, there would be no problem securing full international support for military engagement. But if the United State is viewed as establishing an illegal military presence in Syria for the sole purpose of getting rid of Bashar al-Assad, the Obama administration will not only lose international support, but will have difficult time defending taking sides in the Syrian conflict without formally declaring war against the Syrian government. 

 

Even though President Obama promises no large scale operations requiring huge numbers of boots on the ground, no matter how small the White House keeps its footprint in Syria, any military actions taken on Syrian soil could be considered an act of war against that country. Any unauthorized activities could validate a response. Although the Assad regime may have a limited reach globally, they may have friends planted locally. 

If its determined, the United States, Saudi Arabia and Israel are really lining up against Russia, Iran and the Syrian government in a power struggle for regional dominance, the Europeans will surely bolt. If its determined the United States is more concerned with ousting Bashar al-Assad than the hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing the region for their lives, the Obama administration will lose the moral high ground. If its determined the United States' dogged pursuit of Assad departure is the primary reason Syria's civil war has been prolonged, President Obama will leave office with buckets of blood on his hands.

Bottom line: Whether he likes it or not, this is Barack Obama's war. And if this administration cares anything at all about maintaining the legitimacy of its actions in Syria, the President would be wise to clarify precisely what he's doing there. Podcast below!