What Now? (Part Two)

In my previous post, I suggested that there were four ways in which Congress could respond to President Obama's request for their endorsement of action against Syria. 

They could say Yes.

They could say No.

They could ask for a more detailed plan, with serious undertakings as to the President's further plans in the event that bombing Syria doesn't result in its abandonment of chemical weapons.

They could declare war against Syria, insisting upon a full-scale military effort to oust the Assad regime, corral Syria's stockpiles of WMD, and pull out.

Obviously, the first two options are what they are.  If Congress says "Yes", they must hope that this President - not the most decisive or experienced of presidents - will be able to avoid the slippery slope which seems, too often, to lead from limited intervention into invasion, protracted conflict, and a failed attempt at nation-building.

If Congress says "No", apparently, that's it.  We stay out, and let what happens, happen.

If Congress asks for a more detailed strategy - and the President complies - Congress will then be left to decide whether to say yes or no to that plan.  Which doesn't really change anything, since plans are just plans - and the slippery slope still looms.

Which brings us to option four:  What if Congress upped the ante by insisting that we go all-in?  What if we just declared war - essentially giving the bird to Vladimir Putin, Iran's ayatollahs and China's new mandarins of  - and started landing the Marines?

I'm not recommending it, understand, but there's something to be said for waging war in pursuit of a decisive result.

Indeed, there was a great deal to be said for it two years ago, when we dithered around hoping an ill-sorted, disorganized bunch of rebels would be able to topple a well-organized, ruthless regime fighting for the existence of itself and the religious minority it leads.

At that point, there was at least some prospect that a quick, decisive victory would leave in place the sort of civil society necessary as the prerequisite for nation-building. 

Now, all the people we could have relied upon then - the educated, relatively secular businessmen, lawyers, doctors, teachers and bureaucrats who are the best hope in every society seeking to move toward enlightened self-government - are either dead or fled.  Of the millions of Syrians now in exile, it's a safe bet that their number includes nearly everyone who could afford to get out.

And that number will include nearly everyone in Syria who doesn't believe, deep down, that it is the will of Allah that his particular group crush, humiliate, and rule over all the other groups.  

Which is to say that - while there might possibly have been a good ending to the Syrian rising had we acted promptly and decisively to eliminate Assad - there is no good ending possible now.  No matter who wins, Syria will be devastated for decades - and the eventual ruler will be the survivor of a particularly ruthless war of all against all.

Speaking personally, had I been President two years ago - and had the military been able to put together a plan which involved limited costs - I would have taken advantage of the opportunity to eliminate the Assad regime.  Period. 

There are a lot of bad rulers in the world - many of them hostile to the United States.  Most of the time, we have to live with that.

But when there's a chance to support a group of people who are making a serious effort to topple one of them - and there's a reasonable chance of succeeding - my instinct is to take it. 

But again, that was two years ago. 

And my guess is that the President's present desire to do something arises largely out of the desire to compensate for the mistake he made in not doing something then.

There's a good deal of that in recent American foreign policy.  We miss an opportunity, and later, we try to go back for a redo.

Like the urgency of a bunch of retreads from Bush 41 talking his son into invading Iraq after 9-11 - on a fabricated pretext - in order to make up for their failure to finish off Saddam ten years earlier.

They missed that chance.  The attempt to get it back was a waste of lives and treasure - and a profound distraction from the  mission of catching Osama bin Laden.

At any rate, that's my sense of what's going on here.  A lot of people in Washington - including the President - are having regrets about missing the boat in 2011.  But they did miss the boat, and it's now too late to go back and fix things.  Syria's educated middle-class is gone.  There's no one left to build a nation with.

Which leaves the American people - now that we've been belated invited into this debate - to make the best of our remaining options.

And they are two:

Either stay out - completely out - and let Syria gone on destroying itself.  Perhaps by focusing on something a lot more important - and about which we  could actually do something - like global climate change.

Or go in - hard and fast, boots on the ground - to take out Assad and his military, capture his chemical weapons stocks, and leave. 

And then let the Syrians go on killing each other until someone forms a new government.  Or several new governments.

For my money, since there are al Qaeda and Hezbollah fighters on the ground in Syria, I'd vote for the limited incursion to decapitate the Assad regime and grab the weapons.  If our military thinks that's possible.

If not, I'd vote to stay out completely and just stop talking about it. 

Because the bottom line is this: 

Two years ago, we had a magnificence, once-in-a-presidency chance to topple a truly evil regime and allow a relatively educated, sophisticated people to try for something better.

And we missed the  boat.

Since we can't turn back the clock, we shouldn't waste any more time with it.  If we can grab Assad's weapons at a reasonable cost, let's go.

If not, let's go home.