Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
No-Fly Zones and Dangerous Labels
The French Defense Minister, Jean-Yves Le
Drian, recently stated that France is willing to help impose
a “partial” no-fly zone in Syria, pending
international legitimacy and participation, and so long as it was not a full
no-fly zone, since that would be “tantamount to war.” There are several
curiosities to unravel here, and they are not exactly unique to this case.
The modern obsession with finding forms of
military intervention short of war is a quixotic enterprise. As Micah Zenko has
extensively studied, and co-blogger Adam has written about
elsewhere, Discrete
Military Operations such as no-fly zones are tantamount to wars
in many respects. They are, if not sanctioned internationally, acts of
aggression. They will often be treated by the target actor as an act of war.
The dynamics of conflict and military action still apply.
What is particularly revealing here is that
a “partial” no-fly zone is floated as some sort of non-war action, but a
nationwide no-fly zone in Syria would be “tantamount to war.” But of course,
imposing a no-fly zone over part of Syria or the whole of it is a matter of
quantitative degree rather than qualitative difference. As I explored in a piece for the United
States Naval Institute,
imposing a no-fly zone in Syria would likely mean conducting intensive Suppression of
Enemy Air Defense to destroy Syria’s air defenses and air force. Even a partial
no-fly zone would likely require some strikes outside its limits in order to degrade Syrian airfields, early-warning radars and mobile or semi-mobile air defense
systems.
Imposing even a partial no-fly zone would be
tantamount to war, just as arming Syria’s rebels would be an act of war, and
constitute foreign engagement in the Syrian civil war, and their success would
rely on the combustible cocktail of passion, reason, and chance that all wars
do. The difference between these “time-limited,
scope-limited kinetic military actions” and war is ultimately an arbitrary distinction of
political language which gives away when either the target or the intervening
force, in order to achieve its objectives, escalates force to the point where
the label is no longer tenable or useful.
In Iraq, the case is instructive on the
dangers and shortcomings of such short-of-war thinking. In the wake of Desert
Storm, despite the battlefield defeat of the Iraqi army and widespread
desertion or imprisonment of Iraqi conscripts, Iraq maintained the will to
suppress revolts in its north and south, resulting in the imposition of no-fly
zones under Operations Northern and Southern Watch. The result was continued
U.S. engagement in warfare against Iraqi air defenses and air forces and Iraqi
warfare against rebelling forces in both no-fly zones. Saddam repeatedly
violated America’s imposed standards despite the experience of 1990-91, which
occasionally required the threatened reinsertion of Western ground forces or,
in the wake of Saddam’s intervention in the Kurdish Civil War, and ended
pretenses of respecting them due to strikes nominally aimed at his WMD program (but in practice, at many other
critical political and military facilities). Ultimately, America’s political goals in Iraq,
as codified in the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, required a military action
everybody rightfully identified as a war.
Ultimately, although using labels such as
“humanitarian intervention,” “kinetic military action,” or, to get really old
school, “Quasi-War” may be politically or historically sensible, particularly
in retrospect, they remain, from the perspective of military analysis grappling with
prospective scenarios, frequently misleading. It is only the result of an
equilibrium between the preferences of the belligerents engaged, and frequently
devolve into war because each side retains the capacity to frustrate the
political objectives of the other without an unmistakable increase in willpower
or commitment. In Iraq, that increase ultimately came in the form of an
invasion force. In Libya, luckily enough, it was a combination of NATO
airstrikes and a weak government military which allowed escalation to proceed
on much more favorable terms. Any application of concerted military force
against a sovereign state is “tantamount to war.” Being vague or conflicted
about its ends and obscure about its ways and means just makes it more
politically convenient to discuss openly, but less convenient to discuss
effectively.
"The modern obsession with
"The modern obsession with finding forms of military intervention short of war is a quixotic enterprise." Respectfully, I disagree. The modern era is full of precedent. To take the French as an example, back in the 1980s they were an involved bystander of the Libya/Chad conflict, and when the Libyans moved a number of combat aircraft to an airfield close to the disputed territory in order to step up the pace of close air support, the French initially warned them away and, when Libya ignored the warning, mounted a small-scale but very successful strike that destroyed a number of LAF aircraft and brought their CAS operations to a halt. No blowback on the French, and I particularly admired the "economy of force" they brought to bear.
This is a different situation, of course, but I suspect a declared no-fly zone linked with a strike against a major SAF airfield will curtail Syrian air operations against the rebels to a similar degree. Of course appropriate SEAD must be brought to bear to minimize friendly losses. (We are probably in the best position to implement the latter.)
I don't see the French
I don't see the French intervention in the Chadian-Libyan conflict as so straightforward.
After all, before the air raid (are you referring to Ouadi Doum?), France had to deploy a few thousand ground troops and CAS platforms as part of an expeditionary force to impose and uphold the 15th parallel limit line. And even that didn't deter Libya from continuing to participate in offensives alongside Chadian factions.
The Ouadi Doum raid, although it did temporarily disable the airfield, did not prevent Libya from launching a variety of assaults into Chadian territory, even after their proxy forces turned on them. Ultimately the end of Libyan aerial interference in Chad, and the assurance that Libya would cease intervening in Chadian affairs, had to come from major ground offensives on the Chadians part. And preventing Libyan air cover from disrupting the an offensive to retake the Aouzou strip ultimately had to come from a ground seizure of the Libyan airbase at Maaten al-Sarra.
The first big French DMO in Chad, Operation Manta, was basically a failure, in that it tried to secure the conditions for mutual withdrawal by French and Libyan forces without breaking Gaddafi's will to fight.
The Ouadi Doum raid was basically a technical fix. It didn't end the war, and ultimately securing the conditions to end the war required the Chadians (with US intelligence assistance) doing something the French did not want to do, attacking Libya's own territory (this should have some sobering lessons for any country that wants to arm a relatively decentralized foreign proxy coalition but thinks this will give them power to restrain their actions). And Operation Epervier is still ongoing, France has been in the middle of Chad's conflicts ever since (although, as a Frenchman once joked to me, the CDSP means that where before, France would defend its interests in Chad to the last drop of blood, now it can defend its interests in Chad to the last drop of Irish blood), so the DMO was basically a helpful nudge, but in a process that ultimately wasn't under France's control and didn't secure the conditions for French disengagement from Chad.
As for a Syrian NFZ, well, I don't think simply doing a raid would work. After all, raids are basically hit-or-miss, and most of the time the success of the political aims they seek to impose is dependent on factors the raids themselves don't much change (the 1983 US raid on Syrian air defenses, which Zenko analyzes well here, is a good counterpoint http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/14/zenko-when-america-at...).
After all, even Libya attempted a bombing raid on Chad's capital after Ouadi Doum, and unlike the Libya-Chad theater, Syria is relatively compact, and a partial no-fly zone would leave several bases untouched that could raid into the NFZ. Nor would it be likely to discourage Syrian conventional military operations, let alone paramilitary ones by the Shabiha. Iraq also contested the NFZs several times despite years of US shootdowns, SEAD and punitive bombings. Given the geography of Syria, thoroughly degrading hostile air power will probably require comprehensive strikes, and I still think it's dubious as to whether an NFZ and air capability degradation will meaningfully or cost-effectively advance our policy objectives (unless they're merely oriented around reducing the use of aircraft in the Syrian civil war).
Sorry for the extended reply (is it longer than my original post?), but I wanted to explain my train of thought here.
Ralph there is truth in what
Ralph there is truth in what both you and Trombly say.
It is one thing to drop a bomb in Libya (Reagan did it too) and it is quite another to get into the war powers discussion. The latter seems to be happening a lot, then the topic has been around for a short period of time, less than a life time for most.
Every generation has it own discussion. I am more concerned about the actions and not the words. Technically the US is at war with both Iran and Syria, we embargoed both countries. Blocking oil shipments is not too friendly and keeping helicopter parts from arriving by denying insurance coverage is hostile. US can get away with a lot of bullying because of our size and capabilities.
Neither Iran or Syria is about to swap spit with the US anytime soon.
If you think we have cultural training issues in the US military (green on blue) now, think of what the GI's protecting Syria's chemical weapons will go through. Hezbollah will be none too happy to have their friendly government disposed by the people which protect Israel.
Just hope the powers that be at that time do not give orders that only a JAG lawyer can interpret.
Trombly, good post.
What exactly are America's
What exactly are America's Aims in Syria? "Stop the Killing..." "Responsibility to Protect..." who? The Jihadi oppo forces? We don't have a stake there, Russia does. Let them sort out their business.
To answer the larger point of the post: Our elites lack the stomach for war.
The war that is called a war
The war that is called a war but isn't? (The War on Drugs.)
Think Obama and Hillary Clinton are right, Americans shouldn't let guns "slip" across the border. Looks like the Mexicans don't have gun control. How does Columbia get all those neat US military aircraft and M16's?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/2-us-government-workers...
The two wounded Americans were riding in a U.S. Embassy car, a sport-utility vehicle with diplomatic plates, when they came under heavy fire on a highway between the capital city and Cuernavaca. According to Mexican media reports, the vehicle was struck by more than 30 bullets.
.
If federal police pulled the trigger, it marks a major embarrassment for the Mexican government, which has received millions of dollars in equipment and training for the justice system as part of a $1.6 billion anti-drug aid package from the U.S. government.
Yeah, I know George Bush did it.
Hillary, how are the drinks at the Havana in Cartagena, Colombia?
War of words.
BTW.....NYC needs some gun control too. Eight feet away, seen near-sighted old ladies with better marksmanship.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/nyregion/empire-state-building-shootin...
From about eight feet away, the officers confronted Mr. Johnson and when he pulled out his gun, they opened fire, shooting a total of 16 rounds. Mr. Johnson was killed and nine bystanders were wounded, perhaps all by police bullets.
Now I can see why HLS tells their employees to run away from active shooters. With the Social Security Administration purchasing over 150,000 SIG357 hollow points, someone can get hurt!!!!!
United States Ambassador to
United States Ambassador to Afghanistan
In office
July 25, 2011 – July 13, 2012
President Barack Obama
Preceded by Karl Eikenberry
Succeeded by James B. Cunningham
United States Ambassador to Iraq
In office
March 26, 2007 – February 13, 2009
President George W. Bush
Barack Obama
Preceded by Zalmay Khalilzad
Succeeded by Christopher R. Hill
United States Ambassador to Pakistan
In office
November 25, 2004 – March 28, 2007
President George W. Bush
Preceded by Nancy Jo Powell
Succeeded by Anne W. Patterson
United States Ambassador to Syria
In office
1998–2001
President Bill Clinton
Preceded by Christopher W.S. Ross
Succeeded by Theodore H. Kattouf
United States Ambassador to Kuwait
In office
1994–1997
President Bill Clinton
Preceded by Edward Gnehm
Succeeded by James A. Larocco
United States Ambassador to Lebanon
In office
1990–1993
President George H. W. Bush
Preceded by John Thomas McCarthy
Succeeded by Mark Gregory Hambley
http://www.kxly.com/news/spok
http://www.kxly.com/news/spokane-news/Ambassador-Crocker-arrested-for-hi...
According to the police report Crocker vomited and urinated on himself when he was found by police. From the time he hit the semi truck till the time he blew on the breathalyzer, almost 2 hours passed. Which means his BAC was like .20 or higher.
Had to laugh they said he retired from an illness he had previously in Iraq. Well, that illness was Alcoholism for anyone who knows Ryan Crocker well enough.
And people wonder why our GOV is so screwed up and we lost both wars?
Lucky no one was killed.
Lucky no one was killed. Woulded be surprised if he pulls a Cobain exit.
Thanks for your service dude, but Christ get some help.
I think a no fly zone in
I think a no fly zone in Syria is a great idea! Without making Syria into a controlled laboratory for Iran to develop counter-SEAD, how will Iran ever prepare for a US or Israeli strike on their nuclear facilities?
More seriously, "quasi-war" is something of an active sonar ping that may detect whether the oppo is a paper tiger or not.
What were you doing July 20,
What were you doing July 20, 1969? I know what I was doing.
Tet had happened and the Pentagon papers were yet to be leaked. The Nation was getting over the 1968 Democratic Convention and Kent State was in the future. America was not happy with returning Vietnam Vets. Richard Nixon was in the White House and Johnson could not bring himself to another term. Canada was getting new residents that did not like the draft.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7c-PbfnQuw&feature=related
What a great time to have lived.
Neil Armstrong just another American doing his job. Just about 30 seconds from oblivion flying a computer that had less processing power than a hand held calculator of the 70's era. The count down you hear as the Eagle is landing on the moon is available fuel time remaining.
That era set the table of the war power discussion today.
Drunk Leader at the Wheel. on
Drunk Leader at the Wheel. on August 25, 2012 - 11:41am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmUUYo9o9eg&feature=relmfu
What happened to that unifying voice? You do not sound happy DLatW, how did you feel three years ago?
Obama 2012 is leading only 51% of the nation, the same thing that Bush did.
Where's the change and unity?
Is the price of Health Care less than it was three years ago?
Has FP improved the Middle East? Europe? China?
Are the "Green" jobs going to expand faster than population growth?
Has the home foreclose rate improved?
Is GM's stock price anywhere closer to the $55 the Tax Payer break even point. How much did each kept job cost?
How's Wall Street doing these days? One of the largest supporters of the Obama campaign in the 2008 election were the Hedge Fund and Investment bankers in Chicago.
We got into this together, we have to be together to get out. Obama's 2012 message is division.
Wrong plan.
"Take him and cut him out in
"Take him and cut him out in little stars,
And he will make the face of heaven so fine
That all the world will be in love with night
And pay no worship to the garish sun".
Dream well and travel well, Mr. Armstrong.
i used the gas cost
i used the gas cost calculator to check the free truck rate
and it gave me the exact rate details.so you guys can check it..
Add your comment