Home › Monthly Archive › February 2012
 

Abu Muqawama: February 2012

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.

  • Pressure Not War
    February 22, 2012 | Posted by Abu Muqawama - 12:23pm | 44 Comments

    I have been busy teaching and writing of late, and the blog has been neglected. But when I have written on the blog, it has usually been to ask that we get serious about thinking through the feasibility of military options for Syria before we either argue for U.S. military intervention or abstain from direct involvement in the conflict. I have been proud, then, to have worked a little bit with Marc Lynch as he wrote this most recent policy paper for the Center for a New American Security (.pdf). Marc has done great work, and it's been rewarding to watch him think through the various options available to policy makers. Those screaming for military intervention should pay especially close attention to pp. 3-7.   

    Syria

  • The Order of Battle Problem
    February 9, 2012 | Posted by Abu Muqawama - 10:27pm | 38 Comments

    As some of you may know, I have been shocked by the ease with which some in U.S. policy circles have begun to consider armed intervention in Syria. Many of these same people supported the military intervention in Libya, though few of them seem to have any intellectual interest in dealing with the awful mess that remains -- perhaps proving that when it comes to post-conflict stabilization and reconstruction, most liberal interventionists are no better than most neoconservatives.

    Since most analysts seem to have quickly realized that the establishment of safe havens or no-fly zones would be very difficult if not also quixotic, the new big idea is to arm the Free Syrian Army, which may or may not even be an actual thing. John McCain thinks this is a good idea, as does Elliott Abrams. Even Dan Drezner, who is usually a careful thinker about such things, is on the bandwagon.

    My colleague Marc Lynch has a long post explaining why no, this is probably not a very good idea.

    My question for those who support arming Syrian guerrilla groups was prompted by something Drezner wrote:

    What’s going on inside of Syria is a civil war, and the government is clearly receiving ample support from both Russia and Iran. Arming the opposition at least evens the odds on the battlefield.

    Really? Did Drezner or anyone else consult an actual order of battle before talking about "evening the odds?" According to the 2011 Military Balance, Syria has:

    1. 4,950 main battle tanks.
    2. 2,450 BMPs.
    3. 1,500 more armored personnel carriers.
    4. 3,440+ pieces of artillery.
    5. 600,000 men under arms in the active and reserve forces.

    Now, for the sake of argument, let's say Syria can only field half of the above equipment and personnel due to maintenance issues and defections or whatever. We're still talking about a ridiculous amount of advanced weaponry. What arms, then, are we talking about giving these guerrilla groups? Nukes?

    The balance in Libya was only tipped when NATO warplanes began "enforcing the no-fly zone" by destroying Libyan tanks and armored personnel carriers. (I know those things don't actually fly, but the only way you can be really sure they won't grow wings is by dropping a GBU-31 on top of them.) If a scheme to train and equip the Syrians is not matched with a similar effort to degrade the capabilities of the Syrian army, I fail to see how arming the rebel groups will even any odds.

    That doesn't mean the rebels don't stand a chance -- they can always carry out a guerrlla campaign using raids, ambushes and IEDs. But it does mean that schemes to train and equip the rebel groups will be more about doing something that makes us feel better about ourselves rather than an act that seriously changes the game in Syria.

    I could always be wrong, of course. I am not an expert on the disposition and composition of the Syrian army and have no insight into how it is holding up through this campaign. But a quick glance at the strength of the forces doesn't make me optimistic about either the rebel groups or any western attempts to arm them.

    Syria

  • What We Talk About When We Talk About Military Intervention
    February 3, 2012 | Posted by Abu Muqawama - 11:15am | 23 Comments

    Steven Cook, Anne-Marie Slaughter, Shadi Hamid and Dan Byman -- smart analysts whose work I always read and admire -- have all now argued we need to consider military intervention in Syria. The problem is, for me at least, "military intervention" at once means everything and nothing. On the one hand, the decision to use force to achieve a desired political end is momentous in and of itself. On the other hand, though, I cannot determine whether or not "military intervention" is a good or bad idea until I have some idea of what, precisely, is meant by the term. Analysts who argue either for or against military intervention have an obligation to sketch out the ways in which one could possibly intervene so that we can determine which ways, if any, make sense given the circumstances. 

    A broader problem here, as I was discussing with both Adam Elkus and Robert Caruso, is that regional specialists rarely understand military capabilities and options well enough to make an argument for or against, and those who understand military capabilities and options rarely understand the regional dynamics well enough to make an argument for or against. It is important, in that context, for scholars to work collaboratively to complement areas of expertise.

    Along these lines, Marc Lynch is working on an analysis piece for CNAS that I hope will go some way toward addressing specific ways in which the United States could intervene militarily in Syria to better determine which options, if any, are worth attempting. This kind of analysis takes time but is, I think, ultimately the more responsible way to go about making these arguments.

    Syria

  • Hail to the Chief, Hail to Twitter
    February 1, 2012 | Posted by Abu Muqawama - 11:58am | 8 Comments

    Last night's CNAS 5th anniversary celebration was a tremendous amount of fun. Although the precedings were off-the-record, I don't think I'm breaking any rules by confirming numerous reports that Gen. Marty Dempsey called out this blog a number of times, wryly noting the way I've given him a hard time for his reading list and for his Pentagonese. 

    It says a lot about the health of the United States and about civil-military relations that the most powerful military officer in the country is willing to have a good-natured back-and-forth with a blogger who has criticized him. (That's not the case, for example, in Egypt, the recipient of $1.3 billion in annual U.S. military aid, where the military leadership is so lacking in confidence that it throws critical bloggers in jail.) The United States has the most powerful military in the world, and it sends a strong message to military officers in other countries when our officers hold themselves accountable to the people they serve. (And have a sense of good Irish humor about it in the process.) 

    It also says a lot about Twitter and other new media that @Martin_Dempsey noted I rather liked his speech at Duke and is willing to use social media to have a conversation with the public. A few months ago, I marvelled at a back-and-forth between former senior State Department official Anne-Marie Slaughter and George Washington University student Dan Trombly on the Responsibility to Protect. How cool, I thought. Any medium that facilitates egalitarian conversations between generals and bloggers on the one hand and between the former head of policy planning and an international relations student on the other hand is pretty darn amazing. 

    I felt really blessed last night to work at a place like CNAS. But I also felt blessed to live in this kind of country -- and at a time when technology is democratizing the public discourse to an extent never seen before.

    defense policy, social networking

Search