Carl von Clausewitz, the 19th century German-Prussian military theorist, defined for future generations the principles of war. Many of his theories remain applicable today, including this warning:
“No one starts a war—or rather, no one in his senses ought to do so—without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by that war and how he intends to conduct it.”
And that’s the challenge for President Obama as he prepares to address the nation tonight to make his argument for a military strike against Syria. What are we trying to achieve and what happens after the missiles start to fly?
Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry provided his description of the mission. “We will be able to hold Bashar al-Assad accountable without engaging in troops on the ground or any other prolonged kind of effort in a very limited, very targeted, short-term effort that degrades his capacity to deliver chemical weapons without assuming responsibility for Syria’s civil war.”
That sounds more like wishful thinking than a mission. Wars—and firing missiles and dropping bombs is an act of war—cannot be parsed.
If we believe that Assad was behind the chemical attacks of innocents, then it seems the mission should be to kill him. But taking out Assad could dramatically shift the balance in the civil war, which we claim we’re not getting involved in.
Kerry also tried to reassure reluctant allies yesterday that our strike would be “unbelievably small.”
So our goal is to show Assad that his actions have consequences, but announcing publicly that the attack will be insignificant is not the way to strike fear in the heart of a Middle East strongman.
If our attack is going to be unbelievably small, then why do it at all? Kerry’s language makes it sound as though firing deadly cruise missiles is more of a PR effort than a military strategy.
Meanwhile, Assad told CBS’s Charlie Rose that a U.S. attack would prompt retaliation. “You should expect everything.” Asked whether than meant chemical weapons, Assad said that would depend “if the rebels or the terrorists in this region or any other group have it. It could happen,” he said.
That may be bluster, but it still brings us back to von Clausewitz. Is the United States prepared for what could come next?
It is said that the military is always fighting the previous war. The same can be said about the public perception of war. The swift and effective use of military force in the first Gulf War convinced many Americans that the invasion of Iraq a decade later would go as smoothly.
It did not; and now after a dozen years of fighting and nation building in Afghanistan and Iraq, most Americans tend to be more cautious about, if not hostile toward, Middle East adventures.
It’s difficult to imagine the President saying anything tonight to change that.