Calculus of 21st Century War: As Illustrated in Syria’s Civil & Regional War

With the 2^nd US military action against Syria in responding to its use of chemical weapons against its own citizens, the US and its allies have demonstrated another in a long line of examples of what constitutes a rationale and justification for engaging in a war-situation. You would think that we would know why nations go to war, and what the causes are that required it, and the objectives of ending the war are. If only it were that simple and that clear. Even an understanding of what defines being in a war is not something we understand.

When for example was the US last in a war? If you’re referring to a declared war, then it was World War II. This must seem not just incorrect but impossible given the events that have transpired in your own lives since then. But it was the term ‘declared’ that tripped you up. Instead of being at war as ‘declared’ by Congress, the US has been engaged in ‘military engagements’ that were authorized by Congress (Vietnam, Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, Iraq) or by the United Nations (e.g., Korean, Persian Gulf, Bosnian). So, the US’s engagement in Syria is an ‘Authorization for Use of Military Force’, it’s not a war; well, not to us. So, this is one conceptual change that has taken place over the last sixty years. Wars are now the big threat to be denied even while we invest the lives of our military and civil servants, our national treasury, and our values in ‘military engagements’.  Now if you want to know why we do this, it’s primarily because of politics. The US can’t get involved in declared wars without Congressional approval, so Presidents have navigated our way into conflicts via alternate techniques. Congresses have likewise sought ways to curtail/limit the power (and concurrently the risk) of allowing the President in engaging in ‘wars’ while recognizing that there are situations that demand an ability to make decisions that cannot await a Congressional process.

So, whether we are at war or not, the US is absolutely engaged in armed conflicts. Syria is one such conflict. But the purpose in being in a conflict also has to be based on some rationale that serves the overall interests of the nation. In the case of Syria, the US’s involvement was targeted at the elimination of the ISIS caliphate in support of the War on Terror (it’s ok to use the term ‘War’ even for ‘engagements’). The objective was to prevent the establishment of an Islamic Caliphate lead by terrorists and to help resolve the Syria Civil War. Now the war to eliminate ISIS was another effort to protect American interests; the tangential goal to resolve the Syria Civil War may not have been a significant factor in that decision.

Now the missile attacks on Syria forces would seem inconsistent with both the ISIS and the Civil War objectives, in that it doesn’t have a readily available rationale for how those attacks apply. The prevalent reason given for the attacks is independent of those goals and is explained as required because of the illegal use of chemical weapons. This would seem to be a sound and reasoned justification, except for a couple of things.

First, if the use of chemical weapons requires a response then as there have been numerous chemical attacks and not just the two, it would seem the use of chemical weapons doesn’t require a response but can be used to justify one. Perhaps it’s because when chemical weapons are used they indiscriminately kill civilians.

Second, if indiscriminately killing non-combatants provides the basis for attacking the perpetrator then the US doesn’t appear to have a problem with members of the Syria coalition violating that condition. The use of random bombing and targeting by area is clearly killing many civilians without any apparent consideration of who is dying. So maybe it’s a simple ratio that must be violated; like 1 terrorist killed can justify 10 civilian deaths. There hasn’t been any disclosure of such a metric but that doesn’t mean there isn’t one although I would doubt politicians and military leaders would be stupid enough to use such a rule. Any time there will be both terrorist and civilian deaths, I suspect that there are assessments about how to minimize civilian deaths (at least by US forces).

Third, is the use of chemical weapons as a justification for such missile attacks consistent with concurrently allowing civilian deaths in other forms logically sound and reasoned? If more civilians are killed with conventional weapons then it isn’t the death of civilians that matters, it just the means used. This leads to a conclusion that other nations don’t care about the civilians dying, but the danger to themselves that allowing a chemical attach to go un-responded to. This is not a humane justification, but a self-interest rationale. One can argue that it makes sense to get international agreement that use of indiscriminate chemical weapons places the offending nation(s) under retaliatory penalties, but you can’t and should claim the penalty was because of the civilians who died. It even makes more sense to justify the attacks on the basis of ‘you use them, the world punishes you’.

So, if the US cares about the death of civilians by chemical weapons because it’s inhumane and cannot be tolerated then why is their death by other means humane? Do the civilians who die by other means not suffer, or is it that they only suffer less? Down this road is insanity, deciding what is ok and what is not when it comes to kill people indiscriminately provides a path to mass murder that is safe.

What then is the responsibility of the US in the Syrian Civil War? It comes down to what the US has determined its goals to be, why those goals are relevant to the nation and it’s interests, and what attaining those goals will require. The clarity of our policy is dubious or at least our actions are not clearly aligned with a policy that would seem reasoned.

Are we at War? Yes. Do we have a national policy for it? Unclear. Is the public informed and willing to support the War? No. And this leaves the US vulnerable to not having a policy, strategy or the will to serve the nation’s interests and values.