Over the years I've written numerous articles arguing against military intervention in Syria.
1. The Myth of the Moderate Syrian Rebels
3. Liberal Hypocrisy in Iraq and Syria
4. Taking Down Assad Will Not Save Syria
5. Why Syria Will Not Be Another Libya
6. Lies and Hypocrisy Over Aleppo
... and there's lots more where that came from. I've written in detail about Obama's war plans, the push for regime change, the shaky evidence and the terrorist agendas of the Syrian rebels.
Here's what I think now.
A. There should be NO humanitarian intervention in Syria. That means zero No Fly Zones. No using human rights groups, especially local ones, as the metric for intervention. That's a slippery slope that will drag us in as the fighting continues.
B. President Trump is right to make no commitments to Syria. And to push for a withdrawal. He's also right to plan another strike. Hopefully it will target Syria's WMDs. It should be an exit strategy rather than an opening for remaining in Syria. And that seems to be his plan.
Here's why the strike should happen.
1. Red Line -- Obama and Trump committed us to it already. That makes it a credibility issue. If we threaten enemies without following through, nobody will take us seriously. And that means we'll have to use more force. Trump has used a version of this explanation before. It doesn't feel great, but that's the situation we're in.
2. WMDs - The first time Trump bombed Syria, it sent a clear message to China. Bombing a terror state that plays with WMDs also sends a useful message to Iran and North Korea. That also seems to be Trump's calculus.
3. We have unfinished business with Assad. Before Al Qaeda in Iraq (ISIS) turned on him, Assad was funneling its suicide bombers into Iraq. Then it turned on him. So unlike a lot of the Assad Firsters, I have zero sympathy there. Plenty of American soldiers lost their lives or were mutilated because of him.
We've forgotten most of the actual history of the Iraq War.
Before the Islamic State’s current incarnation, it was Al Qaeda in Iraq and its pipeline of suicide bombers ran through Syria with the cooperation of Assad’s government.
Assad and Al Qaeda in Iraq had a common enemy; the United States. Assad had a plan to kill two birds with one stone. Syrian Islamists, who might cause trouble at home, were instead pointed at Iraq. Al Qaeda got manpower and Assad disposed of Sunni Jihadists who might cause him trouble.
Meanwhile Al Qaeda openly operated out of Syria in alliance with the Baathists. While Syria’s regime was Shiite and Iraq’s Sunni, both governments were headed by Baathists.
The Al Nusrah Front, the current incarnation of Al Qaeda in the area ever since the terror group began feuding with ISIS, named one of its training camps, the ‘Abu Ghadiya Camp”. Abu Ghadiya had been chosen by Zarqawi, the former leader of the organization today known as ISIS, to move terrorists through Syria. This highway of terror killed more American soldiers than Saddam Hussein had.
The Al Qaeda presence in Syria was backed by Assad’s brother-in-law, Assef Shawkat, who had served as Director of Military Intelligence and Deputy Defense Minister. His real job though was coordinating Islamic terrorist organizations. During the Iraq War, he added Al Qaeda to his portfolio.
Handling terrorists without being burned is a tricky business though and the blowback kicked in.
In 2008, a US raid into Syria finally took out Abu Ghadiya and some of his top people. A year later, General Petraeus warned that, “In time, these fighters will turn on their Syrian hosts and begin conducting attacks against Bashar al-Asad’s regime itself.”
Shawkat was killed by a suicide bomber three years later. Assad’s support for terrorists had hit home. Those Sunni Islamists he had sent on to Iraq who survived returned with training and skills that made them a grave danger to his regime.
The Middle East is complicated. And we should tread carefully.