Decent advise. Syria hasn't been a sovereign country for years, and is controlled by three countries/entities. Yet, our President is reluctant to eliminate Assad, as is France. Why? Will that bring back ISIS? What it might do is bring the Kurds their own slice of the former Syria. If Assad stays (maybe the Russians will take him out), that guarantees further fighting. Other rebel groups will activate; Assad has created more enemies, and he is willing to destroy the entire country. Why he didn't leave years ago is a mystery. Maybe his wife could have taken a job at Vogue; a real fashionista.
2
This is editorial is sheer utter nonsense. Worse than the same ol' same ol' ... First "we pulled the plug on supporting the relatively moderate Syrian rebels fighting Assad "... we pulled the plug because our own weapons were being used against us not only in Syria but in Iraq. The money was ending up in the hands of ISIS. At one point is was estimated there were 1,000 different rebel groups fighting. ... "And a strike to decapitate Assad" .. and leave what in it's place ??? No government at all? All out war between Sunnis and Shites??? This has been hashed over hundreds of times. At this point it's ridiculous to even talk about it. Assad isn't going anywhere. The Saudi funded rebels should just end it. Israel should back off. And this author should go back to common sense class.
4
Right: let's just assassinate any head of state who cavalierly kills his own people. Didn't Tom Friedman suggest doing that to Sadam Hussein? And hasn't John Bolton suggested doing that to the Ayatollah, in Iran, and to Kim Jong-un, in North Korea?
Everybody applauded Obama when he arranged the assassination of Osama bin Laden. As we know, that darling act ended worldwide Islamic terrorism, and shortened the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Oops.
Bret Stephens, it goes almost without saying, was a fervent supporter of the Iraq invasion; a fervent opponent of the Iran nuclear deal; a proudly uncritical fan of the Likud government; and, it goes almost without saying, has zero experience in combat.
A princely reward for anyone who can explain why we should listen to him on matters of life & death.
5
We got rid of Saddam. Then what happened? Are you going to say it will be different this time? Just use your intellect to make America better not getting us into endless wars.
3
Great idea, start concerted bombing in Syria ourselves. What could go wrong? Just a little shooting war between ourselves and the Russians.
Luckily Putin has Trump by the short hairs, so Trump can't follow his own (and Bolton's) worst impulses and start ordering missile strikes.
3
I guess the author has not learned the lessons of Iraq and Libya. What would restore punitive international norms is to take the case to International court of justice to convict those responsible of war crimes. And I do not think this should apply only to Assad or some African leaders. Having the monopoly of atomic bombs should not make some nations both judge and jury of international norms. Where is the punishment for invading and destroying Iraq?
2
I'm sorry, Mr. Stephens, but you're just indulging a lot of hypocrisy. Israel threw away a very ripe opportunity for a permanent settlement with Syria under Hafez al Assad in the last days of the Clinton Administration, as Clayton Swisher demonstrates in his book, "The Truth about Camp David." Israel simply can't imagine a Middle East it cannot dominate, manipulate and control through force, intrigue and enormous anti-Islamic propaganda. Assad's son is pretty vicious, but then so is Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, in Gaza and elsewhere. Where is the balance in your attitude, Mr. Stephens, or in the treatment of such issues in the U.S. media?
4
Mr. Stephens, your point of view seems primarily concerned with what should be done militarily to protect Israel. All of your military prescriptions could be executed by Israel alone against Syria and the Iranians presently in that country. So why must it be the United States that would do the heavy lifting you suggest in decapitating Assad and his regime, when Israel has pretty much gone out of its way to support the Russians assisting Assad?
2
There is some merit in the idea stated here and one suggested by Lindsay Graham, who rarely has a good idea when it comes to the use of force but who suggests that air raids designed to decimate the Syrian air force would prevent both barrel bombs and chemical bombs. Destroying Assad's residence and government buildings might send a strong message.
But whatever we do we must be prepared for the response and that is the part that should give us all pause. This president has no policy, no plans and no character upon which to draw. Once he enters into the Boydian loop of orientations>observation>decision>action he must be better prepared than he is. The idea of Trump in the OODA loop is terrifying. He is over-matched, under-charactered, disoriented and has no foundation to base any action, for good or bad. And yet this is what we have in office at the worst possible time. God save us.
http://www.smerconish.com/politics/trump-is-stuck-in-his-own-foreign-pol...
There is no room for armchair quarterbacks when conducting foreign policy.
Do us all a favor, Bret, and go play Madden 2017 instead.
1
Assad and company are monsters, but is our country really in the business of killing foreign leaders? To use a cliche, why should we be policeman of the world? While we’re at it, why don’t we take out Putin and the gang? Oh I forgot: He’s Trump’s bro.
1
Beautifully said: decapitate the ogre. Assad and his army has caused so mad suffering that Syria is a tragedy for every human being. To see the misery that man inflicted on that country but not act is a flagrant capitulation of the so called civilized world. Israel, primarily and mostly, should have acted once Hezbolah entered the war, but this shows the defect of its moral pretensions. Now let's see if Trump will do something for the millions of Syrians who bore so much tyranny.
Target Assad and his regime will lead to the massacre of the 10% Alawite minority by the 75% Sunni majority.
This is expected, and the only way to prevent this civil war and this genocide is to open refugee camps in neighbor countries and provide asylum to millions of Alawites prior to the strikes.
1
"Where is the United States in all of this?" I'll tell you where. Let's pull out.
1
Mr. Stephens proposal would be an overt act of war. While more honest than the ways the U.S. has deposed leaders in other nations (Iran Chile . . .) it would probably make an even greater mess of he region and possibly turn Syria into a Russian colony. The only way to bring peace at this point is to Assad win. We have completely screwed up the region with our invasion of Iraq. The Middle East does not need more America.
If your prescribed war were predicated on the use of draftees and you children were of military age and could not find an easy out (e.g. bone spurs) would you still advocate this policy?
1
The US has been decapitating for decades - remember Iraq? Americans voted to disengage from the wars - not re-engage. Diplomacy and a US military led evacuation of refugees would go a long way to help Syrians. Settle them in safe camps until they can go home. Unfortunately Trump has labeled Syrians terrorists - and the US is cutting of humanitarian relief in Syria and Yemen - a Saudi war. Millions are dying and the US golfs.
Wow! I don't have any easy answers either, but whoa, Mr. Stephens, have you seriously not considered what happens after you hollow out the current Syrian regime? It's not as if we have any viable replacements on hand. In other words, you would be unleashing an exponentially greater degree of chaos than already exists. It's not an exaggeration to say that this move could very likely start a global war, one confused country at a time. I am honestly shocked at how thoughtless this suggestion is.
I remember a time when conservatives fancied themselves as "realists," while the no-good protesting hippies were undermining our very serious interests abroad, etc. etc. etc.
1
It's hard to react to one who cavalierly proclaims a right to murder the head of state of a foreign government simply because you deeply disagree with the conduct of that government. If this "right" were exercised by against us we would call it terrorism and proclaim it a crime.
Decapitation has a nice sound to it, very much like a Hollywood movie. But this is not a movie. It is an act of war without any legal authorization.
Contrary to what you say, the US does have a Syrian policy. It was announced by the Project for a New American Century in 1997 and proclaimed regime change for the entire Middle East.
Your assertion that Syria is a "violator of moral norms" is extraordinary. We have slaughtered over a million people, mostly civilians. We have displaced over 3 million and we have turned Iraq and Libya into failed states.
Now you argue that Syria should suffer the same fate because they are a violator of our "moral norms."
You epitomize what the philosopher Hanna Arendt called "the banality of evil." She described this as a tendency of ordinary people to obey orders and conform to the expectations of those in power without a critical evaluation of the consequences.
You Mr. Stephens, have lost all capacity for moral reason. When slaughter reaches an industrial scale, as it has in the Middle East, the victims are no longer people, just numbers. And since you don't recognize their humanity, in your eyes they have none
May God forgive you. I hope the ICC doesn't
2
I think it's time to re-read the book "On The Beach." A mistaken action in the Middle East precipitates a nuclear exchange between Russia, NATO and China. The rest, as they say, became history.
Clearly the events in Syria are tragic and unacceptable, however I would appreciate understanding why we scream about the use of chemical weapons to kill innocents, but if they were simply bombed in the conventional way, not as much screaming. The killing must end.
This situation is a very sad commentary on the UN Security Council, on Russia for it's complicity, and for us not having a real strategy in this volatile region.
1
Wow, Mr. Stephens is usually the voice of measured, considered reason, even when I disagree. But these suggestions are reckless nonsense that would make the region far worse and cause even more suffering for the Syrian people. Sounds like a Cheney/Wolfowitz/Bolton plan.
3
As Bret Stephens urges America to go to war in Syria, it is useful to ask: will his kids be doing their part there? Of course not, they'll go on to elite colleges and lucrative jobs. It's other people's children he wants to send; those in "flyover country. That's why ordinary Americans don't have faith in their elite consensus anymore – the latter are selfish, short-sighted and have ulterior motives.
1
Agreed, only a decapitation strike against Assad, or several until they succeed, will have effect. That includes the Iranians in Syria.
At the root of the failure so far is our lack of will to follow through. Tell Assad that we are going to toast him until he is either dead or ends the war and then keep going after him, relentlessly.
That's the only approach that can work short of full invasion. And no one is in the mood for that.
1
If anyone really wants to solve Syria's problems, they would stop funding those who seek to destroy it, the jihadists, the al-Qaeda affiliates and the like. Unfortunately, the US and it's so-called friends apparently want to install a hard core religious regime there, replacing a staunchly secular one. We've gone down that road before, with horrible results. Time to get out and leave Syria to those who actually care for it properly.
Stephens is misinformed and all too eager to give the generally held NYTs line. He has not made any effort to see what actually happened with the chemical weapons attack and mindlessly states the pro Israeli line. A major military confrontation, perhaps the worsts since the end of WW2, stares the world in the face and General Mattis seems the only person who can prevent it. Bolton and Haley are inflammatory fools. And Trump's is clueless.
6
I don't think that the US can solve the problems of the ME, because of exact reason stated by the author. The US wants to solve its problems not the problems of people in the region. Without such solution there will be no peace. It could be some period of relative quietness, but eventually problems will bubble up.
6
You can conquer and occupy, or you can have peace, but you can't have both.
Stephens here chooses to conquer and occupy because he distrusts peace. His "proof" for such distrust is that conquest and occupation has not produced peace.
And no, Sharon's unilateral actions in Gaza, turning it into an open air prison of millions under fire constantly, is not "withdrawal" such as could lead to peace. It was never meant to do that. It was part of Sharon's plan, which was not for peace but for continued expansion of Greater Israel without Palestinians.
Standing in conquered and occupied Golan, looking out over the suffering, pontificating that one can't have peace with those people, is not a sympathetic act as he tries to portray it here.
24
The notion that Israel turned Gaza into an open aired prison is absurd. Like the big lie, if it is repeated enough, people will believe it. Israel left Gaza in 2005. Palestinians had the opportunity to
Live in peace, but then Hamas took over in 2007. Hamas made it clear that it considers all of Israel - “from the river to the sea” - to be occupied. Instead of using the billions donated from the EU and elsewhere to help its people, Hamas prefers to use that money and materials to build attack tunnels and launch rockets. Only after Hamas took over did Israel impose restrictions on travel. Egypt has also closed its border with Gaza because of Hamas.
1
You clearly don't understand the geography of Gaza. Gaza is not a prison. The leadership of Gaza lives quite well. Ask Egypt why the keep their gates to Gaza closed.
And Stephens fails to mention the Egypt/Israeli peace agreement that has worked.
1
"Jerusalem is threatening more aggressive steps "
Here Bret, framing the sentence with the assumption that when everyone hears the word "Jerusalem" they think "capital of Israel," shows the downside of that formulation.
The name of a city that many view as a source of hope and peace just got dragged into threatening aggression.
12
"The U.S. should target Assad and his senior lieutenants directly in a decapitation strike."
Hawks always contend that direct and violent confrontation is the answer, and when we opt for their path and unexpected obstacles arise, the hawks screech for more soldiers, blood, and treasure.
When the war drags on and on without resolution the Hawks cry for more troops, until the American people realize they've been duped again and punish the party who followed the advice of the hawks and the new regime they elect withdraws in the most face saving manner possible.
Then the hawks say, if only we had been resolute and held on a little longer, American prestige and influence would have been saved.
Hard to prove those hawks wrong.
5
How did that work out with Saddam and Gaddafi? Miracle cure?
And how did such a determined effort solve the Castro problem?
If we can decapitate their leaders, why can't they do the same to ours? Don't imagine they are unable. That would be arrogant and blind.
10
I'm not sure exactly where we derived the word Hawks other than from the hawks versus doves metaphor during the Vietnam war. During my lifetime those described as hawks have always been scared little 'men' who have evaded military service, but who have gladly sent others to die in there steed just to prove how manly they are.
Can't we come up with another word to describe these losers?
Real hawks must be ashamed.
1
American military intervention in ethnic sectarian foreign civil wars that do not pose an existential threat to American interests and values has proven to be a waste of blood, time and treasure that the American people are unwilling to pay.
That is the lesson of Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. When there is no military solution then diplomacy using economics and politics must become the focus of achieving relative sustained peace and stability.
Since 9/11/01 0.75% of Americans have volunteered to wear the military uniform of any American armed force. Before going to war the American people deserve a President asking Congress to declare war followed by a debate and an on the record vote to authorize and pay for it.
America's 'allies' Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey do not have the same interests and values as America. While the Sunni Muslim Kurds and the Shia Muslim Arabs and Persians are the most motivated and effective fighting foes of the Sunni Arab extremists like al Qaeda and ISIS that pose a potential continuing threat to America.
16
The NYT publishes a piece comparing the Syria situation to the Holocaust on the same day it runs Bret Stephens' push for America to wage war in Syria. Will the Times link back to these pieces in a few years when the US is hip deep in another Middle Eastern quagmire? Or is Mr. Stephens only "for" a quick, clean, easy war that goes swimmingly?
And what's with all the "we" and "us" here? If anyone has direct interests in limiting Iran's intentions in the Middle East it is Israel, and they are very well equipped to do so. So are the Saudis. If our regional allies can't lift a finger against their genuine enemy, Iran, why us? How about the EU which, at the very least, must worry about destabilization from refugees flooding in from Syria? And aren't they too just as concerned about upholding "moral norms"? We wonder why it's so hard to build a coalition. Perhaps its because others are so willing to let us rush into the maw on their behalf.
This is all too familiar: invoke the Holocaust, avoid any discussion of cost, risk, blow-back or unintended consequences, promote the illegal killing of an already shattered Arab nation's leader without imagining who or what else might take his place, all in service to some vague ideals about international norms.
Wow. You can't make this stuff up.
10
"Short victorious war" has always been easy to sell then hard to deliver.
7
Stephen's 'solution' is just as bad as what Trump is doing. It would do nothing but multiplay the already existing chaos. And chaos is the worst outcome, much worse than anything else. Now that it is clear that Assad has prevailed in the civil war, America and the West should stop prolonging the war and let Assad and Russia secure the country to restore order and stability, no matter how. How is not our concern and not our business, but that Syria stops being a source of refugees, jihadists and chaos, that is very much in our core interest.
5
To be clear, a quagmire would be a BAD thing, not a good thing.
4
Ambiguity and ambivalence.
Our realestate speculator would like sagacious advice, please.
DJT plays It by ear, and pundit wannabes are wanted.
Strategy and tactic to take are not without consequence--duh.
As an I don't want to be an advisor, which is a lie, I am able to worry a lot, as the Mideast requires.
Korea: develop resorts and that's my typical nonsense.
We respect expertise, and where have the think tanks gotten
the www (whole wide world)?
I'm tempted to be too pessimistic, neurotically actually, and this isn't constructive, but I can't envision Putin-Assad doing good works either.
Therefore, an essay contest jointly of our Gray Lady and every website of every stripe in our semi sensible www.
Sort of a New Yorker cartoon caption concept contest, but the prize would be ... "greatest thinker" or some such attractive gimmick that everyone craves secretly, don't we?
Decision by the decider parties is too complex.
So, just publish the least annoying creative panaceas
No such wis-dumb exists, schnook.
Well, gosh-darnit.
At some point the slaughter of innocents becomes an abstraction—merely numbers.
Google “Hamza al-Khateeb”. It will tell you everything you really need to know about Assad.
Yes, target Assad.
Decapitate the Assad regime? Please tell us what happens the day after, Mr Stephens. Another Iraq ? Libya? Do you want the return of Isis? Didn't think so.
6
Stephens points out that Israel shot missiles into Syria, and so the war is already going. What he doesn't say is that Israel should fight it. He doesn't say this because he wants US soldiers to fight it. Nah. That's a dumb idea. This is Israel's war.
7
Instead of physically looking down on Syria, why don't you let your children look at you writing a big check to help the suffering Syrians. Shame on you
7
You advocate two actions, a decapitation strike and an extended attack on Iran's assets. For each of these, I ask which would be worse, whether they succeed or fail.
If the decapitation attack succeeds it is bound to affect our upcoming meetings with North Korea.
It will also create a power vacuum in Syria similar to the one in Iraq after Saddam, but without our presence.
It will undoubtedly cause collateral damage. The irony of killing innocents to avenge the killing of innocents will be noticed.
It will definitely worsen relations with Iran and Russia, who may also be caught up in the damage, but, even if not, will still interpret the action as hostile.
If the attack fails, we are in the Iranian desert with Jimmy Carter. We will look weak. I wonder how Trump will like that? Decapitation strikes, such as the ones you mention, often fail. That is the most likely outcome.
Prolonged attacks on Iran, presumably followed by our withdrawal from the nuclear treaty, will not cow Iran. It will weaken the moderate elements there and increase militants' resolve. This is what always happens when you try to intimidate a nation to reduce their force, short of absolute conquest.
If the attack fails, it will have the same effect as if it succeeds, except we will look weak.
You started the column with your view from Israel, and, indeed, that's what we got. Maybe the Israelis could get away with these actions, but we can't.
5
Absent overwhelming force, targeted at Assad and his armed forces, nothing will work.
We need to send a message to Russia as well. They are now back to arming the Arab states that want to destroy Israel. This will open the door to recurrent 1970's like conflicts.
1
How about the same economic sanctions used against Russia, or even Iran and North Korea (which have worked)? Even a blockade?
Doubling down on one's rejected advice to commit the nation to war crimes does not the basis for restating it make.
3
So we manage to kill Assad and and his top goons.
Then what?
Let the Iranians and Russians take over?
3
After decapitation, who will replace Assad? Whose proxy will take over - Russian, Iranian, or American?
Neither international law (the Security Council Resolution has been blocked by Russia), nor US law (the after 9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force legislation by Congress is only against those who were involved or abetted the 9/11 attack) supports decapitation.
In fact, our current military presence in Syria is illegal under both US law and international law.
Nevertheless, regardless (or heedless) of the uncertainties, decapitation might be a good idea as it seems to be directed at one of the underlying problems - Assad.
So why has this not been done before? What are we missing?
1
I suggest we all review what Ronald Reagan did in 1986 concerning Qadhafi in Libya. As I recall, the U.S. dropped a bomb near a tent where Qadhafi was living and that certainly sobered him up! This led to many good things including Libya's deactivation of its nuclear program. Using this approach as an analogy I wonder why, before pursuing the program of "decapitation" advocated by Stephens, we don't drop a bomb or two in the neighborhood of (but not on) Assad's palace. This will show Assad that if he is going to bring the ugliness of war to his defenseless countrymen, we will bring the ugliness of war to his doorstep. If Qadhafi could get this message, why not Assad?
5
Syria has been invaded for no other reason then regime change. The Syrians are fighting on their own soil for their own interests against Salafists and Sharia law. Isis had american weapons paid for by Saudis. Of course it is also about oil and pipelines.
Assad is not the aggressor, he is not the monster, he won and has no use for chemical attacks to kill some Syrians when the aggressors caused the death of thousands of Syrian people and the destruction of the country. But the aggressors are good and moral they would never kill innocent people. When American sanctions kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children the price is worth it for American interest.
A chemical attack with some 40 people killed is not worth to be mentioned compared to that. To stage it to continue the war in Syria is the real crime committed by our monsters. To take Assad out is worth any price to the western powers and Saudis.
3
You've got it wrong.
The entire civil war began when Syrians, protesting Assad's already brutal and tyrannical regime, were shot, imprisoned and tortured to death by Assad's forces. This started the civil war, and ever since, ISIS, Iran, Russia and to a lesser degree the US and Saudis have been involved in a complicated proxy conflict there.
This is not to promote a US strike in Syria, but we need to be clear on what's going on there.
3
Not at all, brutal suppression of protests is a norm in the region. it usually has very limited impact. The example is Bahrain where rebellion was brutally suppressed by the Government with help of Saudi. The civil war starts when the foreign countries get involved on the side of rebels, as the US did in Syria.
1
Livonian -- Yes, it did start that way, but it quickly became something else entirely as outsiders poured in with money and arms and fighters.
It started as student protests of an Arab Spring style, put down the way the Saudis did in Bahrain. Then it became jihadi crazies sent by the Saudis, paid for by the Saudis, and organized by the US, by the CIA in Turkey and Lebanon and the US Army in Jordan and Iraq, all around Syria.
I almost support Brett Stevens. He has made a strong argument. But the commentor JW is right in his remarks here, echoing the caution by Madeleine Albright on the Steven Colbert show the other night. We need a policy, a strategy, and the same for the aftermath.
I propose looking at a major campaign, to take out most of or all of Assad's airforce. That would be the beginning of the enforcement of a no fly zone over major parts of Syria, where the people we support or would protect live. To do this, we should enlist NATO and the US Congress, very quietly. The NYT reported a few years ago that Assad's government has very sophisticated, Russian-built, anti-aircraft defenses. These defenses would have to be degraded to essentially inoperable. If congress says no, I would repeated the limited strikes like last year, just to show the flag and some mettle. Unfortunately, it didn't do much before, but it did probably reduce the amount of ethnic cleansing by chemical weapons, which civilized nations and people should oppose with force.
David Lindsay Jr. is the author of "The Tay Son Rebellion, Historical Fiction of Eighteenth-century Vietnam," and blogs at TheTaySonRebellion.com and InconvenientNewsWorldwide.wordpress.com
1
And if the Russians choose a no-fly zone over Syria, applying to the US not flying? And if they fight for it?
Perhaps you assume we'd just win. Maybe, but it would not be painless, and Israel would not stay out of the line of fire.
3
I would have thought that after decades of trying to establish Democracy in the Middle East, we would have come to the conclusion that Middle East must first become Secular and then evolve into a Democracy. It was, and still is, a wrong policy to undermine the Assad Regime simply because his replacement would carry out the same crimes under the banner of Religion (see Iran). After all, did we not opt for a secular dictator instead of a democratically elected Religious Leader in Egypt?
1
Syria was secular, the last secular state. THAT is why the Saudis are paying for the US to attack it.
2
The first thing anyone has to realize with Syria is that there are no good options. At this stage of the war, the best choice might be to let the war playout with Assad in power at the end. Again, not desirable, but it would bring stability.
Mr. Stephen's idea of a "decapitation" strike seems to border on insanity. How much more unstable would the world be if Putin, Erdogan, Kim Jong-un, etc. suspected that the United States might suddenly and unilaterally murder them for human rights violations? The instability Mr. Stephens now bemoans would look like tanquility in comparison.
3
"How much more unstable would the world be if Putin, Erdogan, Kim Jong-un, etc. suspected that the United States might suddenly and unilaterally murder them for human rights violations?"
And if they in turn might suddenly and dramatically murder our leaders? Why would that only go one way?
In the Cold War, the limit on assassination was the deterrent of the same coming back. It still is, even if we seem less aware of that.
2
How can Stephens decry Syria's violation of its disengagement agreement with Israel, then give Israel a pass on its bombing runs? Maybe Syria is doing exactly what Israel is doing- acting in its own best interest.
Meanwhile, the proof that the most recent chemical attack was the work of Assad is dubious at best. Passing it off as fact here is pure shillery, as is advocating decapitation without a word to what the aftermath would look like. Does Stephens, or any other ostensibly credible pundit really think getting rid of Assad would fend off Iranian influence? Talk about feckless!
5
"None of this will solve Syria's problems, but it may begin to solve the problems Syria has caused for us." This, in a nutshell, is Bret Stephens. Kill Assad, damn the consequences, no matter if an even greater hell on earth is unleashed. Like Libya, we could just walk away, wiping our hands and congratulating ourselves on a job well done.
5
An absurd comment. Killing Asad is the only solution to the use of chemical weapons. It is called accountability.
1
Trump campaign on not dealing with these garbage nations and taking care of the US. He won. Let them sift through the sand. A few missiles ain't gonna change thousands of years of stupidity.
You are saying that conventional "war" is the answer. Bomb bomb bomb, and that is what we should have done five years ago. Everyone now preaches "red line" and Obama did nothing and seeks to rewrite that little portion of history in order to justify the kinds of strikes you embrace. You have Putin, Ung, a twitchy Iran itching for nukes, and a Saudi Arabia who is a strange ally at best. To call this a powder keg is obvious to the extreme. Will they embrace a world war? The answer may be yes. We need more intelligent actors deciding this. We have lost any leverage. I would prefer to wait until we can elect leaders who have the proper qualifications to make such important decisions. Until then, war should be avoided. We should not act unilaterally. We need Congress to get involved, and we need to build coallitions.
4
Ah, yes. Another armchair chickenhawk. How sensitive to stand in Israel and have the family observe "hell on earth." Maybe Bret should offer his deep thinking on "decapitation" to Fox. Drumpf might take his advice. And then what? More NYTimes jaunts to observe "hell on earth"?
I wonder if Stephens took the family to observe the continuing apartheid of the Palestinians in Gaza? Oh...right. He's a columnist for the NYTimes.
8
Assad is nominally President of Syria, but in reality he is the tribal leader of the Alawites. Until his father seized power, they were a small, unimportant part of Syria's ethnic landscape, considered inferior and disdained for their esoteric branch of Shia Islam.
Rather than an attempt to assassinate Assad, bomb the infrastructure of their small heartland. Let bad Vlad know that he can keep his air and naval bases there; let the Alawites know that they can retain their homeland. But also let them know that if they continue to back Assad and try to control the whole of Syria, that land will be constantly degraded. Avoid civilian casualties, of course. But let Republicans, Democrats, the British and the French speak unanimously to this, and just maybe something will change.
Dan Kravitz
3
Assad is an Alawite, but he has always led a coalition of minority groups and secular Sunnis. The ones this describes as crushing all others are really the Sunnis we have been helping in their effort to enforce a Saudi Arabia style fundamentalism.
2
Is Stephens going to volunteer, or volunteer his children, for the endless Republican wars? It's very simple, and simple-minded, to say everything can be solved with just one more massive bombing campaign, yet somehow that has never happened,
5
So we kill -- or try to -- the president of Syria (an acknowledged war criminal and brutal, evil man, no question) and his close cohort. Then what? More and worse than Iraq, probably, with more decades of humanitarian catastrophes as other, no less evil men compete for power in the vacuum we create there.
Sir, you are John Bolton with a beard and think the US is Israel's thug. Attack and damn the consequences if Israel so desires.
You know that foreign agents can get to our president or anyone else if they really want to, right? "Decapitation", when you offend the powerful allies of your victims, is not necessarily a one-way street. We are eternally implicated in the middle east's chaos, and burning it down -- again -- won't assuage our frustration with our own impotence and the impossibility of putting that genie back in the bottle.
One Bolton is quite enough to set the world on fire.
1
Mr. Stephens. If you are serious about a decapitation strike, then I look forward to your next column calling for a new national "Syria Occupation Surtax" equal to at least the cost of the Iraq occupation. Because that would be the prudent and conservative thing to do (and would have the bonus of telegraphing the seriousness of our intent). To do otherwise would reveal today's and your previous column as dangerous puffery unworthy of the conservatism you espouse.
2
I was with you right up to the last sentence. Bolton is going to make things right? He screwed up our chances to do something positive in Iraq from day one. What happened to Iraq was a tragedy and the war in Syria is so much worse. Chemical weapons should not be tolerated. I thought the world had moved beyond using these weapons. I was wrong. I thought the idea for mutually assured destruction would keep the world safe from the use of nuclear weapons. Am I again wrong because Trump sits astride the world with Bolton at his side and is perhaps itchy to use his big button?
PS I thought Jared Kushner was going to solve all the problems in the Middle East.
3
At least Stephens expresses an option to an enigma. We tend to criticize without offering options. I haven't seen viable in the Middle East for decades in the complicated chaos. I understood Obama's reluctance to take action in Syria without Congressional approval. Those who decry his actions, like say George Will, also espouse Congressional approval. The Western Powers and Russia have enabled a region of tribal enmity to mushroom into this bloody chaos. Perhaps it's time to put the heat on Russia to join in a unified plan towards peace. It is so convoluted that there are no easy solutions.
Without exception, the most hawkish people in American politics are those who never spend a day fighting in a war zone. The draft dodgers hope to compensate for their cowardice by waving the American flag and chest thumping. Meanwhile, hawkish political pundits imagine they are playing a video game.
To adapt Churchill's line one more time, the hard-line war hawks' bravado is an empty threat wrapped in machismo inside cowardly shame and guilt.
18
Israel is not a free agent in the Middle East. It remains vitally dependent on the U.S. for military and diplomatic support and likely will always be. Mr. Assad is still alive today because that is how U.S. Presidents have preferred it over the years. Left to his own devices, Mr. Netanyahu would have done the deed a long time ago.
More's the pity for the Syrian people that he hasn't been allowed to do it.
3
In 1898 my Wilmington NC great-grandmother wrote in a letter to my grandfather, "Those awful Syrians are here in town....." I have not understand what she meant, but sure does look like Syria is still a big problem. Why?
I am certain that whatever is done, will be done in a very stable, genius like way. While the rest of us are playing checkers, Donald is playing pin the wagging tail on the doggie.
1
I look at it this way. The only way to "win" in Syria is to play way dirtier than we're comfortable with. So dirty that I don't think it's worth it to get a win. Russia is so influential there because it simply has fewer scruples. We've supported bad leaders before, but we are rarely, if ever, so blatantly and publicly supportive of a plainly visible murderer and tyrant.
And even if we did that in the past, we like to think that we've grown up since then; it's our "brand" to be the good guys, no matter how far short of that goal we may fall. (Everyone is their own worst critic.) There is no way to come out of the Syria conflict having done any clear good, since there are so many conflicting sides and no trustworthy partners. There is only downside for us here.
Meanwhile Russia thinks its brand is to be a bad boy provocateur, but really it's just a classic bully covering for its weakness and insecurity with a mean facade. (No wonder Trump is a fan!) It's in keeping with their brand and self perception to push other countries' buttons and make a show of its ability to use force. ("Hey everyone, look at the way we can mess with our smaller and less powerful neighbors! We're really badass, so don't mess with us!") Getting dirty is their goal. It shows that they are willing to do anything, because Putin pretty much CAN do anything.
1
I visited the Golan Heights two years ago. Constant gunfire was audible even at a nearby farm where we ate lunch and learned about how this family recycled everything there. The female proprietor made an interesting statement: "It's better that we are hearing the guns. Silence is more frightening."
Israel is a sovereign nation that has the right to protect its own interests. If it had negotiated away the Golan Heights, the north of Israel would be raining missiles just like the Gaza area has.
Sadly, since Trump has no policy for this or any other issue, a decapitation strike would be problematic. Who would take Assad's place and under what circumstances? Would we be setting Syria up for another so-called caliphate?
I don't think we can risk it, much as I'd like to see Assad gone.
4
Where is the evidence that this chemical attack was indeed the work of Mr Assad. I have not seen one iota of public evidence that supports that assertion. There seems to be an agenda pushed by Israel and the Ruling family of Saudi Arabia . They want us to get involved and spend our blood and treasure to fight their regional conflicts.
The wages for the United States of maintaining the Petro Dollar.
4
Trump is all tweet and no action with respect to Syria and its Russian benefactor. He will do nothing that roiles Putin and with his latest tweet is already backtracking on punishing Syria for its atrocities.
3
As we await for the missiles to rain down on Syria -- whether you approve or not -- we should remember the mostly young guys in the Syrian military who will die violent deaths -- while others will be maimed for life. Requiescat in pace.
Decapitation is an act of war. Will Gen. Stephens appear before Congress to ask for a declaration? I think we the people will rise against any US President or Congress initiating a new war in the Middle East.
4
The Chief of the Russian military General Staff, the Russian Foreign Minister, and Mr. Putin himself have repeatedly warned the former US that any attack on the Syrian government, including Assad, and its military, would be met with retaliation, even against US ships and bases.
Contrary to Trump, these men mean what they say. They have the means to carry out retaliation and area denial, acknowledged by the US military in Congressional testimony: hypersonic, long range missiles capable of sinking aircraft carriers , and capable air defense.
The Russians can fire these area denial weapons without impediment from their bases in Russia, Iran, and Syria.
They have a capable antiballistic, cruise, and antiaircraft missile in the S-300 to S-500 series. This has been impressive enough that Turkey and Saudi Arabia are buying them, and the Russians have them installed in Iran and Syria.
Mr. Stephens like almost all neocons has no military experience, and very little military knowledge. His advice about "decapitation" etc. is fatuous, and dangerous.
Given the present chaos in Washington and New York, we should hope that the Russians are not tested, particularly based on false flags and lies.
1
Bret, you write:
"Donald Trump...insisted last week on U.S. withdrawal from Syria, likely encouraging the apparent chemical attack he now threatens to punish."
I don't get how that logic works. Assad and the Russians clearly don't want us in Syria. So upon Trump's announcement that he wants to withdraw from Syria, Assad does the one thing that would likely cause us to stay?
You also write in support of a decapitation strike, and cite Iraq as supporting evidence for that point of view?
um, excuse me?
15 years on, Iraq remains a powder keg, and the instability in that conflict has been a major destabilizing force in Syria itself. To seriously suggest a decapitation strike as a viable option in the face of what happened in Iraq is madness (or Libya!).
The truth is, the US has no interests and no business in Syria. You ought to be intellectually honest and come out and state your position clearly: you want the US in Syria because Israel wants the US in Syria.
1
I argued that "the U.S. should target Assad and his senior lieutenants directly in a decapitation strike."
I believe this is what Reagan would have done already. I don't think Trump has the guts.
When Reagan tried that, he missed and killed only Gaddafi's young daughter. That produced more trouble, including Lockerbie.
2
My fear is that the only reason Trump wants to act is his belief that it will save his presidency, i.e., he will not be impeached if we are at war. This and other consequences lie in the balance of any attack.
So we retaliate and Assad doesn't repeat his chemical attack...small comfort to the to the 400,000 and counting civilians already dead by weapons of mass death that don't fly in the face of "international norms."
1
Life is tough- especially during religious civil wars. Sunnis seem incapable of living in peace with non-Sunnis.
Assad is protecting this people- in very barbaric ways but no worse that what his enemies would do.
Syria is going through a terrible religious civil war.
There is no 'good side.'
The best option would be for the US, Iran and Russia to withdraw and let the people of Syria decide what kind of future they want.
Our involvement does not help anyone- and it will result in more innocent death.
The people of Syria are not ready for peace. They are still committed to killing each other.
Our duty is to allow them to make the future they want and to provide humanitarian aide. Our bombs and soldiers will only prolong the agony.
If the Sunnis win every non-Sunni in Syria will be killed. Assad, for all his butchery, is not committed to cleansing his nation of non-Alawhites.
Let's stay out. My best wishes for the people of Syria: may you learn to love your children more than you want to murder your neighbors children.
1
I am not so sure that Assad is interested in ethnically cleansing Syria of Sunnis and bringing in more Shiites via Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan.
1
@Eric T.,
I agree with you- I, too, doubt that Assad wants to cleanse his nation of non-Alawhites (a sub-sect of Shia Islam).
I think he wants to maintain power and prevent the Sunni terror states (Saudi Arabia, Turkey) from committing genocide against his people.
After the Alawhites are cleansed the Sunni terror states would target all the other non-Sunni groups. Then, of course, they would target the wrong kind of Sunnis.
I'm afraid I generally agree with Stephens. The problem is that we completely blew the last of whatever moral authority we had in the region with our lunatic invasion of Iraq, and blew any reputation we had for telling the truth at the very same time.
For all Obama's mistakes and fumbles in the region--and let's remember that when he went to Congress for an AUMF regarding Syria, Congress blew town, emitting bleats about a REAL President's need to handle this stuff like a man--he was starting to repair some of that.
And now, us geniuses elected Trump. Who cannot be believed about anything by the stupidest child, who's greedy and dumb as a brick, and who handles everything via bluster and spasm.
We need to belt Assad, and hard. And we can't.
2
Nothing Bret wrote is close to the truth. We and our allies have multiplied Syria's problems by funneling weapons to an assortment of terrorist groups. We have no idea if Jaish al-Islam is telling the truth about a chemical attack by Assad's forces, or if they committed the deed themselves to provoke an attack on Syrian government forces.
We do know our government lied to us about Iraq. They lied to us about Libya. And they're lying to us about Syria.
No War With Syria!
~
2
1. Go after leadership BUT not Assad- this prevents UN from going ballistic that we are killing a "head of state"- esp go after his relatives that ARE involved in this genocide, but not those relatives who aren't.
2. We MUST take the lead and coordinate with Israel-this is THEIR back yard and any mess we make exposes them , not us.
3. Dotn dismiss out of hand the impact of impactful air and missile strikes-I dotn see it benign to hard to put together a package that is sufficiently damaging that Assad decides to drop the use of chemical weapons. That's very feasible, ..however deposing Assad , or the inevitable Russian puppet replacement , is fantasy and you know it Bret.
4. Whatever we do, if we can convince France And UK to come along, go for it. Sometimes the leading democracies have to step out from UN shackles and just do the right thing. Its called leadership. And it won two world wars.
2
Another armchair general with a tactical assessment of the Syrian situation authenticated by a family tour of the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights!
A decapitation attack on the Syrian government? An extended US air campaign to destroy Iran's military assets in Syria? But wait, don't Assad and Russia also have significate military assets in the area? Aren’t military assets usually protected by defense and retaliatory capabilities?
What we have here is a formula for extending U.S. military deployment in the Middle East to the end of this century. It all started with a shock and awe attack on Iraq, intended to be followed by a short and cheap remake of Iraq into a model democracy. Remember that?
But then it all went wrong! We disbanded the Iraqi army and undertook to occupy Iraq with American forces. The disaffected members of the former Iraqi army joined various extremist groups bent on destabilizing and occupying Syria and Iraq.
We ushered in a Shia-dominated Iraqi government. Sunni Iraq, once the bulwark against Iranian encroachment on the Arab world, became Shia Iraq, a conduit for Iranian arms and influence.
Would deeper American involvement in the Syrian remnants accomplish anything more than serve the stupid Republican creed: “When in trouble, talk tough and bomb something!”
4
Bret Stephens took his children to the Golan Heights to show them the green fields of Israel directly below. In the summer of 1968 a newly married American couple visited Israeli friends who took them to that same spot, from which, until the 1967 war, the Syrians had hunkered down in their bunkers on the Heights and regularly fired at will at the innocent Israeli farmers tending their crops and their children playing in the fields below. Sitting ducks. On the Heights all was barren, because Syria did not bother to cultivate the land. Below, the Israelis had brought their barren land back to life, planting fruit trees, flowers, and vegetable gardens. Life was dangerous because they were always in sight of snipers from above. I stepped into that protected bunker in the summer of 1968 and looked down at the lush fields of Israel and at my Israeli friend who wanted to show us what he had fought for the year before when Israel had been attacked by its Arab neighbors, and I thought, "Never again." I still feel that way.
7
Oh, God, this never-ending, murderous game of nations. Trump's best instinct was to pull out. Obama's was not to go there at all. We don't need to be in so many places, trying to make the world better. Being on the winning side of WWII and possessing the world's greatest productive machinery and destructive machine has had a terrible cost. We think we're saviors.
I'm just back from Vietnam, where the war between the North and the phony puppet state we created in the South killed 1.5 to 3 million people, all to save them from Communism, or so we claimed. It was my fifth trip there since 2001. The North won, but now there is a stock exchange in Hanoi with a gold-colored bull modeled on the one on Wall Street, and stores selling Gucci, Louis Vuitton, Rolex, etc., and where the people seem happier than us (and very forgiving). It is clear that many ordinary Vietnamese have become more prosperous and have high hopes. An American aircraft carrier just visited Da Nang, to great applause, and when we tell people--in the North, of all places--that we're Americans they sometimes say "America No. 1!"
1.5 to 3 million people.
We did it at the urging and under the management of seemingly well-educated, well-meaning, rational, best and brightest, interventionist strategic thinkers just like Mr. Bret Stephens.
1.5 to 3 million people.
We cannot save the world. Get us out of Syria and the other places where we don't belong, or limit our participation to humanitarian relief.
4
An attack on Assad who is head of a soveign state and an ally of Russia would put Russia in a dangerous situation. To do nothing would show the world that Russia is an unreliable ally.
So Russia would be forced to do something. But what would that something be?
Ay that is the rub. It could certainly be a strike against the US fleet that launched the attacks or probably something more subtle and distant from the Middle East and difficult to pin for certain on Russia such as a cyber attack on a critical US institution.
Russia has many possibilities.
The mistake made at Pearl Harbor was in trying to predict what Japan would do instead of trying to learn what they could do.
Russia is capable of doing a lot. I do not want to risk that for even if Assad were killed Iran and Russia would raise up a Shia substitute and the war would go on.
1
Mr. Stephens,
A bit of optimism: Destruction of Assad's regime would give the Syrian people a breathing time to plan taking control of their own future.
Mr. Stephens, you are proposing a military strike similar to what the US did in Iraq in 2003. How did the Iraq invasion work out for you?
3
"How did the Iraq invasion work out for you?"
Who is "you" in this question? Israel, from which he showed his children the land of his next proposed war?
2
Remember what happened after Saddam was deposed.
Remember what happened after Gaddafi was deposed.
Remember what happened after Mubarak fell.
Going back even earlier, we can cite the case of Mosaddegh (the Shah followed on by the Ayatollahs).
Then there was Chile and Pinochet. And our misadventures propping up leaders in Vietnam. Oh, and Afghanistan. And I could go on and on.
Backlash. Unintended consequences. Civil war. Authoritarian recoil.
Do I hate the idea that a short-term leader of the CIA is now being considered as Secretary of State? You bet I do. Our mischief makers are legion, but also short sighted and they care little for the fate of the people whose countries they rampage through.
We treat the world like our playground, to mess with and muddle up according to the whichever dogma takes hold here at home.
24
Stephens talks of re-establishing international norms and then goes on to suggest the assassination of Assad. Assassination is not an international 'norm' and something we should continue to avoid. Let's remember, WWI started with an assassination.
Seemed ironic to me that someone observing Israel firsthand would latch on to international norms for dealing with Syria and yet doesn't seem to see or mention any international norms violated with Israel's treatment towards the Palestinians or continued building of Israeli settlements.
There are no good solutions for Syria but that is no reason to fuel the fires. Trump is slowly learning this the hard way but the Pentagon wants to make sure “the size of the strike matches the rhetoric.” God help us all.
9
The fine use of language is, imnsho, a trademark of Bret Stephens' writing. As to substance, not so much. All praise for visiting, even if only at a distance, the site of destruction. If we can do nothing else, we can witness.
We are all baffled as to any way to make inroads on Putin supports monstrous Assad, who continues genocide on his own people, in order to have a base in the region.
I feel decidedly unsafe with John Bolton in charge of any weapons whatsoever. His distaste for diplomacy and self-righteous convictions are outright dangerous in our complex world. His embrace of Iran's MEK is corrupt as well, and that is not the only example of his influence peddling. There appears to be no wall between his self-interest and his taste for violence, death, and mayhem. Other people and views are not welcome in his world. He responds to dissent with bullying. Nukes? No problem!
Ignoring the geopolitics of what's done and can't be taken back, the surrender of Syria to Putin, with its concomitant betrayal of the Kurds, is wrong. Extreme violence, no matter how righteous, is more than likely to enlarge the conflict.
We were too eager to let Putin solve Assad poison problem way back when (his OpEd here!) but our options were limited even then. Putin played us. Obama's intelligent preference for moderation and Congress's refusal to support his "red line" has, as usual, led to false blame of the victim rather than facing hard facts.
Bolton is worse than Trump, a high bar!
3
Bret nails it. If there's one thing we've learned from the last thousand years in the Middle East, it's that one more Western intervention will fix everything.
13
Nice quip, but Stephens said no such thing. Not even close.
So, is he suggesting an intervention that won't solve things, won't work? That's the likely outcome, but an unlikely thing to advocate.
This article--and the mass of others, all urging greater U.S. involvement in Syria--fails to explain what stake the average American has in Syria. What benefit does the average American get from a "decapitation" strike, which would almost certainly plunge the country into chaos as various rebel groups battle among themselves for power?
The answer, I'm sure, would be that the US has a stake in enforcing the rule against use of chemical weapons. But I haven't seen any evidence suggesting the chemical weapons were actually used by the Assad regime, which is on the verge of winning and has basically no incentive to use them, rather than by rebel groups or countries that have an interest in increasing U.S. involvement. And the U.S.'s supposed "commitment to human rights" hasn't stopped in from aiding and abetting Saudi Arabia in its brutal war in Yemen.
In short, I just don't see where the U.S. has any moral high-ground to enforce "international norms."
1
Wow! Bret actually tones it down and writes an insightful article. I will tell you why there is no solution for us in Syria. Syria belongs to Russia. Putin will never let Assad fall. I have been saying that since the Arab Spring began. If we say went full in with a US invasion, we could depose Assad, but Putin would turn the country into a quagmire. In any case, why are we there? It is in Russia's neighborhood, they have more interest than we do. Let them play empire. We don't need that. We need to disinvolve ourselves from the internal affairs of the countries in the Middle East (or anywhere) and let them either have self-determination (it is in our Declaration of Independence!) or let Russia play empire and deal with the consequences. Why should we involve ourselves in the regional power struggle between Iran and Saudi Arabia? They are both equally bad, though at least Iran is a democracy of a sort. I say get out.
3
After advocating a "decapitation strike" against Assad, this:
"None of this will solve Syria’s problems. But it can begin to solve the problems Syria has caused for us — as a violator of moral norms, a threat to our regional allies, and an opportunity for our most dedicated enemies. "
Focus on 'a violator of norms'. Assassinating foreign leaders, once a U.S. practice, is a profound violation of international norms. Surely Mr. Stephens sees this?
19
"Surely Mr. Stephens sees this?"
He certainly would if it was Israeli leaders who died from a foreign attack. Anybody around who hates them that much? The last one was killed by another Israeli, a right wing fanatic opposed to peace.
1
Sometimes there is simply no solution to a problem.
What could have been done in 2011, 2012, or even 2017 is now not possible. Assad has effectively won the civil war; what is left is a "mopping up" operation in which he eliminates the remaining opposition.
Iran and Russia are now so embedded that any attack on Assad will of necessity also result in casualties of these countries.
Probably the best we can do is try to convince Russia and Iran to allow the dissenting Syrians to leave and resettle them elsewhere, and to give the Kurds some autonomy.
12
I completely agree. Assad must be Killed, it's the only way to save Syria, and stop the slaughter of innocents. So, what will Trump do ??? Why, the most STUPID thing possible. That's his Superpower. He and his team of power mad scoundrels will take this opportunity to bomb Iran. That's MY prediction. Maybe a few useless sorties in Syria, because the important
" stuff " has been moved. BUT, we are just days away from the "evidence " that Iran was responsible for the Gas Attacks. No, I'm not paranoid. I've been closely watching how HE operates. Yellow Cake, Anyone ?????
5
And just what would happen if a few U.S. missiles were to make direct contact with the presidential palace on the hill overlooking Damascus? While tempting as that might be, I nonetheless shudder at what that could unleash in the region.
42
There is a constant and repeated lie told about former President Obama's 'red line' on Assad's use of chemical weapons on his own citizens. That lie, embraced in its entirety by conservatives, is that nothing was done in response. The truth is under the threat of an imminent attack by U.S. naval and air forces, Putin forced Assad to surrender stockpiles of chemical weapons. These were carefully destroyed at sea. Obviously, this criminal regime in Syria didn't fully comply but that is not nothing... just nothing blew up....when we blew up an evacuated air base last year...we'll, that was something, wasn't it...lots of noise and back pounding with no effect...now here we are...
32
Yes, Obama's redline was totally successful in getting Putin to force Syria from giving up it's chemical weapons. Really?, how many more chemical weapons attacks have there been since Obama's brilliant policy was put into effect?
About two months ago, Secretary of Defense James Mattis finally admitted no credible evidence was been found Bashar al Assad used chemical warfare against his own people in the first attack. Now this columnist is beating his little tin drum for war after the second attack despite the fact that there is no evidence Assad used chemical warfare against civilians again. I served in Vietnam as a medical corpsman where we extensively sprayed Agent Orange on civilians and American soldiers. Over three million civilians were victims of chemical warfare. Three million. Chemical warfare. By the exceptional, indispensable nation. And over 150,000 Vietnamese children were born with hideous and crippling birth defects. Obama finally got disability compensation for over 150,000 Vietnam veterans who were exposed exposed to Agent Orange. I am one of those veterans, because my specific type of heart disease was linked to this exposure. I assure you the children of Bret Stephens will never go to war over the Golan Heights to defend Israel. Or for any other war he would promote now or in the future. That’s the fate of the children Hillary called a basket of deplorables. Bret’s children will go to college. We have destroyed the nations of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya in the war on terror that now rivals the foreign policy debacle in the Vietnam War. Israel wants to incorporate the Golan Heights into its nation. But I actually saw war rather than going on a tour in the Golan Heights.
40
Those who have fought and killed think hard before sending others into the fire. Thank you for your sacrifice.
2
We cant just go assassinate the leader of a sovereign country. The UN and Congress would need to sign off on that, at a minimum. Which neither will do.
Not the best precedent to set, Bret.
67
Actually, we have a long history of decapitation. We'd be following well established precedent.
Countries only follow laws that are in their interest.
Corporations and the ultra-rich also ignore laws when it's to their benefit to do so.
6
I think the best action would be to kill Assad and his henchmen. They have engaged in genocide. Enough already!
Consult Congress and the UN? Congressional leadership, yes. Doing what is right does not require UN approval to make it so; the UN lost its moral authority long ago.
We all know Trump is ignorant. Bolton won't help.
6
While I agree that Assad should go, and I'm okay with a decapitation strike, the question of what happens that very afternoon after the decapitation MUST be part of that calculation, as experience in both Iraq and Libya shows repeatedly. So, simply to offer up decapitation is not enough to enact a policy because the vacuum that would THEN exist would be even more enormous and the stakes for Iran and Russia that much higher. What level of US engagement at THAT point would Mr. Stephens feel is correct and justifiable? Silence on this aspect is not acceptable.
Further, what Congressional authorization exists for this kind of attack on a foreign nation, if we are to remain a National Of Laws? What imminent national security interest exists that overcomes the requirement of Congressional authorization? Does Mr. Stephens want a president, this president especially, to be able to act in such a unilaterL manner? L’estate c’est moi!
Mr. Stephens advocates action without thought. I agree that Assad needs punishment. However, such a unauthorized unilateral action with no plan for the aftermath is as reckless as lobbing chemical weapons at one’s populace
96
Assad is the responsibility of the Syrian people. What has he done? He did not attack any neighbor, he protected the free practice of religion, no Sharia law as the Salafists intend to apply. Syrians had some demonstrations as other nations have too from time to time. But outside forces took over.
Yes, he did not do as told, he is allied with Russia and Iran, that is the no-no.
1
This brings up a further discussion: how is Assad the responsibility of the Syrian people, exactly? How did the Assad family come to power? Have a look and see how that happened, and what has been the manner in which the family has treated the Syrian people. Do you imagine that free and fair elections brought him to and keep him in power? That the Syrian people have any outlet whatsoever for removing him on their own?
I don't want to go nilly-willy into changing the governments of other countries, but I do believe that allowing one country to use chemical weapons even once, let alone multiple times, requires a response. Yes, Syria has been secular under the Assads, but does that in and of itself overcome everything else? And, btw, how did he treat demonstrators against his regime?
2
A cogent, astute rejoinder to this column. In the old days the CIA would have had a “government in exile” set up and waiting on the French Riviera.
2
I really try to understand this whole Syria situation and am at a loss. Who and what are we fighting for? The Syrian people, the Kurdish freedom fighters, the land that is Syria, what? What is our goal here. I am beginning to think it is a bunch of bully boys fighting in a sand box over their little square foot of sand with all the other kids (Syrians), being used as proxies to gain one square inch of sand. Let’s take our toys and go home now, dinner is ready and tomorrow is another play date.
1
“It’s fortunate for Israel that it did not bargain the Heights away during the ill-fated peace processes of the 1990s. . . .”
Ah yes, so fortunate that there is no peace in the Middle East. What good could possibly come from peace?
3
You are confusing peace agreement with peace.
Israel may achieve an agreement. Not peace.
1
Seriously Bret, you are advocating that the U.S. decapitate the Syrian government as a way of neutralizing the country's threat to its neighbors, by which you mean Israel? With or without Assad's sorry crew of war criminals, the Russian-Iranian axis that now occupies Syria would not be affected nor are they necessarily a greater regional threat than Assad has been. And, taking out an entire government as an instrument of foreign policy might just suggest an in-kind response from the other side, and their aim would be Tel Aviv rather than your own capitol safely distanced by the broad Atlantic.
4
PROBLEM ISN'T SYRIA, IT'S RUSSIA
The real problem is Putin's support for Assad and his interventions elsewhere in the world.
Discourage Russia from supporting Assad, and the problem there becomes manageable.
Our best response to Assad's actions are not tit-for-tat military: they are more personal and economic sanctions on Putin and his oligarchs.
I hope Trump's "nice and new and smart missiles" will be joint US, French and British sanctions and publications of Putin's financial holdings overseas!
Tit-for-tat is kindergarten thinking. Trump should give it up. (Do we think he can????)
1
So the answer is to start with a decapitation strike against the Syrian regime, then follow it up with attacks throughout the country against Iranian targets. Of course, we will avoid missing Russian forces throughout all of this, but will succeed in sending a message to Putin. And we won’t accidentally hit any civilians, which might trigger international condemnation.
Sounds like a plan. A bad one.
It promises to be expensive and not only ineffective, but likely counterproductive.
But, hey, let’s give it a go. It’s better than sitting around bemoaning U.S. impotence.
8
This is a dangerous and foolish column. 'Decapitating' Assad is an act of war and violence against a country with which we are not in a state of war. As a policy recommendation, it is similar to what was attempted with Fidel Castro many years ago, and the results there were miserable. Once we begin such a process, where does it end, and with whom? The United States could not accomplish anything by such an act, even if it were successful in killing some leaders who are engaged in a brutal civil war. That civil war itself would not end, nor would such military action be likely to quiet brutality, but rather inflame it. Assad is not Osama bin Ladin; Bin Ladin launched a military strike against the United States. This conservative Republican evangelical opposes and rejects a foreign policy directed anywhere, or at anyone, based on 'decapitating' leaders who have not engaged in direct attack on us.
12
Re your support for a "decapitation" strike in Syria: If this takes place have you thought through the potential consequences, intended and otherwise? In particular, what do you think would replace the Assad regime, another Libya perhaps? How might the Russians react? What might the Turks do if they felt that the end game favored the Kurds? Your thoughts?
53
I doubt that Artificial intelligence could correctly model the possible consequences.
Decapitation is what you do when the current situation is impossible. You throw a Hail Mary and hope for the best. The goal is to manage the fallout and create a better situation.
Usually it's wishful thinking and does not work, but it might. It's like a reboot.
2
I agree with the main points here: Even absent the Russians you'd have an Iraq-level civil war on your hands. Add to that the complexity of Russia's very significant presence (including its air and naval bases), Turkey's war against the Kurds, and the Iranian factor (including with Israel and Saudi Arabia), and you'd have a highly complex nation-building problem at the very least, and World War III at the downside. Not worth it by a very long stretch.
2
Obama's Mideast policy -- "don't do stupid stuff" -- was intellectually unassailable, even if emotionally unsatisfying. Decapitation of the Syrian leadership has lots of gut-level appeal, but the unintended consequences could well be horrific for all sides.
I would rather see targeted strikes, more damaging than the missiles-into-the-runway approach last year, but still incremental.
3
I think Obama's Mideast policy can be better summed up as: "don't do any stuff at all"
Don't do any of that stuff that the stupid people want to do.
Yea, the US should certainly destroy Iran's military assets in Syria. But unfortunately the US will not attack Iran in Syria.
Israel will continue to try and prevent prevent Iran from turning Syria into a forward base for it to attack Israel.
This is a matter of life and death for Israel. It is not open to negotiation.
2
Impulse, indifference, incoherence - trump's policy to a tee.
What just kills me, however, is the indifference component. That we know trump does not or cannot consider the actual human effect of whatever policy he chooses. That the heartrending images of dying children, of the stunned grief of a parent, the destruction of a home don't even register as an element in his decisions.
Wars and battles sometimes have to be fought, but please please don't let the leaders and generals be men completely without empathy or heart. As long as he's been on my radar, it has been obvious that the one and only factor in trump's decision making is how it personally affects him.
Somewhere recently I read that his reaction to the destruction of the World Trade Center was that now his trump tower would be the tallest building in NYC. And it was echoed just the other day when he reacted to the trump tower fire, not with regret for the man who died, but with a self congratulatory remark about the quality of the building.
While our congress contains many rogues, scoundrels, and bigots, I don't believe there is anyone as completely and cruelly solipsistic as donald trump.
11
Micheal and Bruce make absolute sense. We have no foreign policy and it is a mystery what is going on with the Saudi king. i doubt that Trump understands the workings of our Constitution, or the depth of ANY issues beyond the sound bites of his campaign. As for raining down missiles on Syria and Putin's boast to shoot them all down, well what a marvelous game of liars poker. Except if Putin can do what he says....
3
Now the president is so concerned about the illegal action by Assad and so concerned for the dead citizens of Syria. When is the last time he has showed any concern for live Syrians?
It can't be more obvious that he is using the bodies of Syrians killed by their own president in order for that president to retain power. This is just an excuse for Trump to flex "his" muscles and have his own quick little military exercise for the base.
When Assad uses TNT, naphalm or bullets to kill his Trump couldn't care less, now he is outraged and willing to do, who knows what.
4
Talk about red lines. A decapitation attempt on the Syrian government invites response in kind from every thug on the international stage. The fact is that democracies are far more vulnerable to this tactic than other states because their leaders must expose themselves to the electorate. And the signal this tactic (it is not a strategy) sends to every one of our adversaries is, better grab yourself some nukes as life insurance.
12
Trump's broadcast of an attack within 24-48 hours failed, and now Trump has lost his window for a punitive strike because Assad has since destroyed the chemically-taegeted rebel base in Douma.
So whatever Trump does NOW is an unrelated aggression.
Now he is working on how to make it look like he kept his promise to make Assad pay.
Just like he tried to claim that he didn't need to enforce sanctions on Russia because the threat of sanctions did enough.
Just like he said Mexico would pay for a wall.
Just like he promised beautiful, cheaper, better healthcare.
And said he wouldn't touch Medicare or Social Security.
And told the Dreamers not to worry.
And told Melania, "I do."
This man's word is absolutely WORTHLESS.
23
He also promised to double or triple everyone's salary. We are already tired of winning so much.
Yes, if we feel we must play a role then "the U.S. should target Assad and his senior lieutenants directly in a decapitation strike". Promise him and his generals (and family) that they should expect cruise missiles coming through their palace bedroom windows - tonight. If it happens again, the missiles are ready and there will be no delay.
It is bothersome that we become so exorcised about use of chemical weapons when daily so many more (men, women, and children) are brutally maimed and killed by conventional weapons. Violent death is violent death. The Assad inner circle needs to experience some themselves; maybe then they'll reconsider their insane actions.
1
Mr. Stephens makes a passionate call to restore punitive international norms when chemical weapons are used. To do so he seems willing to destroy U.S. Constitutional norms and allow the president to bypass Congress, who constitutionally is bound to have such military intervention approved.
It is the height of hypocrisy to ignore one's own Constitution in the name of restoring international accords.
83
Accordingly, at least in the long run, a powerful democracy that operates under the rule of law must have a fundamentally bipartisan foreign policy in order to successfully act in the world.
Therefore the powerful people in that democracy who fully participate in shaping the tone of the country and, directly or indirectly, in steering the ship of state should continually work to safeguard bipartisanship in matters relating to foreign policy.
Which means in turn that they must refrain from taking actions that they know or should know destroy the possibilities of bipartisanship generally.
2
Congress' power to declare war has been bypassed since 1941.
It's long gone. The US enters into war casually and often. It does so primarily to support corporate interests and the military-industrial (deep) state.
4
Trump has a policy: use Syria as a way to demonstrate he’s in charge and to distract from the Russia investigation. Trump will say or do anything to accomplish this goal, including starting an unnecessary and deadly war.
5
"None of this will solve Syria’s problems. But it can begin to solve the problems Syria has caused for us ..." I never know whether Mr. Stephens is referring to big U.S. or little us.
1
Israel would be well advised to do more than bomb it's neighbors. The US when the State Dept had diplomats was building a counter narrative for Syria that would play to Iran's economic self-interest over time. Russia is not immune to these interests either. Don't give the enemy a higher ground on which to exhort their people to resist.
What is worse more fighting and failed states for years to come or a slow but steady progress towards a diplomatic solution. Either way will have many casualties but one at least shows a light at the end of the tunnel.
Trump's deal making though is always bully tactics. It did nothing for him except push him into the arms of Russian criminals. More complex nuanced solutions don't seem to be on the table.
Sure, the military has its place and with some strategic planning is part of the overall deterrent to escalation. But standing on the brink and wishing for a safety net is a dangerous place to find the world powers. Whatever horrors follow, including a refugee crisis on Israel's border, is due to finding one's self at the edge with only military action as the plan.
2
The women of America don't want another war. We see the blood of other people's children as our own.
Perhaps the men agree with Trump and his brutal philosophy, but not all. Men like Bernie Sanders and his followers value people over money and power.
This war that is brewing in the middle east can still be stopped, if the women of the U.S., Israel, Europe and the gulf countries say "enough."
We can build homes for our children to live in peace with their neighbors. The whole planet is connected now--let's spread the word among the parents. Do not cooperate with the war mentality.
This philosophy has been tested in the last century by many well-meaning marchers and protests. It underlies the United Nations where men bluster about war and retaliation and capitalism and socialism, while women cringe and hold their children closer.
This time we must make our voices heard.
20
Excellent thought Ms. Durso, you may very well be right, it would not be the first time women made great strides while men were busy posturing. A woman’s march on Washington for peace and equality just might make a difference and who better be allowed to participate than men of like conscience such as Bernie( and myself).
1
Thank you. Thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you, a thousand times.
Yes women can stop war if we unite regardless of country. Shout it from the rooftops!
1
Stephens does not seem capable of learning from his mistakes. Just as he urged G. W. Bush to invade Iraq and still attempts to justify that advice, in this essay he argues for a "decapitation" strike on Syria's Assad and his government. The US has made blunder after blunder in the Middle East, thanks in part to the advice of Neocons like Stephens, and as a country we have suffered grievously from our errors. Israel, in contrast has been the great beneficiary of our loses,and would be again, if we decapitated Syria's present administrative structure.
Stephens makes much of taking his children to "see" Syria from a vantage point in the Golan heights. I doubt that he took the opportunity to tell his children that according to International law, the Golan heights are not part of Israel and that their presence there was illegal.
He excoriates Syria's war crimes, but he seems to have nothing to say about Israel's gunning down unarmed Palestinian civilians.
Much of the world is tired of these endless debates about Middle Eastern conflicts and who is responsible for them. But we know now that Stephens' opinions will never be useful in resolving these issues.
59
Did you miss the part in history class about how Israel came to control the Golan Heights - after winning a war started in part by Syria attacking Israel? Comparing Israel, a free western-style democracy, negatively with Syria? Syrians sneak into Israel, with Israeli help, for medical treatment. That sums up the situation in a nutshell, whether you chose to recognize that or not.
SPQR -
"He excoriates Syria's war crimes, but he seems to have nothing to say about Israel's gunning down unarmed Palestinian civilians."
Wow, what a comparison. It is sheer coincidence that the vast majority of the "unarmed Palestinian civilians" were known members of Hamas or other militant organizations. And they were unarmed with peace-loving slingshots and Molotov cocktails.
The more relevant comparison: More than half a million Syrians killed so far in their civil war, while Israel, over the last 30 years, has killed around 15,000 Palestinians, including combatants.
History gives us no reason to think that a policy of regime change via U.S. military intervention in Syria would succeed, but by bringing Iran, Russia and Israel into conflict it would certainly provide a distraction for Trump from his own political crisis. Could this be a good idea?
12
First, Mr. Stephens, thank you for the first back-door compliment given by a Republican to a real president, Barack Obama, re his Syrian decisions. It would also help for us to remember that the American people were weary and leery of yet another entanglement in the Middle East as well as having a Congress then as now which was silent. And also, ironically, Russia agreed to remove Assad's chemical weapon stock-pile. Apparently, Putin left some behind "for good measure."
You have suggested some reasonable tactics to at least assuage the devastation in Syria. But at this point I believe even targeted bombing will escalate an out-of-control debacle. It is time for us to call it a day on that front. Rather, we along with our allies must call for, insist on, a truce and provide aid in the form of medicine, food, water, shelter, and clothing to the Syrian people. That is where we are now, and we have a moral responsibility to these innocent victims of treachery.
14
During the last two decades, there has been two big mistakes in our Middle Eastern policy. First we acted in Iraq when there was no reason to act. Then we chose not to act when the "red line" was crossed in Syria when there was a need to act. The result of those two blunders is that now there is an Iran, Iraq and Syria corridor that is heavily under Russian influence. We will have to live with this fact for many decades to come.
3
Common sense has a way of surfacing. Eliminating Assad, some say, would be akin to eliminating Qaddafi, with all the uncertainty that ensued in Libya. The sensible question is was it worth it? Common sense would point out that even that uncertainty is preferable to a murderous certainty. I’m a screaming progressive (who believes in common sense) in agreement with Bret Stephens. Tragically, we have a President who has no inkling that there is such a thing as (I’ll say it again) common sense.
5
Easy to say, harder to do and the potential consequences are considerable. It is unlikely the Russians will stand idly by while American missiles and/or planes attack the capital of their client state. It is also unlikely that Assad will wait in some exposed place for the preemptive strike or that the United States has the intelligence to know exactly where he is. Further, it seems fantastic to believe that a team of special forces could penetrate into an area as heavily guarded as Damascus and come out safely. The attack would have to rely on blunt force and the collateral damage to civilians could be far worse than the gas attack- even if the military did know where Assad was located.
This is the kind of loose hawkish talk that really is no policy at all-something one would expect from Bolton, and it is certainly not at all analogous to the Bin Laden raid. The reality is that there is little the United States can do beyond a military gesture such as aiming cruise missiles at a Syrian air base. If that is the case it is important that the European allies are in agreement and involved in some way in order to make clear to Russia that their unalloyed support for Assad is another example of why they are not trusted and that there is a united front of western powers condemning their behavior. One willing to take measured military action in response to provocation.
39
A decapitation strike? That is not a limited engagement. That is all out war. We would have to declare war on Syria with the intent of toppling its regime, just like we did in Iraq. How's that working for ya?
Besides, if leadership decapitation was now the modus operandi of US policy, why is that no different than the polonium prick of a Russian agent? How can diplomacy exist when state leaders are taken out at will?
Is Assad a butcher? Yes. Has he committed crimes against humanity? Yes. He also has powerful allies that can retaliate if he is personally attacked.
Then we have the age old question that we never answer. What do we do to fill the void? Occupy Syria like we did in Iraq? Adding chaos to existing chaos does not reduce chaos. There is no such thing as negative chaos.
Syria is beyond repair. We blew it. The world blew it. The regional powers caused it. And millions have suffered and died from it. What's left of Syria will fester and ooze violence and death for many years to come, with or without Assad.
113
It is funny how history repeats itself, over and over.
See how this situation in Syria AND with Iranian and Russian and Turkish involvement resembles the last century Führer's adventures.
One 20 cent bullet could spare 60 million deaths.
Nobody paid attention until danger knocked their own homes.
We'll never learn....
You miss the ultimate issue, as do the other "popular" comments: if we leave Assad and Iran has a direct route to the Mediterranean, what happens then?
Our choices seem to be war now or later, but it is naive to think that as this goes on and Irann becomes more engaged, the problem goes away.
Before the start of the civil war in Syria, Assad made clear there would be no limits on what he would do to retain power. He has made good on his threat. And now we are faced with the inevitability of Assad remaining, the Russians establishing a powerful military presence in the Middle
East, and Iran's proxy Hezbollah expanding its borders with Israel by occupying southern Syria. Negotiation has been a dismal failure and missile attacks are mere pinpricks. Assassination is not a policy--it is the confession of the bankruptcy of a policy, not to mention being unconscionable and doing nothing to change the new geopolitical reality. That reality is where we need a policy.
27
well said.
2