Time to pull out one's Clausewitz and ponder a bit.
For me, the question goes back to "What are the U.S. interests in Syria, and how vital are they?"
Some interests are more vital than others (maintaining constitutional order, protecting the territorial integrity of the U.S. are ones you obviously go to the mat over. Other interests are not so vital (e.g. protecting the U.S.-Argentina trade relationship).
Clausewtiz said that the intensity of the interest is proportional to the amount of effort a country expends defending it. If Argentina declared it was outlawing trade with the United States, the U.S. would probably not go to war over that. If Mexico announced it was taking California back, the U.S. would go to war to prevent this.
I always thought that Obama got the effort level in Syria about right. Daesh is a bunch of scary murdering buttholes deserving of as much death as the U.S. wanted to deal out, but they are not an existential threat to the U.S.
Insurgencies never have a surrender ceremony on the deck of the USS Missouri. Generally, they just peter out. So, if the U.S. policy is to attrit Daesh down to the level where they do not threaten the U.S. or its allies, then maybe we are about at that point. If the U.S. policy is to aid the most democratic faction in winning the war against Assad, then we are going to need a lot more forces and a lot more will. Neither seem available. Maybe we can settle for helping the anti-Assad Kurds maintain their enclave.
Do the Iranians benefit from this? Probably. Do the Russians benefit from this, sure. That in and of itself is no reason to continue to expend blood and treasure in a policy that contains no viable theory of victory.
The bigger issue for me is the loss of the services of Saint Mattis of Quantico, which seems to be related to this policy announcement.
That really does bother me.
For me, the question goes back to "What are the U.S. interests in Syria, and how vital are they?"
Some interests are more vital than others (maintaining constitutional order, protecting the territorial integrity of the U.S. are ones you obviously go to the mat over. Other interests are not so vital (e.g. protecting the U.S.-Argentina trade relationship).
Clausewtiz said that the intensity of the interest is proportional to the amount of effort a country expends defending it. If Argentina declared it was outlawing trade with the United States, the U.S. would probably not go to war over that. If Mexico announced it was taking California back, the U.S. would go to war to prevent this.
I always thought that Obama got the effort level in Syria about right. Daesh is a bunch of scary murdering buttholes deserving of as much death as the U.S. wanted to deal out, but they are not an existential threat to the U.S.
Insurgencies never have a surrender ceremony on the deck of the USS Missouri. Generally, they just peter out. So, if the U.S. policy is to attrit Daesh down to the level where they do not threaten the U.S. or its allies, then maybe we are about at that point. If the U.S. policy is to aid the most democratic faction in winning the war against Assad, then we are going to need a lot more forces and a lot more will. Neither seem available. Maybe we can settle for helping the anti-Assad Kurds maintain their enclave.
Do the Iranians benefit from this? Probably. Do the Russians benefit from this, sure. That in and of itself is no reason to continue to expend blood and treasure in a policy that contains no viable theory of victory.
The bigger issue for me is the loss of the services of Saint Mattis of Quantico, which seems to be related to this policy announcement.
That really does bother me.
