The surest evidence that both the White House and the candidates vying to replace Barack Obama have no idea how to deal with the spiraling crisis in Syria is that they refuse to acknowledge the circumstances as they are. They seem to prefer to pretend that the Syrian debacle is a manageable affair that lends itself to simple solutions. In last night’s debate, for example, both the Republican and Democratic vice presidential nominees were determined to see Syria as though history stopped in 2014.
“I truly do believe that what America ought to do right now is immediately establish safe zones,” said Donald Trump’s running mate, Mike Pence, “so that families and vulnerable families with children can move out of those areas, work with our Arab partners, real time, right now, to make that happen.”
“Hillary and I also agree that the establishment of humanitarian zones in northern Syria with the provision of international human aid, consistent with the U.N. Security Council resolution that was passed in February 2014, would be a very, very good idea,” Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine concurred.
This is nothing short of an insult to the nation’s intelligence. What these candidates advocated bloodlessly is nothing short than an invasion and occupation of Syrian territory. Such a mission that would surely be opposed by the Russian Federation, potentially with force.
Trump has repeatedly dodged the question of financing his glorious projects by offloading their costs to ill-defined foreign financiers whom he insists he can coerce into footing the tab. Just as Mexico will pay for his wall, Trump has repeatedly promised that “Gulf states” will invest in a Western-led mission to secure a safe zone in Syria. Even if you believe that dodge, the financing of such a project is the least of America’s worries.
There is only one military on Earth capable or willing to engage in such a project. Secretary of State John Kerry estimated that it would take between 15,000 and 30,000 troops to take and hold Syrian territory on the Turkish border. Those troops would certainly be multinational in nature, but this would be a mission led by the United States. There is no such thing as a Gulf coalition and, if there were, it would dissolve and fracture over tribal animosity quickly.
But before sovereign territory can be taken in Syria, the airspace must first be secured. That is going to be something that Bashar al-Assad’s patrons in Moscow will resist. This week, Russia deployed a battery of advanced S-300 surface-to-air missile systems in Syria in Tartus, which hosts a Russian naval base on the Mediterranean. Russia contends that this deployment is purely defensive and it is, but it’s not their naval base that Moscow is preparing to defend. With direct military and diplomatic contacts between the U.S. and Russia broken off as a result of Russian-supported atrocities in and around the city of Aleppo, Moscow is telegraphing clearly that it will defend its client in Damascus against Western attack.
A strike on Assad’s forces “will lead to terrible, tectonic consequences not only on the territory of this country but also in the region on the whole,” said Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova. They have reason to worry. According to the Washington Post’s Josh Rogin, Cabinet-level meetings are taking place in which administration officials are gaming out the prospect of executing strikes on regime targets in Syria in order to punish Assad for violating the latest ceasefire and for violating human rights in the ongoing siege of Aleppo. A National Security Council meeting including the president “could come as early as this weekend,” Rogin reported.
Does anyone believe that Barack Obama would risk war with Russia over a Syrian conflict that he’s spent the last five years avoiding? Who thinks that either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump would commit tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers to an indefinite occupation of territory in Syria, or that they would execute such a bold mission in defiance of Russian threats? All of these strategies might have made sense in 2013 or 2014, but they amount to insulting nonsense today.
There are no good solutions to the crisis in Syria. Barack Obama saw to that by prioritizing his own domestic political fortunes over American national interests. Today, his would-be successors would rather indulge in fantastical imaginings than leveling with the American people about what can and cannot be done.
