6.16.13: Lack of Trust, Little Credibility

The chaos in Syria really is a perfect storm for a larger regional war, the proverbial 'powder keg,' as Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) called it.  The war in Syria consists of multiple conflicts going on all at once: a religiously rooted civil war wrapped in a larger geopolitical conflict.  Within Syria, the Alawite sect of Shia Islam, the Assad Regime and the minority, rules over the majority Sunni population so this brings in steadfast allies Hezbollah and Iran on the side of Assad, all of whom are adversaries of the West and Israel. There is also the larger quest for influence in the region between Saudi Arabia (Sunni) and Iran (Shia), animosity based along religious lines so the Saudis are giving tacit support to the rebels.  Russia's interests in Syria are many, but significant is that Assad provides them access to and economic leverage on the Mediterranean in the form of a keenly influential port. 

All of these variant motivations don't make any of President Obama's choices easy when weighing the long term implications so it's discouraging to hear Mr. Graham complain about the Obama Administration's foreign policy as simply consisting of 'not being Bush.'  First, it trivializes the grave situation and the ensuing consequences in Syria, and secondly the person most responsible for the Administration having to take that tact is, in fact, George W. Bush.

Let's face it, the American Government's got no cred internationally anymore when it comes to moral authority and truthfulness and that's directly because of the actions taken by the Bush Administration.  The U.S. Government has determined that Mr. Obama's 'red line' has been crossed and that the Assad Regime has in fact used chemical weapons, and the international community scoffs at our declaration.  The United States once again officially declares that the Bashir Assad must step down and then Russia, Iran (with 4,000 troops on their way to Syria), and Hezbollah all double down on their support. We're not going to put boots on the ground - Senator Graham explained that everyone's [read: both Republicans and Democrats] position is not to go there and ask an already war weary American public to indulge more human cost.

That leaves the United States with two options of either arming the rebels or creating a no-fly zone.  Senators Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) and Graham, along with the Washington Post's David Ignatius all agreed that the government has adequately identified the moderate rebels to supply.  David Gregory accurately pointed out that we can not track guns in this country so how are we going to be able to do that in Syria?  On the other hand at one point, he also provided the counter that enforcing a no-fly zone could very well be that slippery slope of the United States becoming directly involved as voiced by Senator Mark Udall (D-CO).  Neither choice sounds appealing and are accompanied by peril. History tells us that if we supply arms to the rebels that one day those very weapons could be used against us.  If the U.S. coordinates at no-fly zone using our allies that that is like 'leading from behind' as we did in Libya, definitely something Republicans won't go for.

When you consider all those circumstances, it is understandable why the Obama Administration would be cautious; they just can not be indecisive.  What they need to start with is stating a clear strategic goal for the United States in this conflict, and if that is to stop the killing then arming rebels (adding more guns to situation) is going to long delay that desired result.

The solution should be the United States and Russia collectively putting diplomatic pressure on both sides for a ceasefire, and then send in United Nation peace keeping troops to stabilize things on the ground.  After which, a  multinational group of inspectors should go in an verify whether chemical weapons have been used, hence determining whether or not Bashir Assad has a future.  We understand that that 93,000 have perished and the United States is already late to the party, but we're in a no-win situation.  The credibility of the United States is so tainted that we're blamed for not becoming involved soon enough, and then if we do the involvement is deemed inadequate.  And vanquishing a dictator's power is licking extracting a ticked that's burrowed deep under the skin - not easy as illustrated.  The Obama Administration realizes that because of past folly and a dearth of credibility we haven't any leverage to sway things toward a positive outcome.  Unfortunately, one of the consequences is that we could lose another key ally in the region, King Abdullah and Jordan, which was of evident concern to all the Senators today. Mr. Udall stated that he feared for the entire region if Jordan were to become unstable.

The credibility deficit is compounded here at home by the NSA spying program, and how all that is playing out.  As we said last week, positions are all over the map as illustrated by the opinions of today's guests.  Senator Udall stated that he felt comfortable with the NSA's PRISM program that monitors the internet behavior of people outside the United States. However, he then explained his concerns with the collection of metadata and how it had the potential to infringe on an individual's fourth amendment rights.

Of course General Michael Hayden is going to defend these programs as he was part of the architectural team that put it all together.  He can say that there haven't been abuses such as turning the PRISM program in the direction of U.S. citizens but how can we be sure.  Andrea Mitchell played the healthy skeptic all program saying that after so many scandals, how can we have trust in such statements.  As Senator Udall put it, it's a secret request to a secret court for a secret program.

We're able to have this rightful debate because of the information disclosed by Edward Snowden.  However, what he did was wrong because it was all about self-gratification and elevation in trying to achieve international rebel hero worship status on the scale of Julian Assange, not about doing the right thing.  Unfortunately we take example from our elected officials who are more concerned with self-promotion and pander that they forget governing is about arguing, compromising, and leading.

But also wrong is when David Ignatius said that we've had this debate about surveillance when warrantless wiretapping first came up.  As The New York Times' James Risen pointed out, this surveillance state apparatus was being built without debate, nor public knowledge.  That's key because there's no reversing it now, it's already done so now we're left to live with it. Congressman Scott (D-VA) gave several easy examples of how the system could be illegally turned against an individual, an intimidation tool used for gathering dirt on political enemies for instance, not just for tracking terrorists.  Mr. Risen mentioned the potential for this evolving into a police state, pointing out that there has never been a true accounting of the surveillance program in totality.

Despite the very real possibility of abuse and an Orwellian 'utopia' down the road, fifty-six percent of Americans find the build up of the surveillance state acceptable, which is an unbelievable number.  Our Republican political leaders have been stoking big government overreach outrage for years, but on the ultimate big brother issue, they advocate for it and ask us to trust them, as if there is some credible reason why we should.


Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA), former Director of the NSA and CIA – now a principal of The Chertoff Group -- Gen. Michael Hayden, Washington Post Columnist David Ignatius, New York Times national security reporter James Risen, and NBC’s foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell.