White House Officials Push for Widening War in Syria Over Pentagon Objections
Q. Why have U.S. military leaders consistently pushed back
against escalating U.S. military involvement in Syria? Is their approach
correct and has it worked? Explain.
Leading Like a Gardener
Q. Do you agree/disagree with the concept of "leading like a gardener?" Explain your answer.
U.S. military leaders are pushing back against escalating U.S. involvement in Syria because they believe the risks of rushing into the conflict are too high compared to waiting for an alternative plan. There are many reasons for this, and one of the biggest is because they don't want to make similar mistakes made in Iraq and Afghanistan. With the bloody conflict getting worse, it is easy to see the negative consequences of inaction, but the military leader's desires to not get involved may prove beneficial.
ReplyDeleteSyria does pose long term threats to US interests, and this is an issue that needs to be dealt with. However, in the article, Colin Khal said it best when he said, "pursuing a wider war against Iranian-backed fighters in Syria would be 'both unnecessary and extraordinarily dangerous.' ...Targeting Iranian proxies in Syria would aggravate relations with Shiite-ruled Iraq and 'blow up the strategic relationship' with Baghdad." This would undo a lot of hard earned progress made in Iraq.
Avoiding further involvement until a more sound plan of action at the moment seems necessary. However, only time will tell whether or not this is the right move. There will always be unforeseen positive and negative consequences of any action, or inaction, taken.
Escalating action in any theater for a perceived "just cause" has potential to unify support for a political party. Misguided or not, even contrived crisis will create strong political noise allowing for strong action (or inaction) for lawmakers at home. U.S. military leaders know better than anyone the meaning of Quagmire, especially when politicians want to play general.
ReplyDeleteConsistently acting as an advocate against military action in Syria preserves precious military resources, not the least of which is public support. Understanding that the opportunity for limited action in the initials stages of the Syrian Civil War have long passed, it is imperative to wait for the appropriate time to strike. Appropriate in this case would require clearly delineated roles, responsibilities and timelines all of which we have lacked in our previous two engagements. America craves a decisive victory.
Lastly, to determine if previous policy has worked would be pure conjecture of which I am unwilling to provide. I am willing to claim we have some very hawkish actors at the helm who seem intent on military engagement somewhere throughout the world. What this means for the world, I don't know. What this means for A Co, individual soldier readiness is not negotiable.
Best,
CW2 Holgreen
I would venture to guess that U.S. Military leaders are looking for an actual goal or endstate. After being bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq for over a decade with the endstate being "stability in the region/country" isn't a feasible goal to plan for.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, with rotational deployments/mobilzations to both EUCOM and Korea now as standard tours for Active Component units in addition to OIR and OFS, it has become extremely difficult to open Syria/Iraq back up in numbers as there aren't enough Soldiers to fill billets for all of these requirements.
US military leaders are most likely looking at lessons learned over the past 16 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan and asking if there is anything that would ever make it worth committing to full-spectrum operations in Syria. The cost is extremely high, and as we've seen, when we leave, it can appear it would have been better that we were never there in the first place.
ReplyDeleteHaving a clear objective is another challenge for our military-- asymmetrical warfare has really blurred the battlefield and obscured our view of what/how we're wanting to accomplish.
Great feedback everyone! You've all hit on it. While the U.S. clearly does have a strategic interest in what happens in Syria, the scope and scale of the requirement to use military force to achieve those interests is what has been contested. The military will never endorse escalating the use of military force without first linking that escalation to risks and an achievable desired end state. This is the high hurdle and why proponents of military escalation in Syria can't gain much traction. I believe the military's approach is correct because it is strategic common sense. Certainly the military's experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan have had their influence, but this is only part of why their approach is so persuasive and why it has worked up to this point.
ReplyDelete