I have been showing for years that this war we are fighting in Syria is not going as we would like…..we went after ISIS after we were told for decades that Assad was the enemy of the free world.
And then I read an article about the US “New Strategy” for the war in Syria…..
As the civil-war aspect of the Syrian conflict winds down, the great power struggle among states is intensifying. It appears the Trump team has discovered that its ability to help solve the former will determine how it fares in the latter.
To that end, the president’s team is fine-tuning an approach to Syria to ensure the enduring defeat of ISIS, freeze the conflict elsewhere in the country, and reinvigorate the peace process according to UN Security Council Resolution 2254.
I got a good chuckle from parts of this piece……for one the diplomatic aspects…..as far as I have seen there are no diplomatic aspects. Syria is a sovereign nation like the leader or not and it is NOT the US place to define their policies.
But that with all this so much crap passed around….there is a chance of mission creep?
One of the ten principles of war taught at all military colleges is “Selection and Maintenance of the Aim”. It sounds simple enough, but when the principle is not adhered to then things often go awry.
Think the invasion of Iraq – was the aim to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, or to establish a functioning democratic state in the heart of the Middle East? The military planned for the former, while the political leadership envisaged the latter. So what started out as a purely military operation morphed into a nation-building effort without the necessary political direction to transition in a timely manner from a military-led to a civilian-led effort. It became mission creep on steroids.
The ensuing chaos simply proved the perspicacity of the authors of the ten principles. And it also proved the relevance of another of those principles – “Unity of Effort”.
On the diplomatic front…… “with actions like targeting Shi’ite militias or Russian mercenaries in Syria, neither of whom Congress authorized, on the grounds that they were engaged in hostile actions against rebel factions that the US, at least for the purposes of the attacks, were labeled “partners” at the time.”
None of that would lead to a positive diplomatic outcome.