By Stephen Tryon
This week, Congress will vote on a resolution to use military force to respond to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons against its own people. Congress should vote no on the immediate use of force because it is not the strongest, most effective way America can respond to the Assad regime’s crime. Here’s why.
As a businessman, I like to think in terms of costs and benefits when evaluating competing courses of action. The process for analysis is to identify the rough financial costs of the military options under consideration, identify the likely outcomes of the military strike option, and compare those costs and outcomes with alternative uses of the same resources. The issue is not whether or not the United States responds to Assad’s crime; rather, the issue should be deciding on the most effective response. I believe a reasonable analysis shows the most effective response is not the immediate military strike option Congress will vote on this week.
I estimate the financial cost of the limited military strike options now on the table are on the order of $1.5 billion. According to the internet, we used about 725 cruise missiles in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. We used 159 cruise missiles when President Obama ordered the limited strikes that contributed to the regime change in Libya in 2011. The strikes being discussed with regard to Syria probably fall somewhere between those extremes. I arrive at my cost estimate by assuming a strike to degrade Assad’s military capacity would expend somewhere around 500 missiles. There would, of course, be operational costs associated with delivering the strikes—I have assumed about $1 of operational cost for every $1 of munitions hardware expended in the strikes.
Limited military strikes will almost certainly have 4 outcomes: (1) we will temporarily degrade Assad’s military capability by destroying some percentage of his weapons, delivery systems and armed forces; (2) we will expend about $1.5 billion of American taxpayer money; (3) we will kill some number of Syrian civilian men, women and children that we don’t intend to kill; (4) we will effectively sideline world public opinion and any possibility of coalition support. Outcome number one is temporary because the Russians have already said they will continue to provide arms to Assad. They will replace what we destroy. Outcome number three is unfortunate but likely when you launch hundreds of missiles at anything.
On May 7, 1999, for instance, the United States accidentally bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade during Operation Allied Force, NATO’s military operation against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War. Three Chinese citizens were killed and twenty were injured in that strike. Syrians today may not like us much because they feel we have not done enough, but we have not killed any of them yet, either. Once we do, we will give them–fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, daughters and sons—reason to hate us for the rest of their lives. Outcome number four follows from outcome number three and from the fact that, once again, we will have given the world community a convenient excuse for doing nothing: yes, Assad is a bad guy, but you Americans and your unilateral military strikes break international law also.
I believe there is a far more effective use of the taxpayers’ money and a stronger long-term response to Assad’s crime. The United States Congress, recognizing that polls show a majority of Americans oppose the military strike option, should say no to President Obama’s request for the authority to use force in response to last month’s chemical attack in Syria, while at the same time reaffirming the President’s authority to use military force under the War Powers Act of 1973.
President Obama and Congress together should then jointly call on the International Court of Justice to indict Assad and others in the Syrian regime responsible for the recent chemical attack. President Obama should immediately request congressional approval for a $1B program to help Syrian refugees and to provide lethal and non-lethal support to appropriately vetted Syrian opposition groups. We should request the world community join with us in helping the victims of the civil war even if they are not willing to provide military support. President Obama should then state that the United States reserves the right to act unilaterally and pre-emptively to prevent future use of chemical weapons by Assad’s regime.
The alternative course of action I describe above will likely have the following outcomes: (1) we will checkmate Assad’s military by keeping a hefty package of weapons in position to interdict future use of chemicals and by arming appropriately vetted elements of the Syrian opposition; (2) we will spend about the same amount of American taxpayer money we would spend with an immediate missile strike; (3) we will engage the international community to act with us to label Assad a criminal and to impose sanctions targeted at his military capability; (4) we would give the world an enduring, powerful example of a country where the people control the government, rather than the government controlling the people.
Outcome number one preserves America’s option to use military force in the future. We might also open the door for future military assistance from other countries. It is one thing for a politician to say they will not use force to respond to something that happened yesterday; quite another for them to say they will not stand against mass murder that has not yet occurred. Outcome number three affirms that it is the responsibility of the world community, not just the United States, to stand against injustice and criminal behavior.
Unlike the effects of a unilateral military strike, the effect of sanctions on Syria’s military should increase over time. Outcome three also provides a foundation for future allied support for military operations, should those become necessary. In this regard, we shift some of the financial burden of any military response from the American taxpayer. In my view, allowing our allies to shrink from their responsibility to enforce international law is almost as bad as turning a blind eye to Assad’s criminal behavior.
Outcome number four is perhaps the most powerful of all because it exemplifies for the Syrian people that for which they are fighting. In fact, this example of the American republic in action would be powerful for the Egyptian people, for the Iranian people, for the Iraqi people, indeed, for people everywhere. It brings America’s greatest strength and treasure, our freedom, into play. Putin can replace any Syrian helicopters we destroy. He, Assad, and the Iranian government have no response to the example of a free people exercising control over government. The tyrants of the world are not afraid of having to replace some military hardware; they should be afraid whenever one of their people says quietly to himself, “I want to live in a country like America.”
The United States faces a choice between acting with our military alone or acting with all of the elements of our national power—diplomatic, informational, military, and economic. We do not face a choice between doing something and doing nothing. Doing nothing is not an option. But America’s greatest source of power has never been a ship, a missile, or a tank. America’s greatest source of power is that people all over the globe would rather live here than with the Assads of the world.
Stephen Tryon, a former fellow in the office of Senator Max Cleland, is a Senior Vice President at internet retailer Overstock.com and the author of Accountability Citizenship. For more information, please visit AccountabilityCitizenship.org.
