Dissent Channel State Department Memo on Syria

The New York Times has the text of the dissent channel memo regarding Syria, although it is displayed in somewhat unusual format.  Here is a link to the text:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/06/17/world/middleeast/document-state-dept-syria.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

The Washington Post also has a story about the memo.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-memo-us-diplomats-urge-more-aggressive-stance-on-syria/2016/06/16/ff30596a-3431-11e6-8758-d58e76e11b12_story.html

I do not agree with the dissenters.  I don't think Assad will leave unless he is physically pushed out, either by the US, the rebels, or his subordinates.  If he is pushed out, there is no guarantee that whoever replaces him will be any better.  I think it is unlikely that moderate rebels will replace him, although ISIL's defeat in Fallujah is encouraging. Our failures in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya do not bode well for success in Syria.  The fact that it is a civil war characterized by sectarian hatred makes the conflict even more intractable.  I understand the outrage and concern about the humanitarian disaster that the war has created, leading to the mass migration of refugees to Europe, but I don't think that more military action in Syria will improve that.  We might be able to set aside some refugee areas within Syria that are no fire zones, and that could be supported by aid agencies, but that's about it.  We can't settle this conflict unless most of the parties want us to.  

The text of the memo from the NYT follows

SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED

                                          - 2 -

moderate rebel groups’ role in defeating Da’esh, and help bring an end to the

broader instability the conflict generates.



3. (SBU) Initiating targeted military strikes in response to egregious regime

violations of the CoH would raise the cost for the regime and bolster the prospects

for a real ceasefire -- without cities being bombed and humanitarian convoys

blocked -- and lead to a more serious diplomatic process, led by the United States. 

A reinvigorated CoH would help the political process to mature as we press for the

formation of a transitional government body with full executive powers that can

start to rebuild Syria and Syrian society, with significant assistance from the

international community.  With the repeated diplomatic setbacks of the past five

years, together with the Russian and Iranian governments’ cynical and

destabilizing deployment of significant military power to bolster the Asad regime,

we believe that the foundations are not currently in place for an enduring

ceasefire and consequential negotiations. 



4. (SBU) With over 400,000 people dead, hundreds of thousands still at risk from

regime sieges, and 12 million people from a population of 23 million displaced

from their homes, we believe the moral rationale for taking steps to end the deaths

and suffering in Syria, after five years of brutal war, is evident and unquestionable. 

The regime’s actions directly result in broader instability and undermine the

international system responsible for protection of civilians, prevention of mass

atrocities, and accountability for grave violations.  The strategic imperatives for

taking steps to end the bloodshed are numerous and equally compelling.



5. (SBU) First, with the regime deploying tactics that overwhelmingly target

civilians (barrel bombs and air strikes in cities) to achieve battlefield objectives

and undermine support for the moderate opposition, impeding or ending such

atrocities will not only save lives but further our political objectives. While the

regime maintains the advantage, an undeterred Asad will resist compromises

sought by almost all opposition factions and regional actors. Shifting the tide of the

conflict against the regime will increase the chances for peace by sending a clear

signal to the regime and its backers that there will not be a military solution to the

conflict.   



6. (SBU) Secondly, a more assertive U.S. role to protect and preserve opposition-

held communities, by defending them from Asad’s air force and artillery, presents

the best chance for defeating Da’esh in Syria.  The prospects for rolling back

Da’esh’s hold on territory are bleak without the Sunni Arabs, who the regime
continues to bomb and starve.  A de facto alliance with the regime against Da’esh



                          SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED
                          SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED

                                          - 3 -

would not guarantee success: Asad’s military is undermanned and exhausted.

Kurdish YPG fighters cannot -- and should not -- be expected to project power and

hold terrain deep into non-Kurdish areas.  And, crucially, Syria’s Sunni population

continues to view the Asad regime as the primary enemy in the conflict.  If we are

to remain committed to countering Da’esh in the Levant without committing

ground forces, the best option is to protect and empower the moderate Syrian

opposition.  Tolerating the Asad regime’s continued gross human rights violations

against the Syrian people undermines, both morally and materially, the unity of the

anti-Da’esh coalition, particularly among Sunni Arab partners.  Failure to stem

Asad’s flagrant abuses will only bolster the ideological appeal of groups such as

Da’esh, even as they endure tactical setbacks on the battlefield.  As brutal as

Da’esh is, it is the Asad regime that is responsible for the vast majority of the

hundreds of thousands of victims in this conflict.    



7. (SBU) Third, putting additional constraints on the regime’s ability to bomb and

shell both fighting forces and unambiguously civilian targets would have a direct,

mitigating impact on the refugee and IDP crisis.  This crisis has deeply affected

Syria’s neighbors for years and is now impacting our European partners in far-

reaching ways that may ultimately jeopardize their very character as open, unified,

and democratic societies.  Even in the United States, the crisis in Syria has lent

credence to prejudiced ideologies that we thought had been discredited years ago. 

Furthermore, the calm that would ensue after the regime’s warplanes are grounded

would lessen the importance of armed actors, strengthen civil society throughout

the country, and open the space for increased dialogue among communities. 



8. (SBU) Perhaps most critically, a more muscular military posture under U.S.

leadership would underpin and propel a new and reinvigorated diplomatic

initiative.  Despite the dedication and best efforts of those involved, current CoH

and related diplomatic processes are disjointed and largely tactical in nature. 

Instead, a singularly focused and disciplined diplomatic effort -- modeled on the

process established for the Iran negotiations strategy led by the Secretary and

former Under Secretary Sherman and with full White House backing -- should be

adopted to (i) ensure regime compliance with the CoH (or a similar ceasefire

mechanism) and prevent civilian casualties, and (ii) advance talks involving

internal and external actors, to include the Iranians and the Saudis, to produce a

transitional government.  



9. (SBU) U.S. military power would serve to promote regime compliance with the

CoH, and in so doing save lives and alter battlefield dynamics.  The May 17 ISSG

declaration states, “Where the co-chairs believe that a party to the cessation of



                          SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED
                          SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED

                                          - 4 -

hostilities has engaged in a pattern of persistent non-compliance, the Task Force

could refer such behavior to the ISSG Ministers or those designated by the

Ministers to determine appropriate action, including the exclusion of such

parties from the arrangements of the cessation and the protection it affords

them.”  Making clear our willingness to impose consequences on the Asad regime

would increase U.S. negotiating leverage with regard to all parties, rally partners

around U.S. leadership, and raise the costs for others to continue obstructing a

sustainable end to the conflict.  We are not advocating for a slippery slope that

ends in a military confrontation with Russia; rather, we are calling for the credible

threat of targeted U.S. military responses to regime violations to preserve the CoH

and the political track, which we worked so hard to build.  



10. (SBU) We recognize that military action is not a panacea, and that the Asad

regime might prove resilient even in the face of U.S. strikes.  We further recognize

that the risk of further deterioration in U.S.-Russian relations is significant and that

military steps to stop the Asad regime’s relentless bombardment of the Syrian

people may yield a number of second-order effects.  Nonetheless, it is also clear

that the status quo in Syria will continue to present increasingly dire, if not

disastrous, humanitarian, diplomatic, and terrorism-related challenges.  For

five years, the scale of these consequences has overwhelmed our efforts to deal

with this conflict; the United States cannot contain the conflict with the current

policy.  In this regard, we firmly believe it is time the United States, guided by

our strategic interests and moral convictions, lead a global effort to put an end

to this conflict once and for all. 























                          SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED

Obama, Modi and MTCR

Indian Prime Minister Modi has made membership in the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), which I helped create, an issue in his meeting with Obama.  While the MTCR has gotten some Indian press play, it has not been an issue in the US press.  According to the Indian press, Obama supports Indian membership in both the MTCR and the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG).  Inida is not an ideal candidate for either group, since it maintains a nuclear weapons program.  I do not approve of the Bush II administration's decision to give India's nuclear weapons program a pass, rather than require India to adhere to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), as I said in commenting that Trump's proposal to allow Japan and South Korea to have nuclear weapons was not as bad as Bush's allowing India to have nuclear weapons.

Bush's decision and Obama's support for India are understandable in the global power context.  India, which used to be a Russian satellite, is now a rival to China.  We want to strengthen India as a counter to China's power, which is more threatening to the US.  Nevertheless, I am not convinced that this is the best way to do it.  India's argument is that it is a late-blooming nuclear power, and therefore should be treated like the older nuclear powers, the US, UK, Russia, etc., which have separate provisions in the NPT allowing them to keep their weapons.  I think this undermines the whole non-proliferation regime.  If we do this for India, once North Korea has a full fledged nuclear program, why shouldn't it be granted NPT nuclear status, just as India has?

This article from the Indian Express is a pretty good summary of where things stand.

http://indianexpress.com/article/explained/narendra-modi-us-visit-mtcr-nsg-obama-us-congress-2844186/

Here are some other recent articles about the MTCR:

https://in.rbth.com/economics/cooperation/2016/06/09/india-joins-mtcr-space-missile-cooperation-with-russia-easier_601593

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/when-celebrating-progress-on-nsg-and-mtcr-thank-manmohan-singh-and-the-indo-us-nuclear-deal/articleshow/52667827.cms

http://www.siasat.com/news/ficci-welcomes-indias-entry-mtcr-regime-hopes-membership-nsg-969566/

http://www.thenews.com.pk/print/126768-Senator-blasts-Indian-membership-of-MTCR

http://www.digit.in/science-and-technology/india-usa-and-the-lucrative-defence-technology-at-hand-30586.html

http://www.prameyanews7.com/en/jun2016/national/25548/Beijing-isolated-but-NSG-race-set-for-photo-finish.htm

Bob Kerrey - War Criminal with a Medal of Honor

I believe that Roger Cohen intended his New York Times column on Bob Kerrey to be somewhat complementary of Kerrey as a man trying to make amends for his involvement in a wartime atrocity.  However, the impression it made on me was of his hatred for military veterans in general, and Vietnam veterans in particular.  In Cohen’s column Kerrey comes across as one of the most evil, depraved men on the face of the earth.  Nowhere does he mention that Kerrey was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.  The implication is that America awarded the medal to a vile monster, making America a vile, monstrous country.  Cohen’s hatred of America drips like venom from his column. 

I presume that while visiting Vietnam recently, Cohen and Kerrey had a deep, dark heart-to-heart discussion about the incident in which Kerrey’s Seal unit killed a number of women and children.  Cohen does not mention that one reason this happened was because the Vietcong hid among women and children to protect themselves.  The VC have no remorse for pushing women and children into the line of fire by hiding in their villages and homes.  Cohen sees the Vietcong freedom fighters as wonderful exemplars of the nobility of mankind. 

What particularly incensed me was Cohen’s last paragraph comparing Mohammad Ali’s resistance to the Vietnam War to Kerrey’s participation in it.  Cohen’s view is that Ali was the better of the two.  Ali beat people up for a living, often hurting his opponents, but he did it for lots of money.  Kerrey fought for his country; he made much less money as a Seal than Ali did as a boxer, but Cohen sees hurting people for money as a good thing, while killing people for your country is monstrously evil.  For Cohen, Ali made the world a better place, but it would have been better of Kerrey had never been born. 

As a Vietnam veteran I am so outraged, I can hardly write this.  But Cohen is where the the rest of the world is.  People who fought in Vietnam because they were drafted (as Ali almost was) or because they thought they were patriotic, were fools.  Their country will forever hate and revile them, with Cohen in the forefront of the haters.  

Cruz Is A Loser

If Ted Cruz is the best candidate the Republican Party can come up with, it is a failure as a political party.  Cruz represents a narrow base of very conservative, very religious, uneducated or intellectually uninterested voters.  In an interview with Steve Inskeep of NPR, Cruz said that scientific evidence does not support global warming.  He would not directly answer the question of whether evolution is scientific fact.  A PBS summary said that he would mandate a balanced budget. Paul Krugman reported that Cruz wants to return to the gold standard, adding, “there’s no sign in current asset prices that investors see a significant chance of the catastrophe that would follow a return to gold.”  Cruz would repeal ObamaCare.  He would move toward a flat tax and abolish the IRS. 

Cruz must be a smart man.  He graduated from Princeton and Harvard Law.  He clerked for the Supreme Court.  How can he cling to ideas that are so out of touch with reality.  Apparently he uses his brilliant intellect to defend indefensible positions.  His arguments ring hollow to many, but his devotees accept them.  This is true of many Republicans.  Wisconsin looks like an intelligent state, but it has elected Scott Walker as governor and Paul Ryan as a congressman, despite the fact that they adhere to many of the non-fact-based ideas that Cruz espouses.  As Speaker, Paul Ryan is considered somewhat of a moderate, although his ideas are well out on the political fringe compared to Republican ideas for the last hundred years. 

While Cruz is terrible, my poster child for what’s wrong with the Republican Party is Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader.  I see his policies in the Senate as unabashed hatred of the United States.  If the government won’t do what he wants it to do, he will tie it up and choke it to death, by cutting of funding, blocking appointments, blocking legislation, etc.  He throws sand into the gears of government so that it cannot operate.  But the United States cannot exist without some government.  One of the main results of his intransigence has been the prolonged slow growth of the economy.  If we could have funded some infrastructure projects, we could have created jobs much faster than we did.  As it is, we are approaching full employment, but American infrastructure is deteriorating badly.  Mitch McConnell doesn’t care if your bridge falls down, your passenger train goes off the tracks, or your flight runs into another one on the ground because of inability to monitor taxiways.  He would fund some things, like the military, particularly military hardware, but not if it means funding things like education or pollution control. 

The Republican Party had a chance to bring itself into the 21^st century this election, but chose not to.  As it did four years ago, it had public debates that included a number of total losers with no qualifications to be President.  If they don’t like Donald Trump, they have no one to blame but themselves.  The idea that in order to stop Trump they have crowned Cruz as the man who represents the very best of the Republican Party is moronic.  Everybody knows that his fellow Senators hate him.  Like McConnell he is ready to destroy the government if he doesn’t get his way.  If American schools insist on teaching evolution, he may abolish public schools.  Every child will be on his own to learn wherever he can. 

Compared to Cruz, Mitt Romney looks like a liberal philosopher and a master politician.  How can there be no competent CEOs (that leaves out Carly Fiorina) who are willing to be President?  This is essentially how Donald Trump puts himself forward.  Republicans have been less inclined to talk about his management skills than his personality, which they hate.  The country could use a good manager; if they don’t like Trump, find one.  It’s not Cruz or Kasich. 

One problem is that the President’s salary is a pittance compared to what CEOs make.  But thay also have no interest in governing, like Mitch McConnell.  They are motivated solely by avarice and greed, and violate either the letter or spirit of every law they can to enrich themselves without going to jail.  If America were destroyed by a nuclear war, J.P. Morgan’s Jamie Dimon would be on a plane leaving the country before the bombs hit, and would set up shop in London or Hong Kong, making money off of the war and never shedding a tear for the millions of Americans who died.  He and his follow CEOs represent the nadir of humanity, the darkest depths to which mankind has sunk in the 21^st century.  There are no Republican leaders to be found there. 

In the old days, the military often was a source of national leaders, but after Vietnam, the military has fallen into such disrepute that it cannot attract high caliber people to its ranks.  No one who graduated from Harvard or Stanford would think of making a career in the military.  The military has some good people, but they are not of the first quality.