Saturday, August 31, 2013

War on Syria: "Drôle de Guerre" and the Principles of War 101

   Dark Clouds. Or Smoke Signals? Photo ET

War on Syria: "Drôle de Guerre" and the 
Principles of War 101

Updated September 10, 2013

President Theodore Roosevelt summarizing US foreign policy's Monroe Doctrine, is supposed to have said: "Speak softly and carry a big stick". It morphed yesterday into: "Speak loudly and and kerry carry an unbelievably small toothpick."


"Drôle de Guerre" or "Phoney War" is the name given to that strange historic event started by the French-British declaration of war against Germany on September 3, 1939. Germany had crossed a red line by attacking Poland on September 1st. After the declaration of war, nothing happened though until May 10, 1940. The Germans, proponents of the concept of "Blitzkrieg" mocked the allies as having declared a "Sitzkrieg" (Seated war).

As a former soldier, I'm of course aware that warfare is an art and very serious business. People die. The quite amateurish posturing of our western leaders made me think back to my years at the Royal Military Academy in Brussels, Belgium, when Professor Henri Bernard dissected military thinking into 3 principles of the art of war. They should be known at least minimally to the civilian leadership, as even private companies have recognized their validity in their daily competitive world. And many versions of those principles have been around, from General Sun Tsu to General von Clausewitz. Those principles are dos and don'ts of the art of war, and breaching only one is most often a fatal mistake. All great military failures stem from the violation of at least one principle.

It seems to me that in the case of the well announced, yet not decided strike on Syria, which was expected to take place before Wednesday, September 4th according to the French President, with a list of targets and a civilian choreography of missile strikes in the sand or across the bow lasting for about 48 hours, all 3 principles and many rules have already been violated.

The leaked narrative of operations to come gives the "enemy" ample assurances that he can win this, by simply sitting it out, taking shelter for 48 hours. Clemenceau, the French President who oversaw the final years of WW 1, is supposed to have said that war is too serious a matter to entrust to military men. Mais mon cher Georges, look at what's going on now. Isn't this a case for military men to reciprocate your wit? War seems indeed too serious a business to entrust it to elected officials.

Henri Bernard had distilled military thinking from Sun Tsu to von Clausewitz into those 3 principles, each with a set of rules. Here they are, a bit popularized, the way even the roughest street fighters understand and certainly use them:

The first principle is: Proportionality between mission and assets, which means don’t even go there if you know, you really have no goal and if you can’t afford it. Or: are you sure you can beat them up?

The second principle is: Freedom of Action, which means never, never lose the initiative, and dissimulate your intentions. Or better, you wait for the right moment at the right place. Then let all hell get lose.

The third principle is: Economy of Forces, which means use them efficiently. Or better strike suddenly, fast and with all your might.

OK, I made it a bit folksy so my crash course students will remember the stuff. If they do, we might actually have a war where no one shows up. But if we still go, I'm afraid the three above principles are and remain violated:

The first principle is being violated, because intelligence is missing, we don't know yet who did it, and on this entangled battlefield we don't always know who is who. Is Al Qaida now an ally, because it is the enemy of our enemy? Is Assad really our enemy, or has that shifted to Assad being an objective ally, because now that our enemy Al Qaida is an ally of our ally, their enemy Assad becomes our ally? I hope I now have confused you, which is exactly my point. Please try again. And what about the mission? I guess it would be the following manifold mission, if we mean serious business: get rid of the Assad regime, defeat Al Qaida, have the rebels win, but only the good rebels, not the ones that will do an Egypt. That would be a mission today with boots on the ground. You know, missiles, drones and planes don't make prisoners. However wouldn't that have been easier 2 years ago, choosing the good rebels before the bad ones even showed up?

The second principle is violated "all you can violate": the details of the intended military intervention are telephoned. No dissimulation, unless all the leaked information hopefully has been leaked intentionally and is very clever disinformation. Or it is begging for no Syrian or Iranian retaliation to an "unbelievably small" action. Assad will watch the fireworks from his balcony, the New York Times' program of events at hand, knowing that it won't last long.

The third principle is violated, because there is no surprise left. We know or will know who will deliver the shot across the bow, when, where, how, and how long. And there is very little backup in theater to mission-creep, or a claim that all options are on the table. Which Syria seems to claim on their side.

So, now it looks as if we have planned for disaster. It won't really be a military disaster, because Syria is no match for Western forces, and the military will dutifully pull the trigger and go home. But it could well become a geopolitical disaster, if Assad's backers see weak action. How can we save face?

First, leave all options on the table. Which means there is no such thing as a limited operation, because a limited operation takes options OFF the table. And Assad's protectors will think twice. Then make one of 4 decisions:

1. Do nothing. The assessment being, that Syrian events are none of the West's interests.
2. Wait for a UN mandate as the sole legal base for action. However even Luxembourg as a member of the Security Council will vote against intervention. Not mentioning the Russian and Chinese veto powers with their own agendas.
3. Claim preponderance of a doctrine, a more or less unilateral rule originated from a position of power. The "Red Line Doctrine", well announced ahead, would be grounds for punitive action if the line is crossed, which seems to be the case, even more so if crossing the line is a crime against humanity.
4. Act upon international outrage of intolerable human rights violations and genocide. A sort of UN mandate without the UN.

So there are two options to do nothing, and two possible unilateral ones. But the international outcry against Assad is not at a level to support military intervention. Therefore there is no good option, only bad ones or worse ones.

Unless you talk to a hawk, which doesn't seem to be the mood of the day. In a hawkish view, you could speculate that there is a strategy that would also achieve other goals, and would go this way: There is military intervention in Syria on humanitarian grounds, Syria's Iranian backers imprudently intervene and retaliate, which gives justification to launch an assault and take out Iran's nuclear sites. For many analysts this would be an overdue reaction to Iran's non-compliance with international demands to stop nuclear programs. The UN in particular, as a forum for international outrage is a lame construction, unable to accede to the level of enforcing its own demands. This would take care of that. Chances are however increasing by the day that there is a war, and no one shows up. And Syria is actively engaged in the propaganda war, the likely ersatz event for the real thing.


As this short overview is a crash course in Principles of War 101, there is a bonus for you having read this far: a summary of Henri Bernard's Principles and Rules of War. Easy to print, cut out and wear in your wallet, if ever you go to War.

THE PRINCIPLES OF WAR

PRINCIPLES
RULES

1. PROPORTIONALITY
INTELLIGENCE GATHERING

2. FREEDOM OF ACTION
COMBINE FORCES
SECURE LINE OF COMMUNICATIONS
SAFETY
DISSIMULATE INTENTIONS

3. ECONOMY OF FORCES
ASSEMBLE MAXIMUM OF ASSETS
USE WITH MAXIMUM INTENSITY
IN COOPERATION
UNDER ONE COMMAND
CHOICE OF TIMING
CHOICE OF PLACE
SURPRISE
SPEED
CONTINUITY

UPDATE: 08.31.2013 14:50 EST

President Obama has spoken.
Peace has effectively broken out, and you have celebrations in Damascus, Tehran, Moscow and elsewhere. It is a stunning reversal from Secretary of State Kerry's call for action just a day ago. The backdoor escape from action is that though the President has decided to take military action, and though he has the authority to decide this (Presidents Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush did so), he wants Congressional approval. Most observers would say, that's impossible to get.
So the Syrians and their friends celebrate.
Rebels lose morale and hope.
Israel knows it is on its own.
Congress is likely to say "No" on September 9th, which almost everyone assumes.
The US military might be relieved and hope to go back to the principles of war.
The rogue states are emboldened.
The US Presidency is weakened.
US public opinion prevailed, as polls found more than 80% opposed.
Luxembourg also prevailed with its advertised "No" at the UN.
And, Oh mon Dieu, Monsieur Hollande has to go it alone. Beware of the Beresina!

UPDATE: 09.10.2013 09:00 EST

By now the enemy is so confused, that indeed when the war breaks out, no one goes. It is replaced by a vote that will not take place and international control of inaccessible chemical weapons arsenal.

No comments:

Post a Comment