"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.
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!
