U.S. military doubts purpose, efficacy of U.S. strike on Syria

• Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has warned in great detail about the risks and pitfalls of U.S. military intervention in Syria.
  “As we weigh our options, we should be able to conclude with some confidence that use of force will move us toward the intended outcome,” Dempsey wrote last month in a letter to the Senate Armed Services Committee. “Once we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next. Deeper involvement is hard to avoid.”
  The Post notes that Dempsey has not spoken publicly about the administration’s planned strike on Syria, and it is not clear whether his position shifted after last week’s alleged chemical weapons attack.
  Dempsey said this month in a 4 August interview with ABC News that the lessons of Iraq must be absorbed. “[The U.S. involvement in Iraq] has branded in me the idea that the use of military power must be part of an overall strategic solution that includes international partners and a whole of government,” he said. “The application of force rarely produces and, in fact, maybe never produces the outcome we seek.”
• The recently retired head of the U.S. Central Command, Gen. James Mattis, said last month that the United States has “no moral obligation to do the impossible” in Syria. “If Americans take ownership of this, this is going to be a full-throated, very, very serious war,” said Mattis, who as Centcom chief oversaw planning for a range of U.S. military responses in Syria.
• U.S. military officials pointed to the likely consequences of a U.S. strike include a retaliatory attack by Hezbollah on Israel as well as cyberattacks on U.S. targets and infrastructure.
  “What is the political end state we’re trying to achieve?” a retired senior officer involved in Middle East operational planning told the Post. “I don’t know what it is. We say it’s not regime change. If it’s punishment, there are other ways to punish.” The former senior officer said that those who are expressing alarm at the risks inherent in the plan “are not being heard other than in a pro-forma manner.”
• A retired Central Command officer said the administration’s plan would “gravely disappoint our allies and accomplish little other than to be seen as doing something.”
  “It will be seen as a half measure by our allies in the Middle East,” the officer said. “Iran and Syria will portray it as proof that the U.S. is unwilling to defend its interests in the region.”

The Post notes apprehensions notwithstanding, some within the U.S. military support striking Syria. W. Andrew Terrill, a Middle East expert at the U.S. Army War College, said the limited history of the use of chemical weapons in the region suggests that ignoring the use of such weapons can be dangerous.

“There is a feeling as you look back that if you don’t stand up to chemical weapons, they’re going to take it as a green light and use them on a recurring basis,” he said.

An Army lieutenant colonel said the White House has only bad options, but retreating now would be even worse.

“When a president draws a red line, for better or worse, it’s policy,” he told the Post, referring to Obama’s declaration last year about Syria’s potential use of chemical weapons. “It cannot appear to be scared or tepid. Remember, with respect to policy choices concerning Syria, we are discussing degrees of bad and worse.”