Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Think Tanks Beg: Give Us War

Hillary Clinton’s impassioned defense of a no-fly zone in Syria last Wednesday may not have won her many friends in certain wings of the Democratic Party, but it spoke to at least one group: America’s foreign policy elite.

Print Friendly

Lobelog

Hillary Clinton’s impassioned defense of a no-fly zone in Syria last Wednesday may not have won her many friends in certain wings of the Democratic Party, but it spoke to at least one group: America’s foreign policy elite.

Over the past year, U.S. foreign policy “thought leaders” have increasingly turned their backs on the Obama administration’s cryptic strategy in the Middle East. Reporting in The Washington Post, Greg Jaffe identifies several major players crucial to laying the groundwork for such a pivot, including fellows from the Center for American Progress, Council on Foreign Relations, the Brookings Institution, and the Atlantic Council. All, Jaffe notes, are “driven by a broad-based backlash against a president who has repeatedly stressed the dangers of overreach and the need for restraint, especially in the Middle East.” Like Clinton, one immediate policy prescription they’ve identified is the establishment of safe zones—enforced, naturally, by U.S.-led no-fly zones—in Syria. And also like Clinton, one of the questions they’ve been wont to ignore is how a resurgent Russia would receive such a strategy.

Although the Russia problem has acquired new import in the past few weeks, it’s been a consideration pro-airstrike advocates have grappled with for months. Earlier this year, one of the more vocal supporters of an intervention—the Washington Institute for Near East Policy—sponsored a series on “safe zones,” grappling somewhat haphazardly with the question of Russian involvement. In one report, James Jeffrey wondered “why Washington, with far greater local and global military capabilities [than Moscow], so worries” about a no-fly zone resulting in a military confrontation with Russia. Plus, explained Anna Borshchevskaya in another policy paper in the series, “the threat of escalation with Russia exists whether the United States implements safe zones or not, simply by virtue of Russia’s growing presence in the region.”

The Atlantic Council—which is expected to forcefully call for a more interventionist foreign policy in its forthcoming report on the next president’s role in the Middle East—took a similar position in its report on the Middle East earlier this year as well, noting that concerns over Russian retaliation were overblown. “American interests and capabilities greatly outweigh Russia’s in the region,” the report explained. “It is Russia that should want to avoid a fight with the United States in Syria, and probably will.”

The Blob Supports Intervention

Several months later, these calls for U.S. action have only grown louder.

Toward the end of September, Charles Lister, a fellow at the Middle East Institute, laid out a multipart plan for creating viable safe zones that has since made the rounds among the foreign policy commentariat. Lister assures us that his plan—which zeros in on U.S. and international action in the first 30 days—doesn’t extend to regime change and instead “seeks civilian protection with discernible consequences for violators.” “Violators” here could include both Russian and Syrian forces, demonstrating our willingness to use punitive force. Lister makes several assumptions. Russia, he asserts, would cede to a “superior military actor” and the country’s domestic turmoil would keep it from dumping more resources into counter-escalating. Most importantly, “to militarily counter limited punitive measures against non-critical regime military infrastructure resulting from especially flagrant violations of a ceasefire would seem to contradict Russia’s own calculated intervention in Syria.” Even if these assumptions become immutable facts, the door to a dangerous escalation of conflict between the two superpowers remains wide open.

Lister’s particular brand of interventionism has captured the attention of Brookings as well. In cooperation with John R. Allen—co-director of the Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence—he put forth yet another call for intervention in the pages of The Washington Post. The bug seems to have spread around. Some of Allen’s more even-handed colleagues, such as Shadi Hamid, have taken to arguing that Obama’s inaction has left us off worse than before, with Syria one of the consequences.

Even the Center for American Progress (CAP), an ostensibly left-of-center think tank with strong ties to the Clinton campaign, has thrown its hat into the ring. In a recently released report entitled “Leveraging U.S. Power in the Middle East,” one of the many first-order policy prescriptions CAP makes for the next administration is: “Be prepared to use airpower to protect U.S. partners and civilians in certain parts of Syria.” These activities could go on for some time. CAP estimates that its plan would put Syria on track to achieve political stability by 2025. Just as in previous examples, CAP notes that Russia is another one of the major powers vying for primacy in the Middle East, but it makes no attempt to demonstrate how Moscow would receive a no-fly zone.

It’s tempting to assume these oversights wouldn’t make their way into any substantive policy put forth the next administration. Yet these lapses, shared by experts across partisan lines, raise the question: Is the “Blob” gearing up for war with Russia, or is it simply not taking the country’s threats seriously?

From Cold War to Hot?

War between the two powers has, oddly enough, become a point of idle speculation. The phrase “nuclear war” has been batted around in both Russian and American circles—including the media—a few too many times for comfort, even among thinkers more level-headed than Russian television personality Dmitry Kiselyov and Donald Trump. At Brookings, General Sir Richard Shirreff, former Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe, recently presented his own scenario for armed conflictbetween the West and Russia.

Despite experts’ insistence that Russia would either roll over and let the United States do its work—or, worse, could be taken out by U.S. forces in a few days—there’s still the issue that a no-fly zone would, as U.S. officials have stated, “require us to go to war against Syria and Russia.” Russian officials appear to agree. “Any missile or air strikes on the territory controlled by the Syrian government will create a clear threat to Russian servicemen,” Russian Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov warned. Policymakers, he continued, should engage in a “thorough calculation of the possible consequences of such plans.”

Why the Blob shrugs off these threats—let alone over a year of military support for Assad—as bluffs is perplexing. Russia’s struggling economy has done little to weaken its resolve. Did the commentariat forget about eastern Ukraine?

U.S. military and intelligence officials tend to agree. “I do take seriously the very sophisticated air-defense system and air-defense coverage that the Russians have,” James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, explained during a Council on Foreign Relations event on Tuesday. “I wouldn’t put it past them to shoot down an American aircraft . . . if they felt that was threatening to their forces on the ground.”

For the foreign policy elite, U.S. action in Syria isn’t as much a matter of “if”—it’s a matter of “when.” And at this juncture, with U.S.-Russia relations in the toilet and a bevy of action plans that fail to account for the ever-increasing risk of direct conflict, the wonks’ preferred humanitarian intervention is shaping up to be a disaster.

Hannah Gais is a New York-based writer with recent bylines in Al Jazeera America, First Things, U.S. News and World Report and more. She is an audience development associate at The Baffler, a nonresident fellow with Young Professionals in Foreign Policy, and the executive director of The Eastern Project. Formerly, she was the assistant editor at the Foreign Policy Association.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Although sometimes characterized as a Republican “maverick” for his bipartisan forays into domestic policy, Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks.


Former CIA director Michael Hayden, a stalwart advocate of the Bush-era policies on torture and warrantless wiretapping, has been a vocal critic of Donald Trump


The former GOP presidential candidate and Speaker of the House has been a vociferous proponent of the idea that the America faces an existential threat from “Islamofascists.”


David Albright is the founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, a non-proliferation think tank whose influential analyses of nuclear proliferation issues in the Middle East have been the source of intense disagreement and debate.


A right-wing Christian and governor of Kansas, Brownback previously served in the U.S. Senate, where he gained a reputation as a leading social conservative as well as an outspoken “pro-Israel” hawk on U.S. Middle East policy.


Steve Forbes, head of the Forbes magazine empire, is an active supporter of a number of militarist policy organizations that have pushed for aggressive U.S. foreign policies.


Stephen Hadley, an Iraq War hawk and former national security adviser to President George W. Bush, now chairs the U.S. Institute for Peace.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

The Trump administration appears to have been surprised by this breach among its friends in the critical Gulf strategic area. But it is difficult to envision an effective U.S. role in rebuilding this Humpty-Dumpty.


Print Friendly

A recent vote in the European Parliament shows how President Trump’s relentless hostility to Iran is likely to isolate Washington more than Tehran.


Print Friendly

The head of the Institute for Science and International Security—aka “the Good ISIS”—recently demonstrated again his penchant for using sloppy analysis as a basis for politically explosive charges about Iran, in this case using a faulty translation from Persian to misleadingly question whether Tehran is “mass producing advanced gas centrifuges.”


Print Friendly

Trump has exhibited a general preference for authoritarians over democrats, and that preference already has had impact on his foreign policy. Such an inclination has no more to do with realism than does a general preference for democrats over authoritarians.


Print Friendly

The President went to the region as a deal maker and a salesman for American weapon manufacturing. He talked about Islam, terrorism, Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without the benefit of expert advice in any of these areas. After great showmanship in Riyadh, Jerusalem, and Bethlehem, he and his family left the region without much to show for or to benefit the people of that war-torn region.


Print Friendly

Although the Comey memo scandal may well turn out to be what brings Trump down, this breach of trust may have had more lasting effect than any of Trump’s other numerous misadventures. It was an unprecedented betrayal of Israel’s confidence. Ironically, Trump has now done what even Barack Obama’s biggest detractors never accused him of: seriously compromised Israel’s security relationship with the United States.


Print Friendly

Congress and the public acquiesce in another military intervention or a sharp escalation of one of the U.S. wars already under way, perhaps it’s time to finally consider the true costs of war, American-style — in lives lost, dollars spent, and opportunities squandered. It’s a reasonable bet that never in history has a society spent more on war and gotten less bang for its copious bucks.


RightWeb
share