“We
have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the
ground, that a red line for us is if we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical
weapons moving around or being utilised. That would change my calculus. That
would change my calculation”.
President Barack
Obama, August 2012
Alphen, Netherlands. 17 August.
To be effective statecraft must consider all options if strategy is to realise
outcomes. Yesterday, at least nine civilians were killed in Aleppo, and others
died on the outskirts of Damascus, as a result of the regime’s use of barrel
bombs filled with life-crushing chemicals. Yesterday’s victims, alive when I
had breakfast, now join the at least 300,000 who have perished in Syria’s
ghastly war. Last week I argued in this blog that if the West is not prepared
to do anything more than write hand-wringing op-eds in well-known newspapers
then it must talk to Assad and his Russian backers. Indeed, for Assad and his
backers are responsible for most of the killing in Syria. However, what would
induce Assad and Putin to talk given they clearly believe they are winning and can
act with impunity?
In fact Assad, Putin and their
Iranian allies are not winning the Syrian war which is in stalemate. Even with limited
Russian support the regime in Damascus is not strong enough to win. However, as long as
Russia and Iran continue to back Bashar Assad he cannot lose. The stalemate is made worse by a weak and incompetent West. Like the Grand Old Duke of York of old in 2013 President Obama marched his troops and those of other Western powers up
the hill of ill-considered action, only to promptly march them down again. Today, Assad and Putin are betting the US will
take no action beyond counter-ISIS missions before the November US presidential
elections.
So, what did President Obama mean
by ‘red lines’ back in 2012? The White House said that if the regime or
others used chemical weapons against civilians the US would deem the regime to
have crossed a red line. It is not too late even now to reinvest those ‘red
lines’ with presidential political capital by warning Assad that the red-lines are still in place. In other words, if the regime continues to
use barrel bombs against Syria's civilian population filled with chlorine, napalm and other chemicals as part of a truly
deadly fuel-air mix there will be
consequences…and mean it.
What could be the consequences?
Between 1991 and 2003 America and Britain declared and enforced no fly zones
over Iraq to protect the Kurdish and Shia Arab peoples in Iraq from the
vengeful actions of Saddam Hussein’s regime in Baghdad. Over that period both
the Americans and British undertook air and missile strikes against Iraqi military
targets to deter, prevent and punish Saddam.
What would the no fly zones
restrict? It is now time to establish no fly zones over all Syrian cities. To
ensure proportionality the American-led coalition could first agree that
current air operations over Syria against ISIS would be expanded to attacks on the
slow-moving regime helicopters entering self-declared zones and which are responsible for carrying up to eight
barrel bombs per mission. If that fails to deter the regime following due
warning a complete no fly zone could then be established banning all aircraft
from the zones.
How would the no fly zones be
enforced? Given President Erdogan’s rapprochement with Moscow it is unlikely
that he would permit the use of Turkey’s Incirlik air base to enforce the no
fly zones. Therefore, RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus would need to be the hub for air operations,
reinforced by the US Sixth Fleet and the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle. At present there is
no US fleet carrier in the Mediterranean but operations could also be launched
from the Gulf. The ability of the West to undertake such operations will be
significantly enhanced over the next few years by the commissioning of the two
large British aircraft carriers HMS Queen
Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales.
Why would no fly zones force
Assad to talk? First, it would flush the Russian role out into the open and
force Moscow to make a choice. Last week Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov
suggested Russia and the US were close to undertaking joint actions over Aleppo.
If this is the case ‘joint actions’ could only take place if the Russian’s
themselves stop applying the tactics of Grozny to Aleppo. Second, Western
action would remind Assad just how fickle Russia’s support for him actually is.
If Moscow was to be offered a deal that would preserve Russian influence in the region
without Bashar Assad he would be dropped by Putin faster than an empty vodka
bottle in a Russian government dacha.
Third, commitment to no fly zones would at last communicate not only Western
resolve, but a reasoned course of Western action. Faced with a West that is finally
resolved to act Assad would talk and the stuttering Geneva talks might finally begin
to make headway.
This week Assad flew several
Mi-24 Hind helicopters right through
President Obama’s red lines. It is time for the West to block barrel bomb Bashar
and for President Obama to step up to his own lines.
Julian Lindley-French
