Secretary John Kerry on Friday presented a summary of the administration's information on the subject. Kerry's statements reflected what is available in the declassified US and UK intelligence assessments, available on CNN's website.[1] The documents speak of likelihood and confidence, but lack certainty. Neither Kerry nor the documents mention specifics in terms of the contents of communication interceptions.
Regardless of the lack of direct evidence, it looks like Assad and company have some explaining to do.
The administration has made clear that it is not endeavoring to conduct overthrow in Damascus. As stated by the White House press secretary, "The options that we are considering are not about regime change." When asked why the White House is not attempting regime change, the reason supplied was that "it is not our policy." Taking the administration at its word, this lends credence to the possibility that the White House is looking to eventually get rid of Assad, but keep the regime's structure more or less intact - referred to as the "Yemen option," based on that country's mere change in leader. There are too many unknowns with the different and numerous rebel groups; Assad has been a well-behaved enemy, and the United States and Israel would rather stick with what is familiar.
A missile attack would therefore serve as an act of punishment, which Obama has basically acknowledged. And when governments deal out punishment, it is generally to establish (or re-establish) credibility. One gets the feeling Obama's image, especially in light of his talk of "red lines," is among the principal concerns.
The Assad regime has shown significant resilience thus far, and can probably withstand NATO pulverizing a few government buildings and military installations. Foreseeably, those who will actually bear the brunt in the event of an attack are the Syrian people.
Humanitarian considerations aside, airstrikes will be expensive and probably achieve little to nothing. A voice of practical reason has been Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs. As he discussed in his July 19 letter to Carl Levin of the Senate Armed Services Committee:
Depending on duration [of limited stand-off strikes], the costs would be in the billions. Over time, the impact would be the significant degradation of regime capabilities and an increase in regime desertions. There is a risk that the regime could withstand limited strikes by dispersing its assets. Retaliatory attacks are also possible, and there is a probability for collateral damage impacting civilians and foreigners inside the country.[2]
Into the bargain, Chris Harmer, the very naval analyst who designed the surgical-strike proposal likely to be used by the military, has little confidence in his own plan. "I made it clear that this is a low cost option," Harmer says, "but the broader issue is that low cost options don't do any good unless they are tied to strategic priorities and objectives." His final judgment:
Punitive action is the dumbest of all actions ... The Assad regime has shown an incredible capacity to endure pain and I don't think we have the stomach to deploy enough punitive action that would serve as a deterrent.[3]
The situation in Syria has degenerated to the level of horror due to negligence from the international community. When powerful states really want something, mountains get moved. Syria and its people, on the other hand, are of low priority, and therefore aggressive, serious diplomacy has not been pursued. The White House is now in PR mode, looking to firm up its reputation. This is very much a want, and chances are no expense will be spared.
NOTES
[1] http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/08/world/syria-documents/index.html
[2] http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/22/dempsey-syria-intervention-is-act-of-war-that-could-cost-billions/
[3] http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/08/26/architect_of_syria_war_plan_doubts_surgical_strikes_will_work
