Brett Daniel Shehadey
Special Contributor for In Homeland Security
The idea of having a separate fighting force for humanitarian crises and or plausible deniability in foreign wars once again makes sense. For the US, this concept goes back as far as the “privateers” (e.g. a group of private and independent sailors and marines that banded together to counter the Barbary Pirate attacks on US merchant vessels at a time of needed defense, specialized for one purpose and then were disbanded efficiently; also involved in the US Revolution prior).
Should the US military get involved with Syria directly through conventional means or is there a better option? The leadership is really probing UN, G-20 and Congressional response as to what measures others would find appropriate. Secretary of State John Kerry mentioned boots-on-the-ground, the most radical, but then took it back. Previous efforts of even establishing a no-fly zone had been unsuccessful. Arms and ammunition distributions to the rebels are still cautious. Where there is little will or access to fight, a “privateer” route may be a better option than state military action or involvement.
The alternatives to conventional missile strikes that have been floated around are include the use of: third-party militaries other than the US; American covert operations with paramilitary and special operations and private military contractors. Perhaps the best alternative is combination. Even missile strikes from US destroyers in the region seem premature, as open-source reports confirm a lack of legitimate and appropriate targets. This could come later after ground teams were inside and better ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance) was established.
There is also a temptation for the advancement of any fighting force willing to help victims anywhere but solely for humanitarian reasons without harming the present US security dynamic. In the case of Syria, a force like this might have a mission that would originate from a Western backed volunteer force trained and commissioned to fight, but not presently part of any of the US Armed Forces or affiliated with any government.
The reason for this is two-fold: first, such a force of private teams prevents using the US military as a political weapon, far removed from the direct national interest of the USA. Missile strikes in Syria do nothing but enflame Syria, Iran, Russia, China, Hezbollah and many others. It increases present threat levels for the US and does not decrease them. The only way any significant opposition works is if the regime was toppled but that is not something even President Obama has vigorously pushed or the US appears in a position to do, commitment wise. What the President has backed is the punishment for the breach of international law for the use of chemical weapons.
The second reason to use private voluntary expeditionary forces of some kind is that the US military cannot afford to engage in military operations that are not a direct threat to the safety of the USA. The purpose and charter of a Defense Department is and should remain one of the honors of protecting the US and its citizens first and foremost and then its allies and lastly its broader interests, as mentioned above. Syria does cover the latter but is not a direct threat to the safety of American citizens or the homeland. This does not mean it is not important, but that another department or agency might do better to coordinate a private effort of a modernized orthodox method much like the old of “letters of marque and reprisal.” These forces, in the instance of humanitarian crises, would be security professionals and veterans with a special, personal, interest in seeing the mission accomplished- one related to the advantage but not necessarily the interest of the USA.
Lastly, this ensures the integrity of sovereign states. In the case of Syria, an attack may be justified but only against the perpetrator. The legitimate targets of reprisal would then include President Bashar al Assad, the chemical weapons program and his regime. To minimize casualties and US backlash and escalation, the US should effectively do what the Arabians and Iranians have done and send in the private volunteers that have an interest. The difference would of course be the skill levels of these operators, their technology, backing, funding, lines of covert support channels, technology, etc. Their mission would also be vastly different than the jihadists of either government or rebel camps or international jihadists flocking through Syrian territory. The Western backed private “soldiers of valor” might even be akin to an overhaul design of the French Foreign Legion, British Expeditionary Units or a covert NATO for extreme humanitarian breaches, but smaller scale and not designed to hold territory but to target key people, disrupt, delay, gather active ISR, rescue civilians, offer medical aid; political apprehension, work with black operations teams and at the same time for billionaire philanthropists. None of this would directly be in the interest of states but whose outcomes would be stability, and universal morality and justice. All of this would be done without the direct link to any US or any Western government involvement. Problem- the US and West is late in trial of this concept in regards to Syria.
Not matter what route the US policy leaders and decision makers decide, the US will have to be tougher on Syria in the cyber front. It will have to better in working with Turkey, Israel, Jordan and even Iraq. It will need to place massive amount of funding and positive PR in assisting refugees of the Syrian Civil War, both for the internally displaced and roving ex-patriots in the surrounding countries.
The US should lead the humanitarian aid to refugees as a primary concern with the State Department and force Russia and others to pay for it. To much chagrin of critics, the US has not been an effective bargainer or alternatively, the Russians are unwilling to share any of whatever Syrian landscape emerges post-conflict with the USA. Russia needs to be continually worked over strategically and politically through the diplomatic channels. Iran as well.