Incredible oversight by Crisis Group in calling for US-airwar against Assad Axis: Russian reaction isn’t considered
I wrote about this issue more extensively last week here:
“When NGOs Call For Military Intervention in Syria: The Case of the International Crisis Group”
Analysts should not use the recent ICG report as backup for the argument that a US-led safe zone in Southern Syria is a sound idea, much less politically feasible.
Unfortunately, despite ICG going way out against its basic mission of “preventing armed conflict” (this report suggests it’s a sound idea to add yet another layer of armed conflict in Syria), their report has zero military analysis of the costs and benefits, risks etc. And in a baffling omission given the recent Russian moves, next to no thought is given to how Russia, or Iran for that matter, might react should the US violently impose a Southern No Fly zone (incredibly also, no consideration is given to the key argument that crippling Assad’s air assets might benefit ISIS and other radicals!).
Without such basic arguments and analysis, the ICG report is unhelpful for policymakers or others to calculate the pros and cons of what ICG is now boldly calling for.
Mentioning Russia thrice in 43 pages and ISIS hardly at all in the context of a new US-led military strategy is not a comforting approach when asserting the wisdom of having the US potentially bomb and attack Assad’s air assets.