The agreement that Secretary of State John Kerry has negotiated with Russia to conduct joint air operations against terrorists, in return for a cease-fire that allows for the delivery of humanitarian aid, has brought to the surface a long-simmering divide over the wisdom of entering a military alliance with Moscow, even for the limited goal of attacking the Islamic State.
Kerry’s plan calls for the creation of a “joint implementation center,” in neighboring Jordan, where U.S. and Russian officers would sit side-by-side to share intelligence and coordinate airstrikes against the Islamic State and other terrorist targets in Syria.
That’s something the Pentagon has long opposed, based on deep distrust of Russian intentions and Moscow’s indiscriminate bombing in Syria, which U.S. military official say has been “reckless” and resulted in thousands of civilian deaths.
One military official grumbled to the Washington Examiner that the U.S.-Russia agreement “has so many holes in it, you could drive a truck through it.”
The air commander for U.S. Central Command, Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Harrigian, wasn’t ready to endorse the plan Tuesday, when he was peppered with questions about it at a Pentagon briefing.
“I think, again, it would be premature to say we’re going to jump right into it. And I’m not saying yes or no. I’m saying we’ve got work to do to understand what that plan is going to look like,” Harrigian said when asked if the joint airstrikes could begin as soon as next week, if the truce holds.
In an interview with NPR Wednesday, Kerry brushed aside a question about whether the U.S. military was ready to fly alongside the Russians in Syria.
“Well the president of the United States is ready, and I think the military therefore will be ready,” Kerry said.
The New York Times reported Wednesday that Defense Secretary Ash Carter, reflecting the prevailing view of his senior military officers, opposed the Kerry plan during a conference call with the White House last week.
One area of concern is the provision that before U.S.-Russian coordination can begin, the cease-fire must hold for seven consecutive days and the delivery of humanitarian aid to Aleppo and other besieged areas of Syria must begin.
“To us, cessation of hostilities means cessation, as in full stop,” said the military official, who was not authorized to speak publicly. “That means, you drop one bomb, and the clock goes back to zero.”
But Kerry quickly defined the cease-fire more loosely as “a sustained period of reduced violence.”
“A reduction of violence, is not a cessation of hostilities,” the official said.
Kerry has admitted the deal is less than perfect, but argues it’s the last chance to keep the Syrian conflict from spinning out of control, with an even more horrific death toll.
“What’s the alternative? The alternative is to allow us to go from 450,000 people who’ve been slaughtered to how many thousands more? That Aleppo gets completely overrun? That the Russians and Assad simply bomb indiscriminately for days to come, and we sit there and do nothing?” he said on NPR.
The concern at the Pentagon is tempered somewhat by the belief that the joint implementation center will never come about, because Russia and the government of President Bashar Assad it’s backing, will likely not uphold the terms of the agreement.
The profound skepticism among U.S. military commanders was highlighted when Harrigian said planning for a potential mission depended on Russia “doing the right thing” and the cease-fire holding. Then he said planning would start to execute the mission, adding as an aside, “That is, if we get that far.”
