WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration's plan to launch a military strike against Syria is being received with serious reservations by many in the U.S. military, which is coping with the scars of two lengthy wars and a rapidly contracting budget, according to current and former officers.
Having assumed for months that the United States was unlikely to intervene militarily in Syria, the Defense Department has been thrust onto a war footing that has made many in the armed services uneasy, according to interviews with more than a dozen military officers, from captains to a four-star general.
Former and current officers, many with the painful lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan on their minds, said the main reservations concern the potential unintended consequences of launching cruise missiles against Syria.
Some questioned the use of military force as a punitive measure and suggested that the White House lacks a coherent strategy. If the administration is ambivalent about the wisdom of defeating or crippling the Syrian leader, possibly setting the stage for Damascus to fall to fundamentalist rebels, they said, the military objective of strikes on President Bashar Assad's military targets is at best ambiguous.
"There's a broad naivete in the political class about America's obligations in foreign policy issues, and scary simplicity about the effects that employing American military power can achieve," said retired Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Iraq war run-up, noting that many of his contemporaries are alarmed by the plan.
Marine Lt. Col. Gordon Miller, a fellow at the Center for a New American Security, warned this week of "potentially devastating consequences, including a fresh round of chemical weapons attacks and a military response by Israel.
"If President Assad were to absorb the strikes and use chemical weapons again, this would be a significant blow to the United States' credibility, and it would be compelled to escalate the assault on Syria to achieve the original objectives," Col. Miller wrote in a commentary for the think tank.
A National Security Council spokesman did not respond to an email seeking comment. But White House officials reiterated Thursday that the administration is not contemplating a protracted military engagement.
Still, many in the military are skeptical. Getting drawn into the Syrian war, they fear, could distract the Pentagon in the midst of a vexing mission: its exit from Afghanistan, where U.S. troops are still being killed regularly.
A young Army officer wrapping up a yearlong tour there said soldiers were surprised to learn about the looming strike, calling the prospect "very dangerous."
"I can't believe the president is even considering it," said the officer, who, like most officers interviewed for this story, agreed to speak only on condition of anonymity because military personnel are reluctant to criticize policymakers while military campaigns are being planned. "We have been fighting the last 10 years a counterinsurgency war. Syria has modern weaponry. We would have to retrain for a conventional war," the officer said.
Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has warned in great detail about the risks and pitfalls of U.S. military intervention in Syria. "As we weigh our options, we should be able to conclude with some confidence that use of force will move us toward the intended outcome," he wrote last month in a letter to the Senate Armed Services Committee. "Once we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next. Deeper involvement is hard to avoid."
Gen. Dempsey has not spoken publicly about the administration's planned Syria strikes, and it is unclear to what extent his position shifted after last week's alleged chemical weapons attack. He said this month in an interview with ABC News that the lessons of Iraq weigh heavily on his calculations regarding Syria.