TRUMP’S ATTACK ON SYRIA: THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY
At the order of President Donald Trump, the U.S. military
lobbed dozens of cruise missiles at a Syrian air base from which a chemical
weapons attack was launched this week that killed Syrian civilians — to include
children. Trump’s critics are already denouncing the strikes as a sign of his
recklessness and America’s deepening and unwise involvement in the Syrian civil
war. His supporters are celebrating the attack as a sign of the sort of
American resolve that has been missing for the last eight years as well as a
message to the world’s bad guys. So which is it? Should we condemn or praise
Trump’s decision? The answer, of course, is not so easy. I offer my thoughts
below. It is late, I am tired, and I have more questions than answers, but here
it goes.
The Good
When the Obama administration was leaning towards a military
response to the 2013 Syrian chemical attack to enforce its declared red line —
even though I did not favor an attack without broad-based popular,
Congressional, and allied support — I observed that anything less than a large
attack on Assad’s ability to project airpower would not send a strong enough
message. We all know what happened next, of course, and President Obama has
been heavily criticized for not acting (but I am of the view that the bigger
mistake was the red line, not the failure to enforce it). The fact that most of
Assad’s chemical arsenal was subsequently destroyed per an agreement brokered by
Russia provided a net gain for U.S. interests.
Bringing things to the present, while I am of the opinion
that a diplomatic response backed by the credible threat of military action
would have been a wiser response to the Assad regime’s latest war crime (and
Aaron Stein had written a fantastic article for us on what this could look like
before it was overcome by events), one could reasonably argue that Trump’s
cruise missile strike re-establishes deterrence with Assad as far as the narrow
but important issue of chemical weapons use is concerned. However, I worry that
an attack on just a single air base could be seen by the Assad regime as
nothing more than symbolic and have the opposite intended effect. What if Assad
does it again?
The good, as you can see, is probably not that good. But
there are bigger problems with this attack.
The Bad
The risk of military escalation with Russia has been one of
the oft-repeated objections to a U.S. military attack on the Assad regime.
While many have dismissed these concerns (unwisely, in my view), everyone can
agree that such an escalation would be more likely if U.S. strikes were to kill
Russian military personnel co-located with Syrian military personnel. While
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson claims Moscow was notified of the attack ahead
of time for the purposes of de-confliction, there was a part of the base in
question run by the Russian military. It is still too early to know if that is
true and what happened to any Russian personnel stationed there. But this news left
me uneasy. Even if no Russians were hurt in this attack and if Moscow declines
to counter-escalate in response, you can be sure there will be a Russian
reprisal elsewhere eventually. Perhaps that is an acceptable cost to this White
House, perhaps not.
Second, Obama’s reticence to launch an attack in 2013 was in
part based on his desire to get Congress on board. That was the right instinct.
Polls of the American people at the time revealed a lack of public support for
an attack. And most reports stated the joint resolution before both houses of
Congress did not have majority support. Fast forward to today and America’s
elected legislators have yet to hold a vote on U.S. military involvement in the
Syrian civil war. That is inexcusable and the executive continues to wage war
unfettered.
The Ugly
Trump condemned Obama for considering a strike against Assad
for the 2013 chemical weapons attack and demanded he go to Congress for
approval. On the campaign trail, Trump often implied that he would work with
Assad and Russia to fight terrorism. The real problem, he repeatedly insisted,
was the Islamic State rather than Bashar Assad.
We have heard repeatedly that
Trump was a realist and was not interested in foreign intervention. Just days
ago, senior members of the administration seemed to accept that Assad was here
to stay. Yet, after this week’s chemical weapons attack, Trump was apoplectic
and said there would be a response. And there was. While the chemical attack
was undeniably horrific, Assad has been killing civilians with bullets and
bombs for years in far greater numbers. To be direct, it scares me how quickly
and casually Trump changed a longstanding policy preference on a major issue —
especially one that involves death and destruction — and for reasons that are,
to put it lightly, unclear. I worry what that portends for decisions on war and
peace over the next four or eight years.
Comments
Post a Comment