" />

Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Non-Accomplishment In Syria

 

Lobelog

 

The missile strike against Syria in response to an alleged chemical attack has given many people a cathartic moment without having to produce any new and effective ideas about how to deal with the ugly conflict in Syria. For President Trump, it was an opportunity to follow his guiding principle of doing something different from what Barack Obama did. On policy toward Syria, he has struggled to find such opportunities. For many customary critics of Trump, supporting the strike has been an opportunity to look tough on Syria and to avoid looking like reflexive oppositionists. One might add that for Bashar Assad, it has been an opportunity to stand tall and look unperturbed in the face of the most modern weapons that Western powers could throw at him.

A strike something like this was inevitable following reports of the suspected chemical incident at Douma and especially after Trump’s tweeted bravado on the subject. The response was better than some easily imaginable alternatives would have been. Rather than yet another unilateral, self-isolating U.S. step, the operation was conducted in conjunction with Britain and France. (Participation of those two powers is not, however, a guarantee of wisdom in dealing with security challenges in the Middle East. Think about the results of the intervention in Libya in 2011 or, going farther back, the British-French-Israeli misadventure at Suez in 1956.) The missile strike was calibrated to minimize the risk of a direct clash with Russian forces. These aspects of the operation are reassuring, especially given the increasing risk that a Trump who is legally and politically besieged at home will lash out abroad in destructive ways.

Notwithstanding these positive aspects, the only way in which the operation accomplished a mission—as distinct from having cathartic benefit—is in the tactical sense that missiles were successfully fired and hit their assigned targets. The declared major purpose was to uphold the international prohibition of chemical weapons by punishing the Assad regime as a way to deter future use of chemicals by that regime. But a glaring fact in the recent history of the Syrian war is that one year ago the Trump administration fired a salvo of cruise missiles for the same ostensible purpose, and that attack evidently failed to have much, if any, deterrent effect on Assad. The administration is emphasizing that the new attack, which used 105 missiles, is larger than the earlier one, which used 59. So 46 more cruise missiles is supposed to make the difference between deterring or not deterring a regime fighting to defeat rebels and regain control of its country’s territory?

In response to an earlier chemical incident, the Obama administration worked with Russia to ship out what evidently was a large portion of Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile. Despite all the subsequent criticism about red lines and the like, this response was followed by a lull in any chemical use by the Syrian regime that was longer than what followed the missile attack a year ago.

The makers of the latest strike are claiming to have destroyed capabilities as well as having strengthening deterrence, given that the targets supposedly were facilities associated with chemical weapons. An oddity about this claim, however, is that the most credible evidence about use of chemicals at Douma involves chlorine, which is a common substance with many peaceful uses. What is banned is only the use of chlorine in warfare, not its production or possession. Other reporting suggesting that nerve agents—which are banned outright—also might have been used at Douma is more tenuous. But the missile strike proceeded before investigators from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons could visit the site to gather the sort of evidence that might have resolved that question.

As for upholding an international norm against chemical warfare, it can reasonably be argued that the missile strike was consistent with that purpose, however much it may or may not deter Assad. But what about international norms regarding the use of armed force by one nation against another? Those norms have been relevant to far more death and destruction than anything involving chemical weapons. According to the United Nations charter, cross-border use of armed force is legal only if in self-defense or authorized by the Security Council. This week’s missile strike was neither.

As for the suffering of the people of Syria, it is hard to see how the strike has any significant palliative effect. Even just focusing on actions by the Syrian regime rather than by other participants in the civil war, many times more casualties and pain have been inflicted by conventional munitions than by chemicals. If the Assad regime wants to make people in a neighborhood suffer, it has demonstrated it is quite capable of doing so without resort to unconventional weapons.

This latest turn in the Syrian war has been an occasion for critics of the Trump administration to decry anew an absence of a U.S. strategy regarding Syria. Although in many cases accusations of “there is no strategy” are another way of saying “I don’t like the current strategy,” in this case the accusation is true. Any careful observer of Trump would be hard-pressed to discern an approach clear enough and consistent enough to be worthy of the name “strategy”. But if the standard is to be not just clarity and consistency but also a sensible and cost-effective approach toward upholding U.S. interests, then the paucity of good ideas is not restricted to the Trump administration. The difficulty in defining a U.S. mission in Syria reflects the fact that there simply is no post-Islamic State U.S. interest in Syria that would be worth the costs and risk of an indefinite U.S. military intervention there, in the air or on the ground.

Schools of thought that believe any nasty situation overseas ought to have U.S.-centric solution find that hard to accept. But the reality is that, first, the Assad regime is on its way to winning the Syrian civil war. And second, events in Syria matter far less to U.S. interests than they do to that regime, and even less than they do the regime’s Russian and Iranian backers, for whom the alliance with Syria has been for decades their strongest and most consistent entrée into the Arab world. Those incontrovertible facts undermine any notion of using U.S. military force as leverage to gain a better deal for the Syrian people.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Nominated for the post of attorney general by Donald Trump, William Barr held the same post under George H.W. Bush, and established a reputation as a staunch conservative and supporter of executive authority.


Pundit Charles Krauthammer, who died in June 2018, was a staunch advocate of neoconservative policies and aggressive U.S. military actions around the world.


Former Weekly Standard editor and current Fox News commentator Bill Kristol is a longtime neoconservative activist who has been a leading right wing opponent of Donald Trump.


Jon Kyl, a hawkish conservative, served in the Senate from 1996-2013 and again in 2018, and helped guide Brett Kavanaugh through his confirmation process.


Paul Ryan (R-WI), Speaker of the House from 2015-2018, was known for his extremely conservative economic and social views and hawkish foreign policies.


On August 16, 2018, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced the formation of the Iran Action Group (IAG). It would “be responsible for directing, reviewing, and coordinating all aspects of the State Department’s Iran-related activity, and it will report directly to me,” he stated. Amid speculation that the Donald Trump administration was focused on…


Norm Coleman is a lobbyist for the Saudi Arabian government, chair of the Republican Jewish Coalition, and former senator from Minnesota, known for hawkish, pro-Likud, and anti-Iran foreign policy views.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Had Washington made an effort after the last time President Trump promised to quit Syria to pursue diplomatic and military channels and prepare the ground for a U.S. departure, we have had something to celebrate.


Although a widespread movement has developed to fight climate change, no counterpart has emerged to take on the rising danger of nuclear disaster — yet.


U.S. supporters of Israel are in a bind: public opinion is changing; there are more actors publicly challenging Israel; and the crude, heavy-handed tactics they have successfully used in the past to silence criticism now only aggravate the situation.


As the civilian death toll from Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen grows and the backlash against Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s role in Khashoggi’s murder escalates, former Sen. Norm Coleman’s control of Republican Party campaign purse strings positions him as a key influencer of Republican congressional action, or inaction, in curtailing the increasingly aggressive and reckless actions of Saudi Arabia.


Increasingly, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are positioned as rivals, each with pretensions to Middle Eastern influence or even hegemony. It’s not clear whether they can continue to coexist without one or the other—or both—backing down. This has made it more difficult for the United States to maintain its ties with both countries.


What does President Trump’s recent nomination of retired Army General John Abizaid to become the next U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia signify? Next to nothing — and arguably quite a lot.


The Donald Trump administration’s handling of nuclear negotiations with Saudi Arabia promises to lay bare some realities about security issues and nuclear programs in that part of the world that the administration has refused to acknowledge.


RightWeb
share