Skip to main content

Syrian Missile Strikes are About Brand, Not Strategy

The United States, along with France and the United Kingdom, launched missile strikes against Syria on April 7. In a prepared statement, President Trump declared these strikes were a “deterrent” in response to a poison gas attack in Douma, a city a few miles northeast of Damascus, that killed hundreds of civilians.
President Trump also stated these attacks were vital to U.S. security. But without a long-term plan, the strikes raise more questions about the United States’ foreign policy strategy than answers. Earlier in April, Trump ordered the removal of troops from Syria, but there is no indication of how the U.S. expects to administer this policy after the strike.

Given how little foreign intervention has impacted Syria’s civil war, it is unlikely that these strikes will alter the course of the conflict that has claimed and displaced hundreds of thousands of lives since 2011. It’s much more likely that these high-profile strikes are more effective in shaping the Trump administration’s legacy than protecting lives.
Throughout both his campaign and presidency, Trump has pitted himself against Barack Obama. Compare Obama’s forward-thinking campaign of “hope” against Trump’s retrospective “make America great again.” Interpreting Obama’s diplomatic nature as weakness, Trump champions brashness. Obama’s landmark policy victory was healthcare reform. Trump promised he would not only undo the Affordable Care Act but outdo it. Republicans saw Obama as an over-regulator, so Trump made a brand out of reducing regulations. Trump even removed the White House’s bike-sharing station Obama commissioned.
Trump mocked Obama’s “red line” stance in the October 2016 presidential debate, referencing the former president’s decision to backtrack on his threat to use force against the Assad regime if it attacked its people. Shortly after the recent chemical attack, Trump partially blamed Obama for the tragedy. “If President Obama had crossed his stated Red Line In The Sand,” he claimed, “the Syrian disaster would have ended long ago!”
Given the lack of a long-term plan, it is difficult to accept the Syrian strikes as a matter of national security, as Trump declared in his statement. Little has changed since the last time the United States struck Syria in response to a chemical weapon tragedy, and the Trump administration’s deterrence strategy appears similar. Trump is right about the missile strikes sending a message, but that message is for his legacy as much as it is for Assad.
Even with no reported casualties, the missile strike comes at a cost. Intervention broadens and escalates the scope of the conflict and further pits the West against Russia. Russian officials have strongly discouraged Western intervention in Syria, with President Vladimir Putin warning that “ill-considered and dangerous actions... that would have consequences beyond conjecture.” Without a strategy to deal with the Assad and how to navigate his Russian ties, the missile strikes only escalate tensions with an increasingly antagonistic foe.

If the United States were to actually protect innocent Syrian civilians, it would devote resources toward aid and not offense. The U.S. launched 66 Tomahawk cruise missiles and 19 miscellaneous missiles against Syria in this most recent attack. Altogether, the weapons are worth $119 million. For $119 million, the United States could have granted background checks and job and English training to almost 8,000 refugees.

The Trump administration will not always be so lucky as to cause zero casualties during a missile strike. In fact, one year ago, U.S. air strikes killed 15 Syrians, including nine in villages surrounding targets. It is difficult to justify such loss of life when there is no plan to help Syrians in their plight. Given the ineffectiveness of strikes in the past, the most this recent attack does is bolster Trump’s brand. His administration should question how much spite against Obama’s presidency is worth.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How to Create a Drug Crisis

Three months after declaring the opioid crisis a national emergency , President Trump declared during his first State of the Union that the United States would beat the epidemic by getting “much tougher on drug dealers and pushers.” Such combative rhetoric draws attention away from the real narrative behind America’s biggest drug epidemic: bad government policy catering to special interests. The Rise and Fall of OxyContin Prior to the 1990s, doctors generally viewed opioids as a last resort due to their addictive properties . Two medical perspectives shifted . First, a 1992 federal report concluded that fear of opioid addiction prevented too many patients from receiving the pain relief they needed. Around the same time, medical professionals began to accept chronic pain as a legitimate reason for treatment, with or without the presence of other symptoms. The resulting medical paradigm shift led to a spike in the demand for painkillers, and pharmaceutical companies raced to
Post a Comment
Read more

With New Tax Deduction Law, High-Tax States Even Costlier

A recent study published by the Cato Institute suggests the new GOP tax reform will add pressure to state governments with high taxes. Among the numerous reforms in the recent Republican-backed tax law is a $10,000 cap on state and local tax (SALT) deductions. Before the tax reforms, there was no limit to the amount of state and local taxes people could deduct from their federal taxes. The study suggests that since the SALT deduction cap went into effect, states with higher tax rates have experienced higher out-migration rates. Understanding why this out-migration exists and what it means for state and local tax policy first requires an understanding of some public finance theory. Unlike goods and services produced by private business, though, determining the “price” for government services is not straightforward. A restaurant can look at a balance sheet and find when a price is too high for its burgers or when it can charge more for fries. A state cannot so easily isolate when
Post a Comment
Read more

Loving the Little Ones – Entering the Foster Care Problem

“There can be no keener revelation of a society’s soul than the way in which it treats its children.”  — Nelson Mandela Child protection agencies confirm about 2.5 million cases of child abuse or neglect each year. Social workers intervene to help parents develop better habits and parenting skills in the hope of creating a safe, nurturing environment for their children. Although most child service workers and researchers agree that remaining with their biological parents during this time is usually best for a child’s development, some environments are too damaging, and the children need to be removed. Less than a third of children removed from their biological parents are able to stay with a family member, leaving the rest to institutional care or non-relatives — foster families. With roughly 270,000 to 300,000 children entering the foster care system every year, it is difficult to overstate children’s need for hospitable homes. Some analysts anticipate this need will grow fur
Post a Comment
Read more