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