Archive for Tuesday, April 17, 2018

Opinion: Syria strike hurts U.S. credibility

April 17, 2018

Advertisement

Washington — In 2013, after Syrian dictator Bashar Assad crossed President Obama’s red line and used chemical weapons on innocent civilians, a U.S. official told the Los Angeles Times that Obama’s retaliatory strike would likely be “just muscular enough not to get mocked” but not so devastating that it would elicit a response from Iran and Russia. In the end, Obama backed away from even such a small, feckless strike.

On Friday, Trump carried one out.

Trump deserves credit for acting (now twice) when Obama wouldn’t. He also deserves credit for getting U.S. allies to join us when Obama couldn’t. But let’s be clear: Friday night’s strikes were “just muscular enough not to get mocked.” As a result, they did more damage to the United States’ credibility on the world stage than they did to the Assad regime.

The U.S.-led strike did not hit a single airplane, airfield or delivery system, and it left Syria with chemical weapons capabilities. Even at the sites we did hit, the Syrians had plenty of time to move equipment and chemical stockpiles. There were no reported casualties on the ground, suggesting that the regime had evacuated the targets.

The Syrians know that they won. The Washington Post reports that “on the streets of Damascus, there was jubilation as government supporters realized that a more expansive assault would not materialize.” Retired Gen. Jack Keane, former vice chief of staff of the Army, said the Syrians had good reason to celebrate. “The response is very weak in my judgment,” he said. “It should have been decisive, it should have been consequential,” he continued.

Keane said Assad made a bet with his chemical attack and won. As Keane explained, Assad wanted to take out one of the last remaining rebel strongholds in the Damascus suburb of eastern Ghouta, which was holding out despite a brutal, nonstop bombing campaign by the Russians. Assad calculated that he could use chemical weapons to crush the resistance, achieve a military victory and then absorb what he expected to be a limited U.S. strike. So, he launched his chemical strike. Hours later, the rebels capitulated. And just as Assad predicted, the U.S. response was limited — leaving his air power, his command-and-control, and his chemical weapons capability largely intact. Assad was not punished. Quite the opposite — his attack played out just as he had hoped and predicted. Mission accomplished.

Far from being chastened, the U.S. response will embolden Assad, Russia and Iran. And it will embolden other U.S. adversaries as well.

What lesson did North Korea likely take from Trump’s weak actions in Syria? That the Trump administration is easily intimidated and risk-averse. The reason we didn’t take out all of Assad’s chemical weapons capability is that we were intimidated by Russia. Instead of warning the Russians to evacuate, and telling them we would not be responsible for what happened to their personnel if they failed to do so, we specifically designed our strikes to avoid even the remote possibility of provoking Moscow.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un understands this. And the lesson he takes is that if Trump won’t take out Syrian airfields because we’re afraid of Russia’s response, then he’s definitely not going to strike Kim’s nuclear and ballistic missile program and risk a North Korean artillery barrage on Seoul.

This is a major setback to the Trump administration’s efforts to stop North Korea from developing the capability to threaten U.S. cities with nuclear missiles. The only way the United States can persuade North Korea to peacefully give up its pursuit of these weapons is if Kim believes Trump’s threat of military force is credible. After Friday’s U.S. actions in Syria, our credibility has been weakened, not enhanced.

News reports indicate that Trump wanted a more robust response but faced resistance from Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, the same man who has resisted giving Trump robust military options for North Korea. If accurate, Mattis did the president a great disservice by scaling down his desired Syrian response. The president’s desire is to project strength on the world stage. Under Mattis’ apparent guidance, he did the opposite.

As a result, Trump is weakened going into his summit with Kim. If Trump had taken no action, it would have been worse — but not by much. Because when you carry out strikes “just muscular enough not to get mocked,” you are projecting weakness — and weakness is provocative.

— Marc A. Thiessen is a columnist for Washington Post Writers Group.

Comments

Louis Kannen 2 days, 10 hours ago

As history will no doubt record, we are once again dealing with an individual who has neither the brains, scruples nor the experience required of one in the position of a World Leader. Rather, his bombastic, egocentric temerity is doing nothing more than greedily removing the oxygen out of the sacred space of OUR, the PEOPLE's once hallowed Oval Office.

Bob Smith 2 days, 8 hours ago

We're still better off than if Hillary was in the White House. And speaking of bombastic, motes and beams, Louis.

Ken Lassman 1 day, 15 hours ago

Mr. Trump has walled himself up in a container constructed almost entirely of his own beams, Bob. To assume Hillary would have been worse is based on assumptions that are beyond the pale. What would have happened: a functional State Department? A cabinet that decided to stick around? An EPA that took on climate change seriously and provided global leadership instead of abandoning the world community? An immediate condemnation of the Charlotte neo-nazis? And that's just scratching the surface.

On the other hand, the gridlock might not have become so much further polarized that the Women's March organizers would have been unable to mobilize the youth against gun violence in the schools, and an unprecedented number of women and reform minded candidates would not have entered electoral politics while an unprecedented number of Republican incumbents, seeing their party in shambles, decided to retire.

So it's a tough call, Bob. But either way, I wouldn't be bringing up motes and beams if I were you.

Armen Kurdian 1 day, 9 hours ago

Honestly, it sounds like this column was written by someone in high school. Is it necessary to point out all the things wrong with it? Like how Syrian misinformation fed to his people, and his supporters makes it seem like throngs of general populace supporting Assad? Shooting down dozens of Tomahawks coming from a direction they did not expect? Getting the UK and France to join on the strike which in and of itself sends a very big message to Syria, Iran, and Russia? Taking out chemical capabilities which are much harder to reproduce and repair than striking an airfield?

If Trump had not acted, this guy would be writing a column as to how weak Trump was. If he had done more, he would be criticized for using too much force. Seriously, the one who is weak here is the columnist, his agenda is transparent.

Bob Summers 1 day, 9 hours ago

Marc A. Thiessen is a columnist for Washington Post, is all one needs to know 'bout this prejudiced rant.

Sign in to comment

loading...