By Jonathan S. Tobin
Friday, April 07, 2017
Donald Trump’s many detractors tend to forget something
important: The power of his office is such that simply by deploying the
military might of the United States, he can change the national conversation in
an instant. By ordering a missile strike on the Syrian airfield from which the
Assad government — and, perhaps, its Russian enablers — attacked civilians with
chemical weapons, Trump did just that. It isn’t clear yet whether this is the
beginning of a more muscular, sensible approach to foreign policy in general
and to Syria, Russia, and Iran in particular. But what we do know is that Trump
has just demonstrated a capacity to rethink his previously held positions and
to act decisively in response to an outrageous crime — in other words, the
capacity to act like a commander-in-chief. This is something few of his critics
thought he possessed.
Last night’s strike forced Trump’s media tormentors to
stop speculating for the moment about unproven collusion between the Trump
campaign and Russia. It might also have begun the process of changing the way
we think about Trump. We’ve lived through two months of what looked like a
presidency in crisis, replete with West Wing palace intrigue and a disastrously
failed effort to repeal and replace Obamacare. Trump’s trademark lack of
discipline and belligerent disregard for the truth had cratered his
favorability ratings, and his failure to break through Washington’s gridlock
had created a narrative of incompetence.
Yet in less than a week, Trump just proved that he is
capable of reacting to unforeseen events, evaluating the options, and then
making what appears to be exactly the right move at exactly the right time. The
precision strike on Syria was an appropriate use of force that sent a powerful
message to the butcher of Damascus and his patrons — and hopefully to other
rogue nations such as North Korea — while avoiding all-out war. Just as
important, it reasserted America as a force to be reckoned with and made clear
that those who believe the U.S. is too war-weary and afraid of foreign
entanglements to respond to the most blatant, brutal war crimes have another
thing coming.
It is likely the opposite of what Trump’s critics and
even many of his fans might have expected from him. And it highlights, for
those who have been unwilling to see it up until now, the scope of his
predecessor’s failures.
As even some of Trump’s liberal-media tormentors felt
compelled to mention, Syria’s use of chemical weapons was proof that President
Obama’s effort to save face following his “red line” fiasco had failed. After
threatening strikes but then backing down, Obama punted responsibility for
dealing with Assad’s chemical weapons to Russia. The notion that the Syrian
government’s key ally would vigorously enforce an agreement to confiscate and
destroy all such weapons was always more of a prayer than a policy, but to the
end of his presidency Obama insisted that the “red line” episode had turned out
well, ignoring proof that Assad retained much of his arsenal. Because the Obama
administration so skillfully manipulated its pliant media “echo chamber” — to
use former deputy national-security adviser Ben Rhodes’s phrase — it got away
with that lie, much in the same way it was allowed to pretend that its deal
with Tehran had ended the Iranian nuclear threat, or would in any way restrain
the Islamic Republic from continuing to spread terror and seeking regional
hegemony through its depredations in Syria.
But whatever former Obama administration officials claim,
this week’s sarin-gas attack — and the atrocities inflicted on the citizens of
Aleppo last year by the Assad regime and its allies — can be directly tied to
the failures of their foreign policy. Had Obama acted in 2013 with anything
like the guts shown by Trump this week, it is entirely likely that Assad would
not have dared to use chemical weapons again.
Like Trump, Obama faced a variety of difficult and
unattractive choices in Syria. Unlike Trump, Obama chose to back down. Trump
could have used the same excuses — fear of angering Russia, congressional
isolationists, and our unreliable allies — to justify doing nothing this week.
Yet when faced with the consequences of Obama’s disgrace, he chose to act. That
decision — and the salutary effect it is likely to have on rogue nations — is
the strongest possible repudiation of Obama’s legacy.
Obama left the presidency riding a wave of popularity
fueled in no small measure by the contrast between his calm and appealing
demeanor and the personalities of his two possible successors. But that
superficial evaluation seems unlikely to withstand the judgment of history over
time. The pictures of Syrian children killed by nerve gas didn’t just remind
Trump of his responsibility to act as if he is the leader of the free world;
they also brought Obama’s record back into focus.
It remains to be seen whether Trump can build on this
success, and we know enough about him to maintain a healthy skepticism that he
can. But we also know that through his feckless refusal to act in Syria and his appeasement of Assad’s Russian and
Iranian allies, Obama took no small ownership of one of the great human-rights
catastrophes of the 21st century. At least as far as Syria is concerned, the
narrative of a presidential transition from a wise man to an incompetent fool
doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
No comments:
Post a Comment