By Lauren Fish
Monday, April 16, 2018
By all accounts, Friday night’s strikes against the Assad
regime’s chemical-weapons facilities were successful — they reduced their
targets to rubble, and there were no reported threats to allied forces or
equipment in their aftermath. Armchair strategists are quick to point out that
the strikes didn’t fit into any broader American Syria strategy. But the
chemical-weapons attack of April 7 demonstrated, once again, the Syrian
regime’s flagrant disregard for international moral and legal norms. And unlike
last April’s retaliatory American
strike on aircraft used for chemical-weapons delivery at Shayrat Air Base,
Friday’s strikes sought to hit the heart of the regime’s chemical-weapons
capabilities, and were coordinated with our oldest and closest allies.
They also marked a departure from Obama-era analysis
paralysis in Syria. It was the Obama administration that delayed striking Assad
and preventing future chemical-weapons attacks almost five years ago. It was
the Obama administration that argued chlorine gas was a violation of the
Chemical Weapons Convention in 2014, though it was widely known to be used on
the Syrian battlefield throughout Obama’s time in office. It was the Obama
administration that was caught by strategic surprise when the leadership vacuum
left by the United States led the Russians to enter the Syrian fray in the fall
of 2015, bringing with them high-tech military equipment for battlefield
testing and deployability and bolstering their standing on the world stage. It
was the Obama administration that argued a false choice between catastrophic
nuclear war and limited strikes on targeted regime elements.
Obama-era officials have sought to spin the Trump
administration’s strikes as a show of weakness, proof of a fear of going after
regime targets. They conveniently forget that they let the devastation fester
and worsen for five years, forgoing opportunities to shift the balance in the
early days when they had the chance. They also ignore the fact that the
deconfliction line appears to be working: The Trump administration’s response
to the Syrian humanitarian crisis did not lead to nuclear war, or any other
catastrophic blowback.
While the narrow operational aims of this strike were
achieved, no one should have any illusions about the challenges ahead. The
Syrian conflict remains a hodgepodge of interests, challenges, adversaries, and
knock-on effects in one troubled region; one operational success of course will
not beget a broader strategic end state, so there is still much to unpack.
Pulling U.S. forces out of Syria abruptly could invite further chemical-weapons
usage by Assad or the return of ISIS, prompting a repeat of Iraq’s descent into
chaos after President Obama prematurely withdrew American forces from the
country in 2011. Further embroiling U.S. troops in a tinderbox conflict with
two formidable adversaries on the side of the opposition is also dangerous and
costly. These are questions the Trump administration, and U.S. allies, will
have to consider in the coming days.
The long-term costs of these conflicts will also require
considerable thought. The National Defense Strategy the administration released
in January fingers Russia and China as major U.S. adversaries. The more
resources devoted to the broader conflict in Syria, the less we can spend
preparing for a future conflict with Beijing or Moscow, modernizing the joint
force for the high-tech battlefield to come. The United States alone will never
be able to fix every global wrong. The White House and Pentagon leadership will
have to analyze these complex questions as they determine America’s strategy
for engaging around the world with limited resources.
But while Obama administration officials are busy
reliving their internal debates and projecting their conclusions onto this
White House’s actions, it is clear today that President Obama’s red line is
finally being enforced, and that is a victory worth celebrating.
No comments:
Post a Comment