Trump Administration Delivers Right Response to Syria’s Unacceptable Actions

The strike offers some important insights into the character of the new national security team that Trump has assembled.

This image provided by the Department of Defense was presented as part of a briefing slide at the Pentagon briefing on Saturday, April 14, 2018, and shows a photo of a preliminary damage assessment from the Him Shinshar Chemical Weapons Bunker in Syria that was struck by missiles from the U.S.-led coalition in response to Syria's use of chemical weapons on April 7.

By Published on April 16, 2018

Last year, when the Assad regime in Syria gassed its own people, the Trump administration sent an unmistakable message: The unrestrained use of chemical weapons makes it difficult for the U.S. to protect its interests in the regional conflict.

So … stop Syrian President Bashar Assad did — for about a year. In that time, the U.S. largely accomplished its goal of demolishing the Islamic State’s caliphate in the region.

Now, as the U.S. considers what to do next while protecting its interests over the long term, Assad — for some reason — has decided to press his efforts to regain territory. And for him, that meant resuming the use of chemical weapons.

So the U.S., along with its British and French allies, repeated the message — the unrestrained use of chemical weapons inflames the conflict at a time when it is really in the best interests of all parties to wind the conflict down. And it did that a bit more forcefully.

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

And just like last time, the Trump administration has delivered the correct and proportional response to the Assad regime’s unacceptable actions.

The strike also offers some important insights into the character of the new national security team that Trump has assembled.

The president was briefed on options for a punitive strike on Syria a little more than 24 hours before the first contrails laced across the night skies of the Middle East. Reports of in-fighting and debate may or may not be accurate, but one thing is clear: The president didn’t dither. Not only did Trump decide and execute, he did so not unilaterally, but in concert with British and French allies.

The strike also demonstrated that Trump, tweets aside, is not the distracted, impulsive or ill-disciplined leader he’s often accused of being. From Day One, he has demonstrated a resolve to commit the resources and take the risks to do what it takes to get the job done. With this strike, he reminded Assad of his resolve.

The strike, of course, is not strategy, but it suggests the elements of one. As horrific and as unacceptable as the use of chemical weapons is, and as odious as Assad’s regime remains, the U.S. would not be using coercive force if there were not interests worthy to protect.

The ends of America’s strategy are clear. We can’t tolerate a return of the ISIS caliphate. We can’t watch while Iran presses a dagger at Israel’s heart, risking a regional war. We don’t want the problems of Syria to bleed over and destabilize Iraq and Jordan. We don’t want masses of refugees on the road again.

Now the challenge for the Trump administration is to transition to a regional footprint that achieves those ends in a sustained manner over time. The strike should help give the U.S. the time and space to put that presence in place.

Originally published in The National Interest.


Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
Deciding to Stick to Love
Al Perrotta
More from The Stream
Connect with Us