Blind Assault: Trump Strikes Syria
Feeling that some display of force was needed, US president Donald Trump issued orders on Friday to demonstrate some
form of muscle, albeit exercised some thousands of miles away. “A short time ago, I ordered the United States Armed
Forces to launch precision strikes on targets associated with the chemical weapons capabilities of Syrian dictator
Bashar al-Assad.” The United Kingdom and France also mucked in.
What was it all in aid of? There would be no redrawing of borders, no toppling of Assad, and even a possible aggravation
of the security tangle that exists in a beleaguered country. It all pointed to staged outrage resulting in indulgent
punishment, an act of violent scolding at the end of missiles for a claimed chemical attack by Syrian government forces
last weekend that left over 40 people dead. In Trump’s words, “These are not the actions of a man. They are the crimes
of a monster.”
UK Prime Minister Theresa May eschewed notions that the assault was “about intervening in a civil war” let alone
initiating some effort at regime change. “We would have preferred an alternative path. But on this occasion there is
none.”
US Defence Secretary Jim Mattis insisted that the assaults were confined to “the chemical weapons-type targets. We were
not out to expand this; we were very precise and proportionate. But at the same time, it was a heavy strike.”
Earlier in the week, there had been muttering, concern, and retraction. Trump was giving an enormous heads-up to his
Russian counterparts on Wednesday. “Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and ‘smart’!” On
Thursday, he cooled off. “Never said when an attack on Syria would take place. Could be very soon or not so soon at
all!”
This did not stop some in the analyst’s arm chair from considering that caution and assessment had prevailed. “The best
thing that happened this week,” mused David Ignatius, “was that the policy process paused for a careful consideration of military options.”
Ignatius, with feelers deep in the Washington security establishment, praised Trump for his deferral of action to allow
for “more study” before claiming that US planners had one fundamental problem: “how to calibrate military action this
time so that it sends a clear deterrence message to Syria and Russia, without escalating the conflict.”
Certainly, Assad seemed to have been having things his own way. The chemical attack supplied an ideal pretext to assert
authority in the name of protecting international norms, a concept that has never sat well with Trump. (Norms, you ask?
What norms?)
Such strikes also seemed to be engagement on the cheap, with Trump having made it clear earlier this month that he wanted to be rid of the Syrian problem. “I want to get out,” he explained to those in
attendance at a news conference with Baltic leaders. “I want to bring our troops back home.” His rationale was not
complex: the “primary reason” for retaining a US presence was premised on the defeat of Islamic State militants, which
was “almost completed”.
In expressing such views, Trump also reserved a few swipes against allies which have become a diplomatic staple,
including the ever problematic Saudi Arabia. “Saudi Arabia is very interested in our decision. And I said, Well, you
know, you want us to stay? Maybe you’re going to have to pay.”
This raises a nice point, given Trump’s own words of disapproval directed against Teheran and Moscow in justifying the
missile strike. “The nations of the world can be judged by the friends they keep. No nation can succeed in the long run
by promoting rogue states, brutal tyrants and murderous dictators.”
Within Congress, there has been automatic approval, even from the Democrats, papered over with concern that taking an
issue with such an assault would make them seem quietist. This is the age of macho and they must be seen to play along.
There were, however, qualifying pointers. Nancy Pelosi, House Minority leader, made the apposite observation that, “One
night of airstrikes is not a substitute for a clear, comprehensive Syria strategy.” But not wanting to be left off the
blood soaked wagon, Democrat Chuck Schumer deemed the airstrikes “appropriate” though “the administration has to be
careful about not getting us into a greater and more involved war in Syria.” The response of being too late comes to
mind.
The evaluations have yet to come in, be there the number of missiles that found their targets; those shot out of the sky
(a Syrian claim has been made that 13 missiles were shot down by air defences near Al-Kiswa); and the issue of whether substantial
infrastructure damage was inflicted. Even the Syrian government’s own chemical arsenal has been deemed by France’s
Emmanuel Macron to be “clandestine”, which is always a testing point on how best to assess success.
Britain’s Ministry of Defence was not even waiting, claiming that “initial indications are that the precision of the
Storm Shadow weapons and meticulous target planning have resulted in a successful attack.” But this is the platform of
illusions, and this presidency, the product of dreams and nightmares, is a continuation of it.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne