Confusion over the Tomahawk Strike in Syria. What Was Trump’s Intention?
Numerous pundits/commentators have interpreted the recent US strike on Syria according to their political persuasions.
a) The Nation sees it as the beginning of a new illegal war in the Middle East. Michael Tracey sees it as b) caused by Democrats’ suspicions over Trump’s ties to the Kremlin and c) proof that Trump is not in collusion with Putin (also here). Some view it as d) a possible first instalment. Some view it as e) a betrayal of Trump’s non-interventionist campaign plank. Some view it as f) extremely presidential. At least one politician, Tulsi Gabbard, views it as g) premature and therefore in poor judgment, for which she has been severely reprimanded by her party’s leaders. Some view it as simply a humanitarian necessity. Finally, some view it as h) an appropriate limited response to an atrocity.
The diversity of views on this subject is borderline perverse.
But of the above enumerations on Trump’s strike g and h are the most credible views. However, g has to be a talking point before h can happen.
First g — Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii has made the claim that the strike was premature. It is a reasonable claim because we are not sure of what Assad’s possible intentions were, nor of his counter claim that insurgents had been acquiring or making chemical weapons (the purported rationale for Assad’s putative strike).
(Remarkably Democratic Party leaders have called for Gabbard’s removal from office on foot of her anti-shoot-first-ask-questions-later stance. The only openly critical and skeptical voice on Trump’s judgment on the missile strikes is being attacked by her own party! I’m sure Gabbard hates to see dying babies as much as the next member of Congress, but all she asks is that we be 100% sure before military engagement. Not a lot to ask.)
Circumstantial evidence indicates that Assad seems to have gassed civilians. However, that tactic would appear completely irrational. The death of civilians in their sleep seems unlikely to further Assad’s campaign. How could it? If he wanted to kill civilians (for one bizarre reason or another) he could have done so via conventional weapons, claiming — as the US always does — that insurgents were hiding in a nearby building. That’s the oops! excuse so often dispensed by the Pentagon. That narrative seems to go a long way when the US incurs all levels of collateral damage — for example, three weeks ago in Mosul where 300 civilians died in a US strike. Surely, if it works for the US it can also work for Syria. Just say Oops! Then it’s all forgotten. Who is talking today about the 300 dead in Mosul? It’s already forgotten — unless you live in Mosul.
But using chemical weapons on civilians! That’s another matter and it is the last thing one would expect Assad to do under any circumstances — especially now after progressing so far in defeating the Syrian insurgents. It is this tactical and strategic unlikelihood that raises doubts about the claims that Assad gassed civilians; he didn’t in the long and bitter siege of Aleppo. Why would he now? These doubts do not exculpate Assad, but they are grounds for circumspection when it comes to the use of military force. Looking at the entire picture tells us that Gabbard is right to question the alacrity with which Trump deployed Tomahawk missiles. She has called for an investigation. There have been people (Amnesty International, The Guardian) on the ground in Khan Sheikhoun but their observations are speculative without adequate forensic skills or apparatus.
All that is to say that we can’t be sure if Trump did the right thing yet because we are not sure what exactly happened. That is the key requirement for military attacks: we need to be certain. Otherwise, we are inviting more chaos.
However, Trump’s alacrity has its reason. This was the perfect opportunity to appear powerful, presidential, moral, and authoritative. And to those who have not an ounce of incredulity in their bodies, he did.
A limited strike in retaliation for deliberate civilian deaths — by any means! — is acceptable. But only after the due diligence called for by Gabbard. If it is determined that Assad intentionally gassed civilians, then the Trump strike would be appropriate. But oops! the strike already happened prior to any investigation. How did that happen? Could it be that Trump is using a display of force as a political panacea? And, as it turns out, successfully!
Is this missile strike like one of Trump’s tweets, but this time the message is missiles, not delusional statements? Trump is not above using the military and the victims in Khan Sheikhoun as an opportunity to gain political mileage.
The civilian deaths in Khan Sheikhoun were an opportunity for Trump to reset his presidency. Which brings us to d (first instalment). Nikki Haley, ambassador to the UN, declared on CNN three days after the strike that regime change in Syria is now a definite priority. This means that the strike was likely a trial to test world and domestic opinion. And the test seems to have succeeded. Almost all nations with the exception of Russia and Iran welcomed the attack; but more significantly the majority of America’s electorate seems also to approve the strikes. What has become a #failingpresidency can — in the eyes of political strategists — be resuscitated through war. We all know that many questions drop by the wayside when a president leads a country into war. War is not inevitable yet. A flag of sorts has been run up the flagpole and Trump is waiting to see who salutes. Congress — minus a few cynics — has given its approval.
But Democrats in particular are unwise to applaud Trump’s strike before doing their due diligence. In effect, they are helping him turn a page on his presidency, leaving behind the suspicions surrounding the election, which were increasing by the week. Those suspicions have been pushed aside for the moment. The strikes indicate one thing and one thing only to Trump: he can use war to increase his political strength, to legitimize himself, and to quieten dissent.
