Better Late Than Never
With a single missile strike, the United States has sent a signal to the world that it will resume its role as a bulwark against inhumanity.
Foreign Affairs
Matthew Waterfield
— — — — — — — — — — —
It was the day the unthinkable happened. Last Monday, two years after the OPCW confirmed that Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal had been destroyed, reports emerged from the Idlib Province that there had been another chemical attack.
Earlier that day, the air force of President Assad had launched an attack on the town of Khan Shaykhun. After more than five years of civil war, bombing raids are nothing new to the people of Syria, and at first it didn’t seem like anything out of the ordinary had happened. Then, a strange odour occurred.
Twelve hours later, coverage of the attack was making headlines across the world. In scenes reminiscent of Ghouta, images of rows of dead children appeared on our screens, with their eyes wide open and froth spilling out of their mouths. In a world where some say we have become immune to images of suffering, something about the pictures coming out of Khan Shaykhun resonated with people around the globe, with people experiencing the utmost disgust at the event, as well as feeling visceral hatred towards the attackers.
One of the people on that emotional rollercoaster was President Donald Trump. Having seen images of the attack on TV, he was visibly shaken, and informed reporters on board Air Force One that “it shouldn’t be allowed to happen”. With Nikki Haley, the US ambassador to the UN, hinting strongly that America would respond militarily and unilaterally to the attack, it became a matter of ‘when’ not ‘if’ the attack was going to happen.
The response was decisive and impactful. At 01:40 GMT on 7 April, with the Trump administration having informed several members of Congress and other governments of their plans, the US Navy launched 59 missiles at the Shayrat Airbase in western Syria, from where planes had taken off from three days beforehand to murder 89 residents of Khan Shaykhun.
Four years and eight months after President Obama declared the usage of chemical weapons by the Assad regime to be a “red line”, Trump enforced it. In doing so, he took a significant step towards restoring American credibility, after Obama’s inaction gave Assad free rein to kill as many people as he wanted to. In striking a single airfield, America let the world know that countries which acted with disregard for human life would be dealt with accordingly.
Simultaneously, and just as importantly, Trump finally deviated from the pro-Russia approach that he’s been following since the beginning of his presidential campaign. Before the missile strike, his foreign policy had been, to put it politely, irrational — he criticised the deals Obama struck with Cuba and Iran, spoke out against North Korea and threatened to launch a trade war against China. Yet despite his hostility to all of Russia’s closest allies, he acted warmly towards Russia itself, implying that he sought a better relationship with President Putin than his predecessor.
However, everything changed when he reached the White House — his initial National Security Adviser, Michael Flynn, resigned almost immediately when his dealings with Russia were exposed and he was replaced by H.R. McMaster, who took a much more critical view of the Kremlin. Also, the pro-Russia Steve Bannon, Trump’s Chief Strategist, has seen his influence decline within the administration, while the more moderate Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and his Senior Adviser, has seen his stock rise. While Bannon opposed the strike, Kushner and McMaster supported it and Trump followed his advice, with the episode serving as an important reminder that Trump usually sides with family when making decisions.
Russia, reeling with shock at the news that their protégé across the pond had bombed one of their closest allies, reacted as expected — badly. They announced that they were suspending an agreement with the US designed to avoid mid-air collisions over Syria and stated that they would be strengthening Syria’s air defence system.
But that was all Russia could do. Although he is often thought of as callous, President Putin is also a fairly rational individual and he is fully aware that Russia, with an economy the same size as Australia’s, is no match for the might of the US military. America’s armed forces are the most advanced and powerful in the history of mankind and the Shayrat missile strike was a sign that the Trump administration intend to make good use of them, to the benefit of us all.
It is important to reiterate that the action against Assad was limited to just a single missile strike and that it was more of symbolic than strategic value. But in this scenario, symbolism was the more important concept, and the strike fulfilled its objectives of sending multiple messages: to Syria, China, North Korea, Iran and, crucially, Russia. So even if this was a one-off, its effects will resonate long after the aircraft shelters at Shayrat have been repaired. It will serve as a reminder to the world that the West is as strong as ever. It will remind Russia that they made a terrible mistake in their support for Trump in last year’s election. And it will show allies and detractors alike that America will never again allow its lines to be crossed without retaliation — whether anyone dares to do so again is yet to be seen.
