The US response to the alleged use of chemical weapons attacking Syria came in the form of a military strike on the Al Shayrat airfield in Syria. The launching of the 59 Tomahawks from US warships directed at the airbase was the first military action taken by the administration as well as the first direct and unilateral action taken against the Assad regime. The strike has been viewed differently.
From the US perspective, it can be considered as a decisive act. Two years after the civil war started , Obama contemplated using force; however it was only with the rise and spread of IS, and with the international coalition, that strikes were conducted on Syria that were not directed at the regime. This decisive action by Trump was much needed in order to send a clear message to the Assad regime – ‘there is a new sheriff in town’. Nevertheless, this could create further problems for the US.
Though many see Trump’s actions as decisive, it also replicates a ‘knee jerk’ response, wherein contingency plans are not always vetted appropriately. In the past, Trump consistently attacked the idea of using force against Syria and appeared avoiding further US embroilment in another Middle East situation. This cautious policy of Trump was apt, given that the military capability of the Syrian army was far greater than the Libyan forces, Assad’s support from powerful allies (Iran and Russia), the internal (divided rebel forces) and external constraints. However at this point is Trump really ready to jump into Syria?
The current US policy towards Syria in the form of the strikes hinges on signallinga change in the old guard. The administration justified its actions as “vital national security interest” which is debatable. However, how beneficial are these strikes to the US? The President himself has not been very vocal on this aspect as well as what future US policy towards Syria would be? Trump, in his decision, seems to have sidelined important personnel in the decision-making apparatus, such as Tillerson (Secretary of State). Tillerson also seems to have suggested a strong interventionist policy in committing to go after “any and all crimes”. There are many who believe that Kushner and Ivanka played an important role in the decision as they both advocated military force. Nikki Haley’s (Ambassador to the UN) remarks to the UN seem to indicate the beating of war drums; it does in fact signal that the US is gearing up for a major policy change which came at the end of her speech when she stated the possibility of unilateral action by the US.It also seemed as though the NSA, McMasters tried to blur the lines and divert attention from the strike and move towards the need for a political solution. Gen Mattis (Secretary of Defense) reiterated no change in military policy and the priority was still the defeat of IS. With the strike as an indicator, President Trump has seemingly walked away from his initial rhetoric on Syria and advice to the Obama administration. The strike has raised valid questions on Trumps policy towards IS. Will the US have to fight on two fronts: Assad and IS? Would this enhance/undermine the war against IS? Could the US be entering unchartered waters?
External Dynamic
During the Obama years, the administration found it prudent toavoid conflict with Syriain order to steer clear of an even bigger confrontation with Russia and Iran. In the case of Russia, aCold War situation had already been developing thus there was a need to avoid further confrontation with Russia. Russia also happens to a have veto power in the UNSC, which it was not shy to use to keep Assad in power. In the case of Iran,the administration then was in the process of brokering the nuclear agreement between Iran and the P5 therefore feared tipping the balance. There is another side to this-with the nuclear agreement there was hope among the Western nations that Iran could rein in Assad, help in the peace process and in the fight against IS. That was naïve on their part. To add to this, there was also discord and hesitancy among the other members of the UN.
Now, the International community has applauded the US for the much awaited action One would have expected there to be international condemnation, given that the administration circumvented the UN. The only countries that have condemned the US strike were Russia and Iran, two of Assad’s closest and most faithful allies which was to be expected.
The Russians have vehemently opposed the strike and stated that in fact the US has crossed a red line. The two Syrian allies warned that they would respond with force if the US crossed the red line in the future. The Russians went a step further and have threatened to cut off ties with the US.
Internal Dynamic
The internal dynamic could in fact enable/thwart Trump’s future actions in Syria. The Republican controlled Congress in 2013, vehemently opposed Obama’s need to use force against Syria. In the current scenario, there has been bipartisan support as well as opposition in Congress. Within the Republican Party itself, members like McCain, applauded the strike while others like Rand Paul, opposed it as it lacked congressional authorisation. There is a section within Congress, who believe congressional authorisation was a necessity. This begs the question about the relevance of Congress in foreign policy/use of force.
The biggest problem that Congress has is its role of as an acquiescence or assertive branch. There are many in Congress who see the current actions as unconstitutional. This is not the first time the Congress has demanded authorisation; in the past, presidents have been called on by Congress to seek approval from for the use of force. In 2013 when Obama contemplated use of force against Syria, he had to seek congressional approval, which tends to be a long drawn out process. The irony of the situation is that Trump (at that time) stated that Obama required congressional approval.
There is another argument that could explain Trump’s actions- a diversionary tactic. Foreign policy to divert from domestic woes has figured many a time in the decision making apparatus. The administration is nearing its 100 day in mark with not much to show for except through executive orders. The failure to ‘repeal and replace’ was a major setback for the administration, it also has an uphill battle with respect to the budget etc.
What Next?
Days after the strike, Trump has tried to tone down the beating of war drums stating, “we won’t go into to Syria” This in fact provides little clarity to the US strategy. It is unlikely that the Assad regime will be deterred by the US’ actions, which means that if Assad continues to use chemical weapons how will the US respond? Will it continue to strike at airfields?
It is clear that Russia will continue to condemn the US actions in Syria. Will the US and the rest of the international community persuade Russia to rein in Assad (which has not happened since the crisis began in 2011)? If any further action is required, will the UN and Congress be involved or will the administration continue with unilateral action? What is Assad’s fate, does he stay or go?
Please wait...
