U.S. targeted airstrikes are right response

On Thursday, U.S. Navy destroyers fired dozens of cruise missiles at a military target inside war-torn Syria. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, of course, has committed many unspeakable war crimes during five years of civil war. But this week’s use of sarin nerve gas against civilians in the town of Khan Sheikhoun was particularly horrific. Scores were killed, including many children — and given the nature of nerve agents, they died terribly. The gas attack also proved that Syria had not surrendered the last of its chemical weapons stockpiles to Russia for disarming, as it had pledged to do in 2013 as part of a Russian-brokered deal to avoid U.S. military action after a devastating nerve gas attack on a Damascus suburb. This, clearly, was more than President Donald Trump was prepared to tolerate.

The U.S. target was the airbase where the attack on Khan Sheikhoun originated. The attack is an appropriate, measured response. If the Western alliance isn’t prepared to oppose gassing civilians, it stands for little. With Russia’s promise to disarm Syria now having proved hollow, retaliation was justified.

The question now is what happens next. Perhaps nothing. Assad, chastened, might learn his lesson, and pursue his military agenda using more conventional (though still devastating) means. The Russians may decide this isn’t worth risking war with the West, and accept that their client in Damascus deserved a slap on the wrist. And Trump, having shown that he’s unwilling to tolerate this kind of behaviour, may feel no further strikes are needed.

But that’s arguably a bestcase scenario. Though we support the President’s decision to commence a targeted, limited strike on the Syrian regime, the risk of escalation is real and dangerous. The U.S. and its allies, including Canada, must be prepared for much grimmer consequences.

One possibility is that the Syrians are simply not deterred and step up their attacks, using conventional or chemical weapons. There is little Syria can do to hurt the U.S. or it allies, but it can certainly make life hell for its own citizens, essentially daring the U.S. or a coalition to intervene further. Would Trump be willing to order U.S. planes into battle, or send in ground forces? Those steps might not be necessary. But events may force the U.S. into more dramatic steps than the relatively clean and easy expenditure of a few million dollars worth of cruise missiles. If so, U.S. allies, including this country, will be expected to do their part.

Another, more dangerous possibility is that Russia takes action to protect its Syrian client. Russia is unlikely to directly attack allied interests, and has thus far limited its actions to withdrawing co-operation with coalition operations in the area and saying it will help Syria bolster its air defences. But it does have military personnel, jets and a sophisticated air defence system on the ground in Syria, as well as naval ships in the region. Russia could attempt to close down Syrian airspace to any further intrusions, setting up the possibility of direct conflict between Russian forces and allied units, who have been operating freely in Syrian airspace for years. (This included Canada’s CF-18 jets, until the Liberals withdrew them.)

Russia could also easily de-escalate in Syria by taking no provocative action and reining in its ally there, while also punishing the U.S. by escalating elsewhere — for example, with further attacks on Ukraine. NATO countries along Russia’s border could soon be dealing with a much more threatening neighbour. Russia could unleash its cyber warriors to wage an aggressive but deniable campaign of retaliation against the U.S. and it allies. None of these are likely, exactly, but none are unthinkable.

The U.S. says it warned the Russians ahead of time that an attack was coming, to prevent any accidental casualties among Russian personnel. That’s reassuring, and may help explain Russia’s thus-far mild response. But an already unstable international situation has just entered a new, more dangerous stage.

No one should head for the hills just yet. But the U.S. and its allies should work closely together to guard against any escalation, in Syria or elsewhere. This is also another reminder, as if more were needed, that no member of the Western alliance — Canada very, very much included — can afford to underfund its military, and, more generally, to degrade its ability to act in concert with allies abroad. The recent decision by the federal Liberals to carve billions out of planned military procurement budgets looks especially foolish when missiles are flying and the U.S. can be expected to look to its allies for support.

While we hope for peace in Syria, or at least no more escalation, this is cause to reconsider our own preparedness. After all, planning for war is part of preserving peace — a part that Canada has too long neglected.

THE RISK OF ESCALATION IS REAL AND DANGEROUS.