Missile diplomacy has its limits
Even in a world that seems inured to the horrors of war, last week’s chemical attack on Syrian civilians is conspicuous for its sheer physical brutality and moral depravity.
The images of dead children, the descriptions of victims writhing in agony, foaming at the mouth and gasping for air as they died from inhaling poison were simultaneously heartrending, terrifying and infuriating.
The compelling evidence that the Syrian government was responsible for the atrocity that claimed more than 80 lives only amplified these feelings.
It is no wonder, then, that the punishing airstrikes ordered against the Syrian military by Donald Trump on Friday won the American president widespread global praise. Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was among the chorus of supporters.
There is no doubt Trump’s unilateral, Tomahawk-missile assault on a Syrian airbase violated international law.
But it could be defended as proportionate and morally justifiable if it is a one-time action that stops Syrian dictator Bashar Assad from unleashing more weapons of mass destruction — and if it doesn’t spark a military confrontation with Assad’s Russian allies.
The trouble is, it’s too early to know whether Trump’s actions will prove beneficial and save lives or spiral out of control into a broader conflict.
What the world does know about this unpredictable and, so far, inept president should make it very worried.
Before last week, Trump had signalled he was not interested in taking action against the Syrian regime for its part in a six-year civil war that has killed 400,000 Syrians and driven millions of others into exile
Presumably, the gruesome assault on the town of Khan Sheikhoun last Tuesday changed his mind.
In 2013, an estimated 1,400 Syrian civilians perished after the Syrian military deployed nerve gas against a suburb of Damascus.
In the face of international outrage and American pressure, Syria’s Assad agreed to destroy his arsenal of chemical weapons.
The bodies in Khan Sheikhoun prove Assad a liar — and quite likely a war criminal.
Perhaps the subsequent display of force by the planet’s greatest military superpower will dissuade Assad from again resorting to chemical weapons, which are rightly denounced as indiscriminate killers that are overwhelmingly used to target civilians.
If it doesn’t have this effect, will Trump resort to more and bigger missiles?
Will he order in the bombers? If he does, what happens if a U.S. show of force meant to cow Assad kills a Russian soldier in Syria?
The world might feel more reassured if Trump had proven to be a more stable and effective president in his first two months in office.
Repeated setbacks — most notably his attempt to reform health care — have demolished his claims to be a negotiator without equal.
These failures are also reason to worry Trump ordered last week’s airstrikes as a way to boost his sagging popularity.
Whatever it accomplishes, Trump’s missile diplomacy will not end the Syrian civil war. Only human diplomacy can do this. We wait and hope, however faintly, that Trump can somehow manage such a necessary deal.