Waiting World looks on as United States prepares its position,
American president Donald Trump was elected on a non-interventionist foreign policy platform, however Tuesday’s chemical attack may have changed his mind, Josh Wood, Foreign Correspondent, reports
In just two days, the United States went from being uninterested in the Syrian war to seeming to threaten military action against president Bashar Al Assad’s government.
The chemical weapons attack that killed dozens of people in Syria’s north- western Idlib province on Tuesday shook US president Donald Trump, a man who campaigned on an anti-interventionist foreign policy and fiercely opposed former president Barack Obama’s attempt to use force in Syria after a sarin attack in 2013.
As the US weighs its next move in the first big international crisis of Mr Trump’s presidency, major questions loom.
First, is now a better time for military intervention against the Assad regime than 2013?
The proposition was fraught with potential risks even at that time, and the battlefield in Syria has only become more complicated and crowded since.
Syria’s rebels today lack what unity they had then and some groups have tilted towards extremism or fallen into the orbit of Jabhat Fatah Al Sham, once a branch of Al Qaeda.
Russia and Turkey have troops in the country and the role of Iran-backed Hizbollah has only deepened.
ISIL, which was in its infancy in 2013, is suffering losses in Syria but remains a force to be reckoned with.
Strikes that significantly damage the Syrian government’s fighting capabilities could lead to ISIL, Jabhat Fatah Al Sham and hardline militias making gains. Giving extremists more of a foothold in Syria would only complicate things for the US further down the road.
Launching or seriously threatening anti-government strikes in Syria while Russian troops are active in the conflict sets up the US for a showdown with Moscow. Russia could threaten to defend the Syrian government, resulting in a dangerous game of chicken between Washington and Moscow.
Even if Moscow’s forces sit idly by while the US bombs Syrian government targets, there is a very real possibility that Russian personnel could be hit by accident. If Washington finds itself in conflict with Russia in Syria, the consequences could be devastating. US strikes against Mr Al Assad’s government could also provoke Hizbollah to retaliate with attacks on American interests and allies around the world.
The second question is, what would a US military intervention look like? Mr Trump has consistently said he does not plan on helping America’s enemies by ruining the element of surprise. If he does intend to take action against the Assad regime, he is unlikely to seek congressional approval first, as Mr Obama tried to do in 2013.
If military action does come, it is difficult to say how strong it will be or how long it might last. In 2013 the Obama administration sought to launch “limited” strikes to degrade the Syrian government’s ability to carry out chemical weapons attacks. Mr Obama asked congress for 60 days of military action – excluding boots on the ground – with the possibility of a 30-day extension.
Lastly, would Mr Trump really launch an intervention?
The complicated battlefield in Syria could be enough to deter the US president from launching a military intervention against the Assad government, but there is also the effect it could have on his popularity among supporters.
Part of his support came from his non-interventionist foreign policy – his stated belief that the US had spent too much blood, money and time getting involved in conflicts that were not America’s problem. The president embraced the sentiment that even though dictators such as Saddam Hussein, Muammar Qaddafi and Mr Al Assad did horrible things, removing them only breeds more instability and provides an opening for extremists. While Mr Trump had a change of heart about Syria after seeing videos and photographs of Tuesday’s attack in Idlib, many of his supporters might not feel the same. Putting American troops in harm’s way could fray their trust and alienate some.
If military action does come, it is difficult to say how strong it will be or how long it might last