Why we must go slowly

In response to Syria’s chemical attack on innocent civilians, the United States has struck a Syrian airfield with more than 50 cruise missiles.

It is an emotionally satisfying response, long overdue, against Syrian dictator Bashir Assad's murderous regime. But wise foreign policy has to rest on more than emotion. In this case, the strikes raise deeper questions.

First, is this just a one-off event? Are we just making a “statement” to Assad that he “crossed the line”? If, after assessing results, will the U.S. come back with additional strikes? And if not, what will we do the next time he uses chemical weapons?

There are no simple, risk-free or cost-free answers in this dangerous and complex region.

Before the air strikes, U.S. policy faced daunting challenges. Within Syria itself, fighting against ISIS, the President’s stated first priority, will not be easy for American troops alone. We need soldiers on the ground who speak the language and understand the customs and nuances. And even then, the more we torque up the fight, the greater the risk of civilian casualties. So, we must go stepby-step here.

And when ISIS is run out of Raqqa, what then? Do we turn over Syria to Assad, the Iranians and the Russians? Russia may already have a Syrian general picked to replace Assad when the time comes — but, if he’s following Assad’s policies and beholden to Russia, is this what we want?

And then there is Iran. Even with the nuclear agreement, an Iranian nuclear weapon, along with ICBMs to strike the U.S., are only a few years away.

And then there is Vladimir Putin. He is a man who sees the world as a zero-sum game. We let him into Syria and the Mideast; he will not leave, nor welcome deeper U.S. engagement. His intervention has given him important leverage over Turkey, and at the same time, Turkey is using its relationship with Russia to gain leverage over Europe.

When we take Raqqa, with the help of Kurdish militia, we will be undercutting Turkey's pretensions to regain the Ottoman Empire, and also strengthening the Kurds, who Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan sees as his greatest challenge.

And all of these complications come before we factor in the new situation created by the strikes, where we will now face more intensive Iranian and Russian resistance, diplomatically and perhaps even militarily.

In the U.S., some are suggesting that the strikes provide President Trump and his team greater leverage vis-a-vis Russia, and perhaps China. But actually, this depends on portraying the strikes as not a one-off, but as a change in U.S. engagement in Syria, and articulating a substantive policy behind the rhetoric.

Would that be more boots on the ground, limited no-fly zones or a commitment to a series of follow-on strikes until a ceasefire and regime change is agreed?

None of these approaches is promising.

Instead, we could start by establishing a safe area for refugees, protected under United Nations auspices by NATO forces and other willing partners. This has been discussed for years, and it was consistently rejected as too difficult, risky or costly. Meanwhile the tragic slaughter of civilians has continued, and Syrians have continued to flee.

So the need for the safe zone is still present. To this zone, millions of refugees could return, rebuild their lives, and establish a basis for a new, inclusive Syrian government which could, eventually, replace Assad’s dictatorhip.

The best place for such a zone would be in southern Syria, adjacent to Jordan and Israel, and away from the Turkish-KurdishIranian conflict in the north. The aim would be not only humanitarian - helping refugees - but also strategic - to develop an alternative within the region to the Iranian-backed Syrian government, and to limit Russian influence.

And yes, this new entity would need protection. But more than 10 million people have fled Syria or been internally displaced. If Trump were to commit his administration to work this new task, and can bring the Congress and the American people behind it, other problems will become more manageable.

Clark is a retired general and former supreme allied commander.