Syria strike meant to show U.S. strength did opposite
In 2013, after Syrian dictator Bashar Assad crossed President Obama’s red line and used chemical weapons on innocent civilians, a U.S. official told the Los Angeles Times that Obama’s retaliatory strike would likely be “just muscular enough not to get mocked” but not so devastating it would elicit a response from Iran and Russia. In the end, Obama backed away from even such a small, feckless strike.
On April 13, Trump carried one out. Trump deserves credit for acting (now twice) when Obama wouldn’t. He also deserves credit for getting U.S. allies to join us when Obama couldn’t. But let’s be clear: Last week’s strikes were “just muscular enough not to get mocked.” As a result, they did more damage to U.S. credibility on the world stage than to Assad’s regime. The U.S.-led strike did not hit a single airplane, airfield or delivery system, and it left Syria with chemical weapons capabilities. There were no reported casualties on the ground, suggesting that the regime had evacuated the targets.
The Syrians know they won. The Washington Post reports that “on the streets of Damascus, there was jubilation as government supporters realized that a more expansive assault would not materialize.”
Retired Gen. Jack Keane, former vice chief of staff of the Army, said Assad made a bet with his chemical attack and won. As Keane explained, Assad wanted to take out one of the last remaining rebel strongholds in the Damascus suburb of eastern Ghouta, which was holding out despite a brutal, nonstop bombing campaign by the Russians. Assad calculated that he could use chemical weapons to crush the resistance, achieve a military victory and then absorb what he expected to be a limited U.S. strike. So he launched his chemical strike. Hours later, the rebels capitulated. And just as Assad predicted, the U.S. response was limited — leaving his air power, his command-and-control and his chemical weapons capability largely intact. Assad was not punished. Quite the opposite: His attack played out just as he had hoped and predicted. Mission accomplished.
Far from being chastened, the U.S. response will embolden Assad, Russia and Iran. And it will embolden other U.S. adversaries as well. What lesson did North Korea likely take from Trump’s weak actions in Syria? That the Trump administration is easily intimidated and risk-averse. The reason we didn’t take out all of Assad’s chemical weapons capability is that we were intimidated by Russia. Instead of warning the Russians to evacuate and telling them we would not be responsible for what happened to their personnel if they failed to do so, we specifically designed our strikes to avoid even the remote possibility of provoking Moscow.
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un knows this. And the lesson he takes is that if Trump won’t take out Syrian airfields because we fear Russia’s response, then he’s definitely not going to strike Kim’s nuclear and ballistic missile program and risk a North Korean artillery barrage on Seoul.
This is a major setback to the Trump administration’s efforts to stop North Korea from developing the capability to threaten U.S. cities with nuclear missiles. The only way the U.S. can persuade North Korea to peacefully give up its pursuit of these weapons is if Kim believes Trump’s threat of military force is credible. After the U.S. actions in Syria, our credibility is weakened, not enhanced.
As a result, Trump is weakened going into his summit with Kim. If Trump had taken no action, it would have been worse — but not by much. Because when you carry out strikes “just muscular enough not to get mocked,” you are projecting weakness — and weakness is provocative.