Trump’s warnings to Syria don’t ruin ‘element of surprise’
Military doctrine allows statements of purpose
As a presidential candidate, Donald Trump complained that the Obama administration talked too much about when and where it would attack the Islamic State in Iraq and ruined the element of surprise.
Yet Trump signaled to Syrian President Bashar Assad that he was considering an attack on Assad’s forces in retaliation for a suspected chemical attack outside Damascus.
Neither Trump nor Obama is guilty of violating the military principle of surprise, which is crucial to the success of an operation, military experts said.
There is a difference between stating overall policy objectives — for example, the United States will not stand by if chemical weapons are used in violation of international norms — and telling the enemy where and when an attack will come.
Michael Barbero, a retired Army lieutenant general, said Trump and Obama stayed within the bounds when they warned of attacks.
“I think they were both stating policy objectives and positions” without giving away secrets that would help the enemy defend against an attack, Barbero said. “I don’t think they gave away the element of surprise, which is so essential to battlefield success.”
Defense Secretary Jim Mattis wrote that concept into the Pentagon’s national defense strategy, the document that provides overall guidance to the U.S. armed forces.
The United States should make its policies and commitments well-known to friends and foes, but when it comes to combat, Mattis said, it should rely on the element of surprise.
“Be strategically predictable, but operationally unpredictable,” Mattis wrote.
The type of strike the Trump administration is contemplating would require less secrecy than other military operations.
Such an attack probably would be designed to send a message without destroying the Assad regime.
“We don’t really want to defeat Assad militarily,” said Michael O’Hanlon, an analyst at the Brookings Institution, a non-profit public policy think tank in
“Be strategically predictable, but operationally unpredictable.” Jim Mattis Defense secretary
Washington. “For this particular strike, (secrecy) doesn’t matter that much.”
A larger attack would risk destroying the Assad regime, which could allow Islamic extremists to rush into the power vacuum.
Washington wants to remove Assad through diplomatic efforts.
The attack contemplated by the Trump administration would be “symbolic” and designed to “send a message,” Barbero said.
The strike could be similar to an attack Trump ordered last year in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack by the Assad regime.
In that instance, the Trump administration warned Russian forces of the attack to ensure that their troops weren’t inadvertently killed or injured.
The strikes were limited to destroying aircraft and Syrian forces that could be linked to the chemical attack.
The operation was conducted with cruise missiles launched from outside Syria’s borders.
The administration wanted to avoid a strike that could trigger a wider war in Syria, where Russian, Iranian and Turkish forces operate.