Mattis voices caution about strike on Syria
Risks of escalation, commitments from allies considered
Defense Secretary Jim Mattis takes pain to walk back President Trump’s threats of an imminent strike on Syria, reflecting concerns that it could escalate into a wider conflict involving Russia, Iran and the West.
WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Jim Mattis took pains Thursday to walk back President Donald Trump’s threats of an imminent strike on Syria, reflecting mounting concerns at the Pentagon that a concerted bombing campaign could escalate into a wider conflict between Russia, Iran and the West.
An afternoon meeting of the president’s top national security advisers ended without a decision on an attack, said Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary. Defense Department officials noted it may be difficult to extricate the Trump administration from a strike, given the president’s Twitter post a day earlier that U.S. missiles “will be coming, nice and new and ‘smart.’ ”
“We are continuing to assess intelligence and are engaged in conversations with our partners and allies,” Sanders said in a statement. She said Trump would be speaking later Thursday with Prime Minister Theresa May of Britain and President Emmanuel Macron of France, the two main partners expected to join military action.
Defense officials said Mattis was urging caution and consideration of a wider strategy — including trying to get more commitments from allies of immediate help after any strikes against President Bashar Assad in Syria. He also underscored the importance of a preponderance of evidence linking Assad to Saturday’s suspected chemical weapons attack on a suburb of Damascus, the capital, the officials said.
The Trump administration has not yet confirmed the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime.
In a morning hearing, Mattis told the House Armed Services Committee that retaliation had to be balanced against the threat of a wider war.
“We are trying to stop the murder of innocent people. But on a strategic level, it’s how do we keep this from escalating out of control — if you get my drift on that,” Mattis said at a morning hearing of the House Armed Services Committee.
He also assured lawmakers they would be notified before any strikes against Syrian weapons facilities and airfields — similar to the Pentagon’s alert before an April 2017 cruise missile attack on Shayrat air base following a chemical attack on Syrian civilians.
Decision coming ‘fairly soon’
Earlier Thursday, Trump said he would make a decision “fairly soon” about a strike. In a tweet, he insisted that he had never telegraphed the timing of an attack on Syria, which “could be very soon or not so soon at all!”
“We’re looking very, very seriously, very closely at that whole situation and we’ll see what happens, folks, we’ll see what happens,” he told reporters at the White House.
“It’s too bad that the world puts us in a position like that,” he said. “But you know, as I said this morning, we’ve done a great job with ISIS,” Trump added, using an alternative name for the Islamic State. “We have just absolutely decimated ISIS. But now we have to make some further decisions. So they’ll be made fairly soon.”
The war train appeared to be moving at a fast clip.
Macron cited unspecified proof that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons in a deadly attack on Douma, outside of Damascus. He said that France was working in close coordination with the Trump administration on the issue.
“We have proof that last week, 10 days ago even, chemical weapons were used — at least chlorine — and that they were used by the regime of Bashar al-Assad,” Macron said in an interview on TF1, a French television station.
In London, the British Cabinet had “agreed that the Assad regime has a track record of the use of chemical weapons and it is highly likely that the regime is responsible for Saturday’s attack,” Downing Street said in a statement.
The Cabinet agreed “on the need to take action to alleviate humanitarian distress and to deter the further use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime,” and that Prime Minister Theresa May “should continue to work with allies in the United States and France to coordinate an international response,” the statement said.
British submarines were ordered within missile range of Syria, according to The Daily Telegraph.
But Germany announced that it would not be part of any coordinated military action in Syria, even as Chancellor Angela Merkel stressed the importance of Western powers sending a clear, united message that using chemical weapons “is unacceptable.”
Russian and Iranian forces are stationed in Syria, ostensibly to support Assad’s fight against Islamic State extremists whom he considers part of the rebellion that has sought to oust him in the country’s seven-year war. The Trump administration’s delay in acting has given the Russians and Iranians more time to prepare for a U.S. strike.
Confusing the situation
Critics described the contradictory presidential tweets as evidence of the United States’ confusing policy on Syria.
“When the commander in chief speaks publicly about a potential military action, it creates boundaries and limits on what his subordinates can offer him as options,” said Kevin Ryan, a retired Army brigadier general who is now an associate at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. “That’s helpful if his public statements are thoughtful and clear. If those statements are confused and unclear, then they are a hindrance to the outcome.”
“I think the latter is happening right now,” Ryan said.
The afternoon meeting at the White House included not only Mattis, but also John Bolton, the new national security adviser. Bolton favored strikes against Assad when ordered last year by Trump — but opposed them in 2013 when considered by President Barack Obama.
“In my view the train has left the station,” said Cliff Kupchan, chairman of the Eurasia Group, a political risk consulting and advisory firm. “If Trump now decides not to strike, he’s Obama 2.0 from 2013. That’s the ultimate anathema to President Trump, and I expect him to hit Syria in the next few days.”
Earlier this month, Trump surprised even his own advisers when he said he wanted to immediately withdraw the estimated 2,000 U.S. troops that are currently in Syria, where they are focused on fighting the Islamic State. He softened that demand hours later after a National Security Council meeting, setting a goal of bringing the troops home within a few months.
The suspected chemical weapons attack Saturday, however, enraged the president, and he promised a decision on a U.S. response this week.