Missiles minus a clear mission
President Trump was more than a little premature Saturday in declaring “Mission Accomplished” after the United States, Britain and France fired more than 100 missiles at three chemical weapons storage and research facilities in Syria.
As a belated second-guesser of the invasion of Iraq, Trump should have recalled that regrettable May 2003 moment in which President George W. Bush stood on the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln and declared that “major combat operations in Iraq have ended” with a giant “Mission Accomplished” banner as a backdrop. The war dragged on for years, and its aftereffects included the rise of the Islamic State group.
Military force, no matter how limited, must be exercised with a coherent strategy — with a clear objective and exit plan — and a certain humility about the limits of even the most powerful and precise weaponry on the planet.
In situations such as Syria, where the potential for rapid mutation into a wider war is pervasive, it also requires the consent of Congress.
The Trump administration’s next stop must be Capitol Hill to explain the scope and limits of any further potential action, and to obtain the congressional authorization our Founding Fathers so wisely embedded in the U.S. Constitution.
We have no quarrel with the use of air strikes on chemical weapons facilities after such ghastly weapons were used in a Damascus suburb, reportedly killing an estimated 40 people and leaving another 500 with the telltale signs of burning eyes, breathing problems and white foam coming from their mouths and nostrils. Young children were among the victims.
Give credit to Trump for what he did right: following through on his threat to act if Syria used chemical weapons, and collaborating with Britain and France to help bring broader international support for the mission.
Defense Secretary Jim Mattis called it a “one off ” attack that severely degraded Syrian President Bashar Assad’s chemical weapons program. Nikki Haley, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, warned Saturday that “the United States is locked and loaded” to strike again if Syria again uses chemical weapons.
But will it be any more of a deterrent than the more limited April 2017 strike involving 59 Tomahawk missiles on Syrian airfields?
That claim remains to be determined. Also unclear is how, if at all, the Trump administration might respond if the Assad regime inflicts equal or greater casualties on civilians with conventional weapons.
Moreover, the Pentagon’s contention that it had taken out the “heart” of Assad’s chemical capability is another open question. That objective was certainly not helped by Trump’s telegraphing of his intentions earlier in the week, telling Syria and Russia to “get ready” for a strike with bombs that would be “nice and new and smart.” That warning may have given Syrians time to move personnel and materiel out of the way.
The delicacy of the operation was evident in the way U.S. officials emphasized that the targets were selected to avoid Russian military positions, even as Trump chastised Russia and Iran for their alliance with what he called the “monster” Assad.
Americans can be grateful for the professionalism of its armed forces, and that no U.S. lives were lost in the mission.
As justified as this strike was, the ambiguity in Trump’s Syria policy is highly unsettling, especially for a leader of such volatility and impulsiveness. He has put the U.S. role on the brink of serious escalation within days of suggesting he wanted to withdraw all troops from a country mired in civil war.
Before the next missile flies, Trump needs to go to Congress to lay out his plan, allow for a full and forthright debate, and retain its authorization to proceed in a precarious conflict where any misstep could lead this nation into the next foreign quagmire.