On December 7, 1941 Japanese planes attacked Pearl Harbor, leading to the entry of the United States into World War II. The Japanese achieved total surprise and, but for providence, would have sunk the entire U.S. Pacific Fleet. Both the military and President Roosevelt were embarrassed by the complete failure of military planing and U.S. intelligence. Roosevelt believed that something had to be done to show the Japanese that they had made a serious miscalculation.
Fast forward four months. On April 18, 1942, Lieutenant Colonel Jimmy Doolittle, along with 80 brave men, launched a bombing raid from the USS Hornet on industrial targets in Japan. The attack became known as the "Doolittle Raid." While the targets struck had military significance, the attack itself had very little effect on the Japanese war machine. It is undisputed, however, that the raid made Americans and their leaders feel better.
There is no doubt that President Trump's order to attack Syria in response to Assad's atrocities makes us feel better. It takes a certain kind of sociopath to be unmoved by images of children being gassed while asleep in their beds. We all feel like we should do something. And so we act.
The fact is that for years ISIS has been, literally, crucifying children, stoning women, burying families alive, drowning them in cages, lighting them on fire with diesel, chopping off arms and legs, raping, beating, whipping, shooting and generally acting like the pawns of Satan that they are. Their atrocities rival those of the Third Reich. Our response has been airstrikes in support of a largely ineffective local Iraqi army.
The Caliphate's atrocities are no less atrocious than Assad's, or those perpetuated in Africa or any number of other places in the world. In Syria, we chose to make a point. Fine, but it is this selective outrage and inconsistent application of military force that has served to destroy our credibility with rank and file inhabitants of the Middle East.
If we are truly honest with ourselves, we would acknowledge that we have a tendency as Americans to overestimate the effectiveness of military action. "Mission accomplished" comes to mind, for example. In this case it is pretty clear that the Administration wanted to "send a message," and nearly every pundit in the country believes that everyone from Putin to Xi to Kim Jong Un will think twice before messing with us. I respectfully disagree.
Unlike ISIS or some African warlord, Assad crossed a very clear, very red line that has been, more or less, consistently enforced since 1925. No matter who you are, you cannot use weapons of mass destruction in war unless you are first attacked with those weapons. We ostensibly fought the second Iraq War to remove WMD from another brutal dictator who had gassed his own people. There is no question that the world has some obligation to respond and remove those weapons from Syria. However, lobbing 59 cruise missiles at a single airbase, avoiding the chemical weapons stockpile, and failing to render the runways unusable does not achieve that objective.
Nor will it deter Putin, Xi or anyone else. President Trump demonstrated his willingness to use kinetic military force on short notice. He showed that he is decisive. These are good things, but our enemies will analyze those things in context. Just a week ago, the Trump Administration announced that it was no longer focusing on removing Assad from power. Assad and the Russians were undoubtedly emboldened by those remarks. The only remaining question was how to win as fast as possible. They chose to use chemical weapons. Secretary Tillerson then announced after the attack that the United States was looking to put together a coalition to support regime change. The administration attacked Syria and then walked that back, announcing that this was a "one off" and that, while we are prepared to do more, we are not planning any additional military action.
It doesn't take a chess champion to see the problem here. There is no consistent plan or strategy with regard to Assad, Syria or the larger Middle East. Moreover, a dangerous precedent has been set. If WMD are used, our response will be to strike a single airbase and not even render it useless. Nor will we seize the weapons. And we will announce that our military operation is over. But we will leave them guessing about whether we will remain a consistent police presence in the area.
The Trump strategy may be to simply make their heads explode...
Vladimir Putin will not be deterred. He will shrug his shoulders and say "oh well, no more chemical weapons." Then he will launch a massive cruise missile strike of his own on those same villages. He will also use the rise in world tensions and our unilateral use of military power as an excuse to move further into Eastern Ukraine. And that's the mild version. He may directly test U.S. resolve in the Middle East and NATO resolve in Europe. He is not going to simply take it and go away.
I am not suggesting that we should allow Russia to dictate our foreign policy or military action. That said, it would be a serious error to ignore the fact that Russia is a military superpower that could conquer Europe in a week and, ironically, has demonstrated to us in Syria that they are willing to use WMD in order to secure a strategic objective. Nobody is talking about that pretty significant detail. And, as they have the largest stockpile of nuclear warheads in the world, that should give us a moment of pause.
There is a difference between showing the world that we are willing to take action and showing the world that we are willing to take effective action. If all the Trump Administration wanted to do was show the world that, after eight years of inaction, the U.S. is "back" and willing to resume its role as occasional policeman, then mission accomplished. If the goal was to stop the proliferation and use of WMD by an evil regime or isolate and deter the Russians, then this action had little effect.
In the long run, peace in the Middle East can only be achieved by the consistent and robust application of soft power backed by the threat of decisive force. A single demonstration of military power is insufficient to convince hardened regimes fighting for their very existence that we will affect the outcome of the conflict. In the case of Syria, Assad has Russian support, which is substantial. In the case of ISIS, 59 or 559 cruise missiles are really not much of a threat. They will just melt into the desert until we run out missiles and then reform as another group, assuming we can even find which huts to strike. So, we can applaud President Trump for showing that America can and will still strike bad men. But, let us not convince ourselves that, without more, this will stop the genocide in Syria or strike fear in the hearts of other superpowers.
No comments:
Post a Comment