The
drums of war are beating again. Since the Assad regime’s chemical weapon attack
that killed over 70 in Syria, the interventionists are back to their old game:
“we have to do something.”
Never
mind what the effects of “something” are, even though they may be far worse
than the status quo. “Something has to be done.”
There’s
a reason Hell is a bottomless pit in mythology and religion: things can always
get worse. No matter how bad things in Syria are now, they can get worse.
Infinitely worse. Thursday
afternoon, Trump launched a missile strike on the air-base believed to be the
origins of the attacks.
God-willing,
rationality will prevail, and this proposed military action won’t go much
further than “flexing our muscles;” rather than “regime change and a no-fly
zone.”
That
is where things would get worse, though any military action at this point
carries a strong risk of strengthening people we don’t want to strengthen.
Regime
change for Assad requires a substantial ground force. With Assad gone, the only
thing approaching a functional government in Syria – outside of ISIS – will be
gone. The refugee crisis will get worse.
Speaking
of ISIS, eliminating Assad or establishing a no-fly zone benefits them
directly. Granted, ISIS is much weaker than it was several years ago, but not
so weak we can eliminate their primary opponent in Syria without consequence.
This
is not to mention the potential war with Russia that could arise from
establishing a no-fly zone without their consent. A no-fly zone means no
flying, which means that Russian aircraft, if Russia is not part of the
agreement, would have to be forced out of the zone. I don’t have to tell you
about the potential of something like that to escalate into serious conflict.
But
setting all the potential consequences of further action aside, the
interventionists don’t seem to be aware that we’re already “doing something” in
Syria. There’s some kind of group amnesia here; the US is directly and heavily
involved, right now, in Syria and Iraq. But don’t let the facts get in the way
of the messianic complex of America’s foreign policy establishment.
Donald
Trump, who, admittedly, I believed had the potential to be a great success in
foreign policy, seems to have had serious a change of heart. Despite railing
against the Obama administration’s desire to involve themselves in Syria after
the last far worse chemical weapon attack in 2013, Trump’s heard the Good News
of messianic foreign policy. In his own words, the latest attack crossed “many,
many lines. Beyond a red line, many, many lines.”
One
wonders what’s changed since 2013. Maybe Trump considers it a personal insult
that Assad would do this while Trump was President, while it’s par for the
course that Assad would use nerve gas on children when Obama was president.
The
potential of Trump’s presidency to be one of détente and non-interventionism is
decreasing. Steve Bannon, the most powerful force for a restrained foreign
policy in Trump’s inner circle, was kicked out of the National Security
Council. According to the New York Times, the move was a deliberate demotion
and Bannon threatened to quit altogether over it.
And
let’s not forget about General Flynn, another force for foreign policy
restraint with Russia who was fired. The people driving Trump’s foreign policy,
at least in rhetoric, these days are UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, Secretary of
Defense Mattis, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.
None
of these three share Trump’s “America First” foreign policy ideology or
affinity for a rapprochement with Russia. There’s been an evolution of the
Trump foreign policy, towards standard interventionist establishment positions.
Clearly,
the Russians are aware of this. Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, a close
ally of Putin, said that the missile strike has brought the US and Russia “to
the brink of a military clash.”
Another
Russian official said at the UN “We have to think about negative consequences,
negative consequences, and all the responsibility if military action occurred
will be on shoulders of those who initiated such doubtful and tragic
enterprise.”
US
diplomats have again taken an aggressive tone with Russia. Secretary Tillerson
stated “we think it’s time that the Russians really need to think carefully
about their continued support for the Assad regime.”
With
the standard flourish of a UN Ambassador, Nikki Haley called out the Russians
specifically for the catastrophe in Syria, asking “how many more children have
to die before Russia cares?”
Neither
Tillerson’s nor Haley’s statements are incorrect. Russia does bear some of the
moral responsibility for the atrocities of the Assad regime. But these latest
statements and actions are indicative of a serious change in the attitude of
the Trump administration towards Putin and Assad. Less
than 100 days into the administration, and Trump has already fallen in the
foreign policy establishment’s traps.
No comments:
Post a Comment