Whats the White Houses next move when it comes to Syria? Lets hope nothing.
President Donald Trumps salvo of cruise missiles against a military airfield in Syria last week brought bipartisan acclaim, and thats a major cause for concern.
In a partisan age, the American media likes to report on any seemingly bipartisan agreement, and has an interest in subtly cheering any US military campaign, despite its size or scope, because it almost always leads to increased ratings. Yet in their fervor, sometimes the media, Democrats and Republicans can all be wrong simultaneously.
Retired Col. Andrew Bacevich has written cogently about just how militaristic American culture has become, much to the detriment of the US military itself. And this militarism, when it is taken up by politicians and the American publicin contrast to the anti-militaristic patriotism of the nations foundersregularly sends US military personnel into harms way for less than optimal reasons.
Trumps cruise missile attack on the Syrian air base may not have resulted in any American military casualties, but the action could very well result in Syrians or Russians taking surreptitious retaliatory measures against US forces on the ground in Syriaor to secret attempts to shoot down American aircraft.
Any of these actions could significantly enmesh the US military in the brutal Syrian civil war, possibly involve the United States in an escalating conflict with nuclear-armed Russia, and impede what should be the main objective: the fight against the terror group ISIS.
Not even during the Korean or Vietnam Wars did Russia and the United States overtly have their forces on the same battlefield, as they do now in Syria. Is greater US involvement in Syriaa non-strategic country for the United States but one of Russias few alliesworth escalation with the only country that has ever posed an existential threat to the United States?
What if the US strike doesnt deter Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad from using chemical weapons on his people in the future? Syrian bombing raids on the same town have already taken place from the attacked airfield, an in-your-face response to the US strike, showing that it didnt take out the airstrip and thus our action was only a symbolic pinprick.
If history is any guideand it almost always isdirect US military action often leads to stronger military action in the future. For example, shortly after he took office in 1981, Ronald Reagan began using the US military to provoke Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi, who was then commissioning sporadic terror attacks on Europe.
After a series of tit-for-tat terror attacks, now against US targets, and US military responses over the years, Gadhafi blew up flight Pan Am 103 in late 1988, killing 270 people, including 189 Americans.
Once the United States takes direct military action, the American foreign policy elites in Washington will declare that the countrys credibility as a superpower (read: worlds policeman) is on the line the next time a bad event takes placeand this pressure often leads to further US escalation and entanglement.
During his campaign, Trump vowed to stay out of such possible foreign quagmires, yet with the only experienced people on foreign policy in his administration being generals, the old cliché if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail is nevertheless applicable.
And why was the killing of roughly 80 people with a chemical weapon dramatically worse than the deaths of 500,000 Syrians in the bloody civil war, the vast majority of whom died by incendiary barrel bombs containing shrapnel or by conventional bullets and artillery shells? Even in cataclysmic World War I, infamous for its poison gas attacks, deaths by chemical weapons only accounted for a tiny percentage of all fatalities. Similarly, in Syria, chemical weapons have accounted for only a fraction of the total deaths.
Trumps theatrical cruise missile attack is really only a satisfying palliative for the American people. He wants the public to think that the United States has finally done something about the evil Assads use of chemical weapons, thereby making him seem tougher than his milquetoast predecessor. However, that perception is simply a dangerous illusionsomething Trump is rapidly becoming a specialist in creating.
Trump should stop now with the counterproductive showmanship and get back to the grinding fight against ISIS.
|Ivan Eland is Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at the Independent Institute. Dr. Eland is a graduate of Iowa State University and received an M.B.A. in applied economics and Ph.D. in national security policy from George Washington University. He spent 15 years working for Congress on national security issues, including stints as an investigator for the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Principal Defense Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office.|
Taking a distinctly new approach, Ivan Eland profiles each U.S. president from Washington to Obama on the merits of his policies and whether those strategies contributed to peace, prosperity, and liberty. This ranking system is based on how effective each president was in fulfilling his oath to uphold the Constitution.