Living in the middle of the United States provides a sort of insulation from some global events. Things can seem so remote that it's easy to take the "eh, whatever" attitude. Technology however is rapidly changing that. Now we can get instant images and news on our phones of activity happening on the other side of the world in practically real time. The world has indeed been made smaller.
The images this week coming from the gas attack by the Assad regime in Syria were horrifying to say the least. President Trump, after changing his mind in less than 24 hours ordered a military strike as a response to the killing of innocent men, women and children. Like many, my first reaction was approval. I think most would agree that Assad deserves to be punished. With that in mind, there are a number of things worth noting.
The airport that was struck had Russians there as well. The planes that carried the chemical weapons were from this airport. This begs the question, how complicit were the Russians in the attack? Also, why did we not destroy the airstrip? The President's tweet said it was because airstrips can be easily fixed. Isn't that true of hangers and fueling stations? This doesn't make sense to me.
We notified the Russians of our intent prior to the strike. Did they pass this along to the Syrians? Why did we notify the Russians and not our own Congress?
What is our long term goal? The administration doesn't seem to have a concrete policy with regards to Syria. Also, how can we bomb Assad and yet refuse to take in refugees from this country? Wouldn't more innocent Syrians be helped by giving them refuge rather than just a one time bombing of hangers, planes and fuel targets?
The following paragraph is from lawfareblog.com by Daniel Byman. I have attached the link below. The paragraph is food for thought: "Nor do one-off attacks like the one we launched have a good track record. In a civil war that has claimed so many dead, the military impact of a missile strike on one facility is limited, even if it signals a profound shift in U.S. policy. Rather, such actions often are painted as "symbolic," but in reality they usually signal weakness, not resolve. The dictator or terrorist on the receiving end suffers little but often looks stronger because they survived a U.S. attack and can boast about their defiance. In 1998, after Al Qaeda bombed two U.S. embassies in Africa, the United States launched cruise missiles against facilities believed to be linked to terrorists in Afghanistan and Sudan-Operation Infinite Reach. The strikes backfired, allowing Bin Laden to claim he was standing up to the United States. His popular support and associated ability to recruit soared, and Al Qaeda terrorism continued undiminished. Contrast this with the sustained drone campaign against Al Qaeda that began under President George W. Bush in the years after 9/11 and took off under Obama. This devastated Al Qaeda, but required years and many strikes."
https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-effect-will-trumps-airstrikes-really-have
My foreign policy knowledge is like that of many people--it consists of what I read in the news. While the cruise missiles launched by the Trump administration made many of us feel that Assad deserved every bit of it, I also feel that we have more unanswered questions than before regarding our foreign policy goals.
No comments:
Post a Comment