Some of What Trump’s Bombing Did: Initial Thoughts
April 8, 2017
Trump showed the world that he’s willing to use force. He already had shown that by increasing force levels in other war theaters. This is a much more dramatic signal.
Trump attempted no diplomacy and no use of international institutions, law or moral suasion. He acted unilaterally. He left Congress pretty much in the dust. He could have taken time to make the case with clear evidence, if he had it, and turn the world against Assad, but he didn’t. Instead he showed his raw power. That was his most important goal, to show that he’s not weak and that he’s in command.
He showed that he is willing to act quickly. That’s a mixed result, because he also showed that he is willing to act rashly, on the basis of hasty judgment.
He showed that he’s not pro-Russian. The bombing was against a Russian ally. It confronts Russia, which has bases and forces in Syria.
He pushed the Yemen raid fiasco out of the picture.
He didn’t cow any of the main players: Russia, Iran, Syria. They’re not intimidated. Assad promised to redouble and speed up his offensives against rebels. One bombing raid doesn’t alter the war.
He showed that he’s willing to take big risks, which we already knew.
He “took hold” of the presidency and that buries questions about his legitimacy. He put Russiagate behind him. The Supreme Court win solidifies his hold on his office.
He diverted attention from Spygate. That’s unfortunate. He accepted intelligence about the origin of the gas attack.
He emboldened the rebel forces, which are extremist. It gives them a card to play with. If they stage false flag chlorine attacks and blame Assad, they might draw the U.S. in deeper on their side.
He got the U.S. more deeply involved in the Syrian war. Tillerson has indicated that he wants to assemble a coalition and that Assad must go. He appears to be making hasty judgments too or else revealing his neocon heart. He looks clueless about the end game and the presence of Russia in Syria. He seems to be speaking independently of Trump.
Trump played from the neocon playbook followed by Reagan, Clinton, Bush and Obama. His move looks like a tit-for-tat, but it clouds his agenda in uncertainty. It sure looks as if Trump has moved significantly in the interventionist direction.
Trump showed that the Empire presumptions are intact under his leadership.
In addition to the foreign policy effects, Trump’s rhetoric showed he has a streak of liberal interventionism, which implies haphazard use of power in the service of selected policing of the world according to his moral judgments.
There are bound to be domestic political effects and effects in the White House pecking order and rivalries. I have no comment on those.
Trump helped himself by this bombing or tried to, and I presume that’s the main reason why he did it. It doesn’t alter the realities of the Syrian war. Chemical warfare is not a significant component of this war. The war’s deadliness and disruption will continue until the war ends.
Assad’s road to victory was very clear before this gas incident occurred. This irked neocons immensely. The last thing they want is to see his regime survive. They jumped at the chance to reassert themselves. Their influence has gone up accordingly.
"Libertarian Realism" on Syria