Conflict in Syria: Trump does not have a plan

Impulsiveness is bad counselor in politics and even more in military affairs. But President Trump seems to be reacting and emotionally deciding on the Syrian issue.

A year ago, Donald Trump said he was shocked by the horrific images of children who had been attacked by chemical weapons. A few days later, he ordered the bombing of a Syrian air base. And then, nothing.

The 59 Tomahawk missiles launched at Shayrat did not change the war in Syria . A few days later, Syrian military planes took off again from the base.

A year later, the United States comes back to square one . Other images of child victims of chlorine allegedly launched by the Assad regime were released. Once again, the leader of the White House threatens to attack Syria.

Although to read his tweet, this Thursday, we do not know where the President of the United States is.

The United States has never had a long-term plan in the current conflict that has rocked Syria for seven years.

Since President Obama’s decision in 2013 to not respond to the Assad regime’s chemical attacks, the Americans have become a negligible player in this war that has killed at least 300,000 people.

The total absence of US strategy in Syria allowed the Russians and Iranians to occupy all the ground. These two countries have mainly allowed the Assad regime to remain in power. The latter now controls most of its territory.

So why does the US president want to intervene today?
The risks of climbing are enormous in this powder keg that is Syria. The Russians were very clear yesterday: there will be a reply if Washington gets involved. But today the Kremlin claims to want to avoid confrontation.

Even the excuse of the chlorine attack in Douma does not hold water. Since the last US attack in Syria 12 months ago, President Assad has been accused of using chemical weapons on at least three occasions, without American action.

The United States has never had a long-term plan in the current conflict that has rocked Syria for seven years.

Since President Obama’s decision in 2013 to not respond to the Assad regime’s chemical attacks, the Americans have become a negligible player in this war that has killed at least 300,000 people.

The total absence of US strategy in Syria allowed the Russians and Iranians to occupy all the ground. These two countries have mainly allowed the Assad regime to remain in power. The latter now controls most of its territory.

So why does the US president want to intervene today?

The risks of climbing are enormous in this powder keg that is Syria. The Russians were very clear yesterday: there will be a reply if Washington gets involved. But today the Kremlin claims to want to avoid confrontation.

Even the excuse of the chlorine attack in Douma does not hold water. Since the last US attack in Syria 12 months ago, President Assad has been accused of using chemical weapons on at least three occasions, without American action.

The United States has never had a long-term plan in the current conflict that has rocked Syria for seven years.

Since President Obama’s decision in 2013 to not respond to the Assad regime’s chemical attacks, the Americans have become a negligible player in this war that has killed at least 300,000 people.

The total absence of US strategy in Syria allowed the Russians and Iranians to occupy all the ground. These two countries have mainly allowed the Assad regime to remain in power. The latter now controls most of its territory.

It is late for the United States to think that it wants to change things in Syria. Last week, Donald Trump even wanted to withdraw his 2000 soldiers fighting terrorism and not Assad. The Americans have even stopped helping rebel groups trying to dislodge the Syrian regime.

The timid American approach to Syria has left the field open to the Russians to expand their area of ​​influence. The presence of President Vladimir Putin’s troops complicates a possible US intervention. Nobody wants to see these two nuclear powers confront each other.

So how can the White House avoid humiliation and look even weaker in the eyes of the international community?

Some argue that targeting strategic targets of the Assad regime, such as government buildings, the military command, the presidential palace, and some of the dictator’s relatives could yield results.

Others believe that the Americans should stay quiet and let the French and the British do the work. Anyway, the impulsiveness of President Trump forces the Pentagon to reconsider its plans to prevent the United States losing the face on this issue.

Many unanswered questions for a president and an administration who neglected the Syrian file. Former President Obama is still blamed today for not having respected the “red line” he had imposed on himself to intervene in the event of a chemical weapon attack.

Will Donald Trump, in turn, want to wear the donkey’s cap if he decides not to attack? Attack or not, there are not really any winning options for the United States. A difficult situation for a president who hates losing.

David Krekorian

David Krekorian is the lead editor for Island Daily Tribune. David has written for several publications including The Guardian – Charlottetown, Barstool Sports and CBC News. David is based in Charlottetown and covers issues affecting the the island. When he’s not busy writing, David enjoys fishing and kayaking.

You might like

David Krekorian

About the Author: David Krekorian

David Krekorian is the lead editor for Island Daily Tribune. David has written for several publications including The Guardian - Charlottetown, Barstool Sports and CBC News. David is based in Charlottetown and covers issues affecting the the island. When he’s not busy writing, David enjoys fishing and kayaking.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *