Every ‘chemical weapons are horrible, but …’ post is perilous and difficult to write. But there are some important points to be discussed here. President Trump has spent two years arguing that Syria is not our fight. We don’t really care about human rights issues in Syria or who runs Syria. We care about ISIS. Days ago his Secretary of State said whether Bashar Assad stays in power isn’t our concern. Now we’re talking about military action and ousting him from power.
Trump policy until a day ago is in truth a more brutal, thoughtless and indifferent version of what our policy has been for years. Through numerous twists and turns and much still looming over his legacy, President Obama decided that it was not in our interests to intervene militarily in the Syrian Civil War.
There are compelling arguments on both sides of this debate. But we should be very worried if we’re switching our policy on a dime because of a horrific chemical weapons attack. Are we going to launch one painful attack which may not have strategic consequences but signals that we will exact a price for any use of chemical weapons? Are we now going to intervene with the intention of shifting the course of the war – a pretty tall proposition now that Assad holds the whip hand in the conflict and has forces thoroughly intermingled with the Russian army? Are we going to try to create a global coalition to oust Assad? Given the reality on the ground that seems quite hard to figure. Or are we just going to blow a lot of shit up because we are horrified by the pictures we’re seeing?
I do not suggest here that it is obvious what the right thing to do is. But military action should only ever be taken with a clear goal and a serious weighing of the probable and conceivable repercussions. As I wrote yesterday, I think the administration’s volte-face on Syria is not only tied to the attack itself but what appears to be a major rolling shake-up at the White House (one that I suspect has only begun). Still, as we know, Donald Trump is the ultimate TV President. It sounds like hyperbole but it’s not hyperbole to say that many or most of his key actions are driven not by the counsel of key advisors or intelligence briefings but by things he sees on TV. Often things idiots say on TV. That makes these horrific pictures perhaps more influential than they might be with another President.
In comparable situations, most presidents deal with cases in which public opinion – inflamed by horrors captured on camera – pressures them to act. The power of impulse in Trump’s own head may be enough.
We should just be very concerned that we’re taking very, very consequential and potentially dangerous actions because of horrific pictures. What happened is horrible. The death toll may rise to 100. But upwards of half a million people are estimated to have died in the conflict so far. We have a uniquely impulsive President. We should be very careful and considered in what we do.
