President Trump is re-establishing the
power of deterrence
Clifford D. May
If you’re still unsure about
whether President Trump did the right thing when he launched 59
cruise missiles at Syria’s Shayrat air base last week, consider the
alternative.
He knew that Syrian dictator
Bashar Assad had yet again used chemical weapons to murder Syrian civilians, women
and children prominent among them. He knew that Iran and Russia had
enabled this atrocity, as they have many others. He knew he had two choices.
He could shrug, instruct his
U.N. ambassador to deliver a tearful speech calling on the “international community”
to do something, and then go play a round of golf. Or he could demonstrate that
the United States still has the power and the grit to stand up to tyrants and
terrorists — thereby beginning to re-establish America’s deterrent capability.
In other words, this was what
Sun Tzu and Carl von Clausewitz would call a no-brainer. (Well, loosely
translated.) A mission was accomplished. Do harder missions lie ahead? Yes, of
course. But I suspect Secretary of Defense James Mattis and National Security
Adviser H.R. McMaster have made that abundantly clear to the new president.
We now know for certain that
Russia failed to live up to its 2013 commitment to ensure that Mr. Assad
surrendered all his illegal chemical weapons under the deal it brokered.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson acerbically questioned whether that was the
result of complicity or incompetence, or whether Russia allowed itself to be
duped by Mr. Assad.
The strike ordered by Mr.
Trump was not “unbelievably small” — then-Secretary of State John Kerry’s
description of the punishment President Obama decided not to impose in response
to Mr. Assad’s earlier use of chemical weapons. It was big enough to make clear
that American diplomats are again carrying big sticks. (For Mr. Obama to insist
that diplomacy and force are alternatives was patently absurd.)
Conveniently,
President Trump was dining with Chinese President Xi Jinping when the
strikes took place. It’s fair to speculate that Mr. Xi is today thinking harder
about American requests to rein in Kim Jong-un, the North Korean dictator whose
drive to acquire nuclear-tipped missiles that can reach the American mainland
has become what Mr. Tillerson called an “imminent” threat.
Having passed his first major
national security test, Mr. Trump is now obliged to demonstrate
firmness and consistency. What plans might the Pentagon have on the shelf to
respond to further provocations? The next round of Tomahawk missiles could
permanently ground Mr. Assad’s air force. That would make it easier to then
establish no-fly zones. If such measures do not alter the calculations of Mr.
Assad and his Iranian and Russian patrons, consideration could be given to
leveling his defense, intelligence and command-and-control centers as well.
Another idea under discussion:
setting up safe havens or, to use a better term, “self-protection zones” for
those fleeing the Syrian regime and various jihadi forces, Sunni and Shia
alike. Israel and Jordan could help the inhabitants of such areas adjacent to
their borders defend themselves. The Saudis, Emiratis and Bahrainis could
contribute to the cost. Might this lead to the partition of Syria? It’s
difficult to imagine a “political solution” that would not include such
readjustments.
All this, while useful and
perhaps even necessary, should be seen as insufficient. Syria is a
major humanitarian catastrophe but only one piece in a much larger geopolitical
puzzle. Sooner rather than later, the Trump administration needs to develop
what Mr. Obama refused to contemplate: a comprehensive and coherent strategy to
counter the belligerent, imperialist and supremacist forces that have emerged
from the Middle East and are now spreading like kudzu around the world.
The Islamic State will, of
course, need to be driven off the lands on which it has attempted to establish
a caliphate. After that, its terrorists will have to be hunted, along with
those of al Qaeda, wherever they hide (e.g., Egypt where, over the weekend,
they bombed two Coptic Christian churches).
But — and this is crucial —
accomplishing these missions must not serve to further empower Iran’s
jihadi rulers, who dream of establishing an expanding imamate, the Shia version
of a caliphate.
Most immediately, Congress
should send to Mr. Trump the legislation it is now considering to
impose new sanctions on Iran in reprisal for its continuing support
of terrorists, its missile tests and its maintenance of more than 35,000 troops
in Syria, including its own, those of its Lebanese proxy, Hezbollah, and
Shia fighters recruited from Iraq and Afghanistan. Suspending Iran’s deal
with Boeing/Airbus would be useful, too. Only the willfully credulous believe
that Iran’s theocrats won’t use such aircraft for illicit military
purposes.
That the United States cannot
solve all the world’s problems was one of Mr. Trump’s campaign themes. But
the implication is not necessarily, as some of his supporters hoped, that he
would turn a blind eye to all atrocities and threats not already within America’s
borders.
In the last century, most
Americans recognized, in some cases with enormous reluctance, that there was no
good alternative to doing whatever was necessary to rout the Nazis and
communists, enemies whose goal was to kill off the democratic experiment.
In this century, jihadists and
Islamists harbor the same ambition. We can attempt to appease them. We can try
to make ourselves inoffensive to them. We can keep our hand extended, hoping
that in time they will unclench their fists. Or we can decide instead to plan
for a long war that will end with the defeat of these latest enemies of America
and the rest of the civilized world. If Mr. Trump has grasped that
within his first 100 days, he’s not off to such a bad start.
Clifford D. May
is president and founder of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and
a columnist for The Washington Times. Follow him on Twitter @CliffordDMay.
Relacionados:
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário
Não publicamos comentários de anônimos/desconhecidos.
Por favor, se optar por "Anônimo", escreva o seu nome no final do comentário.
Não use CAIXA ALTA, (Não grite!), isto é, não escreva tudo em maiúsculas, escreva normalmente. Obrigado pela sua participação!
Volte sempre!
Abraços./-