Jonathan Pesce
The Trump administration launched a cruise missile strike on a Syrian military target last Thursday, making the United States a direct combatant of the Syrian government for the first time.
Trump responded promptly to reports of a supposed attack with chemical weapons that killed dozens of Syrian civilians in Idlib province last Tuesday, declaring that his "attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed.â€
The Turkish health ministry released a statement Thursday saying autopsies confirmed "a chemical weapon was used.â€
The Trump administration did not wait for definitive evidence to implicate the Syrian government, and, after warning the Russians, launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at a Syrian Arab Army base. Because of the Pentagon’s warning, valuables were removed from the target site beforehand.
The Russian government took the position that the U.S. move was an "aggression against a sovereign state in violation of international law.â€
Fueling the implication of Assad are accusations that the 2013-14 United Nations resolution for the disarmament of Syrian chemical weapons, overseen in part by the U.S.’s, failed, as it could only account for the materials “declared†by the Syrian government.
The Russian Defense Ministry said a military strike targeting a weapons depot belonging to Islamist rebels was inadvertently responsible for the civilian deaths, as the depot unexpectedly contained chemical agents, which were subsequently released into the air, killing nearby civilians.
In 2013, UN inspector Carla del Ponte said the Commission had "strong, concrete suspicions" that rebels used chemical weapons. There have also been reports of chemical weapons paraphernalia being discovered in jihadists' captured depots. Chemical agents like chlorine are easy to produce.
Under the guise of anti-ISIS policy, the Obama administration equipped and trained the Free Syrian Army rebels, and gave, in its most recent defense legislation, leeway for the Trump administration to arm them with shoulder-fired anti-aircraft weaponry.
However, Obama did not act – as Trump did on Thursday – against Assad after the devastating 2013 sarin gas attack in Ghouta, due to inconclusive evidence of Assad's complicity.
When Hillary Clinton campaigned with "no-fly zone" as the trigger phrase of her Syrian foreign policy, the contention from critics was that implementation of a no-fly zone would knowingly defy Russia's stance that any attack on the Syrian government is an affront to Russia, as Russia has maintained a military presence in Syria since its intervention in 2015.
Trump supporters hailed his earlier warnings of trouble to come if the U.S., under the Obama administration, acted militarily to breach Syria's territorial sovereignty. Now, many of those same supporters praise his transparent shift in policy to what is beginning to look similar to the regime change they opposed from Clinton.
Regime change failed in Iraq and in Libya and would likely be a repeat failure in Syria, in which dozens of opposition and jihadist groups are operating, seizing land and resources. Syria is assuredly more stable with the anti-Daesh government it has now, as no bilateral intervention could ensure a viable replacement in a power vacuum.
The U.S. has lost its chance in the Middle East, and it would be best that it avoids catalyzing another disastrous situation and isolating an agitated [Middle] Eastern bloc, including Russia, which has embedded itself in the region via Syria with sanctions and aggression.
It is in Trump's best interest to heed his own warnings from 2013 and retreat from a Western-centric regime change policy, which is, essentially, a destabilizing, pro-ISIS strategy for a vulnerable region.
Jonathan Pesce is a junior majoring in international studies and history. He is interested in international relations, geopolitics, history, sociology and music. He is from Jackson Tennessee, and he is an executive in the College Republicans at U of M, a photographer and the owner, friend and hiking partner of a dog named Bear.
