After the surgical strike against chemical weapons facilities in Syria had been executed perfectly, US President Wrote on Twitter. “Mission Accomplished!” But what exactly the mission is?
For most of Mr. Trump’s presidency, it has been to defeat the Islamic State and then get out. But what Mr. Trump outlined in his televised speech to the nation on Friday night was something more complicated. He promised a sustained campaign to stop Syria’s government from again using chemical weapons on its own people, while also emphasizing the limits of America’s ability or willingness to do more to solve the bloodletting that has devastated that country for seven years, the New York Times report on Syria's strikes said.
The strike brought home Mr. Trump’s competing impulses when it comes to Syria — on the one hand, his manful chest-thumping intended to demonstrate that he is the toughest one on the international block, and on the other, his deep conviction that American involvement in the Middle East since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has been a waste of blood and treasure.
The New York Times signaled that many veterans of Washington policymaking in the Middle East offered conditional praise for Mr. Trump’s restrained approach to the strike, if not necessarily his rhetoric. In hitting three sites associated with Mr. Assad’s chemical weapons capabilities, limiting it to a single night and conducting it in conjunction with Britain and France, they said it sent a message while avoiding a deeper involvement and minimizing the risk of provoking Syria’s patrons, Russia and Iran, into retaliating themselves.
New York Times quoted Meghan O’Sullivan, who oversaw the Iraq war as Mr. Bush’s deputy national security adviser, as saying: “However, I don’t think the strike clarifies U.S. policy,"
“In theory, there is not necessarily an inconsistency between a targeted, multilateral strike against chemical weapons sites and the withdrawal of troops that have been fighting ISIS. But the strike does really call into question the wisdom of pulling back American forces now in highlighting the question of what our objective really is in Syria.” O’Sullivan added.
By most accounts, the report says, the strike essentially left in place the status quo on the ground. It did little if anything to weaken Mr. Assad beyond any chemical weapons stores it destroyed, leaving him to continue waging war on his own people through conventional means. It did nothing to exact the "big price" Mr. Trump promised to impose on Russia and Iran for enabling Mr. Assad’s chemical attacks.
The reports also quoted Phillip H. Gordon, who was Mr. Obama’s White House coordinator of Middle East policy, as saying: one of the challenges for Mr. Trump was calibrating his language with his actions. In effect, Mr. Gordon said, the president seemed to be trying to find a reasoned middle ground in Syria that belies his own tough talk.