President Trump’s tweet on Wednesday, warning Russia of impending strikes on Syrian President Bashar Assad, is both good and bad strategy.
Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria. Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and “smart!” You shouldn’t be partners with a Gas Killing Animal who kills his people and enjoys it!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 11, 2018
On the positive side, Trump is showing moral leadership by drawing international attention towards Russia’s culpability in supporting Assad. As the Syrian dictator has killed hundreds of thousands of his own people via starvation, barrel bombs, torture rooms, and chemical attacks, Russia has presented its support for Assad as a sanitized counter-terrorism operation.
Trump is right to force Russia to suffer international ignominy for what Assad is doing. After all, Russia’s enabling of those activities runs far deeper than is commonly assumed.
It aggravates me that some Obama-era officials refuse at least to acknowledge this fact. Take former President Barack Obama’s State Department spokesman, John Kirby, for example.
There’s a lot not to like about the Commander-in-Chief tweeting details of pending strikes on targets abroad. A lot. But what bothers me most is the cavalier and careless way he speaks about the use of force. It’s not a video game. Lives are at stake here.
— John Kirby (@johnfkirby63) April 11, 2018
Or consider former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who last week suggested that under Trump, foreign despots “No longer need…fear United States criticism regarding human rights or civil liberties.” The tweet alone falsifies this claim. Speaking of which, Madam Secretary, under Trump they may be getting criticism, but they’re fearing United States bombs.
Regardless, the exigent point here is that where Obama’s words and actions on Assad’s use of chemical weapons represented a strategic lack of interest, Trump’s words and looming actions represent American moral leadership.
And they do so robustly. By shaming Russia in such a public way, Trump is also showing command confidence that he can deter and defeat the unlikely prospect of Russian counter-escalation.
Again, in contrast, the Russians regarded Obama to be a weak commander in chief.
So while he won’t get much credit for it, this element of Trump’s tweet follows in the finest footsteps of the U.S. rules-based international order. It says much about their biases that so many foreign policy academics and analysts cannot give Trump the modest credit he deserves here.
All the same, there’s also a negative side to Trump’s tweet. He has confirmed to Assad and Putin that military action will occur in the near term.
Second, by referencing “smart” missiles, Trump seems to be indicating that the U.S. retaliation against Assad will focus on Tomahawk Block IV cruise missiles. That block is the only one that is both “new” and has in-flight re-targeting capabilities — i.e., “smart.”
For those who follow such things, Trump’s hint at toward the use of this missile may give away that the USS Donald Cook (on patrol in the Mediterranean Sea and armed with cruise missiles and likely the block IV) will take a primary role in offensive actions. Putin and Assad might have assumed as much anyway, but might also have wondered if the Donald Cook would serve as a diversion for an aerial attack from U.S. and French jets.
Those aerial attacks may (and I believe will) still take place, but there’s no question that at the margin, Trump’s language gives Russia an educated baseline for its intelligence targeting and operational response to any allied strike. That’s not good.
Still, Trump can somewhat rectify things by again muddying the waters of Russia’s perception as he did on Tuesday.
But all in all, this tweet is both good and bad. Be skeptical of those who deride or endorse it absolutely.
