In an explanation posted to its website, the White House describes its “America First Foreign Policy” as such: “The Trump Administration is committed to a foreign policy focused on American interests and American national security. Peace through strength will be at the center of that foreign policy.” But are the Syrian airstrikes conducted late on Thursday compatible with the “peace through strength” goals?
The explanation, importantly, also included a pledge to “pursue aggressive joint and coalition military operations when necessary.”
Given the president’s decision to order a targeted airstrike on a Syrian airfield Thursday night, the administration’s interest in the concept of peace through strength is worth revisiting.
In defining “peace through strength,” President Ronald Reagan, one of the concept’s foremost champions, borrowed wisdom from our first president, explaining in 1986, “George Washington’s words may seem hard and cold today, but history has proven him right again and again. ‘To be prepared for war,’ he said, ‘is one of the most effective means of preserving peace.'”
To be clear, Trump’s airstrikes went beyond simply demonstrating “preparedness” for war (as defense budget increases often signal), constituting clear military action. That is different that the traditional idea of peace through strength.
But for an administration that believed President Barack Obama’s tenure in office was a time where America’s willingness to actually use its military might was increasingly less convincing to global enemies, re-establishing that willingness could be perceived as an effort to prevent escalations in violence. In the years following Obama’s failure to act on his infamous “red line” against chemical weapons, conflict in Syria has, in fact, escalated.
Trump himself referred to the airstrikes as an intended “deterrent,” explaining in his remarks Thursday night that his actions were in the “vital, national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons.”
Shortly after news of the airstrike broke, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough reported, “A top ranking national security official characterized tonight’s attack as ‘a reaffirmation of America’s moral leadership role in the world.'” With that achieved, many believe the country’s ostensible willingness to take action will deter Assad and Putin from further use of chemical weapons.
Scarborough followed up by tweeting, “All WH comments immediately following the attack suggest it was to send a message of 1/strength 2/moral leadership.”
The morning after the airstrikes, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said that Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad “is certainly not just less capable but, I believe, less willing this morning to do that sort of activity because his cost-benefit analysis just changed dramatically.”
As of now, of course, it is unclear whether the administration plans to take further military action, or what additional circumstances it believes would justify doing so.
The president’s proposed budget included a $54 billion increase in defense spending. In his remarks to a joint session of Congress he previewed those budget increases by saying, “To keep America safe, we must provide the men and women of the United States military with the tools they need to prevent war.”
In this light, the president’s decision to take action in Syria may signal the administration’s conviction in the idea that peace can only be achieved in a world where America’s enemies are acutely aware of both our military power and, perhaps just as importantly, our willingness to use it.
Emily Jashinsky is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.
