We’ve fired on Syria. As we should. Do such attacks come with risk? Yes, they do. But is it in fact something we should have done even sooner? Yes, it is. What a difference it might have made.
Years ago in the capital, Damascus, it was so dark that I could see every star in the sky. But once the civil war started, if you looked toward Syria’s sky, you might see barrel bombs plunging toward you, filled with gasoline that ignites on impact and shoots flaming shrapnel all around. And now the bombs are even worse. Now evidently they’re filled with the nerve agent sarin. I’ve seen the consequence of such chemical warfare. It is singularly grotesque. So now, Syria is darker than ever. All courtesy of President Bashar Assad.
What does this have to do with us? I’d argue, everything. As Republican Congressman Randy Hultgren put it last week, “We remain strong when our values are upheld around the world.” Our values dictate that a government doesn’t drop bombs on its own people. Our values demand that if no one else can stop Assad, we must try.
This is not the position of a Monday morning quarterback. Four years ago I wrote a column in The Post about Syria saying, “The United States could directly influence the outcome… not to mention save some lives, without putting boots on the ground at all.” I was talking about air power then, and I’m talking about air power now. What I argued four years ago was, “President Obama ought to get off his stick and get some planes in the air over Syria.” He failed to. What I argue now is, missiles or planes, President Donald Trump is right to.
I’m not naive. Our forces are not invincible. If we’ve learned anything in the fourteen years since we invaded Iraq, it is that the “shock and awe” of our air attacks didn’t exactly eradicate the resistance. But we learned a more positive lesson even longer back, in Bosnia. President Bill Clinton used air power there, almost exclusively, which minimized American casualties. It stopped the ethnic cleansing and brought the butchers to heel.
Of course the risks in Syria are bigger than Bosnia, mainly because as we destroy Assad’s most wicked weapons, his most enthusiastic ally might come to his defense with more than just rhetoric. That is Russia. One small skirmish between our two powers, it could mean war.
Do we really want to take that chance? There are rational reasons not to.
For one thing, it conjures up the disquieting title of a recent essay in Huffington Post, “This Is How The Next World War Starts.” But we should remember that back in 1962 when President John F. Kennedy learned that the Soviets were moving missiles to Cuba and played chicken with their ships, the Soviets blinked first. Of course we also should remember, Russia’s Vladimir Putin is not your father’s Soviet leader. He is combative, maybe even reckless.
For another thing, Trump is not J.F.K. He often seems driven by impulse. And impelled by sketchy snippets of news. If he really believes he knows “more than the generals,” would he wait to hear from them before acting on what he sees on TV?
We don’t know if Putin would blink. But he’s as aware of the risks as we are. Maybe even more, if he considers the compulsive character of his counterpart.
Consequential choices usually don’t come in black and white. But here’s the choice: either we use our power to police pivotal parts of the world, or aspiring superpowers like Russia or China will act in our stead. Does anyone think they would make the world a better place?
We’re not just talking about punishing the president of Syria. We’re talking about stopping him from further punishing his people. That is consistent with America’s power. It is consistent with America’s values. It is worth the risk.
Greg Dobbs of Evergreen is an author, public speaker, and former foreign correspondent for ABC News.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit or check out our for how to submit by email or mail.
