Even after tonight's U.S., U.K. & French military attack I am still unsure of the answer. Not that there are easy answers to be had in Syria.
For his part, Trump stated, "We are prepared to sustain this response until the Syrian regime stops its use of prohibited chemical agents."
Are the British and French on board with that? And what about our Congress? While it's true President Obama didn't enforce his red line, Congress didn't want him to do so.
But let's assume that this triumvirate is prepared to sustain this response. What makes anyone think that Assad will stop using chemical weapons against his own people? In which case the only way to prevent another chemical attack against civilians is by way of regime change.
But regime change would surely give an opening to ISIS. Trump bragged that the areas in Syria and Iraq once controlled by ISIS had "been liberated and eliminated."
So this leaves Trump with the choice of trying to contain Assad and risk more chemical attacks or remove him and risk an ISIS resurgence. Neither is a good option.
Of course, it was easy for Trump to repeatedly tell Obama not to go into Syria when the decision wasn't his to make. It's also easy for Trump not to follow his own advice.
As much as I disdain President Trump, it brings me no comfort that a significant segment of the population (primarily on The Left) are angrier at Trump right now than they were at Assad for gassing his own people. What little good there is to be said of Trump can also be said of a majority of his critics. All of which means things in Syria are bound to get worse with no guarantee they'll ever get better.
No comments:
Post a Comment