the imaginative conservative logo

When Donald Trump’s supporters elected him president, they did not expect a pacifist; but they did expect a president who would make America great again, in part, by restoring constitutional government…

Screen Shot 2017-04-11 at 12.55.55 PMPresident Trump is wrong, both politically and militarily, in how he approached the recent allegations of a chemical attack in Syria. His decision to fire tomahawk missiles at a Syrian air base was the low point of his administration thus far. It is now incumbent upon the President and his administration to recognize their error and prevent a bad decision from metastasizing into a bad strategy.

Militarily, if the goal of the missile strike was to “send a message” to President Assad, President Trump and his advisors fail to understand the nature of war. President Assad has been fighting in one of the most horrific wars in modern times. Many Syrians have been killed, his entire country has been destroyed, and his life is in constant danger. At this stage of President Assad’s tenure, a missile strike will not scare him. President Trump and his advisors are naive if they think that a few Tomahawk missiles will act as a psychological deterrent to President Assad, or anyone else for that matter.

Quite the opposite: the American missile attack on Syria will only confirm President Assad in the wisdom of his decision to ally his nation-state with Russia and to invite the Russian military into Syria to protect the legal government. President Trump and his advisors would do well to recognize that the Russian presence in Syria is the logical consequence of the American invasion of Iraq, which sent nation-states that felt threatened by potential American aggression into a frenzy of activity to either acquire a nuclear deterrent or to ally themselves with stronger states that would provide a security shield for them. Having destroyed the legal government in Iraq and unleashed radical Islamic terrorism in the region, the United States forced Arab states that still maintained legal, secular governments to defend themselves against two enemies: the Islamic State and the United States itself. Russia was the only viable ally for President Assad against the Islamic State. Syria and Russia were the only viable allies for the United States against the Islamic State. A policy of allying with all legal Arab and non-Arab governments against terrorism should have become the hallmark of the Trump Doctrine in the Middle East. Present circumstances do not allow the luxury of demanding a more democratic Syria. The choice is between imperfect order and perfect chaos.

Politically, the missile strikes will have very grave consequences for President Trump’s standing with the American electorate. The President’s poll numbers have been extremely low ever since his inauguration; his support has been essentially limited to his political base. President Trump’s political base is asymmetrical. It is composed of Republicans, Democrats, Independents, conservatives, and progressives, all united by one fundamental proposition: that an unconventional president was required who understood the immense importance of withdrawing the United States from the spiral of perpetual wars lacking clear objectives having to do with national defense, national interest, or morality. The strikes against Syria have severely damaged President Trump’s credibility with his political base, and with each word of praise from the very political elites that the Trump coalition came together to defeat, this damage will magnify.

There was no need for the strikes. President Trump’s poll numbers will rise and his support will expand outside his base if, instead of attacking Syria, he would continue to work to bring jobs back to the United States and pursue commercial relations with all, war with none. With improving economic data, with more jobs, and with stabilizing, growing markets, President Trump would—within the course of twelve months—experience a steady rise in public support as Americans regain a sense of job security and economic stability. Only short-sighted public relations advisors could think otherwise.

If anything, President Trump’s political advisors were focused on the wrong polls. The mainstream establishment media and the President’s Republican and Democratic adversaries were never going to support him, but ever since, first, General Michael Flynn and, then, Steve Bannon were removed from the National Security Council, there has been growing consternation and confusion on the part of President Trump’s most loyal supporters—the people who got the vote out and gave him the advantage in the Electoral College.

Appointing and then swiftly demoting General Flynn was President Trump’s first major error. Appointments to the National Security Council should not be made lightly. General Flynn took a big risk chanting “lock her up” in regard to Secretary Hillary Clinton. It is demoralizing that now General Flynn is the one who could be locked up because he trusted President Trump. Likewise, demoting Mr. Bannon after elevating him to the National Security Council was a mistake. There is no way to avoid tying both of these events to the worst decision President Trump has yet made: the attack on Syria.

Finally, even if President Trump had decided, for whatever reason, that a military strike against Syria was necessary—that it was in the United States’ national interest and morally justified—he could have taken his case to Congress and restored good constitutional practice by asking for a declaration of war against Syria. Whether or not they supported war against Syria, most Americans would have at least cheered President Trump for doing this. If the Congress then had declared war on Syria, President Trump would not have violated the trust of his political base. We did not elect nor did we expect a pacifist; but we did expect a president who would make America great again, in part, by restoring constitutional government.

Instead, President Trump made the wrong decision in the wrong way. Not only did he authorize a useless and futile military strike against Syria that will have no effect on the war, he is also alienating Russia and his own political base. All of this need not doom his presidency, but it could be the beginning of the end if it becomes a strategy of incremental steps towards another senseless war. Judging by statements made by the American ambassador to the United Nations, this short-term mistake is about to become long-term American strategy. If it does, President Trump will lose even more popular support and America’s global reputation as a dangerous menace to world peace will only be solidified.

Books on the topic of this essay may be found in The Imaginative Conservative BookstoreThe Imaginative Conservative applies the principle of appreciation to the discussion of culture and politics—we approach dialogue with magnanimity rather than with mere civility. Will you help us remain a refreshing oasis in the increasingly contentious arena of modern discourse? Please consider donating now.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
"All comments are subject to moderation. We welcome the comments of those who disagree, but not those who are disagreeable."
6 replies to this post
  1. So- let Assad continue to commit genocide against his own people, with the help of Putin. Or, take the matter before Congress and ask for a declaration of war. Dream on. I think the President made exactly the right choice.

  2. Although Trump’s motives in this case can be speculated upon, the points made in this essay are perceptive and persuasive.

  3. Some follow-up comments. Should Trump have asked for a war declaration, he may have split the Congressional Republicans even more, and put the Soviet Union on the spot, resulting in a war threat from that quarter. By acting first, he obviated that. Also, he may have been stimulated to the action by the drumbeats of the Democrats and Media about his supposed electoral collusion with the Russians. And by following up with the movement of ships to the Western Pacific, he may have been calling the bluff of the North Korean dictator. And maybe all, or a combination of these things, explains his actions. These are understandable reasons, but not justifications.

  4. I don’t want to leave a comment that says nothing, but is harsh, but while I agree that taking out dictators in the Mid-East is not the best policy, the alternatives you are suggesting are far worse than the ramifications that Trump has initiated with the strike. And declaring war has far greater consequences than the domestic concerns with his base back home.

  5. I only hope that this attack by President Trump will be akin to the attack on Libya that President Reagan ordered in 1986, ostensibly for a West Berlin night club attack which killed three people and injured hundreds. Reagan did not ask Congress for a declaration of war and only declared an article of the UN charter for defense of the attack. Although Reagan said he would attack again, nothing further occurred as Gaddafi appeared to get the message and Reagan did not seek regime change. Upon those two things however is the rub. Will Assad abstain from using chemical weapons? Will US intelligence correctly assign blame should chemicals be used again? Certainly his enemies would use them and blame Assad while hoping for more American involvement. And our own intelligence agencies have proven untrustworthy where facts on the ground are concerned. Will President Trump abstain from temptations of regime change? One can only hope he resists the arguments of the so-called neoconservatives. Which begs the question, where would we be if Clinton had won the election?

    I believe the drums of war heading to regime change would be much louder if she had won as she is a Democratic hawk who will use even dubious moral justifications for war as she backed, even encouraged, her husband to attack Serbia, and backed Bush concerning Iraq; “liberals” such as Clinton like regime change as revolution appeals to them particularly in the name of “liberation.” And unlike with President Trump, the “mainstream” press would either back her all the while pointing out the moral justifications for war, or at the least tip-toe lightly around her.

    Let us hope that the message President Trump gave to Secretary Tillerson for Putin’s ears only was one that will calm the situation, rather than agitate it. But Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’s statement “I believe after today we understand one another better” can be taken in more than one way.

  6. Americans need to give up on this misguided isolationism. Bad things happen in the world, and Americans with any kind of moral compass cannot simply ignore it. It’s telling that this writer completely ignores what instigated Trump’s missile attack, which was Assad’s use of chemical weapons on innocent people. Obama erred horribly in ignoring this repeatedly during his presidency: he did nothing (Hillary as Secretary of State even lauded Assad); Syria’s situation worsened; refugees multiplied; and terrorists started mixing in with those refugees making it to the west; and Syria has largely deteriorated into a mass of dead bodies and rubble.

    Moreover, in citing the American invasion of Iraq, the writer euphemistically considers genocidal despotism “the legal government.” Men with more guns do not constitute a legitimate authority even if it provide a modicum of apparent stability. Therefore, it is in America’s interest to remove these types and replace them with a working democracy if that is possible, which in most cases, it is not. Consequently, the best option with dictators is usually checking their atrocities with retaliatory attacks: Assad may not care about human life, but he might care about his air bases.

    Finally, blaming American intervention in the Middle East for the proliferation of terrorist groups is unfair and inaccurate. Terrorist activity happened long before the Iraqi invasion, and it has grown significantly despite America trying to withdraw from the region. The best way to combat this is not to give terrorists and their backers more hiding places, but to expose them and remove them in an effort to promote stability. This is why Trump is right to curb Assad while eliminating ISIS. Russia can grumble all it likes, but Putin will not launch a war merely to defend Assad’s use of chemical weapons.

Please leave a thoughtful, civil, and constructive comment: