A Restrained Attack in Syria That Leaves Everything As It Was
Published in El Mundo
(Spain) on 15 April 2018
by Editorial (link to original)
(Spain) on 15 April 2018
by Editorial (link to original)
Translated from
by Matthew Gittings.
Edited by Elizabeth Cosgriff.
The United States, supported this time by France and the U.K., launched its anticipated military strike against the Assad regime yesterday in a retaliatory operation that was much more restrained than what the incendiary tweets of Donald Trump had been threatening. The Western powers couldn’t let the latest chemical weapon attack on Douma, which, according to various nongovernmental organizations on the ground, has killed hundreds, go unpunished. At the same time, however, the sequence of events confirms that Washington and its allies have opted for the maximum self-restraint and have been careful not to cause any further damage to the already cracked relations with Russia, the great advocate of Assad.
Any military intervention not endorsed by the United Nations provokes understandable controversy. That is why this operation was carried out with proportionality, limited to only destroying military infrastructures in which the Syrian regime apparently made and stored chemical weapons. Furthermore, the extremely precise strike, which had just three confirmed casualties, was seen as a necessary warning to Assad that the international community is not going to sit idly by as he persists in monstrously violating the Geneva Protocol that prohibits the development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons.
But, beyond that, this international attack will have no geostrategic effect. It should be considered more a display of strength than a real military operation, as everything has been measured to minimize the risks of a reprisal from Moscow. Since the White House announced its punishment, more than enough time was given to the Syrian, Russian and Iranian troops on the ground to change positions, and most disconcertingly, so that Damascus could protect its arsenal. Furthermore, what happened yesterday doesn’t change the bellicose dynamic in Syria in the slightest. Neither does it disrupt the great advance of Assad’s regime in a civil war that has cost the lives of 350,000 people over seven years and produced the greatest human exodus since the end of World War II.
Yesterday’s offensive was legitimate. Yet it does not hide the lack of any Western strategy for Syria. Carl von Clausewitz once said that war is the mere continuation of politics through other means, but in the case of the Trump administration, sadly, there is no policy for the Middle East. In fact, their inaction has been exploited by Vladimir Putin, who has wasted no time in occupying the power vacuum, establishing himself as much more than a mediator in the war in the process. The West has surrendered itself to the cynicism of realpolitik, and for months has preferred to turn a blind eye and look the other way, accepting Assad as a lesser evil, as part of the solution, instead of what he really is, part of the problem.
Any military intervention not endorsed by the United Nations provokes understandable controversy. That is why this operation was carried out with proportionality, limited to only destroying military infrastructures in which the Syrian regime apparently made and stored chemical weapons. Furthermore, the extremely precise strike, which had just three confirmed casualties, was seen as a necessary warning to Assad that the international community is not going to sit idly by as he persists in monstrously violating the Geneva Protocol that prohibits the development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons.
But, beyond that, this international attack will have no geostrategic effect. It should be considered more a display of strength than a real military operation, as everything has been measured to minimize the risks of a reprisal from Moscow. Since the White House announced its punishment, more than enough time was given to the Syrian, Russian and Iranian troops on the ground to change positions, and most disconcertingly, so that Damascus could protect its arsenal. Furthermore, what happened yesterday doesn’t change the bellicose dynamic in Syria in the slightest. Neither does it disrupt the great advance of Assad’s regime in a civil war that has cost the lives of 350,000 people over seven years and produced the greatest human exodus since the end of World War II.
Yesterday’s offensive was legitimate. Yet it does not hide the lack of any Western strategy for Syria. Carl von Clausewitz once said that war is the mere continuation of politics through other means, but in the case of the Trump administration, sadly, there is no policy for the Middle East. In fact, their inaction has been exploited by Vladimir Putin, who has wasted no time in occupying the power vacuum, establishing himself as much more than a mediator in the war in the process. The West has surrendered itself to the cynicism of realpolitik, and for months has preferred to turn a blind eye and look the other way, accepting Assad as a lesser evil, as part of the solution, instead of what he really is, part of the problem.
Previous article![]( "The United States and the Continuity of Cuba")
Next article![]( "The Attack in Syria Was a Demonstrative Action; The Risk Is of an Accident, an Unforeseen Event")
