Five years ago, in late August and early September 2013, the United States almost attacked the Assad regime in Syria over its use of chemical weapons against its own people. The Obama administration claimed Syria crossed a “red line.” The drama that followed this red line five years ago produced plenty of ideas that inform us about intervention, isolationism, indecision, blowback, and decisive action. The initial decision to intervene over the use of chemical weapons was actually something which I supported. Too many isolationists want to argue that America shouldn’t be the world police. Even presidential candidate Donald Trump railed against the quagmire in Syria and, as a private citizen, he tweeted that America should stay out of the mess. But punishing dictators for crimes against humanity is a justified and necessary use of American power.
President Obama, do not attack Syria. There is no upside and tremendous downside. Save your "powder" for another (and more important) day!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 7, 2013
The irony in this decision came when Secretary of State John Kerry didn’t secure United Nations (UN) approval. John Kerry made an entire presidential run in 2004 based around attacking the foundation for the Iraq war. He claimed Bush lied about evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, ignored Saddam Hussein’s use of them against his own people, and argued that America needs the support of the UN. But in 2013, he got in front of cameras to give an impassioned speech about Syrian chemical weapons and the need for military action — many people thought Obama would order the action without UN approval. The same liberals that attacked Bush for not having UN approval suddenly supported Obama and Kerry doing the same thing.
Even then, ordering the strike would have been a brave and respectable move, but Obama and Kerry became part of an increasingly farcical drama. Obama scheduled a speech where he boldly announced his intention to ask Congress for approval. John Kerry was a gaffe machine that approached Susan Rice levels and said the attacks would be “unbelievably small” and wouldn’t happen if Syria handed over its chemical weapons. The Russians stepped right in and brokered a handover. The Assad regime survived — five years later, his government has a dominant position in Syria and he still employs gas attacks on his own people.
On top of the drama that made Obama look toothless and Kerry look ridiculous, the world community and international rights groups condemned America for its use of force and unintended civilian casualties in the efforts to stop terrorist forces in the region, like ISIS. In contrast, the world community largely ignores Assad’s more egregious behavior.
Looking back after five years highlights one of the reasons that many people like President Trump. Thankfully, he wasn’t nearly as large of an isolationist as he seemed to be. I imagine the awesome responsibility of being President impressed upon him the need for at least targeted intervention. In 2017, when it came time to punish Syria for another use of chemical weapons, he simply ordered the attack. He didn’t hold a speech that announced his intention to seek permission from Congress. Like moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, cutting off aid to terroristic Palestinian groups, and punishing Assad, his moves were just as controversial as other potential actions, but the decisiveness with which he ordered them produced better results. At the time of the bombing, I worried that Trump didn’t have a clear long-term strategy — yet the initial strike was still effective.
Most importantly, we should consider that many analysts warned against getting involved with Syria back in 2012 because it would be a quagmire and inspire blowback. The war has raged on for the better part of a decade, it’s now beguiling a second president, the moderate elements have been eliminated, ISIS gained a foothold across Syria and Iraq, and there is a refugee crisis of massive proportions with terrorists using it to infiltrate Europe and America — we really dodged that blowback by not intervening!
Foreign policy is tricky, and it becomes even trickier when politicians often switch sides on an issue based on who is proposing it. Five years after the red line, we can see that making promises you can’t keep is dangerous, that both action and inaction have consequences, and that decisive action in a nebulous policy is still better than halting implementation of strong policies.
