“With such a complicated situation in Syria, the inevitable discussion turns to what military options President Donald Trump has going forward…”
The United States launched a cruise missile attack on a Syrian military airfield on Friday in response to a gas attack purportedly initiated by the government of Bashar al-Assad. Almost 60 cruise missiles were launched from two US destroyers in the Mediterranean Sea: the USS Ross and USS Porter. The airfield they struck in Homs province is believed to be where the aircraft that carried out the gas attack last week originated from.
The cruise missile strike is the first direct action carried out by the United States against the al-Assad regime and further complicates an already confusing situation in Syria. US service members are currently on the ground in Syria, advising local forces in their fight against the Islamic State, and US and coalition aircraft have been targeting Islamic State fighters from the air since 2014. Russian military forces have also been on the ground and in the air above Syria since 2015, and the Russian government was quick to condemn the US cruise missile attack.
With such a complicated situation in Syria, the inevitable discussion turns to what military options President Donald Trump has going forward. President Trump will continue to receive recommendations and daily briefings from his national security team, including National Security Advisor General H.R. McMaster and Secretary of Defense James Mattis.
So what are the military options for the US in Syria?
Air Strikes
The United States has already signaled an intention to use this option with Friday’s cruise missile strike. Nevertheless, whether the US will continue with this option or pursue another remains to be seen. If the US decides to continue with air strikes as its campaign plan for a “regime change” in Syria, targets would include air defense locations, command and control infrastructure, chemical weapons facilities, and military forces operating in the field. Although only cruise missiles were used in the operation conducted on Friday, it would be difficult to carry out this type of campaign without the use of fighter planes and bombers. This would present a risk to US pilots flying over Syria due to the sophisticated and complex air defense system that al-Assad’s forces have received, mostly from Russia.
This option has been used effectively in the past. In 1999, NATO carried out an air campaign against Serbia that ultimately forced Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic to withdraw his forces from Kosovo. The complexity of the situation on the ground in Syria, however, could hinder the effectiveness of a strictly air campaign.
Conventional Ground Forces
There are currently a number of US special operations forces on the ground in Syria, including Army Rangers, Green Berets, Navy SEALs, and Marine Raiders. Their primary role remains to advise and assist local forces as they prepare to launch an offensive to retake the city of Raqqa from the Islamic State. Conventional ground forces from the US Army and Marine Corps would add large numbers of troops and might include tanks, armored personal carriers, and heavy artillery. The numbers and firepower they can bring to bear would undoubtedly be effective in defeating Syrian military forces loyal to Bashar al-Assad. A number of questions surround this option, including long-term implications and commitments, and it appears unlikely that the Trump administration would be willing to escalate the conflict to this level.
Creation of Safe Zones and No-Fly Zones
There has been discussion about the creation of safe zones for Syrian refuges on the ground and no-fly zones in the air to protect them from attacks by Syrian aircraft. To create a no-fly zone would require large numbers of coalition aircraft to enforce it, and the Russians would also have to cooperate, as they are currently flying aircraft over Syria daily. Creating safe zones on the ground where refuges could go would be even more difficult to enforce and may require conventional ground forces.
With multiple options available to President Trump militarily, he must rely on his national security staff and their wealth of experience when determining the United States’ best course of action in Syria. With Russia and Iran now saying there will be consequences for the United States if their “Red Lines” are crossed (further US missile strikes), President Trump has a difficult decision in front of him.
Christopher Castellano is an OpsLens Contributor and U.S. Army Veteran. He currently serves as a firefighter in New York City.
To contact or book OpsLens contributors on your program or utilize our staff for your story, contact [email protected].
