US missile strikes for the cameras
- By Mitchell Blatt
0 Comment(s)
Print
E-mail China.org.cn, April 11, 2017
|
|
|
Children sit at the door in the Harjelah refugee camp on the outskirts of Damascus, Syria, Sept. 1, 2016. The Syrian civil war is grinding into its sixth year since 2011, with children in the country continuing to bear the brunt of the conflict. (Xinhua/Yang Zhen) |
Donald Trump's launch of 59 Tomahawk missiles at an empty airstrip in Syria is foreign policy staged for the cameras. The strike caused little lasting damage. The next day, Syria was even able to use the same base to launch fighters for attacks on anti-government rebels.
Moreover, it was all in contradiction to Trump's purported world view and the officially stated position of his administration reiterated just a few days before.
Rather than trying to achieve a strategic goal, Trump appears to have pursued a political goal. After the Syrian government was reported to have used chemical weapons in an attack that killed and injured over 100 people, the Trump administration played down calls for American involvement.
The White House press secretary rightly said that there was nothing the U.S. could do to overthrow Bashar Assad. The U.S., via the State Department and UN representative Nikki Haley had, in fact, just recently asserted that the U.S. was not interested in regime change. This all makes sense, because Trump campaigned on a promise not to intervene against the Assad regime, on the grounds that the anti-Assad opposition included ISIS, al-Qaeda affiliates, and far too many other terrorist groups.
However, the elite American media is allergic to the idea of American forces standing still. Trump came under criticism from columnists and reporters in the New York Times, Washington Post, and other bastions of "beltway knowledge." The Times' front-page news analysis implied he didn't care about civilians, and globe-trotting Starbucks correspondent Thomas Friedman was quick enough to demand a ground invasion of Syria.
To be sure, Trump's foreign policy was ripe for criticism, and there's nothing wrong with holding the president accountable. Unfortunately, Trump seems to make many of his decisions based on what the hated press says. Rather than being impervious to criticism, he is strangely manipulated by it.
A day after an initial response of not calling for action, there was a sudden U-turn.
"I will tell you that attack on children yesterday had a big impact on me - a big impact. My attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much. … It crossed a lot of lines for me. … That crosses many, many lines, beyond a red line, many, many lines," Trump said at a press conference.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson announced the U.S. was once again calling for Assad's ouster.
The attack didn't have a big impact on Trump; the media coverage did.
CNN went on the air 37 years ago, bringing the world immediate coverage of wars, natural disasters, and humanitarian crisis. It also had great impact on politicians and policy-makers, too. With the public seeing news as it unfolded, foreign policy leaders began to calculate statements and actions to appeal to the public. Scholars call this the "CNN Effect."
As Harvard professor Steven Livingston wrote in a 1997 paper, the CNN Effect can be a policy accelerant, an impediment to sound policy, and a factor in setting agenda. In particular, "emotional, compelling coverage of atrocities or humanitarian crises reorder foreign policy priorities. Somalia, Bosnia and Haiti are] examples."
Like Bosnia, the Syrian conflict has been burning for years, with a constant American show of concern, but little action. Unlike Bosnia, when Russia was in no position to intervene, Moscow has already taken the lead in intervening - against America's purported interest - in Syria, opening up the worrisome prospect of a great power war.
President Bill Clinton also found that firing missiles at random targets in Afghanistan and pharmaceutical factories in Sudan were easy ways to earn political capital with the voters - being perceived as a strong leader without costing American lives.
Enter Trump. His approval rating is at a record low, he's facing an investigation into his administration's ties to Russia, and his political agenda is failing. Now, images come out of Syria showing burials of women and children on life support following an apparent chemical weapons attack. The press says he doesn't care.
What better way to pretend he's "tough," pretend he is acting "presidential," than to launch a few dozen missiles at empty warehouses in a pinprick manner calculated not to provoke a Syrian or Russian response? The cable news media doesn't know or care to analyze the issue in depth.
Images of explosions are enough to satisfy the public's appetite for "leadership." However, the White House made sure to alert the Russians in advance, because it would be very stupid and politically troublesome to have Russia respond in kind to casualties.
The American people, who don't face many threats in the world, give a lot of political plaudits to presidents who appear willing to use force. There's not enough consideration of the pros and cons, or of whether the force will actually achieve any useful objectives. In this case, Trump may have accomplished his political objective, but he did nothing to end the war or help civilians.
Mitchell Blatt is a columnist with China.org.cn. For more information please visit:
http://www.china.org.cn/opinion/MitchellBlatt.htm
Opinion articles reflect the views of their authors, not necessarily those of China.org.cn.
Go to Forum >>0 Comment(s)