Commentary: The use of chemical weapons by any nation is intolerable and must be met with swift and forceful condemnation. Admonishing the Russians and Iranians who may have once again condoned their use in Syria, President Trump stated: “No nation can succeed in the long run by promoting brutal tyrants and murderers dictators.”
All good intentions aside, the fact remains that the multilateral coordinated military action against Bashar al-Assad was wrought with strategic and tactical uncertainty from the onset
For starters, the effect that demolishing these chemical weapons facilities will have on the immediate and long term environment is unknown. What will happen if toxins were dispersed in the strike? What impact did this have on the soil, water, and air? How far and wide will these contaminates spread after the rubble has been removed and the dead have been buried? Speaking of the dead, the Pentagon acknowledged that there is no way to tell with absolute certainty if civilians were killed in the bombing. Even so- called “smart bombs” cause indiscriminate destruction. Until an objective team of investigators such as the White Helmets can make contact with locals on the ground, it is irresponsible to declare that this was a bloodless attack on concrete and steel.
It is also unknown whether Assad can be deterred by violence. This is a man who has been waging an existential war for the past seven years. If the plan was not to deal Assad's regime a decisive blow but simply to wipe out his chemical weapons storage capacity, this strike will not move the dial in Syria. The carnage and chaos will continue unabated. All he understands is the logic of cyclical violence.
That said, it isn't even clear that the Western powers want a Syria without Bashar al-Assad. What will happen if Assad is toppled? How will the collapse of Syria lead to further unrest throughout the region? Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya provide daunting answers.
These strategic uncertainties, I may add, are made more complex by the fact that no one knows what Russia will do next. To launch a military defense would have made them look blameworthy and inept. Instead, Putin quickly seized the opportunity to use the missile strike as propaganda. As a result, Russia can claim that the U.S., UK, and France are aggressors who blatantly violate international norms. Putin can also claim that Trump is merely trying to distract Americans from his domestic problems, and that the U.K. is enacting revenge for an unsolved attempted murder-both unjust reasons for authorizing the deployment of 100+ Tomahawk missiles.
Lastly, the world does not know who ordered the chemical attack in Douma-not with absolute certainty. The Pentagon claims to have “high confidence” that this is so,yet they are hesitant to reveal their evidence. Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov said images of victims of the purported attack were staged with ‘Britain’s direct involvement.” This may be conspiratorial nonsense, but who knows for sure what exactly transpired? It has been reported that the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) was scheduled to conduct an official investigation into the chemical attack on Saturday, which ended up being the day after the airstrike. Where things stand now, the only certainty about Douma is that 40 people were killed and over 500 injured.
All in all, it is hard to see how this attack was not just another haphazard and reactionary attempt by Western governments to futilely intercede in the Syrian Civil War.