Trump's policy on Syria is being criticized
for inconsistency and inadequacy. No
doubt. His shifting stance is also far superior to the consistently inadequate (or worse)
policies of the oh-so-more-sophisticated EU leadership. Of course the main motive behind the
criticisms is hatred of Trump. Yet on
what might be thought the most morally significant foreign policy issue, Trump
is clearly streets ahead of Obama. Trump
bombed Assad. Obama left Syrians to
their agonies, calling that decision "courageous",
perhaps because he ran the risk of
people disliking him.
When Obama let his red line slide, he
exhibited an impressive range of moral and political failings. First he welched on the most important
commitment of his administration. Then
he lacked the courage simply to reverse his stance: instead, he handed the decision to a Congress
which he knew would reverse it for him.
Then he had the gall to represent his cowardly decision as bravery and
sagacity, when in fact it was based on timidity and a parochial ignorance of
the Syrian conflict. In other words he
not only made disgusting decisions, but preened himself on their alleged
excellence.
As for Trump, he acts on impulse. He persistently showed, and still shows, a
desire to disengage from Syria. Yet he
behaved like a human being. He was
appalled by the first chemical attack and when all the terribly moral Europeans
confined their reaction to ass-covering, hand-wringing expressions of concern,
Trump acted. He felt the need to counter
an outrage even though it ran contrary to his larger policy objectives. Then he did it again which, inexplicably, is
called a one-off response. (And that
without him, the high-minded Europeans would have done nothing: this isn't even open to discussion.) He may be inconsistent, but it is an
inconsistency born of decency, leading to a reaction morally superior to the
rest of the world's leaders', on a matter of the highest importance.
As for the accusation that his reaction is
inadequate, well, of course it is. What
would an adequate reaction be? If
adequacy means stopping Assad's atrocities, it would require military intervention
on a scale that, given the Russian presence, might lead to a major war, with
some risk of a nuclear holocaust. Even
a slight danger of such an outcome means that an adequate response is out of
the question. But to suppose that one
or two attacks have no value is wrong-headed. In the first place, the weight of these attacks should not be
underestimated: they pose the
possibility (now almost the reality) of escalating responses if they don't have
their desired effect. In the second
place, the attacks establish that violation of norms about chemical warfare
against civilians can trigger a military response, even when that response runs
counter to the foreign policy objectives of an outraged party. This, arguably, sets a valuable precedent.
In short, Trump showed more decency than
Obama, and his very inconsistency makes his reaction all the more
worthwhile. He may be the worst
president ever in policy terms, but his humanity contrasts vividly with the
timid cruelty his idolized predecessor.
Bombing Assad doesn't play to his electorate or indulge his prejudices
or further his objectives. It transcends those prejudices, sidelines those
objectives and honours an obligation to help even Arabs, human beings in
distress. That's more than all his cold-fish detractors and their mentors have to
show for themselves.
It's not complicated. Either you leave innocents to die in agony,
or you don't. Left to its own devices,
the rest of the world has shown the firmest, most consistent commitment to the
latter course of action. Trump chose
the former. That England and France
have, as always, done whatever the Americans want them to do hardly redounds to
their credit.
