DoD
Connecticut U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy came out this past weekend against the Trump administration’s bombing in Syria, on both legal and strategic crowds. Here’s how he laid out his case in an email to supporters:
I’m sure you felt the same sense of fury I did when images appeared of the horror resulting from another chemical weapons attack on the Syrian people, perpetrated by Bashar al-Assad. This attack is another in a long line of war crimes by the Assad regime, backed by their Russian and Iranian patrons.
The question on my mind is not whether or not these kind of attacks are unacceptable, but what American policy will most quickly bring an end to the war and Assad to justice.
Last night, President Trump launched what his Administration called a “surgical” air strike against Assad as retribution for the chemical weapons attack. There is no doubt Assad deserves every missile we fire at him, but there’s one big problem with air strikes — there is absolutely no proof it has any deterrent effect on Assad. To the contrary, history tells us these strikes will most likely quicken the pace of his assault on his own people.
I recommend that President Trump read up on early days of the Vietnam War, when U.S. leaders were sure that air strikes would cause the North Vietnamese to end their assault on the South and come to the negotiating table. Instead, the bombing campaign caused the North Koreans to ramp up the pace of the war. That is what is likely to happen in Syria – a bloodier, more brutal war as a result of continued U.S. half measures.
So far, the U.S. involvement in Syria has done nothing to shorten the war. In fact, it has lengthened it and increased the associated suffering of the Syrian people.
Here’s the problem — under both Obama and Trump, American military forces and assistance have provided just enough support to anti-Assad forces to keep the resistance going, but never enough help to actually dislodge Assad from power. This halfway strategy, which under President Trump has included two rounds of very limited impact air strikes, may make the U.S. feel better because we are doing something instead of nothing, but all it really does is prolong the civil war and the suffering of the Syrian people.
Thomas Breen Photo
Chris Murphy.
We need reconcile that now is the time for the U.S. to complete our mission against ISIS inside Syria, then pull back our military effort and focus on participating in a diplomatic process by which this war can be brought to a conclusion. Diplomacy, unfortunately, has been a foreign concept to this President, and he effectively ended the U.S. participation in the diplomatic process to end the war. President Trump has outsourced this effort to the Russians, Iranians and Turks, and they have eagerly accepted the job with the U.S. and our interests gone from the negotiating table.
One of the reasons the U.S. does not want to engage robustly in diplomacy is because the result is likely to be unsavory. Assad, or his successors, will likely remain in control of the majority of the country. But let’s be totally honest — that is the case today, and it will continue to the be the case unless the U.S. decides to invade, which we will not.
Importantly, no strategy can succeed in Syria without a surge in humanitarian and refugee relief. One of the cruelest aspects of this weekend’s bombing campaign is that it continues a U.S. policy under President Trump to bomb foreign nations, helping to create humanitarian nightmares, while locking people inside by refusing to allow refugees to come to the United States. Trump’s antipathy for humanitarian assistance hurts the most in Syria.
America has accepted a grand total of 11 Syrian refugees this year. That is unconscionable, and if President Trump really cares about the suffering of the Syrian people, he wouldn’t bomb them – he would rescue them, with a robust refugee program and massive humanitarian relief.
Finally, and probably most importantly, President Trump’s strikes are not legal. He does not have congressional permission to take military action against Syria as is required by the Constitution. The precedent that Trump has set by taking out another large-scale strike without prior public debate should scare every Member of Congress and every American. What restrains Trump from launching an attack on North Korea without getting Congressional authorization if he gets away with this attack in Syria?
American foreign policy needs to be driven by what will get results and what is legal, not by what satisfies our primal instincts of revenge. Last night’s strike is constitutionally illegal and also strategically counterproductive, and I oppose it.
Thank you for reading,
Chris Murphy
U.S. Senator, Connecticut
So, does Murphy want to dislodge Assad from power? Is Libya better off after we dislodged Qaddafi from power? Was Egypt made a better place by Mubaruk's removal? Is the Ukraine more peaceful after we pushed for the removal of its democratically elected President? Did the actual removal of Hussain in Iraq help average Iraqis?
I am glad to see Murphy questioning Obama's Syrian policy, but I don't recall him calling Obama's intervention illegal at the time. Moreover, this statement is internally contradictory. On one hand, Murphy criticizes Trump's strikes for being too limited. On the other hand, he falsely accuses Trump of exacerbating a humanitarian problem with these strikes. In fact, the strikes were extremely limited, striking no housing and causing, according to Syria, three injuries (of unknown severity) and no deaths.