Lt Gen Syed Ata Hasnain
A single decision leading to a major offensive military action can have serious implications especially when it involves a super power and a former one in an already tenuous environment. There can be an escalatory effect and the implications can be felt well outside the military domain. That is how the US Tomahawk (Cruise Missile) strike against Syria has to be viewed.
President Trump, off late under increasing pressure of falling approval ratings and criticism from his own Republican Party took a decisive step to launch 59 Tomahawk Cruise Missiles against the Syrian airfield Al Shayrat from where purportedly the Syrian government forces of President Bashir Assad launched aerial chemical attacks on civilians leading to 80 unfortunate civilian deaths, including children. Bashir Assad’s alleged target was the province of Idlib where a number of displaced people from rebel held areas are herded; a loose rebel and Qaida control exists in the area where almost 3.5 million people still live. The Post Strike Damage Assessment (PSDA) is not yet complete but that is for the physical damage caused to the infrastructure of the airfield. The more important part is the damage effect on the situation and the highly sensitive strategic environment of Syria especially with presence of Russian military forces in the area and the multiple interest groups.
Trump’s decision reversed quite decisively his predecessor Barack Obama’s policy of non-intervention in the Syrian conflict. Personally for him, it met immediate approval from some of his detractors such as Senator John McCain. However, none of the events explains the rationale and logic employed by either side.
First, the Syrian rationale. Bashir Assad has employed chemical weapons in the past but the attempts in 2014-15 which drew little international response probably emboldened him. Then, the ISIS (Daesh) was at its height and engagement against it was perhaps more prudent than getting after Assad, the Russians had just deployed in Syria, their role was yet being ascertained while Barak Obama was nearing the end of his Presidency. The first question should be the very need for Assad to take the extreme step of employing chemical weapons at this stage, at a time when things seemed to be going his way. He had definitely not won the war but the military situation was in the favor of the Russian-Syrian-Iranian axis. In the US there were indicators that President Trump was willing to allow the re-legitimization of the Assad regime and diplomatic efforts were afoot towards this. Billions of US dollars aid was being discussed in Brussels without insisting on any political transition. The refugee crisis in Europe was in mind while seeking ways of restoring some order in Syria. So why the strategic hara-kiri by Assad and surely he was aware of these steps afoot. Assad has denied the involvement of his forces in the chemical attacks so who then was responsible. Complete lack of clarity exists on that with no evidence at all to point fingers at Iran or Russia both being partners of Assad. The finger was also being pointed towards rogue elements of the Syrian Army who are out of sync with the larger diplomatic process underway.
On the US side, what has been achieved with the decision to launch 59 Tomahawk missiles? From a military angle it has hardly had any tactical effect; wasn’t aimed at chemical weapon storage facilities for obvious reasons; the choice of the airfield from where the strikes were launched was perhaps with a focused but symbolic intent. The aim in such circumstances when one off military actions is launched is invariably politico-strategic. It is not regime change, nor diluting Assad’s military capability. It is more about a message to Assad that in spite of Russian presence the US retains the capability and will to launch military strikes in an area of its interest. A follow up action is unlikely which signifies that the objective here is the message regarding use of chemical weapons. The intent is to put an end to it. It is equally a strategic messaging to Russia that the Trump Administration has the will to robustly defend its interests even as the risk of escalation. Trump’s personal image will take an upswing and that of his advisers. In fact they have been wise in their advice. The military action was not one which could spiral a situation out of control and escalation was least expected. However, here was a situation which could fetch tremendous dividend in terms of restoration of US confidence after a period of some uncertainty and self-doubt. Trump was well advised that retrieval of US military prestige, particularly in the eyes of its allies, could be done with little risk and the same would contribute to his personal image of a decisive Chief Executive, both for the external and the internal constituency. However, that will be if the objectives remain just there and no ‘vague maximalism’ (term courtesy Foreign Affairs magazine) without clarity enters the matrix of options which most certainly would be drawn up.
An effect which is likely to be immediate is the stoppage of the process of re-legitimization of Bashir Assad something which would have had a decisive effect on the Syrian crisis. It is regime change once again that the US and its allies are going to seek after a brief hiatus. The cease fire is going to be a major problem here onwards. Russia seems to have painted itself into a corner with accusations of being complicit in the chemical weapon attacks. Its intended deployment of a robust anti-aircraft defence to defend the Syrian airspace is not the answer in these circumstances. It should be seeking ways of how to respond diplomatically. The event also puts Iran under pressure in the face of an emboldening US where the new Administration has already threatened the scrapping of the Jul 15 2015 Nuclear Deal.
The ones with the last laugh will quite obviously be ISIS (Daesh) who suddenly appear like they were the ‘good guys’. Anything to divert attention is good for Daesh. In a three way conflict in the Levant weakening of one of the other two has a commensurate effect on the fortunes of the third. Hopefully the battles underway to vanquish and displace Daesh will not witness any change in the focus and weight of attention and resources.
(The writer is a former GOC of India’s Srinagar based 15 Corps)
feedbackexcelsior@gmail.com
Follow our WhatsApp channel