25

What were the motives stated for for the US attacking Syria or incentives to do that?

It doesn't seem like there was any immediate threat from Syria to the US. (After all, they neither have ICBM's nor a blue water navy to be able to attack the US.) The targets of the Syrian attack were not US citizens. Is the only reason to proactively protect rebels from future attacks?

Community
  • 1
Registered User
  • 1,897
  • 2
  • 18
  • 27
  • 18
    You can never know what the motives *were*. You can't read minds. You can ask what the motives were stated to be; you can ask what the incentives are. But not what the motives in someone's head were. – user4012 Apr 10 '17 at 15:17
  • 1
    They claim it was to prevent future chemical attacks. But that is unlikely given that they first need to establish that the Syrian regime was indeed responsible. Trump's approval ratings are seriously hurting right now, and his pro-Russia stance clearly isn't doing him much good at home. Lots of influential people have economical and geopolitical interests to see regime change in Syria, Libya style. The question is, will Trump comply or not. – dan-klasson Apr 10 '17 at 15:26
  • 1
    @user4012 I asked about possible incentives. The question has been edited to say motives – Registered User Apr 10 '17 at 15:27
  • 2
    @RegisteredUser - fixed – user4012 Apr 10 '17 at 15:51
  • 2
    According to the official mouthpiece of the Trump administration(spicer) the intent was to destabilize the situation is Syria https://www.facebook.com/DollarVigilante/videos/1560488020630289 – SoylentGray Apr 10 '17 at 20:32
  • Unlike intent, which is ponderable, motivation is imponderable. E.g. the commander-in-chief of the US military intended to destroy a Syrian airbase; the commander-in-chief of the US military was motivated by... (xyz). – MmmHmm Apr 10 '17 at 23:20
  • 4
    You should read this https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328#efmADQAFfASJAT7 – mou Apr 11 '17 at 08:09
  • @SoylentGray Yeah that was a total Freudian slip. Which is probably the only way you can get Spicer to tell the truth, about anything. – dan-klasson Apr 11 '17 at 18:10
  • @SoylentGray Do you think the date on the header of the document is a little bit odd? It makes it look like a fake. Date: 2001-01-01 03:00 Subject: NEW IRAN AND SYRIA 2.DOC – user1602 Apr 11 '17 at 20:56
  • @user1602 - WTF are you talking about what doc? are you talking about the link that mou posted? I have no idea nor do i care about that – SoylentGray Apr 11 '17 at 21:59
  • @SoylentGray Is there a transcript of that press conference? For those of us who can't easily watch videos or dislike it. A date would be helpful too. – J Doe Apr 11 '17 at 23:42
  • 1
    @JDoe 10th of April 2017. "The goal for the United States is twofold, It’s, one, to make sure we destabilize Syria". But you really need to see the video. – dan-klasson Apr 12 '17 at 12:25
  • 1
    https://twitter.com/Lance_Bradley/status/851864862426890240 – SoylentGray Apr 12 '17 at 15:08

5 Answers5

29

Part of the reason is purely domestic political (which, of course, a lot of foreign policy reasons boil down to, in many countries).

In case of Trump and Assad, there were actually several independent domestic factors:

  1. President Trump's base is the same people who criticized President Obama over setting 'red line' for Assad over use of chemical weapons and not doing anything when he did use them (because they happen to think that gassing people with poison is Not a Good Thing, even if the gassed people are Muslims in Syria).

    As such, Trump - contrary to his own non-interventionist stance - was forced to act decisively lest he lose the support of his base as "just a next Obama who lets Assad gas his people with impunity".

  2. OTOH, if he acted weak on Assad, he would give basis to the Democrats and left wing to attack him as "Russia's lapdog", since that would play right into left wing narrative of him being Russia's Manchurian candidate.

    As such, he was forced to act decisively to maintain appearance that he isn't just dancing to Putin's tune.

    Yes, the deep irony of Obama and Trump role reversal on both these points isn't lost on me :)

  3. There could be an argument made that Trump is also angling for general approval bump in a "rally around the flag" manner.

    We don't have good polling to see if that worked, yet, but FiveThirtyEight prediction is that it may not have a huge or permanent effect.

The polling so far clearly support conclusion #1 and probably #3, but isn't clear on whether #2 worked in Trump's favor at all (supporting 538's #3)

A HuffPost/YouGov survey finds 51 percent of Americans support the president's decision to order the airstrikes in retaliation for a chemical attack last week that killed civilians in northern Syrian.
Thirty-two percent of Americans are opposed to the strikes and 17 percent are uncertain.
Among Trump voters, 83 percent support the president's decision, while just 11 percent oppose it.

Bradley Wilson
  • 5,978
  • 5
  • 30
  • 75
user4012
  • 92,336
  • 19
  • 225
  • 386
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – Philipp Apr 11 '17 at 18:45
  • 2
    Do you have any citations, particularly for the claim that right-wingers expected Trump to respond to gassing? Trump had already staked out a position on that very topic in 2013, so why wouldn't his supporters tolerate him remaining consistent with his 2013 position. Similarly, there's nothing provided to support the second point when the opposite could also easily be true (since Democrats have already staked out both positions, the Obama faction being anti-punishment and the Clinton faction being pro-punishment). – J Doe Apr 11 '17 at 20:39
  • It was never proven Assad gassed its people, even though many newspapers claim that somehow. – Suriya Apr 21 '17 at 06:19
  • For anyone interested in who did what in Ghoutha, here is some brain candy – Suriya Apr 21 '17 at 12:03
  • 2
    You should remove the biased statement "go figure, right wingers are empathetic humans too". – newenglander May 08 '17 at 12:56
  • @newenglander - the fact that you regard the stated assertion as "biased" instead of "true, if sarcastic" says far more about your own biases than this post's – user4012 May 08 '17 at 14:14
15

Because people are squeamish about chemical weapons. Remember, President Obama (not a hawkish president by any stretch) said this

We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation

Now, it turns out it was an empty threat, but it's noteworthy that he felt that he needed to do this over chemical weapons. As has been noted, this doesn't affect the ability of Assad to kill people with other means

Look, I get why — morally, strategically, and legally — chemical weapons are different than conventional ones. But if my entire family and village were wiped out with bullets and bombs rather than chemical weapons, I wouldn’t draw much solace from any of these distinctions.

As to what we got out of it? Public Relations

The difference, as Trump admirably admitted from the Rose Garden, is that he’s president now and that changes your perspective on things. It’s always easy to throw brick-bats when you have no responsibility. Now he’s looking at the prospect of being the president who, in effect, sanctioned the use of chemical weapons, a violation of international law. As he put it in his statement Thursday night:

It is in this vital national-security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons. 

<p>There can be no dispute that Syria used banned chemical weapons, violated its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and ignored the urging of the U.N. Security Council.</p>

That is a sound argument. But it was just as sound in 2013 [when Trump decried action in Syria]. Trump’s real motivation seems to be the fact that babies were “choked out” and that he saw it on TV. And it is this apparent fact that should give everyone — supporters and critics alike — the most cause for concern.

Ultimately this was an easy win. Trump got

  1. Bipartisan support (many Democrats praised the effort, which was an easy win for them too)
  2. No larger military commitments
  3. Avoided any serious entanglements with Russia (whom we warned about the strike)
  4. Didn't really do any serious damage
  5. "Sent a message" about chemical weapons
Machavity
  • 48,310
  • 11
  • 131
  • 209
  • 5
    Not Hawkish? Lots of people in Libya and Syria are really disagreeing with that right now. And that red line stance led to the complete destruction of the Syrian regime's chemical weapons stockpile. – dan-klasson Apr 10 '17 at 15:20
  • 5
    @dan-klasson So... are you claiming the Syrians rebels were lying about the recent chemical weapons attacks? And complete destruction of the chemical weapons stockpile is untrue. It's well known that Assad kept some of his stockpile. – Machavity Apr 10 '17 at 15:39
  • I object to the way you wrote "squeamish" about chemical weapons. If Nations fought war with chemical weapons - which they could. The technology isn't all that hard, then wars would be a whole lot more horrible. There is international support against chemical weapons, treaties signed by most of the nations in the world including Syria. Even if they are used rarely it stands out and draws outrage. Maybe edit your post from squeamish to "International outrage", cause that's probably more accurate. My GF's period makes me squeamish. chemical weapons are horrific. Not the right word – userLTK Apr 10 '17 at 16:31
  • @userLTK You missed my broader point. Killing people with chemical weapons leads to outrage, air strikes, sanctions, etc. Killing people with anything else leads to... a lot less. Either way, people are dead. Hence squeamish. The methods shouldn't matter. Put a different way, there's an estimated 500k dead in Syria and maybe 10k of that number died in chemical weapons attacks. – Machavity Apr 10 '17 at 16:36
  • @Machavity Believe me, I understand the "tens of thousands dead by Russian jets in the last 12 months" and . . . nothing, but 88 dead by chemical attack and missiles. I get the "why this not that?". But I find the word squeamish a bit too off the mark. There's good reasons why so many nations (Syria included) agreed to stop using chemical weapons. And "either way people are dead", women and children in bunkers are more likely to die by chemical attack. There are lasting physical effects that can last an entire lifetime for survivors. It's really not an "either way" situation. – userLTK Apr 10 '17 at 16:52
  • 3
    I'd say it's entirely possible that the entire stockpile was destroyed, but since there was no verification mechanism for the PROGRAM, and since they are closely aligned and supported by Russia who has ample access to both the munitions, themselves, and program technology, getting more was not that daunting of an obstacle. The point that the "red line" was breached, and "nothing happened" is complete nonsense, though. Assad turned over stockpiles of weapons from a program he never admitted existed before, because of the threat of NATO military action. – PoloHoleSet Apr 10 '17 at 17:08
  • 1
  • Killed 6 people.
    • – Anixx Apr 11 '17 at 12:39
  • 2
    @Machavity a lot of people are claiming the rebels are lying about the recent attacks. Truth is the first victim in war. We know the UN determined the rebels were actually responsible for the 2013 attack. We know the Idlib area where the attack occurred is controlled by the rebels to the extent that they could easily control the reports coming out of the area. We know some of the rebel groups have their own sarin gas. It also makes no sense for Assad to use chemical weapons when he's winning the war and it would turn the US against him, but it makes a lot of sense for the rebels to frame him. – J Doe Apr 11 '17 at 21:00
  • We also know that prior to this attack the US was confident that Syria had given up all their chemical weapons. – J Doe Apr 11 '17 at 21:18
  • @Anixx I read it was 9 people, including 4 children. – dan-klasson Apr 12 '17 at 12:29
  • @JDoe Totally agree, although a U.N investigation also put the blame on the Syrian regime in at least 3 attacks in 2013. But the point is still valid. We know for sure rebels have used chemical attacks and are in possession of them. – dan-klasson Apr 12 '17 at 12:32