Thank goodness: President Donald Trump’s decision to launch limited missile strikes against chemical weapons facilities in Syria was an appropriate use of force—and a relief after a week when it appeared the White House was considering a much bigger attack.
As a former Pentagon and State Department official, and as someone who has long advocated for greater American military involvement in Syria, I believe a significant intervention now would be a huge mistake that would only harm the United States and the Syrian people. Trump should continue to show restraint.
I served in the Obama administration and supported most of his policies, but I always disagreed with his approach to Syria and believed that if the United States had aggressively armed a moderate opposition early on in the conflict, while it still existed, and combined it with missile strikes, a no-fly zone or the establishment of safe zones, we could have overthrown Syrian dictator Bashar Assad and ended the war sooner.
Read the full article at Politico
More from CNAS
PodcastIran Deal Return Increasingly Uncertain
Elisa Catalano Ewers joins The Warcast to discuss the series of strikes exchanged in Iraq and Syria and their diplomatic ramifications. Listen to the full episode from The Wa...
By Elisa Catalano Ewers
CommentaryBiden Can Keep the Two-State Solution Alive
Small details matter a great deal—and they have the potential to become big international headaches....
By Ilan Goldenberg
ReportsA People-First U.S. Assistance Strategy for the Middle East
Executive Summary For the past year, the Middle East Security Program at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) has been developing a strategy for rethinking U.S. polic...
By Ilan Goldenberg, Daphne McCurdy, Kaleigh Thomas & Sydney Scarlata
VideoCan Gaza be rehabilitated without aiding Hamas?
The bombs may have stopped falling on Gaza and the rocket fire from there has ceased for now, but Gazans face a huge task of rebuilding. Ilan Goldenberg, director of the Middl...
By Ilan Goldenberg