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
PodcastLooking Back At 9/11, Nineteen Years Later
Today, we reflect back on the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, 19 years ago. Nearly 3000 people died when hijacked passenger jets slammed into the World Trade Center and ...
By Ilan Goldenberg
ReportsToward a More Proliferated World?
U.S. policy must adapt unless Washington wants to be faced with a more proliferated world in the future....
By Eric Brewer, Ilan Goldenberg, Joseph Rodgers, Maxwell Simon & Kaleigh Thomas
CommentarySharper: The Future of U.S. Sanctions Policy
Sanctions are increasingly common in U.S. foreign policy and economic statecraft. But they are not a cure-all....
By Kaleigh Thomas, Cole Stevens & Chris Estep
CommentaryEurope Can Preserve the Iran Nuclear Deal Until November
Over the course of the Trump administration, Europe and Iran have managed to avert the collapse of the nuclear deal....
By Ellie Geranmayeh & Elisa Catalano Ewers