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
CommentarySharper: Day One
The Biden-Harris administration will confront a range of national security challenges from the moment it takes office....
By Chris Estep
CommentaryCould Europe’s INSTEX Help Save the Iran Nuclear Deal?
Supporting INSTEX would illustrate not only that “America is back,” but that the Biden administration is taking humanitarian concerns seriously without sacrificing security in...
By Francis Shin
2020 featured an ever-evolving series of national security challenges....
By Sam Dorshimer, Nathalie Grogan, Emily Jin, Chris Estep & Cole Stevens
ReportsA New U.S. Strategy for the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Executive Summary Key Proposition Today’s realities demand that the United States change its approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Its current focus is on high-profile...
By Ilan Goldenberg, Michael Koplow & Tamara Cofman Wittes