111

Background Context

  • U.S. and Syrian Governments (2013)

    • Tension between the U.S. government and the Syrian government at its peak.

    • President Obama considered options for intervention for humanitarian reasons, specifically against President Bashar al-Assad.

  • Comparison to Libya (2011)

    • In 2011, the Obama administration intervened in Libya to prevent massacres by Muammar Gaddafi.

    • The argument for intervention against Gaddafi was largely speculative; lacking historical precedent of mass atrocities.

    • Conversely, by 2013, there was historical precedent in Syria, as the Syrian armed forces had previously committed serious atrocities under Hafiz al-Assad in 1982.

Syrian Civil War

  • Repression in 2013

    • Under Bashar al-Assad, repression was on a larger scale than in 1982.

    • Armed resistance from Syrian fighters was the key impediment preventing further massacres.

  • Battle Lines (2015)

    • The opposition was consolidated primarily in the North with visible strength represented in red on maps of rebel-controlled areas.

U.S. Intervention Decisions

  • Factors Against Intervention

    • Lack of UN Security Council authorization due to Russian support for Assad.

    • Absence of consensus among Arab states regarding intervention.

    • Lack of interest from NATO members in the direct military involvement in Syria.

  • Historical Precedents of U.S. Action Without Consensus

    • U.S. Presidents have previously launched military operations without UN support, highlighting the complexities of military intervention decisions.

  • Cost and Risks of Action

    • Key considerations include:

    • Can the target country retaliate?

    • Will the intervention lead to U.S. casualties or backlash?

  • Humanitarian Rationale vs. Military Considerations

    • The humanitarian considerations didn’t outweigh the strategic risks of acting against Assad.

    • Covert support to anti-Assad rebels was acknowledged but striking Assad was deemed highly controversial and risky.

Obama’s Chemical Weapons Policy

  • Red Line on Chemical Weapons (2012)

    • Obama made statements regarding the use of chemical weapons, establishing a red line.

    • This red line fixation led to framing the issue around chemical use rather than broader atrocities.

  • International Law and Chemical Weapons

    • Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) implemented in 1997 with voluntary signatories, where Syria only joined in 2013.

    • Violations of CWC by member states don’t give other nations the right to unilaterally enforce harsh punitive measures.

  • Chemical Weapons Focus

    • The focus on chemical weapons was possibly a way to set a standard on warfare methods rather than a body count comparison on casualties.

Trump’s Presidency and Policy Changes

  • Initial Actions and Responses

    • In April 2017, Assad’s airstrikes with sarin gas gained major international attention, killing at least 90 people in Khan Sheikhoun.

  • Trump’s Reaction

    • Trump criticized Obama for perceived inaction on the Syrian crisis and the failure to respond decisively in 2013.

    • Emphasized that Assad’s use of chemical warfare crossed many lines, generating a strong emotional response from him.

  • Military Action Initiated

    • Following the Khan Sheikhoun attack, Trump ordered a strike involving 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles on a Syrian airbase, marking a significant U.S. military response.

    • This strike was substantially media-focused but had limited actual military impact, leading to a return to conventional weapons usage rather than chemical attacks.

  • Media Reaction

    • U.S. media coverage was dramatically supportive of Trump post-attack, praising his decisive military response compared to Obama’s perceived indecision.

Continued Strikes and Reactions

  • Subsequent Attacks

    • In April 2018, another chemical attack occurred resulting in nearly 50 deaths, followed by another round of U.S.-led strikes involving the UK and France targeting alleged chemical weapons sites.

  • Strategic Implications

    • The strikes achieved significant media attention but did not lead to sustained changes in U.S. policy or military strategy, with no ongoing efforts toward regime change against Assad.

Policy Continuity Across Administrations

  • Change in Focus

    • The U.S. stance under both Obama and Trump reflected a severe reluctance to engage in prolonged conflict or push for regime change in Syria despite ongoing atrocities.

  • Biden Administration

    • Incoming President Biden maintained a continuation of the prior administrations' stances toward Syria, focusing on humanitarian aid rather than military engagement.

    • Sec. of State Antony Blinken noted limited opposition to normalization efforts by Arab states with Assad, indicating continued U.S. discomfort but lack of urgency to change Assad's status while endorsing humanitarian and anti-ISIS efforts.

  • Conclusion on U.S. Strategy

    • The U.S. often observed the Syrian conflict as it unfolded rather than actively shaping it, indicating a substantial retreat from interventionist policies over the span of multiple administrations, culminating with Assad remaining integrated into regional politics, largely independent of U.S. influence.

    • The realization of regime change in Syria was primarily driven by indigenous action rather than U.S. involvement, questioning the efficacy of the U.S. military interventions across the conflict’s timeline.