TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
EDITORIAL: Give diplomacy a chance
At best, the missile attack will not change anything in Syria. At worst, it will further complicate the situation in the Middle East.
Change Size
In this image provided by the U.S. Navy, the guided-missile destroyer USS Porter (DDG 78) launches a tomahawk land attack missile in the Mediterranean Sea, Friday, April 7, 2017. The United States blasted a Syrian air base with a barrage of cruise missiles in fiery retaliation for this week's gruesome chemical weapons attack against civilians. (AP/U.S. Navy)
W
ar is the continuation of politics by other means, Clausewitz once said. But that much-quoted aphorism certainly failed to predict United States President Donald Trump’s decision to launch a military strike to punish the decision of Syria’s President Bashar Assad to gas innocent civilians in Khan Sheikhoun, which killed 87 people, including 31 children. For the US, this may be a war that came out of the blue, which took place only two months after a new president was elected.
There has never been any US diplomacy in the Syrian war. Trump’s predecessor Barack Obama, a realist par excellence, realized the complexity of the situation in Syria and decided to forgo diplomacy, yet was also unwilling to use military options in the conflict.
Despite his animosity toward Obama, Trump initially shared his predecessor’s conviction regarding the Syrian conflict. And by launching an attack on Syria the billionaire president has contradicted his own “America First” position, which certainly disavows an interventionist policy. In fact, in 2013 after Assad used chemical weapons against his own population, Trump said on Twitter that it was foolish for the US to get involved in the conflict.
But just like with many of his tweets, in deciding to attack Syria, Trump likely acted on impulse, and just like any behavior triggered by impulse, its consequences could be dangerous. At best, the missile attack will not change anything in Syria. At worst, it will further complicate the situation in the Middle East.
The New York Times has reported that the US missile strike in fact brought Russian President Vladimir Putin and Assad even closer. Putin has called the attack an act of “aggression,” a statement that was soon followed with the pledge to strengthen Syria’s air defense system. Also, if the attack was to serve as a deterrent for Assad, it has failed to meet its goal. On Sunday, Syrian opposition activists claimed that an airstrike on a northwestern rebel-held town of Urom al-Joz killed at least 18 people, including five children.
The Associated Press has also reported that the US Tomahawk missile strike will not seriously curtail Assad’s power, as it only hit a small installation operated by the Syrian military. Assad continued to gain the upper hand in today’s confrontation as his military continued to have air superiority, backed by a dozen of air bases and a sophisticated air defense system. To beat Assad, the US would likely have to do more than just launch a missile strike.
Having considered all this, the Indonesian government is right when raising concerns about the US missile strike. Behind the rhetoric of promotion of peaceful diplomacy, the Indonesian government is motivated by practical concerns that a new war, one led by the US, will be propaganda used by terrorists to bring in more recruits. Even today, many Indonesians have traveled to Syria to join the fight. The situation could worsen if these terrorists bring the conflict home. With an escalating conflict in Syria, US interests here could be easy targets. So much for “America First.”
