Eric C’s Response to Michael C
Michael C and I are twins. Thus, the one thing I hate most is saying that Michael C is right and I’m wrong. And yet...
Michael C is right, and I’m partially wrong. (Thus, this isn’t really a rebuttal to Michael C’s post last week.)
Friday morning after America launched missiles at a Syrian air base, I was pretty upset, so I wrote up my post from last week, and I still stand by my initial emotional reaction. But Michael C, at the time and since, kept saying I was over-reacting. A few days later, I’m less shocked but still angry, especially since the airstrikes seem entirely pointless:
- The air base that launched the chemical attacks is still operational.
- The Trump administration waffled on what the next steps would be, with multiple figures in the administration contradicting each other.
- This does nothing to help civilians in Syria, including children, Trump’s stated reason for the attack, and Syria has already re-attacked the same neighborhood.
- And Trump still wants to ban Syrian refugees (again, including children) from the U.S.
In short, we achieved nothing, except we killed a reported four to fifteen Syrian soldiers.
It was predictably unpredictable, as I wrote in my first post and as we’ve written about Trump since the inauguration. The guys over at Vox released an awesome podcast the day after the attacks, where Ezra Klein made the excellent comparison to the financial crisis, describing how rational actors operating under wrong assumptions can lead to disaster. Since both our allies and enemies can’t feel certain of how America will respond to a crisis, the chances of a disaster increases. Trump is making the entire international system incredibly uncertain. (Which must frustrate the hell out of realists, since so much of their underlying system relies on rational actors.)
The raison d’etre for our non-interventionist approach to foreign policy is the unpredictability of war, the chances that conflicts spiral out of control. Who knows what consequences Trump’s actions could have? Who can confidently predict it? That’s the source of my unease. I never would have predicted Trump would have taken these actions. Who knows what Putin, Assad or Rouhani may do in response? Which is exactly why we opposed getting involved in Syria in the first place three years ago.
We have a ton of other thoughts on Trump’s airstrikes on Syria, especially on how the media and politicians reacted to it (If we treat it as a mini-test run of how the media will react when the country goes to war, we failed.) My initial lesson is one we’ve stated again and again on the blog: don’t chase the headlines, and wait for more information to come out. A few days later, this is my main takeaway.
Still, I reserve the right to be outraged. Just because we thought President Trump would do stupid things that would get people killed doesn’t mean we can’t be angry when he does stupid things that get people killed.
Michael C’s Rebuttal
Re-reading my post on Syria from last week, I need to make one thing clear: I don’t support this style of foreign policy.
Trump’s style is unpredictable at best and incoherent at worst. His foreign policy/national security staff is either being filled slowly (at best) or deliberately left mostly empty (at worst). His fawning for the military to solve all problems is either extreme nationalism (at best) or fascistic (at worst). Therefore, we get situations where President Trump uses military strikes to allegedly help babies when President Bashar al-Assad has repeatedly targeted civilians (and babies) in this civil war, also a violation of international norms. (And we refuse to let Syrian refugees into our country.)
Trump should have gone to Congress to get approval for a Syria policy. Trump should have a clear strategy. Trump should staff up the National Security Council, the State Department and the Pentagon so he can craft a foreign policy. That would make decisions like this easier. Not easy, but at least easier.
So I don’t support Trump in this attack and think his recklessness will continue, which is why this attack never surprised me.