A Goldilocks Strike against Assad has Few Benefits, Many Risks

Achemical weapons attack allegedly carried out by Syrian government forces against the rebel-controlled city of Douma has prompted the Trump administration toconsider military strikes against the Assad regime. The United States will likely follow through with military retaliation givenlast year ’s U.S. missile strike against a Syrian air base following a similarly large chemical weapons attack. Since the last U.S. attack clearly failed to deter Syria from using chemical weapons, the Trump administrationfaces pressure to inflict greater pain on the Assad regime this time around. However, a stronger U.S. military response —or any military action for that matter—carries more risks than rewards.The argument supporting U.S. military action is more or less the same as the argument made in 2017: the United States must punish the Assad regime in order to deter any future use of chemical weapons by the regime. However, Washington seriously overestimates its ability to influence or change Damascus ’s behavior.In theory, deterring the future use of chemical weapons requires the United States to make the costs of using these weapons unacceptably high. Over the course of the civil war, the Syrian government has repeatedly demonstrated the ability to absorb a great deal of military and economic costs. A military strike against Syrian air bases or chemical weapon sites may cause some temporary slowdown in the regime ’s operations but it will neither end the civil war nor prevent t...
Source: Cato-at-liberty - Category: American Health Authors: Source Type: blogs