The United States attacked Syria last week, launching dozens of cruise missiles against Syrian targets in retaliation for chemical gas attacks against civilians. While many, including Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, applauded the show of resolve in defense of international law and norms, the resort to force raises fundamental questions about foreign policy in the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump. It is not clear how decisions are made in the U.S. government, nor is there clarity about Washington's strategy regarding use of its formidable military. Without answers to those questions, and especially the latter one, the use of force is likely to cause more problems than it solves.
In the early hours of Friday, 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles struck the Shayrat air base in central Syria. The missiles, fired from two warships in the Mediterranean Sea, targeted the base from which the Damascus government allegedly launched sarin gas attacks against civilians earlier in the week, attacks that killed scores of people, dozens of them children. The strikes were "a proportional response" to "a heinous act," said a Pentagon spokesman, and surgical: nearby facilities reportedly house more chemical weapons and hitting them would create a chemical catastrophe.
The attacks are a turnabout by Trump. Five years ago, Trump warned then U.S. President Barack Obama against getting involved in the Syrian conflict, even after the Syrian government was charged with using chemical weapons against civilians. Trump argued throughout the campaign that the U.S. should not be involved in the Syrian conflict; he insisted that the top U.S. priority should be the fight against Islamic State radicals, a battle in which beleaguered Syrian President Bashar Assad was an ally.