"My fellow Americans"
"At 7 o'clock this evening, eastern time,"
"I ordered our forces to launch a cruise missile attack"
"We targeted tanks, military assets that had been choking off towns and cities"
"It is a part of a strategy."
This is the first time President Trump authorized a “limited strike” on Syria.
"Tonight I ordered a targeted, military strike on the airfield in Syria,
from where the chemical attack was launched."
And this, almost exactly a year later, is the second time.
Both in Syria, both in response to chemical attacks.
"Precision strikes on targets associated
with the chemical weapons capabilities
of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad."
A limited strike can really be whatever the President wants it to be, could be an airstrike,
a plane flies over, hits a building, they could use ships and shoot missiles,
again at buildings or other kinds of targets.
It could be simply just dropping a bomb, one big bomb,
on one target like we did in Afghanistan
last year.
If big option is go to war, the small option is do nothing, there's a lot of space in between.
A limited strike is a fairly
good in-between option,
if a President wants to send a message but not commit vast resources.
It’s low-cost, and relatively low-risk to american troops and
limited strikes are also relatively low risk politically: a President can get credit for
taking action, even if that action fails.
Which is likely why the past six U.S. Presidents
have all taken actions that could be defined as limited strikes.
In 1986, Ronald Reagan ordered a one night bombing raid in Libya
“Launched a series of strikes against the headquarters, terrorist facilities
and military assets that support Moammar Gaddafi's subversive activities."
To punish Moammar Gaddafi for an attack in Germany.
In 1993, George H.W. Bush destroyed an Iraqi industrial complex to compel Saddam Hussein
to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors.
"It was quick, it was decisive, and in the words of White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater,
it was a “mission accomplished.”
In 1995, Clinton used the limited strike option, in the hopes that airstrikes in Bosnia would
compel the Serbians to negotiate the end of the war.
"American pilots will continue to take to the skies over Bosnia."
And it ended later that year.
The presidents of Bosnia, Croatia, and Serbia, have reached a peace agreement.
And In 2001, George W. Bush destroyed Iraqi air defenses to deter them from targeting
US planes.
Trump’s first limited strike in April 2017 was intended
"to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons."
And his second use of a limited strike, in April 2018 was to
“establish a strong deterrent against the production, spread, and use of chemical weapons.”
So, the first strike… didn’t really work.
And the data confirms this.
After the 2017 strike, Assad continued to use chemical weapons.
Trump’s limited strike failed to achieve its publicly stated goal.
So, how often do limited strikes even work?
A study by expert Micah Zenko looked at 36 instances of limited strikes, between 1991
and 2009.
He found that only 16 achieved their military goals; meaning the intended targets were destroyed.
And furthermore, he judged that 25 achieved “mixed-success” for their political goals
while only 2 were out-right successful on all counts.
That’s only 6%.
In these instances; the strike had a clear, defined and measurable goal.
My fellow Americans
Take Clinton’s strike in 1993 for example:
Where the goal was to punish the Iraqi government for attempting to kill George H.W. Bush.
There is compelling evidence that there was, in fact, a plot to assassinate former President Bush.
It was deemed a success because, well, they never tried it again.
Trump’s first limited strike, on the other hand, damaged an airfield, but not Assad’s
ability to use chemical weapons.
And that airfield was back up and running the following day.
Zenko found that in the cases that did not achieve full political success; the level
of force used was often incorrectly drawn up or insufficient to achieve the political
intent.
It’s not that damaging an airfield had no effect at all on Assad’s regime, it’s
that it didn’t produce the intended effect.
If you’re interested in the bigger goal, that the Assad regime should stop using chemical weapons,
then the strikes last year did not work.
The April 2018 strike doubled the force and did focus on chemical weapons facilities,
But it’s unclear what the long term results will be.
Politically, for Trump to use these strikes, because he
looks tough. He has done something, right?
There is an impulse in the United States to "do something",
anytime something bad happens
around the world.
That’s what limited strikes ultimately are:
a way for the President to do... something.
Even if that something is only successful 6% of the time.