Trump, Syria, and the messy middle
How Trump's ideological void could help America in Syria


On Thursday night, America attacked an airfield in Syria with 59 Tomahawk missiles. The merits of the strike — a response to a deadly chemical weapons attack allegedly perpetrated against civilians by Syria's embattled boss Bashar al-Assad — are very much in the eye of the beholder. There is more than enough strategic ambiguity to go around.
You can plausibly claim the strike was a targeted and just reprisal for inhumane chemical warfare. Or a capitulation to the neoliberals scheming for the upper hand in the White House. Or a warning shot to the Russians and Syria — or maybe even North Korea? Heck, you could even plausibly argue the show of force was designed to impress China's Xi Jinping, who is visiting President Trump in Florida. Our president is a showman, after all, even, one assumes, when lives are at stake.
But let's cut through these competing claims and confront the uncomfortable issue of how to think post-ideologically about our foreign policy strategy.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
In President Trump's America, ideological lines are scrambled enough that there is no party line on Syria. Many Democrats — from Nancy Pelosi to Chuck Schumer — approve of the strike. So do hawkish Republicans in the John McCain mold. But just as many liberals and conservatives (from Tim Kaine to Justin Amash) are against it.
No argument about what to do or not do in Syria is particularly unpersuasive, but none is particularly captivating either. President Obama left behind a superficially contained mess that sent larger shock waves (and waves of migration) well beyond Syria's borders. His incoherent policy may have saddled his successor with only ad hoc approaches to an endgame that squares with American interests.
Nevertheless, America's enduring global interests do amount to a strategic goal put to the test in Syria. It's obvious that war with a major world power runs squarely counter to U.S. interests. It's also plain that U.S. interests demand closing out our draining, festering wars across the greater Middle East, as favorably as conditions permit. The Trump administration's intervention in Syria, which includes a limited ground force, could risk direct conflict with Russia. It could lead to another protracted and fruitless exercise in would-be nation-building and would-be peacekeeping. But it could also give the U.S. just enough skin in the game of the Syria horror to confer an adequate amount of strategic leverage over the range of outcomes there.
Does the administration recognize this? Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley have spoken with strategic ambiguity about the future of the Assad regime, underscoring that Assad's shelf life in Damascus is relatively less important to the U.S. than working more or less effectively with Russia to close out the conflict in a stable and amenable way. The best way to reach this outcome is through an internationally recognized unity government-in-waiting, a national congress that would include representatives of each significant political faction in Syria, including Alawites and the Assad regime's military. Unfortunately, at a critical moment during the previous administration, Russia worked against the debut and recognition of just such a body. But, in another misfortune, the U.S. was too officially disengaged from the struggle in Syria to forestall that breakdown. Now, with a larger but still modest military footprint, the White House has a stronger hand to play at the table.
Nevertheless, that stronger hand is still weaker than most Americans are likely to be comfortable with. We are tired of being the underdog superpower, which is why opinion on Syria tends to polarize toward complete non-involvement at one end and full-dress intervention on the other. Many have simply lost faith in the workability, much less the wisdom, of the messy middle. But it is there that great powers effectively settle international disputes and close out costly conflicts.
Although this is the kind of strategic practice that best accords with America's most general interest abroad, it diverges from most of the particular passions ruling America's fractured schools of thought. In that sense, the Trump administration's conspicuous lack of ideological purity may be of more consequential value than it appears.
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
James Poulos is a contributing editor at National Affairs and the author of The Art of Being Free, out January 17 from St. Martin's Press. He has written on freedom and the politics of the future for publications ranging from The Federalist to Foreign Policy and from Good to Vice. He fronts the band Night Years in Los Angeles, where he lives with his son.
-
May 22 editorial cartoons
Cartoons Thursday's cartoons feature Kristi Noem bringing the Constitution to heel, the cost of a college education, habeas corpus, and the cost of Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill"
-
The Japanese salarymen with a side hustle as cheerleaders
Under The Radar 'Suited and booted' Cheer Re-Man's cheer squad are 'injecting high-flying excitement' into Japan's business world
-
Is a River Alive? – a 'powerful synthesis of literature, activism and ethics'
The Week Recommends Robert Macfarlane's latest book centres on his journeys to four river systems around the world
-
What happens if tensions between India and Pakistan boil over?
TODAY'S BIG QUESTION As the two nuclear-armed neighbors rattle their sabers in the wake of a terrorist attack on the contested Kashmir region, experts worry that the worst might be yet to come
-
Why Russia removed the Taliban's terrorist designation
The Explainer Russia had designated the Taliban as a terrorist group over 20 years ago
-
Inside the Israel-Turkey geopolitical dance across Syria
THE EXPLAINER As Syria struggles in the wake of the Assad regime's collapse, its neighbors are carefully coordinating to avoid potential military confrontations
-
'Like a sound from hell': Serbia and sonic weapons
The Explainer Half a million people sign petition alleging Serbian police used an illegal 'sound cannon' to disrupt anti-government protests
-
The arrest of the Philippines' former president leaves the country's drug war in disarray
In the Spotlight Rodrigo Duterte was arrested by the ICC earlier this month
-
Ukrainian election: who could replace Zelenskyy?
The Explainer Donald Trump's 'dictator' jibe raises pressure on Ukraine to the polls while the country is under martial law
-
Why Serbian protesters set off smoke bombs in parliament
THE EXPLAINER Ongoing anti-corruption protests erupted into full view this week as Serbian protesters threw the country's legislature into chaos
-
Who is the Hat Man? 'Shadow people' and sleep paralysis
In Depth 'Sleep demons' have plagued our dreams throughout the centuries, but the explanation could be medical