As described in this space last week, the situation in and around Syria is quite complicated.  We are where we are today because last Saturday Syrian aircraft dropped gas bombs on civilians in the rebel held town of Douma. In the ongoing fight against the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad the rebels, and those civilians around them, continue to be subject to crimes against humanity.  Photographs and videos of the resulting injuries and the wrenching reactions of those hit by the gas have gone viral and provoked a response from the president as well as a likely response by France and the United Kingdom.

One could reasonably ask, why now?  International monitors believe that this is the eighth time that the Syrians have used gas against civilians in the last year.  Usually, they use chlorine gas which is not technically banned under international law.  Of course it is not banned because it is not supposed to be used as a weapon, but when dropped in high concentrations in confined spaces it can cause severe lung damage, leading to liquid forming in the lungs and inducing severe pneumonia. The effects usually take time to cause damage and it is not automatically fatal. The gas used last Saturday is believed to have been chlorine gas with some other agent mixed in with it.  Based on the videos, experts believe that a nerve agent, probably Sarin, was the other ingredient.  Sarin is man-made, colorless and odorless, but causes immediate and severe reactions from touching, breathing or ingesting it and often causes a quick but horrible death.  One can debate the morality of reacting to Sarin attacks but not to chlorine attacks, but the international community has drawn that line.

Currently, officials from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) are investigating if gas was used, and if so, what types of chemical weapons were used in Douma.  The effectiveness of their investigation is doubtful so many days after the incident, especially since most of the people impacted by the attack died or left the city.  However, military action, if any (and I believe there will be) will likely be delayed while the OPCW is on the ground.

A complicating factor is that the Russian military is heavily invested in Syria in support of the regime.

The U.S. has a history of trying to deter Bashar’s use of chemical weapons.  Recall that in 2012 President Obama suggested that Syrian use of chemical weapons would be a “red line” requiring a response.  The next year Syria used chemical weapons.  After failing to get an international response, especially from the U.K., coupled with the lack of support in the U.S. Congress for military action in Syria, President Obama backed away from his red line.  As I wrote at the time, that was a huge mistake.

As a consequence, the U.N. Security Council brokered an agreement whereby Syria would destroy all of its chemical weapons.  With Russian assistance, the OPCW removed “all” of the chemical stockpiles, completing the job in June 2014.  Russia “guaranteed” that all of the weapons were removed or destroyed — with the exception of chlorine gas.

In 2017 Syria was found to have used Sarin agents against its population.  In April last year, Mr. Trump ordered cruise missile attacks against the airfield used to launch the weapons.  While I joined others in applauding the decision to strike Syria, the actual strike was a mere hand slap.  Mostly it destroyed a few planes on the ground and put some holes in the runways at the air base.  They were back up and operating in a few days.  More to the point, the strike clearly did not act as a deterrent to further use of chemical weapons.

This is where it gets dicey.  To effectively punish Bashar and his regime, the U.S. — hopefully with participation and support from our Allies in France and the U.K — must hit him where it hurts.  Targets should be some combination of command and control centers, headquarters buildings, and the locations of the secret police, for example.  The counter argument is that Russian citizens and military personnel are very likely to be at some of those targets.  Killing Russians in an attack on Syria could easily lead to a full-blown crisis and could endanger our ground troops in Eastern Syria fighting with the Kurds against ISIS.  Indeed, the Russians have vowed to defend Syria against, and to retaliate for, any attack.  Thus the president’s taunt/threat/thoughtless statement in the Tweet above is directed at Russia.

A tactical strike such as the one carried out last year is relatively easy and low risk.  However, based on the ineffective results from our previous strike, coupled with Russian threats, it may make the U.S. look weak.  To conduct a much larger attack, with real consequences to Syria, raises the stakes immeasurably and could include manned aircraft.  Manned aircraft.  Real people going in harm’s way.  While I have every confidence in our military aviators, nothing is fool-proof.  American lives could be lost or pilots captured.  In particular, the Russians have installed sophisticated air defense missiles in Syria that were not there at the time of our Tomahawk strike last year.  In addition, the Russians have repeatedly said that they would go after the sources of any attack.  Once an attack is underway, the dogs of war are unleashed and it is impossible to project all of the consequences.  Syria is a tinder box waiting to explode among the many factions involved.

It is unlikely that the Russians would be able to effectively reach ships and submarines launching missiles hundreds of miles out in the Mediterranean Sea or to reach air bases in Qatar or other locations in the Middle East that may be used to launch aircraft.  But they could intercept them.  And any commander worth their salt will want to know the plan for protecting our forces in Eastern Syria who would definitely be within the reach and capability of the Russians to hit them.  Recall that last February Russian “contractors” (they still insist on calling them that) attacked a U.S. base.

Syria is a difficult dilemma.  I feel confident that our military leaders and the Secretary of Defense are putting forth the best options to achieve the mission.  What bothers me are the reckless statements of the Commander-in-Chief and his lack of ability to coherently articulate any strategic vision or overall goal for our involvement in Syria.  It cannot be an impulsive reaction, an attempt to divert attention from events surrounding his extracurricular activities, or just an exercise in video game perceptions of what combat actual entails.

The military is ready and capable of carrying out their mission and to protect the good citizens of these United States.  The use of chemical weapons cannot be tolerated and must be punished — not only for now but for the future — in order to make clear that the international community condemns their use in no uncertain terms.  However, let’s not do so lightly.  Actions have consequences.  This is not some theoretical exercise of military might.  The lives of real people are at stake.  It is not too much to ask the Commander-in-Chief to act like it.