Psaki: What is America signing on for in Syria?
Story highlights
- Jen Psaki: When planning military action, Obama used to ask question: Then what? One hopes Trump thought of this before ordering Syria strikes
- She says the American people deserve to know what they are signing up for, whether this quick decision is good for the United States
Jen Psaki, a CNN political commentator and spring fellow at the Georgetown Institute of Politics and Public Service, served as the White House communications director and State Department spokeswoman during the Obama administration. Follow her: @jrpsaki. The opinions expressed in this commentary are hers.
(CNN)The question President Obama often asked his national security team was: Then what?
He
wanted to know what the plan was for the days and weeks after military
action, what the costs and consequences would be and whether our
objective would be met -- not just that day, but over the longer term.
I
hope that question was asked tonight before President Donald Trump
ordered an American missile strike on a Syrian air base in response to
Syria's chemical weapons attack this week. It is indisputable that the
chemical weapons attack was horrific. The images -- of a man holding his
dead twins, of children struggling for air -- is haunting.
And
it may have awakened Donald Trump to what Bashar al-Assad is capable of
-- something we knew too well in the Obama administration.
US warships launch cruise missiles at Syria 00:33
Taking
targeted military action this evening is a step that probably felt
powerful to Trump. It shows action. It shows force. It shows military
strength.
The
problem remains: What is next? Syria is led by a brutal dictator who is
guilty of war crimes. But it is also a sovereign country with powerful
friends, including Russia and Iran.
Trump
acted without consulting Congress, without clear legal authority and
without any coordinated military action by our partners and allies.
President Obama did not move forward in 2013, even after stating that
Syria using chemical weapons would cross a red line, without the support
of Congress and the international community.
Friday
morning, we are still learning about the specific impact on the ground
-- whether there was collateral damage, that is, innocent lives lost --
and whether all of the targets were hit. We don't know how many more
military strikes are planned. Nor are we likely to know in advance.
But one thing seems clear. We are going it alone.
Rubio: Russia should be embarrassed, ashamed 01:16
The
United States military is second to none. It effectively implemented
the decision of the commander in chief. But changing the calculus on
the ground in Syria will require more than military force. Is there a
diplomatic plan? Is there a line of contact with the Russians about the
role they can play? How will the strikes translate into a change in
Assad's behavior?
The American
people deserve to know what they are signing up for. It was surprising
that Trump did not use his remarks Thursday night to speak directly to
the American people, delivering his comments instead to reporters at
Mar-a-Lago. But he will have to address the American people in the
coming days if the US military makes additional strikes.
Stay up to date on the latest opinion, analysis and conversations through social media. Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion and follow us @CNNOpinion on Twitter. We welcome your ideas and comments.
We
know from all too recent history that military engagement can be a
slippery slope. Is this part of a long-term military effort? Are we
considering boots on the ground targeted at Assad? Do we have any
concern about retaliation from the Syrian military, or even the Russians
or Iranians?
Governing is about
not just quick decision-making, but about making decisions that are in
the interests of the American people over the long term. And while the
military and military action should not be a partisan issue, there are
questions that both supporters and opponents of Trump deserve answers to
in the coming days.
No comments:
Post a Comment