2013 Vs. 2017: Trump On Syria Chemical Attacks

Well count us confused.

As we noted last week, it’s probably best not to sanction CIA pet projects in far-away lands with the goal of implementing regime change. That includes the Obama administration’s infamous “train and equip” boondoggle in Syria. In that regard, Trump’s decision to abandon the whole “Bashar al-Assad must go at all costs” narrative is probably a good thing because as it turns out, “at all costs” may end up meaning the death of every non-combatant in the country.

That said, Assad isn’t exactly a benevolent guy – him being a dictator and all. Sometimes, he does some things that are reprehensible, hence the whole effort to overthrow him.

So admittedly this is a really, really difficult spot to be in if you’re Washington. You don’t want to make a horrific situation even worse by funneling money and guns to Sunni rebels thus perpetuating the cycle of violence, but at the same time, you don’t want to stand around and do nothing as the Assad regime massacres civilians.

Well as you’re probably aware, (another) chemical attack is being blamed on the Assad regime this week. Here, briefly, is what happened in Idlib:

Witnesses to the attack said it began just after sunrise. Numerous photographs and graphic videos posted online by activists and residents showed children and older adults gasping and struggling to breathe, or lying motionless in the mud as rescue workers ripped off victims’ clothes and hosed them down. The bodies of least 10 children lay lined up on the ground or under a quilt.

So that’s obviously no fun, and it put the Trump team in a rather awkward position with regard to Assad and his backers in Tehran and Moscow.

And that’s not our complaint. That is, this is an impossible scenario to negotiate and being that it’s impossible to make the “right” decision when one option is to perpetuate the cycle of violence by arming Sunni insurgents and the other is to tacitly support a murderous regime by not insisting on its ouster, you can’t really blame the White House for supporting the “wrong” side. Both sides are “wrong.”

But what you can say about Trump with regard to Syria is that he doesn’t (and never did) understand why the Obama administration was in such a tough spot when it came to figuring out the best course of action (or inaction).

Coming full circle to what we said at the outset, “count us confused” because this (from 2013, when Obama was trying to determine whether to retaliate militarily against Assad for a chemical attack)…

President Obama, do not attack Syria. There is no upside and tremendous downside. Save your "powder" for another (and more important) day!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 7, 2013

… seems entirely inconsistent with this statement released by the Trump administration in response to the latest chemical attack…

Statement from President Donald J. Trump

Today’s chemical attack in Syria against innocent people, including women and children, is reprehensible and cannot be ignored by the civilized world. These heinous actions by the Bashar al-Assad regime are a consequence of the past administration’s weakness and irresolution. President Obama said in 2012 that he would establish a “red line” against the use of chemical weapons and then did nothing. The United States stands with our allies across the globe to condemn this intolerable attack.

So bright and early at 9:21 AM on September 7, 2013, Donald Trump begged Obama “not to attack Syria.” And then today, the very same Donald Trump blamed the most recent chemical attack on … Obama not attacking Syria. 

This is yet another example of Trump learning why being President is hard and why it’s sometimes difficult to construct coherent and consistent foreign policy.

It’s easy to heckle from the peanut gallery – it’s not so easy when you find yourself having to make the tough calls.