Why Trump's limited strike on Syria probably won't work

"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. Its 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. Trumps 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 didnt really work. And the data confirms this. After the 2017 strike, Assad continued to
use chemical weapons. Trumps 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. Thats only 6%.

In these instances; the strike had a clear,
defined and measurable goal. My fellow Americans Take Clintons 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. Trumps first limited strike, on the other
hand, damaged an airfield, but not Assads 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.

Its not that damaging an airfield had no
effect at all on Assads regime, its that it didnt produce the intended effect. If youre 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 its 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. Thats what limited strikes ultimately are: a way for the President to do... Something. Even if that something is only successful 6% of the time..