Pin-Prick Strikes Are Not an Effective Strategy

What are the consequeces of a military strike on Syria?

By Andrew Wolff, assistant professor of political science and international studies

The proposed U.S. military strike to punish the Syrian government for their reprehensible use of chemical weapons is bound to fail because of a lack of strategic thinking. Effective strategy requires realistically considering how military power connects with political goals. In this case, it is unclear that military power in the form of pin-prick strikes of a limited duration will achieve the dual objectives of deterring the future use of chemical weapons and maintaining U.S. credibility in world affairs.

Administration officials admit that these strikes will not destroy the Syrian regime's stockpile of chemical weapons nor will they substantially degrade Syria's ability to deploy these types of weapons in the future. America's previous use of punitive strikes against Libya in 1986, Iraq in 1993 and 1998 and Afghanistan in 1998 failed to change regime behavior. Is it reasonable to expect a similar bombing campaign against Syria will produce a different result?

Moreover, striking Syria without the legitimacy conferred by the U.N., NATO or a coalition of partners shows a lack of American leadership on the international stage. Attacking from a unilateral and isolated position sends the world a message of weakness, not strength. If the U.S. hopes to have a long-lasting, positive outcome in the Syrian crisis it must either alter its military tactics or develop new political goals.

Read more Dickinson faculty perspectives on Syria.

Listen to Professor Wolff discuss the situation in Syria on NPR affiliate radio station WITF.

Published September 7, 2013