Dragged back in to Syria, Trump needs to act like a true Don

Like Michael Corleone in Godfather III, just when US President ­Donald Trump was looking to exit Syria, they pull him right back in with reports last weekend of a chemical weapons attack against civilians in the Damascus suburb of Douma.

While it may appear Iran and Russia would like nothing better than to fill the grey zone left by the withdrawal of the US, keeping an opponent engaged and distracted in a costly, messy and unresolvable conflict is the more cunning course of action.

In the end it was the protracted mafia feud that cost Don Corleone the most.

It is becoming a pattern of life for the US, one that is easily predicted and provoked by friends and opponents alike.

The September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York and the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, drew the US into an ongoing 17-year war that so far has cost $US840 billion, despite the fact al-Qa’ida had been ­vapourised or driven out of ­Afghanistan by the end of 2001.

As the US withdrew from Iraq in December 2011, remaining elements of al-Qa’ida slithered across the Mesopotamian desert to reappear in Syria as the so-called ­Islamic State and the US was dragged back in.

First with the arming of the Free Syrian Army (you ­remember them, the “friendly ­jihadists”) against Bashar al-Assad.

Then full-scale airstrikes and boots on the ground against Islamic State in Iraq and northern Syria in support of the Kurds.

Readers will recall Barack Obama’s pivot away from the Middle East to the Asia-Pacific region and the drawdown of US troops in Afghanistan by the end of his presidency.

Precisely then, we saw a resurgent Taliban along with the mysterious appearance even there of Islamic State and the Trump administration sent 3000 more troops back into the Graveyard of Empires.

While we don’t yet know conclusively who is responsible for the chemical attack, perhaps wily Russian President Vladimir Putin saw right through the US plan when Trump said he would leave the Syrian quagmire for others. Russia has only to flick back the pages of its own history to recall how it was caught in costly unwinnable wars in Afghanistan and Chechnya.

Meanwhile, in all that time China has fought no wars for human rights, never lifted a finger against Islamic State, didn’t pitch in against the Taliban so girls could go to school in Afghanistan, did nothing against Somali pirates, or al-Shabab, or Boko Haram in Nigeria.

It didn’t even support its new best friend, President Rodrigo Duterte of The Philippines, in his battle against Islamic State terrorists in Marawi.

Yet the Chinese have systematically carved out a strategic hold across large swathes of Africa and the South China Sea while securing critical infrastructure routes in Pakistan, Sri Lanka and the Maldives.

What is becoming equally predictable is the limited, tactical reaction by the US and indeed all Western nations against those whose actions go against our fundamental principles of human rights, even in times of war.

Opponents know full well that as with the previous missile strike on April 7 last year, little real damage was done against a target of limited value to Assad or his backers.

Remember the missile strike against former Libyan despot Muammar Gaddafi under ­Ronald Reagan in 1986?

Then there were president Bill Clinton’s 75 Tomahawk cruise missiles against Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in retaliation for the 1998 al-Qa’ida attacks on the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

Not only did these missile strikes have zero strategic effect, they raised the credibility of those they were targeting and were interpreted as feeble by a wider audience of oppon­ents.

One thing the mafia is good at is ensuring you don’t do it again.

Perhaps it is the moral dilemma of modern warfare that because the West has taken it on itself to uphold the a priori values of humanity, perversely this is interpreted as a weakness to be exploited by opponents.

In other words, kill civilians with barrel bombs and airstrikes, and the US and its Western allies continue with plans to exit and refocus the economies and military. Kill civilians with chemical weapons and they will be forced right back in.

Figure that out. In February, before a delayed UN vote on a ceasefire to allow medical and food aid to reach Ghouta, Medecins Sans Frontieres estimated 520 civilians were killed by barrel bombs and airstrikes.

There were no threats of missile strikes or strongly worded press statements read out by frowning politicians.

Let’s face it, the West is pretty much on its own in this department — the only section of the global community drawing red lines and condemning the use of chemical weapons against civilians; not China, not Iran and not Russia, and neither, for that matter, a NATO ally in Turkey.

Penetrating an adversary’s weaknesses while exploiting one’s own strengths is at the heart of The Art of War.

In 500BC Sun Tzu wrote: “If the enemy is superior in strength, evade him.

“If his forces are united, separate them. Attack him where he is unprepared. Appear where you are not expected.”

This type of kinetic engagement by opposing forces has been written about and taught to military leaders for more than 2500 years.

It appears that Islamic extremists, our geopolitical opponents, understand our strengths have become our weakness to be exploited.

It’s about time we started getting this right, otherwise our weakness will continue to be exploited to a point where it is too late to defend the current global slide in liberalism against the rise of authoritarian regimes.

Jason Thomas teaches risk management at Swinburne University and is director of Frontier Assessments.