“Fifty-nine missiles? Why would you use fifty-nine Tomahawk missiles in one place without having a solid plan?” Shadi al-Haj, a 31-year-old Syrian pediatrician, said during a call over WhatsApp, on 9 April 2017. He was referring to a missile strike that took place three days earlier, on the al-Shayrat airfield, a military base controlled by the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The strike had been conducted by the United States military, on the direction of the country’s president, Donald Trump.
Shadi was speaking to me from al-Ma‘arra—a Syrian town nearly 33 kilometres from Idlib province. On 4 April 2017, chemical bombs carrying the nerve agent sarin detonated in the air above Khan Sheikhoun, a small town in Idlib. The poisonous gas killed nearly 90 people—“some writhing, choking, gasping or foaming at the mouth” according to a report in the New York Times—and injured more than 200, according to doctors on the ground. Shadi told me that after the bombs fell on Khan Sheikhoun, he was one of the doctors treating the injured, which included many children, at a regional mobile clinic. The clinic filled quickly, Shadi said, and it soon ran out of supplies. “We had to send [the patients] to hospitals in nearby towns,” he said.
The United States government laid the blame for this attack on Assad and his ally Russia, accusing Assad of killing innocent Syrian citizens. It was ostensibly in punishment for this transgression that Trump ordered the strike. Though expert opinion on the decision—which, Trump glibly informed a reporter, he made while eating cake—was divided, many in America and the international community hailed itas a fitting response to Assad. It did, however, lead to a considerable amount of confusion on Trump’s policy for Syria—in the run-up to the US presidential election, Trump had claimed he would not intervene in the Syrian conflict if elected president. Trump had also condemned the actions of the previous president Barrack Obama, who, in 2012 had warned Assad in no uncertain terms that if the latter crossed a “red line” on chemical warfare, he might face US action. But when nearly 1,400 Syrians were killed during a chemical gas attack outside of Damascus in 2013, the Obama administration decided not to take military action—after the chemical attack, Trump characterised this as the administration’s “weakness and irresolution.” Trump then said that his position on Syria had changed. “They will have a message,” he said. Not long after, he launched the missile strike.
While the confusion over Trump’s stance has led to speculation and debate among foreign-policy experts, among Syrian citizens, it has instilled fear. Shadi, along with several other Syrians I spoke to, did not take Trump’s attack as a serious show of support from the US for Syrian civilian lives. “We are confused and quite scared of how the US government’s steps are going to affect those on the ground,” said Dr Mohamad Katoub, who lives in Gaziantep, Turkey, and works with the Syrian American Medical Society, a non-profit medical organisation that runs makeshift clinics and hospitals in conflict areas in Syria, Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. Katoub supervises over 100 such hospitals across Syria and manages a staff of nearly 1,700 doctors and medical-health workers. “I am worried about my staff all the time,” he said. “The worry keeps me up through the nights.”
Shadi described the missile attack as “incomplete,” because it failed to deter Assad. Salem Abulnaser, a dentist who was in Aleppo during the siege on the city and is currently residing in Turkey, echoed this view. “I hope that airstrikes could cause Assad to stop fire, but they didn’t,” he said. “It will not help civilians if [Trump] keeps bombing,” Abulnaser added. “He will bomb again, and Assad and Russia will fire back—not at him, at us.”
“Assad might react every time they hit to threaten him,” Shadi said. “Assad could get used to this, and every time the US hits, he would bomb civilians to show he is still strong.” “The US airstrikes have done nothing to help Syrians,” he continued. “He”—Assad—“quickly recaptured his airbase, and found help from his ally, Russia, [and got] back in the game.”
During our conversation, Shadi was out of breath from pacing back and forth inside the clinic. “I am so tense,” he said. “I haven’t slept in days.” He repeatedly confirmed whether I was listening carefully. “I hope you understand what I mean,” he said. On another occasion, he alerted me to a sound in his background. “You hear that?” he asked. It sounded like airplanes. “Are those Assad’s aircrafts?” I asked. Shadi confirmed it was. “He is back in the air,” he said, and laughed sarcastically.
Bombs have been going off in the streets and alleys of Syria for over six years, and remain the focal point of the worries and pleas of Syrian citizens. For nearly two years, I have been in touch with several Syrians—students, doctors, activists, and civilians. There is no conversation with those on the ground that does not revolve around bombs, or the threat of bombing. “The bombs keep getting close to our lives,” Shadi said. Hadi al-Abdallah, a Syrian activist I spoke to during the siege on the city of Aleppo, described how these threats impacted everyday tasks—such as ferrying children to school. “I make sure that no one huddles,” he said. “By now, they have learned the rules. They keep an eye on the sky.”
Ameer Abu Zaid is a young Syrian man who is currently unemployed. Zaid’s father and uncle were killed during bombings by the Assad regime in 2016, in Aleppo. He told me that many of his friends, with whom he earlier used to attend protests against Assad, have disappeared—some, he fears, have joined the Islamic State or the al-Nusra Front. Zaid said he worried that if the US does not stop Assad, the situation in the region will worsen. “The fear is Syria is slipping into uncontrollable conflict,” he said. “Look back at how madly things have evolved since February 2014.” He was referring to several events from early 2014 that contributed to worsening the war in the region—among these was the al-Qaeda’s decision to sever ties with the IS, the al-Nusra Front’s decision to join the Syrian rebel forces, and a suicide-bombing attack by the IS in Aleppo. After the Syrian civil war had begun in 2011, the US had, for a long time, aided Syrian rebels. It continued this aid to help the rebels oppose the IS, but this did not work. “It is a reminder how half-hearted efforts can lead to chaos,” he said.
Shadi, too, voiced a similar fear. “These situations unfold quickly. A new group was formed and then it was suddenly in nobody’s control,” he said. Both Zaid and Shadi said they felt that the Obama administration made a mistake by focusing on dismantling the IS instead of attempting to bring down the Assad regime. “I don’t understand how Obama could not see that Assad carried out large-scale brutalities, worse than what the ISIS did,” Shadi said. “I am no more frustrated by Trump’s action than I was by Obama’s inaction.”
Most of the people I spoke to agreed with Zaid and Shadi’s suggestion that the Trump administration should focus on rooting out Assad while ensuring that civilians remain safe. “The US keeps focusing on ISIS not keeping in mind that they thrive because of the mess in Syria,” Aref al-Krez said. Krez is a Syrian residing in Turkey and works on evaluating how organisations working inside Syria are performing. “The priority should be to remove Assad first and then address the ISIS threat,” he added. Some Syrians had suggestions for US strategy. “All air bases should be hit, damaged, destroyed, not just one or once,” Ousama Wissam, a 42-year-old who resides in Idlib, said, his voice sounding desperate.
The problem is, Krez continued, that “Syrians don’t know what the Trump administration really wants, and the American people don't know what the Syrians are facing from all sides.” Krez said it was imperative for the Trump administration to keep in mind that the conflict in Syria involved many parties, all of which had their own interests at stake—be it the ISIS, al-Nusra, the Kurds, or the rebels against the Assad regime. “Syria is a messy place. Probably messier than any other place America has ever taken its forces to,” he said. According to him, the worst step for the US would be to get boots on the ground. “No party can protect their army here. If they do bring their soldiers in, they will lose a lot of soldiers. They will also lose resources, money—everything.” He continued: “The best way for the US government to get involved in Syria, is by working with partners,” “The [United Nations] Security Council should finally take action,” he added.
Most conversations I had were laced with a tone of frustration. Though several Syrian citizens have long been attempting to draw attention to the horrors of the conflict they were facing, or to document the conflict themselves as journalists, activists and writers, it appeared that many of them were no longer hopeful. “Nothing will change,” Wissam said. “We have been screaming for so many years,” he added. “The world is used to our pain.” Shadi said he did not understand why little was being done to help the Syrian citizens. “What other proof did the world need from us?” he said. “It is frustrating now, that the US being such a great world power, can’t help Syrians who are genuinely suffering.”
“I would really like to see what the big thinkers of the world think about the US attack on Syria,” Katoub told me. I posed his question to the political theorist Noam Chomsky, over email.“There’s good reason for them”—the Syrians—“to fear,” Chomsky wrote. “There so far is no indication of what the Trump administration has in mind, if they even care about Syria, which is far from obvious.”
According to Krez, the international media must play a role in drawing attention to the troubles faced by Syrian citizens. He added sarcastically, “Who knows, good media could also make Trump do the right thing.”