Did the Trump administration’s strike last month on a Syrian airfield reshape the world’s approach to the Syrian conflict? Does it reflect a significant change in White House strategy, and how has it influenced the policies of America’s allies, especially its European partners?
As American and European policymakers search for ways to end the conflict already stretching into its sixth year, a new report by Chatham House explains the need for a comprehensive solution combining political and military components: “The absence of a coherent strategic vision for Syria – or the political will to see it through – on the part of Western governments has contributed to the increasing strength and influence of ISIL and other extremist groups. These groups cannot be countered by military means alone, however. Without a political agreement to end the conflict, tactical measures for fighting extremism in Syria will fail, as they have elsewhere.”
The key question is: How do you get there? On May 11, Hudson Institute hosted a discussion examining both American and European perspectives on the war in Syria and Western policy. Hudson senior fellow Lee Smith moderated a conversation with European experts Lina Khatib and Neil Quilliam and their American counterparts Tony Badran and Andrew Tabler.
Hudson Institute’s Center on Europe and Eurasia will host its third Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) Strategy Summit.
