This analysis uses case study methodology to further the understanding of the diversionary theory of war in specific cases. It employs a model consisting of five propositions that build upon existing qualitative research on diversionary war theory. The synthesised framework examines one possible case of American diversionary military actions: President Donald Trump´s decision to launch missile strikes against Syrian airfields on 7 April 2017. The study tests the descriptive accuracy and further develops the diversionary theory of war, in essence, generally suggesting that empirical support for the diversionary logic in this case is mixed. On 6 April 2017, the Republican president, Donald Trump, ordered the launch of 59 Tomahawk missiles at the Syrian air field al Shayrat, allegedly the origin point of a lethal Baghdad-ordered poison gas attack on the rebel-held city of Idlib that killed more than 100 people. 1 This was the first time that the United States directly attacked the Syrian regime in the country's six-year civil war and marked a sudden shift by the Trump Administration in its foreign policy objectives. Many observers noted that Trump, both as a presidential candidate and in office, has been almost militantly non-interventionist and proudly nonglobalist, 2 even insisting that intervening in Syria could lead to the Third World War. He had tweeted former President Barack Obama many times after a much more devastating chemical attack in 2012, warning him to stay out of Syria by arguing, 'Syria is NOT our problem'. 3 Besides, Trump said in November 2016 that he considered Bashar Hafez al-Assad, the Syrian leader, a potential 'natural ally' in the fight against terrorism. 4 Why did the United States launch these missile strikes against Syria? The official reason provided by the Trump Administration was that photographs of dying Syrian children and women outraged the president who, therefore, launched a retaliatory strike because of the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons. 5 Yet, when Trump later in August defended his controversial pardon of a former Arizona sheriff and Trump supporter who had CONTACT Mikael Blomdahl
This article examines President Clinton’s decisions to launch military actions against Iraq in June 1993 and Kosovo in 1999. This study represents an attempt to test the descriptive accuracy and further developing the diversionary theory of war. Using a qualitative framework for diversionary use of force developed by another researcher, Ryan C. Hendrickson, this research examines and compares the two cases in order to determine whether or not these strikes appear to be diversionary in nature. This article generally suggests that empirical support for the diversionary argument in these cases is “mixed” but has more validity in the actions against Iraq. Two proposals to further develop qualitative tests for diversionary use of force are advanced.
1 The APNSA is more commonly referred to as the national security advisor (NSA). The acronym NSA is used henceforth in this study. 2 Because Congress does not confirm the national security advisor and has no oversight, it cannot call the advisor to testify. Presidents can use their executive privilege to prevent their NSA from testifying. See Destler, "How."
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.