The Daily - Friday, Apr. 13, 2018

Episode Date: April 13, 2018

Days after a suspected chemical attack killed dozens of Syrian civilians, President Trump promised retaliation. Now, Mr. Trump and his national security advisers are trying to decide how the United States should respond. Guest: Helene Cooper, a Pentagon correspondent for The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.

From The New York Times, I'm Michael Barbaro. This is The Daily. Today, five days after a chemical attack killed dozens of Syrian civilians, President Trump's national security advisors gathered in a room at the White House to decide whether or not the U.S. should attack Syria. It's Friday, April 13th. Hello? Helene.

Yes. Hey, it's Michael. Sorry about all this rigmarole. It's because we don't have internet access in the New York Times cubicle at the Pentagon. And nobody in the Pentagon can use their cell phone because there's no cell access in the building. So I can't be on the phone and on internet and on my computer at the same time when I'm here. So Helene Cooper's cell phone never goes off inside the Pentagon. Like you can't make an outgoing call?

No. Yeah, it's a secure area. You cell phone never goes off inside the Pentagon. Like, you can't make an outgoing call? No. Yeah, it's a secure area, so you don't have cell access inside the building. Helene, it is Thursday afternoon. It is 3.16 p.m. Tell me about where you are in your reporting here. We are in a weird holding pattern at the moment because right now as we are speaking,

there is a meeting going on at the White House of the President's National Security Council with the president. This is the first major national security decision that the new national security advisor, John Bolton, will be a part of. Defense Secretary Mattis is there. The chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Dunford, is there. President Trump is there. All of his top national security officials are there. And the decision on the table is whether or not the United States goes ahead with this airstrike on Syria as the president has telegraphed that he wants to do.

The world is chaotic. There are unacceptable situations. The UK utterly condemns the use of chemical weapons in any circumstances, and we must urgently establish what happened on Saturday. The French and the British have both indicated that they are willing to join in an attack. I think the Americans think that the French might go ahead and do it without them if the US doesn't do something. French President Emmanuel Macron has been at the forefront of condemning this, and the French have said earlier today that...

Nous avons la preuve. They have proof that inside forces used chemical weapons. Des armes chimiques ont été utilisées. So the question now is whether President Trump goes ahead and orders a coalition strike in which the United States will take part in. Okay, so just so I understand, the French and the British, our allies, are planning on some kind of response to this chemical attack,

a military response against Syria. And the U.S. right now is trying to figure out what we should do and if we should do it in coordination with them or on our own. Is that what's happening in this meeting? No, that's not completely accurate. The French say that they're going to do something. Okay, but I don't want to put words in their mouth and say that they plan anything because they

don't tend to do anything unless we do it. I don't know if the British are completely there yet. The expectation we have is that whatever we do, the Trump administration officials have said to us now on background that they want it to be a multinational coordinated coalition response. They don't want it to be just us. And why is that? Because other countries give us more diplomatic cover. It makes it seem as if it's not just the United States taking a punch at President Assad. Whenever you do anything in a multinational way,

the belief, particularly in the United States, is that you have more credibility and more cover diplomatically. Okay. So the French government and potentially the British government are waiting on us, the United States government, to decide how to respond to this alleged chemical attack. And that's what's going on inside this National Security Council meeting. The United States, as President Trump more specifically is making up his mind. Got it. The United States, as President Trump more specifically is making up his mind. Got it. Anytime you use force and you strike another country, it's a huge deal. It can be viewed in many ways as an act of war.

And you know that both the Syrian government and its backers in Iran and Russia are going to be jumping up and down after such a strike and saying, this was illegal, we shouldn't have done this, this is an act of war, and they will threaten, and they may even go ahead with retaliation. You want to make sure you have sort of your diplomatic and legal oars in place. And that's why you want to be able to say, we have overwhelming proof, we have maybe perhaps urine samples, we have blood samples that this was a chlorine or a sarin or illegal, some sort of illegal chemical attack. So we're trying in a very evidence-based way to gather the information required

to confirm that in fact this was a chemical attack. Lots of people have been describing it as such, but it sounds like you're saying there's kind of a forensic process that's actually got to reach a point of conclusion. Yes, there is. And especially when you think about, you know, the Iraq War in 2003 and sort of our reputation there.

This is why you get so many people at the Defense Department saying we really need to have a preponderance of evidence that we can show to the court of international public opinion and kind of win the information war on this. So back to this meeting at the White House, what do we know about how the president has been thinking about this decision? That's a really hard question, Michael, because he said so many different things. President Trump, faced with graphic images of dead families and suffering children, didn't wait for verification before declaring Syria's actions a chemical attack. He started off at the beginning of the week calling Mr. Assad an animal. Animal

Assad, big price to pay. And that he would respond within 24 to 48 hours to the latest chemical attack reportedly carried out by the Assad regime in Syria. That amount of time has passed. He then tweeted on Wednesday morning. President Trump is responding to a report that Russia has said it will shoot down any missiles fired at Syria. In response to Russian threat that it will shoot down any American missiles that came into Syria, he said. Get ready, Russia, because they will be coming nice and new and smart. Our missiles are fast and they're going to be coming soon. You shouldn't be partners with a gas-killing animal who kills his people and enjoys it. Which sort of made a lot of people think that, okay, that pretty much is a done deal, then

we're going to attack. The president tweeting this morning never said when an attack on Syria would take place. And then this morning he said, when I said soon, I didn't say how soon. It could be soon, sooner. It could be not so soon. So this is an unpredictable president, even under't say how soon. It could be soon, sooner. It could be not so soon. So this is an unpredictable president, even under the best of circumstances. We're looking very, very seriously,

very closely at that whole situation, and we'll see what happens, folks. We'll see what happens. It's too bad that the world puts us in a position like that, but... There's a belief certainly that with all that he said, there's no way that we can

credibly not go ahead and strike now. So if he doesn't do something, he's going to get the same kind of criticism that President Obama got when in 2013, he drew a red line and then Assad crossed it and Obama didn't retaliate. So this meeting is more about when the United States or its allies or all of us together launch an attack, not if? I think so, but there's a part of me that wants to say not so fast. What do you mean? Because a couple of people this morning told me that they thought an attack was 50-50. Defense officials told me that, and yesterday I thought it was like 100%. And so when you hear that

from sources, and then listening to Defense Secretary Mattis himself this morning when he was testifying before the House Armed Services Committee. Both the last administration and this one made very clear that our role in Syria is the defeat of ISIS. We are not going to engage in the civil war itself. And he expressed caution as well. He said it's a tactical concern that we don't add to any civilian deaths and do everything humanly possible to avoid that. We're trying to stop the murder of innocent people. We also have to think about, you know, what happens if this escalates and Russia retaliates and the Assad government retaliates and, you know, you get dragged into a wider war.

But on a strategic level, it's how do we keep this from escalating out of control, if you get my drift on that. And so he was sounding a little more cautious than I expected him to. I still think that they probably will go ahead and do it, but I'm certainly not at 100%. So presumably Mattis is in this meeting at the White House. Who else is in the room at this National Security Council meeting? Oh, that's a really interesting question because this is the first big national security crisis

that's being helmed by the new national security advisor, the very hawkish John Bolton, who's President George Bush's UN ambassador. He started work this week on Monday, and he's already got a huge crisis on the table. He's going to be the one who's shepherding it. So it's going to be really interesting to see where John Bolton comes down on this. He's both argued in favor of American airstrikes on Syria for chemical weapons attack, which he did last year. Ambassador John Bolton saying earlier today that the U.S.'s airstrikes were exactly the right thing to do. When there was a similar case. The president has full constitutional authority under the Commander-in-Chief Clause to act, which he did. He made a very limited and precise strike for a very limited and precise reason.

I think it was the right thing to do, and I think last night the Obama era in American foreign policy ended. And he's argued against it when it was Obama in 2013. If I were a member of Congress, I would vote against an authorization to use force here. I don't think it's in America's interest. I don't think we should, in effect, take sides in the Syrian conflict. There's very little to recommend either side to me. So since I don't see any utility to the use of military force in Syria in this context, I would vote no. So I don't know where he's going to come down. I would vote no.

So I don't know where he's going to come down. So between these two most influential advisors, Mattis and Bolton, who's arguing what, as best you can tell from your reporting? I don't know. I have no idea what Bolton is arguing. I think Bolton is going to be arguing in favor of a strike. I think, but this is, I think Bolton is going to be arguing in favor of a strike. He is apparently, what we've heard from people this week from sources is that he spent a lot of time this week studying on how to make the case before the UN for launching an attack. So that would sort of imply that perhaps he is in favor of going ahead and doing one. I wouldn't say that Mattis is against it, but I think Mattis, the defense secretary, wants to make sure that we have a strategy for what happens after that. So it's not necessarily a matter of Mattis saying, don't do it. It's more a matter of Mattis urging caution and consideration of what happens on day two.

Halim, when you say do it, what are the actual options for how to proceed with this attack on Syria? What it looks like we're looking at is what they call Tomahawk cruise missile attacks on Syrian weapons facilities

and airfields. The Defense Department, in particular, very much wants to limit the targets to chemical weapons facilities or airfields from which planes launching chemical attacks were used. That's the expectation. That could change. But the real question is whether or not we attack one airfield, two airfields,

also some weapons facilities, or we try to take out the entire range. It's very much a question of just how many places you do try to hit. What you don't see anybody talking about are manned, piloted American fighter jets or bombers flying over Syria and dropping bombs. And the reason for that is because unlike the rest of the big adversaries that the United States have been at war with over the past few years, from Afghanistan to the Islamic State, Syria has a very well-developed air defense system. It is capable of shooting down American planes. And at that point, then you really are in a big war. Tonight I ordered a targeted military strike on the airfield in Syria from where the chemical attack was launched.

The last time this happened, a year ago, 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles were used to hit the airfield from which the chemical attack last year had been believed to have launched. Fifty-nine Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired from two U.S. warships in the eastern Mediterranean towards the Chirat Air Base in Homs province, which is around 100 kilometers from Khan Shakun, the scene of the alleged attack. Damaging 20 Syrian aircraft, as well as hangars, fuel and weapons depots. But according to Pentagon officials, an aircraft shelter, which once housed the Syrian jet that carried out the April chemical attack, is once again in use. Within a day of last year's

attack, planes were taking off from that airfield. The Syrian Air Force says operations at Ashadid Air Base is back to normal. There are very few people think that that attack last year did much to deter President Assad from launching future chemical weapons attacks. So there's a lot of debate now about whether or not the United States and France and Britain want to launch a more coordinated and perhaps sustained type of attack. They're also discussing whether or not to widen that strategy and to hit more airfields and maybe hit a few weapons facilities as well this time. A year ago, America fired 60 cruise missiles

at the Sherat Air Force Base after another chemical weapons attack against civilians. But the base was soon up and running and the chemical weapons attacks didn't stop. Russia took no action then, but warns this time will be different. It seems like one major difference between this attack and the attack a year ago is where the U.S.'s relations are with Russia, and just how widely Russia is now embedded in Syria.

So how much is that weighing on this process? I think the Russia factor is huge. I think that's part of the reason why this is taking a few more days to come to a decision than we saw last year. Russia has been very, very vocal this time around. Russia says an alleged chemical attack in the Syrian city of Douma has been staged. That came as part of a speech by the country's representative before the UN Security Council. Following the liberation of Douma from... They've been very bellicose. They've adamantly said this wasn't a chemical weapons attack. In interviews, not a single local resident confirmed the chemical attack having taken place. local resident confirmed the chemical attack having taken place.

Russia now vowing to shoot down any incoming U.S. missiles. But they've also threatened to retaliate and shoot down American missiles and all sorts of other things. And that it's become increasingly clear that Russia is at least putting in a lot of the rhetorical backing that Bashar al-Assad might think he needs. At the same time, though, I would just say that Russia doesn't want to get into a big war with the United States either. So at the end of the day, the hope is that this can stay focused on the weapons facilities that Bashar al-Assad is suspected to have, as opposed to widening to some sort of all-out U.S.-Russia war. This is about humanity. We're talking about humanity. And it can't be allowed to happen.

about humanity, and it can't be allowed to happen. So we'll be looking at that barbaric act and studying what's going on. We're trying to get people in there. As you know, it's been surrounded, so it's very hard to get people in, because not only has it been hit, it's been surrounded. And if they're innocent, why aren't they allowing people to go in and prove? Because, as you know, they're innocent, why aren't they allowing people to go and improve?

Because as you know, they're claiming they didn't make the attack. So if it's Russia, if it's Syria, if it's Iran, if it's all of them together, we'll figure it out and we'll know the answers quite soon. So we're looking at that very, very strongly and very seriously. Helene, it sounds like if we do go ahead with some kind of military action, we're probably again talking about a limited set of strikes on Syrian weapons bases and airfields, like the one President Trump ordered last year. But given that here we are again, one year later, and the Syrian government still seems to be using chemical weapons on its people, it seems that wasn't so effective. using chemical weapons on its people, it seems that wasn't so effective.

Is the point now just to do something so that we can say we did, but ultimately we're not really changing anything about our approach to Syria? Wow, that is so cynical. I don't, God, I'm not completely as much of a cynic as you sound right now. I hope that's not the case. I think there is honest belief among the people that I talk to in the government that it's possible for us to try to do something that will make Assad think twice in the future before he does something like this. The question is how to make that strike effective, hard enough that it causes President Assad to think twice, yet not so hard that it brings Russia into war with the United States. And that's a needle that I think they're sitting at the White House right now trying to thread. Helene, thank you very much. What does the next few hours of your life look like? I think we'll all just be camping out at the Pentagon.

We've got people camping out at the White House, too. So we're waiting for Defense Secretary Mattis to come back here after his national security meeting, and then he'll hide from the reporters, so we'll have to all scurry around trying to figure out what happened. But in some sense, you're just kind of waiting for bombs to drop. I'm waiting for a war again, yeah. Eileen, thank you. Thank you, Michael. Cheers.

Bye-bye. As of Friday morning, the U.S. had not launched an attack on Syria. We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to know today. Transcription by CastingWords U.S. out of in the first days of his presidency. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is another disaster done and pushed by special interests who want to rape our country, just a continuing rape of our country. That's what it is, too. It's a harsh word. It's a rape of our country. Trump disclosed the shift during a meeting with lawmakers from states that rely on farming in response to criticism that the trade war he sparked with China is hurting their constituents.

Rejoining TPP, which already includes Japan, Vietnam, and Australia, would open more foreign markets to American farmers and offer them relief from Chinese tariffs. But the Times reports that reentering the trade pact could take months, and that the easiest way to help farmers would be to avoid a trade war with China in the first place. The Daily is produced by Theo Belcom, Lindsay Garrison, Rachel Quester, Annie Brown, Andy Mills, Ike Srees Kamaraja, Claire Tennesketter, Paige Cowett, and

Michael Simon-Johnson, with editing help from Larissa Anderson. Lisa Tobin is our executive producer, Samantha Hennig is our editorial director, our technical manager is Brad Fisher, and our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsberg of Wonderly.

Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Michaela Bouchard, and Chris Wood. That's it for The Daily. I'm Michael Barbaro. See you Monday.