Strategy remains unclear after the US airstrikes of the Syrian airbase. Different things are being said about the goal also unclear whether this will be an isolated incident. The New York Times reported that the US-led force battling Isis has cut down its airstrikes against the militants who are opposed to the Syrian president. There waiting to see whether Syria and Russia will respond militarily. Joining me now is Barbara Walter political science professor at San Diego study syllable words. Welcome to the program. Great to be here. Nikki Haley said the removal of President Assad is a top priority. Secretary of State set up top priority is to be the nicest what does it tell you about the US position on the conflict. It tells me quite clearly that the attack on Syria was not part of a larger strategy. It means that the Trump administration is still trying to figure out what their strategy is likely to be and that these two key members of the administration are essentially battling it out on television. They have different perspectives on what they think the United States should do and they are hoping that Trump is watching the Sunday morning news shows and that they are particularly preferred strategy will be chosen by him. Is there a way to make these positions seem less conflict? Can Isis and Asad who are in different sizes -- sides of this war be addressed simultaneously? Not really Isis is fighting against Asad. If we have a policy where we would like to deflate or defeat Isis and I talked little bit more about why think that is not a good policy but I think it would pursue the policy with the administration which is something we can do is they have been doing we are essentially helping Assad in his quest for a military victory. If in fact we want Assad to step out of power but we are targeting one of his main enemies there is a contradiction there. Seven industrialized nations met today to discuss Syria. What is going through your mind? My specialty is civil wars and I've studied every Civil War that's happened. If I look at Syria and you were to ask me how I think this will and. Given what I know about the 150+ was that I have studied my answer would be I'm pretty certain that this will eventually end in a negotiated settlement I think it is going to end in a negotiated settlement for a few reasons. The first is that I do not think it's going to be possible for Assad to win a decisive military victory even though he has made advances over the last year and even though he has the most unconditional support of Russia and Iran and has been relatively uncontested by at this unified opposition it is going to be very difficult for him to actually control the entire country and prevent continued violence. If you cannot win it is Isis -- a decisive victory you will have strong incentives to negotiate a settlement. When I think about this why think it will eventually end in a negotiated settlement and you can either take years for them to realize this. Years of costly brutal war that deeply effects -- affects and harms Syria or the international community can begin to push for an earlier negotiated settlement that allows us to at least reduce the suffering that would ultimately occur in the future. Part of what is being discussed about possible negotiated settlements is the resume -- regime change. How much of it includes the removal of President Assad from Syria X Last week we were as far with Matt as we have ever been and that's because the Trump administration came out through Rex Tillerson and publicly stated that they were not interested in regime change and they were going to focus on this exclusively on targeting Isis and that essentially it was okay with them if Assad remained in power. That message obviously changed with the airstrikes last week and people are trying to figure out as we saw on the Sunday morning news shows whether in fact the Trump administration will push for regime change which ambassador Nikki Haley has been promoted or whether it will not promote regime change as Rex Tillerson continues to claim. So I ultimately think that the Trump administration will choose to pursue regime change and they will eventually realize that keeping Assad in power is a nonstarter. Here is a leader who is not only used chemical weapons against's population but here is a leader who is unwilling to could the negotiations. So if you stick with Assad you are sticking with a Civil War that has been likely to continue for years to come only to end in a negotiated settlement. I think they will eventually realize that is not in the US is national security interest to keep Assad in power and that if you want an earlier negotiated settlement that you are going to Haas to replace Assad with someone else. It will be somebody from his inner circle but it simply will not be Assad . Somebody who has consistently refused to negotiate under any circumstances. I've been speaking with Barbara Walter. Thank you so much. My pleasure.
President Donald Trump's national security adviser on Sunday left open the possibility of additional U.S. military action against Syria following last week's missile strike but indicated that the United States was not seeking to act unilaterally to oust Syrian President Bashar Assad.
In his first televised interview, H.R. McMaster pointed to dual U.S. goals of defeating the Islamic State group and removing Assad. But he suggested that Trump was seeking a global political response for regime change from U.S. allies as well as Russia, which he said needed to re-evaluate its support of Syria.
"It's very difficult to understand how a political solution could result from the continuation of the Assad regime," McMaster said. "Now, we are not saying that we are the ones who are going to effect that change. What we are saying is, other countries have to ask themselves some hard questions. Russia should ask themselves ...Why are we supporting this murderous regime that is committing mass murder of its own population?"
After last Tuesday's chemical attack in Syria, Trump said his attitude toward Assad "has changed very much" and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said "steps are underway" to organize a coalition to remove him from power.
But as lawmakers called on Trump to consult with Congress on any future military strikes and a longer-term strategy on Syria, Trump administration officials sent mixed signals on the scope of U.S. involvement. While Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, described regime change in Syria as a U.S. priority and inevitable, Tillerson suggested that last week's American airstrikes in retaliation for the chemical attack hadn't really changed U.S. priorities toward ousting Assad.
Pressed to clarify, McMaster said the goals of fighting IS and ousting Syria's president were somewhat "simultaneous" and that the objective of the missile strike was to send a "strong political message to Assad." He did not rule out additional strikes if Assad continued to engage in atrocities against rebel forces with either chemical or conventional weapons.
"We are prepared to do more," he said. "The president will make whatever decision he thinks is in the best interest of the American people."
Reluctant to put significant troops on the ground in Syria, the U.S. for years has struggled to prevent Assad from strengthening his hold on power.
U.S.-backed rebels groups have long pleaded for more U.S. intervention and complained that Washington has only fought the Islamic State group. So Trump's decision to launch the strikes — which President Barack Obama declined to do after a 2013 chemical attack — has raised optimism among rebels that Trump will more directly confront Assad.
Several lawmakers said Sunday that decision shouldn't entirely be up to Trump.
Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, the no. 2 Republican in the Senate, praised Trump's initial missile strike for sending a message to Assad, Russia, Iran and North Korea that "there's a new administration in charge." But he said Trump now needed to work with Congress to set a future course.
"Congress needs to work with the president to try and deal with this long-term strategy, lack of strategy, really, in Syria," he said. "We haven't had one for six years during the Obama administration, and 400,000 civilians have died and millions of people have been displaced internally and externally in Europe and elsewhere."
Maryland Sen. Ben Cardin, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, agreed. "What we saw was a reaction to the use of chemical weapons, something I think many of us supported," he said. "But what we did not see is a coherent policy on how we're going to deal with the civil war and also deal with ISIS."
Still, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said he believed that Trump didn't need to consult with Congress.
"I think the president has authorization to use force," he said. "Assad signed the chemical weapons treaty ban. There's an agreement with him not to use chemical weapons."
Their comments came as Tillerson was making the Trump administration's first official trip this week to Russia, a staunch Assad ally. In interviews broadcast Sunday, Tillerson said defeating the Islamic State group remains the top focus. Once that threat "has been reduced or eliminated, I think we can turn our attention directly to stabilizing the situation in Syria," he said.
"We're hopeful that we can prevent a continuation of the civil war and that we can bring the parties to the table to begin the process of political discussions" between the Assad government and various rebel groups.
The hope, he said, is that "we can navigate a political outcome in which the Syrian people, in fact, will determine Bashar al-Assad's fate and his legitimacy."
Haley said "getting Assad out is not the only priority" and that countering Iran's influence in Syria was another. Still, Haley said the U.S. didn't see a peaceful future Syria with Assad in power.
McMaster, Cornyn and Cardin spoke on "Fox News Sunday," Tillerson appeared on ABC's "This Week" and CBS' "Face the Nation," Haley and Graham were on NBC's "Meet the Press" and Haley also appeared on CNN's "State of the Union."
