Oh look. The country that massacred 3-5 million people in a napalm genocide in Southeast Asia is upset about chemical weapons!
1
Chemical weapons contravenes the rules of war, bombing military targets does not.
I am so proud to be an American. This reminds of Herod's slaughter of the innocents. It is a Biblical moment.
I tried to find someone who'd experience both, but alas ...
"Is blowing people to pieces with bombs and mortars really less heinous than suffocating them with gas?"
I think it's pretty much the same either way for the dead people. But one almost never sees videos of people who've been blown to pieces with bombs and mortars -- only of people who've been suffocated with gas. So if one compares videos ...
Prediction: within a month there will be another chemical incident., requiring another response.
2
The air attack is a shame! An unlawful act that brings UK down to the same level of those lawless countries. The loss of credibility is immense compared with the little PR gain. Theresa May should step down!
2
It is unfortunate that the US still has not taken much action against Syria, despite Obama setting a red line in 2011, Since then there have been more than a dozen chemical weapons attacks. It is important that we not only destroy the weapons the Russians said they would destroy in 2012, but that we also punish the Syrians for their use. Bombing should go on for an extended time, and take out all Syrian planes, helicopters, missiles and radars. Possibly, at some point before we're done, the Syrian government might request negotiations. The Russians do not challenge armed American fighters.
2
It strikes me as somewhat odd that not one of the three men dressed in non-civilian attire spraying what looks like water on the dusty rubble of a building that was " a center for the development and production of chemical and biological weapons said Defense Department officials."is wearing nothing more in the way of protective gear than rubber boots if according to General McKenzie -"We believe by hitting Barzah, we have hit the heart of the Syrian chemical weapons program,"
2
Putin has trump in his pocket. And trump is doing exactly what Putin wants him to do which is to destroy the USA from within.
But Mueller is closing in on trump. Cohen has been raided and judging by the look on his face afterwards there are some very bad things for him and trump in those boxes the feds took. If it can be proven that he actually did the meeting in Prague all the threads will come together. And Comey's book is coming out.
So Putin ordered his other puppet, Assad, to use chemical weapons again, in the most blatant way that would be the most horrifying on TV.
Then trump can launch a few dozen missiles, blow up some stuff in Syria, take some of the attention off of Mueller-Cohen-Comey for a few days, maybe even notch his approval up a percent or two.
It doesn't make a difference at all for Putin's endgame in Syria, trump will still let him do what he wants there and Assad doesn't really need those garages full of chemicals any longer.
Blowing up the Syrian air force would have mattered but, surprise, that didn't happen.
Probably trump and Putin didn't even have to communicate about this, it was already all settled in general terms, how these kinds of scenarios would play out, when they had those long extra meetings earlier in trumps "presidency' at the summit in Germany. Remember, the extra hours they talked after that dinner.
1
So the strikes hit the "heart" of Syria's CW program. Syria acceded to the Chemical Weapons Convention -- there shouldn't have been a program, much less CW agents at Assad's disposal. He knew enough about the Convention and the endless obstructionism at the OPCW to take the "briar patch" approach to avoiding whatever action might have occurred via Obama's "redline." We were snookered.
One certainly reads what this commenter reports (though not in the NYT):
"Many fail to realize the 'regime' or should we just say the syrian government has broad support and is in a solid state."
What's unclear to me, though, is whether the Syrian people really want Assad to win, or whether they just want the war to end and consider Assad -- the "devil they know" -- to be a safer choice than the rebels -- the "devil they don't know." It may also be that the Syrian people think that, since Assad's side seems to be poised for imminent victory, it would be dangerous to side with the rebels now.
As an article in the NYT's suggested, chemical use against the populace of Syria, was SUSPECTED. It is unfortunate (an understatement) that an accurate assessment could not have taken place, before "bombing" took place.
Also, it appears that the chemical plant that was bombed, was vacant....evacuation had already taken place, so one wonders just how much of a surprise it was?
Then this ongoing freeforall "dispute" among "leaders" who seem to want to engage with our current president (I use this term loosely, with no respect whatsoever ) brings into question, what exactly is going on? Who benefits from this kind of dispute/bombing? Surely the military industrial complex of the U.S reaps mega bucks.......and as we all know our president and Putin are best buddies....so why isn't civil discourse and diplomatic exchanges taking place? And isn't it convenient that this is all going on while Michael Cohen, Little T's fix it lawyer, is being investigated? I smell a rat, actually a number of rats..
2
Grace Clark writes, "....... we all know our president and Putin are best buddies."
But haven't the last two presidents, Obama and Bush, been best buddies with Putin as well? Obama, for example, sent a message caught by an open mic to his best buddy, Putin, "give me space". And Bush had a nickname for his buddy Putin - Pooty Poot.
2
This is just sad theatrics. Let's say this really does incapacitate Syria's chemical weapons program. Won't they just revert to using conventional weapons to target the same innocent people? Is blowing people to pieces with bombs and mortars really less heinous than suffocating them with gas? And if we are going to brag about doing something about the latter but them fail to do anything about the former then what did we really accomplish?
Just last year Mr. Trump flexed his muscles for the first time while he ordered missile strikes on Syria, and this week he claimed that during that exercise 20 percent of Syria's air force planes and helicopters were destroyed after 59 or so missiles was delivered over strategic targets and this time Mr Trump proclaimed "mission accomplished". Pentagon claimed "Syria Strikes Hit ‘Heart’ of Chemical Weapons Program". The question is, why was the "heart of the program" not destroyed during the attack last year? Does that tell us that last year's attack was just for show?
We the American people expect that when any attack on a foreign land is undertaken, those should be as effective as possible so that our children would not have to undertake such dangerous trips time and again, and also not waste funds doing the same job multiple time.
This well publicized threat via Tweeter-mocks by the "Tweeter-in-Chief" gave the impression that our angry and frustrated Commander would teach the belligerent Syrian leader, Assad a lesson for life! On the contrary, it was somewhat comical to see a few flying light flares over Syrian sky and the next morning life was normal in Syria, barring a few building in rubble. So, what was this joke all about?
1
When the President says, "It was a perfect strike" my mind immediately rushes to: somewhere along the way it went terrible wrong. This is almost certainly the case concerning a long-term strategy.
3
I too would like to know more about the strike on storage facilities. This would risk a massive local release of CW agents.
2
Maybe, but then it would be the Syrian government supporters who would be affected - taste of their own medicine kind of thing. Then again if what you say is true one would think the Assad regime would use it as propaganda against the strike.
1
It’s okay if we gas them, we do it under the rule of law. Big difference than under a tyrannical dictatorship. Obviously.
With so much rubble in Syria already these new photographs hardly impress. At what point does the process start to reverse itself and any more bombs dropped on it actually reassemble the buildings instead because there’s nothing left to destroy? Now that would be what I called a “smart” bomb.
2
A better title would be "Despite one-off missile strike and Trump's reactionary-bluster, Syria is gone, conceded to Assad, Putin and Iran."
1
trump criticized previous administrations for telling the enemy of their war plans, then he proceeds to host media sessions and tweet up a storm about impending air strikes in Syria. So much for secretiveness.
Instead, mr. trump gives Assad and Putin plenty of time to move their "stuff" before he puts on his show of strength with his "smart and shinny new missiles" that forces the Pentagon to "claim" we bombed chemical plants - without worry of actually spreading more chemical because of our bombing. This was nothing more than a media show for November mid-terms.
How is it that the daily Assad violence against his own people receives zero media coverage and then out of the blue, we see chemical attack coverage?
When compared to this resent horrific attack, more people are being crushed daily by their own governments than poisoned by chemical agents, but we see little to no coverage of it. Instead, we receive a barrage of daily coverage of one man's tweets.
Case In Point: What are we reading now - trump tweets about his use of the phrase "Mission Accomplished."
4
"Mission Acccomplished" sounds familiar. George W. Bush said that exact same thing. I think what he means is he diverted media attention from Comey and the blossoming investigations and lawsuits and disaster of the WhiteHouse. America is now at war with Assad's Syria and his allies. How is that accomplishing anything? If anything, it is putting us all in harm's way.
2
What if it wasn't Assad's side?
Assuming there was a CW attack (as I believe there was), what if the rebels did it but the US, France and the UK conclude that Assad did it and bomb his side?
That's what has happened, of course. Is that good or bad for Syrian civilians? If the rebels did it (as I suspect, though there's no evidence either way), are the rebels more likely or less likely to use CWs on Syrian civilians in the future -- knowing, as they do, that the US, France and the UK blamed it on Assad this time?
2
You make an argument.....against your argument - when you say "there's no evidence either way.
1
So one might think:
"What I don't understand is what happens when a chemical facility is bombed: don't the chemicals then disperse in the air/area and become toxic?"
Not enough, it appears, that the man in the photo felt it was dangerous to traipse around on the rubble.
But there's a simple explanation for this: The bombings were "surgical strikes," which means they destroyed the buildings that held the containers that held those dangerous chemicals -- WITHOUT destroying the containers or otherwise disturbing the dangerous chemicals inside.
"Surgical strike" -- that's the key here!
The butcher of Damascus needs to know there is a red line. What I don't understand is what happens when a chemical facility is bombed: don't the chemicals then disperse in the air/area and become toxic?
Assad and Trump have a lot in common in that as long as their base loves them, why should they care what anyone else thinks? I suppose you can add Benjamin Netanyahu as well to that tub. Rub a dub dub.
1
So it is a Syrian, Iranian, Russian rebuild. That will be a long term alliance tested from the get go on how well they can cooperate with one goal still in mind.
2
Bombing chemical storage sites, without knowing what chemicals or nerve agents those sites might contain and, therefore, the unimaginable nightmare scenario that might be unleashed, is unconscionable. Thus, I say, I smell a staged performance.
4
Hardly. The way to do that might have involved hitting those facilities during the day and killing all those engineers and professionals needs to keep the program running. This strike was nothing more than urban renewal using bombs. WAG THE DOG.
4
When a groundhog sees its shadow on Feb 2, it means six more weeks of winter.
Based on what has happened in Iraq, when POTUS declares "Mission Accomplished" when it has barely begun, that means 15 more years of war.
4
for sure this was a diversionary tactic to draw attention away form the Comey book release
"mission accomplished" doesn't anyone help this guy out when he's addressing the public
but while you'er here why isn't there a comments section after the Kabaservice editorial where he suggests that the way for repubs to maintain there status in office is to become what the democrats were before they tried to become what the repubs were before Reagan..... just askin
1
Mueller must be getting close.
4
Many commenters point out that Assad has been using conventional weapons for years to kill people, and so what's the difference if he uses CWs too?
First, the same can be said about the rebels, who may have been responsible for this CW attack.
More important, while I agree that the world should come down very hard on anyone who uses CWs on civilians, there IS a war going on over there. In wars, both sides use whatever they've got -- conventional weapons, CWs, nukes, whatever. And each side tries to persuade the world that its opponents are using some type of weapon (CWs, for example) that they shouldn't be using.
In other words, it's entirely understandable that EITHER side would use CWs -- IF they thought that doing so would be to their advantage. (That's the other thing about wars: both sides try to win them.) So if Assad's side felt that using CWs would be to his advantage (making victory come more quickly, for example), he might well use CWs, at least if he thought he could get away with it. Similarly, if the rebels felt that using CWs would be to their advantage (encouraging outsiders to help them, for example), they might well use CWs, at least if they thought they could get away with it.
Here, the rebels have the best of all possible worlds. Not only will the US side with them if it's shown that Assad used CWs, but the US will side with them even if there's no evidence whatsoever which side did it. It can't get much better than that.
2
The Holocaust, gas chambers, the supreme inhumanity borne by no others than . . . Sometimes when one constructs too perfect of a mystique, it goes beyond what it was originally intended, unfortunately.
I do not believe a single word this administration tells us. Why do we know about chemical weapons manufacturing - in violation of an agreement made during the Obama administration? Are these really weapons deployed by Assad?
The story stinks to heaven!
5
"Why do we know about chemical weapons manufacturing ..."
The US and its allies need to detect chemical weapons and to defend against their use by enemy states and by terrorists.
"... in violation of an agreement made during the Obama administration?"
The US has been a party to the Chemical Weapons Convention since 1997. If you think the US is in "violation", cite the exact text.
You can read the CWC here:
https://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/
1
Do readers here believe that Assad should be allowed to hit his citizens with chemicals? Do they believe that he will stop if just left alone? What is the UN doing - anything?
The world has no ability to stop maniacs like Assad unless it comes together with a strong, unified voice. Many progressives want peace across the planet, but don't seem to understand the people like Assad have no desire for peace. The UN must do something! They receive billions a year to do something; where does that money go?
2
OK, so you blow up a chemical weapons storage facility. Are all of the chemicals in those weapons burned up in the explosion, or does some of it spread downwind and possibly endanger noncombatants?
4
More fake news reported by the failing white house. No basis for this military action and the results (long term) are not yet in. Trump is a modern day paper tiger--nothing more.
5
Trump being Trump, why doesn't he target Asad directly?
CNN's Fareed Zakaria praised President Donald Trump for working with multiple allies and leading a measured response against Syria and noted that the approach mirrors Barack Obama's.
Source: CNN
1
In 2014 the Obama administration assured us that there were no chemical weapons in Syria. Politifact declared this to be a truth. Suddenly, Syria has chemical weapons and Politifact withdraws their declaration of truthfullness. What is more shocking than trump attacking Syria to attack non existent facilities is the media response of hushing up the lie, the media collusion to declare the lie the truth, and absolutely no media admission of what can only be crummy reporting at best, and at worse outright trickery to support an administration by, declaring repeatedly as an agent of a political party, a complete falsehood. Coupled with the Comey story about NYT editing facts at the behest if the same political party and only responding with a "no comment", one may indeed infer that Russian political activism in the US has been present for far longer than claimed. As we easily see, NYT has been taking money and often being associated with Russian propaganda machines for white a while. Read any of their ads in the actual paper recently? Who to trust? Certainly not trump, and certainly not the media.
1
"In 2014 the Obama administration assured us that there were no chemical weapons in Syria."
Wrong. The OPCW reported that all the chemical weapons that the Syrians *declared* were destroyed:
Destruction of declared Syrian chemical weapons completed
04 January 2016
https://www.opcw.org/news/article/destruction-of-syrian-chemical-weapons...
1
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/apr/05/revisiting-o... According to my records Kerry was speaking for Obama and not opcw at the time but if you have evidence to the contrary it would probably be at least a policy violation to keep such information secret.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! We have sent a message to Assad: Kill as many Syrian civilians as you want w/ CONVENTIONAL weapons, just don't use CHEMICAL weapons. And, OBTW, Syrian civilians: Don't imagine for a moment that we really care about you. We've slammed that Golden Door shut in your faces. No Syrian refugees here! America First! #MAGA
4
Can someone please pass a mask to that soldier over the rubble taking some pictures?
3
Are you too busy applauding to ask yourself a few questions?
"I applaud Trump's bombing of the gas manufacturing areas."
If you can stop applauding long enough, here are a few questions for you to consider:
1. If these were "gas manufacturing areas," why don't the photos show any gas coming out?
2. If these were "gas manufacturing areas," why would the man in the photo be walking around?
3. If these were "gas manufacturing areas," was the US endangering Syrian civilians by bombing them?
4. If these were "gas manufacturing areas," wasn't Assad violating his promise, made several years ago, to give up all chemical weapons? If so, why did the US wait so long to protect Syrian civilians?
If you come up with good answers for some or all of those questions, here's an "extra points" question:
Why doesn't the US do what it demand from other countries -- give up its chemical weapons?
An "extra" extra-points question for you:
Same question as above, but substitute "cluster bombs" for "chemical weapons."
OK, one more:
What if the rebels did this, rather than Assad? (We don't know one way or the other.) If so, will the US attack on Syria make it more likely or less likely that the rebels will once again use CWs on Syrian civilians.
7
I would reckon too that Syria is like the US in that it doesn’t probably make one bomb at a time, use it, then restart the manufacturing process to make a new one . . . It’s probably got thousands already made stashed away which we now have given them the license to use because they just prepaid the penalty with a strike on what was a paint factory for all we know.
I applaud Trump's bombing of the gas manufacturing areas. BUT does this give Syria the right to use convential bombs and shells to kill his people?
Why didn't we bomb the Syrian airfields and Russian's for that matter?
Trump still going lightly on Putin? Still afraid to go too far with his past history while in Russia?
Who is the "Slime Ball?"
There is one way Donald Trump compares favorably to FDR. FDR was well aware of Nazi barbarism but stuck his head in the sand until he had no choice after December 7, 1941. Trump, for all his flaws and they are boundless, did the right thing in doing something to stand up to unspeakable barbarism. But now he must forge a strategy to finish the job without embroiling our troops in yet another impossible to win ground war.
1
To suggest that FDR "stuck his head in the sand" and was only forced into war after Pearl Harbor is misrepresenting the truth and maligning one of the greatest Presidents of the 20th Century.
An excerpt from "Those Angry Days: Roosevelt, Lindbergh, and American’s Fight over World War II, 1939-1941", ....."the preceding two years (before Pearl Harbor), Americans were deeply divided about the role of the United States in the world and whether the country should enter the war to fight Hitler. President Franklin D. Roosevelt supported intervention on the side of Great Britain, the only anti-Nazi democracy in Europe after the fall of France in June 1940, but his public pronouncements were often contradictory or simply mystifying. Like a majority of Americans in the late 1930s, Charles Lindbergh, the world-famous aviator and national hero, was a staunch anti-interventionist and an unofficial leader of the movement to keep America out of the war.
4
The Pentagon has lost it, sounding more like the deranged clown in the WH, and not the rational beings we thought were there. “The heart of the chemical arms program” was sleeping in him warm, comfortable bed in is palace, waiting to see what happened since he was alerted days earlier. He’ll have 5he program back up and running in a few days. What should have happen didn’t. The Syrian air force is still active and Assad still had his morning (Turkish) coffee.
2
So we are supposed to believe the Pentagon the bastion of lies and misdeeds, good luck. Is this the run up to another war to liberate the people of Syria, just like the run up to destroying Iraq and causing utter chaos in the Middle East. Is this 'conspiracy theory' working to keep the military/industrial complex alive and well? Lies, fake news and an out of control president, it has come to that!
4
Trump is only concerned about his public image. If he caught a minnow he would brag that he caught a whale. Sure Assad is evil but so are many other rulers such as Kim Jon-Un. They only care about themselves and not their people. Assad's only interest is staying in power and Russia will insure this. The paltry damage we did will be quickly repaired. Several days ago, Trump wanted to pull out of Syria within 48 hours until his generals gently and diplomatically told him he was an idiot and that it will take months. Trump is stupid enough to fall into the GWB/Iraq trap. Let's pray this does not happen. We do not have a policy in Syria other than defeating ISIS. I suspect Russia did not retaliate during the attack, even though they could have, because they don't want to do anything that might cause the US to stay. The Russians were able to save face because the US attacks did not affect or transit Russian controlled areas, especially their military bases. If Trump is such a humanitarian, why has he not, for example, tried to help save the Royhingya from genocide?
Assad has shown willingness to abdicate in the past. In fact Iran 'persuaded' him to stay in power. Many fail to realize the 'regime' or should we just say the syrian government has broad support and is in a solid state. Remember that they are fighting for their existence and lives. They are still majority Sunni but include many of the minorities who in the past have been at odds with the oppressive government. Simply because the foe they face does intent on whole sale genocide once the opportunity arises. The US and Europe do not have the moral highground as this war would not be happening right now if it wasn't for the US/Europe and their Arab dictator allies funding and fueling the flames. This rebellion did not appear out of nowhere but was well organized and funded. The blood the US has on its hands even surpasses the tremendous amount the regime has. US adminstrations have been compiling mistake upon mistake in the middle east. Between the lies and propaganda it is not strange the world has little trust in any good intentions. The latest strike is nothing but posturing, nothing but kicking the can out of frustration. Not policy merely incompetence. It serves no purpose. Why draw a line at a suspected 40 dead by chemical weapons after you help fan and continue a conflict that has killed 500.000 people.
This is all theater with post-op announcements of success before even a shallow preliminary analysis of damage is possible.
Nothing meaningful will be accomplished until we attack the men who give the orders and supply the "bullets," but that takes action that al-Assad's supporter (i.e. Russia) says risks serious consequences and Trump appears afraid of that oral threat.
1
The mission of retaliation has been accomplished. We just don't really know what the reason for the retaliation was.
1
Some say it's mission accomplished, some say it's a failure, but no one can say what the mission is.
If I recall, it was the US, UK and France that destroyed Libya over alleged humanitarian issues
2
So, the Pentagon, in charge of where the rubber meets the road, we now find, also has its head deep in the sand. Is there any hope? Do not answer that, I am fortunately, getting quite old.
Not wishing to sound picky but doesn’t the fact that we just struck the heart of Syria’s chemical weapons threat squarely put Russia in the hot seat? I mean, that deal that Kerry struck with his best bud Lavrov to clean out Syria’s chemical weapons in exchange for not violating Obama’s red line sort of make it look like they really dropped the ball and any chemical deaths in Syria are their fault? Better to save a few smart bombs for where they really belong.
Too many comments consider these strikes are just a dangerous and useless mingling in a civil war.
Not striking, doing nothing would have induced even more dangerous consequences.
1)You can' t allow the use of chemical weapons to the point of banalisation.
2)The West had to show Syria, Russia, Iran and Turkey it is still able to act.
3)The future of the whole area can't obviously be left to the current geopolitical configuration: acting against Assad' s use of chemical weapons is a necessary ( of course not sufficient)step towards a future pattern of renewed discussions taking into acounts the blunt reality on the ground: Syria , in the not so long run, will have to be rebuilt, most probably without Assad.
No move from the West would have been irresponsible.
1
So if you blow up storage facilities for sarin and other toxic gasses ... where did all the gas go? One would expect plumes of gas coming from the rubble, and anyone with half a brain would stay away from the sites for days or weeks. ... but that does not seem to be the case. I do not get it.
2
Did I get it right that the Trump administration told the Russians where they would be flying? Sounds strange at the least.
1
I am waiting for the Pentagon to show whatever evidence exists that would establish, in fact, that a chemical attack even occurred. This article says that nobody in authority has provided any evidence.
Has there been reporting on the dangers of compounds of the chemical weapons that have been released in a wild mixture by the explosion?
How many more innocent people have died to avenge the death of other innocent people? 45 is not making me believe that there was no security, no night man on patrol. 45 is playing with fire and WWIII. I have hope that the Russian foreign secretary is one of the grown-ups in the room.
1
Someone explain to me why chemical weapons are singled out? How many other ways have civilians been murdered by Assad and we said/did nothing.
Well, in two weeks, new allegations of chemical weapons use by Assad may surface, and since no proof is required, Trump will order new aerial attacks or perhaps an invasion a la Iraq. A day before the OPCW inspectors were supposed to arrive in Duma to start their investigation, the strikes were launched. That reminds me of the UN inspectors in Iraq, whose findings were that no "weapons of mass destructions were found in Iraq", but that was after that country was already invaded and destroyed, for all intents and purposes. The Bush administration was in a hurry to cry Mission Accomplished before that report came out.
I don't agree with Trump on anything else, neither his speeches and tweets nor his narcissistic and official acts, but he did do the right thing. Who cares what his psychological or political motive is, as long as he tries to degrade Assadistic chemical weapons (WMD) while minimizing civilian casualties in Syria.
Unfortunately, I don't trust the defense dept, Trump, Comey, and a whole lot of them now spinning their agendas. And because the facts are obscured how does anyone make an educated decision about anything? In my mind it'll take a regime change and some time before my trust is earned back. Not a good thing
1
I have a few questions. 1- if we know that Assad has chemical weapons facilities, why do we wait for him to use said chemical weapons to destroy them. (especially since we were assured that they were removed previously) 2- If we destroy said chemical weapons facilities, why were there no after effects from blowing up these facilities. Seems to me there would be an atrocious environmental & human catastrophe for destroying these facilities especially if one is in the city center.
1
Trump referred to the ME as a “bad place” and thanked Great Britain and France for their help and support for this targeted attack. I do find that ironic since it is Sykes-Picot Agreement between the victorious British and French imperialists over the Otoman Empire during WWI (1916) that is part of the roots for this and so on...
1
What do the Syrian mothers and fathers who are not fighting on any side want? How can the concerned nations of the world help them? After seven years, with the involvement of Russia and Iran and numerous rebel groups with differing goals, bringing an end to fighting seems a unrealistic objective for the international community. Why not focus on helping the non-combatants caught in the crossfires and only desiring to survive another day? If accepting refugees who leave on their own is not something most nations are willing to do, why not collaborate to evacuate those wanting to leave and operate secure refugee camps under UN auspices until the conflict is resolved? Saving the lives of innocents should be the "Mission accomplished."
The Times is going to great lengths to play down the role of the Brits and the French in this limited engagement. No mention of Merkel's endorsement of the action, either. Could it be that the Times wants to portray the US as an isolated, erratic wild card that has no support internationally, let alone in Congress, the US at large, and certainly not in the MSM?
NEVER TRUMP never ends.
1
So we have the US, UK and France all wagging the same dog.
2
Dumb move by trump. We do not need to be involved at all in a civil war, especially since neither side will like us after things are done. Let the UN handle this one. If the world, represented by the UN, can not solve this problem there should be no US support for either side.
4
Why were these obvious targets of the 'Heart of Syria's Chemical Threat' not dealt with in the first place during the earlier missile attack? Probably because we never had any clear idea what to do in Syria. It is a sheer hypocrisy of the west to sit on the sideline doing nothing while hundreds of thousands of civilians are being systematically killed in various manners and then finally react when another 70 die there foaming at their mouths.
3
I don't get it. If we knew Assad was in violation of the 2013 agreement, and if we knew where the chemical weapons facilities were, then why wasn't something done about it long ago?
4
Wasted money, wasted lives, and I truly doubt that the pathetic military attack ("I ordered, I, I, I...) by Trump who dragged May and Macron along will have any impact at all. Russia, as in the last attack, was not impressed, nor Assad. And their war will go on. The weapons manufacturers will get richer, the terrorists stronger, and the refugees more destitute. Had we a real government in place at home, we would have had a diplomatic plan in place, and probably would have been working on a non-lethal solution through the UN, instead of Nikki Haley (tho I'm pleased a woman is represented in this administration) trading insults with the Russian ambassador. Reminiscent of Kruschev banging his shoe on a table. Saber rattling while cities, history and infrastructure are destroyed and the refugees wander the earth trying to find homes. We could do a lot more. I would rather see refugee towns spring up on the edges of our national lands and parks than see strip mining and oil derricks. Along with climate change, our planet's greatest threat is men who are corrupt and worship the gods of power and wealth.
9
Jordan...if Trump had not been so intent on erasing everything Obama, we might have considered working through Congress and the UN to pressure Russia to push Assad to fulfill the obligations he had under the previous agreement (of Russian creation) to eliminate ALL of the gas weapons. It seems that Chlorine gas was eliminated from the original agreement. And if Russia were not also working its own agenda, diplomatic solutions would be more viable. That, and if our diplomatic "army" had not been purged by the current administration. If you look at the most peaceful moments in history, they were not the result of military might, but rather people finding a compromise that allowed each side a relief from war.
1
This is pure nonsense. To hit chemical gas installations would have produced toxic fumes and killed many people. This would have been most irresponsible. Moreover, why bomb installations just before the international inspectors were to arrive on the site?
It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the entire episode was a "Wag the Dog" operation thought of by Trump himself to get "patriotic" US media on his side and change the conversation away from former FBI Director James Comey's book and other scandals.
4
I've lost count of all the times we have destroyed Syria's capability to make and use poison gas. I think this is the third time that we have "destroyed Assad's ability to make poison gas." I have to wonder how much help Trump's bosom buddy Putin is assisting Assad. Putin wants a large Russian naval base in the Mediterranean because it is to easy to block his navy transit through the Bosporus. So, Putin will use whatever method he can to keep Assad in power.
2
Maybe I am slow but isn't there proof, undeniable proof, that it was Chlorine gas or any other type of gas that would stand up in a court of law?
Does anyone know? What's going on?
1
Well, you just sort of do it:
"How is it that the USA and allies can take upon themselves to bomb another nation with so little evidence as to the actual culprit?"
You just shoot first and ask questions later -- better yet, shoot first and DON'T ask questions later.
5
This was nothing but a Trump Political Farce that wasted Tax Payers Money.The Only way to stop these atrocities is to do away with Assad & his cohorts.Putin & the Mullahs will not risk an all out war to keep this despot in power.Russia did nothing when the Turks shot down a Russian Bomber that attacked A Syrian Turkish Village.Putin is ambitious and aggressive, but he is not crazy to stand up to the power of Nato. He has his own problems with the Sunni Muslims in Russia.
1
Well, would have been the heart of the chem. weapons manufactures except that Donnie tipped putin off, as per the French foreign ministry, and putin of course told assad.
Lots of VERY expensive fireworks for a distraction.
Nothing this administration does or said can be viewed in any way other than suspicious. Sad to say, but they lie about everything from the size of donnies hands and his crowds to conspiring with foreign enemies to rig elections.
Operation Desert Stormy is seen worldwide as wag the dog.
If it WAS out of concern for the Syrian people we would have an statement about restarting the Obama policy of getting Syrian refugee civilians out of the country and out of the reach of the monster assad.
We have had more indictments of trump officials than we have allowed Syrians into the US to escape the horror.
I also recall Colin Powell's UN speech:
"I recall that famous speech by Colin Powell at the UN with the so-called video evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
I was a lone voice crying out in the wilderness back then, but Powell's speech (the culmination of his effort to establish that he was still "relevant" in the Bush Administration) persuaded even my wife. She said: "Well, if even Colin Powell says Saddam Hussein has WMD, he must really have WMD."
For me, the best parts of Powell's speech were his black and white photos of some "industrial" site in rural Iraq and of a shack somewhere in Iraq which Powell said was a nuclear weapons lab. The first photo was actually two -- a "before" and "after" photo, showing that large amounts of dirt had recently been moved -- proof, Powell insisted, that the Iraqis were trying to cover up evidence of nuclear bomb-making.
I remember asking out loud: "If you suspect this pushed-around dirt, or this shack, is or was involved in nuclear bomb-making, or any other WMD-type activity, why don't you just send in one of the UN inspectors, with his Geiger counter, to check it out?" (Iraq was then crawling with many thousands of UN inspectors, approximately one every 50 feet; Saddam Hussein had promised and given full cooperation -- he even said "You can look under my bed if you like.")
Better to speculate, I guess, than to find out.
4
The US and allies used the chemical incident to test the new Russian anti missile system. That is it.
1
This reminds me of The Lion King:
"Dear Americans ... nobody really asks a question why on earth you goverment thinks that it can fire its missels where they want to ?"
To jump ahead a bit and answer that question: Because we CAN.
In an early scene of The Lion King, the very young Simba is looking down from Pride Rock onto a veritable sea of animals, all ruled by his father from Pride Rock. His father delivers his "Circle of Life" speech, which basically says that every animal has its place and associated duties to the whole animal kingdom.
Simba responds to his father: "But, Father, don't we eat these animals?"
Simba's father replies: "Let me explain, son."
As you might guess, the father's explanation was very detailed but nevertheless was something other than the truth, which, as stated above to answer your current question, is: "We can."
1
Think about this if Barzah Research and Development Center was so key in the chemical attacks in Syria why did trump not hit this a year ago rather than an empty air stripe? Another question if chemical and biological weapons were in test and design there would you not think folks around the destroyed building(s) one would see some dead bodies from these dangerous chemicals they were just exposed to?? Just the opposite tours are being given with no protection shown camera guy wearing nothing to protect him? And then there was this… He said it's "totally incorrect" that chemical weapons were being developed there. "The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) visited here and didn't report anything wrong with this place."
Reminds me of the strike in Sudan that turned out to be a pharmaceutical manufacturing plant. There was an RT account interviewing a chemist who worked at the plant for many years testifying to its production of pharmaceuticals. In any case, if they were manufacturing biological war agents or chemicals, how come everybody is strolling around in the rubble? Show me the evidence! Remember, these are the folks who brought us the WMD in Iraq fraud. Who can we trust at this point? Where's the media?
2
Again, taking out replaceable parts of a sinister program of murder by Assad will never replace cutting the head of the snake off meaning targeting Assad directly.
With all this money on the line (Raytheon made $5 billion form this airstrike alone*), every flexing of military might MUST be portrayed as successful. Still, the media report every Pentagon announcement as the truth.
Until the media begin examining the link between military sector profits, military sector lobbying, and the revolving door between the military sector and the Pentagon - and how all of these drive Washington's hawkish foreign policy - we will continue the insane levels of military spending, no at 52% of discretionary spending.
The Times published an Op-Ed that purported to examine Washington's hawkishness, something that is unchanging form administration to administration, as the report admits. The Op-Ed doesn't even mention the trillions spent on US military misadventures and the hundreds of billions in military sector profits over the past two decades - instead it identifies "bias for action" theories.
The elite own the corporations profiting from this madness, they own the media that dutifully report what the Pentagon tells them, and the elite own most of the politicians. Until the public sheds its apathy and demands sane spending priorities, we will continue our insane, profit-driven foreign policy
* http://fortune.com/2017/04/07/syria-airstrikes-tomahawk-missile-boeing-r...
7
The Pentagon was told to say, that the Syria strikes hit the "heart" of the chemical weapons program.
The Pentagon does as it's told.
Trump had tweeted a week in advance, that he would send missiles at Assad.
That gave Assad plenty of time to relocate all of his valuable assets.
Trump called Putin a number of times, giving him a "heads up" of places that the Russian troops should not be in when the attack comes.
The Pentagon definitely did hit the targets that it was aiming at, and they completely destroyed those targets.
But by the time those buildings were destroyed on Friday night, they were just empty buildings.
"Mission Accomplished".
2
" ...statement by Russian President Vladimir Putin in a statement issued by the Kremlin. 'Not a single local resident was able to confirm that a chemical attack had actually taken place.' " (USA Today) These are the same Russians who denied there were Russian troops in Ukraine when even the separatist Ukrainian troops said they were there. The same Russians who denied government sponsored doping of Olympic athletes until it became obvious and they got banned. The same Russians who denied meddling in US elections when all the US intelligence agencies saw it clearly. Their strategy seems to be plausible deniability, without the plausibility part
1
During the Vietnam War era I learned a fundamental rule of good citizenship that I was never taught in school---"Never ever trust anything your government tells you unless it is independently verified."
Russia has claimed that a significant number of the missiles sent into Syria were intercepted. My government says "not so." I would hope that is true, but I will believe it only when we hear some independent verification.
1
Remembering the the "huge success" of the US bombing a "weapons factory" in Sudan in 1998 that turned out to be a pharmaceutical plant, I assume that the strikes in Syria will show to be something rather similar.
After all, Syria has given up its chemical weapons plants a long time ago under the supervision of the OPCW.
So we'll see what we will learn about the real target of the illegal attack and I assume, given the speech of Pence yesterday, a speech that amounted to the "Powell Point" presentation of 2003 at the UN headquarters which gave an "explanation" for the illegal war the US waged right afterwards against Iraq, that in here too, the mission was to cover up a domestic problem of Trump and not to destroy anything even remotely connected to the war in Syria.
So the bets are on, was it a medical facility or simply a conventional chemical plant?
3
Very few people disagree that the side responsible for this CW attack (if one occurred, and it sure looks that way to me) should be severely punished. What bothers many people, though (I'm one), is that we should figure out first which side did it, so that we don't punish the wrong side.
The US government seems to have this overwhelming need to whack someone. They'd like to whack the guilty party, but it's more important to whack someone than to figure out whether you're whacking the right person -- especially when it looks like you'll never figure that out.
The unfairness of such retaliation would be more clear if the retaliatory attack had been on the rebels. There's no evidence that they did it -- only the "logical" observation that they had more to gain by a CW attack than Assad did. It would have been unfair to the rebels to bomb them with nothing more than that "logical" observation to support the bombing. It was just as wrong to bomb Assad with no evidence that he did it.
Earlier CW attacks (the 2013 attack in Damascus, for example) were followed up by detailed studies. I read that one very carefully (as well as earlier and later studies of that and other incidents). It was impossible to conclude that either side was responsible, but if I'd been forced to blame on side or the other, I'd have had to blame it on the rebels.
This time? Who knows? I haven't seen any evidence that either side did it, which begs the question: Is it good enough to say "We don't know?"
2
Nothing seems to be being said about what the repercussions are of hitting sites and warehouses holding nerve agents and other toxic chemicals. Isn't there a very real possibility that these agents could spread to the community surrounding the bombing?
1
What most people forget is that the deplorable situation in Syria comes from the decision of the CIA and the prior administration to remove Assad as the President. The CIA funded the rebels and provoked the civil war. 600,000 thousand dead people later we still have the same mess.
5
Can the Presidency and the Pentagon be trusted any more than the Russians and the Syrian government? Today, public tours are being conducted of the bombed "chemical weapons sites" without any protective measures, a fact to which the Pentagon now signals they were future production centres or research facilities, not used for current production or storage. And how do they know this and why does the US government story keep changing? Meanwhile, the international investigation into whether chemical weapons were used at all doesn't start until today, a fact known by the US before the attack. The "evidence" to date comes in pictures and videos provided by anti-Assad insurgents. Moreover, the US and the Kurds had very little to do with suppressing ISIS, that was mainly heavy lifting (and considerable brutality) by Russia and forces aligned with the Assad regime. Finally, how can the missile/bomb strike advance US or anti-Assad interests in Syria? The civil war is into the mop-up stage and the Assad regime won, despite the US backing anti-government forces. In other words, the US lost. Is there any truth in anything coming from this Administration and the US military? We know there's none coming from Russia or Syria itself. Meanwhile, in the aftermath of the failed US invasion of Iraq, bodies of civilians are rotting in the streets of Mosul and the US/Saudi attack on Yemen is a colossal humanitarian disaster.
4
Two questions: 1. Why are there no reports of injuries from poison gas following the bombing of the three facilities? 2. Why did Russia refrain from utilizing its anti-missile defenses?
In using chemical weapons at this point in the Syrian tragedy, Assad imposed outsized risks on everyone-- including sponsors, Russia and Iran. Assad thumbed his nose at much of the world, and the situation could have easily gotten out of hand. Putin must be furious.
If Putin and Trump reached an agreed solution where both sides could plausibly claim victory, that would be a good thing. Destroy sites that once housed chemical weapons.
I trust nothing this gov't says about the middle east and the endless interference of our gov't in this part of the world. Starting with the CIA involved overthrow of Mossedegh in Iran in 1953, all the way to today's phony reasons for the invasion of Syria - the US is obsessed for this region for one reason only: OIL. If this region had no oil, we would not be endlessly invading these countries. That is why, for the most part, Asia and Africa are left alone by this country. We have no overwhelmingly corporate interests in these countries. Also, why this country fails to advance renewal energy; the oil industry is stopping it.
1
There is at least one conclusive evidence the bombs were not dropped by rebels, ISIS or anybody fighting against Assad. They were dropped by an helicopter, and you can't fly an helicopter over Syria without the support of Russian forces.
Did Russia retaliate ? No.
Is WWIII started ? No.
Is Russian defense shield an issue ? No.
U.S. or allied casualties ? None.
Is U.S. engaged in a long term war ? No.
Any terrible mistake like hitting a residential area instead of a factory ? No.
Were those attacks a long term distractions for those dreaming 24/7 of Trump impeachment? No, the're back to the only subject they care about, and they couldn't care less of Syrians.
There is one red line, the Syrian civil war is none of our business as long as it uses conventional weapons. The red line was crossed twice, the regime was hit twice, call it a wrong move is just a pose.
The United States now has no effective Department of Sate, no ability to use effective diplomacy and no alternative to military operations in lieu of genuine foreign policy.
Pardon my skepticism but I sense the set up. Trump says he will withdraw troops. Chemical attack. Missiles launched. Even the NYT says suspected chemical attack. Having heard the WMT justification for being sucked into the war vortex, I believe absolute verification from independent sources must be done. I am moved by the images of children suffering in Syria; all the more reason to reason and not just react. All the more reason to engage in using the tools put in place by the UN. Hailed as a success...really? Let's defer that characterization.
6
Let me get this straight.....alleged chemical weapon attack, if done by Assad, is very bad....but cluster bombs, depleted uranium, white phosphorus, etc is ok.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/a-cluster-bomb-made-in-...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/19/saudis-dropped-british-clu...
3
The United States, invaders of foreign countries, inventors of the cluster-bomb, arbiter of what you can and can't do in this world without getting clobbered. Sort of.
3
Donald Trump, surrounded by bellowing Chicken Hawk idiots like Nikki Haley and John Bolton, launched precision air strikes on Syria, based on a provable British lie. It is claimed by idiots that Assad launched a chemical weapons attack on civilians after he had won a contested war with Islamist terrorists for control of the Damascus suburb called Douma and whilst President Trump was considering withdrawing U.S. troops from his country. This followed a week of British generated war propaganda replete with fake and incendiary images created to dupe the very stupid into believing somehow that Putin eats human flesh and Assad spends all his time torturing infants and puppies. What is most rotten about this strike is that the President joined his own worst enemies, the British and French imperialists, in a step toward war with Russia and China.
7
So scarily reminiscent of John Hurt's Caligula as portrayed in "I, Claudius." The episode where Caligula, pretending to be Zeus, declares war on old Neptune and returns from his battles complete with chests laden with loot--seashells. Caligula, having enjoyed a lavish, opulent and exorbitant triumph, sported a large starfish on the middle of his diadem and cackled insanely that Neptune would now think twice before he took him on again...how little mad rulers do change from one era to another.
4
The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons is only trying to figure out whether a chemical attack took place in Duma -- not whose fault it was if one did.
Nobody's trying to figure out who did it, and that may be impossible to determine. Some people rely on claims by aid workers (who say Assad did it). Others (the NYT, for example) claim to have seen videos showing Assad did it (Earth to those people: the perpetrators did NOT allow video cameras to record their wrongdoing -- you've been duped.) Still others (the US government, for example) just draw their conclusions with no evidence at all. After all, nobody's proven that it WASN'T Assad, and so it must have been Assad -- at least that's good enough for bombing purposes.
3
Purely IRRESPONSIBLE. And it's their neighbors problem who we've been selling gobs of munitions to, not ours. Trump is either a war-monger or very stupid, gullible person. This is OBVIOUSLY a false flag attack.
5
We've been using drones to attack targets in Syria and Yemen for years now. While this attack may be "exceptional" because we used manned airplanes and we colluded with allies to strike, the fact is the U.S. has been at war in the Middle East, continuously, since 2003. It seems that as long as we're not endangering our people, but killing their's, the majority of Americans find nothing to get excited about. After all, we haven't **declared** any war, and they haven't hit **us** back, so "it's all good." Life goes on.
3
When was the last time the US had a president who did not feel the need to prove his manhood by sending the army to kill people in some other country?
6
A success until the next chemical attiack
2
"All 12 missiles have been shot down" by the Russians.
I don't know who is the biggest liar, DT or the Russians...
2
They sent a hundred rockets, a million dollars each, to destroy some six buildings. Brilliant.
2
I have wondered myself why it would take 105 expensive missiles to destroy 3 empty facilities. The military industrial complex making money again??
Dear Americans, It is interesting to read a lot of quite smart comments but nobody really asks a question why on earth you goverment thinks that it can fire its missels where they want to ? Do really usual americans support such attitude and are thinking that they are sole nation who knows what really matters ??? What if some other country will start behave like your goverment and will start bombing your homes under some stupid excusion or even without it.... just telling that ohh we are good gyes fighting against terrorism.... but don't you see that your country is behaving like terrorists for dosen of ages already ? Please reply what are you doing in all this arabic countries and who asked you to bomb them and cause migration and suffering to all those poor people whos life was miserable even before your "terrorism " strikes... ? Shame on your government gang.
5
Don't take the bait. This is a just a Trumpian attempt to deflect your attention from Stormy, Cohen, Trump and Bob. Or the Trump crime family as it's more commonly known. (Is the light of Syria real? Sure, but why this chemical attack? Why now? Why THIS genocide? Because someone wants to deflect you. Don't. Keep your eyes on the prize. The Constitution.
3
Selective morality at its finest. Basically, if you're a white Judeo-Christian this was your understanding of the "right thing to do" and that's exactly what's wrong with American foreign policy in every sense.
2
Trump is either bipolar or one of the most savage people of modern times. You cannot deny Syrian families refuge in this country and at the same time claim that you are defending them by bombing them. This was the Mission Stormy Chaser, and everyone knows it. Meanwhile "My Michael" (Cohen) is lurking around Manhattan with his gabones, having committed crimes ranging from intimidation to money laundering and G-d knows what else. If we suspect use of chemical weapons, UN inspectors should have been sent in immediately. Not bombs.
2
If I were President of the United States, I would not attack Assad; I would attack Putin in an information war in Russia. The only reason that Putin is supporting Assad is because Putin wanted a permanent air and naval base on the Mediterranean Sea and this is what he got in return for his support of this dictatorship.
Putin is doing exactly what Hitler did in Poland and Russia in World War II. He is using his military superiority to devastate the Syrian civil war opposition. Send wave upon wave of "information missiles" directly to the Russian people. In World War II, 20 million Russian people died and millions more suffered enormously. This is not forgotten.
Russia is doing the same thing to the people of Syria. Attack Putin with the truth. He is supporting a cruel, minority-supported oligarch in Syria in return for a strategic military advantage. This is where Putin is vulnerable; just tell the Russian people the truth over and over again until the undeniable truth sinks in for the majority of Russian people.
There is another article in today's New York Times by David Sanger that says Assad can easily reconstitute these same biological weapons. What are going to be the military targets of the United States, Britain and France against Assad's biological weapons the next time Assad uses them against his people in revolt? This time the targets were obvious and all personnel would have been moved out a week ago.
Attack Putin in Russia with information!
2
In the overall scheme of things, it was a pinprick...a feeble message to a dictator who is a mass murderer of innocent people.
1
Putin to Trump: Hey what if we can provide you with a distraction that may even get the Frenchies and the Brits to come out on your side? Trump to Putin: wonderful! Surprise me!
1
Trump needs congress approval to attack Syria. Americans are tired of Trump ; attacking Comey; FBI; news media; anyone who opposes him. Ray Sipe registered Florida voter
2
100 missiles at a million bucks each. We know who this attack made happy.
1
Trump might as well have bombed an aspirin factory. If we are to fight in Syria it would be much better to let them kill as many of each other as possible before engaging. Neither side likes us now, neither side will like us later. Dumb move.
1
TRUMP Likes nothing better than being the center of attention--especially if it is negative attention--so he can thumb his nose at the world while maintaining the longest food fight in the history of the planet. His pronouncements are worse than useless--they're laughable--because he is incapable of learning or analyzing the facts of the matter. Trump doesn't get it that there is a difference between being the president of the US and a third-rate game show host. The business of governing the US is most assuredly more challenging than any game show ever has been or will be. Once again, Trump shows that he is unmoored from the truth; and from facts. The last thing the Earth needs is an ignorant, violent, sexually predatory brute in a position of unwarranted power.
2
I wonder if coordination prior to the attack led to results similar to bombing sand? Maybe the operation should be code-named Desert Sand.
2
I don’t want Syria punished; I want them stopped.
This was a reactive attack and it is so obvious who is controlling the game.
Sorry Trump, you are playing with the big boys and you have no idea what to do.
Pinpricks.
Let's get serious and take out Assad.
1
Are we supposed to be gullible enough to believe that Syria can't procure chemical weapons from Russia? Yes, Americans are that stupid. This attack was meaningless. At least last year we took-out some military hardware. Moreover, as horrible as chemical weapons are, 400,000 Syrians have died in their civil war and maybe 1% were the result of chemical weapons. Why does our moral outrage only surface when chemical weapons are used? Dead is dead. Not to mention, Trump is wholly against actually helping Syrian refugees. This is America at our worst. We flex our military muscle to make a bunch of hillbillies who voted for Trump feel good about themselves, but we accomplish nothing - help no one. Sad.
2
What is the problem? The problem is that Trump played a child's game with Putin (and by association, Assad). What the United States, the UK and France should have done is exactly what they did PLUS bloodied Putin's filthy nose. The least we should done is taken out Russian capability of some sort. Why? For the reason that Putin lies to us all the time. ALL the time. We need to teach him a serious lesson and we had an opportunity last night. Trump is a wet sponge.
Sorry but I do not believe anything that comes from this administration and pentagon. They are all liars. Who says they hit their target? How do we know for sure? When once you lie to me, I never trust you again.
4
Evidence would be nice before you play god.
4
Destroying more a destroyed country is really a noble goal.
4
Nobody gives a hoot. Get back to the Mueller investigation.
1
Who can believe ANY thing that comes out of the mouth of this pathological liar?
Two weeks before Trump proudly boasts that we were "getting out of Syria"!
So after giving Syria a weeks notice ("nice, smart missiles are
coming!"), Trump bombs empty airfields and empty weapons facilities and then brags, "Mission Accomplished!".
What a complete insult to the american people.
3
Never did I think I would agree with anything President Trump said or did.
This was the moral and correct thing to do. Genocide is unacceptable anywhere anytime. Just as it was by the Nazis, by Pol Pot , in Rawanda, Darfur - etc.etc.
In most of those cases the West did NOTHING and tens of millions died.
The USA, France and Britain did not stand by in this case. Russia & Iran's belicose bleating is indefeisible and the dictators in those contries need to be stared down. As for Assad, he is directly comparable with Pol Pot, with Mugabe, Saddam et al and can not be supported. He needs to be made a pariah and banished to prison.
the bombing of Syria brings to my mind idea of the Kabuki Dance.
1
My guess, they gave them plenty of time to relocate, nothing accomplished except explosions for media. Wake up folks.
1
20% of your taxes at work carrying out Operation Stormy Comey. I'm sure that helped the poor people in Syria a lot. That mission was at least as expensive as feeding and protecting 18000 Syrians for 3 years. Barrel bombs and mass murder - no problem, Chlorine gas - boom. If you want to punish Assad, why don't you just kill him?
2
What happens to the poison chemicals when you bomb the plant they're made?
2
I wonder if Russia helped us with targeting...
2
No military or civilian casualties?
Next time let's just bang some pots and pans together...
2
There is "NO MISSON ACCOMPLISHED" when yet again we are lead further into war with Syria, Russia and Iran and we are STILL IN Afganhistan! I know ssad is a butcher and will be punished whenever we capture or bomb his capitol where he lives but we will never get out with Bolton head of this charge in Syria he loves war.Assad will not stop his war and will use the chemicals given to him by Russia or Iran. Besides there are so many factions in Syria going to war within the country I don't know if this so called president will be any more successful than George W by saying his slogan and what if one of the fly boys of our armed for forces or Britian or Frances's get shot down then what? I understand Obama didin't want to enter in the Syrian war and I believe that was the right move but now what Trumpster you gonna start another war? Probably so this "so called" president should get his behind in a jet and take the chance to take the risk of bombing Syria so he knows just how risky it is. It is easy to send our boys in arms way but nut that because this clown isn't risking his own life in this crazy Syrain war.
I got it now, that is chemical bombs don't kill people, people with chemical kill people!
1
Syria has been developing and storing chemical weapons for years. Yes, they may be developed at this site but many many tons have been shipped out to storage areas throughout Syria. I am sure they have tons of chemicals weapons stored all over and ready to go. This strike was a feel good for us and a political calculation by Trump. It will not stop chemical weapons use and will not stop Syria-Iran -Russia. it was another stupid, impulsive and incompetent action.
1
Doesn't Donald Trump get the message think before you act? I mean, we all learned that in kindergarten. Unless, of course, he was too ignorant to get into kindergarten.
1
This attack was authorised by Congress? No
Is Syria a direct threat to Americans or American interests? No
Will this attack make it any harder for Assad to continue to kill civilians? Not likely. He is still free to kill them with Russia's help using their planes and dropping barrel bombs among other ways to kill civilians.
Will this admin let in more Syrian civilians? You know, the little babies?
Not bloody likely.
So what did this attack accomplish? Oh you know, we ain't talking about Stormy or the Cohen raid this weekend are we? So 'Mission Accomplished.'
2
If we reduce our military budget by 25% we would still have the world's largest and most powerful armed forces AND we could pay off all our national debt AND we could fund national healthcare for all AND fund national parental leave for all AND we could guarantee the longterm viability of Social Security. Think about it.
8
I wonder whether the US, Great Britain and France were absolutely sure that the bombardement of three chemical weapons storage and research facilities in Syria would not set free highly dangerous and toxic substances. Or were there none, or were the hits so precise that the chemicals were destroyed ? I also wonder what would be the political and legal consequences for the West in the hypothetical or unlikely case that the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons would come to the conclusion that no chemical attack had taken place in Duma.
3
No question in my mind that pressure is being put on the inspectors to come up with the right answer.
The purported reason for the attack: a message that the West will not tolerate the use of chemical weapons would have been stronger if The U.S., Britain and France had all apologized for their own past complicity in the dissemination and use of chemical weapons.
Tragically, the strike—which was preceeeded by tough talk against not only Assad, but his two key allies Russia and Iran—did nothing to threaten their interests. The impact will almost surely be the same as after Trump’s Airstrikes last year and president Obama’s repeatedly failed to challenge Assad and his alllies relentless attacks against civilians: a ramping up of attacks against hospitals and other civilian targets using conventional weapons while subverting the international community’s attempts to provide humanitarian aid.
Over seven years into this nightmare, the West appears to have no good options. But the decision to do nothing, or to strike without a coherent strategy, only escalates the harm this war is inflicting on innocent Syrian civilians and the present and future threats it represents for the West’s national security interests.
1
The same person who allegedly had an affair with a pornstar, at full speed, recklessly, to enjoy his own power, now commands the greatest military apparatus in the world. In the same way, now he uses this apparatus at full speed, recklessly, to enjoy his own power. Same person, same behavior.
1
If America knew where the chemical weapons were being manufactured, Assad and Russia would know our intelligence had the information. Trump warned Assad and Russia via Tweet that the missiles were coming; smart, shiny and new. Our own president gave Russia a heads-up that missiles would be coming. This was mentioned early on and then dropped from reporting. As a result, he gave them several days to move things out. This was a slap on the wrist to say don't do it again. I doubt it put any hurt on Assad's chemical weapons program. The Syrian people (what's left of them) must be so sick of this.
3
"... he gave them several days to move things out."
Then spy satellites and other intelligence sources can follow those "things". Shake the tree and see what falls out.
Trump finally follows through on what most Democrats, Republicans, most in Congress and Senate, as well as CIA want him to do. Lovely!
2
After announcing it days ahead of time, giving Assad and Putin plenty of time to move equipment and chemicals. You don’t purposely signal tells to your opponents unless you plan to throw the game.
One other aspect of this that isn't being discussed: the area Assad used chemical weapons on was the last area of resistance from rebels. Who afterwards recognized they were defeated and released the area back to Assad. So why would Assad need any more chemical weapons? The opposition is essentially defeated and recognizes they cannot defeat Assad. And they also recognize the cavalry isn't just over the hill about to ride in and save them. We were the heroes who came to punish Assad after 40-50 people were killed by chemical weapons. But looked the other way as hundreds of thousands were killed and millions became refugees. Our humanitarian response to that : we offer an endearing shrug of the shoulders and rip the welcome mat from our shores. After all these people are terrorists after all. Just like all Mexicans are drug dealers and rapists. This civil war is simply a ruse to allow terrorists to infiltrate the west. And our ruse is to fight their ruse by allowing genocide, disease and starvation, and allowing people to drown after their inflatable boats capsize in the Mediterranian. Mission Accomplished, right, Don?
2
if they have known that assassination has been producing chemical weapons and where, why did they wait till he used them?
1
Syria is a proxy war between the US and Russia. Period. Stop beating around the bush. Meanwhile, every Syrian that can still stand has left and their country has been destroyed.
Also: the poor lonely clown launches missiles against Assad's chemical weapons manufacturing site(s), but is vocally opposed to accepting civilian refugees as they flee? Haven't seen anyone make that point.
Mission not accomplished. No bigly win.
4
The proxy war in Syria is between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Between Shia and Sunni. All others are just bit players.
1
Where is Collin Powell? We could have used a recording of his speech about the irrefutable proof that Saddam Hussein was close to having nuclear weapons and other weapons of "mass destruction". What a saving for Nikky Haley to avoid another speech for war. Is there a reason to believe that Syria used chemical weapons other than President Trump says its so? Sadly the President condemns 400,000 Syrians to death and misery and then pushes a button to blow up sites with attacks he telegraphed in advance. Sadly our country's system elected this person President and sadly there are no people of honor to at least say no to his idiocy. Is that paragon of foolishness john bolton at his desk yet? He did so well in Iraq. No doubt there is more horror to come.
2
How is this headline newsworthy? When has the military ever declared that an action it undertook was not effective? Not THAT would be news. And what does "success" even mean with Assad still in power?
CWs are the poor man's WMD.
CWs cause horrible deaths, but it's not all that much fun having your head blown off by a conventional weapon, or having a nuclear bomb dropped on your head.
Conventional weapons and nukes cost a lot, though. CWs are cheap, and just as effective -- especially if the other side gets blamed for using them every time you do.
1
"Shock and Awe", "Mission Accomplished" = still there; "A perfectly executed strike last night" per Trump. And we are getting out of Syria soon, real soon!! I am starting to get flashbacks! And it did not turn out well!
1
So, Trump said to himself, "you know, I liked when Bush said that thing on that big military ship...what was it, an air craft carrier or something?...whatever, I'm gonna use that 'Mission Accomplished' line."
And no one was able to get him to understand how indescribably stupid that would be. In fact, I bet John Bolton probably said, "yes yes, Mr. President. Yes. Good idea."
Is there reason for hope?
The USA/UK/France ‘axis of what?’ fired many missiles at targets in Syria – how many of those missiles were shot down by Syrian Air Defences? Why does nobody ask?
According to a full and detailed briefing by the Russian Military - available online - many of the missiles were shot down; some hit ‘targets’ that were old empty buildings (hence the absence of casualties)
Russia (and China) made it clear that American aggression in Syria will no longer be tolerated; they drew their own red line. However, they understand that the USA/UK/France ‘axis of what?’ has painted itself into a corner. Thus, they allow a show of force for the pliant Western Media and use the occasion to demonstrate the sophistication of Russian Air defence technology.
Somewhere in the chaos surrounding President Trump there is a sane head, maybe Bolton has arrived too late to sup on more blood?
There is reason for hope
1
Whether it is Golf of Tonkin, Bush/Cheney weapons of mass destruction fraud for Iraq invasion or Mission Accomplished boast of Bush, one thing is certain, the world is unable to be certain of any news emanating from the Western Powers.
If people view the entire incident of Syrian Chemical attack, first thing that comes to our mind is Eisenhower Farewell Address to the Nation on The military–industrial complex, an informal alliance between a nation's military and the arms industry which supplies it. seen together as a vested interest which influences public policy. A driving factor behind this relationship between the government and defense-minded corporations is that both sides benefit—one side from obtaining war weapons, and the other from being paid to supply them.
Syrian Chemical attack ought have been thoroughly investigated before launching an attack. It's widely circulated that a "staged video, widely spread by the discredited White Helmets… eyewitnesses confirmed that the “victims” on the videos had no signs of chemical poisoning".
"The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted'. Eisenhower
4
This is the perfect storm for trump enabling him to raise a false flag operation aimed at distancing himself from his Russian overlords in the face of increasing public and congressional scrutiny in regards to malfeasance and the 2016 elections. That it's absoluting lethal stuff he's recklessly playing with doesn't concern him one bit. Everything trump does is a stunt with a very calculated eventual outcome. His actions are not 'normal' or benevolent in any way. He's an evil, manipulative man.
2
Per U.S. Ambassador Nikki R. Haley, “The United States is “locked and loaded” if it is “believed [Assad] renews use of chemical weapons.”
Ms. Haley, this is a dangerous threat to level at any country while seated at the United Nations Security Council. The U.S. now attacks targets based upon beliefs, not facts? As Ambassador, you are our chief Diplomat to not only the U.N. but to the world. Your job is to cool tempers not inflame them. To use tact to defuse a situation.
Every new news clip I see of you grates on me. Your hyperbolic rhetoric is damaging our international reputation. Your ambassadorship is not a “bully pulpit.” No one likes a bully nor takes one seriously. Tone it done! You might actually accomplish the mission of de-escalation of tensions and prevent war.
3
Swing for a million dollars, and strike for 10 cents. Assad laughs.
2
Unless the US targets and kills Assad, this is all just a show and a gigantic waste of taxpayer money.
1
I think the main error of Assad/Putin was to use chlorine etc. They should have used Agent Orange, a far more potent and efficient chemical agent. Top grade chemical weapon, fully tested and approved by the US military.
3
Ah yes, the "pentagon says". In my lifetime very little that they have "said" turned out to be remotely true (I am 71). Let's see now - Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, that little Afghan excursion - what a marvelous collection of "the pentagon says" tales to reminisce over. They used to just be the stupidest liars we had to listen to regularly but now of course they are only---number two. Still, I might believe something once in a while from our military sources compared to ANYTHING from the White House.
4
Starvation, napalm, cluster bombs, landmines, mass executions of women and children, well OK, what can we do? But NOT chemical weapons! No, sir! No, ma'am! War must be civilized! Whatever it takes to convince the American people that America is still the world's moral cop, with the added bonus of taking their minds off political scandals at home. And yet, inevitably, like the next mass shooting at home, the next "me too" bombshell, the next twitter tirade, the Syrian war and its continued morass will give lie to any notions of "Mission Accomplished" beyond a spin and prayer for the president and pundits alike.
3
You reap what you sow. You can't lie all day every day and expect to be believed.
It would be nice if we could trust our government to be truthful, or at least as truthful as it can be. For me Nixon blew that out of the water and Trump has taken it to a new low.
Some undefined mission has been a complete success?
In stating that Trump "invoked" the "infamous" words of GWB, the implication is that Trump's claim of "mission accomplished" was intentional. I'm sure he was oblivious.
2
"Pentagon declares Syria Strike Successful"
How about declaring victory in Iraq and Afghanistan and getting our people out of there while they are at it?
2
They were sitting ducks.
Like shooting fish in a barrel. No retaliation.
And for what, pray tell.
Give me a break.
F3
President Tweet tweeted warnings, disguised as threats, to the Syrians and Russians, providing all concerned with enough time to prepare for this missile charade. This is all play-acting, and it's a pity that the French and Brits are also engaging in an illegal act that is meant to somehow counter another illegal act.
Also, we need to remember that no one talks about US ally Saddam Hussein gassing Iranians troops in the '80s. I wonder where he got the gas....
3
"Pentagon Declares Syria Strikes Successful"?
What ELSE would we expect them to say?
How about a littler more reporting on the news, based on what reporters observe, and a little less "reporting" based on press statements, press conferences, and twittering? You know, the stodgy old approach to news...
2
What is so silly about the whole affair is that, in reality, it was a minor event designed to send a message. Obviously it was good that innocents weren't victims of our attempt to "send a message". What is silly though is the fact that we gave Assad ample time to remove his chemical weapons and safely store them somewhere else for future use. And obviously, we didn't want to kill any Russian troops either. In the end, it just seemed all so trite given that we a few empty buildings...Trump loves distractions, doesn't he?!
1
It was not successful for the reason that Assad doesn't use chemicals unless Simon the Russian says so.
We should have bloodied Putin's nose (taken out a few planes) for lying to us and for allowing Assad to defy us. We had an excellent opportunity last night to make a point without any risk of escalation and we missed the opportunity. Trump is a wet towel. Bolton must have been absent.
How refreshing that these days we don't need proof of anything! So much easier. Shoot first and ask questions later, or rather shoot first (at a cost to the taxpayer of $100 million) and don't bother with the questions.
2
As a Vietnam Vet, this brings back fond memories of being lied to by Westmoreland.
1
This pitiful diversion will not succeed.
The investigations of Trump and his minions will continue.
If the buildings destroyed in Syria by the US/UK/France were known chemical weapons facilities, why was this information not made known to those involved in the program put in place in 2013 to destroy Syria's chemical weapons? Surely those buildings were visible. Both the US and the OPCW were involved in that program to destroy the chemical weapons in Syria.
1
Typical Trump: Declare victory and quit the field.
Let's send Pelosi. She has previously said that Assad is a kind and civilized man that she can have a dialogue with. She has experience meeting with him.
What kind of nonsense us this? Did not a UN resolution ask for the Syrian chemical program to be dismantled 5 years ago? So the so called "allies" went after a program that should have been retired since 2013 but also knew where it was and targeted it. And they spend so much time explaining the technicalities and the location of sites that should not have existed at all. This attack should have been made 3 years ago; The only "strong message" these attacks gave are to the world: Western diplomacy is laughable and limping for the time being. We are the fools by far.
The blowing up of chemical facilities in Syria has been accomplished but Assad can still gas his own people. See article in todays New York Times by David Sanger on this subject. It is simple for President Bashar al-Assad to rebuild chemical facilities elsewhere. The U.S. needs to take him out just as U.S. took out the Col. in Libya and the former president of Iraq. As we look back it may have been better for U.S. to leave the Col. and the president of Iraq alone and have taken out Assad instead long ago?
Israel is not a free agent in the Middle East. It remains vitally dependent on the U.S. for military, diplomatic and moral support and likely always will be.
Mr. Assad is still alive today because that is how U.S. diplomacy has preferred it. Left to his own devices, Mr. Netanyahu would have accomplished the job of eliminating him a long time ago. More’s the pity for the poor suffering Syrian people whom he could have aided and still could.
1
Let see in 2003 we started a war based on what the Pentagon said and it is now 15 years later, I doubt the Pentagon knows what the heck they say.
The Pentagon can say whatever it wants but this is a farce.
The image of babies, little children, teenagers, their parents and teachers strewn on the floor with burned corneas and mouths foaming with poison will stay with me the rest of my life. God bless all the blessed ones of Syria. May the survivors know how we hold them close to our hearts. Since 1945 we have preached over and over, “Never again.” But here we are yet again: human beings horrendously barbaric toward one another. Today, despite our belief in pacifism, we say...bomb the chemicals. Cry. Pray. Doing the right thing was never a straight course and God knows, never easy. Pray for peace.
2
Kudos to Trump. Little by little he is cleaning up Obama's mess.
1
Re: Steve longisland
This Steve is either a robot or an evil fortune cooky.
1
Poor America. You can die from bullets, missiles, chemical weapons. Death is death. In America you can die from "no money". In Syria, it's the weapons industry that is generating wealth. Their people never asked for that, thanks but no thanks America.
1
This is all symbolism, Assad knows it, Putin knows it, May, Macron and Khamenei know it, and so does Rouhani. Trump? He's thinking (if that's what could be said of a reptile's brain function) he's ordered a bombing that has had a material effect when really it's just playing out in the infotainment media space.
"Mission Accomplished"? Really? Trump cited the exact same phrase that George W. Bush used early into the Iraq fiasco, and thinks that one day of bombing will somehow change anything in Syria?
Boy, President Trump really is about as dumb as a bag of hammers, isn't he?
The comments here show how utterly gullible Americans are.
If the last twenty years what about the govts handling of any foreign affairs makes you want to believe things the govt says? you were lied to about WMD in iraq. Have you forgotten.
A few buildings were blown up after giving the Russians (and so the Syrians and the Iranians and just about everyone else) early warning that they were going to be blown up.
These building apparently were fully functional factories and warehouses that were making and storing all kinds of nefarious dangerous things. Nonetheless it was safe to blow them up without any worry of contaminating anyone or anything.
Indeed so safe that afterwords various syrians could go walk among the rubble with camcorders taking selfies lol.
What perfect reality tv show for a reality tv age with a reality tv president.
Those who think anything signifcant happened here, you believe the Apprentice was a real show about real businesses dont you?
But please if this is enough to make you warmongers happy, then please stay happy.
After 20 years of meddling and making a mess it is long past time we stopped pretending we are doing anything good in that part of the world and it long past time we stopped all meddling of any kind.
However if the pretense is important to appease the great american ego, then a phony strike on non-existent factories and warehouses is just fine.
Carry on everyone, nothing to see here.
2
America and its allies supported Saddam Hussein chemical attacks against Iran. But now, they attack Syria for a suspected chemical attack.
3
Flagellation with soggy lettuce leaf by the super stud self proclaimed.
The master of the deal has dealt a flaccid reaction to "the problems of the Middle East".
Obviously Russia and Iran agreed to a noli me tangere. I note no reports of Russian of Iranian casualties.
The BBC reports today:
"The recapture of Eastern Ghouta by Syrian government forces means President Bashar al-Assad is now more securely in power than at any time since the start of this seven-year conflict."
Hmm.
Assad has been whipped with an over ripe asparagus stick.
Assad has carved out "no go zones" which include the only Russian Port on Syrian territory on the Mediterranean. The Russian air bases in Syria remain off limits.
Putin would know that a naval base in Syria requires fleet of ships supplied from the Black Sea via the Turkish Straits.
Putin would be aware the last Russian navy battle in 1905 ended sadly.
Equally choke points for fleets occur.
Perhaps Mr Putin would agree that retirement could be an option.
Protection of life is a duty.
As a father I enjoy the fruit of humanity.
Destruction of human life with some form of insecticide, pesticide, degrades the humanity of the perpetrator.
Putin will be remembered as complicit with the Auschwitz veneration of failed leadership and measure body count with bank account.
Putin makes Nazis look benevolent.
Mr Putin is a poker player and not very good.
Pentagon: Hey. we reviewed our own performance . . . EPIC!!
Looks like they bombed an Office Max, after closing. Such warriors. Escalation anyone? Ikea could be next.
Ya think?
"It would have been nice to have conclusive evidence that the Syrian government used chemical weapons before launching a military strike ... "
But sometimes you just gotta whack somebody -- anybody -- and if you wait around to figure out who did it, you might not get to whack anybody. Whacking somebody -- anybody -- that's what counts. Know what I mean?
2
Probably not:
"With Pompeo and Bolton now on board, can there be any doubt that more war is in store?"
At the very least, they'll persuade Trump that he should whack somebody, and that if he waits around for evidence, he might not get to whack anyone. Whacking -- that's what counts, and it matters a great deal less whether you whack the right side. Just whack SOMEBODY -- that's what matters. Makes you feel good!
Folks should come to terms with the fact that US/allies precision strikes are done with an understanding with Putin and Assad to have a face saving for US/allies in the ME realpolitik. US have had no qualms for the death and destruction in Syria since 2011 where millions have perished with conventional weapons/CWs. These strikes are symbolic and at no point in time going to change the 'ground realities' in Assad's/Putin's carnage on Syrians.
US/UN CWs elimination deal with Russia and Syria in 2013 was a hogwash/sham and Obama's crossing 'redline' rhetoric was torpedoed by republicans in the congress. Moreover Obama/Kerry gave a green signal to Putin/Lavrov for Russian military intervention in Syria. US/allies have been bombing Syria alongwith Assad/Russia/Israel to have a demographic shift and giving Israel 'free hand' to physically invade Syria at the time of convenience. US/allies want its share of the 'Syrian Pie' for proposed gas pipeline and to capitalize on its geostrategic interests.
Stakeholders want to keep the Syrian conflict ignited for the 'foreseeable' time. There is no love for Syrian folks women children alike in this ruthless power struggle between the demonic states. Syrians have paid a hefty price for vulnerable geography and neverending dirty games of Russia/Iran/US/allies/Israel/Turkey/ME countries. Humanity has lost again and countries' greed and lust for power/control is on the winning streak.
Shame on the leaders of free world/perpetrators of crimes!!
The New York Times has always endorsed every war the US ever started, so it comes as no surprise it endorsed this adventure. I don't at all.
3
Of course it was successful...it has the media talking of noticing no else. This attack had nothing to do with a gas attack on Syrians and everything to to with Trump. He doesn’t care about the people of Syria any more that he cares about the kids in Flint or anywhere in the US.
The media including the NEW YORK TIMES learned nothing from the run up to the Iraq war. They are doing it agin. Helping a delusional president beat the war drum and the Congress is sitting ideally by watching it and using the cover it provides to do even more damage to our country.
1
"Mr. Trump made it clear when announcing the strikes that he does not consider it the job of the United States to fix problems in the Middle East.
“ 'No amount of American blood or treasure can produce lasting peace and security in the Middle East... ' "
Then why have we been waging war against the Muslim World for 17 consecutive years in multiple countries?
4
Two things will occur this week. Trump's popularity will rise significantly. There will be another chemical attack in Syria.
2
Why are Mattis and Trump so confident that Assad used chemical weapons? For over a year, Trump has been telling the American people and the world that our intelligence services disseminate lies and are not to be trusted. So, where is the information about Assad's activities coming from?
3
Well for on, dead babies and children with burned corneas ... symptom of chlorine gas. I refer readers to the NYT and BBC videos of the dead strewn about on the floor.
Of course our intelligence services are right when they agree with rrump and wrong when they do not. It has reached the point aht id you do no agree with trump then you are un-american.
Obama, Kerry and Rice failed to act after Obama's Red Line Threat about the use of chemical weapons, instead they proudly told the world that Assad had given up all his chemical weapons and ability to produce more - Obviously that was not true, some might even call it a lie - Once again Trump is having to clean up a huge mess that Obama left behind, just like with ISIS and North Korea
3
Beware the quote of fools: Mission Accomplished,
The attack needed to happen but it has in no way stopped the civil war nor resolved any of our differences regarding Assad and US Russia Iran relations, While Trump likes to fire off rockets which he has a pathological love of, he puts out the message that the US has had enough and is planning to leave precipitously, No, the rocket attacks wont cover that coming disaster,
If you want Assad to go and to reach stability you need to stay for now and try to get a joint nation negotiation going asap. If that doesn't happen Russias puppet wins and guess that's our order in the Middle East
1
Ahh, yes... "Mission Accomplished!"
Where have I heard THAT one, before?
So, after giving Russia and Syria nearly a week's notice; plenty of time to move whatever chemical weapons, troops an, planes etc. out of harm's way, Trump launches $164 million in U.S. taxpayer funded missiles at"so-called" strategic targets... and then declares it to be a complete success.
Aside from my confusion as to why the use of chemical weapons, as horrifying as they are, exists as some arbitrary "line in the sand" that apparently isn't crossed when Assad kills hundreds of thousands of civilians with non-chemical weapons over the past several years, I find it dubious to think that this single missile attack somehow eliminated ANY threat whatsoever.
Much is also being made about Russia NOT firing at U.S. missiles.
Why would they? Trump told them EXACTLY when and where he was planning to attack. Everything and everyone they needed to move out of harm's way, they did.
In a few weeks, this whole "mission" will be forgotten....
Assad will continue to kill civilians... with conventional weapons...
Raytheon and other defense contractors will cash in on another order from the U..S. military to replace to missiles used...
In a year or so, Assad will use chemical weapons again...
Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
2
I have an idea!
"Er, what is the correct response? Do nothing? Invade?"
How about this: Wait until you figure out who did it, and then punish that side severely. If you can't figure it out, do nothing.
2
A stupendous outcome, a monumental achievement, a victory for all who value humanity. Thank you, President Trump, thank you. This is an example of the reasons why Americans elected Donald J. Trump. Tough talk followed up by tough action. The bad guys of the world, of whom there are many, are cowering in their tracks, wondering which one of them is next. I support the President. I support Trump. He has triumphed! And will continue to triumph through 2024. Thank you.
1
Meanwhile American kids are being slaughtered in their schools......
The horse and rider were thrown into the sea, too. Don't forget that.
You comment is the best political satire I've see in ages. Thank you for a good laugh.
1
So the Pentagon and Mattis are forced to use military action to do Trump's clean up work (clean up in terms of his scandals)? Somehow, Trump's use of the term "Mission Accomplished" is so so so relevant to this situation. Sadly enough of course, he is making George W look good, and we all know how messed up the Iraq war started and was.
Just so I understand, when a militaristic and bellicose regime in the Middle East with a history of waging war against civilians carries out another massacre against innocent, unarmed people, the correct response is for the U.S. to attack that regime with cruise missiles, to 'send a clear message' and make that regime 'think long and hard' about doing anything similar in the future.
Wait, so shouldn't those missiles be 'crashing into military targets' near Jerusalem, or Tel Aviv?
Oh I forgot - the responsibility for the 'deadly attack' in Douma hasn't been proved to be Assad's, whereas the slaughter of unarmed protesters in Gaza is certainly the responsibility of the Netanyahu regime. We know this, because his ministers brag about it on the floor of the Knesset.
Sorry for my momentary confusion, must remember the rules of the game...
2
A limited, very specific, punitive strike apparently with no collateral effects.
The sites were obviously know well before this latest Syrian offensive use of chemicals against his own population.
Lots of second guessing after the fact. In part this comes in the absence of any articulated, coherent US strategy beyond mopping up ISIS in Syria. The quagmire that is the present day Middle East (certainly nothing new) awaits.
Apparently Lindsey Graham and much of the Trump National Security Team are sufficiently bellicose and entirely capable of doubling down on the monumentally terrible choices that led to America’s nearly 17 year war in the region and in Afghanistan.
An inadequate response, if the goal is to deter fututre behavior. We’ll have to return at some time in the future to do the job right, i.e. hit Assad’s military resources hard, in particular his military air tesources
3
Many cliches come to mind: 'Fall back to a defensible perimeter', 'Cut your losses and let your profits run', 'When you are in a hole, stop digging', 'A hammer sees every problem as a nail'.
Our military incursions create instability, requiring more military incursions, endlessly. Millions of people are on the move, fleeing war zones. We are spreading destruction and anarchy instead of peace and democracy. If we just stopped, would not the world, and ourselves, be better off?
Please explain to me why chemical warfare is considered more heinous than traditional warfare using bombs and other weapons of mass destruction?
1
Why is the US willing to spend millions to bomb Syria because of a chemical weapons attack that killed children (a horrible event) but not willing to make reasonable changes to gun laws and spend the money needed to safeguard our own children? Why has Trump done everything possible to prevent Americans from having affordable health care while spending billions using our military to defend people in other countries? Why does Trump congratulate Pruitt for rolling back regulations that are needed to prevent our air and water from being poisoned while taking military action because of poisoning in Syria? I guess spending on war always trumps spending on peace and our the American people come last in importance to our own government.
2
The video shows damage but nothing that one might think provoked by 103 missiles, so it seems that many were intercepted .
I wonder how useful such strikes are without degrading Assad's ability to wage war - his generals, troops, planes and armored carriers. Why not knock out the command centers?
1
This attack was US propaganda. Does anyone really believe the US claims that Syria's chemical arsenal has been severely damaged? Trump's advice to Billy Bush - " Just tell them and they'll believe it" appears to be working on the uninformed and gullible public. BTW, I suppose that Trump will announce that the large stockpile of US chemical weapon will be destroyed since chemical weapons are an anathema to Trump. Also, Is it permissible for Assad to use chemical weapons on ISIS remnants. Apparently so since Trump praised Saddam for using gas on terrorists and was "really good at killing " them.
1
As our infrastructure crumbles, our tax dollars go into building more misiles but
what else is new? Only serious and effective response would have been to take
out Assad and his family, what we did with Quadaffi. Otherwise, a big waste of
manpower and misiles. With our clueless so-called president, a true wag the dog scenario.
People forget the indirect reason for most of the Middle East mess. The Occupation of Palestine by Israel. If this problem had been solved ( By the UN not the US ) there would´t have been the Iraqi invasion and thus, all the successive conflicts. Which brings us to the Syrian civil war, where the only winner might be Israel with another broken up neighbour.
3
I think it is true, remember that when we learn who was responsible for the tween towers destruction we learned about Osama Bin Laden who said it was Al Quaeda who did it because what Israel was doing to our brothers the Palestinians.
1
Whether an appropriate response or not, this action reveals yet another glaring contradiction in Trumpist "thought": internationally, strike at the technology (chemical weapons, cyber weapons) rather than the malefactors accountable for their use; domestically, treat the technology (guns) as neutral and their easy availability sacrosanct, while assigning all accountability to the mental state of malefactors.
And if the evidence points to Assad's culpability, then steps to first protect civilians, by taking military action, and then to punish by seeking indictments in the ICC are both appropriate.
However, while our government claims to have sufficient evidence, it hasn't been publically presented. When one's actions are based on legal grounds this is a problem.
But the bigger problem is one of selective enforcement. In 2003 when the US was faced with an entrenched force in Falluja, our troops used hardened depleted uranium rounds to punch through the defenses.
But those rounds disintegrated on explosion and left the entire area contaminated with radioactive waste. The aftermath of this form of weapon is ghastly.
International health experts have tacked an epidemic on cancers, even 15 years later. The effects on unborn children are truly shocking and beyond description.
But photos of their deformed bodies and painful suffering have not been presented before the UN or the American public. Neither Sec. Haley, President's Trump, Bush or Obama have ever mentioned this human rights abuse. Yet those affected children continue to die.
The international community tried to outlaw these weapons, but the US military stood firm claiming battlefield advantages. I'm sure Assad's generals have said the same about chlorine gas.
So if we are to have the rule of law, let it apply to everyone. And let the American people know what is being done in our name.
3
Maybe thanks and praise are due to Russia for showing restraint and letting Trump flex his muscles and the American military establishment practice with live ammunition. If Russia had fought back, the attack could have turned out much differently. They certainly had plenty of warning to prepare defenses against the missiles and the ships launching them. Of course, Putin didn't want an all-out war with the United States, Britain and France any more than we do. He just wants his way with Assad and Syria without much risk or investment and he knows the Western allies won't risk much if anything to stop him.
1
When all's said and done, doesn't the whole affair leave us with a sense of futility and hopelessness? It could have been worse. Suppose we did not spend five hundred billion or so a year on first class weapons technology. We could have done nothing at all. We will continue spending because we have to. But what have we accomplished? What has been resolved? Little more than a group of drunks in a bar daring another group to step over a line. There's a little pushing and shoving; each side shows its muscle so both sides are scared but save their pride and end by glowering at one another.
A wise barmaid either calls the cops or convinces one or both sides to depart. But we don't have a wise barmaid and we don't have any cops. The UN can't play those roles, as has just been shown for the n-th time.
My friends, we all know in the back of our minds what the ultimate solution must be. That solution will be at least a half-century away, but we must start thinking about it sometime or we will die. Why not start now?
I call on everyone who understands what the human mind and imagination can do, as witnessed by the miracles that we as a species have already achieved. We can evolve, over decades, something stronger than the UN to resolve international disputes.
2
What "mission" was accomplished? How is it that the USA and allies can take upon themselves to bomb another nation with so little evidence as to the actual culprit? Since when are we, as citizens of this United States, OK with military strikes that are based upon NO EVIDENCE against the target in this ILLEGAL bombing of another nation?
1
So now that Trump and allies have saved future Syrian children from death by war chemicals, are they going to open the doors to Syrian tribal immigration?
NO. Unless the Syrian in a refugee camp manages to become a cyber expert or some other "desirable skill" that adds to yeh econ power of the USA. That's Trumps policy.
1
"Mission accomplished!" Where have I heard that before?
Syria says it shot down a dozen missiles. The US says all targets were hit. Both things could be true.
Where are we going with this? What is our policy? You know that Stormy et al. will be back in the news on Monday.
1
Good last-ditch effort, but Assad has won.
1
I hope they got them all but I am a bit skeptical when ever our Pentagon declares success. Recall Vietnam,Iraq,Afghanistan???
1
When you lie as often as Donald Trump, and you force your advisors and cabinet members to lie for you, it is hard to believe that his administration is telling the truth now. The Russians are masters at creating Potemkin villages, and the Iranians have mastered the art of hiding military facilities underground. So, who knows, at this early stage, what the US military hit and whether those targets were actually chemical lab facilities. The only thing we do know is that Donald Trump is now surrounded by military hawks (Bolton, Miller and Bannon) who firmly believe that the best "diplomatic" solution to all of the US problems is to bomb a country back to the stone age. These are perilous times for the world, and they are getting worst by the day.
1
A newer NYTimes report refutes that this strike "hit the heart"' of the weapons program:
1) "there are no known casualties at the sites, which suggests that either no one was there during the evening, or they had been previously abandoned."
2) "And there are no reports of chemical agent leakage from the sites, despite attacks by more than 100 sea- and air-launched missiles."
And finally, "While it is easy to blow up Mr. Assad’s chemical facilities, it is also relatively simple for him to reconstitute them elsewhere, or just turn to a commercially available substance like chlorine."
1
It was a success. We did not harm Assad! Assad was told 3 days ahead of time we were coming. He could load up many tankers of gas to move in three days. All we did was put on a fireworks show.
Assad, the murderer, should have been the target.
1
Let me get this straight. Killing civilians with chemical weapons is very bad and must be punished. Killing civilians with conventional arms, that's none of our business and by no means should we welcome people wanting to escape such a fate here in the U.S. Makes perfect sense, no?
1
There are several things to remember about these rocket strikes. So much advance notice was give Assad and his Russian, Iranian and Hezbollah allies had plenty of time to move the chemicals to other locations and of course Assad can rebuild and covertly and he gets needed supplies from the Russians. A continued effort on part of America and England is needed and if Israel should take out Assad we will dance with them.
1
Since chlorine can be produced by electrolysis of salt water by industrial process anywhere you have electricity, I doubt Assad's ability to produce this chemical weapon is reduced in the slightest.
But whether the weapons he uses are chemical or otherwise is irrelevant since his crime is killing 500,000 of his own people after they protested politically, were crushed, and then organized into a rebellion.
Strategically Iran and Russia are trying to build a land bridge to the Mediterranean through Syria and Lebanon, for pipelines and to control Israel.
The USA wants to keep Iran weak and OPEC divided because we seek to control the oil ourselves, the purpose of Cheneys failed oil grab in Iraq.
The only way to get Russia out of Syria, and Iran out of Lebanon, and Israel and the US out of OPEC is to evaporate the power of oil.
At a dollar per watt for a few tens of trillion dollars we could build sufficient solar power to replace oil with solar cracked hydrogen, methane, LNG and diesel.
We need to remember that a barrel of oil contains only 2 megawatt hours of energy .
Every square meter receives 4 kilowatt hours of solar energy per day . A square kilometer contains a million square meters. Hence in the form of solar energy 2000 barrels of oil falls into every square kilometer of the earth every day for free.
Why waste trillions of dollars fighting energy wars when we can get unlimited barrels for free after we build a few trillion dollars of PV?
2
If they actually hit chemical weapons plants, wouldn't there be danger to exposure to those chemicals for miles around?
2
The United States has never fielded a long range strategic foreign policy.
It is always piecemeal here and there for months at a time. As it is, all we have done is foment more war.
We have neither worked for peace nor used force intelligently. And while force is to be avoided if at all possible we have to recognize that the brutal and corrupt have to be dealt with harshly if we are to have any success in creating a better world.
It is too bad that Obama did not acknowledge that Assad had to be stopped and we were the only option for stopping a humanitarian tragedy.
Now look at what we have to deal with. Europe's turn rightward, millions of refugees, mass immigration, and endless conflict. Sometimes force is the only way.
Back to long range strategic foreign policy. Look at how our supposed ME allies are playing their hands, not helpful at all.
A stitch in time saves nine.
1
So we object to 50 innocent civilians being killed by chemical weapons, and we act. However, 100s of thousands killed by conventional weapons, we tolerate and do nothing. It’s illogical.
40
Doing something to overthrow Assad in Syria would have required attacking Russian forces there, which is something that could have kicked off a world war.
Now is not the time for the United States to seek a world war, and with Russia and the United States possessing as many nukes as they do I'd argue that it is never going to be in America's interest to seek a world war.
Even if America and Russia fought each other without nukes the result would be catastrophic. Syria is not worth it.
Illogical and immoral.
No, it is not illogical. After World War One, which killed tens of millions, all nations were horrified at the use of chemical weapons. The thought was they were so horrific, that their use should be forever banned.
Pentagon also said that Saddam Hussein had prohibited weapons. None were found, nor evidence of same. While evidence is clear that Syria has ben deploying chemical weapons, the efficacy of the strikes as reported by those with a dedicated interest in self promotion, and justification is highly suspect.
2
"... evidence is clear that Syria has ben deploying chemical weapons ..."
Can you share with us some of that clear evidence? I follow these things very closely, and somehow I haven't noticed.
A joint task force to strike back at a planned chemical weapons attack in syria vs. a planned chemical attack w/o weapons in flint, MI that has no task force to strike back.
Mission accomplished in syria
The cost - $224 MILLION - and that's just the cost of the rockets.
Compare that to a mission not accomplished - flint's water pipes.
The cost to replace all those pipes - $55 MILLION
So allow me the liberty of generalizing just a bit.
If the infrastructure project in flint is about the national average of projects that need fixing NOW.
We could do 4 needed and necessary infrastructure projects for the cost of just the missiles used in a single air strike.
What are our nation's priorities?
What missions do we need to accomplish now?
6
It's an interesting coincidence that the leaders of the nations that launched this attack are all facing serious threats to their power domestically. It's International Relations 101 that leaders often resort military actions (whether necessary or not) to make themselves looks like strong and effective leaders during times of crisis.
5
Without American or ally soldiers on the ground, I find it hard to believe that the US Defense Department can say that the mission had taken the heart out of Assad's chemical weapons program. Can you imagine them coming out and saying the mission was not successful? At best, they "think" they did, but I'm willing to bet they're not certain.
I recall that famous speech by Colin Powell at the UN with the so-called video evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. Since that time, I'm finding hard to believe when the White House or Pentagon talks foreign policy or shows concrete proof, especially on matters dealing with wars or missions since their motivation is so often quite murky. It is very often difficult to decipher fact from fiction (or a combination of the two). The Syria matter along with Trump's legal and Russia issues makes this particular issue that much more complicated. Looking at US global "involvement" since WW2, I will forever be skeptical concerning US foreign policy matters.
7
And....that is okay. Be skeptical.
Those who focus solely on Trump continue to do a disservice to urgent humanitarian issues. The strike was led by a coalition and meant as a clear and agreed deterrence to the abrogation of international law. That can be debated on its merits.
But what the NYT and readers should focus on is the solutions for the likes of Syria or, say, Yemen. And if the Administration should be the focus, perhaps those who portend to care about these heartbreaking realities should emphasize the 35M people in need due to the two crises. Perhaps they should pressure Trump into accepting more refugees and urge other countries to do the same.
3
Who would not feel compassion toward the innocents suffering from a chemical attack? The video is heart-rending. I'm glad we made a retaliatory gesture, however merely symbolic it was. However, the USA has thousands of children in Flint and other cities slowly poisoning themselves by drinking lead-tainted water, and now Michigan has announced that it will end the free water it has been supplying. Water is expensive, and you can be sure there will be many who have to turn on the tap to survive.
Rebuilding harmful infrastructure for our own? "Sorry, we don't have the money". Flexing some muscle on the international stage?....priceless!
9
Syria was previously in compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention that is administered by The Hague. The UN was depositary within a weapons destruction plan ratified by a UN Security Council Resolution, and effectively by the US who agreed to participate in the removal and destruction of chemical (and related) weaponry and infrastructure. This occurred in 2013. It seems both the US government, the media and the public, have a short, or convenient, memory. Unfortunately, this prior plan centered around weapons shipment and transportation out of Syria, rather than its site destruction by supervision and verification. Such transportation obviously risks porosity and it reinforces the probability that the recent reported usage could have been the actions of any number of actors. Otherwise the level of duplicity in State, the readiness to propagate its narratives by media, and the unfortunate degree of impressionability in the public, gives this chosen aggression a most problematic momentum, resistant to congressional intervention (effectively estopped) or judicial appeal, and perhaps oddly, reinforces the coherency of Putin's immediate observations and statements.
3
I don't find it odd at all to see a larded verbosity straight out of Orwell's "Politics and the English Language," ladled out in the service of Vlad the Putin.
Conventional (i.e., legal) weapons have killed probably tens of thousands of Syrians so far. This massacre is tolerated, if not condoned, by the international community, but we get really upset if there is any hint of chemical weapons usage. Is this because we believe getting blown to bits by high explosives is more humane than getting poisoned with some chemical agent?
5
Chemical weapons are always a slow, painful, dyspneic death. I agree no weapons is preferred but in all cases this is the worst!
For all the commentators here supporting our action in Syria, my question is where is proof that the government of Syria is responsible? The chemical inspectors were due to arrive in Syria the day after the strikes to investigate. Seems all we have is US/UK/Frances claim that Assad did it. You can call me skeptical but I lived through and followed the run-up to the Iraq war, Colin Powell's address at the UN and all the lies that were told to gain support.
9
It's come to this...we're no more than a sports league official penalizing a player for an illegal hit or tackle.
A flag was thrown in the never ending tragedy of Syria. Illegal procedure.....use of chemical weapons. I'm sorry but you're going to have to be penalized by being on the incoming side of 100 or more missiles at an unknown place and time. Assad is a repeat offender so the penalty is doubled from the last "use of chemical weapons" infraction
OK, carry on. You can return to killing your own citizens with non-chemical "conventional" weapons. We'll be watching to assure game rules are upheld.
2
In the sixties we sang about the "war hawks dying off and leaving us all alone", well, they haven't, and I'm afraid my naive hippie years have died instead. Now, God forgive me, I think we must search out and kill these monsters, for the enemy is not us, it is them.
1
The message to Putin was we’re going in to knock down a few buildings, let our planes through, we’ll be in and out. And Haley is going to have to talk tough at the U.N. but we are out. We’re still leaving Syria and you and Assad can keep on killing, but we don’t want to see any more images of kids killed by chemical weapons on TV.
But keep on killing with conventional weapons, that’s fine. Mission Accomplished.
3
We should stay out of Syria; we can’t force a favorable outcome with the odd bomb. Eventually Assad will fall. We can help them through peaceful means. Someone please tell our president
1
I wonder what message this action intends to send to the DPRK. That we can conduct "surgical" strikes so Kim should be worried about about the future of his regime and armaments program? Surely our military planners know that Syria and North Korea are world's apart when it comes to the dangers they pose, right? Right? Syrian civilian casualties have been sickening, but Korean casualties could outnumber those by an order of magnitude or more in just a few days.
1
Now how about the companies that sell them the materials to make that stuff. Will they be bombed? I bet not.
3
These few remarks ought to be read out loud every day by all of us. “No amount of American blood or treasure can produce lasting peace and security in the Middle East,”. “It’s a troubled place. We will try to make it better, but it is a troubled place.” We should also open every meeting with or about the nations of the middle east with the same sentiment. This might help remind us and others we have limits. Then we ought to go full bore in renewable energy development and deployment - save the planet and never have to call upon the middle east or anyone else for oil or gas.
2
Three chemical weapons depots and development centers were destroyed without the US, French or British militaries receiving so much as a scratch! So why were these Syrian chemical weapons centers not destroyed one year ago when Trump launched his first attack?
I thought this mission was accomplished in 2017. I thought Trump stated back then he had sent Assad a message he couldn’t ignore regarding the use of chemical weapons. But Assad ignored Trump. Assad was unscathed in 2017. And after Attack No. 2, Assad remains unscathed today. Despite the obvious fact that this latest attack accomplished nothing but the destruction of some cheap equipment and replaceable buildings, we are assured with the fatuous remark “Mission Accomplished!”
1
Three pinpricks, destroying facilities with so much advance notice that there were no casualties, and with enough notice that some equipment could have been relocated, is NOT a "success." Basically, the message to the Syrians is that they can kill all the civilians they want to as long as they use conventional, and not chemical, weapons.
My dad was a World War II vet. When he went out to buy a bottle of milk at the grocery, he would announce "mission accomplished" when he came home with the milk (an experience I have every confidence Cadet Bones Spurs never had as a kid because no member of five generations of the Trump family has ever served in uniform). "Mission Accomplished" means that some minor event has been successfully completed. The war has not been won.
There is no plan for this situation. This Administration NEVER has a plan for anything.
Cadet Bone Spurs runs a chaos white House, just as he runs chaos companies.
On November 6, 2018, we need to elect as may Democrats as possible, take control of Congress, and make Cadet Bone Spurs a political eunuch. That day cannot come soon enough.
4
He does not have goals in the military or business manager sense.
He got his rating: he's happy
2
Forgive my asking, but with over 100 missiles striking with devestating effects and rocking downtown Damascus, what is the US Defense Department's estimate of civilian casualties? Can there really be none?
Here is the rationale for our latest deadly military aggression, against a country that does not threaten the US:
"If those Syrians don't stop killing Syrians, we're going to kill a lot more Syrians, to stop them from killing any more Syrians."
Truly War of the Absurd.
3
At this point, even before Trump, Mission Accomplished is sarcasm. We, the US haven’t accomplished a mission since Nixon divided our voters and Reagan gutted our government. We can’t even fix our roads. We can’t even educate our young, or keep them from dying in gun massacres. We can’t even insure and treat our citizens. We can’t even keep our people from turning to opiates to dull their pain. Even vodka is cheaper and less addictive. I don’t care about Syria. I care about the US. When will anyone in our government care about us?
5
Another report in the Times this morning indicates that the targets were abandoned chemical warfare facilities. Essentially, we destroyed nothing. Obviously, we knew they existed years before the attack and they were only attacked Friday night. Yet, we are told that this military response was the preferred military proposed by the Pentagon.
I think the major consideration here was to maintain our deconfliction arrangement with the Russians. We don't want to start WWIII. The response was largely symbolic but 1. It humiliated Russia, Syria and Iran and 2. It let Assad know that we can attack again. The next time it might not be a symbolic attack. We can hit regime targets including Assad and his senior coterie of officers and advisors.
We have to assume Trump has like Obama decided to leave Assad in power. A policy of regime change would be very complicated, very costly and in all likelihood a bigger disaster than the one we have know. I think many Trump constituencies would like to see a regime change policy. But Trump has made it clear he considers Syria to be a tragic sinkhole which he wants to avoid at all costs.
When John Kerry was Secretary of State he declared the Syrians no longer capable of using chemical agents after tons of it were turned over to the United States and destroyed and the chemical weapons plants supposedly dismantled. At some point after that, the U.S. became aware that they were in fact still producing chemical weapons or we wouldn't have known what to target in the latest strike. I'd like to know more about the timing of this discovery.
1
Of course we all remember then-SecState Kerry begging the Russians to take over the responsibilities in Syria so the Obama government didn't have to. Now the Russians have a naval base and land bases and are supporting the presence of Iran.
The presence of Russia and Iran have resuscitated Assad's efforts and vastly complicated the civil war, turning it into an international problem. The humanitarian crisis has been compounded, threatening the entire region and beyond.
Thanks for the additional color, which is very enlightening indeed.
In the American system of justice, professional LE specialists gather evidence, and lawyers, prosecutors, judges determine the facts before sentences are carried out, but in this case they decided to punish first. Oh, OK...
Most Americans will applaud this attack as a necessary step to save innocent civilians and enforce the rules of international law.
But the next logical question isn't how do the rules of international law apply to us and our allies?
Our ally Saudi Arabia has according to the UN produced the most serious humanitarian crisis in the region in Yemen. Over 30,000 civilians have been killed by bombing. Hundreds of schools, hospitals and clinics have been systematically targeted. Disease is rampant. All because they wish to install their choice as president of Yemen.
They carry out this carnage from US-made aircraft, dropping US made bombs. They are directed in their lethal attacks by US radar planes and are refueled by US air tankers.
Based on international humanitarian law not only are the Saudi's guilty of war crimes, as Assad is, but we are guilty of aiding and abetting these crimes.
So, was the attack against Syria really done to save civilians and enforce international law? Or was it simply geo-politics?
The normally bellicose Sec. Haley has suddenly gone silent on this issue. Also no mention from the president's tweets.
More importantly, little if any mention from the media. The Times to its credit has reported these atrocities in Yemen. But has never raised the specter of international law violations as they have repeatedly with Syria.
Why is a dead child in Yemen any different from a dead child in Syria, or Iraq or Libya?
4
Well said drspock. The hypocrisy of our outrage is sickening.
Since the targets of this missile attack include "chemical weapon storage facilities" one wonders what the effect of the bombings was, for instance, was there any release of chemical agents?
3
What about the courtyard in front of his house? Last time we bombed some Russian planes that were in the shop for repairs. This time some warehouses. Looks like we don't want to p___ anybody off.
This is a repeat of events just about a year ago. If the American public did not have the memory of a goldfish, how would American Presidents stay in power?
I am amazed at all the armchair experts here that seem to know so much about a military strike half way across the world. The sad fact is that we don't know all the facts. How can you judge a military action if you don't have all the facts? So many have written disparaging things about the US here, with the same limited information just because they hate President Trump. We certainly are not one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Clearly we never really were. I think it gives our many enemies comfort to see that. Sad to display it.
It makes no sense that with the war in Syria against ISIS being 85% won that Assad would use chemical weapons and risk world response. The whole thing sounds like a setup by those that wanted that outcome.
1
Russia says 71 missiles were shot down or diverted, but in any case US claims everyone one of its 103 missiles landed on target before the air defenses even launched.
Can anyone straighten us out?
1
This was no success. No mission was accomplished.
The heart of the SyrIan ethnic sectarian civil war is a burning cauldron of death and destruction that has killed 500,000 Syrians and displaced or made refugees of 11 million in a nation of about 20 million people. And they died from weapons of minor destruction aka conventional arms.
So now what is next? Will this become the justification for the big military parade that Trump wants in D.C.?
Trump tipped them off beforehand with his juvenile twitter finger and tongue twisting skurs. Putin still has a cold cunning viper smile and a smirk on his face. Anticipating making much more meaningful mayhem in the American 2018 midterm elections.
1
Mission accomplished? ……..what mission and what was accomplished? According to the Defense Dept., Syria may still have the ability to launch additional strikes.
This may be the beginning of the end. God help us and the world if the Russians and Iran decide to retaliate along with Syria against the U.S. and its allies followed by other countries. The never ending cycle of violence and war continue. The world has not learned from history that war and the killing of fellow human beings is not the answer to our global problems and has amassed weapons of mass destruction which can annihilate all life as we know it. The doomsday clock is ticking and President Trump is accelerating the countdown.
This strike was the conscience of the civilized world speaking. In view of the fact that the United Nations are anything but united, this course of action was a must.
And it showed a technical ability that was astonishing. Much different than last years perfunctory lunching of missiles. I was indeed impressed. For the critocs of President Trump, who think that Putin owns him, this was a pushback that should negate those thoughts.
1
I would consider the Allied strike in Syria comparable to a person suffering a dreadful decease and is required the sting of a needle to test the blood for the cause, all the while the decease rages on.
In spite of it's possible minimal effect, this was an unfortunate but probable necessary response at this time. Watching adults and children in their agonizing suffering from a chemical attack called for some sort of reaction. With an estimated 500,000 deaths in Syria the world stood by, shaking our heads.
What if Assad took to slicing the throats of the women and children captured and showing it publicly to frighten others and succumb to his authoritarian regime.
Women and children were blown to pieces from barrel bombs, no response. As long as chemicals are not used by Assad, he can use any other means to destroy his opponents and the world will not retaliate.
From a propaganda-financial standpoint, the surgical missile strike against Syria was a faux pas.
Worldwide television images show rubbles of a destroyed building in Damasco's suburbs supposedly involved in chemical warfare research.
A brief financial reality check. The US Navy alone fired 100 Tomahawk missiles at the cost of $140 million. If logistical and mobilization costs are added, American taxpayers were milked around $500 million, conservatively.
In other words, Trump's Mission Accomplished tweeter of a destroyed old building in Damascus came with a stiff price tag to American taxpayers.
4
This attack will prove as pointless as the last one , Syria's chemical capabilities. if genuinely destroyed, will be restored within weeks by buying new weapons abroad or rebuilding and we'll be back where we were before. US , UK and France all made it clear their only goal was to degrade Assad's chemical capabilities not achieve regime change. Assad can rest assured now that whatever he does the only consequence will be attacks on replaceable chemical resources. We've made his position stronger - Mission Accomplished Mr President!
1
When the chemical facilities are targeting and destroyed, isn’t there great danger of chemical drift to the citizens?
The first casualty of war is truth:
US: ALL the missiles hit their targets.
Russia: 70%+ of the incoming missiles were shot down
US: We’ve set back their chemical weapons program many years.
Fact: Chlorine gas is readily available on the open market.
Fact: Chlorine gas is easily made with: electricity, water and salt.
Russia: We denounce strongly the missile strike on chemical weapons.
Russia: We strongly insist; there are no chemical weapons.
Trump/GWBush: Mission accomplished
Fact: Look forward to decades more of war.
1
Can't you just wait for the support our soldiers propaganda to come, again?
I really hope it doesn't come to that because whichever side the soldiers ,who are not defending or liberating their physical homeland,are on. They are impressed, indoctrinated or hired killers doing the bidding of some political regime. The policies behind military interventions should be carefully scrutinised
with that in mind.
If the location of the chemical weapons were known why were they not destroyed before they were used again so horrifically?
"Pentagon Says Syria Strikes Hit ‘Heart’ of Chemical Weapons Program." It is a blatant lie because the picture of the man standing on the ruins of the building supposedly manufacturing WMD says otherwise. Also, if the Syrians were producing WMD how come there is absolutely no sign of the WMD spreading or people suffering after the bombing? Further, if the the US, the UK, and France were sure of WMD in that building or other buildings why did they bomb the buildings knowing that the WMD escaping from those facilities would kill and/or injure many people?
Wouldn't deliberate bombing of the WMD facilities constitute war crimes?
Finally, civilized and law abiding people should condemn the illegal attacks by the bullying western powers and not cheer them because the strikes were ordered by our out of control and war mongering president in a desperate attempt to distract our attention from his troubles and the false promises made to the American people.
1
Where is the "heart" of Syria's chemical weapons program?
Surely, it is more than just the stockpiles of chemical weapons and the sites used to produce the chemicals and assemble the weapons. The "heart" surely includes the command and control system. Assad himself lies at the center of command and control. He is the "heart" of Syria's chemical attacks.
We have faced a similar situation before before with Muammar Gaddafi. President Reagan ordered airstrikes on various targets including Gaddafi's residence.
Why did the target list not include Assad's residence?
Oh well, if the Pentagon and our highly esteemed and oh-so-balanced commander-in-chief say "Mission Accomplished" in Syria, I guess we can now sleep soundly.
Except, we have heard this "mission accomplished" message before and it turned out to be very untrue. Above all, do we really know what happened during the alleged chemical attack in Ghouta, Syria? No investigation has even begun. But we do know that, in the past, UN inspectors accused both sides of using outlawed chemical weapons in Syria.
Above all, what are the repercussions of our military actions in Syria? The increasingly radical Islamist government of Turkey, portraying itself as the champion of Sunni Islam and Turkish nationalism, invaded huge swaths of Kurdish Syria. The US military pulled back to avoid conflict with the advancing Turkish forces.
Talking about the Turks, our "mission accomplished" in Iraq, may have eased the path of the increasingly anti-American Islamist government of Turkey!
Consider the situation in Syria BEFORE the United States and its Sunni Muslim allies of the Gulf began supporting the Syrian rebels. The country had a growing economy and all religious groups lived in relative harmony. The government was corrupt and highly authoritarian, but have our efforts to helped or hurt the situation in Syria? What about the millions of Syrian Christians or other people displaced by the war?
Maybe it would be good to think before acting ... for a change!
1
Though Assad should be punished for genocide and use of chemical weapons I strongly condemn American response. A country that has used nuclear weapons in Japan and chemical weapons in Vietnam portrays itself as apostle of peace and epitome of holiness and pokes its nose unnecessarily in other country's affairs. If America really intends to save Syrian people, it should have obtained UN sanction first. Is not United Nations supreme body? Without any regard for UN, America and its allies have struck Syria. So, whatever America decides is the dictum to be followed? (I am not supporting Russian presence in Syria too. Russia entered into Syria because America came there first.)
No, the UN is not the "supreme body" what ever that means
Some nation's intel agency seemed well-informed about these chemical weapons facilities. The French daily, Le Figaro, admits that France built one of the bombed sites, in the 1970s. It appears to be part of a technical college in Barzeh, near Damascus.
Peace needs to be the true goal. I find it ridiculous that we are fine with Assad's genocide, so long as he sticks to using conventional weapons.
I also found it strange Trump allowed Syria time to move their aircraft to the safety of Russian bases prior to this hollow 'victory.' Was that done at the request of his mentor Vlad?
Now we're soon to have a great military victory parade down Pennsylvania Avenue? Completely theater of the absurd.
What will the story be if the OPCW inspectors find no trace of chemical weapons, WMD again. From the photographs the buildings, whatever they were were not chemical installations - no retorts, pipeworks, gas bottles etc. and did the gas in the storage areas just disappear when released by the bombing.
A good boost for politicions with their own popularity problems
trump gave Russia and Assad a won week notice prior to the bombing. trump destroyed buildings, he didn't destroy the chemical program. That program moved six days prior via a thumb drive.
If Bashar al-Assad is the problem why isn't Bashar al-Assad the target? Destroying buildings and airfields in a country that has already been destroyed dosen't have much of an impact. Americans always underestimate the capacity of their "enemies" to improvise and deal with the effects of random bombings.
Missiles, arms, fighter jets, airstrikes, war ships, murder:: a horrendously, expensive and obscene way to create world peace. Surely dialogue, education on the ground in agriculture, the sciences,democracy, and literacy are a more effective way to create a better world order.
There need to be international laws regarding the looting of the world's natural resources by international companies for their own enrichment,and political interests, leaving countries bankrupt, destroyed, polluted and deprived of a decent existence.
Violence breeds violence, and many destroyed lives.
"Pentagon Says Syria Strikes Hit 'Heart" of Chemical Weapons Program"
Yeh, right!
Trump gave the Syrians and Russians a week's notice that he was going to attack them. I'm sure the Syrians just left their chemical weapons in the places where the US would bomb a week later.
Something discomfiting for your readers so i'll keep this short.
There were 72 deaths in one day because of the most recent gas attack by Syrian forces.
We and the world are angry because of these 72 deaths caused by some combination of gasses. It is clearly a terrible thing.
To view this in it's true relation and relative importance please note the following.
Our country started a war with Iraq in year 2003. Our country(and the world)
consider that war as unnecessary but we did start it.
The war we started unnecessarily in 2003 caused 110,600 civilian deaths
from March 2003 to April 2009. This per Associated Press.
This means that our country caused 50 civilian deaths every single day for for 2190 days in Iraq. It was all unnecessary.
This is for six years only but deaths continue on because of that war started by our own country.
This is putting this general subject of killing into perspective.
Does America really want to say that our way of killing is ok but yours isn't ?
Perspective---The capacity to view things in their true relations and relative importance. (Merriam Webster)
M.W. Endres
The war in Syria is almost over. Assad has about 65% of the country, the Kurds have about 25% and Al-Qaeda and the Turkish-backed rebels have about 10% between them.
There is no reason whatsoever for America to intervene against Assad at this stage in the game. Saudi Arabia's attempt to overthrow Assad and replace him with a friendly Wahhabi government failed. Qatar and Turkey's attempt to overthrow Assad and replace him with a government friendly towards their pipeline project failed. The Russians will keep their bases and the Iranians will keep a government friendly towards them and hostile towards Israel.
I understand why we are still there. We are there to keep both Turkey and the Syrian government from attacking the Kurds. The Kurds made many sacrifices to defeat ISIS and the US military does not want to abandon them to either Assad or the Turks. I give the Pentagon credit for that, because it shows that at least our armed forces are still somewhat honorable.
We can and should punish Assad for the use of chemical weapons by his forces. Moreover, it is important for the Western Allies to demonstrate to Germany, Japan, and the world's other democracies that they still stand for an international order where the use of such weapons is not tolerated.
It is nice, too, to see the old Allies together again and acting in concert. The solution to the rise of the dictators might very well be a league of democracies of sorts.
16
the UK happily using Trump.
I don't think the world is being rational about chemical weapons. The injunction against them was agreed to after W.W.I when prop bombers could only carry small payloads. With the air power available to countries now, chemical weapons are no worse than aerial bombarding. I would support any action, military of humanitarian, that would end or mitigate the terrible suffering in Syria. But requiring Assad to move from chemical weapons to conventional bombing (even if we can do that) doesn't seem like a rational answer.
9
If bombing of the Syrian chemical weapons facilities, as claimed by the Pentagon is the end of the Syrian story of mass destruction and death, the world should be thankful to Trump for having accomplished such a difficult task in just a few hours that the UN or the international community have collectively failed to do, including the Obama initiated international chemical weapons deal with Syria, of course. One should also recall that the similar retaliatory missile strikes were ordered by Trump last year also that hardly deterred Assad from poisoning the innocent Syrians with lethal chemical agents. Or the current air strikes by Trump, coordinated with Britain and France, are simply a demonstration of force against the brute force of Assad, and largely a planned diversion from Trump's domestic troubles clouding his presidency.?
6
It seems to me that Trump's main objective for ordering Syrian strikes is to save his skin from various charges on which investigations are going on in the United States otherwise nothing was achieved on the ground and Trump is only boosting about his success.
4
His polling numbers perhaps saw a small boost after last year's attack, but it dissipated quickly.
let's see now.
the invasion was an allied one, not the US alone.
There were no allied casualties.
The targets were hit without residual casualties.
Assad knows we can hit any target within Syria.
The Russians didn't move a muscle.
What more could we have hoped for?
5
It was a tacit deal between Pres. Trump and Putin: Trumps gives gives notice, Russia stays out of the way for a few hours, Trump makes a point, and everything is status quo. Maybe Putin puts a little pressure on Assad to stop using the chemicals to terrorize civilians because it draws too much attention - Putin also wants control: it doesn't hurt him if Assad is reminded to fear the US - because Russia really doesn't want to commit a lot of its own resources to Syria.
Less than 24 hours later, both sides go back to posturing.
One can argue that it might be better than other options.
6
We didn't do anything harmful to them. All about saving face. Trump had to fulfill his boast.
Robert;
Spot on!
It seems to be a joint venture....Trump, Putin, and Assad. All accomplished their objectives!!
From the photographs coming out of Syria, it is obvious that our missile strikes caused tremendous physical damage. It is not so obvious what buildings were brought down; who operated what in those buildings, and what all that rubble will produce. It is notable that there are no reports of casualties. Were these just empty facilities?
After waiting a week for a response to their attack on civilians, Syria had ample time to move any crucial personnel and machinery out of those sites to almost anywhere in the country. In all, it appears the allies spent a whole lot of money taking down quickly replaceable structures, and that if Syria and its allies want to replace the chemical weapons production infrastructure, they will have all the means necessary to do so. That is not a win.
12
Seems awfully convenient. Prosecutors closing in, paramours talking, stock market teetering, deficit ballooning, congressional allies abandoning, Russia questions lingering, kids marching. Headlines bad. Evilest villain performs senseless, monstrous act, Russia defends it, US and allies respond with righteous fury, buildings destroyed, casualties minimal, course of war unchanged. Headlines good.
Hate to be so cynical, but yes, what more could they all have hoped for..
1
A humiliating loss but as a PR stunt for the benefit of our naive population, well that's mission accomplished
Those of us with a suspicious nature gazing through the fog of war (which war you might ask; since there are so many in the gallery of failed States) get this quirky idea that what comes next is the main course: War between Saudi Arabia and Iran. No wonder the oil price ready for a surprise. Gas rationing in Europe like 1974 on the cards. Drive slowly we are entering the forbidden zone of war.
5
The prognostications of dire events -- seriously, world ending events -- since Trump took office are never ending.
The theme among many commentators has been that this is going to lead to war and even (the usual refrain) that Trump is a war criminal. I don't think it will lead to war but if it does, it may be something we need to do now, rather than later. It seems an improvement to Obama/Kerry's approach. They used our military to destroy a more helpless country, Libya, rather than try to get rid of MQ. Their stepping back from the "red line" with Syria seemed to be the signal for Russia to do as it wanted there and then with Ukraine and interfering in our election. Their agreement with Syria not only helped reverse Assad's decline, but obviously failed in its purpose of stopping his use of chemical weapons. Whatever Trump's crudeness, impulse control issues and huge learning curve, if the success of the attacks was at least substantially true (hard to believe gov't or the media), then, at least right now, this is an improvement. Our enemies will always be a challenge, and we will have setbacks - but right now, it seems our efforts have led to Noko talking with SoKo and Russia, Iran and China are at least being put on notice. The question is, will the efforts of Trump's opponents at home, especially many Rs, make it difficult for him to continue confronting enemies. There are still too many reasons I can't support him (or almost any D or R), but, I do approve of using our might to defend innocent people being slaughtered where we can and confronting our opponents.
3
"I don't think it will lead to war but if it does, it may be something we need to do now, rather than later. "
Our recent wars always work out well. And since you're posing scenarios, perhaps Assad was circumspect about chemical weapons until Trump's comment, “we'll be coming out of Syria, like, very soon. Let the other people take care of it now”.
They don't work out well for the most part. Some little "wars," if they were that, did. Grenada, Panama. But, I don't feel bad we went into those countries. It wasn't a "war," but not feeling bad Why do you think? I think it's b/c since WWII, we do not try to win most wars. Trump is not your usual president - I'm sure we agree with that - and I don't know if we actually ended up in a war, whether he would show the same restraint or concern for what the U.N. thought. But, do you really think China and Russia care? Iran It's impossible to predict the future, even how a war would work out. All we can try to do is pick our fights and have a point when we do it. You might think there's no point to Syria. To me, the fate of the middle east will have a profound effect on the rest of the world. I'm doubting there is even a really good solution - but I didn't think women would be driving in Saudi Arabia either.
1
"it may be something we need to do now, rather than later." Hmm, a variation of the theme, I'd rather fight them over there than here" and we know how that worked out -- 15 years later we are still at it. Good thinking.
1
You and Senator Tim Kaine!
"I don't like that our leaders can decide on attacks whenever they like."
It's been that way for a very long time (since the beginning of World War II, to be precise). Congress doesn't declare war. Presidents just attack. I thought it was humorous when Bush the Younger put the second Iraq War up for a Senate vote but explicitly stated that he wouldn't be bound by a "no" vote. I remember thinking: "Isn't that what the Constitution says -- Congress declares war?"
Bush the Younger need not have worried. Though many Senators voted against the second Iraq War, most of them voted for it -- including Hillary Clinton. Later she said she'd thought Bush was going to ask the Senate a second time and so she didn't think her vote really mattered. I remember finding that explanation utterly unbelievable (Trump was not the only Presidential candidate in 2016 who had trouble telling the truth). Much as I disliked Bush the Younger, he was quite clear about the Iraq resolution: He was going to ask the Senate only once; and he did. And the Senate said "yes."
3
The worst foreign policy decision in US history.
I do not understand how there can be zero casualties. If this was an active plant there would be guards if no one else.
8
This will accomplish as much as Trump’s last missile strike, about a year ago over the last major Syrian chemical attack. Airstrikes like this are mostly for domestic consumption in the West. Nothing will actually change on the ground in Syria.
10
I am a professional chemist, and my first thoughts when viewing the images of the wreckage is there is nothing in the rubble that says "laboratory" or "chemical manufacturing plant". It certainly is not the latter because big steel work would stick out, but even a laboratory that handled dangerous chemicals should have a lot of pipes, pump residue, water pipes, and residues of where you can safely handle such chemicals. There should be separate storage, and gas cylinders. All the residue I can see is office waste. Obviously we need more information, but this place was certainly not making sarin or that man would not be waving whatever.
58
Wouldn't bombing a production facility for chlorine or, worse, sarin allow the gas to escape and threaten people in the surrounding area?
"All the residue I can see is office waste."
A research lab would have office space, and the video is from the *Syrians*. Thus you are seeing propaganda, not news footage.
Regrettably, many comments here display the total ignorance about the situation in Syria that prevails in the US. Asad is a dictator who deploys forbidden weapons. His adversaries are ISIS and ISIS- like radical Muslim groups. And of course, there is also the Kurdish-Trurkish axis in which the sides pursue its own ends. The war is not an evil government against the innocent people. People who fight on both sides do this for their own reasons, defending their own ideologies, beliefs, and ways of life. There are no civilians in a civil war. This is not Hunger Games but a complicated historical and ideological entanglement which the US cannot solve. But it does not mean that we have to keep out of it: just that we have to act prudently and with clearly defined goals. Punishing Asad for using chemical weapons while not trying to kill him or end his regime is such a limited and well-defined goal. Much as I dislike Trump, I cannot argue with what he did.
16
Agreed Assad is a dictator and needs to be taught a lesson but this sort of principle is not uniformly applied by the West .The idea that some dictators are good and some are monsters depending upon their usefulness to the West is what bothers everyone.The kidglove treatment given to the Saudis is a perfect example of hypocrisy of the west.
The House of Saud are not dictators. They are royals. I don’t like them but it doesn’t mean their people share my opinion. The arrogance and frankly, stupidity of so many Americans who believe that “democracy” means the system we have and anybody who wants something else is a cartoon villain, is what bothers the rest of the world. Asad has to be taught a lesson not because he is a dictator but because he has used chemical weapons which the civilized world has outlawed since World War 1. Otherwise the choose is between the dictatorship of Asad and the totalitarianism of radical Islam. Let the Syrian people decide what flavor of poison they prefer.
I heard Mattis was resistant, but that Bolton pushed for this.
Seems like a very focused attack, so it may have been a reasonable response, though I don't like that our leaders can decide on attacks whenever they like.
What will Trump and Bolton's next 'Mission Accomplished' moment be? Iran?
8
Wow. That was so easy! See? We are amazing!
11
Mission Accomplished!
6
Trump is right. I'm tired of winning.
By the way, how does one bomb a facility that stores chemical weapons and avoid releasing those same poisons into the surrounding areas? I've researched this, and found nothing to suggest that this isn't incredibly dangerous and reckless. Unless of course Assad was able to move everything out of these facilities elsewhere, in which case what exactly was the point?
I see absolutely no point in this. When will we start asking more of ourselves than the same tactics, again and again, that have no value other than to exacerbate an already awful situation? Is our only tool a hammer, and therefore every problem is a nail? The poverty of our imagination and creativity when it comes to foreign policy is bipartisan and insane.
55
Look into "agent defeat" weapons.
Palliation for the masses
I'm a former USAF officer and a lifelong military historian, White Guy. We can't know for certain how powerful the Western warheads that hit Assad's chemical weapons facilities were, but it does seem that the targets were appropriate and very largely destroyed. Warheads of sufficient size would have torched the lethality out of any chemical weapon. If I lived next door to such a facility, I would be far more afraid of shrapnel than whatever was left of Assad's chemical poisons.
In spite of my background, I have always found anything that smacks of militarism to be abhorrent. Yet I wonder if you're truly conscious of the unimaginably vast sacrifices that were made during World War 2 in order to insure that you didn't have to come to manhood under a political order that had finished killing every Jew on earth and was still throwing the Nazi salute decades after Hitler's death.
It is terribly unfortunate that violence is the ultimate arbiter in human affairs, but it always has been, however many millions of civilians and soldiers alike have succumbed to agonizing deaths during warfare. We can at least be grateful that, historically, the political structures created by the fascists of this world inevitably end in ruins. This will happen to Assad, at a terrible price. This will also happen to Putin, at an event more terrible price. I am very sorry, I assure you, that you will have to watch this frightful but necessary process unfold.
1
Expiring, dying great powers like the US, UK, and France like to imagine that they are above the law, not bound by the UN Charter, and have the right--even the duty--to rule the world. Look at the messes which American arrogance has caused around the globe, first intervening, then escaping, and leaving one broken state after another.
In Syria they couldn't wait to show off their military toys and imagine that they still rule the world.
They are declining, receding powers--not least because they squander resources and moral authority with abandon.
30
As opposed to what--the dying imperial and hermetic demands of a Russian Orthodoxy fully committed to a racist bersion of Christianity?
There's a reason Trump gets along with Putin and a President Obama did not, you know. Beyond being Vlad's physical and intellectual equal, and moral superior.
Another Fail. A true response would have been to take out the capability of Assad to wage (chemical) war against his people. We should have taken out the power lines, the power distribution centers, and the power plants that enabled the chemical weapons production. Then the chemical buildings would have no power, no water, and no fuel with which to make weapons. And the side benefit would have been that life would have become miserable for the minority who support Assad and they will do the job of getting rid of him.
5
America does NOT wage war on innocent bystanders...
Right. And then we’ll have a genocide the likes of which we haven’t seen since Rwanda. Do you know why people are supporting Asad? Read the wonderful coverage of the ISIS “Caliphate” in NYT. Syria is a multiethnic, multi-religious country, just lie Iraq used to be. Asad who is an Alawhite (a religious minority) and his father have been secular dictators. If Asad falls, Christians, Shi’a, Alawhites, Druze and others will be subjected to the treatment ISIS has given to their brethren in Iraq: expulsion, expropriation of their wealth, slavery, rape and murder. is that what you want?
The framework for non-violent resolution and perhaps prevention of the Syrian chemical sttacks during Trump’s tenure was diplomatically achieved during Obama’s second term.
Instead of hurling bombs the US should have unrelentingly pressed the Russians and the UN to continue the destruction of Syrian chemical weapons and not allowed them to drop the ball on the 2013 agreement without consequences.
When was the decision made in the US to give Russia a pass for not continuing with the disarmament of Syria’s chemical weapons program?
Would military response be the only option if the State Department wasn’t decimated & Trump wasn’t trying so hard to be Putin’s pal?
How did the US, France & GB know where to direct the missiles? It had to be “intelligence” known for some time therefore ongoing or new diplomatic efforts with Russia & the UN might have prevented the use of chemicals in the first place.
With all the empty desks in the US government agencies I have little hope that prevention is being considered. Government by reaction & military action being the only possibility by default endangers our country as well as others, including the “enemy” unnecessarily.
14
Perhaps this was a fool's mission. There are no reports of deaths nearby, nobody guarding?, and no sign of chemical leakage. Strange.
20
Is there any way to prevent these chemicals from being bombed into the surrounding air when their storage facility is demolished? Probably impossible. They are part of the pulverized particle dust.
4
How anyone believe what Republicans say about airstrikes, war, and "mission accomplished"?
Given how the Bush-Cheney regime lied us into a "preemptive" war, outed CIA agent Valerie Plame to punish her husband because he questioned the "yellow cake" story, claimed the Iraq invasion was a "slam dunk," and then much too prematurely announced "mission accomplished."
Now it is even worse with GOP President Trump, whose rate of lying and bellicose behavior far outpaces his rate of truth telling and diplomacy. Given his self-absorption with only himself, all the trouble he is in legally, and his tendency to lie and say anything to deflect attention from the truth, Trump really has no credibility.
Re the Syrian air strikes: the only thing that gives me any confidence is that: (a) we did this with France and Britain (whose leaders are not unhinged and unstable); and (b) I am pretty sure Trump's generals took charge of the entire planning and exercise, since bone-spur Trump knows nothing about the military and is increasingly incapable of engaging in careful policy and planning or anticipating the consequences of his actions.
And why is "Ambassador" Nicki Haley standing before the world's diplomatic organization and blustering (Sarah Palin style) about "lock and load" as American foreign policy?
I can't believe we now have a more untrustworthy administration than the Bush-Cheney administration, but we surely do in this untrustworthy Trump reign
I don't think praying will help.
22
Didn't something very similar happen about a year ago? Deja vu all over again...
4
Through negotiations in 2013, 1300 tons of chemical weapons were removed with the U.S. army and civilians personally destroying 600 metric tons.
How does this Trump attack compare? There was no time for the weapons inspectors to even do the preliminary surveys.
Some factories destroyed, but the majority of the stockpiles were destroyed without missiles earlier.
Not that negotiations exist in Trump world with his destruction of the State Department, no current Secretary of State, and many diplomatic posts unfilled. But he gets to boast and wag the dog.
13
A “measured” response which means we will be doing it all over again sometime in the near future. We should have dropped that hammer with more resolve.
1
Gotta like this "military-speak:"
"'None of our aircraft involved were successfully engaged by Syrian defense forces.'”
Translation:
"They did shoot down about a dozen of our missiles, just as they claimed. but missiles aren't 'aircraft.' None of our planes got shot down. True, we didn't use more than a handful of planes -- mostly we lobbed missiles at them, many of which got shot down -- but none of the ones we did use got shot down. True, some of them got hit, despite our fancy electronic defense that we paid gazillions of dollars for, but we don't count it as "successfully engaged" unless the plane actually gets shot down."
7
Weapons of Mass Destraction:
Dennis Kucinich titled a talk on this topic, 10 years after the attack on Iraq: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ap5wcahbJ2Q.
Kucinich actually went to Syria & spoke with Assad. Perhaps if he'd been appointed to lead the Dept. of Peace that he'd envisioned we could have been on a path to averting disaster rather than courting it.
My own first reaction was similar to another stated here: They say the production & research facilities of chemical WMD were actually known before? And there were once again, inspectors prepared to gather evidence.
This administration has had its entire 15 months in office to 'trust but verify' before destroying evidence with $165 million worth of Tomahawk missiles fired at who knows what & whom.
The American people & their congress make a grave error by letting this president fire off missiles unilaterally at his sole command.
This was practically the 'launch by tweet' we've been, & should be, terrified of.
Congress must insist that it at least votes on & approves acts of war ordered by this president.
Do not give Donald Trump the dogs of war to unilaterally unleash.
17
Proof, you say? I don't need no stinking proof!
"What proof exists that the targets were connected to chemical weapons research or production?"
At the very end of the first Iraq war, Bush the Elder's approval rating was at 91%, and I expect Trump's will get a bump too. But those bumps don't last -- just ask Bush the Elder!
5
What proof exists that the targets were connected to chemical weapons research or production?
20
Let me understand this one.
You telegraph a missile strike and then hit three facilities known to be involved with the associated offense, in this case chemical weapons.
Who does not think Syria, Russia and Iran knew these missiles were coming and the US, Britain and France knew that "they knew."
I love "deep reporting" from America's Media!
15
'I love "deep reporting" from America's Media!'
I'm not sure what your point is, but the US was targeting the infrastructure and stockpiles, not the personnel.
Why not done long ago?
5
How can you fire so many missiles at Syria and not hit the presidential palace?
11
Is trump so oblivious to history that he didn't know that "Mission Accomplished" was Bush's wonderful phrase that is now a punch line? We have the worst leadership in the history of the country -- basically, as Comey pointed out, a Mafia gang (no offense to the Mafia).
Pathetic.
Vote in November.
15
He knew. Another dig at the opposition and the Bushees.
3
The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it. - Albert Einstein
13
Agreed, and Donald J. Trump is certainly not doing anything about it.
Donald J. Trump said in a July 2016 campaign rally in South Carolina, “Saddam Hussein throws a little gas, everyone goes crazy, ‘Oh, he’s using gas!’ He was a bad guy, really bad guy, but you know what he did well? He killed terrorists. He did that so good.”
Trump doesn’t care about the people of Syria who have died in the 100’s of thousands from gas, bullets and barrel bombs filled with improvised shrapnel. Trump cares about diverting attention from his legal and ethical woes, that’s all. It is cynical and really quite disgusting.
The “right” follow the bait with their noses to the ground, never for a moment pondering how they are being played. Guns, bombs, missiles and lots of noise and death make for a “mission accomplished” if your mission is to glorify yourself. Actually doing something about Syria and Assad’s pal, Vlad the Impaler II is something quite different.
7
The pro-Trump crowd says it doesn't matter if the US has no interest in removing Assad or remaining involved in Syria. It doesn't matter how many people Assad has killed without chemical weapons. All that matters is the red line. Every time Assad uses chemicals, we bomb him. It doesn't matter if it actually hurts him or not. You break the law, you get the slap on the wrist. That's what this statement is all about.
So here's a question for you: do you really think Assad's chemical weapons are gone now? Do you really believe he won't launch another chemical attack in the near future? I wish I could be as optimistic as you.
3
Assad had a week to clear out every bit of his chemical warfare paraphernalia. Could it be that all that was destroyed is a bunch of empty buildings? I'm going with that.
12
True. Trump advertised at least 3 days notice
Now, what if Russia calls an emergency session of the U.N. Security Council and no one shows up?
1
Strikes like this and the one from last year increase the number of refugees fleeing Syria. How many is America willing to take?
Let me take a wild guess
6
-0- ?
2
Apparently, 98% of America was asleep 7 years ago, when the U.S. turned its back on Syria. We had the opportunity to stop massive bloodshed and provide legitimate humanitarian aid by opening our borders to Syrian immigrants, and we looked the other way. We knew long ago that Assad was gassing his own citizens and yet we gave into right-wing hysteria that Syrians were somehow a terror threat. We've let in 14 thousand or so, while Greece, Turkey, Lebanon, Canada and others shoulder the burden and tax their borders and economies.
Seeing liberals and even further leftists embrace this as some sort of noble act is the height of arrogance and ignorance. Especially when you consider we have been systematically bombing Syria since 2014.
General Wesley Clark told us this would happen 11 years ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw
4
If you fire 105 missiles at 3 targets then yes you should be able to say that they were hit.I doubt also by using standoff air to ground missiles you actually in any way were putting any aircrew in danger so of course there was no aircraft loses.
1
"... so of course there was no aircraft loses."
The interesting question is whether any cruise missiles were hit. The US DoD says not.
Times paraphrasing an unnamed DoD source: "the targets were destroyed before Syria launched any of the 40 missiles it fired into the air."
When's the last time they declared a strike unsuccessful ?
5
1943.
1
Bay of Pigs in 1961 perhaps.
Assad has killed hundreds of thousands of citizens during the last 6 years. Why the outrage only against chemical weapons? It's only acceptable if he uses conventional weapons?
6
Because the Russians are protecting Assad and the Russians have nukes and care little for how many military deaths they suffer.
1
Absolutely meaningless. I can't think of anything this strike actually accomplished other than to boost Trump's ego. Seriously, this accomplished nothing militarily or politically. The civil war is essentially over, Assad and the Russians know we aren't committed to any real involvement. And how much damage can you do when you have to let the Russians know ahead of time and allow the Syrian government more than enough time to move its assets? I know it makes us feel tough....
6
The mission here was nothing more than retaliating when a red line was crossed, something that Obama said he would enforce but didn't.
It's not at all clear whether Obama or Trump chose the right path here. The reality is that the region is a hornet's nest, and outside of the Kurds and Yazidis, the US has no friends on the ground, either among combatants or civilians. Shiite and Alawite communities are safer with Assad in power than they would be if he were deposed, and many Syrian Christians actually have ties to Russia (through marriage and education in the USSR) from Syria's history in the Soviet sphere going back to the early 1970s. Syria's majority Sunni Arab population adapted quite well to life under ISIS (a Sunni group) as Rukmini Callimachi reported in the pages of the NYT just a few months ago.
I am not shocked that Trump decided to launch missiles to show that he would act where Obama did not, but in the big picture, what do we think would happen if Syria was not ruled by a secular (albeit evil) leader like Bashar al Assad?
3
The Israelis are shooting at unarmed protestors on their own land through the fence the IDF put up! Killing at least 30. But this is OK because no chemicals are being used.
9
Putin is playing 3-D chess and reaching for 4-D. Trump is playing “Battleship” and reaching for “Stratego.”
4
Wow, in the first week of John Bolton in the White House.
The next few weeks are going to be "Earth Shattering" literally.
2
How many and which countries have the resources and capacity to develop chemical weapons?
Which ones have actually done this?
Where did the chemicals to make these weapons come from ?
These are questions to be asked by the UN , but with the veto powers on the Security Council protest to atrocities ,by of most of the world, will never become action. Perhaps it is time to call for a new charter?
"How many and which countries have the resources and capacity to develop chemical weapons? ..."
Quite a few, and at least one non-state group* has manufactured and used a chemical weapon.
For an authoritative book, see: "War of nerves : chemical warfare from World War I to al-Qaeda" by
Jonathan B. Tucker.
See, also, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) web site: opcw.org.
* The Aum Shinrikyo cult made sarin that was used in the 1995 Tokyo subway attack. See Tucker and use Google for more info.
So the USA launched missiles at Syrian chemical weapons sites and flattened them? OK. So why is that soldier standing there in the middle of that wreckage dressed in nothing but his military fatigues? Should the site be thoroughly contaminated by, you know, all those chemicals?
Honestly, people really should open their eyes.
19
"Locked and loaded." "Shock and Awe." Tough guy rhetoric like this reinforces my belief that we are being led by children.
17
"Tough guy rhetoric ..."
Read the article again. The “locked and loaded” quote is from Nikki Haley, who is a woman: ♀.
I'm sorry, but do they ever conclude these kinds of endeavors as unsuccessful?
6
What was the cost of firing off 100+ cruise missiles? Let's say they they cost $2 million each we are talking $250,000,000 dollars here.
Was attack on Syria worth 250 million? I don't think so.
These missiles are insanely expensive and shouldn't be used this way.
13
Somebody's making a bundle!
So, I don't understand why, if the Syrian chemicals/gas/nerve gas weapons are so deadly, that photos with the articles on the attack show Syrian soldiers this morning walking around on the target sites without any protection.
Do nerve gases and chemical weapons dissipate so quickly, within four or five hours?
11
"... photos with the articles on the attack show Syrian soldiers this morning walking around on the target sites without any protection."
Those could be propaganda photos taken at another time or place. Or there could be a lot of dumb commanders in the Syrian military.
"Do nerve gases and chemical weapons dissipate so quickly, within four or five hours?"
If you watch the linked video, you will see that there appears to be a light breeze.
Anyway, one of the targeted sites was a research facility, which wouldn't have large quantities of chemical weapons.
Reports on the ground were that the Syrians were laughing when they saw the damage. They expected something much more serious, but this didn't do anything to significantly degrade their capabilities.
4
I don’t believe that. There was Cate up not hit civilians or Russian installations.
I’d like to read that. Source?
1
"Mission Accomplished!" is as hollow and unproven statement as accusing Syrian Government using Chemical weapons. I remember German army headquarters issuing daily reports saying that "Everything is going according to our plans" when they started to invade Soviet Union. We need proofs not loose talk!
8
After the GOP debacle in IRaq, how can we believe them now?
Another mission accomplished?
I thought donnie was pulling out troops last week.
13
Successful? Give me a break. Our leaders have been telling us that we are winning during the past 20 years. Wake up American young people. We need competent leaders in the White House and other departments. Not just empty promises. To me the real guilty one is Russia's Putin, not Assad.
8
There had been and is a deal between Syria, Russia and the USA to remove all chemical weapons from Syria, and forgo the production and deployment of new ones. Thus, those buildings were just empty, useless shells, to be destroyed anyway. This was just some demolition help, to assist the partners with fulfilling the contract. Nothing to complain about.
4
Unless you have worked in the Pentagon for years, specializing in the Middle East, I don't see how you can correctly evaluate this complex situation, either before or afterwards. Therefore, aren't we just armchair-quarterbacking when we badmouth or praise this mission designed and carried out by the experts?
(I'm still scratching my head over the Vietnam War, and I was there for two years. My favorite quote about Vietnam: "If anyone claims to understand this war, he just doesn't know what he's talking about.")
"Only the dead have seen the end of war."
~Plato
6
Did you expect to hear anything different? I’m sorry, But I TRULY don’t know what to believe anymore with ALL of the lies from Donald Trump and the White House. I thank our service men and woman who protect our country.
3
Mission accomplished! NOT.
The previous strike against Syria (59 missiles) didn't deter Assad at all. In fact he has defied again the international community and has launched another chemical attack.
Where is Assad's bunker instead? Why don't we disrupt his communication network by hacking his software system? Where are his assets?
1
The 157.5 million dollar (esimated cost of missles less operational costs) message to Syria. Use conventional weapons, barrel bombs, target schools and hospitals and the US & friends will not fire. So Assad, went to kill your people without missles raining down, stick to the conventional stuff.
3
The Russians say the few missiles that managed to get through hit empty buildings. Who should we believe and why?
1
Well, one sometimes tells the truth and the other never does. The latter is closer to home.
8
“locked and loaded” wow...very polished words indeed. potentially presidential even.
7
Russia has supported Assad from the start, since before Trump was elected. Trump is too close to Putin. You never heard any criticism of Russia from Trump before this week. It's all a big show to distract. Why were Trump's people meeting with Russians on many occasions?
In addition, this is all because of Bush. He and Cheney are basically criminals who started a war of choice based on fake evidence. Obama did what he could, trying to clean up Bush's mess.
9
The hypocrisy of opposing chemical weapons while tolerating the suffering caused by conventional weapons continues to plague us... Children are being killed, families starved and displaced, either way.
12
“Mission accomplished!”
If there were any worse choice of phraseology, I can’t for the life of me fathom it.
So what’s next, Donny? “Regime change”?
8
Our government is not telling us the truth.
20
One of the primary requirements when our current government is providing information, is that no one in government is allowed to speak in a way that reflects negatively on the president.
For this reason, we should take every statement by government officials with a huge grain of salt, until the details are confirmed using objective sources.
9
“No amount of American blood or treasure can produce lasting peace and security in the Middle East,” President Trump said... is it just me or you guys agree that was scripted?
8
This civil war has been going on for a long time. This is the second time the Assad regime has used chemical warfare.
If the NYT is correct in its assessment buried in the article, I smell a huge charade: "The United States still has about 2,000 troops in eastern Syria working with a Kurdish-led militia to fight the jihadists of the Islamic State. But with the militants now nearly defeated, American officials have started thinking about when to withdraw".
The USA defeated in another civil war? No wonder the president wants to withdraw troops, and then deploy the military at the Southern border. Fortress America at its worst. Another betrayal of brave soldiers.
Has the United States through its once esteemed diplomatic corps (including Ms. Halley
There's only one way to destroy Syria's chemical weapons stockpile, and it is not by bombing Syria. One needs to strike Syria and kill the chemists that make them. One needs also strike Iran and Russia and kill their chemists. Otherwise, they will replace the chemical weapons in no time.
It's also noteworthy that destroying Syria's chemical weapons after the war was one by Assad is not going to change anything at all. Assad doesn't really care about its weapons now. It's over.
1
In the end, this raid was about as modest a one as the US-led coalition could mount, more symbolic than anything else.- The Guardian
5
I guess it's needful to point out that by treaty, by practice, by laws, yes, gassing people is worse.
The difference isn't all that hard to understand, thanks to the Nazis. Among the reasons you avoid going to war if at all possible is that wars always kill kids and other innocents by accident and by stupidity--and this is different from deliberately going after kids and other innocents by means that can't be controlled much at all, and which are deliberately targetted at kids and the innocent.
If you want a comparison, it's to strategic bombing in WW 2--and even then, the object was to shut down industry, not merely to kill civilians.
Things are quite bad enough without these false equivalences.
3
"Ambassador" Haley sounds like she still thinks she addressing the Rock Hill, SC chapter of the NRA.
12
It's about time!
2
A few missives from Donald Trump-circa 2013:
"The President must get Congressional approval before attacking Syria-big mistake if he does not!” Trump tweeted in August 2013.
“What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval,” (www.thehill.com)
19
Anything coming out of Trump's morally bankrupted mouth about the immorality of chemical weapon use is pure hypocrisy.
It's like watching Al-capone being the keynote speaker for anti-bullying day.
14
Remember when Trump praised Saddam for using 'a little gas'?
3
utterly meaningless and way too little way too late. the distinction the u.s. and allies makes between chemical weapons use and other significant war crimes by the assad regime is wrong and curious and does very very little to provide relief from assad/russian massacre of innocents.
if the military is afraid of too many casualties and striking assad in some meaningful way, i.e. degrading his military, infrastructure and all the russian support troops and accompanying air defenses and hardware the war crimes will continue.
and the u.s. and "military transparency" don't make for a successful outcome as the element of surprise is lost.
and trump and his tweets about what he's going to do when it comes to military action is profoundly stupid.
5
buy yourself a mirror.
how many Vietnamese we liberated from communism? we went after bin laden in Afghanistan and we're still there. How many Iraqi we liberated form the tyrant Saddam Hussein? Kaddafi is dead. would you take you family vacation there?
2
Trumps is so clueless, ignorant, unaware that he doesn't even know that the laughable phrase "Mission Accomplished" has come to mean just the opposite. Our country and the world are in very dangerous times with this man.
14
"Mission accomplished ", huh? Sounds like George W Bush's grossly premature gesture in Iraq.
8
That was Trump tweaking "progressives", and it worked stupendously.
1
He didn't tweak anyone, he looked typically tone deaf.
4
"Progressives" didn't support the Iraq War. Did you?
so.....we suddenly know where they keep the chemical weapons and are just NOW getting around to maybe doing something about it? And bombing it was a good way to keep it from hurting anyone (you know, if you bomb it, gas won't go anywhere since it knows its in trouble). Come. On.
8
"Pentagon Defines 'Success' as 'the Result of What We Just Did'"
Come on, dog. It's the next day. Is that the time frame you think in terms of?
Listen, man. Kids that weren't born on 9/11 are about to join the Marines. How is that war on terror working out? Pretty good so far? Sheesh.
Some would say we should have a stragedizer.
5
When's the last time you heard our military announce, "We have just executed a failed mission"?
5
The Pentagon Papers, actually.
5
Ms. Steinberg makes a good point. The Pentagon Papers cited in reply were concealed from the public until leaked by Daniel Ellsberg in 1971.
2
'When's the last time you heard our military announce, "We have just executed a failed mission"?'
Haven't you ever heard of "Black Hawk Down" or the 1980 mission to rescue hostages in Iran?
And the Times regularly reports on US military blunders of varying sizes. Google "niger raid site:nytimes.com" for a recent example.
1
What will he do next without congressional approval? Funny...I was sleeping just fine before this unauthorized move. Doesn't seem like a courageous act, more like a cowardly. Grab your boots soldiers...someone wants to play war and you are the pieces.
4
contrast this, with President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took out Osama Bin Laden with no Fanfare whatsoever walked into a congressional public event, never mentioned it and all the while knowing that he sent in his special forces US Navy SEAL Team to Pakistan to go and kill Osama bin Laden. The number one Terrorist on all FBI and CIA and world leader intelligence list.
And not once did he take credit for it. He didn't even promote the fact that he took out the number one terrorist in the world during any of his campaigns or even when he left office. Is only bragging was that he felt humbled and honor to serve the United States of America
23
has it ever occurred to you maybe that wasn't Osama bin laden? according to our spooks bin laden had serious kidney problem that required dialysis. where did he get that high up in the mountains and on the run?
RE: walked into a congressional public event, never mentioned it and all the while knowing that he sent in his special forces US Navy SEAL Team to Pakistan to go and kill Osama bin Laden.
So Obama demonstrates greatness by not tipping off the target of a covert mission? And all during the campaign Hillary bragged about it as if she was so part of it like the Navy Seals rather than her sitting safely in Washington
1
During the Civil war in Syria Assad has been responsible for 12 million people being displaced and over a half a million deaths. His impact in the Middle East has caused severe hardship to so many. The international community needs to be united against the chemical attacks on Assad's own people.
For the US, England, and France to have had the stated goal of diminishing Syria's capacity to make and use chemical weapons, and cripple their chemical weapon program that seems to have been done. Since the strikes were limited to those goals and also to be sure not to draw retaliation from Russia and Iran it seems like a careful way to have proceeded.
Syrians have suffered enormous hardship at the hands of Assad and the tragedy of what he is doing continues to reverberate all over the world.
4
Let’s be honest, Syria is not in our sphere of interest and has had links to Russia (and previously the USSR) for decades. They want their Mediterranean port. And they love poking us in the eye. The humanitarian crisis would only be halted by overwhelming intervention, which we will not do. We really don’t want another Libya experience. Turkey’s interests confound the calculus in the north. Iran has devious ways to retaliate with terrorism. Syria will be mired in suffering for a generation or more. But we can only do so much. They will never forget Assad’s brutality.
4
Would the Pentagon admit a failure? Hasn't happened in my 64 years.
5
Hopefully this will be just the beginning of attacks against Assad and his Shia allies Iran and Hezbollah. Used advanced weapons it may be possible to bring down Assad without losing a single American in combat.
2
This fiasco that seems a back drop for the ridiculous nonsense spouted by Haley Barber. This moves this civil war no where. A false flag hoax that the western news media have ballyhooed for the benefit of criminal jihadists who viciously attack the people they are hiding among as human shields. The regime change crowd never seem to tire in their efforts to make this bloody tragic mess more intractable.
3
Thank you for this action against this war criminal.
9
My common ground with our President: “No amount of American blood or treasure can produce lasting peace and security in the Middle East. It’s a troubled place. We will try to make it better, but it is a troubled place.”
5
Just like his WH, a troubled place, headed by a troubled man without zippo governmental or military experience.
2
@ Sanity,
Unlike the previous effete president who was a military genius, with a lifetime of military experience (at least in his mind).
2
difference being previous didn't pretend that he had all the answers
Actually, instead of bombing and killing more people, we should all learn from the Russians, Chinese, Rumanians and others...have a tech and disruption war!
We could offer a "secret" bounty...of course in no way related to our government, of say $1 billion (less than we spend on a war) to penetrate and empty all the bank accounts and other assets of the oligarchs in Russia, the Assads of the world, and all the other rip off artists ripping off the people of their money all across the world!
Wiping out the ill gained wealth they accumulated will really eliminate them as power brokers and wipe out the sources funding all these miserable characters and awful situations...worldwide.
Power to the people!
9
This was good for the missile industry and those mil types who haven't had a chance yet for live target practice. It was good for those several factions who are not interested in getting this civil conflagration into termination. It was a bad day for those people killed in the 100+ missile strikes, many of whom are as innocent as you or I. It will be a bad day for those maimed and killed due to whatever extension of the war this facilitates.
9
I have a very basic question that doesn't seem to be addressed in any of the coverage of these strikes: under what legal authority did the US, Britain and France carry out this attack? It seems as if they are acting as judge, jury and executioner, is that a precedence we can live with?
9
Might makes right.
1
It's called the Geneva Convention that Syria and most of the countries are parties to which ban the use of chemical weapons and certainly when they are used on their own citizens. To imply that the attacks destroying these weapons are worse than the actual use of the weapons on citizens is sophomoric.
1
Success! Mission accomplished! Really? With our long history of violence should we feel more secure? Safer? Justified? Noble? Righteous? I don't feel any of these with this latest act of violent aggression. I feel demoralized.
6
Why didn't they target the facilities last year?
8
There should be no advance warning of a strike. Just hit hard, fast and target the murderous Assad crowd by hitting their palaces and control centers. A major, hurtful wake-up call.
1
Whatever one's opinion on this or other military military mission, justified or not, can we agree at least to dispense with the dishonest expression "surgical strike"? Look at photos of the wreckage from our retaliatory missile attack on Syria. I don't want my next surgery (I've had several) to leave my body resembling the devastation I see in these photos. I'm sure you don't want your body to resemble this pile of degree either, even metaphorically, whoever you are and whatever political party you support. No military operation is a surgical strike.
6
DEBRIS
'... can we agree at least to dispense with the dishonest expression "surgical strike"?'
Read the article again. No one uses the phrase "surgical strike", so you are fretting about a fake problem.
Simple solution for Assad: just claim 'false intelligence' then media and the international community - similar to Bush/Cheney, who killed millions, will let you off the hook; release you from all responsibility.
3
An accompanying article talks about action vs. inaction as the way we respond to chemical attacks and indeed world situations. It defined President Obama's 2013 use of diplomacy in response to Assad's use of chemicals as 'inaction' and Trump's military response as 'action'. But this interpretation is inaccurate, bogus and down right dangerous. Obama's action was not military, but was not inaction. It was a considered response to the situation at hand. When the media makes distinctions like this it adds to the myth that the military is the only action and that diplomacy does not count.
I do not know whether the ally's use of weapons was the 'correct' response, but I do know that we must be careful of our definitions as they determine how we interpret things. Obama took one action while the allies took another and only time will tell whether one was a better response than another. Personally, I feel that the way of diplomacy must be used first in almost every situation and that the use of military force first can just complicate things and not get to the root of the problem, but I am not generally a reactionary war monger so what do I know.
8
Why do I picture Trump sitting, in that odd hunched, hands between his knees manner...asking over and over. "Okay now? Okay now?" As to when to make the call and release the hounds...like a teenager eager to do what till then he could not. "Okay now...okay now...now? When do I get to have fun, whats the point of being here if I have to wait to give the command? I wanna do it now!"
It cuts me deep that a man who has long been lighting small fires, most to simply get attention and applause...now has the power to set a really big barn burning conflagration.
Not only are we living in interesting times, but seriously dangerous ones.
Trurmp is a liar and schemer, seeking distraction from his issues. And the others are all struggling back home. How much commitment can we expect from our wary allies? Or from us for that matter? Trump turns a corner of the WH and he's on to a new target for his rants. He wants out of Syria, is ready to give it to the Russians and Iranians, he said so less then a month ago. Now this?
What are we really committed to do with Assad and the travesty of the atrocities inflicted on the Syrian peoples and their lands? From various parties, some fellow Syrians.
All our leaders talk about, esp. Trump, are tactics. No strategy, no plan. Tactics that are believed, religiously by our leaders, to provide specific outcomes...but never do. Whats next? Two more boming runs, then what...invasion, small spec Ops incursions.?
There is no plan, anywhere...
8
Strinking those locations without warning and during the day would have at least killed a bunch of the engineers and other skilled workers the regime needs to produce the agenrts. Detroying the Syrian airforce on the ground would have also been a good step.
This raid was a joke, telegraphed days before it happened. Of note should be that the Russians didn't even turn on their radar . Since they already knew well in advance what was going to happen, they were able to give their buddy Trump a "victory" to brag about and distract the press.
If this wasn't a pathetic WAG THE DOG, then I don't know what is.
4
If you wish not to be lied to, you have to balance the cheesy reports in American media with outside sources. I recommend RT & Al Jazeera on Youtube.
1
RT is branded or treated as foreign agent because our establishment can't stand the truth.
Are we witnessing Operation Desert Stormy Daniels?
7
so what was the cost 1 million per missal? x 100? = a 100 million dog and pony show.
4
Great, now we can take credit for spilling noxious chemicals all over Damascus and Homs.
2
It does not matter how or if we negotiate or that working diplomats have departed. What matters is the Pentagon brags front-page while the smoke clears that our bombs worked. Like Trump, government is zero-sum, even in Congress. Will Trump supporters ever figure out zero-sum? One is grateful when anything in government works, where working is not a lie told by traitors. In 2018, disproving is an ordeal.
1
For the last five decades, we have sold planes and material to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, jordan, the Emirates, Pakistan, and any number of other Muslim majority nations. That those countries sit on their hands and let the United States, France, Great Britain, and, yes, Israel step in where Muslims should be stepping in is not a very good advertisement for the operational fruits of their faith.
3
An op-ed in the "Times" is about U.S. foreign policy. Do we have a policy? I can't acknowledge the existence of one. Has anyone seen it? Does anyone know it? It seems our policy is if we don't like what you're doing, we'll launch some missiles your way. That's not policy. That's a knee-jerk reaction. That's not a policy.
2
what else can you do when the only tool you have in your tool box is a hammer?
This is the second time we've bombed Assad, but under what authority is the president acting? This has nothing to do with the blanket authority for the unending "war on terror." By comparison, Congress authorized the Iraq War; the UN Security Council authorized Obama's Libyan intervention (and Congress approved funding for it). Clinton launched missiles into Sudan and Afghanistan, but he was targeting Bin Laden, not the governments.
Trump's attack was not a secret mission of some sort. It was not against a terrorist group or criminal target. It was a deliberate attack on a foreign government. Whether the act is morally right or not, where is the legal authority? What use is Congress?
2
the united nations authorized a NO FLY ZONE. US and the nato gang bombed Libya back to the stone age and more.
Trump says that chemical weapons are barbaric and the US will attack Syria again if these awful weapons are used by Syria. Question: is Assad uses chemical weapons against the remainder of ISIS will he attack Assad?
2
It is necessary that Trump look like he is anti Russian. Mission Accomplished!
It seems to me the heart of any chemical weapons program in Syria would be Assad himself.
1
“A perfectly executed strike last night.”
Hardly, President Trump.
You know what a perfectly executed strike is ?
Dropping a MOAB on Assad as he is "strolling into work in a suit and tie and carrying a briefcase as if nothing had happened."
Either that or stay away from the middle-east.
Anything else is a waste of money.
3
Syrians are the 'children of the lesser God' and the so-called precision strikes in Syria by US/UK/France is adding insult to Syrian injury/tragedy. If Obama has put a 'no fly zone' in Syria as proposed by Hillary Clinton, Assad would have been ousted in 2013. On the contrary Obama/Kerry gave free hand to Putin/Lavrov/Rouhani to murder Syrian folks using chlorine gas, barrel bombs, nerve agents. The trio with the help of murderous Assad killed millions of Syrian folks with absolute impunity. Syrians have faced the worst atrocities/genocide/mayhem unparalleled in 20th century. Putin consolidated its Tartus navy base and establishing Lattakia air base and US was left with a narrow strip in Syria.
In the guise of finishing off Da'esh Russia/Iran and
Assad military finished all the opposition in Syria and captured Aleppo, Homs, Huma, Ghouta ofcourse using CWs multiple times. US/'west' lost their influence in Syria and have a diminished role in Iraq where Iranian blood thirsty militias gained massive ground. Meanwhile Israel kept its stakes high in Syria by its air assaults while Erdogan is strong on the Turkish Syrian border. In the fast changing landscape in ME and Syria Trump and his allies want their presence felt while they don't want to infuriate Russia. Israel will be another beneficiary of US strikes and will further exert its role in Syria.
US/'west' has no love for Syrian folks rather its geo-strategic interests of stakeholders at the expense of more Syrian blood!!
1
Not enough enough, not soon enough. But it's better than nothing. I'm sure the Russian's were "in" on the deal to a certain extent which then tipped off the Iranians as well. No doubt that Assad still has some chemical weapons but the real question is how quickly will Trump & Co respond the next time. It needs to be nearly instantaneous, no questions, no notice. And they all need to know this. Otherwise it's just showboating.
For the thousandth time, the US should install its nuclear weapons in Poland, Ukraine, and Taiwan.
2
We promised Ukraine that we would be there to protect them should Russia ever invade them. Unfortunately, the one time we needed to fulfill this promise we had a hack politician occupying our Oval Office. But that time will come soon enough.
1
Well, I guess djt has made our policy clear: Bomb civilians or their homes, starve them. All okay. Just don't be inhumane and gas them.
Meanwhile, let's see what we can do to deny healthcare to our own citizens.
So many missions to accomplish.
7
Pentagon says Syria strikes hit 'heart' of the Chemical Weapons Program!
Mission Accomplished! Now what about real Syrian hearts struck dead? I get it. Collateral damage happens. But who's counting and who cares? But of course, these were state of the art targeted, precise strikes. The chemical depots are gone and so are 100,000s Syrians.
Bravo USA, France and Great Britain! No matter what the petty criticisms from the peanut galleries, we in the civilized West must continue to demonstrate that good will not stand silent in the face of evil.
5
Not only did we notify Russia we were coming (our military did that not only Trump) we gave them the air corridors we would use. We must have told them how narrow the attacks would be or Russia would now be screaming at us.
A farce, a phony, a diversion, a distraction and government corruption in the sense of constantly trying to fool the public, pass on phony hopes to them and "Manufacturing Consent." If you are not familiar with the last term, it means the media, as usual, creates the "consent" of the public -- the public consenting to what the elite and and those in power need and want.
3
Yes, I understand "manufacturing consent" but does it really have to do with this? You're really looking at the wrong example.
1
If we hit what is claimed, then good. But if we really wanted to do something for Syrian civilians then destroying his military helicopter fleet would prevent Assad from dropping barrel bombs on hospitals, clinics, marketplaces and civilian neighborhoods.
4
Isn't it standard military doctrine to strike the command and control center of the operations that initiated the war crime attacks? Shouldn't that entail dropping a couple of bombs on Assad himself? Wouldn't he get the hint then to end the chemical weapon attacks? What a weak response. I'm embarrassed for our president and now our military.
2
Chlorine is not on the OPCW list of banned chemicals, and is not classified as a chemical weapon.
It seems likely that the countries that have been mass murdering Syrians for the last five years are coming up with rationalization to pound the final nail in the coffin for Syria, that is, the destruction of the City of Damascus. It seems like what we have here is a genocide by several countries trying to make it appear there is a war or conflict. It is time for people to take their heads out of the sand and speak out.
2
Syria is just another example of people killing each other who have different political or religious beliefs. It's been happening for thousands of years. People just have more deadly weapons now.
1
Boo hoo. What does "mission accomplished" mean to the miscreant? Shooting a few missiles at nothing, with no policy or strategy. The only strategy this maladministration with Syria is that they've permitted only 17 (that's SEVENTEEN) refugees in our country.
3
Chlorine gas is incredibly easy to make -- all you need is salt water (and Syria is on the mediterranean), and electricity.
Sarin is much harder to synthesize -- and its precursors are far more dangerous. But a couple of tanker trucks full of sarin could kill thousands, if not tens of thousands.
Which is just my way of saying that there is no "heart" of Syria's chemical weapons program, and that the attack yesterday was close to symbolic -- which explains France and Britain's participation. They understood that Trump, left to his own devices, was capable of starting a "hot" war that could envelop most of the middle east --- and destroy their economies as oil and gas production was disrupted. So they joined with Mattis, and kept things under control....for the time being.
1
Ok, here's a question. If we knew where Assad was storing his chemical weapons, then why didn't we attack the facility BEFORE Assad could use them on the Syrian populace once again?
2
Because Trump is weak.
I'm still waiting for the on-the-ground, multi-sourced confirmation that we didn't blow up an aspirin factory or an infant formula factory.
For those with short memories, our vaunted spy satellites and ELINT capabilities ("electronic intelligence" - the interception of radio and cell phone transmissions) has yielded such spurious targeting errors before. Assad has had close to a decade to bury these chemical weapons sites deep underground - and most like did so years ago.
And (as noted in the article), chlorine (used in last week's attack on Syrian civilians) is so common it's on supermarket shelves around the world (in laundry bleach and household cleansers) - not to mention any swimming pool supply store. No sophisticated factories are required to distill and weaponize chlorine "right off the shelf".
The only "Accomplished Mission" last night was to refocus cable news on a new shiny object for 24 hours.
1
Some heinous acts are worth dying for. The intentional gassing of children is at or near the top of the list. Kudos to our wonderful allies as well, the British and the French, who understand that.
As to Assad's response, one of Secretary Matiss' responses fits well here. Paraphrasing him: He was asked what in the course of his work gave him nightmares. He said he didn't have nightmares, he GAVE them.
2
"The Pentagon provided no immediate evidence that the sites that were struck were producing substances covered by the 2013 agreement between Russia and the United States to eliminate Syria’s chemical arms."
But the corporate-media accepted the Pentagon version as the truth, nevertheless. You would think that after all the lies the military has been caught in, this sort of "stenographic journalism" wouldn't continue, but the fact is, war is big business and given the revolving door between the military corporate sector and the Pentagon, along with their lobbying efforts, the people who are recommending military responses are raking in the cash from those responses.
For our tax money to keep flowing to the Pentagon and then on to the military corporations, every missions must be seen as a success.
Here's how the military sector discusses foreign policy: http://fortune.com/2014/09/13/defense-industry-winner-against-isis/
The article quotes Dov Zakheim, Pentagon CFO during the Bush years when the billions of dollars went missing, then became senior VP at Booz Allen Hamilton, an intelligence service-for-hire with a whole slew of shady connections.
These are the kind of people who are designing US foreign policy.
1
The blame for the current Syrian situation falls on US and the EU political leaders who did not have the leadership at the beginning of this travesty to see what "inaction" would cause. Simple "No fly zones" at the start would have avoided the majority of the deaths, dislocations, and pain that we are now experiencing.
When will we have leaders who can really lead? Will we every have someone with the vision and ability to explain in simple terms universal truths what our nation's goals should be? Or, are doomed to be led by technical polictical-manipulations that we are currently experiencing?
3
Assad has killed hundreds of thousands not by chemicals but by conventional warfare. But the world attention is glued to only 'chemical use' by Assad prompting major powers to strike. Is everyday killing game less brutal than chemical use?
2
Trump claims "Mission Accomplished," ignoring or forgetting Dubya's speech on the aircraft carrier that made him a loser. But translated into Trump-talk, the mission was tiny like his hands.
1
So this is about the optics?
Trump announces his plans ahead of time giving Syria time to move things around in preparation. Then the show begins, then the cheering from the WH begins and then in the manner of GWBush, 'mission accomplished', now a trite and meaningless phrase is uttered.
After a few hours, Syria moves things around again and re-sets things as they were, perhaps yards or miles away.
So, Trump looks strong and the press chases the squirrel.
In the end it all comes back to muscle flexing as a diversion from the scandals plaguing Trump. What will he do for an encore when more scandals are revealed.
We should be worried. We have no policy, only knee jerk reactions.
2
Whether USA and its allies, Russia and its allies or Assad launch chemical missiles over Syria will only kill innocent people, It won't alleviate their hatred by killing people mercilessly.
America is curious to be involved in other's affairs than its own.
Will Trump make America great in this way?
3
If the bombing of chemical depots will save Syrian lives, then I'm for it, regardless of who ordered the bombing.
I didn't and never would vote for Trump.
But the whole world has been standing by for 7 years while Assad attacks his own people. Trump's gesture won't end the civil war or bring down Assad. But maybe it will save a few lives.
What's needed is a truly broad coalition of countries to step in, take control of Syria, capture Assad and put him on trial for crimes against humanity.
Won't happen of course. I'm not holding my breath.
I just hope that this little attack, along with Israel's occasional attacks, will slow down the pace of Assad's killing.
5
Victory declared- once again.
Now Trump can continue to surrender US interests in the Middle East to Russia.
I just want to know why we get to see pictures/video of the civilian populace who are killed, and wounded, when targeted by forces other than ours (as in the recent gas attacks). I'm sure there were a lot of pictures the U.S. media could have shared with us during the invasions of Afghanistan, and Iraq. Seems to be a calculated decision. Is the U.S. media complicit in the propaganda spread by the state to rally the citizens to support military interventions? Is it really a 'free' press?
Surely a headline is warranted here for Russia's major change in foreign policy - to show concern for a nation's sovereignty? This is quite a departure from recent history and will be of great relief to their neighbours in Europe!
1
Regarding the involvement of European allies:
German Chancellor Angela Merkel wisely avoided having anything to do with the odious Trump, whom she doesn't trust as far as she can spit.
Young inexperienced Macron of France bonded with Trump at the military parade in Paris, and is acting more like an apprentice.
Theresa May of Britain, I'm sure, is largely motivated by the recent Russian nerve agent attack on British soil. And this is a further way of striking back at Putin.
2
If the Pentagon knew where these chemical weapons were being stored and developed why wait until now? These should have been destroyed before use.
2
The military-industrial deep state, which is international and exists in Iran and Russia as well as here, continues to pile up profit as it's machines kill and kill again.
This global monster is aligned with every countries' leader (Britain and France included) and ready to provide political gains when needed. All their leaders have to do is mention "crying babies" or point to some other red-line as a pretext and the mush-brained followers cheer the apparent acts of justice just like they see in the movies. A good pretext (he hit me first) is what turns revenge into "justice".
Military acts are either political acts of power designed for domestic support, or a "propping up" of an associated partner leader, or an indirect slap at some rival leader who's not toeing the line, or a defense reaction to some other leader's internal needs.
Never is the stated reason more than a pretext, and never are the leaders tried for war crimes. Behind these criminals is the corporate war machine that profits from killing, and the more killing, the more profit. Indeed, the primary reason for the CIA is not defense against external threats, but to plan our forever wars. The defense part is secondary, it is their public pretext.
The only country that's not into this game of power is China. They wisely keep their heads down and invest outside the chaos. As we grow weaker, they get stronger.
4
i agree.
and as far as i know, every war fought to date
was preceded by at least one lie, to rally support
or wield an 'axis of good' against an 'axis of evil'.
rivals become enemies. fear reigns supreme.
"and if you're not with us, you're against us."
some people even say that w|o military research
there would be little progress in civil society ...
What happened to the stored gas at the targets?? Was it released?? Have there been injuries?? Seems like an absence of information.
2
This is a valid move on the part of the Trump administration, but it does not exactly take moral courage or conviction to bomb the deplorable administration of a country using chemical weapons against its own citizens. While the media should cover this development, it shouldn't distract us from the many other domestic crises and breaches of democracy relished by this administration, all of which pose a much greater threat to the security and well being of the United States than overseas dictators gone rogue with weapons of mass destruction.
Our missles hit the targets, so what? This will accomplish nothing. The war will go on, more people will die, the Middle East will remain a place full of sectarian violence, with no winners and no losers. What is “winning,” what is “losing?” Mr. Assad has killed hundreds of thousand of his own people, displaced millions more, and destroyed countless acres of buildings and property. Is he “winning?”
Mr. Trump has proven only one thing: military action is tragically pointless.
1
The impression I get from reading about the attack is that we went out of our way not to provoke Russia. In that regard, we sort of tip-toed through the tulips. In spite of all of Trump's bluster, that makes us look weak.
1
The purpose of the attacks (at least as far as our allies were concerned) was to act as a deterrent to chemical warfare. If you let one country do it others will inevitably follow, probably claiming "self defense". If chemical warfare proliferates the chances of terrorists getting their hands on the chemicals increases. It doesn't take much of the stuff to cause a lot of deaths and getting it into a country would not be hard (note to Trump - a wall would not help).
The Trump administration has worn my sensibilities down. My numb brain says destroying a hundred missiles that will have to be replaced is a waste on a grand scale.
The administration has no credibility-- whenever a number is quoted, it is more likely wrong than right. Statements of fact regularly have to be thrown out as deceptive if not outright manipulative lies.
How are we ever to evaluate the balance of effects v. the cost of the destruction in this miasma? We are seeing the swamp replaced with raw sewage. It must end, but how?
"Mission Accomplished!”. Where have we hear that before? Of said of North Africa during WW II, "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning"- Winston Churchill. Great man. We have, however, a man in the WH that is less than great that does reads ...
Let's see,. probably well in excess of 50 million dollars wasted on this operation so Trump could go into full marketing mode between rounds of golf. ....“A perfectly executed strike last night,” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter. American led Strikes had taken out the “heart” of President Bashar al-Assad’s chemical weapons program. “Thank you to France and the United Kingdom for their wisdom and the power of their fine Military. Could not have had a better result. Mission Accomplished!”....fore!
"United States, Britain and France launched more than 100 missiles at three chemical weapons storage and research facilities near Damascus and Homs"
If we knew where these research and storage facilities were, wouldn't it have made more sense to have taken them out before they were used to kill humans?
Success is not measured by how many bombs fall or bodies on the ground, it this region of the world it is measured by a positive change for all involved in the conflict. Guess what? Nothing changed. Assad still is in power. Czar Putin gets to inch closer to our military to taunt us into a fight, he is truly mad and fixated on America's downfall. Syrians will still die today, tomorrow and the next day at least for now without those chemical weapons that probably do not come from Assad's labs but Czar Putin's labs. If we really believed that Assad should be punished for crimes against humanity, we should have gone in tried to arrest him and let him fiddle with his hair in a court of law like Saddam Hussein did. But this would mean American blood would be spilled. The Pretend King Trump is all about image and he believes he has shown the world what a bully can do with big guns. The danger for us all is still there. Each day he remains in office we get closer to a War we do not want. Are we there yet?
Maybe I don't understand chemical weapons as well as my Army training provided; BUT wouldn't it make sense that hurling missiles into stockpiles of said chemical weapons would only make those weapons airborne, hence spreading them as far as the blast shield?
This reeks of a presidential distraction from issues blowing up in his own face.
2
What about the missile strike a couple of months ago after one of the last chemical weapons attacks ? Wasn't that enough of a show of strength and purported deterrent to future attacks ? Oh wait, that's right...the very same airfield that was bombed was operating again within a few days...and here we are again.
Isn’t it a bitter irony that the U.S. who saturated Vietnam with naplam and Agent Orange and provided Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons to kill tens of thousands of Iranian soldiers seems to be so outraged by the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime in Syria?
This moral outrage is a sick joke. This has nothing to do with concern for the Syrian people. It has everything with Imperialist power projection.
1
Assad is a nasty actor, to be sure. The images of women, children and men suffering the effects of chlorine (and sarin?) are horrifying. But what is it with this redline fetish over use of such chemicals?
The "rules" of war are insane. The only rule should be that there is no war. As widely reported, Assad has used barrel bombs against his own people. Trump brags of our nuclear arsenal, which is 10,000 times more troubling than all the chemical weapons in the world. He threatens to use weapons that make chlorine or sarin seem like silly putty.
We use weapons on our own black citizens. We used napalm and agent orange to kill and maim 100's of thousands of Vietnamese. Reliable, but quickly hidden reports, revealed that we used napalm in the opening salvos of the invasion of Iraq.
But all of a sudden, the use of "chemical" weapons by someone else is a moral violation of unprecedented horror?
I'm not condoning it, of course, but our capacity to moralize while using and threatening the use of nuclear weapons is the height of hypocrisy.
And of course, Trump allows thousands of desperate women and children, fleeing oppression, rape and starvation, to rot in geopolitical purgatory as he makes America great again.
Shame on us.
2
Of course Assad can casually return to his palatial offices, designer briefcase in hand; "monster" doesn't begin to describe the subhuman lifeform that he is. He makes our Russian puppet look downright patriotic and compassionate. Obviously, if Saddam Hussein had aligned himself with Russia, he'd still be around. Contrary to Bush apologists and their love for his invasion and decimation of Iraq, the world is not such "a better place" without Saddam.
2
We have no idea of the Truth or falsity of the chemical attack that came from Syria save our governments say so or the accuracy of the Pentagon's statement. Times outlined there are no good U.S. options in a prior post. This option in long run probably won't do any good even if it does hit Syria's chemical weapons. However, it makes a political point strengthened by involving U.S. allies, GB and France. It is disappointing if this was done with support of Iran and Russia< I would have thought they were more civilized. Why Assad solely among states needs chemical weapons in a war he is winning is beyond me.
2
The unity among our most capable allies is encouraging and most welcome.
The French government saw it fit to join in the strikes, unlike the 2nd Iraq War.
It is remarkable that some people will vehemently deny the Assad regime used chemical weapons in any instance, while accepting professional reporting (MSM) about Gaza. The 'anti-imperialists' have a remarkable ability to compartmentalize their outrage, and it's pathetic.
Let's take what the folks at the Pentagon claim that last nights missile attack has put Assad's chemical weapons programs years behind. If the missiles were actually destroyed, toxic chemicals leaking in that area must be too deadly for human verification. I've become skeptical that anyone in this administration is telling the truth. Trump will use any diversion to direct attention away from his legal problems and I hope eventual impeachment. Also, what will he do for a second act?
4
I don't understand :
The main chemical agent used by Syria in recent attacks was CHLORINE, and chlorine is "COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE". So what difference do these strikes make? (Missiles struck research facilities, and in any case chlorine supplies are easily replaced on the commercial market).
Sounds more like tough talk and breast-beating, rather than part of a coherent, well thought-out strategy. But what do I know ?
6
I've got this hankering to go swimming..
Aside from the question of whether this strike is any more effective than the one last year, I still have questions about whether the Syrians actually did this as charged. I cannot see any good reason for them to do it when they are , with the help of the Russians and the Iranians, winning their civil war against a determined Islamic rebellion. They had nothing to gain and a lot to lose. To be clear, I'm not saying they didn't do it, I'm just saying that to date there is no proof they did. In my opinion, without proof it's just as likely the extremely radical rebels staged it to gain some international sympathy and assistance. If so, they were successful, but not enough to help them much.
3
The key questions are in my view; 1. will this help Syria? Probably not. It is too late in the war. The country is ravaged. 2. Why didn't they hit Assad and his family and cronies directly by aiming at his residence and those of his closest collaborators, including his brother?
Then, maybe he would become worried if he survived and agree to negotiate a settlement. Otherwise, this is just another use of military might in a place where it has none.
8
So it's okay to kill the estimated 400,000 civilians that have died in this eight year war by bombing them to bits and blowing them apart as long as they are not poisoned by chemicals. I guess now Syria and Russia will get that straight. The bombings will continue as permitted.
33
It might very well be 'Farewell to Syria', and no, not all is fair in War. How complacent of this American to sit here, remembering a friend from Africa who reminds me on occasion of Our Lot in Life. She believes in God, while I believe in the power of Faith, but she has asked 'Can you not say prayers'.
Earlier this week, Britain is in the News for attempting to save 100,000 Syrians reach safety. Britain, with the help of some humanitarian non-governmental-organizations, is going to place some of their lives on the line by evacuating children.
It is not okay to kill civilians with bombs, and there is a rumor that Truman and his military debated whether to use chemical poison gas that would have targeted five million Japanese. It was 'Hiroshima, my Love' instead.
While there are no sounds of strikes from Israel nor Turkey, I still hear the screaming of a twelve-year old girl; her leg blown off, screaming there is 'No God'.
President Obama addressed the Nation on The Genocide taking place in Syria one August not long ago and We turned our back on him, because it was not 'Our Problem', and some even ventured that Putin might make a better President.
Look Where We are Now.
1
Agree Die by bomb concussion or chemical, neither pleasant. I guess we can count on Trump setting off firecrackers when he wants a public distraction?
Don't count your chickens before they hatch!
5
On second thought, the best thing we can do on Veterans' Day is to stay home and not participate in the DC parade. Let the parade proceed in canyons of silent buildings. Silence, not cheering, in memory of the lives lost in senseless wars.
We are thankful for our military and our veterans. But why not honor them by putting the parade money into improving the VA?
We don't need this transfusion of a parade to inflate further djt's ego.
62
Yes! I think a donation or a volunteer action for veterans that day, expressly in defiance to that ridiculous show in DC, would be the best way to make the point
Amen.
No brass bands, no confetti, no cheering.
Somber silence and ache of heart.
2
This attempted diversion will not work.
The real story is Mr Meuller and the New York District Attorney.
29
diogenesjr,
Hush, hush for Mr. Mueller is working, and the Strike on Syria's chemical weapons is a reminder that Democracy is alive, and not defeated.
As you can see from these photographs, barrels upon barrels of toxic chemicals and gases lie about with fluids oozing over the area. It's definitely proof that the US, poodle Britain, and France destroyed the nerve center of Syria's chemical arsenal. Oh wait. There are no barrels, gases, or liquids to be seen in the photos. Guy is standing in the middle of the chemical weapons depot waving or taking a selfie. Did we miss?
35
Wayne Fuller, Clever is not the answer to a complex and tragic situation. It is easy to be clever when you have no skin in the game.
I agree, as if the Pentagon is going to ever say the strike was a total failure.
And to think, until this past year, I believed what our government told us. That's what having our current "president" at the helm does to credibility.
Nerve gasses are not stored in barrels. I hate Trump too, but, c'mon.
Once again the US has broken international law and attacked another sovereign state. Just a smoke curtain to conceal what´s going on in the US administration.
This attack solves nothing but it can lead to more tension instead of peace which is what the Syrian people needs not more bombs from both sides in this conflict, which has been going on for so many years and in the beginning with minimum interest from both Russia and the US. How long will the Syrian people have to suffer.
18
Obviously, the war in Syria will end when the country is destroyed beyond any semblance of recognition. This could take a few more years. It is a pretty big place. Be patient, all you lovers of peace.
8
Defense Dept acknowledged that the Syrian government most likely retained some ability to again attack its own people with chemical agents.
This was all for show.
"Missiles are coming!" Trump gave Assad plenty of warning and time to move his chemical weapons from that site.
20
God Bless Trump, May and Macron and God Bless those who helped us elect them!
6
Really? Too many alternative facts from our current administration. Amazing that anyone in our country believes anything coming out of this White House. But yes, God bless our country, Teresa May and Macron and the patriotic civil servants we have left after this disastrous administration is over.
you really think god would bless trump? then god has very very very low standards.
Even a (semi-literate, incompetent, possibly criminally insane) stopped clock is right twice a day.
2
1. The attack was all for show. The Russians were informed ahead of time. That's a good thing. It satisfies Congressional blood lust (bipartisan, mind you), and no Russians got killed. Getting a Russian killed while pulling off a military attack whose sole purpose is for domestic consumption is the kind of thing that leads to "escalation."
2. Consider for a moment the barren desert that is the inside of Trump's head. If he'd asked, anyone would have told him that "Mission Accomplished!" would become an instant punchline.
27
And tell him "Mission accomplished" was also said by Obama - for a little joke. Would drive him crazy and maybe he would withdraw his statement.
"a military attack whose sole purpose is for domestic consumption" is pure anti-Trump propaganda. No political decision is that simple. The repetition of anti-Trump rhetoric is getting boring. Better to figure out how we can repair the damage to our society that is bigger than Trump.
1
Assad's Resume Upon Judgement Time, Delivery Of Chemical Weapons Against Syria's Homeland.
3
Because no one's bombing me in the US this afternoon, I had the luxury of Googling if there was ever a peaceful period in the Mideast. One British professor claimed there was brief peace between 2 Mideast-controlling Empires, the Ottoman and Persian, during the European Renaissance.
Obviously, we aren't learning.
22
No actually we were simply trying to underscore, again, that gassing children was an offence we believed was worth dying for. It was the prior administration that actually believed they could make "peace" with Iran. That the Middle East has been a difficult hotbed of hatred, abuse and revolution during all civilized history is well know to a mind the quality of General Mattis. You clearly don't appreciate the brilliance of this highly respected general/secretary on both sides of the aisle.
1
we [the little people] might well be learning.
while those who benefit from conflict more than from peaceful periods
will continue to make sure that they keep all their feet in all doors.
dictators are hard to topple by the people who rebel against them
when these oppressors are too well-supported by outside forces.
and these outside forces should hurry around the negotiating table,
help everyone to save faces, plus much more, of course, save lives!
and prevent overzealous religious extremists from taking over syria.
instead ...
BTW, i learned by now
that i wrongly explained, in a comment on another NYT article,
that the conflict in syria started over a gas - or [c]rude oil - pipeline
qatar had wanted to build through syria to deliver gas/oil to europe.
some analysts describe this as one of many conspiracy theories
which put the syrian people at the utter mercy of outside actors
and deny them their free political will, e.g. to change their regime.
What is it that you think we should be "learning"?
To let innocent men, women and children be gassed to death while we in the USA stay silent?
This is America.... not Russia, China, Iran or north Korea.
I wonder if Paul Ryan was consulted before the attack? Or maybe he was home playing Scrabble with the family.
21
Such a quick response with a claim of righteousness when dozens are killed by chemical weapons. Yet, little actions for years when hundreds of thousands are killed by "conventional" means. Murder is murder, and boasting about defending the people of Syria only when chemical weapons are used is moral hypocrisy.
Putin and Assad should both be invited to attend the UN Security Council meeting to discuss crimes of war as they have requested, and arrested.
Diplomatic immunity also needs to be abolished. Every man and woman should be held accountable for their actions. Period.
11
Putin and Assad are well past the "invitation" - let's talk stage. They should be brought before the International Tribunal in The Hague and given life sentences.
So, about 2 weeks ago a couple of Russians were hospitalized due to nerve agents in London.
Theresa May cannot bomb Moscow or really do anything meaningful other than send home some diplomats so some new suits can return in their place.
So, what does one do? I know, bomb Syria as a way to get back at Putin because no one on earth really gives a rip about that country or its people...or else the United States led by President Trump would have been bringing refugees here left and right.
Britain does not have the power to go it alone so ring up Trump during his rough week of his building burning, Cohen getting raided, Comey interviews, Ryan retiring, NSA advisers resigning etc., all while Ann Coulter keeps going on about a wall. Trump loves to play with his G.I. Joes and was happy to get on board.
8
actually the message that is best send to the russians is to tie up their money and property.
I wish we hadn't trashed our credibilty and moral advantages quite so thouroughly between Vietnam and the loonbox invasion of Iraq, and that we hadn't elected a guy whose frst and only interest is hisself and who lies like the rest of us breathe.
Maybe then we wouldn't be getting these nutbar conspiracy theories, let alone the vicious claims about how we're the same as Assad and Putin.
Note: no, we ain't. Our current problem is that blowing stuff up in Syria is just as like to be Trump's way of dealing with Mueller as anything else.
12
I fully support President Trump for he is not all talk like feckless Obama. He stood for what 's right and has restored America's prestige. Every Tin Horn Dictator from now on will pay heed when the President of United States says,"Cease and Desist, OR?"
THANK YOU, TRUMP!!
3
Yea. An abandoned building was destroyed after there was a warning to clear out just like a year ago there was an attack on an abandoned airstrip after there was a warning to remove everything from it. There's no faith in success when there's belief the only thing destroyed is infrastructure that can quickly be replaced. With reports out of France that Russia was warned before the attacks, it's difficult to believe what this administration says.
6
He should have done this the last time. But he didn't really do it this time; I've
a strong hunch Mattis, and others, planned it. The whole world is scared about this loony in residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.. And he's got almost three years to go.
7
It is only a show, Asad will stay in power so Rusia and Iran remain the winners. if the goal of Mr. Trump is only to eliminate ISIS, it looks like mission almost acomplished and withdrawal of troops will be done soon.
1
Ok, over a 100 cruise missiles were fired against a total of 9 targeted buildings at 3 locations. Assuming that the Syrians were smart enough to remove anything of value from these buildings and that Tomahawk cost for 59 missiles is about 50 million dollars--is this a cost effective way for the American taxpayers to boost Trump's ego?
14
Wow - for the first time, POTUS and I agree on something. When the news broke last night all I could say was, "thank you to the Brits and the French as that meant there was some intelligence and leadership in the decision making process." I'm glad to see thanks was given where it was due, and this was not a typical nonsensical tweet praising his own capabilities.
5
The mission that has been accomplished was to placate the humanitarians and not upset Russian, Iran, and Syria too much.
2
"Doing the same thing that didn't work before" instead of, for instance, "buying Flint the new Clean Water Delivery System" it still urgently needs : "It" in a nutshell...
2
What happens to all the CHEMICALS?
2
How about that, the buffoon is a (?) of his word. He stands behind every tweet.
As for Macron and May, if I didn’t know better I would have stood with my mouth open in disbelief. But hey, you gotta give the alpha dog his due.
Chemical weapon attack when the Syrian Army is back in control of most parts of Syria and the war was about to wind down? We've seen this movie before. Ending the war without a fight is virtually a quit claim of our self proclaimed right to pillage what someone else’s land has to offer of carbon fuel.
3
So let's connect the dots. The current Army secretary is Mark Esper, who made about $1.5 million as a Raytheon lobbyist, the same company that made the 60 cruise missiles just lobbed at Syria, paid for by taxpayers at $1 million apiece; and also the same company awarded a $2.3 billion government contract in January. The next time Trump plays GI Joe, we, the public should know the tax dollar costs, and who directly or indirectly benefits. I know nobody in the White House really cares about the human costs to our soldiers, or the real needs of people in America and elsewhere.
8
Shock and Awe !
Mission Accomplished !
Scooter Libby Pardoned !
Yogi asks, "Is this déja vu all over again?"
Without a draft, the people just answer, "Ho hum..."
It will take much more than some "targeted" bombings to deter Assad, who has shown absolutely no indication more Syrian deaths will deter him. However, even if this is massive enough to limit Assad's options, where does that leave Syria other than with the continuation of a multi-sided domestic, as well as proxy exacerbated, civil war?
Congress? Sadly, that allegedly co-equal branch of government has funded and sent to their death many Americans in Korea, Viet Nam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and several other places without ever exercising its most sacred responsibility, the declaring of war. I have little hope it will produce any meaningful foreign policy debate and legislation, whether regarding Syria, Russia, China, or North Korea.
That is just one more reason to institute a universal draft. Among many other things, doing such would focus the American people's attention on the implications of any Administration's foreign policy decisions and eventually produce Congresspeople with skin in the game.
I certainly hope I am wrong but, best I can tell, this is being done for domestic political reasons rather than as an effective way to help the Syrian people, let alone stabilize some Syrian governmental structure that might be able to terminate the ongoing horror.
2
All hyperbole, Bashar al-Assad is still in power, backed by Putin. this is not Foreign Policy, the Syrian people will still suffer.
2
Why is killing someone with chemical weapons worse than killing them in some other way?
3
How hard could it possibly be to find Assad's compound? It is probably one of the few intact structures in Syria and as a tip to our Intelligence folks, there is probably a mailbox in front that has "B.Assad" written on it. Could the situation be any worse with him gone?
3
"Could the situation be any worse with him gone?"
Isn't that we said about Saddam Hussein? How'd that work out?
When taking the offense, one must measure the evidence of being effective. Which typically is not the case of the Trump Administration. No evidence of efficacy, no accountability, but a lot of rah-rah morale raising and chest thumping.
Thus it is with the EPA as well.
No science, no evidence of being effective, just more ranting and raving, more mollifying the brainless base.
This is government?
4
The "Mission Accomplished" propaganda is broadcast exclusively for rural Republican Fox-viewers who will swallow that bait whole. They always do.
13
Then you should be quite content, as I will be voting for Trump again in 2020. Nothing he says nor does will stop me from voting for him AGAIN. And I take solace in that.
1
If these were indeed chemical weapons plants there would be sizeable secondary explosions caused by the missiles. In addition HUGE numbers of civilians would have been killed by the release of chemical poisons. Did either happen ? Trump is a habitual lier. Pres Carter called John Bolton a lier so we may never know the truth. I have great confidence it was SECDEF Mathis says so I shall pay attention to HIS words.
5
I think this is a travesty. It is illegal and it is inhumane..all at the behest of oil and gas lines to Europe. All of us are not that stupid.
7
I question part of the success of this event. US officials recognized that there was some kind of coordination with the Russians, as part of a mutual understanding not to hit each other in Syria.
There were no (or very few) Syrian casualties and that seems to indicate that Syria knew or suspected which of its facilities would be targeted. If people were moved away, why would stock of chemicals not be moved as well ?
While Assad's crossing of the red line would seem to be a good reason for the strikes, this is really a message to Russia, and to some extent Iran, that the US remains the super power. Syria will continue to be a proxy war between Russia and the US with very high stakes impacting Israel as well as the Sunni Arab countries.
1
What is the source for your claim that there were no, or few, Syrian casualties? Assad?
I do not remember the source, but there is no claim anywhere of a large number of casualties and I do not believe that this would remain a secret for very long.
I would not consider Assad, or even Russia, a reliable source.
I read this. but perhaps my perceptive skills have declines but - I really have no idea of what the missiles hit, and whether they hit targets that will impede the Assad government's attacks on civilians. Or whether the strike serves as a deterrent at least to the further use of chemical weapons. It wasn't a "punishment" in any way for the past and most recent use. I don't know what the message is to Russia: we are dancing carefully to avoid a face off. We did not after all, target Russians. And apparently while taking care not to disrupt the arrival of the inspectors arriving in Damascus just hours after the attacks to verify the use of chemical weapons.
However, it was conducted with allies, which is important.
A true child of the 60's, I find every government or military announcement - from anywhere - suspect. Direct observers - are there any?
7
Trump previously said we should not give the "enemy" adanced warning. Clearly the Syrians and Russians were warned well in advance. This strike would have been more effective if some Russians turned up dead of exposure to chemical agent. If that were the case, they could hardly admit it but it would leak out sooner or later.
The most effective way to deter chemical weapons is a clear statement that if and when they are used, the entire world has a green light to pile on the perpatrators, without warning or sanction. It must be made clear that the use of these weapons of mass destruction on one person is the same as on everyone in the world.
3
Trump clearly did not want any Russian deaths.
3
One of the targets hit was on Homs. Was it not that Homs was in the hands of the opposition ( who knows which group)? A map of were the target facility is and what the opposition controlled would be helpful. And, have we absolutely rule out that one of these groups is in possession of chlorine, an easy chemical to obtain and perhaps make (?)?
1
Peace isn't arrived at through war. There needs to be, at some point, a reckoning: What we've done and enabled we have to start to dismantle, through conversation, through policy decisions, through recognizing the rule of law (the United Nations, the ICC - meaning the United States must hold itself accountable to these bodies, which need that legitimacy). To think that conversation, activism, diplomacy can't work this time, means never dismantling the military apparatus whose existence is dependent on assuming as much. It is time now, there is no other time - it is always perpetually now.
4
Inconsequential minstrel show in the guise of foreign policy. This act will accomplish nothing. Assad will remain, Russia will remain, the misery of the Syrian people will continue. Putin is probably laughing at the whole thing, understanding that Trump needs to look presidential once in awhile, not to mention concocting distractions from the slow-motion (but moving faster) destruction of his presidency. I would venture that fewer than 1% of Americans have any real idea what is happening in Syria...bombing they understand, so let's bomb something!! Nonsense.
49
I think the proportion of Americans who understand what is really happening in Syria tends to zero. I have serious doubts that one of them really understands what is going on outside of their continent. Your country behaves like an elephant in a China shop.
This is rather facile. Lacking factual proof of the Syrian government's having been the origin of an alleged chemical attack, the so-called "Allies" launch an attack on Syria in order to destroy evidence to the contrary. Also, this is in violation of International law and the sovereignty of the Syrian Government and its people. What will the Pentagon do when the Syrian Army does eliminate the opposition?
13
Regarding "international law" on chemical weapons . . . The Geneva Protocol outlawed the use of chemical weapons. The subsequent Chemical Weapons Convention outlawed them completely, requiring that existing stocks be destroyed and not replenished -- that chemical weapons are to no longer exist.
This in enforcement of international law -- not a violation of it.
And yes, we and our allies are charged with that duty; not in law, perhaps, but certainly in morality.
3
Shock and Awe !
Mission Accomplished !
Scooter Libby Pardoned !
Yogi asks, "Is this déja vu all over again?"
Without a draft, the people just answer, "Ho hum..."
17
Aye, without a draft. Hard to get their attention.
This is a small show to back up Trump's tweets to the Russians about hitting Syria with "nice and new and smart" missiles. But will it cause any long-term deterrence?
Why doesn't Trump back up this military show by enacting all of the sanctions that Congress overwhelmingly passed against Russia?
Is Pres Trump too compromised by Russia to inflict real long-term economic harm on those backing Assad?
In addition to the strike, economic sanctions on those supporting Assad could turn out to be a real Mission Accomplished.
5
Good. Declare victory and go home.
5
This has got to be one of the most embarrassing misadventure by 45 to date. Chemical weapons conventions? Please. This is a president whose disdain for international codes/agreements is legendary; one who sneers at the the thought of the UN. Assad has 'won' the utter decimation of his people. The war in Syria against those who dared say no to its dictator already is over.
Who is buying the inane fiction that Donald Trump is/was outraged by anyone else's suffering? He needed something, this week, about which he could both 1) pound his chest, and 2) pretend to care about something/ANYthing beyond his own narcissistic delusions. France and Britain? Their leaders needed a distraction, as well. Mattis and Dunford did the best they could with a bad situation; chain of command instills order, but it also is a straight jacket. That's what the military has to do when it is led by an ignoramus of the most extreme sort. Overall there are 3 words that can be applied to this charade: Wag the Dog.
8
Dear Mr Nebenzya: It’s time for Moscow to learn that the international code of behaviour regarding the use of chemical weapons is regulated by the United Nations Charter.
7
Accusations of Assad's use of chemical weapons seems to be absurd and stupid. If a person has a shred of logic and common sense he can understand that in the current historical moment to use chemical weapons (which has not been proved) against their own population is totally insane.
1
Syria is not about any chemical weapons use. Syria and Iran are an issue, because Syria and Iran supply the Lebanese millita, Hezbollah, with money and weapons. This support from Syria and Iran gives Hezbollah the capability of preventing Israel’s occupation and annexation of southern Lebanon, whose water resources Israel covets. Additionally, there is the crazed neoconservative ideology of US world hegemony.
10
Our government has a clear history of lying about how effective these kinds of attacks are. I believe this no more than I believed in the amazing "surgical strikes" we inflicted in past years.
13