Restrained Syria Strike

[anatta]

WASHINGTON — In sending missiles and bombs at Syria, President Trump hit more targets and used more firepower than he did in a similar military strike last year. But in the end, he opted for what was still a restrained operation that was evidently calculated to avoid provoking Syria’s patrons in Russia and Iran into retaliating.

The United States and its European allies chose three targets instead of the single air base hit last year and used twice as many weapons. Still, American officials said the attack was intended as a proportional strike aimed specifically at Syria’s chemical weapons facilities rather than a broader set of targets and was a one-time, one-night assault to punish Damascus for a suspected gas attack last weekend.

In the days before the strike, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis cautioned against a quick assault without a more thought-through strategy. He expressed concern about the potential for escalating the conflict by drawing Russia and Iran into a deeper confrontation with the United States in a country where all three have forces on the ground. With Russian and Iranian forces supporting the government of President Bashar al-Assad, the potential for miscues weighed on military planners.

For all of Mr. Trump’s tough language this week, the variant he chose made no apparent effort to damage Mr. Assad’s broader war machine or his government’s command and control of its forces beyond its chemical weapons. The one-night burst of ordnance appears unlikely to change the overall balance of forces in Syria seven years into its bloody civil war. But the president hoped it would be enough to deter Mr. Assad from using chemical weapons again without being so damaging as to compel Russia and Iran to intervene.

Mr. Mattis told reporters at the Pentagon on Friday night that the strike was devised to minimize the chances of accidentally killing Russian soldiers and limit the damage to facilities directly associated with Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal. While he called it a “heavy strike,” he said, “Right now this is a one-time shot and I believe it has sent a very strong message to dissuade him, to deter him from doing it again.”

Analysts said the limited nature of the strike probably would not compel Russia or Iran into taking significant action.

“The Russian and Iranian responses will likely be shrill rhetorically, but direct responses are unlikely,” said Dennis Ross, a longtime Middle East expert who has worked for several presidents and is now at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “The targets struck were tied to C.W. infrastructure,” he added, meaning chemical weapons, “and not the bases where the Russians and Iranians are.”

Mr. Ross said it was possible that Iran could respond indirectly by using Shia militias against American forces in Iraq or possibly Syria but even that he said was “less likely because of the limited nature of this attack.”

[anatta]

get it? and this is the NYTimes

[kudzu]

Assad determined to fight till end - News - NHK WORLD - English

https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20180414_24/

3 hours ago - Syrian President Bashar al-Assad says the joint military attack by the United States and its allies has only strengthen the resolve of the government and the people to fight terrorists across the country.

[anatta]

for all this talk nobody is taking into account any Russian or Iranianresponse .
last thing we want is retailitory on our troops there -so this was designed to eliminate that

[Nomad]

get it? and this is the NYTimes

Yeah, we get it.

You're kissing Trump's ass again as usual.

Had Obama or Hillary been involved in exactly the same thing, you'd be pissing all over yourself about war mongers and sabre rattling.

[kudzu]

There are a dozen news reports about how our airstrikes have strengthened Assad's resolve.

[anatta]

There are a dozen news reports about how our airstrikes have strengthened Assad's resolve.

propaganda..but we don't want actual Russian or Iranian 'return fire'.

The idea is to stop the use of chems only. I doubt it effects Assads war posture

[Cancel 2020.1]

Yeah, we get it.

You're kissing Trump's ass again as usual.

Had Obama or Hillary been involved in exactly the same thing, you'd be pissing all over yourself about war mongers and sabre rattling.

Exactly this.

The double standard is ridiculous.

It doesn't matter who the President is for me, or which party.

[Nomad]

for all this talk nobody is taking into account any Russian or Iranianresponse .
last thing we want is retailitory on our troops there -so this was designed to eliminate that

Wow. Trump is a military genius, isn't he?

Bet he thought of that all by himself.

[anatta]

Yeah, we get it.

You're kissing Trump's ass again as usual.

Had Obama or Hillary been involved in exactly the same thing, you'd be pissing all over yourself about war mongers and sabre rattling.

dumb ass. I've made my position clear. I'm not happy about it, but it's not interventionism,and it doesn't change the balance of power in Syria..also it doesn't bring in Russia or Iran.

If it had to be done this was the only acceptable way to do it

[anatta]

Wow. Trump is a military genius, isn't he?

Bet he thought of that all by himself.

that's why he has advisors..

[anatta]

Exactly this.

The double standard is ridiculous.

It doesn't matter who the President is for me, or which party.

as long as you can bash trump... got it

[kudzu]

American Air Strikes in Syria Do Nothing to Further Justice for the Victims of the Attack on Douma
There is no legal justification for the current US troop presence in Syria, let alone additional air strikes.
By Phyllis Bennis YESTERDAY 6:20 PM


Excerpt:


The Pentagon spokeswoman and the general speaking for the Joint Chiefs of Staff said this was a “one shot” deal, and now it’s over. In fact we don’t know whether it’s over. Because the danger of all military actions—even those that might attempt and even those that succeed at being narrowly targeted, focused, and without “collateral” casualties, can and often do have consequences that go far beyond intention.

At this moment, it is crucial that we not turn away, breathing a sigh of relief that what we saw last night was not a full-scale “shock and awe” attack. Last night’s air strikes were launched in violation of US law and international law. Claiming they aimed to defend another aspect of international law does not make those air strikes legal. And crucially, they did nothing to help bring the seven-year-old Syrian wars—the civil war matched by at least ten other regional, sectarian, and global conflicts all being fought to the last Syrian—to an end.

That is the real mission that needs to be accomplished. Ending the war is what will make Syrians safer. Bringing more air strikes, more violence, to that devastated country, will not. And diplomacy—powerful, engaged, determined diplomacy—and not war, is still the only way to make that happen.

Donald Trump’s campaign-era neo-isolationism is long over. He seems to want a war now, and if he can’t have one with North Korea because the pesky possibility of a diplomatic solution got in the way, Syria will do, and the recent alleged chemical-weapons attack by Bashar al-Assad’s army on the city of Douma, near Damascus, seems to have provided the pretext.

But war with Syria means the potential for war with Iran, and even with nuclear-armed Russia—so this is serious. And it’s not just talk. Trump has been assembling a war cabinet and recruiting security advisers—John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, Gina Haspel—known for choosing war over diplomacy and torture over international law.

Trump has been conducting foreign and domestic policy by tweet for some time; now he’s even flip-flopping by tweet. First it was the threat that “Animal Assad” would pay the biggest price for the Douma attack.

Then, after a Russian diplomat said that Moscow would shoot down any missiles heading for Syria, Trump tweeted, “Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and ‘smart!’” He warned that a decision would come in 24–48 hours, then pulled back to threaten an attack that could be “very soon or not so soon at all!”


continued


https://www.thenation.com/article/am...tack-on-douma/

[tsuke]

There are a dozen news reports about how our airstrikes have strengthened Assad's resolve.

of course they would say that. What else do you expect them to say? We can always drop more bombs if necessary. US only really sucks in holding territory. As long as its blowing stuff up long range with aircraft and missiles the Russians and Chinese dont stand a chance. I would even say that if engagements were limited to naval/air the US can take on the entire world at once and win.

[Cancel 2020.1]

as long as you can bash trump... got it

You talk like it's some sort of sport for me.

Sorry, anatta - we have a pathological liar & lunatic as POTUS right now. I apologize for not keeping quiet about that. I happen to love America, and think the election of Trump was one of the riskiest & careless things we have ever done as an electorate. This man is not fit for office, and I plan on pointing it out until he is no longer in a position to damage this country.