TRUMP SENDS 59 MISSILES AGAINST ASSAD, THEN SAYS “HE’S DONE…?”



….A Syrian father holds his two gassed twin babys

 

After the US bombing of the Syrian airport, there is no strategy for where we are going, what we are doing and why…?

 

 

The worst part about what we did in becoming a combatant in Syria’s horrific war, is not that we sent missiles to hit the airport that sent the war chemicals.  The problem is that there is no strategy that explains where we are going, what we are doing and why we are doing it…..?

 

The new Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson has stupidly tried to suggest that nothing has changed.

 

I beg to differ.

 

When the Commander in Chief says that we should not get involved in the war against Syria’s al Assad, and then after seeing some terrible videos of the gassing of innocent civilians and children, we then send in fifty-nine Tomahawk missiles…..that is a major policy change.

 

But as usual with this president, after this attack, an attack where the Russian’s were warned to get their personnel away from the designated airport, the president then stated that there were no plans in the making of any further attacks.  

 

For a man that says he likes to be unpredictable and doesn’t like to show the cards in his hand, he just then did exactly that.  And he did it without his administration having a clue about any strategic vision for the future. 

 

So, what happens next?

 

Well, for that future, the new Secretary of Defense, James Mattis, also known as “Mad-Dog Mattis”, he does have an answer.  Per “Mad-Dog”: “If al Assad uses chemical weapons again, they will pay a very, very stiff price".

 

So, even though there is “no plan” to bomb Syria again, there is a kind of “red-line” from the Sec/Def, if Assad continues to use chemical weapons.

 

However, the new UN Ambassador, Nikki Haley, also said on a Sunday news program that the administration cannot envision “a peaceful Syria” with dictator Bashar al-Assad still in power.

 

But then, Secretary Tillerson went on a different Sunday show to say that Assad’s fate is up to “the Syrian people.”

 

None of these statements had much grounding in the reality of a brutal war that has killed about 400,000 people and displaced half of Syria’s population to other regional countries.

 

Who the hell is going to make Assad leave as the ruling dictator? “The Syrian people”, as per the US Secretary?  I don’t think so.

 

The Syrian people have been trying to get rid of Assad for almost six years, but he is still there.

 

If you recall, the Obama administration had mistakenly believed they had at least negotiated the surrender of Assad’s ability to use chemical weapons.  Obviously, last week’s chemical Sarin gas attack demonstrated otherwise. There is no political process through which any Syrians can express or exercise their will to rid themselves of Assad.

 

What we have today is a vicious, multi-sided war that has allowed the Islamic State (ISIS) to grab and hold huge sections of Syrian territory.

 

Our current president who obviously has a minimal understanding of the middle east, actually said during the election campaign: “Wouldn’t it be nice if we got together with Russia and knocked the hell out of ISIS?”

 

However, being “nice” does not mean that it’s feasible.

 

Since Trump made that statement, Russian President Vladimir Putin has sent even more military forces to help Assad maintain his grip on power.

 

In working with Russia and Putin, that would require the US to offer a blind eye to Assad’s long list of past atrocities, specifically, and using Trump’s description of the “beautiful babies”, who were “cruelly murdered”.

 

Yes, Trump had seriously seemed willing to try some sort of alliance with Russia.  But then came Assad’s chemical attack.



 A Syrian man that was gassed

 

 

Now, having bombed the Sharyat airfield from which the planes carrying chemical weapons took off, Trump has sided against Assad in deed if not in word.  Diplomatic statements cannot ignore the obvious fact that the United States and Russia are currently working at cross-purposes.

 

If you recall, at the time that Obama went to the Congress asking for authorization to use force in Syria, the Congress never gave the president’s request a vote on the floor. 

 

Back then, Trump supported Obama’s restraint at not using his presidential authority at the time. Trump also warned throughout the 2016 campaign against deeper US involvement in Syria.

 

But, as he is known to change his mind on a daily basis, his decision to launch the cruise missile strike is being applauded by foreign policy traditionalists of both parties.  Including those establishment figures who gave us the disastrous war in Iraq.  They are being quoted as saying the bombing is a show of American “strength and resolve.”

 

Sorry folks, that should worry all Americans.

 

The reality is that whether he likes it or not, the president needs to have a real plan and strategy for dealing with the war in Syria.  “Red lines” and symbolic displays of force do not constitute a plan  or a strategy.  Most Americans oppose any US military intervention in Syria because they do not see how such action would make the situation better for anyone.

 

What is not being said is that the strike to keep Assad from using chemical weapons does nothing to protect the millions of desperate Syrian civilians who remain vulnerable to conventional weapons still used by the Syrian government.  That includes the gigantic deadly barrel bombs that are being dropped every day from Syrian helicopters in the Syrian cities.  Many more babies and children are being killed every day by conventional weapons than by chemical weapons.  What about them?

 

To show that he has not been stopped at the airport that was hit by the Tomahawk missiles, Assad made a point of having warplanes take off from Sharyat on bombing runs soon after the missiles had landed.   Yes, the base and its planes suffered considerable damage, but the runways were still intact.

 

One wonders what Assad hoped to accomplish by using chemical weapons in the first place. Was he trying to bait the United States into making a missile attack?  That move by the US is now obviously putting a wedge between Trump’s administration and Putin?

 

Would Putin abandon Assad if Trump turned around and using his “negotiating”, make it worth Putin’s while?  Such dishonor among these two thieves seems highly unlikely, at least in the short term.

 

But as Trump has said, the cruise missile attack was a one-and-done warning, and of course, that changes absolutely nothing.

 

Since Trump can and does change his mind at the drop of a hat, we are either on a slippery slope toward deeper military involvement, or we remain as a helpless witnesses to unspeakable carnage.

 

Maybe, with Trump having acted as a “Commander in Chief”, he probably feels good about those two possible alternatives.  But no one else in this country should.

 

However, if it was an opening act of some kind, what is going to follow?

 

The answer is that today, no one, including the man that should know, does know.

 

Copyright G.Ater  2017