Syria allegedly gasses civilians. We blow up the airfield from which the gas attacks were launched. Syria says that if we continue, they'll attack Israel, and Russia denounces our attack. Let's talk about this.
We advised Russia ahead of the attack, so they surely advised Syria, who surely moved their aircraft.
Russia has now suspended it's open channels of communication with US forces in Syria created to prevent Russian and US air forces from attacking areas in which each other's ground troops are operating.
Any decay in Syrian air capabilities will be greeted with delight by Al-Nursra and ISIS.
Why should we react to several dozen killed by a gas agent when over 90,000 civilians have already been killed?
If we want to topple the Assad regime, why not kill Assad?
$85 million dollars worth of missiles to do how much damage to an air strip and hangars? And what about the planes? With a range of over 700 miles and other airfields in the country, did we impact the potency of the SU-22s?
Feel like this shouldn't have gone down the way it did, but I've been saying for a very long time that what's going on in Syria is deplorable.
It's odd that Trump isn't equally effected by a worse attack that happened a few years ago, and tells everyone we shouldn't go in to Syria. Then just last week the message on the hill seems to be that the Syrian people will be responsible for what happens to Assad; meanwhile UN Sec. is ripping Russia a new one about how Assad treats his people...Just seems like the whole Trump team is sometimes reading from different playbooks to me.
A brief history lesson on Syria and Obama's "red-line" vs. Trump's actions. Since I know it will come up.
Yes, Obama gave the "red line" speech, then when Syria crossed it, Obama went to congress - like he is supposed to. Despite it going through committee, Congress never took it to the floor for a vote. So he didn't get congressional authority to wage war, and thus he did not take military action against a sovereign nation illegally.
(Note: this is what he was rightfully criticized for when going into Libya)
The 9/11 authorization of military action does not cover state actors, only non-state terrorists like ISIS/al-Queda, etc. We cannot wage war on Assad's Syria without congressional authority.
Trump, doesn't seem to care that he's doing exactly what he complained about in 2013, and illegally taking action against a sovereign state (no matter how much I may agree it's the right thing - there is a right way).
Now let's see if Congress is inconsistent about what it seems to care about too.
Trump, doesn't seem to care that he's doing exactly what he complained about in 2013
illegally taking action against a sovereign state
Yeah, bombing a country's air force on the ground in it's own country is about as much an act of war as you can come up with. I agree he should have gotten Congressional approval.
I don't know enough about it yet, but I lean toward "bad." I'm not convinced Assad did it. It would be an insane thing to do, now that he had a chance at getting the West to shrug and let Russian keep him in power. Of course, people sometimes do insane things.
If he did it, swift retaliation shows the US is, at least temporarily, badass. If he didn't, it shows it doesn't matter if you gas your civilians or not, you still get bombed, so why not do it if that's your thing?
I'll have to look into the "not really retaliation" aspect. If so, maybe I'm relieved. Assad is a monster, but ISIS is a monster with global ambition.
Ryan's absolutely right about Congressional approval, too.
I do not therefore subscribe to the idea that whatever Trump does is bad. He was bad for not fighting Assad, now bad for fighting him. We should be sure that there is actually a course of action he could follow that we would approve, or people would be right to stop listening to us.
I'm ok with Trump fighting Assad - Assad should NOT be in power. I just want him to do it with Congress in the loop.
I'm more dovish, then. I'm very uncertain about this action. But totally on board with "you have to run it by Congress first."
Eh, I agree that he should have sought Congressional approval, but we absolutely should not take out Assad for the same reason we shouldn't have taken out Hussein or Gaddafi.
I am not sure I agree we should not have taken them out.
If Muir is right, this won't do much to weaken Assad. It may make him reluctant to gas the public again.
But I'm not convinced he did it.
What reason is that?
I think we shouldn't have taken Hussein out because it's better to have a rational, fairly predictable secular-minded dictator in power than rabid Muslim factions that only cause chaos and terrorism. The situation I mentioned in Libya during the Reagan era proves they can be controlled better than groups like ISIS.