Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Largely a continuation of US policy on Syria under Obama--material support for non-ISIS rebels & air strikes targeting ISIS, public condemnation of Assad/Russia brutality & war crimes, privately recognizing that Syrian government--allied to Iran & Russia, would retain control of the country post-Civil War.
What changed:
Direct, active US military force directed at Syrian government.
What does it mean?
3 possibilities:
1) Thus far, this strike appears as a 19th-century concept largely modified well beyond recognition: war to punish a guilty enemy. If it stops with this strike, it creates a huge problem: it is deeply inadequate to protect the civilians brutalized by Syrian and Russian war crimes and thereby it sends the message that in this and future conflicts, we might punish your war crimes by blowing up an airstrip (so go right ahead and do what you need to do).
2) This could be the start of a more expansive, direct conflict with the Syrian government--with the aim of removing the Assad government from power. The risks here should be obvious: the situation could spiral out of control, especially with Russian military involvement in the conflict. Even if the Syrian government were to collapse, what comes next? We have observed the limits of our military power over the last 16 years of war in Western Asia: nation-building and political resolution of civil conflicts are not our strong suits. If this is the meaning of the strike, then Trump will need Congress to produce an Authorization to Use Military Force-Syria within a few months (I believe 90 days in the limit). ISIS is arguably covered by AUMF-Iraq. The Syrian government is not.
3) This could be the start of a "Responsibility to Protect" war. Probably the most recognizable example is Kosovo in the 90s. The problem here is that Syria today does not look much like Kosovo in the 90s. The Serb forces in Kosovo did not have the strength or allies that Syria has today. The size and scope of the existing conflict is greater, the territory is larger & more populous, and the endgame is much less clear. If you take on the Responsibility to Protect, how far are you going to push it? Are you only going to respond to chemical weapons strikes? This looks like scenario 1), assuming the Syrian government respond by ceasing the use of chemical weapons. Are you going to respond to other wanton massacre of civilians (which we ignored in Aleppo, for example)? This looks more like scenario 2) given the lack of regard for civilian safety we have seen throughout this conflict. And there is a moral hypocrisy here: if you will fight a Responsibility to Protect war, why will you refuse refuge to the victims of the conflict? Why are you proposing to cut humanitarian aid? It is not congruent.
Legality: From the standpoint of US domestic law, this might remain a lawful war. From the standpoint of international law, it likely does not. At the very least, international law would require an attempt to resolve any new dispute through the UN Security Council before launching military action. There are two big problems for the war under US domestic law: 1) is that the UN Charter is effective US law. For the US to violate that treaty is unlawful. 2) is that the Congress considered and declined an AUMF-Syria in 2013 regarding Assad's use of chemical weapons & targeting of civilians. I doubt this Congress would hold the Trump Administration responsible (and I bet they will deliver an AUMF-Syria in short order). But the strike still may have been illegal.
Trump described the strikes as retaliation for Syria's chemical weapons attack. Chapters VI & VII of the UN treaty govern armed conflict. You'll remember that the Bush Administration made its case for the Iraq War at the Security Council before proceeding. The Bush Administration's choice to proceed with war was and remains deeply controversial under international law, even though the Authorization to Use Military Force passed by Congress provided legal cover under domestic law.
Trump's statement was incoherent. He said we are striking to prevent the use of chemical weapons, but also that the refugee crisis and destabilized region threaten the security of the United States & allies. The closest he came to a goal was: seeking to end the slaughter and bloodshed in Syria, and also to end terrorism of all kinds and all types. Those three are not at all similar to each other. The first is (maybe--at least temporarily) achievable and limited. Obama got it from September 2013 to August 2016 through negotiation with Russia. The second and third are not achievable in the near term. Any attempt to achieve them would involve levels of conflict involvement that Americans are not likely to support.
Haley has not yet produced a proposed resolution for a vote at the Security Council. Under the UN Charter, you do that before you take action.
Political implications: strain on US relations with Russia. Risk of being drawn more deeply into a lengthy & complicated military conflict without achievable strategic goals. Thus far, a total lack of political process and accountability. I doubt many Trump voters thought they were providing a mandate for going to war with Syria. And without any debate--without even explaining to the American people the goals, plans, or risks--we are now in one.
This is just Trump's latest distraction. Rice, Nunes, Wiretaps... it is an endless circus of distractions.
Meanwhile, we see more Ties to Russia every week. We see Trump failing so badly in ever direction he his admin is imploding in full public view.
The whole idea of firing 100 million dollars worth of missiles was to force CNN, MSNBC off the Russia story, and provide cover for his failing admin, awful jobs numbers and lack of any direction at all.
This is just Trump's latest distraction. Rice, Nunes, Wiretaps... it is an endless circus of distractions.
Meanwhile, we see more Ties to Russia every week. We see Trump failing so badly in ever direction he his admin is imploding in full public view.
The whole idea of firing 100 million dollars worth of missiles was to force CNN, MSNBC off the Russia story, and provide cover for his failing admin, awful jobs numbers and lack of any direction at all.
I said the same in a previous post- he will deflect the attention to a real fire--away from the present smoke at home, (acid rain)and look like the HERO to gain more support-- But those babies in excruciating pain and anguish are not allowed to come here with his present policy. .
This is just Trump's latest distraction. Rice, Nunes, Wiretaps... it is an endless circus of distractions.
Meanwhile, we see more Ties to Russia every week. We see Trump failing so badly in ever direction he his admin is imploding in full public view.
The whole idea of firing 100 million dollars worth of missiles was to force CNN, MSNBC off the Russia story, and provide cover for his failing admin, awful jobs numbers and lack of any direction at all.
You missed the other thread from 2-3 days ago saying Trump was a failure for not doing more about Syria like Obama did.
Same game the cons played with Obama for 8 years, if he liked Pepsi he should have liked Coke. If he golfed somewhere it was the most horrible thing ever. If he used diplomacy he should have bombed, if he bombed he should have used diplomacy.
Now we get to hear you guys do the same for his time in office only this time instead of birth certificates, it's Russians.
I still think he did the right thing even though it deflects from the scandals. Obama should have done it in the first place.
he is one man- take him out--- and feed him to the jackals
WE do not need to put his light out- just capture him and turn him over to the moms in the country
I still think he did the right thing even though it deflects from the scandals. Obama should have done it in the first place.
Obama wanted to strike Assad in 2013 following a sarin nerve gas attack, but Congress -- including 183 Republican "Nays" -- turned him down. Now that Trump's in office Congress doesn't say peep. Partisanship reigns supreme.
I said the same in a previous post- he will deflect the attention to a real fire--away from the present smoke at home, (acid rain)and look like the HERO to gain more support-- But those babies in excruciating pain and anguish are not allowed to come here with his present policy. .
Orwellian in every way.
Double think, doublespeak.
Trump spreads fear and hate to get elected and then uses the deaths of the very people he claims are evil to distract the public from his failings.
It is a horror, show and sadly our media is lapping it up. They pretend to be clever but they have wall to wall coverage of what amounts to a fake attack.
Trump gave a big heads up to give the Russians time to clear out the people and equipment, thus the strike was theatre.
I am guessing the refugees, the war victims etc, would much rather 100 million in food aid than pointless missile strikes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
