Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Public House › U.S. attacks Syrian air base with cruise missiles
- This topic has 4 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 7 months ago by wv.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 6, 2017 at 11:50 pm #67041znModerator
U.S. attacks Syrian air base with cruise missiles
WASHINGTON – The United States blasted a Syrian air base with a barrage of cruise missiles Thursday night in fiery retaliation for this week’s gruesome chemical weapons attack against civilians. President Donald Trump cast the U.S. assault as vital to deter future use of poison gas and called on other nations to join in seeking “to end the slaughter and bloodshed in Syria.”
It was the first direct American assault on the Syrian government and Trump’s most dramatic military order since becoming president just over two months ago. The strikes also risk thrusting the U.S. deeper into an intractable conflict that his predecessor spent years trying to avoid.Announcing the assault from his Florida resort, Trump said there was no doubt Syrian President Bashar Assad was responsible for the chemical attack, which he said employed banned gases and killed dozens.
“Assad choked out the lives of helpless men, women and children,” Trumped declared.
The U.S. strikes — some 59 missiles launched from the USS Ross and USS Porter — hit the government-controlled Shayrat air base in central Syria, where U.S. officials say the Syrian military planes that dropped the chemicals had taken off. The U.S. missiles hit at 8:45 p.m. in Washington, 3:45 Friday morning in Syria. The missiles targeted the base’s airstrips, hangars, control tower and ammunition areas, officials said.Trump ordered the strikes without approval from Congress or the backing of the United Nations. U.S. officials said he had the right to use force to defend national interests and to protect civilians from atrocities.
Syrian state TV reported a U.S. missile attack on a number of military targets and called the attack an “aggression.”
The U.S. assault marked a striking reversal for Trump, who warned as a candidate against the U.S. being pulled into the Syrian civil war that began six years ago. But the president appeared moved by the photos of children killed in the chemical attack, calling it a “disgrace to humanity” that crossed “a lot of lines.”
U.S. officials placed some of the blame on Russia, one of Syria’s most important benefactors. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, in Florida with Trump, said Moscow had failed in living up to a 2013 agreement that was intended to strip Syria of its chemical weapons stockpiles.
“Either Russia has been complicit or Russia has been simply incompetent in its ability to deliver on its end of the agreement,” Tillerson said.The strike came as Trump was hosting Xi in meetings focused in part on another pressing U.S. security dilemma: North Korea’s nuclear program. Trump’s actions in Syria could signal to China that the new president isn’t afraid of unilateral military steps, even if key nations like China are standing in the way.
“This clearly indicates the president is willing to take decisive action when called for,” Tillerson said.
Trump has advocated greater counterterrorism cooperation with Russia, Assad’s most powerful military backer. Just last week, the Trump administration signaled the U.S. was no longer interested in trying to push Assad from power over his direction of a conflict that has killed hundreds of thousands of people and led to the worst refugee crisis since World War II.
U.S. officials portrayed the strikes as an appropriate, measured response and said they did not signal a broader shift in the Trump administration’s approach to the Syrian conflict.
Nation“The intent was to deter the regime from doing this again,” said Navy Capt. Jeff Davis, the Pentagon spokesman. “It will be the regime’s choice if there’s any more, and it will be based upon their conduct going forward.”
Still, the assault risks plunging America into the middle of Syria’s conflict, complicating the safety of the hundreds of U.S. forces fighting a separate campaign against the Islamic State group in the north of the country. If Assad’s military persists in further gas attacks, the Trump administration might logically pursue increased retaliation.
Russia and Iran, Assad’s allies, pose other problems. Russian military personnel and aircraft are embedded with Syria’s, and Iranian troops and paramilitary forces are also on the ground helping Assad fight the array of opposition groups hoping to topple him.
Before the strikes, U.S. military officials said they informed their Russian counterparts of the impending attack. The goal was to avoid any accident involving Russian forces.
Nevertheless, Russia’s Deputy U.N. ambassador Vladimir Safronkov warned that any negative consequences from the strikes would be on the “shoulders of those who initiated such a doubtful and tragic enterprise.”The U.S. also notified its partner countries in the region prior to launching the strikes.
Trump’s decision to attack Syria came three-and-a-half years after President Barack Obama threatened Assad with military action after an earlier chemical weapons attack killed hundreds outside Damascus. Obama had declared the use of such weapons a “red line.” At the time, several American ships in the Mediterranean were poised to launch missiles, only for Obama to abruptly pull back after key U.S. ally Britain and the U.S. Congress balked at his plan.
He opted instead for the Russian-backed plan that was supposed to remove and eliminate Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles.
The world learned of the chemical attack earlier in the week in footage that showed people dying in the streets and bodies of children stacked in piles. The international outcry fueled an emotional response from Trump, who appeared to abandon his much-touted “America First” vision for a stance of humanitarian intervention, akin to that of previous American leaders. “I think what happened in Syria is a disgrace to humanity,” he said Thursday.
Trump seemed to rapidly reconsider his feelings about Assad, saying: “He’s there and I guess he’s running things, so something should happen.”The show of force in Syria raises legal questions. It’s unclear what authority Trump is relying on to attack another government. When Obama intervened in Libya in 2011, he used a U.N. Security Council mandate and NATO’s overall leadership of the mission to argue that he had legal authority — arguments that many Republicans opposed. Trump can’t rely on either justification here.
Unclear also is whether Trump is adopting any broader effort to combat Assad. Under Obama, the United States largely pulled back from its support for so-called “moderate” rebels when Russia’s military intervention in September 2015 led them to suffer a series of battlefield defeats. Instead, Obama sought to work with Russia on a negotiated transition.
Trump and his top aides had acknowledged in recent days the “reality” of Assad being in power, saying his ouster was no longer a priority. But the chemical weapons attack seemed to spur a rethink. In Florida on Thursday, Tillerson said of Assad: “There’s no role for him to govern the Syrian people.”April 7, 2017 at 9:47 am #67050Billy_TParticipantI’m not surprised by the rah rah responses this morning in the Media, but I am truly disappointed.
To me, this is less than an empty gesture. At best, symbolic. And almost no one is mentioning the deaths this caused. The presentation of the attack is quite “sanitary” and incredibly detached.
Yes, Assad is a brutal, horrible thug and mass murderer, and he shouldn’t be within light years of power. But does our attack do a thing to change any of that? No. And it will likely draw us into yet another war without end, and the worst kind: civil war.
I’ve also noted the sudden praise for Trump, and how seeing the pictures of those children moved him to act. I hope someone asks him if this moves him to drop his ban on Syrian refugees. If it doesn’t, he’s shedding crocodile tears.
April 7, 2017 at 1:16 pm #67059znModeratorThe Morning After President Trump’s First Attempt at War
Dispatches from D.C., where the war is made but rarely has any impact at all.http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a54368/syria-strike-trump/
WASHINGTON—The city was quiet, wrapped in a stubborn spring rain on Thursday night, when the president* made war in a place for the very first time. The lobby of the Trump International Hotel began to buzz just a bit around 8:30 p.m., when word got around that two cruisers of the United States Navy had launched more than 50 Tomahawk missiles at a Syrian airfield from which, it was believed, the ghastly chemical weapon attack on the village of Khan Sheikoun had been launched. From The NewYork Times:
“Tonight, I ordered a targeted military strike on the air base in Syria from where the chemical attack was launched,” Mr. Trump said in remarks at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. “It is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons.”
And, in the aftermath, we have begun to hear again that the president* was moved to being presidential again, the way he was when he read a speech to Congress without spraining his tongue. He was “decisive.” His tone had “changed.” There is such a great desire to validate this guy in the office that is supposed to validate him simply by the fact that he holds it that a lot of the people commenting on the actions taken Thursday night simply forgot that it probably was nakedly illegal. However, Senator Tim Kaine, who’s been trying to beat a new Authorization for the Use of Military Force out of Congress for four years, remained on the case.This, of course, will mean nothing to anybody. The drums are already beating. John McCain was on the electric teevee machine on Thursday proposing that we not only overthrow Bashar al Assad and his regime, but rebuild Syria. He used as his example how we rebuilt Europe after World War II. This is, of course, crazy. Nobody in the region would stand for that, not after our bungled monstrosity in Iraq. Constitutional niceties in this regard went out the window decades ago.
As policy, beyond snapping back at Assad for the war crime he committed earlier this week, I don’t see how this makes much of any sense. We learned a new word Thursday night—”deconfliction”—which is fairly defined as, “Blow shit up without killing any Russians because that could be a problem.” I love the new jargon that comes along every time we decide to make war in a place. So it’s unlikely that we will be involved in a shooting war with Russia, which is a good thing.
But I get a cold chill any time somebody tells me that we needed to fire off a few hundred thousand pounds of explosives to demonstrate something to somebody. On Thursday night, phantom Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and National Security Adviser H.R.McMaster were fairly clear that these strikes wouldn’t have any effect on the actual political situation in Syria. The president* has made war in a place for the first time. That’s all we’re sure of as another day dawns in Washington, where the war is made but rarely has any impact at all.
April 7, 2017 at 2:20 pm #67067wvParticipantFwiw, RT on Syria:
link:https://www.rt.com/news/383785-us-missiles-syrian-army/April 7, 2017 at 5:27 pm #67080 -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.