Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General US MilitaryStrike in Syria

Military strike as first response. Where does it go from here?

What's more, it was a first response to a whole series of assumptions (was that base where the planes took off carrying chemicals?; was it Assad who authorized the use of chemicals?; was it even a chemical attack? ...?)

Then there is the lack of considered evaluation of the potential repercussions following a missile attack.

It all sounds like classic Trump behavior to me - a drunk guy in a bar getting all indignant over something he really doesn't understand and immediately starting to swing his fists.

This is, to me, doing the right thing for all the wrong reasons. If President Obama or Clinton (either one) would have done the same thing, Republicans would have (and have) raised a myriad of complaints about "authorization" or "pinpricks", but if a Republican does it, it's "bold" or "decisive", not "reckless".

I think the evidence was pretty clear that this was a chemical attack by the Assad regime, and the attack, planned by the military, was appropriate, legal, and proportional. Unfortunately, Trump's "explanation" addressed none of these points - more evidence of the sheer incompetence of this amateur administration. Use of force, in any manner, requires deep and thoughtful consideration. No evidence of that is apparent.

Well, we're not talking about election hacking, now, are we? Mission accomplished!

I admit it bothers me greatly that as momentous a decision as bombing a sovereign nation, albeit one that is in a civil war involving international forces and uses chemical weapons and other methods outlawed by international law, is seriously discussed (not just by me) as a method of "distraction" from domestic scandal. This is serious stuff. But, so is the scandal.

So far the one over riding question not being asked and the answer will change the entire narrative of this strike. That question is; If Assad got rid of the chemical weapons and the capability to make them; years ago under an agreement between the US, our Allies, Russia, and Syria, under President Obama, where did this chemical weapon come from? Positively identify the source and I can fully support making a crater of them and that place.

Other questions, I know we have good radar, but radar the can pick up a man sized bomb hundreds of miles away? Or is that statement by the White House more fake news?

To many important questions not being asked or answered...

ABC is reporting that Syria was given advance warning so it could remove personnel. Link

Such a brave man Trump is -- yes that is sarcastic

We have satellites that CAN see man-sized bombs being loaded into airplanes, and they can see it in the dark. (They can actually read a license plate from space.) I bet they can even see it inside a hanger, unless the hanger was specially built for stealth. I think there is very adequate evidence that it was a sarin gas attack (in the form of dead bodies) and that the Assad regime delivered the weapons.

Making sarin is not that difficult. We would have to bomb them back into the stone age to prevent that. No reason to think this sarin was the old sarin that was supposedly destroyed by the Russians. Which brings up an interesting point: The Russians might be very pissed-off at Assad, since they claimed to have destroyed the regime's chemical weapons. Now this: Did they not destroy them all? Did they know there were still some available?

Another very interesting point: Trump did not tell anybody in Congress, but he did warn the Russians who very likely called up Assad immediately. So what exactly did we blow up? An empty airfield? Was warning the Russians an act of treason?

Personally, I would have liked it if he had got authorization from Congress, and then taken out EVERY Syrian warplane everywhere.

A few quick points: First, yes, they can identify chemical agents by satellite. In this case, I heard, they identified the agent from the bomb crater. Each munition leaves tell-tale evidence of its composition. Also, the pattern of dispersal will indicate whether it was inadvertent or deliberate.

With regard to notification, that is required for non-hostile parties. My understanding is that Russia was notified 30 mins before the strike - long enough to get personnel out, but not equipment. It's likely local Syrians were alerted by them, but not anti-aircraft units. Since the primary targets were fixed facilities, those couldn't be moved anyway.

It would be interesting to know how pissed the Russians are about the chemical weapons. Are they complicit, of ineffective?

Could be neither. These could be new chemical weapons, made since the Russian chemical weapon destruction. Still, looks bad for them.

But then again, they poison people with Polonium and shoot them in broad daylight just to set an example.