We have awakened to an interesting situation, to say the least.

I support the strikes. When a leader commits an atrocity such as Assad has, he should know that it involves paying a steep price. Assad has caused perhaps half a million deaths, and made millions refugees.

But, we must face the fact that one strike will not change Syria. This limited strike may be emotionally satisfying. It may give Assad second thoughts about another chemical strike. But it does not solve Syria.
So, the questions is, what now?

Is this a one and done slap on the wrist, don't use chemical weapons or we might do this again?
Or is the beginning of the US getting into Syrian politics to effect regime change and stabilization?
Do we need to systematically take out more Syrian airfields? What if Russian aircraft and personnel are at those airfields?

If we are both feet into interventionism, there are both risks and rewards.
What will the Russians do? If they would push Assad aside, the problem is solved. But that does not seem to be the most likely outcome. Will they double down and increase support for Assad? Can some sort of arrangement be made?

If the Russians stay behind the Assad regime, we must face the fact that we are not going to solve this problem by launching missiles from offshore. We are going to have to put together a ground force.
That will mean American deaths, and the very real possibility that we will at some point kill Russians.
Where does that lead?

Finally, what about tomorrow, when some other thug, in some other place, commits an atrocity?
What is the Trump Doctrine? It needs to be spelled out.

Last night Sec Tillerson suggested that the strike was very limited in intent, and was simply a message to the Assad regime about chemical weapons.
Tillerson: Strikes don't signal change in military action policy in Syria
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/327741-tillerson-strikes-dont-mean-weve-changed-our-policy-posture-on

Last edited by Goose (4/07/2017 6:16 am)

As I said in another topic, this was probably the only good alternative (striking the airfields that likely carried  out the chemical attacks). This also is likely NOT to produce much flack from the D-tribe as Clinton hours earlier proclaimed that this is what we should do also. 

We will see where this leads, IMHO we should ONLY engage to reduce or eliminate the Assad regime ability to carry out such chemical weapons strikes. Any regime change itself needs to be carried out by the people of Syria.With all the competing factions already there, it is a real mess and we could easily get suckered into one more war that we have no end game for.  

Last edited by tennyson (4/07/2017 6:22 am)

All military actions have their consequences.

"Judge your success by what you had to give up in order to get it." -- His Holiness, the 14th Dalai Lama

tennyson wrote:

As an aside, this will (and should) raise the question of the President being able to unilaterally making decisions to strike a sovereign foreign nation that we have NOT declared war upon. 

It is a great question. Congress, over the years, has abdicated it's responsibility in war-making.
The Syrian problem, for example has been going on for years. The former President deserves much criticism for his inaction. But, has Congress done any better? Have there been resolutions, authorizations of force, even debate as to action in Syria, or against ISIS?

BTW, the strike occurred 100 years ago, to the Day,  from the House voting for us to go to war against Germany.
It's a changed country.

Last edited by Goose (4/07/2017 6:39 am)