US Launches Military Strike on Syria

[Delta1212]

I can agree with that.

 

A draft is highly unlikely.

We're not currently stressed on the number of troops we have.

Now the idea that this may happen isn't impossible. Just saying that it doesn't seem likely.

 

We bombed them for using chemical weapons on what would be considered syrian refugees if they left the country. So if we see them all as terrorists, we just intervened on the side of terrorists. Which I, nor most people, don't think of it that way.

 

And, if you say that this would have been approved by the UN and Congress anyways, why does being drafted play into what Trump did? The end result would have been the same just 3-4 days later.

 

 

 

 

Also, delta, I still see Syria as no threat to the United States. Perhaps it has the ability to resist the United States and make it hard to invade/immobilize/stop them, but they pose no to little of an actual threat to the US. Is this thinking flawed?

Syria does not pose a threat to the United States, no. However, there is a difference between "does not pose a threat" and "can be cleaned up in a couple of months with little resistance and minimal casualties on our side."

 

There is also a major difference between "Syria is not a threat to the United States" and "invading Syria is not a threat to the United States." As has been mentioned, Russia considers Syria to be a close ally in the Middle East, and there is already Russian military heavily involved in the country on the side of the Syria government. A US invasion force attacking the Syrian government would get very, very messy very quickly.

[Raider5678]

Syria does not pose a threat to the United States, no. However, there is a difference between "does not pose a threat" and "can be cleaned up in a couple of months with little resistance and minimal casualties on our side."

 

There is also a major difference between "Syria is not a threat to the United States" and "invading Syria is not a threat to the United States." As has been mentioned, Russia considers Syria to be a close ally in the Middle East, and there is already Russian military heavily involved in the country on the side of the Syria government. A US invasion force attacking the Syrian government would get very, very messy very quickly.

Considering we bombed a Russian Ally, doesn't that mean it's war that has been declared?

 

Honestly, I probably have very little idea what I'm talking about so I'm mostly just gonna sit back and ask questions for you guys.

[rangerx]

Russia also received a heads up so they can evacuate / move their stuff. This basically means Assad also knew we were coming.

 

 

Yeah, WTF is with that?

 

Collusion with Russia, while keeping Americans in the dark, is what that is.

[Raider5678]

 

Yeah, WTF is with that?

 

Collusion with Russia, while keeping Americans in the dark, is what that is.

Oh god.

We didn't find out about the missiles being launched until a few hours after it happened.

Government conspiracy of keeping Americans in the dark!

Or maybe, avoiding killing Russians so we don't go to war with them. Wonder which one it is.

[rangerx]

Or maybe, avoiding killing Russians so we don't go to war with them.

 

Well, in America's defense, the Canadian Prime Minister just announced Canada's Minister of Defense was also notified before the attack.

 

I'd suspect the same notice went to the UK and probably China, seeing how their leader is with Trump at the moment.

 

Still, the US congress being the last to know probably doesn't sit well with some. Republican or Democrat. Not that Trump gives a ratsass about the law, law makers or representatives of the people.

[Raider5678]

Still, the US congress being the last to know probably doesn't sit well with some. Republican or Democrat. Not that Trump gives a ratsass about the law, law makers or representatives of the people.

True.

[Ten oz]

What Assad did is a war crime. We (U.S.) have an obligation to our allies around the world to hold to our various commitments to rebuke such acts. Bombing Assad's arsenal was the correct call in my opinion and is in keeping with standing U.S. policy. As iNow pointed out what happens next is the big question. I would like to see continued bombing directed at eliminating WMDs. Additionally I would like to see the U.S. work through the U.N. security counsel with our allies (Germany, England, Australia, etc) on a plan for charging Assad with war crimes. I do not want to see U.S. go into Syria on the ground.

 

Other issues to consider here is the stability of Turkey and the ongoing refugee crisis. If U.S. forces push into Syria in an attempt to both crush ISIS and Assad at the same type fighters and refugees will press into Turkey which how the portential to destablize Turkey which is already stressed. Also I believe Putin is more intelligent that the current White House. That makes everything the U.S. considers doing alone dangerous. We need our allies. We cannot make independent choices here.

[Delta1212]

Considering we bombed a Russian Ally, doesn't that mean it's war that has been declared?

 

Honestly, I probably have very little idea what I'm talking about so I'm mostly just gonna sit back and ask questions for you guys.

Assad could probably interpret it as an act of war if he wanted to, and Russia could then interpret it as an attack on an ally if they wanted to.

 

But right now, nobody wants that. The US doesn't really want to be on the ground in Syria right now. Assad certainly doesn't want the US invading. And Russia and the US don't really want to get into a shooting war with each other.

 

Wars depend on at least one party recognizing a state of war. If someone wants a war, they can label even fairly minor things as acts of war. If nobody wants a war, some much bigger things can happen without sparking one.

 

The question is always "Where exactly is the line in the current environment that each party feels they cannot allow to be crossed without having to respond?"

 

A single air strike from the US that was given a call-ahead so the target wasn't caught unaware and thereby minimizing casualties, especially for Russia, might piss off Putin and Assad, but it isn't going to cross that line quite yet.

 

If Putin feels that some fist shaking and strong words are an appropriate response, that's as far as it will go.

 

You get wars in two scenarios: At least one side wants a war and feels confident they can win. Or both sides feel that backing down at each step along the way would be worse for them than escalating.

 

Nobody on that side is chomping at the bit for a war against the US, and this wasn't something that they apparently think they can't back down from. So no war. Not yet, anyway.

[Ten oz]

Considering we bombed a Russian Ally, doesn't that mean it's war that has been declared?

 

Honestly, I probably have very little idea what I'm talking about so I'm mostly just gonna sit back and ask questions for you guys.

September 2013:

"United States and Russia through our talks in Geneva, which represents an important, concrete step toward the goal of moving Syria's chemical weapons under international control so that they may ultimately be destroyed. This framework provides the opportunity for the elimination of Syrian chemical weapons in a transparent, expeditious, and verifiable manner, which could end the threat these weapons pose not only to the Syrian people but to the region and the world. The international community expects the Assad regime to live up to its public commitments."

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/09/14/statement-president-us-russian-agreement-framework-elimination-syrian-ch

 

Russia is well aware of U.S. policy. The notion that by acting against Assad's use of chemical weapons we are somehow acting against Russia is a false one.

[rangerx]

Bombing Assad's arsenal was the correct call in my opinion and is in keeping with standing U.S. policy.

 

We need our allies. We cannot make independent choices here.

 

Even if it were a false flag incident, Assad created the environment for it through years of civil war against his own people.

 

And yes, a very good point and the crux of my position in the matter. I seriously doubt the rest of the world is ready to accept Trump at face value though, unless there's a modicum of some contrition for the needless, reprehensible or untrue things he's said and done.

 

He's just not credible. Period.

[Ten oz]

Assad could probably interpret it as an act of war if he wanted to, and Russia could then interpret it as an attack on an ally if they wanted to.

 

But right now, nobody wants that. The US doesn't really want to be on the ground in Syria right now. Assad certainly doesn't want the US invading. And Russia and the US don't really want to get into a shooting war with each other.

 

Wars depend on at least one party recognizing a state of war. If someone wants a war, they can label even fairly minor things as acts of war. If nobody wants a war, some much bigger things can happen without sparking one.

 

The question is always "Where exactly is the line in the current environment that each party feels they cannot allow to be crossed without having to respond?"

 

A single air strike from the US that was given a call-ahead so the target wasn't caught unaware and thereby minimizing casualties, especially for Russia, might piss off Putin and Assad, but it isn't going to cross that line quite yet.

 

If Putin feels that some fist shaking and strong words are an appropriate response, that's as far as it will go.

 

You get wars in two scenarios: At least one side wants a war and feels confident they can win. Or both sides feel that backing down at each step along the way would be worse for them than escalating.

 

Nobody on that side is chomping at the bit for a war against the US, and this wasn't something that they apparently think they can't back down from. So no war. Not yet, anyway.

Assad agreed to give up his weapons and Russia agreed to ensure it happened. Policy was put in place in 2013. Any attempt to Syria or Russia to interpret this as a new act of aggression which isn't in keeping with standing commitments would be inaccurate.

[Delta1212]

 

What Assad did is a war crime. We (U.S.) have an obligation to our allies around the world to hold to our various commitments to rebuke such acts. Bombing Assad's arsenal was the correct call in my opinion and is in keeping with standing U.S. policy. As iNow pointed out what happens next is the big question. I would like to see continued bombing directed at eliminating WMDs. Additionally I would like to see the U.S. work through the U.N. security counsel with our allies (Germany, England, Australia, etc) on a plan for charging Assad with war crimes. I do not want to see U.S. go into Syria on the ground.

 

Other issues to consider here is the stability of Turkey and the ongoing refugee crisis. If U.S. forces push into Syria in an attempt to both crush ISIS and Assad at the same type fighters and refugees will press into Turkey which how the portential to destablize Turkey which is already stressed. Also I believe Putin is more intelligent that the current White House. That makes everything the U.S. considers doing alone dangerous. We need our allies. We cannot make independent choices here.

Yes, Turkey is a big issue with pretty much any decisions relating to Syria. As a member of NATO, they are nominally a close ally, but Erdoğan has taken them from secular democracy to theocratic dictatorship-in-all-but-name in record time, and their interests in the area don't perfectly align with the rest of NATO's thanks to their own Kurdish separatist movement. Further destabilization in the area is only going to exacerbate both of those problems, neither of which are good for us.

 

Assad agreed to give up his weapons and Russia agreed to ensure it happened. Policy was put in place in 2013. Any attempt to Syria or Russia to interpret this as a new act of aggression which isn't in keeping with standing commitments would be inaccurate.

They also technically deny that Assad did any such thing as far as the chemical attack is concerned. We all know it's bullshit, but if they were spoiling for a fight, their current position on the issue would make the US strike an "unprovoked attack."

 

But they aren't spoiling for a fight so they won't respond to it as such even if they'll yell about US aggression a bit.

[Manticore]

The UK, officially, fully supports the action.

The Prime Ministers of the UK have had their heads firmly embedded in the US President's arse since at least Margaret Thatcher and probably a lot earlier. Their "opinion" is worthless.

[Ten oz]

 

Even if it were a false flag incident, Assad created the environment for it through years of civil war against his own people.

 

And yes, a very good point and the crux of my position in the matter. I seriously doubt the rest of the world is ready to accept Trump at face value though, unless there's a modicum of some contrition for the needless, reprehensible or untrue things he's said and done.

 

He's just not credible. Period.

Assad shouldn't have chemical weapons. It is something that the U.S., UN, and Russia all agreed with back in 2013. Sp provided the airstrikes are targeting Assad's chemical weapon arsenal that are the right thing to do. Even if it was a "false flag" attack. Assad isn't suppose to have chemical weapons.

 

I don't believe it was a false flag attack. I believe Assad felt embolden by the fact the White House seemed to be implying a shift in policy. Sec of State Rex Tillerson had indicated that he expected Assad to remain in power at the conclusion of the civil war and we (U.S.) had stepped up our campaign against ISIS in Syria in recent weeks which was benefiting Assad.

Yes, Turkey is a big issue with pretty much any decisions relating to Syria. As a member of NATO, they are nominally a close ally, but Erdoğan has taken them from secular democracy to theocratic dictatorship-in-all-but-name in record time, and their interests in the area don't perfectly align with the rest of NATO's thanks to their own Kurdish separatist movement. Further destabilization in the area is only going to exacerbate both of those problems, neither of which are good for us.

 

 

They also technically deny that Assad did any such thing as far as the chemical attack is concerned. We all know it's bullshit, but if they were spoiling for a fight, their current position on the issue would make the US strike an "unprovoked attack."

 

But they aren't spoiling for a fight so they won't respond to it as such even if they'll yell about US aggression a bit.

I agree about Turkey. It is a real concern. That is why the U.S. cannot afford a go it alone approach here.

 

Assad denied it but he also isn't suppose to have Chemical weapons per international argeements. So provided all we are targeting are the Chemical Weapons we are acting within standing policy.

[Delta1212]

Assad shouldn't have chemical weapons. It is something that the U.S., UN, and Russia all agreed with back in 2013. Sp provided the airstrikes are targeting Assad's chemical weapon arsenal that are the right thing to do. Even if it was a "false flag" attack. Assad isn't suppose to have chemical weapons.

 

I don't believe it was a false flag attack. I believe Assad felt embolden by the fact the White House seemed to be implying a shift in policy. Sec of State Rex Tillerson had indicated that he expected Assad to remain in power at the conclusion of the civil war and we (U.S.) had stepped up our campaign against ISIS in Syria in recent weeks which was benefiting Assad.

 

I agree about Turkey. It is a real concern. That is why the U.S. cannot afford a go it alone approach here.

 

Assad denied it but he also isn't suppose to have Chemical weapons per international argeements. So provided all we are targeting are the Chemical Weapons we are acting within standing policy.

Have Russia and Assad acknowledged the existence of the weapons, though? I've seen a lot of denials about the attack but I'm unclear on what their position is as to whether Assad even had the weapons. I mean, he clearly did. But there is a difference between us knowing that and him admitting it.

[Ten oz]

Have Russia and Assad acknowledged the existence of the weapons, though? I've seen a lot of denials about the attack but I'm unclear on what their position is as to whether Assad even had the weapons. I mean, he clearly did. But there is a difference between us knowing that and him admitting it.

We also gave Russia advance notice of the strikes to minimize any potential risk to their personnel. I understand Assad demies it but alternative would be to do nothing which itself would have been problematic amongst our allies.

 

The airstrike happened. What comes next is where my head is. We should not send in ground forces. We should work with our allies to formily charge Assad with war crimes.

[iNow]

It really was a no brainer IMO. Syria used nerve gas, a war crime. Trump's been looking for a way to distract from the Russia situation. What better way than to bomb Syria (using the most minimal military option put in front of him)? It makes it look like he's separating from Russia, it gets international bipartisan support b/c what Assad did was so atrocious, and it gives him magical president war powers he didn't previously have.

 

Meanwhile, Gorsuch was just approved absent 60 votes.

[Ten oz]

It really was a no brainer IMO. Syria used nerve gas, a war crime. Trump's been looking for a way to distract from the Russia situation. What better way than to bomb Syria (using the most minimal military option put in front of him)? It makes it look like he's separating from Russia, it gets international bipartisan support b/c what Assad did was so atrocious, and it gives him magical president war powers he didn't previously have.

 

Meanwhile, Gorsuch was just approved absent 60 votes.

Indeed. Immidiately following the election I saw many people who had voted Trump say that he wasn't really going to build a wall, wasn't really going to ban muslims, repeal the ACA, and etc. Those same people argued that Trump was just keeping his promises when he began try to do all the nonsense he campaigned on. The bar for Trump is laying on the ground. His supporters don't really care what he does. As such so many of his early mistakes have been unforced errors.

 

All the talk of Syria denying the use of chemical weapons and false flag attack is troubling. In a very short time everything has become suspect. During Obama's time in office conspiracies were small nuanced things. Obama was accused of not really loving the country, secretly being Muslim, and etc. Hillary Clinton was accused of breaking Dept policy by using a blackberry to read emails.. Hillary Clinton acepted responsibility for her mistakes acknowledging media and official reports. Obama address direct questions at length and love him or hate him people overall trusted what was going on. Today that is all upside down. We can't trust the media, can't trust the President, can't trust Congress, can't trust the FBI, can't trust anything. Not a day, not one damn day, has gone by since election day were I haven't seen a headline or 5 in the news and immediately began wondering if it was true or not. Everytime a politician step to a mic it is a given that whatever they are saying is either a complete lie or at least a contextual exaggeration. In a matter of months we have become a nation of utter doubt. Liberals doubt the result of the election, doubt Trump's intentions, doubt the competence of Republicans, and see media as headline chasers obsessed with numbers. Conservatives doubt our intelligence agencies, doubt congress, are suspicious of immigrants, worry about Trump's competence, and believe the media is a liberal sanctuary. It is a highly combustible situation.

[EdEarl]

I see where you are coming from but I think this is firmly in the hands of the military and part of long-term military thinking on how certain conditions would be dealt with if they arose.

I like it too, or aspects of it, but I just get the feeling, perhaps wrongly, that you are very principled towards the 'no harm' aspect of that philosophy.

There are many reasons to be biased towards peace, including, Two wrongs don't make a right, and An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. However, if I could save more lives by killing rather than by not killing a wrongdoer, it makes sense to kill the wrongdoer, except one may be unaware of extenuating circumstances. This is not the only scenario that warrants taking a life or lives, but neither vengeance nor punishment are reasons to kill, IMO.

 

I'm fortunate not to have been in such a situation.

Edited April 7, 2017 by EdEarl

[DrmDoc]

It really was a no brainer IMO. Syria used nerve gas, a war crime. Trump's been looking for a way to distract from the Russia situation. What better way than to bomb Syria (using the most minimal military option put in front of him)? It makes it look like he's separating from Russia, it gets international bipartisan support b/c what Assad did was so atrocious, and it gives him magical president war powers he didn't previously have.

 

Meanwhile, Gorsuch was just approved absent 60 votes.

 

Indeed, I agree. The Wizard Of Crap strikes again!

[Raider5678]

As it seems, Russia is pissed off now.

And is now actively calling it an illegal act of aggression.

This means?

Edited April 7, 2017 by Raider5678

[Delta1212]

As it seems, Russia is pissed off now.

And is now actively calling it an illegal act of aggression.

This means?

Probably not much on its own. That's pretty much what I would expect them to do at this point. It's the international relations equivalent of shaking your fist.

 

The real question is what else they'll do about it. Most likely just some heavier bombing of areas held by people we like but won't feel honor bound to defend militarily, and that'll be the end of it until and unless someone tries pushing the envelope again on one side of the other.

[Raider5678]

Probably not much on its own. That's pretty much what I would expect them to do at this point. It's the international relations equivalent of shaking your fist.

 

The real question is what else they'll do about it. Most likely just some heavier bombing of areas held by people we like but won't feel honor bound to defend militarily, and that'll be the end of it until and unless someone tries pushing the envelope again on one side of the other.

They're sending in a destroyer now.

[Delta1212]

They're sending in a destroyer now.

Yes, to set up a more robust missile defense against further strikes by the US from shipboard. Probably a smart move as it allows them to both somewhat check our own offensive capability and respond with a show of military force that doesn't (or at least shouldn't) escalate the situation appreciably.

 

This is what I would consider a heightening of tensions rather than a likely spark for anything larger on its own.

 

Edit: Actually, adding this because the above is a bit speculative on my part in response to Russia saying they were going to do essentially that, but not necessarily singling that ship out as part of that plan:

 

At the very least, military "drive-by" showings where a country sends a large ship or some planes through an area that technically they are perfectly free to occupy but that will make the other guys nervous is a common way of showing displeasure without doing anything overtly violent. We've been doing similar to China over their technically illegal construction in the South China Sea.

 

It would be weird if Russia was putting a single destroyer into position as part of any plan for actual military action. You'd see a lot more movement or little at all. Not something comparatively small and obvious like that.

Edited April 7, 2017 by Delta1212