Cruise Missles anyone?

[merrylander]

He picked the wrong taget it should have been Assad's palace, preferably with him in it.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Blaming Obama for Putin and Assad concealing some of their weapons? Had Obama launched 59 missiles 4 years ago, it's highly doubtful he would have destroyed as much poison gas as was removed under the agreement. Put blame where it belongs, Whell.

I don't understand this post at all. Your premise that a military response 4 years ago must have the same calibrated use of force as the strike this week is absolutely false. Obama likely had support for a broader military response. What stopped Obama back then was....Obama.

Obama never wanted to get involved in the Syrian civil war, particularly heading into the 2012 election. But talking tough leading up to the election might score some points. Obama stated in 2012 that the "red line" that would trigger US military involvement would be the use of chem or bio weapons.

Syria then crossed that red line in August 2013. Rather that involve the US military, Obama agreed to let Moscow take the lead with Syria because Putin suggested Russia could get Assad to get rid of their chem weapons, and Syria later made a show of signing the Chem Weapons Convention, which on paper prohibited Syria from producing, stockpiling or using chemical weapons. This gave Obama a politically acceptable way to back away from war footing with Syria.

This one wasn't hard to predict, really. Russia has an interest in keeping Assad in place, and probably was never really interested in disarming Assad. Putin likely wanted the US to take a back seat to help prop up Assad. Even a writer in HuffPo suggested that Obama's alternative to counter Russian support of Assad and Russian attacks on Syrian rebels was to start attacking Syrian military forces. North and South Vietnam all over again would likely have been the result, but letting Russia take the lead created that scenario.

So, yeah, I'm putting the blame where it belongs. Obama and Kerry for backing away. You can blame Putin, but he is who he is: a thug who is predictably working to pursue his own interests, and he never gave a rats ass about the Syrian people anyway. At the end of the day Obama and Kerry were fooled into taking Putin at his word. You can blame the UN Security Council, but the UNSC has always been a mess, so that doesn't hold much water either.

EDIT: oh, and let's not forget that the option to pull back militarily put a premium the option of pumping money to the Syrian rebels. Apparently quite a bit of that money flowed to ISIS, who moved into Syria once Assad started bombing and gassing his own citizens.

[whell]

It was just a few weeks ago that Russia and China blocked a UNSC resolution to sanction Syria over use of chem weapons.

The resolution, proposed by Britain and France months ago and endorsed by the United States last week, would have imposed sanctions on a handful of Syrian military officials and entities for having dropped chlorine-filled barrel bombs on opposition-held areas on at least three occasions in 2014 and 2015, according to a United Nations panel.

The UNSC is a damn mess.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

I don't understand this post at all. Your premise that a military response 4 years ago must have the same calibrated use of force as the strike this week is absolutely false. Obama likely had support for a broader military response...

Revisionism, pure and simple. There wasn't broad support for a Syria strike. The agreement with Russia to get rid of the weapons was a relief to nearly everyone, particularly Congress. From Sep 2014:

Congress can breathe a sigh of relief: Lawmakers won’t have to take a tough vote on authorizing the use of military force in Syria anytime soon.

The preliminary agreement between the United States and Russia on turning over Syria’s chemical weapons by mid-2014 sets a deadline of November of this year for international inspectors to enter the Middle Eastern country.

The delay will allow Capitol Hill to pivot from an unpopular decision on military strikes — which many members in both parties opposed — to instead confront a pair of looming fiscal crises, funding the government and raising the debt ceiling.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...ia-vote-096806

From a bit earlier:

Although Congressional leaders hailed his decision to seek the permission of lawmakers who had been clamoring for a say, the turnabout leaves Mr. Obama at the political mercy of House Republicans, many of whom have opposed him at every turn and have already suggested that Syria’s civil war does not pose a threat to the United States. His decision raises the possibility that he would be the first president in modern times to lose a vote on the use of force, much as Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain did in Parliament last week.

Mr. Obama overruled the advice of many of his aides who worried about just such a defeat, and Republican Congressional officials said Saturday that if a vote were taken immediately, the Republican-controlled House would not support action.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/wo...ast/syria.html

[donquixote99]

I'm not easy with the general favorable reaction to the cruise missile attack.

Piece on Slate is appropos:

"But Trump is not—and will never be—a normal president. He is an uninformed and dangerously unstable one. If he wants to conduct military action without congressional approval, he should be challenged, not lauded. The prospect of someone with Trump's limited focus and understanding immersing the United States more deeply in another foreign conflict is unnerving—especially when that conflict is taking place in a region that predominantly practices a religion Trump despises. And, as my colleague Jamelle Bouie noted Thursday night, there is something additionally terrifying about a petty and insecure man who seeks nothing more than praise … receiving praise for military action. "

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...errifying.html

[icenine]

At least Trump destroyed the runways so they cannot be used by Assad to launch more planes.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by icenine

At least Trump destroyed the runways so they cannot be used by Assad to launch more planes.

Nope. The same airfield was used to bomb the same town within 24 hours.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...f9e_story.html

[Rajoo]

Syria has more than one airbase, estimated to be somewhere around 15 or so.
So this is just one and what happens next is in Russia's hands. IMO, this was an ill conceived and rushed operation for the headlines and not an eye to the future.

[icenine]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Nope. The same airfield was used to bomb the same town within 24 hours.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...f9e_story.html

Oh.

Then what was the point then?

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by icenine

Oh.

Then what was the point then?

Cynical distraction?

It's not the first time a US president launches missile strikes that do not amount to much but boost ratings.
http://aje.io/3pxh