1. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Did Syrian Strikes Succeed?

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by Old_Trapper70, Apr 16, 2018.

  1. Old_Trapper70

    Old_Trapper70 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    2,383
    Likes Received:
    344
    https://www.newyorker.com/news/news...ion-accomplished-boast-about-his-syria-strike

    "Technically, that’s true. The limited military operation—far smaller than the advance hype suggested—did degrade Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s ability to use weaponized toxins against civilians. But it did not eliminate Syria’s entire stock, the Pentagon acknowledged, in a press briefing on Saturday. “The program is larger than what we struck,” Lieutenant General Kenneth McKenzie told reporters. “We could have gone to other places and done other things.” The six-day run-up to the strike may also have allowed sufficient time for Syria to relocate equipment and personnel, the Pentagon said.

    More fundamentally, however, Trump’s strike was a tactical response that lacks a long-term strategy to help restore stability to turbulent Syria. A country that is the geostrategic center of the Middle East, Syria has been ravaged by seven years of a war that has killed an estimated half million people and displaced more than half of its twenty-three million citizens. The U.S.-led military operation did nothing to change those realities—or even challenge Assad’s brutal rule or his growing military grip on the country.

    “So you strike. Then what?” Ryan Crocker, a former Ambassador to Syria (as well as Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Kuwait), told me. “If the rockets hit the targets they intended, you could say the mission was accomplished in a narrow sense. But, in reality, it accomplished nothing. It might have been better if we’d not struck at all. It’s sending a message that killing is O.K. any way but one way—with chemical weapons. How many have been killed in Eastern Ghouta during this whole Syrian campaign? Far more by non-chemical means. It’s obscene.”
     
  2. penderyn

    penderyn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2018
    Messages:
    232
    Likes Received:
    8
    It succeeded in its purpose - it drew attention away from what is actually happening towards a world in which our politicians still seem to be achieving something, sometimes.
     
  3. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,956
    Likes Received:
    398
    Location:
    South of the Haggis Munching Line
    ...ermmm...and that would be.....Ah yes...not a lot...

    Just a thought on this Syrian debacle....if they knew they had this stuff which seems to be the case since they knew where it was...and bearing in mind the Syrians/Russians have form in dousing poeple with this stuff...then why not smack them before they used it? Why wait until a bunch of folk got doused before blatting them with a couple of bombs?
     
    Walter likes this.
  4. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,956
    Likes Received:
    398
    Location:
    South of the Haggis Munching Line
    I think the strategy is not to have a strategy.
     
  5. Old_Trapper70

    Old_Trapper70 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    2,383
    Likes Received:
    344

    What purpose in spreading more war would that serve?
     
  6. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,956
    Likes Received:
    398
    Location:
    South of the Haggis Munching Line
    none... it was irony...
     
  7. Old_Trapper70

    Old_Trapper70 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    2,383
    Likes Received:
    344
    My comment was not :"irony". Spreading an excuse for more war was the purpose of dousing all of those innocents with noxious, and deadly, gas. If they just destroyed the stuff before using it what good would that do?
     
  8. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,956
    Likes Received:
    398
    Location:
    South of the Haggis Munching Line
    errrmmmm....welllllll .... then it wouldn't have been sprayed on people????
     
  9. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,541
    Likes Received:
    354
    Location:
    USA
    John Kerry claimed they got them all back in 2014....



    But to be serious - the sad reality is that not many people fundamentally care if Syria has a civil war and thousands of people die via conventional means. The issue is the use of chemical weapons. We ultimately cannot let that stand if we want to keep up any facade of international norms regarding WMDs.

    A limited strike - that doesn't kill any Russians or Iranians - was the correct move here. Our purposes were accomplished here at the end of the day.
     
  10. Old_Trapper70

    Old_Trapper70 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    2,383
    Likes Received:
    344

    And even the Israelis say it accomplished nothing. But, true to form, if Trump did it then all is well, and "mission accomplished":

    https://taskandpurpose.com/israeli-intel-officials-trumps-syria-strike-accomplished-nothing

    The US, UK, and France’s missile strike on Syria’s suspected chemical weapons sites involved 105 missiles fired from air and sea to rain down thousands of pounds of explosives on three sites across the country – but Israeli intelligence officers reportedly called it a failure.

    “If President Trump had ordered the strike only to show that the US responded to [Syrian President Bashar] Assad’s use of chemical weapons, then that goal has been achieved,” a senior defense official told Israel’s Ynet News. “But if there was another objective — such as paralyzing the ability to launch chemical weapons or deterring Assad from using it again — it’s doubtful any of these objectives have been met.”

    An intelligence officer who talked to Ynet wasn’t as forgiving.

    “The statement of ‘Mission Accomplished’ and (the assertion) that Assad’s ability to use chemical weapons has been fatally hit has no basis,” the source said, likely referring to a recent tweet from President Donald Trump.
     
  11. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,956
    Likes Received:
    398
    Location:
    South of the Haggis Munching Line
    Opinion here amongst the political elites seems divided on the basis of “legality” being that there was no UN mandate for such action, however, as it’s been pointed out to the opposition party, since as it was probable the Russians would veto any such proposal the nicety of having a mandate was unlikely.
    I’m rather on the fence with these sort of “slap on the knuckles” actions. If one is opposed then do something meaningful. What I mean by that, well, even I don’t know as it’s difficult to see the picture that’s emerging, however, I’m convinced that such hit and run tactics whilst they may serve a political narrative achieve very little. To be brutally honest I’m net even sure I care!
     
    penderyn likes this.
  12. penderyn

    penderyn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2018
    Messages:
    232
    Likes Received:
    8
    I think these gestures are all about internal politics, following reverses for governments. They fit well with the sudden rise of anti-Semitism 'in the Labour Party', which no active member has ever noticed before, or the huge hoo-hah about Russian agents suddenly behaving like Russian agents. Praise the Lord and pass the Mail the ammunition!
     
  13. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,956
    Likes Received:
    398
    Location:
    South of the Haggis Munching Line
    I was rather amused by Corbyn and his Labour Party supporters discussing the legality of the action and in the house debate asking for irrefutable proof of the use of this stuff... I was reminded of the "irrefutable proof" obtained by the Labour Party that led to the first gulf war...dodgy dossiers and all that....hmmmm
     
  14. Old_Trapper70

    Old_Trapper70 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    2,383
    Likes Received:
    344

    They claim to be having the same debate here, and have introduced another bill for a new AUMF as if that is supposed to take the place of a Declaration of War as required by the Constitution. But then, the Constitution has become irrelevant under Republican rule.
     
    The Scotsman likes this.
  15. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,956
    Likes Received:
    398
    Location:
    South of the Haggis Munching Line
    what is that then...some sort of law which allows the president to take action on his own volition?
    Does the US need to have UN Mandates or the like before commiting to acts of aggression?
    I'm not even too sure what the law is here...??? Seems like they just a quiet chat about it and then go off and do it and deal with the fallout after its all over..!!??
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice