Nevertheless, the lack of Congressional authority is every bit as troubling at it was when Obama went into Libya. It is also unclear what the aim and objective of Trump's military strike is. Is tonight it? Was it just for show? Or is there more to come? If that is the case is the mission to get Syria to stop using chemical weapons? Is it to reassert the American imprint in the Middle East? If so how will the Russians respond? Is Trump seeking regime change? If Trump seeks to depose of Assad who fills the vacuum? Does it strengthen ISIS? How does Iran respond?
If Trump deposes of Assad, I shall shed no more tears for him than I did for Saddam Hussein or Muammar Qaddafi. But as in Iraq and Libya, things are bound to get worse before they get better. And the getting worse part might be decades in the making.
It is well worth remembering it wasTrump who once tweeted four years ago, "What I am saying is stay out of Syria." So why is he in Syria now? If a chemical weapons attack in 2013 wasn't justification enough for military intervention then why is it justification enough in 2017? It is probably the case that Trump simply tweet things for the sake of tweeting them and never mind what he tweeted back then. He's Donald Trump and he'll do whatever he damn well pleases.
So I'm not with President Trump on this, but nor am I with the people who oppose his decision either. But where does that leave me? More importantly where does it leave America? At the moment, I can't honestly answer either question and I might never be able to do so.
The cruise missile strike was a limited tactical response that will have no long term effect on the situation in Syria. That would require boots on the ground -- last night's strike was only a stand-off response.
ReplyDeleteBut what disturbs me is that the Islamists fighting Assad's forces were quick to praise the attack. And the last thing we need is to be associated with them in any way.