Syria Strikes

noblehunter wrote:On the other hand, wouldn't it be difficult to leave the airbase operational by accident? That the attack blew up precisely what it intended to and nothing more? The message being the precision of the attack rather than the damage inflicted?

Yeah, not seeing that as a terribly effective message... the planet has known the accuracy of US cruise missiles for decades. It's not like some kind of revelation that will bring them to their senses to show it off now.


And seen on Twitter...

"Trump could have done more damage to that airfield by just buying it and running it as one of his businesses."

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/141987/ ... n-politics

The entire article is worth reading as an illustration that US political partisanship is nowhere NEAR an equally two sided issue. But as pertains to the Syria strikes in particular...

#Bothsides is the most failed, destructive, opportunistic, and falsifiable analytical conceit in American politics. When President Obama was contemplating missile strikes in Syria four years ago, in the aftermath of a deadly chemical weapons attack, very few people thought it was a good idea. Just 38 percent of Democrats and a bare 22 percent of Republicans supported the idea.

Today, most Democrats are similarly apprehensive. Only 37 percent back President Trump’s weekend bombing campaign. Republicans, by contrast, have had a near-total change of heart. The same Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that 86 percent of Republicans support the strikes, suggesting that a huge number of them based their decision on the proxy of who happened to be president at the time.

To be clear:

Democrats:

Support for Syria strikes under Obama: 38%
Support for Syria strikes under Trump: 37%:

^^^^ that is what basing your position on a principle looks like. Who was in the White House didn't alter support for the policy by more than the margin of polling error.


Republicans:

Support for Syria strikes under Obama: 22%
Support for Syria strikes under Trump: 86%


^^^^That is what unthinking knee jerk partisanship that wouldn't know what a principle was if it was beat over the head with it looks like.

I think the missile strike was important as a signal.

Whether is was terribly effective militarily is secondary. The important part is the political message.

And the political message is that the use of chemical weapons is internationally outlawed and will draw a response.

It was a necessary signal to Assad - but it had the (maybe unintended) positive consequence that it was welcomed by some of the Arab population who are the target of Assad's atrocities.
Contrary to many other things the US has done in the region it may actually have helped US reputation there a little. And that it was a limited and proportionate response is part of this IMO.

I suppose we could all wish the strike would have been a little more effective in disabling the air base than it seems to have been. And that we were sure that no one in the current US government profits from the strike financially.

But when all is said and done it still was a more helpful than harmful little step IMO. Something that's not easy and doesn't happen often in that mess there.

That it cost 59 million in ammunitions is unfortunate. But the US won't exactly be impoverished over it.