So, we undertook a significant attack on a nation without UN approval, and without legislative approval in either the US or the UK, because it's "possible" though "clearly not proven" that the Assad regime used chemical weapons.JimC wrote:I take the point that no one yet seems to be providing hard evidence, but the situation on the ground might make that difficult to produce. Without such hard evidence, missile strikes are not really justifiable. However, they happened, and if Assad was relying on a reluctance to shoot without good evidence, he sure got that wrong.
Some people here seem to be virtually ruling out the possibility that it was a chemical attack by the regime, just like they seem to rule out a Russian responsibility for the use of a nerve poison in England. Both remain quite possible, IMO, though clearly not proven.
I'd be interested in seeing some decent intelligence on this. When it came to "Russian interference in the 2016 election by propaganda and facebook ads" we were treated to the publication of a memorandum on the topic by an intelligence agency, and the claims that 19 intelligence agencies had agreed.... now, when it comes to bombing people, and allegations of chemical weapons attacks, we don't get to see the memo.
What happened here is this, IMO: Trump was politically in a bad situation. He was faced with the open allegations that Assad had used chemical weapons. The mainstream media was running with that, and treating it as established. The Democrast, his opposition, were screaming bloody murder and beating war drums. So, if he refused, he would be accused of refraining from acting because he is in Putin's pocket, and for being a coward about it. So, he got himself briefed on the issue and all the right people assured him that the intelligence was there that it was Assad, and Trump could rely on the CIA and other agencies who said they think it's Assad. We, the people, don't get to see that info, of course. Sources and methods, as usual.
So, bombs away, and now the criticism is coming from the Democrats and equivalent overseas, and all the Trump opposition. Now it's going to morph into a Trump war, and Trump wagging the dog, and and all that. He was played by the war-folks, who have had Syria on the list for 25 years.
Trump's best move was to leak a "mission accomplished" meme, and announce "no permanent presence in Syria" policy ot the Russians. So, the Russians are sailing boats around, and moving some tanks here and there, and rattling sabres, and Trump is saying "we did what we came to do, and we're done." Hopefully, that's it, and this bullshit is over.
But, I was watching CNN and MSNBC over the weekend, and they're already beating an endless drum to hang this on Trump. And, he gave them the opportunity, because he ordered the attack. He should have called an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council and called for a Congressional Resolution authorizing the use of force, if deemed necessary.