I thought we were going after ISIS, I was surprised to hear that now we're going after the actual Syrian government (or, I guess one of their governments). Are we at war?

4/6/2017 9:41:24 PM

70 cruise missiles today. This is how the Iraq war opened up. But weren't we already at war? We were deep in a proxy war already.

I don't think it's clear what the win condition is here. What is the Trump admins guiding principle? Trump is too dumb to be running this, this is legitimately scary.

4/6/2017 9:46:35 PM

the goal is to keep the war machine rolling and the money flowing. nothing more. nothing less.

4/6/2017 9:50:00 PM

President Obama, do not attack Syria. There is no upside and tremendous downside. Save your "powder" for another (and more important) day!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 7, 2013

4/6/2017 9:52:28 PM

holy shit, don't panic yet.

there is a LOOOOONG way between here and the Iraq war.

4/6/2017 9:53:53 PM

https://twitter.com/christinawilkie/status/850161544273022976

MSNBC reporting this is all that's planned.

4/6/2017 10:02:23 PM

https://twitter.com/senatordurbin/status/850167192150827012

Durbin releases a statement



[Edited on April 6, 2017 at 10:18 PM. Reason : ]

4/6/2017 10:08:33 PM

If this "pinprick" is all that's planned I'm a little comforted by that honestly. Makes me wonder even more about if Putin has something on Trump though...

4/6/2017 10:20:19 PM

Honest question: When has an airstrike like this worked in recent history?

4/6/2017 10:32:22 PM

Define worked.

It's a proportional response

4/6/2017 10:49:25 PM

Worked, as in achieved the goal of a more stable/peaceful situation.

"Proportional response" is irrelevant if it doesn't mean or do anything.

Missiles aren't free, war isn't cheap. "Pathos" has value but that's what I'm wondering... where's the evidence this is effective. For comparison, we have good evidence sanctions work, and they're far cheaper the military action.

4/6/2017 11:00:36 PM

It's not directly relevant but here's what GOP was saying a few years ago: https://twitter.com/kfile/status/850163361987919872

4/6/2017 11:02:46 PM

According to @ChrisHayes, this is the 9th chemical attack reported in Syria THIS YEAR.

4/6/2017 11:19:42 PM

Ted Cruz:

4/6/2017 11:53:30 PM

4/6/2017 11:57:47 PM

YOU LITERALLY CAN'T MAKE THIS SHIT UP. SERIOUSLY WHEN IS ASTON KUTCHER GONNA COME OUT TO PUNK AMERICA????



[Edited on April 7, 2017 at 12:17 AM. Reason : ..]

4/7/2017 12:17:01 AM

Let slip the dogs of war!

(Because my #'s have dipped in popularity polls.)

[Edited on April 7, 2017 at 12:45 AM. Reason : S]

4/7/2017 12:43:02 AM

i haven't followed the chemical weapon attacks in much detail, have the use of chemical weapons been verified?

4/7/2017 8:12:48 AM

I'm not surprised someone like Ted Cruz ultimately brings it back to Obama, but the first sentence? Really?

4/7/2017 8:25:00 AM

Quote :

"i haven't followed the chemical weapon attacks in much detail, have the use of chemical weapons been verified?"

Officials say that they actually somehow traced the plane that dropped the weapons back to the airbase that they bombed.

4/7/2017 8:33:12 AM

has it been verified by reliable sources?

4/7/2017 8:44:17 AM

You mean like Judge Judy?

4/7/2017 8:55:43 AM

Russia is saying the gas attack perpetrators haven't been identified, but they said this the first time too back in 2013. US is saying it was Assad.

4/7/2017 9:38:27 AM

4/7/2017 9:41:43 AM

Raise your hand if you're a liberal who is suddenly anti-war and pro-Russia again.

4/7/2017 9:51:44 AM

Raise your hand if you're raising a dumb strawman ITT

4/7/2017 9:58:09 AM

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-effect-will-trumps-airstrikes-really-have

Good blog suggesting these strikes historically make things worse for many reasons.

[Edited on April 7, 2017 at 10:16 AM. Reason : ]

4/7/2017 10:11:28 AM

Anyone knows me knows I have been fiercely anti war through Obama as well.

4/7/2017 10:26:04 AM

Fwiw I don't have an issue with how he handles this. Actually I think it is better than how Obama handled Syria.

Just scary how quickly he can abandon all his principles when someone gets his ear.

[Edited on April 7, 2017 at 10:48 AM. Reason : A targeted strike isn't "war" per se. How he follows this up will be telling though.]

4/7/2017 10:47:30 AM

So there have been a few comments regarding collusion between Trump and Putin over how we handle Syria.

Do we think then that Russia's comments condemning these attacks are just lip service for the public?

Is Trump doing this to try to prove to the country and world that he and Putin aren't drinking buddies?

4/7/2017 10:50:32 AM

Trump is like a dog. Trying to find reasons why he does something is just chasing your tail.

He saw pictures that gave him a sad. The guy closest to him at the time (McMasters?) said he should strike. He did.

[Edited on April 7, 2017 at 10:53 AM. Reason : time and again he parrots the last thing someone said to him. This is no different.]

4/7/2017 10:52:54 AM

If launching missiles at an airbase of a country that has not attacked you is not an act of war, what is?

4/7/2017 10:53:13 AM

I guess it depends on the distinction you make between war and a targeted strike. To me war is a prolonged event, which is why I said what comes next will be telling.

My point on his handling versus Obama is the latter made a threat and then didn't follow through. He should have never made that comment in the first place.

And I do agree that no President should have the power to strike without consent of the people (Congress) but we are way past that and have been for decades.

4/7/2017 10:56:18 AM

Quote :

"If launching missiles at an airbase of a country that has not attacked you is not an act of war, what is?"

For sure, and you don't need to qualify it either.

It's clearly an act of war.

4/7/2017 10:58:49 AM

Could we see any scenario where a country launches (and successfully lands) a missile strike against the US and we don't declare war against that country?

Sure, we aren't at "war" with Syria after this strike, but they could certainly declare war on us. I guess we could just ignore it though.

4/7/2017 11:01:51 AM

Quote :

"Fwiw I don't have an issue with how he handles this. Actually I think it is better than how Obama handled Syria."

Obama has a terrible track record stretching his AUMF, but at least he asked congress about Syria

in what way is that worse than what Trump did?

4/7/2017 11:11:28 AM

He passed the buck. Made a threat, didn't follow through and then blamed Congress if I remember it correctly.

It's fine or you have a history of actually going to Congress but he didn't. It was a cop-out.

Again his handling of Syria from the time he made the "redline" comment was just bad.

4/7/2017 11:17:28 AM

Quote :

"I guess it depends on the distinction you make between war and a targeted strike. To me war is a prolonged event, which is why I said what comes next will be telling."

4/7/2017 11:23:34 AM

Anyone who doesn't think Obama passed the buck on this one is delusional.

And it has always been this way with these types of strikes, but it really bothers me that one man in our government can make a unilateral decision that could lead directly to war, such as a strike like this.

4/7/2017 11:24:18 AM

Quote :

"My point on his handling versus Obama is the latter made a threat and then didn't follow through. He should have never made that comment in the first place"

The only problem with that entire sequence of events is the comment itself, but the threat of this exact sort of strike is what lead to the deal brokered with Russia for Assad to handover his stockpile of chemical weapons. Regardless of whether we followed through or not, clearly the threat of force still influenced what was eventually a good outcome. That's exactly how coercive diplomacy is supposed to work.

I don't really have a huge problem with these sorts of proportional responses, but in the case of Syria, what's the point? The status quo is the same today as it was yesterday. The reason Obama never took direct action against Assad's military is because nothing short of a multi-week aerial campaign establishing a no-fly zone grounding the Syrian air force would have changed anything. And then, the only thing it would have accomplished is rolling out a red carpet for Sunni militants to massacre the Alawite and Shia populations protected by the regime.

The only way to stop that would be a massive Iraq style ground invasion, something neither we nor our allies were/are up for. You can call it "passing the buck" if you like, but at the end of the day, Syria isn't of any geopolitical importance to us and it would have been patently insane to send 100,000 US troops into that meat grinder.

4/7/2017 11:35:51 AM

Quote :

"Any further action will require close scrutiny by Congress, and any escalation beyond airstrikes or missile strikes will require engaging the American people in that decision."

Nope.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists

Quote :

"The AUMF has also been cited by a wide variety of US officials as justification for continuing US military actions all over the world. Often the phrases "Al-Qaeda and associated forces" or "affiliated forces" have been used by these officials. However, that phrase does not appear in the AUMF."

4/7/2017 11:45:14 AM

Quote :

" The only problem with that entire sequence of events is the comment itself, but the threat of this exact sort of strike is what lead to the deal brokered with Russia for Assad to handover his stockpile of chemical weapons. Regardless of whether we followed through or not, clearly the threat of force still influenced what was eventually a good outcome. That's exactly how coercive diplomacy is supposed to work. "

How well did handing over that stockpile work out for those children? Obviously the handover was successful. Who presided over this?

4/7/2017 11:50:10 AM

The UN and OPCW? Even if we didn't get 100% of his weapons, 99% without firing a single shot is a hell of a lot better than the alternative (again, see: Iraq). That's 1300 tons of weapons that were verifiably removed. Clearly Assad was reluctant to use whatever he had left until Trump took office. I wonder why? The funny thing about all criticism I've seen of Obama's handling of Syria is that no one ever offers a workable alternative. His biggest blunder, the "red line" comment, indirectly lead to our biggest success there. It still blows my mind that a peaceful handover of chemical weapons was somehow considered a failure.

[Edited on April 7, 2017 at 12:25 PM. Reason : .]

4/7/2017 12:22:30 PM

4/7/2017 12:35:15 PM

Point taken. Fair enough.

4/7/2017 12:41:21 PM

1) Actual humanitarian concerns
2) To distract from the Trump/Russia ties by attacking a Russian ally
3) To convince the Chinese that we're willing to flex our muscles while discussing North Korea (Trump and Xi sat down for dinner together right after the attack was ordered)

It could very well be all 3. Or just the last 2.

Quote :

"Raise your hand if you're a liberal who is suddenly anti-war and pro-Russia again."

I've always been anti-war AND anti-Putin.

4/7/2017 1:05:31 PM

lol at the pearl harbor ownage

4/7/2017 1:31:14 PM

Some folks suggesting that there really wasn't that much damage at the airbase???

https://theintercept.com/2017/04/07/trump-surrenders-element-surprise-warning-russia-planned-strike-ally-syria/

Allegedly this company has a satellite assessment of the damage, but I haven't been able to access their website yet:
http://www.imagesatintl.com/us-strike-syria/

These are all still very early reports, but you don't fire 59 tomahawks into a smallish airbase without producing more damage than 6 migz. That runway should have a crater in it every 300 ft.

4/7/2017 2:49:30 PM

https://twitter.com/reuters/status/850425431899680768

Being reported that the air strike failed, Assad launches a bombing campaign from the airbase today.

4/7/2017 3:15:24 PM

RT (yea I know, but atleast this time they aren't gobbling Trump's cock like the rest of the media is) is reporting that less than half of the missles actually landed at the base????

If this was a $70 million PR stunt/distraction there are gonna be ALOT of pissed people.

4/7/2017 3:23:57 PM