Missile strikes USA in Syria: first reaction

Since his inauguration, Donald trump has managed to strengthen the intensity of the bomb the U.S. campaign against ISIS (a terrorist organization banned in Russia — approx. ed.) in Syria and Iraq, to conduct a special forces RAID in Yemen and the missile attacks on Syrian military air base. During his campaign, “trump promised to withdraw the U.S. from foreign wars”, recalled on Twitter the democratic Congressman Ted Liu (Ted Lieu), a veteran of the U.S. air force and a strong critic of the President, immediately after the news about the missile strikes. “His actions in Syria, Iraq and Yemen show that it behaves like a warmonger”.

Some may disagree with interpretation of Lew. On Thursday evening, April 6, influential Republicans lined up to Express their support for missile strikes in Syria. “Unlike the previous administration, President trump did not ignore the key point of the Syrian conflict and have taken steps. For this he deserves the support of the American people,” said John McCain (John McCain) and Lindsey Graham (Lindsey Graham) in a joint statement.

But the actions of the White house was supported not only by Republicans. “The United States was absolutely right, hitting the Syrian air force,” tweeted Nicholas burns (Nicholas Burns), a veteran of the us diplomatic service who worked in the administrations of bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Speaking about the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, burns said: “Assad should know he cannot use chemical weapons without provoking a response from the United States.”

Some senior Democrats expressed support for a military strike, although they noted that Trump should first consult with Congress. “To show Assad that if he commits such atrocious crime, he will have to pay for them — that’s right, — said Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer (Chuck Schumer) in a statement. I welcome the professionalism and skill of our armed forces today who have taken the necessary measures.” (A few hours before the attack in an interview Hillary Clinton said that the US needed to destroy the military capacity of the Assad regime. “We had and still have to destroy his airfields to prevent him to use them to bomb innocent people,” said Clinton.)

Despite the many declarations of support for trump decisions made by the determined representatives of the Washington establishment, a sharp change in the position of the American President in Syria requires a more detailed explanation, not only of his confessions that pictures of children killed this week as a result of terrible gas attack, which, according to Western governments, is the Assad regime, touched him to the core. On Thursday evening, speaking to reporters in Mar-a-Lago, where he receives Chinese President XI Jinping (Xi Jinping), trump stated: “Applying lethal nerve gas Assad has taken the lives of helpless men, women and children. This death for many was slow and painful. As a result of this barbaric attack were cruelly killed even beautiful babies. No child of God does not deserve such a horror.”

Commenting on the missile strikes USA, trump continued: “It is made on the basis of the vital national security interests of the United States, namely, to contain and prevent the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons”. He added: “Today I call on all civilized Nations to join us in the quest to end the bloodshed in Syria and to put an end to terrorism of all kinds”.

This statement trump has given answers to many questions. However, it has given rise to many new questions. The brutality of the Assad regime have been evident for many years. It was obvious in the summer of 2013, when President Obama considered military strikes in response to the fact that the use of the Syrian regime of chemical weapons against his own citizens. At that moment the tramp while still a private person, urged caution, writing on Twitter: “the President must obtain congressional authorization before attacking Syria. Will be a huge mistake if he doesn’t do it!” A week later, trump again warned the President tweeted: “President Obama not to attack Syria. This has no advantages, but there are huge disadvantages. Save the powder for another (more important) day!” Assad indifference to human life was once again evident last year, when his forces surrounded and bombed the Eastern part of Aleppo, killing and wounding many civilians who were trapped. But that operation government forces did not cause the trump wishes to call for the overthrow of the Assad regime — on the contrary.

Just last week, senior administration officials have made clear that they are willing to accept the stay of Assad in power. “As for Assad, we are talking about a political reality that we have to take. The US has significant priorities in Syria and Iraq, and we have made it clear that chief among them is the fight against terrorism, in particular the destruction of ISIS,” — said the press Secretary of the White house Sean Spicer (Sean Spicer), once again focusing on the ideas already voiced by Secretary Rex Tillerson (Rex Tillerson) and U.S. Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley (Nikki Haley).

Obviously, these “significant priorities” has changed, but why? Who of the foreign policy advisers of the tramp convinced him to take military action? Had there been other options? What is the current strategy of the administration trump against Syria, and whether it stands now regime change? What could be the consequences of the war against ISIS and the military offensive on Raqqa, which the terrorist group considers its strong point? Will the trump to avoid the immigration crisis, which he mentioned in his speech on Thursday, taking US more Syrian refugees? And did low ratings trump any role in its decision roost strike? In September 2012, trump tweeted: “Now that Obama’s rating is falling rapidly, you will see that it will strike Libya or Iran. He is in despair.”

Now all these and many other questions need to be answered.

John Cassidy (John Cassidy)

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad must be terrified. For many years of his military carried out the brutal attacks against the Syrian citizens — bombed hospitals, barreleye dropped bombs, used the shrapnel shells and high explosive substance, and, worst of all, poisoned civilians with chemical weapons and never suffered for it. Assistants Assad has consistently continued its horrific campaign in spite of the indignation of the world community, except for his allies in Iran, Russia and Lebanon. As always, Assad got away with it, despite the convincing physical evidence and eyewitness accounts. In 2013 in Eastern ghouta, a suburb of Damascus, Assad’s troops carried out the attack using poisonous gas, resulting in about 1.4 thousand people were killed and several thousand injured. At that moment, rather than to take military action against Assad, President Obama demanded that Syria got rid of all its stockpiles of chemical weapons under the agreement, which was very shaky from the start. Since then, the regime has many times used chlorine gas, showing the inconsistency of this agreement.

Now, for the first time, Assad has paid for the crime of his regime. A missile attack that the American air force struck on Thursday, April 6, obviously, was not aimed at the overthrow of the regime, and to punish him. Obviously, the main purpose of trump and his advisers was to restore the deterrent mechanisms to prevent the application of the most awesome weapons. Allowed this attack to achieve this goal, it will become clear only after some time.

Dexter Filkins (Dexter Filkins)

The administration’s decision to trump to release cruise missiles “Tomahawk” on the basis of the Syrian air force “Shirt” may somewhat mitigate the anger caused by the attack of the Syrian regime using chemical weapons in Khan Sheyhun, which killed about 80 civilians, including about 20 children. As for efficiency, this missile attack has left most of the military potential of the Syrian regime intact. The Pentagon has described the US operation as a “proportional response” to attack Syrian government forces, but the scale this was relatively minor blow. It will not substantially change the military balance. It will not help the rebels in their fight against the regime. The regime of Syria there are several other military air bases, dozens of military planes and many other tools to attack the territories held by the opposition.

The attack also failed to address another serious problem, namely to find the answer to the question about what you need to do to put an end to the bloodiest civil war in the modern history of the Middle East and the worst humanitarian crisis since the Second world war. All the major players in this conflict — the US and Arab regimes that oppose Bashar al-Assad, Russia and Iran that support the Syrian leader has repeatedly stated publicly that this conflict cannot be resolved by military means.

The administration’s decision to trump to launch a missile strike may force the Assad regime to refuse participation in peace talks. Syrian state TV immediately accused the U.S. of “aggression”.

Before the administration of tramp — before the Obama administration before it — still have the task of finding a viable alternative to the Assad regime, as well as mechanisms for the settlement of the Syrian conflict. Administration trump has demonstrated a willingness to consider the possibility of resumption of peace talks, which were initiated by Russia and Iran earlier this year. Thursday, April 6, the Pentagon announced that the Russian military advance made aware of the impending missile strike. “American military planners have taken all necessary measures in order to minimize the risk for the Russian and Syrian military were on the airfield.” But a missile attack, the United States can also complicate this process. It is planned that the Secretary of state, USA Rex Tillerson (Rex Tillerson) will arrive for talks in Moscow on Wednesday, April 12. Obviously, in these negotiations, Syria will be the main theme.

Robin Wright (Robin Wright)