US warships launch Tomahawk cruise missiles

[accadacca]

The U.S. has launched more than 50 cruise missiles at a Syrian air base in response to a chemical attack earlier this week.

[BruteForce]

While I'm typically pro-military intervention, I don't agree with this show-of-force missile strike. Syria can't do anything about it, but I'm curious to see how Russia and Iran respond. This has the potential to get ugly in a real hurry.

Interestingly enough, most of my active duty military friends seem supportive of this strike!

[mrfritz44]

Trump was being tested in various fronts and a chemical attack provided a convenient way to show the world there are limits. I support this airstrike despite initial concerns, especially with the news that Russia was given a brief warning to ensure there weren't Russian casualties.

[Scott P]

Does this mean the honeymoon between Putin and Trump is over?

President Vladimir Putin signaled he was ready to risk a clash with the U.S. and abandon hopes for mending ties with the U.S. under President Donald Trump, rather than accept the humiliation of standing by while his ally is bombed.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-up...131416324.html

[accadacca]

[Iceaxe]

Funny how this little dustup instantly squashed all the Trump and Putin are really gay lovers conspiring to rule the world talk from the fake media.

[rockgremlin]

Funny how this little dustup instantly squashed all the Trump and Putin are really gay lovers conspiring to rule the world talk from the fake media.

Yeah I saw the Washington Post lavishing praise on Trump for his recent actions.

Weird. It was like seeing a unicorn.

[hank moon]

Dear Reader (particularly the caretaker of Camp David, who must feel like the Maytag repairman watching the goings-on at Mar-a-Lago),

Well, this’ll be interesting.

After Thursday night’s attack on Syria, the conventional wisdom congealed faster than the chalupa sauce in Michael Moore’s chest hair.

Sorry, this isn’t really a topic for strident juvenilia, but I know that’s one of the things that puts digital asses in the virtual seats.

Let me start over.

I think Thursday night’s attacks are both less and more important than the rapidly forming conventional wisdom holds. This is a convoluted way of saying I see it a bit differently from some folks. And since I’m on a tight schedule, let me do it bullet-point style:

I think the foreign-policy consequences of the strike are likely to be less consequential than the domestic ones. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has already said, quite emphatically, that the strikes don’t suggest any change in our overall strategy:

“I would not in any way attempt to extrapolate that to a change in our policy or posture relative to our military activities in Syria today. There has been no change in that status,” [Tillerson] added. “I think it does demonstrate that President Trump is willing to act when governments and actors cross the line and cross the line on violating commitments they’ve made and cross the line in the most heinous of ways.”

As we put it in our National Review editorial Friday morning:

If it is a one-off, this strike is the very definition of a symbolic pinprick. It was launched with highly precise weapons against the airfield from which the Syrian chemical attack emanated. According to reports, we apprised Russian personnel at the base beforehand, meaning the Syrians effectively had advance warning as well.

In other words, if this is all that we have in store for Bashar al-Assad, President Trump’s dismayed anti-interventionists don’t have that much to worry about and interventionists have less to celebrate than think (more about them in a moment). Assad can go on killing women and children — he will simply have to use less efficient and more conventional weapons to do it. What a massive moral victory for the West!

Look, I get why — morally, strategically, and legally — chemical weapons are different than conventional ones. But if my entire family and village were wiped out with bullets and bombs rather than chemical weapons, I wouldn’t draw much solace from any of these distinctions.

Those who wanted us meddling in the Middle East voted for other candidates. — Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) April 7, 2017

Laura Ingraham is right too:

Missiles flying. Rubio’s happy. McCain ecstatic. Hillary’s on board. A complete policy change in 48 hrs.


— Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) April 7, 2017

Now I favor the strikes (though I have questions about their legality and I think Daniel Pipes makes some excellent points against the strike, here). But there is literally nothing to justify it in the past speeches, campaign promises, and tweets (!) of Donald Trump, going back four years.

If the U.S. attacks Syria and hits the wrong targets, killing civilians, there will be worldwide hell to pay. Stay away and fix broken U.S. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 3, 2013

Donald Trump didn’t oppose the Iraq War from the beginning, but he likes to claim he did. Regardless, let’s recall that Saddam Hussein killed orders of magnitude more people — including babies — with chemical weapons, and yet Trump never considered this even a partial justification for getting rid of Saddam or the war. But forget Iraq, which, admittedly, was a different thing on a number of fronts. Assad’s attack on Ghouta in 2013 killed more people than this week’s gas attack, and we had pictures of dead children then, too.


Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/g-file...-line-enforced

[twotimer]

Dear Reader Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/g-file...-line-enforced

Excellent post, Hank. It's brilliant as it's so Captain Obvious. Not that I'm baggin' on it...I would imagine it's how most people feel. "Glad" it happened, but...

I see this as protecting our future. If these weapons are ignored, their proliferation would likely occur, and we certainly already have enough to worry about...

Like gangs of martyr's coming across the border with machine guns and grenades. Throw a few canisters of Sarin in there and it's extra mayhem.

Protecting the future, that's why I like it all the way.

[Iceaxe]

.

[hank moon]

"...from a legal standpoint, there can be no doubt that Trump’s Tomahawk strike on the Syrian regime was a violation of the U.S. Constitution. And to let it pass, especially given this president’s authoritarian tendencies, is to invite grave danger. This act of war might be one that some are inclined to cheer. But if the principle is conceded, or the precedent set, that Trump (or any president, for that matter) can take our country to war with another — on his own, without congressional authorization, in violation of the Constitution — then there will be nothing to stop him from initiating any further wars he wants, against any foes he wants, at any time he chooses, based on his own good judgment (or lack thereof). And that should frighten Americans of all political persuasions."

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...eclaration-war

[rockgremlin]

^^^I highly doubt Trump was acting solely on a personal whim. I'm sure there were plenty of advisors whispering in his ear. To say that Trump's actions were conceived and executed all by himself is giving him much more credit than he deserves.

Trump did what most countries either didn't have the means or the balls to do. Looking at the long list of countries that condoned Trump's actions, I'd say it wasn't a completely terrible move.

[hank moon]

^^^I highly doubt Trump was acting solely on a personal whim. I'm sure there were plenty of advisors whispering in his ear. To say that Trump's actions were conceived and executed all by himself is giving him much more credit than he deserves.

Trump did what most countries either didn't have the means or the balls to do. Looking at the long list of countries that condoned Trump's actions, I'd say it wasn't a completely terrible move.

The article is not about the value of the move, but the legality and precedent-setting (or continuation thereof). In any case, Trump is responsible, regardless of who's been playing Wormtongue.

[twotimer]

We don't want to go to war with anybody, neither does China or Russia. Trump was going to meet with these guys but his hand was forced. Now the diplomats are doing their thing. He did the right thing, going in with his dukes up, because Obama got jerked around.

Trump is making sure everyone knows he's at the head of the table. It's a tough world.

[Iceaxe]

I'm just happy we finally have a commander in chief that leads from the front.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2...a-strikes.html

[Iceaxe]

And in other news.... If you like your cave, you can keep your cave...

[Iceaxe]

:-)