Originally Posted by
andy6025
From a somewhat cynical point of view, this might turn out to be another shockingly smart move by Trump in regards to the US's Syrian policy. I'm no fan of the man, but he's playing his hand remarkably well - assiming there's no significant retaliation by Russia.
For starters, we don't know if a chemical attack occurred, and if it did - who is responsible. The US admits to having assembled most of its evidence through media reports, although they also claim to have blood samples from victims that allegedly confirm that someone chlorinated them. Macron claims to have 'proof' that Syria used gas, but hasn't made this evidence public. Russia has countered with unproven claims that no evidence of a gassing was found at the scene as well as a video purporting to be from the scene where a young man claiming to be a medical intern says the scene was staged and that victims were suffering from smoke inhilation rather than chemical exposure. While the more clear versions of the video I've seen do appear to put this man at the scene, whether he is who he claims to be and/or whether or not he's telling the truth is anybody's guess. But the same goes for anyone being 'interviewed' in any of these quasi 'investigations'. To any truly onlooker, the lack of a proper investigation clearly indicates that the truth is all but clear.
Stepping back to the wider international context, there's the case of the Skripal poisoning which sets the UKs relationship with Russia at a long time low. The UK government's narrative paints Rusdia as a wreckless menace with no regard for international law, and the UK will stand 'strong and stable' against this evil. This could help Theressa May lift her numbers in the polls, and, with the help of British media, paint her opposition populist leader Corbyn as a traitorous Russian sympathizer. The details of the case, however, appear to raise more questions than asked. The foreign secretary, who at best bungled, and at worst outright lied, in a German interview, adds volumes to doubters scepticism to the government narrative. Blaming Russia's ally Syria for a chemical attack, avoiding Cameron's mistake of seeking parliamentary approval (as well as side-stepping public opinion), and launching strikes on Syria may hope to give Theressa May the image of being 'strong and stable' that she's longed for.
And then on to President Trump, who is feeling Mueller's investigative breath on his neck get warmer and warmer with each week that passes. The claim that his campaign directly colluded with Russian authorities to sway the election in his favour has become so commonplace that it's become more and more difficult to imagine it not being true, despite a lack of publicly available evidence to yet remive Trump from office. But even if the allegations of collusion turn out to be the work of pure fantasy, the President's often publicly declared desire to engage Russia as more of a partner than an adversary earns him the shun of many Westerners (both in office and out) that appear to be fighting Cold War 2.0. Does attacking Russia's ally shake Trump of these allegations, if not for Mueller, then at least in the eyes of the public? Probably a little, but not a lot. Does it at least boost his overall 'approval rating' ahead of the coming mid-term elections? Probably!
So what do we make of this attack? First, and despite his ridiculous Tweets, Trump looks to some as coming off as strong and decisive. He's sent a 'crystal clear message' to both Syria and Russia. In reality, the number of missiles launched and selected targets make it yet another 'slap on the pee pee' to Syrian President Bashar Al Assad. All 3 antagonists have confirmed that they don't desire regime change in Syria, and that there will be no ground troops to follow up. Russia claims to have intercepted 72 missiles with their state of the art missile defense. Other than making noise in the UN security council, we have yet to see if Russia will answer this attack as promised. Russia keeps their man in Damascus, ISIL is none the stronger, and the Syrian government remains as the leading horse in the Syrian civil war. It's almost a case of 'nothing to see here, we are resuming regular programming.'
But what if the US, the UK and France waited for an OPCW report... 6 or so months down the road? Well, if such an OPCW report doesn't confirm US/UK/French narrative blaming Assad then their intelligence communities and governments would have some minor egg on their faces - enough to feed the Russian narrative in future scenarios. Not attacking would obviously be 'just' in such a case, but no-one reading this far should be harbouring fantasies that 'justice' is relevant to any of the state actors. But what if they waited and an OPCW ends up confirming the US/UK/French narrative that the Syrian Government used chemical weapons? In that case, would launching a few missiles at a factory or two be considered 'justice'? Or would this actually appear weak and flimsy - with heavy comprehensive bombing, ground troops, regime change and the bringing of democracy and Western values to Syria being the more 'appropriate' response? Turkey would love that. France and the UK wanted something akin to that. The Syrisn rebels want that, and certainly a number of war hawks in Washington would too! Putin certainly Trump doesn't want that and neither does Trump (whether it be because Putin pulls his strings or because Trump is actually a little smarter than he comes across is anyone's guess).
So there you have it. Theressa May might have scored a few points vis a vis Corbyn, Russia keeps their interests intact (but are slightly embarrassed, pending possible retaliation), and Trump wins on miltiple fronts, including being able to avoid sn actual invasion of Syria.
From someone that generally despises you, Mr. Hairpiece, I say, "well played."
Reply With Quote
Hall Of Fame
Posting Permissions
