Further on the Syria strike - some are complaining the attack wasn’t violent enough - that was my first thought too, should have seen more damage to Assad’s military assets - then I thought the scale of the attack could have been limited by one, the presence of Russian troops complicating things, and two, a calculation that more attacks will probably be necessary so give yourself room to move. Why will more action be necessary? Because of likelihood that Putin and Iran will feel the need to look resolute. Indeed, military leaders from Russia and Iran declared their own red line, promising a response should the US strike Syria again. A pretty bellicose statement seeing as how the US appears to have solid proof that the Assad regime dropped a chemical weapon on civilians with possible Russian collusion since the weapon was dispatched from an airbase where Russian troops are stationed - seems hard to believe they wouldn’t be aware of chemical weapons being stored at the base and of one being loaded on a plane - I’m guessing it’s a fairly elaborate procedure fixing WMDs to a plane. Given that, I’d interpret this bellicose language as bluster Russia and Iran feel they have no choice but engage in - or the preamble to more provocative actions, possibly even another chemical attack. Both Putin and the Iranian theocracy have clearly demonstrated a willingness to engage in ruthless acts - and both regimes trade in the perception of being strong in the face of American aggression - so certainly possible they will choose to raise the ante and dare Trump to draw down again.
If that happens question then becomes how many moves ahead has Trump’s NATSEC staff mapped out? These guys have too much strategic knowhow and experience not to have a game plan ready should Putin and Iran choose to go down the dark road of escalation - and that experience will tell them that when it comes to these things nothing is guaranteed. The question then becomes - what will Trump do with that advice? As it stands now, Putin has saved Assad’s ass - Syria is very likely to be broken up, but Assad should manage to keep control of the most important bits - but America can take that all away should Putin and Iran goad it into rethinking regime change. That’s a lot to lose betting on Trump backing down.
Of course we can have no idea about the kind of intel the US has on Syria - I mean, they knew to track that plane carrying the chemical weapon, something that even might have taken the Russians by surprise - so this situation may look a whole lot clearer or more predictable from the inside then it does from the outside. And there’s another angle to consider - Putin has a couple of goals in Syria, but the biggest one may be establishing a naval base in the Mediterranean - but I read a story a few days ago in the Jerusalem Post that claimed Israel had given Russia intel about how Iran has the exact same aspiration and that this news may complicate just how committed Putin wants to be about Syria. Who knows - but historically, Russia and Iran are enemies not allies, so maybe this alliance they’ve formed is not particularly stable. I mean, essentially it’s all based on the perception of American weakness and under Obama America was indeed perceptibly weakened - but if Trump forcefully indicates those days are over? Possibly such a change challenges the alliance - if America is back as a power player in the Mideast and Iran plans to stymie his plans for a naval base in the Mediterranean, maybe Putin's calculations regarding Syria do indeed turn sour. Still, the guy is all about projecting strength at America’s expense so hard to see him just walking away from Assad - does that mean that maybe there’s a door opening here to some sort of peace agreement? If there is, can’t see Iran and Russia agreeing to anything less than Assad staying in power - they’ve staked too much of their reputations on that happening.
And then there’s ISIS to worry about - Syria really is just a mess of bad options, which is exactly what smart people predicted would happen when Obama embraced an appeasement that enabled and boosted Iran and Russia's aspirations for the wretched place. Is it even possible to choose a least bad option from this mess? Maybe not. You have to defeat ISIS - you have to reward the Kurds without pissing off the Turks - you have to split up the country in order to create a safe place for the Sunni majority - you have to come to some kind of agreement with Russia and Iran about Assad - and then even if you manage to pull all that off you need to deal with the radicalized Islamist elements roaming all about the fucking country who could send the whole thing into the dumper again. It’s hard to believe that the least bad option is going to end up being to liberate Raqqa and then leave Assad, Putin and Iran to do what they will - but what if indeed that is where we’re at? Again, back when the Syrian war was in its early stages I read several essays that predicted that if America didn’t get involved soon it would be impossible to pick up the pieces later - at least, not without a significant military commitment. Kinda looking like a good prediction.
But does all that mean it was wrong for Trump to strike Syria? No - the chemical attack was a direct challenge to American authority and credibility in the region - Trump did the right thing - Obama clearly wouldn't have acted because he was all about delegitimizing America power and we see how that worked out - so Trump did the right thing. What we do next is a much more difficult question to answer.