Analysts On Syrian Missile Strike

Last night the US launched 59 missiles at the air base that supposedly launched the gas attack on Syrian civilians….

There will be all sorts of speculation and if you prefer that on the MSM then please by all means get the analyses from them….but below is war analysts on war and conflict have to say……

“There can be no future for Assad and his regime in Syria. It is good that the Trump Administration has recognized that the regime must go in order for negotiated settlement to occur. Demonstrating American will to use military force is a necessary first step. President Trump still needs a larger strategy to achieve the outcomes that US national security and humanity require.
– Jennifer Cafarella

“Immediate strikes do not preclude a more robust strategy. In fact, they open the door to it.”
– Jennifer Cafarella

“We will change everyone’s calculus, and that starts a clock. Our adversaries and enemies will recalculate. The U.S. must move out smartly to achieve its strategic objectives in Syria, which include but go beyond preventing Assad from murdering his own people.
– Jennifer Cafarella

“Assad has reminded the U.S. and the world that his military campaign – and that of his external backers – is a crime against humanity.  President Trump is upholding America’s commitment to international law, as he should.”

– Jennifer Cafarella

“Assad could not survive, let alone conduct systematic atrocities such as his repeated use of chemical weapons and other crimes against humanity, without the active support of Russia and Iran.  Assad will not stop until they withdraw their unconditional support for his brutality.
-Genevieve Casagrande

Deterrence is a persistent condition, not a one hour strike package. President Trump has demonstrated his intent and capability to use American force if necessary. He must sustain pressure against Assad in order to set conditions to achieve vital US national security interests in Syria.”
“The Trump Administration has begun to re-establish the credibility of an American military response, essential to creating conditions for a durable negotiated settlement.”-Christopher Kozak
(from the ISW blog)
This will have little effect on the war raging in Syria…..Assad may think a little harder before reusing chemical weapons but the rest of the war will continue as is….it was a play to show Iran and North Korea what is available…….this may accomplish something that will aid Trump…his approval rating may go up a bit….beyond that it will be business as usual.
Advertisements

23 thoughts on “Analysts On Syrian Missile Strike

  1. I still don’t see the point in using military force to support one’s position. Assad is an asshole for using chemical weapons on his own people. Russia is supporting Assad. When you step back and look at the larger picture, the U.S. physically launched missiles into Syria but mentally attacked Russia and Iran in the process. With the level of technology we have in this country that we can bring to bare on our enemies, 59 missiles seems more like using a hammer to kill a gnat rather than a strike of precision.

    1. That is exactly what it was for….Tillerson meeting Putin next week and Trump meeting Xi this week…..plus a message for Iran……from the reports that I have seen not all missiles made it to the site….could be they are not as accurate as they say…..chuq

      1. They’re probably running a version of embedded Windows XP and blue screened on the way to their target, LOL

      2. LOL good one….and they are probably the result of inferior parts…to save money and make more profit….the American way. chuq

      3. But the reports you have seen are unimpeachable right? I cannot say because I have not seen any reports myself. Somehow I haven’t been able to get the government’s confidence to the degree necessary for me to become privy to these things. Maybe it is because I am just a peon. But perhaps if I file a few suits to make them disclose something under “Freedom Of Information” I might fare somewhat better.

      4. No report is unimpeachable…they all have an agenda….I take them with a grain of salt and continue to check for more morsels…

  2. To paraphrase ….. “The Trump Administration has begun to re-establish the credibility of an American military response, essential to creating conditions for a beginning to a new world war that can only have devastating consequences for all concerned.”

      1. It was supposed to have been … ” … essential to creating conditions for a durable negotiated settlement.”-Christopher Kozak
        (from the ISW blog) …. but I don’t think it is going to work out as Mr. Kozak thought it would.

      2. John I apologize this comment went to Spam for some reason…..I will be writing about this subject a little later next week…..you might be interested in what I write….have a good Sunday…..chuq

  3. I cannot help but think about the costs involved in that attack. $94 million, and that’s just for the 59 missiles. Add the cost of running the ships and personnel, and you are probably looking at a total of $100 million. Then the missiles used have to be replaced. Let’s say almost $200 million overall then. Imagine how well that money could have been used in other ways?
    And they didn’t even manage to destroy all the planes on the ground, according to satellite photos.
    But it was money well-spent for Trump. The BBC news called him ‘Decisive’…
    Best wishes, Pete.

    1. What would the BBC call any OTHER president besides President Trump if it had been them instead of him? What would they have called Obama? Bush? Clinton? Weapons are not cheap. Weapons have never been cheap. Weapons will never be cheap. Maybe the money should have been used to build half-way houses for poor discriminated-against Transexuals or something.

      1. They also called Bush ‘Decisive’, when he went into Iraq. They seem to like that word, and apply it to lots of people.
        As for the money, I think you have the makings of a great idea. I estimate it costs around $20,000 to build a separate, one-cubicle toilet. So, he could have built 10,000 toilets for the sole use of ‘verified’ transsexuals. That would go a long way to solving that notorious bathroom issue, involve no deaths, no explosions, and also create lots of jobs in plumbing and construction. All good then. (Something we have discussed before I think, John)
        Best wishes, Pete.

      2. But always worth revisiting interesting concepts, isn’t it? I think if Trump had chosen the bathroom construction project he would probably get blamed for being racist. (Provided that some apologist can see Trans-Sexual as a race rather than a mental abberation.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s