Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
White House Talking Tough on Syria
This week’s chemical attack on civilians has changed President Trump’s attitude toward the intractable civil war in Syria. At a Rose Garden press conference with King Abdullah of Jordan, Trump condemned the attack and the brutality of Bashar al-Assad’s regime.
“It’s very, very possible, and I will tell you it has already happened, that my attitude toward Syria and Assad, has changed very much,” Mr. Trump said. “I think the Obama administration had a great opportunity to solve this crisis. When he didn’t cross that line, after making the threat, I think that set us back a long ways. It was a blank threat.”
When a reporter asked if Assad’s apparent use of WMDs crossed a “red line,” Trump said it did. “When you kill innocent children, innocent babies, little babies, with a chemical gas that is so lethal — people were shocked to hear what gas it was — that crosses many, many lines, beyond a red line, many, many lines,” he said.
The President didn’t announce any specific action against Assad, but the administration’s tough talk is spreading.
Wednesday at the UN, Amb. Nikki Haley blamed Russia for blocking a strong response to the chemical weapons attack. “Time and time again Russia uses the same false narrative to deflect attention from their allies in Damascus,” she said at an emergency session. “How many more children have to die before Russia cares?”
“When the United Nations consistently fails in its duty to act collectively, there are times in the life of states that we are compelled to take our own action,” Haley warned in her closing remarks. “For the sake of the victims, I hope the rest of the council is finally willing to do the same.”
Trump strongly opposed military intervention in Syria while he was a private citizen. Now that he sits behind the Resolute desk, is he changing his mind?
Published in Foreign Policy, Military
Not to defend Obama, but I googled your assertion and the most reputable source, by far is RT (Russia Today), a clear Kremlin propaganda arm.
I was talking to my dad early this morning and he mentioned, “Well, Assad has already used chemical weapons…” and I said I thought they disproved that. So I went looking, and yeah, I found the above quote on Infowars, a site I don’t follow. The trouble is, I can’t find anything else on that Ghouta attack that directly linked it to anyone. Assad willingly gave up his chemical weapons and we destroyed them, so really I just don’t know, and maybe I shouldn’t have posted that if it originated in Russia.
Of course, this just keeps proving everyone’s point that we should stay as far away from that mess as we can. I still stand by my original point that Assad had zero reason to use chemical weapons with the whole world watching, and the opposition had many reasons to use them, especially if they are losing, as Tillerson said.
I guess we need to start deciding how much, exactly, in terms of blood and treasure this is worth to us.
I recommend legalizing a private crusader army funded via patreon or gofundme.
Lets find out.
The return of Roosevelt’s Rough Riders eh?
Something like that. I am thinking something sanctioned but not funded by the government. More of a “if you want to organize a mercenary army, and go fight syrians, go nuts” sorta thing.
Will they sack Constantinople en route?
There is nothing to be gained from sending our soldiers into this turd storm.
How would intervention here not end up spiraling into World War III?
It’s one thing to argue that Obama should have intervened when he gave the red line speech. Ignoring the problems of nation building that have become more obvious since 2001, America could have kicked over the Assad regime and nobody would have been particularly sad to see him go.
But now? When Russia is there intervening on behalf of Assad? How would an intervention work now without risking an actual shooting war with Russia?
That would be a bonus at this point.
Where would air cover come from?
This may not shock you, but I’m aware of all that. And the destruction isn’t just about lives, chief. It was about infrastructure, the ability to make war, that was targeted. Not civilians. Dresden wasn’t bombed because of its population. Neither was Nagasaki or Hiroshima.
Wars ended on scales small or big does not mean the next war is fought, won or lost, the same way. Assuming that a Serbian conflict will replicate itself in Indonesia would probably be a flawed assumption.
I completely agree that there is a diversity in how wars are fought and decided. I was disputing Jon’s claim that only one way was possible here. I agree that there was considerable infrastructure loss to American strategic bombing and that not all destruction is about lives.
Since Jon’s statement seems nonsensical as applied to the Romans and Syria, and nonsensical as applied to the initial conquest of Judea, I suspect that Jon is referring to the Jewish diaspora as the model, though, which was about lives. Jon’s other example, Ghengis, also focused on the destruction of human capital.