Breaking: US Navy Fires More Than 50 Tomahawk Missiles into Syria

 

Full story from the Washington Post:

The U.S. military launched approximately 50 cruise missiles at a Syrian military airfield late on Thursday, in the first direct American assault on the government of President Bashar al-Assad since that country’s civil war began six years ago.

The operation, which the Trump administration authorized in retaliation for a chemical attack killing scores of civilians this week, dramatically expands U.S. military involvement in Syria and exposes the United States to heightened risk of direct confrontation with Russia and Iran, both backing Assad in his attempt to crush his opposition.

The attack may put hundreds of American troops now stationed in Syria in greater danger. They are advising local forces in advance of a major assault on the Syrian city of Raqqa, the Islamic State’s de facto capital.

The decision to strike follows 48 hours of intense deliberations by U.S. officials, and represents a significant break with the previous administration’s reluctance to wade militarily into the Syrian civil war and shift any focus from the campaign against the Islamic State.

Senior White House officials met on the issue of Syria Wednesday evening in a session that lasted into early Thursday, and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Army Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, the national security adviser, have communicated repeatedly since Tuesday’s chemical attack, the officials said.

President Donald Trump is scheduled to make a statement tonight.

Update:

Published in Foreign Policy, Military, Politics
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 352 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):
    Also – have a read of this:

    http://nationalinterest.org/article/america-as-empire-now-and-in-the-future-2390

    Again, this only works be redefining what the word “Empire” means in order to attack America.

    Did you read the article?  It wasn’t attacking America for being an empire, it was criticising America for not being imperial enough.

    • #331
  2. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):
    Also – have a read of this:

    http://nationalinterest.org/article/america-as-empire-now-and-in-the-future-2390

    Again, this only works be redefining what the word “Empire” means in order to attack America.

    If “monarchy” means what I hereby redefine it to mean, then America is a monarchy.

    If “shoehorn” means what I hereby redefine it to mean, then America is a shoehorn.

    • #332
  3. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    I might add, by the way, I wish we were more imperial in our foreign dealings. If we are going to invade someplace, we should stay for the generations needed to remake it in a Western Liberal image. We did it to Japan, we can do it anywhere.

    The American people are not imperial in their bent.

    They are not, but their country is imperial in its policies and international impact.

    There is a disconnect  – imo partly because you shrink from implications of your own power and its impact on others.

    The only thing that can keep American imperium in check is the American people and you refuse to even accept that the imperium exists.

    Guess what – if you don’t control it somebody else will.

    • #333
  4. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):
    Also – have a read of this:

    http://nationalinterest.org/article/america-as-empire-now-and-in-the-future-2390

    Again, this only works be redefining what the word “Empire” means in order to attack America.

    Did you read the article? It wasn’t attacking America for being an empire, it was criticising America for not being imperial enough.

    I did read it. I don’t have to agree with it. And he opens with calling us an “empire”. Did you even read the bit I posted from the Dictionary?

    • #334
  5. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    I might add, by the way, I wish we were more imperial in our foreign dealings. If we are going to invade someplace, we should stay for the generations needed to remake it in a Western Liberal image. We did it to Japan, we can do it anywhere.

    The American people are not imperial in their bent.

    They are not, but their country is imperial in its policies and international impact.

    There is a disconnect – imo partly because you shrink from implications of your own power and its impact on others.

    The only thing that can keep American imperium in check is the American people and you refuse to even accept that the imperium exists.

    Guess what – if you don’t control it somebody else will.

    The US government cannot even manage domestic control. No one can control and empire that does not exist. Your article points to our culture, something the government has no control over whatsoever.

    • #335
  6. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Was there a Soviet empire?

    • #336
  7. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Zafar (View Comment):
    Was there a Soviet empire?

    Most certainly. It controlled not only Russia, but foreign states within the USSR, and used military force (as has been mentioned already) to control other nations. It was the model of an empire, exerting sovereignty.

    None of that applies to America.

    • #337
  8. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):
    Was there a Soviet empire?

    Most certainly.

    How many of your dictionary definitions did it meet – without stretching and caveats?

    • #338
  9. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):
    Was there a Soviet empire?

    Most certainly.

    How many of your dictionary definitions did it meet – without stretching and caveats?

    The first one:

    1. a group of nations or peoples ruled over by an emperor, empress, or other powerful sovereign or government: usually a territory of greater extent than a kingdom, as the former British Empire, French Empire, Russian Empire, Byzantine Empire, or Roman Empire.

    Don’t need to stretch anything.

    • #339
  10. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Soviet is not Russian.

    Who was the Emperor?

    Was the office hereditary?

    Mind – I agree there was Soviet Empire, I just don’t think it meets the narrow literal minded dictionary definition.

    • #340
  11. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Zafar (View Comment):
    Was there a Soviet empire?

    Ask someone who was in Czechoslovakia in 1968.

    • #341
  12. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Of all the examples of circular logic, I like the ones with the tightest loops best. They take less time for the writer to write and less time for the reader to dismiss. If there must be nonsense, let it be efficient nonsense.

    • #342
  13. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Zafar (View Comment):
    The first one:

    1. a group of nations or peoples ruled over by an emperor, empress, or other powerful sovereign or government: usually a territory of greater extent than a kingdom, as the former British Empire, French Empire, Russian Empire, Byzantine Empire, or Roman Empire.

    Don’t need to stretch anything

    The first one:

    1. a group of nations or peoples ruled over by an emperor, empress, or other powerful sovereign or government: usually a territory of greater extent than a kingdom, as the former British Empire, French Empire, Russian Empire, Byzantine Empire, or Roman Empire.

    See bold. Politburo counts. Stalin Counts. Don’t need to stretch anything.

    • #343
  14. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    And why doesn’t the US Government count?

    • #344
  15. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Zafar (View Comment):
    And why doesn’t the US Government count?

    Because it is not  a group of nations or peoples ruled over by an emperor, empress, or other powerful sovereign or government: usually a territory of greater extent than a kingdom, as the former British Empire, French Empire, Russian Empire, Byzantine Empire, or Roman Empire.

    The United States does not have sovereign control over other nations.

     

    • #345
  16. Brian Wolf Inactive
    Brian Wolf
    @BrianWolf

    Zafar (View Comment):
    Soviet is not Russian.

    Who was the Emperor?

    Was the office hereditary?

    Mind – I agree there was Soviet Empire, I just don’t think it meets the narrow literal minded dictionary definition.

    It meets the definition in powerful sovereign or government.  There is not need for a literal Emperor a General Secretary will do.

    • #346
  17. Fred Cole Inactive
    Fred Cole
    @FredCole

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    The US government cannot even manage domestic control.

    How do you define “domestic control”?

    • #347
  18. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    The US government cannot even manage domestic control.

    How do you define “domestic control”?

    Local governments have a lot of control and are responsive to local control. Less than I would like, but, still very Republican.

    • #348
  19. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):
    And why doesn’t the US Government count?

    Because it is not a group of nations or peoples ruled over by an emperor, empress, or other powerful sovereign or government: usually a territory of greater extent than a kingdom, as the former British Empire, French Empire, Russian Empire, Byzantine Empire, or Roman Empire.

    The United States does not have sovereign control over other nations.

    It is a powerful sovereign or government.  Just saying.

    • #349
  20. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):
    And why doesn’t the US Government count?

    Because it is not a group of nations or peoples ruled over by an emperor, empress, or other powerful sovereign or government: usually a territory of greater extent than a kingdom, as the former British Empire, French Empire, Russian Empire, Byzantine Empire, or Roman Empire.

    The United States does not have sovereign control over other nations.

    It is a powerful sovereign or government. Just saying.

    The American federal government does not rule over a group of nations or peoples.

     

    • #350
  21. Ian Mullican Inactive
    Ian Mullican
    @IanMullican

    ::Eats popcorn::

    • #351
  22. Umbra Fractus Inactive
    Umbra Fractus
    @UmbraFractus

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    I used Turkey as a counter example to Zafar talking about tanks rolling in streets and CIA plots. Y’all keep moving the goalposts on what should be considered “imperialism”.

    That’s what this is all about. Zafar, like many on the left, started with the conclusion, that America is an imperial power, and is trying to redefine empire so that the statement becomes true. The way most non-ideologues work is looking at the established definition of empire and noting that America looks nothing like it.

    • #352
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.