Yeah. What we have here is Trump killing Syrians in order to convince Assad that he should kill Syrians using the same methods we use to kill Syrians.
6 Likes
Cruise missiles are insanely expensive ($1.5 mil each) and designed to deliver a nuclear payload. But nuclear arms treaties saw them removed from service and repurposed as conventional weapons. Using them with conventional warheads on an air base is silly when we have much cheaper and better ways of delivering that ordinance. Looks to me like Trump gave a hefty kickback to a defense contractor last night while charging up his jingoistic base
14 Likes
Drone strikes are a terrible weapon of war to use near a civilian population because they can kill a lot of innocent people if they don’t hit their intended target. But it’s at least theoretically possible to launch a drone strike or precision bombing that, say, just takes out a terrorist stronghold without killing any other civilians in the surrounding neighborhood.
Not such with gas. That’s one reason it’s a uniquely monstrous weapon to use in these situations.
7 Likes
General Mattis had to resign from the General Dynamics board to take the SecDef position (and had to finish divesting his stock, well, by today). Surely he’s got no motives in seeing their Tomahawks used besides pure disinterested strategic analysis.
15 Likes
Got it, we’re in agreement there anyway. Once you release gas, you can’t control it, even if you would want to.
I guess what might make my arguments here seem waffling is that the whole situation in Syria just drives me up the wall. No, we don’t like Assad, sure, who does. We don’t like islamic extremists either. Sure. But now, if we remove Assad and his clan from power and/or kill them, it’ll be open hunting season on alevites. Then sunnites at shiites will turn on each other again, Iran and Saudi Arabia will jump in and we’ll have the next big warzone.
I have seriously no clue how the situation will play out. And I’m afraid it will get even uglier.
6 Likes
Dear @nemomen:
12 Likes
Um:
So we beat up an empty airbase that can be repaired and put back into service relatively quickly. I’m sure Russia and Assad are running scared.
11 Likes
The scale changes with gas; it’s a quantum level, like nuclear arms. Between 1915 and 1918 at least 100,000 people were killed by poison gas, mostly by the allies, but it’s estimated that over a million were damaged without killing them - and these people weren’t wounded in a way that would heal, or a way that could be compensated for with crutches or artificial limbs. They were (at least economically) a burden on their families until they died, and they might live for a very long time, providing to those around them a salient example of why it would be sensible to draw a line at gas warfare - assuming that war is a means to an end, and not an end in itself.
We had a hint of this with biological weapons, which of course pre-date chemical weapons and explosives by centuries, at least. People saw the danger of using methods that struck indiscriminately and could outlast the war. But humans still use bio-warfare, still use gas, and still use cluster bombs… perhaps we are not a species that learns lasting lessons? We seem to need to re-teach ourselves various horrors every couple of generations.
11 Likes
So, basically, Syria knew about the strike before the US Congress? Great. That’s not dysfunctional at all. /s
12 Likes
Hey! My family curls! 
9 Likes
They warned them? This really adds to my theory above. The Chinless Wonder doesn’t have to spend 6+ months repairing a trashed runway, and he gets to move his planes into hardened bunkers or off-base during the strike – the airfield will be back in the civilian-gassing business within weeks.
And then there’s @nemomen’s post to add additional motive besides the president* wanting to look like a tough guy.
9 Likes
That motherfucken AUMF lingers on, casually chucking high-explosives around the world to teach those dirty others a lesson.
Sorry I missed it as I completely agree. And over and above all, we’re sticking our missiles into yet another foreign place as basic pugilism instead of coercion.
Hot take: trump should take it further and do “The Putin” in Syria like P hooked up Chechnya! Bomb it entirely flat, murder the shit out of anyone left, and then there’s nowhere for terrorists to live and nobody for them to terrorize. WIN/WIN!!
*continues weeping
5 Likes
Just a distraction from the mess he is creating.
3 Likes
I agree. He hasn’t any investments in Syria of any sort, he doesn’t care what happens there.
But isn’t anyone else tired of the constant demonizing of Russia (and Persia) yet? Will we really have to have another global war - paid for by the lives of the poor and the income of the middle class and profiting only the ultrawealthy political aristocracy - before we stop clamoring for foreign military intervention?
If President Trump did indeed “deliver a message” about gas warfare by precisely targeting a small military base from extreme distance without actually unnecessarily slaughtering people or doing unnecessary infrastructure damage, then I will applaud his action - not his person, his action. If he did it in concert with another superpower as part of a well co-ordinated plan, then so much the better. I don’t care if he did it to bolster his sagging polls.
And incidentally, if this is anything like Clinton’s cruise missile strikes, it’s a relatively cheap way of disposing of older weapons (perhaps Tomahawks originally intended for nuclear warheads, refitted with HE) and also a way to try out a few of the very latest models in a real theater of war.
Full disclosure: My late father and I both did work for the Tomahawk program, although only on the solid rocket motor that allows the missile to be fired from torpedo tubes at depth. I am not invested in war or warmongering and make no income from the use of any missile or weapon. I would not and did not vote for Donald Trump.
3 Likes
it’s relatively inexpensive, financially, and incredibly cheap in all other respects. Shabby. Sad.
2 Likes
That’s a false equivalence argument if I ever heard one.
7 Likes
Unfortunately there are a lot of very hawkish center-leftists (I’ll grant they may even be progressive, but not on foreign policy), who think America should be the world’s policeman (ironically, that’s how a lot of Putin’s domestic supporters see him). You know, the idea that the US is the adult in the room. If 2016 didn’t finally put the lie to that, nothing will.
I for one absolutely oppose unilateral US intervention under any circumstances short of an invasion of our territory (AKA Pearl Harbor), and even then we need to go after the right belligerents in a targeted way (instead of, for example, invading Iraq and leveling Afghanistan’s cities while the Taliban hide out in the mountains).
International diplomacy and peacekeeping isn’t a Dirty Harry movie. That’s not directed at you @popobawa4u - I agree with and quite liked your comment - that’s directed at the people who champion this sort of lone ranger bullshit.
Not for lack of trying. I strongly suggest reading @nemomen excellent analysis four comments north of yours. Unlike a lot of people, he doesn’t seem to exhibit the highly selective memory that seems to come over folks in times likes these.
I’m not saying that to be rude. Even though I disagree with them, I realize that the motives of many who want the US to be the world’s crossing guard are often noble. But at least remember how history really went down and recognize that the current administration and Congress are being complete hypocrites.
9 Likes
I’m sure his neoCon and Cold Warrior enablers would love for him to do that, and he’d probably get support from the eliminationist alt-right “America Firsters” as well. The main thing stopping him is that “The Putin” himself really likes his naval base at Tartus and really likes the on-demand access his air force has to The Giraffe’s airfields and really likes being the big brother to Iran in its proxy war with the House of Saud (big brother: USA).
That said, the clock is ticking on this petulant man-child’s cordial relationship with his Uncle Vlad. A day could come quite soon when he realises what Putin really thinks of him, and then your hot take might become a reality that ends up with bombs being lobbed in places that aren’t Middle Eastern pestholes.
3 Likes
Yup. I hate Trump, I hate Assad, I hate Putin. But most of all, I hate this entire situation, and I hate even more that I can’t think of a solution myself. 2016 was already a shitbucket, and I fear that 2017 might even be worse.
7 Likes
I so hate this idea of the US being the “World Police”. It just strikes me as being so arrogant and imperialistic – a way to uplift the unwashed savages of other countries to our ways and the like.
I also think we should do more to support humanitarian causes – and yes, sometimes shooting a motherfucker in the head is the way to do it. More often than not, it seems like our military interventions just make things far, far worse than if we pursued other avenues.
Our military interventions always strike me as the deadbeat dad. We go in and shoot our load everywhere, then walk off. Maybe 10 years later after someone else did all the hard work, we come back and take all the credit for how great it turned out.
I certainly don’t see this improving under Trump as he has shown little willingness for diplomatic solutions, is unwilling to take in refugees (and frequently trivializes them and their plight), openly hates the UN, values “acting quickly” over introspection and thought, and of course his foreign policy views are always in flux.
5 Likes
