by Scott Creighton
Last night’s attack on the Syrian airbase has prompted some cliched responses from the usual suspects but it has also generated some rather interesting ones.
First of all, the “coalition” has responded positively. Germany, Britain, Israel (of course) and Saudi Arabia along with a few others have said this was the perfect response to the Idlib chemical weapons attack that no one knows whether or not it really came from Assad or was in fact a chemical weapons “attack” or simply an airstrike that hit an al Qaeda chemical weapons munition depot that stored the Sarin Hillary Clinton sent over from Libya years ago. In all likelihood, that is what happened.
On Fox News, the old neocon warmongers are literally giggling this morning as they report on big brave Trumpster because he “sent a message” and “reestablished American authority in the region”
(Of course these Fox guys are steadily running down the idea of “international law” and restrictions by the United Nations Security Council as limitations to be upheld by other countries, not by an Exceptional America.)
I’m sure Chris Mathews has a new stain in his pants. Though he suggest last night that Trump only launched the attack as cover for his being Putin’s Manchurian candidate, so there is that.
Rachel Maddow spent last night trying to sit squarely on the fence at one time wondering aloud if the strike was legal (it wasn’t) and at others helping the demiGod of Orange justify his crime of aggression.
All of these reactions were completely predictable. What wasn’t is the sudden inclusion across the board of commenters wondering aloud about what rises to power in a vacuum caused by Assad being forced from office. I have seen this question raised on MSNBC, CNN and Fox News this morning and in every occasion, they conclude it would be best if we:
- continue the fight against “ISIS”
- “stabilize” the country as best we can (breaking it up and handing pieces over to folks like the Kurds)
- and… using the coalition to bring about a POLITICAL regime change, not a military one
For those of you paying attention that is not only a STARK departure from what ALL of these outlets were saying just 24 hours ago… but it is EXACTLY what Rex Tillerson said in response to the Idlib “chemical weapons attack”
So it looks like the limited strike has satisfied the blood lust of the war-mongers and they are now willing to adhere to Trump and Tillerson’s policy prior to the airstrike which is a fascinating development. They didn’t go so far as to suggest the Syrian people had a right of self determination, but they did say a “political solution” is preferable.
So I wonder just how much of this strike was just for show or… for the benefit of American audiences more than anything else.
To that question, the Pentagon released a statement after the attack in which they admit they warned the Russians and the Syrians of the impending strike. That is why so few (if any) Syrian planes were hit during the attack.
There are conflicting reports regarding whether or not they warned Syria about the strike. But we all know they warned Russia and certainly everyone knew Russia would warn the Syrians so either way, they warned the Syrians.
Filed under: Idlib chemical weapons attack, Khan Sheikhoun, Scott Creighton, Shayrat air base, War against Syria | 14 Comments »