America enters the Syrian quagmire vis-a-vis Russia and Iran based on "gasing incident"
America's cruise missile attack targets Syrian airbase suspected of being the launch source of chemical weapon attack on anti-Assad rebels.
America's involvement complicates a messy situation in the region.
What was the real motive behind the turnaround in Trump's policy toward Syria?
Makes one wonder if it was just a very expensive publicity stunt! --nothing more than a symbolic flexing of American military muscle. Most likely motivated by self-interest-- intended more for his domestic audience as a distraction and to bolster his unfavorable popularity rating.
How is it that only 9 people were killed in such a massive attack...unless they had advance warning....or missed the target completely!
Targeted airfield is back in operation!
After being targeted by 59 cruise missiles, Syrian airbase is still up and running!
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/images-damaged-syrian-air-base-strike-released-46672099?yptr=yahoo
How is it that the airbase runway is not cratered and rendered nonfunctional?
If the intent of the strike was to render the airfield nonfunctional, the costly effort was a clear failure!
How is it that Russian and Syrian reaction is no more than "obligatory outrage"?
There has been no retaliatory military response!
It will cost about $60 million to replace the cruise missiles that the U.S. military rained on Syrian targets Thursday night.
Each Tomahawk missile,( made by Raytheon Co.) costs $1 million, according to experts.
The better way to help Syrian people would have been to apply that 60 million to help the refugees. 60 million in humanitarian aid would have accomplished a great deal more. It certainly would have earned Trump a lot more good will!
******************
Let me explain it for you . . .
Muddle East – An American Perspective
We support the Iraqi government in the fight against the Islamic State.
We don't like IS but IS is supported by Saudi Arabia, whom we do like.
We don't like President Assad. We support the fight against him but not IS which is also fighting against him.
We don't like Iran but Iran supports the Iraqi government against IS.
So, some of our friends support our enemies and some of our enemies are our friends and some of our enemies are fighting against our other enemies whom we want to lose but we don't want our enemies who are fighting our enemies to win.
If the people we want to defeat are defeated, they might be replaced by people we like even less.
And all this was started by us invading a country to drive out terrorists who weren't actually there until we went in to drive them out.
Do you understand now?
