Questions following the US attack on Syria

How quickly enemies can become friends. All you have to do is bomb people.

Q1: What happened?

Last night, and much to chagrin of people who thought Trump would not escalate matters in Syria, the US military launched 59 Tomahawk missiles into Syria, allegedly attempting to destroy a government airbase. They warned the Russian government before-hand, who will have passed on that warning to the Syrians, meaning the area was probably on alert, with any important equipment or personnel removed. The Pentagon have also stated that, at this time, there are no plans for any other strikes or any campaign in Syria.
Q2: Supposing the attack definitely happened as most are reporting – and that is a dangerous assumption to make these days – what have the results been?
At last count the number of Syrian casualties stood at 6 dead servicemen, and 9 dead civilians (including four children) and several more wounded, together with the loss of six aircraft. The airbase they attacked looks far from destroyed in footage from Russia 24 (see here). And chemical weapons? Well, they didn’t destroy any…and say they weren’t trying to do so (see our brief story on that contradiction here). So in terms of military targets, this strike has achieved very little.
The attack was pitifully inefficient, of the 50-70 missiles launched, only 23 struck anywhere near their targets. The other 30+ are currently unaccounted for. Tomahawk missiles cost between $500,000 and $1,500,000 dollar each, which means the US just spent between 25 and 105 MILLION dollars on dinging up a couple of aircraft hangars and murdering less than 20 people.
Q3: …then why do it?
There must be some political wins in this situation to justify the price tag, because the damage done to the “enemy” is practically zero. Indeed, when you take into account that the Pentagon informed the Russians, who will have informed the Syrians, and the reports of Syria evacuating personnel before the attack…the entire event appears somewhat theatrical. Meaning it was an entirely political act, possibly intended more for a domestic audience than anything else.
It had no bearing on the civil war at all, the airstrikes on rebel positions weren’t even halted for a day.
Q4: Was it legal?
Whether it was the product of an impotent emotional tantrum, or a cynical public relations gambit, there is no question the attack was completely illegal under international law. But the American press have never cared much about that. Given that America’s reputation was already in tatters, among those who consider such trifles important, this won’t do much damage. They will take a hit on that front, it probably won’t matter in the long-run.
The list of unpunished American international crimes is hugely long. This small addition barely qualifies.
Q5: cui bono?
Always the most important question.
Trump can definitely get some short-term political gains domestically here. Having “defied” the Russians and “stood-up to” Assad, Trump can now enjoy a period of respite from the “Trump is in Russia’s pocket” talk. Plus, the wider establishment – so fond of calling for “action on Syria” – will be forced to either agree with (and consequently legitimize) the administration, or criticise an attack on Syria and dial back their own calls for war.
What Trump gains in terms of favour within the deep-state and political establishment he will lose in terms of approval with his voting base. One of the biggest issues contributing to Trumps electoral victory was his non-interventionist stance on the ME. This may only be a superficial event, but the list of people approving of and/or celebrating it is enough to alienate a lot of Trump voters for good. But he doesn’t have to worry about that for the next four years.
One definite winner in all of this is Turkey, so long illegally picking at land along the Syrian border. They now have a precedent for a NATO ally taking unilateral action against the Syrian government on very flimsy evidence. They will take that and run with it. Israel, similarly, will see this as permission to be even more active in Syria. Both are key suppliers to the rebels, both are carving out chunks of Syria for themselves.
A danger does still lurk, of course. Whether Trump took this action to make a point, or was talked into it by generals and the like, the first official American attack on Syria has now taken place. Mission creep, intended from the outset or no, is an important thing to keep an eye on at this point.


If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.

For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.

Categories: empire watch, featured, Syria
Notify of

oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Apr 11, 2017 11:42 PM

No wonder it closed CiF here so quickly after 3 hours tonight. No-one is buying the Assad did it narrative.

Seamus Padraig
Seamus Padraig
Apr 11, 2017 8:47 PM

There is no upside to this story. Even if Trump’s missile attack on Syria was limited, and even if he warned the Russians in advance … so what? Trump has now officially signed off on the establishment’s narrative on Syria, taking what was probably a false -flag (assuming it wasn’t entirely staged) at face value. Now that he has done this, the usual suspects (Hellary, McCain, etc.) will excoriate him for failing to do more. This won’t appease the neocons at all; it’ll just whet their appetites for more blood. If they can arm-twist Trump into doing this, they can probably get him to do anything.

Apr 10, 2017 1:25 PM

#its not twitter #please don’t use hashtags #it makes things hard to read.

Apr 10, 2017 11:42 AM

A really good article, but one I am afraid will not be seen by the mass of the people. [The MSM won’t allow it] What appears to be happening if you repeat a lie often enough and loud enough, people will come to believe it is the truth. If a person was tried in a court, using evidence of a similar vein, there would be outrage and cries of injustice and false verdict. Let us imagine a case a person is known to have a violent temper and as beaten someone up. The same person is then brought to court and told we found a man beaten and killed. Therefore as you have a history of violence we believe that you committed this crime. No evidence, no proof, no trial, just our opinion. So we shall take you outside and hang you, no appeals, no demands for trials. We the… Read more »

Greg Bacon
Greg Bacon
Apr 8, 2017 10:51 PM

Here’s Trump the Mad cheering on the same war criminals that are now cheering him on murdering Syrians.

Apr 7, 2017 6:24 PM

The rumour that Trump warned Putin beforehand was launched by NBC.
NBC is the US Intelligence Community media interface.
Several false information by alleged anonymous sources within the intelligence community was launched by NBC. Eg. Erdogan fleeing to Europe during coup, Trump will use nukes,…
Sources and more info within this article

Apr 7, 2017 7:02 PM
Reply to  FriedemannWo

We believe both TASS and the Pentagon have confirmed Russia was pre-warned of the attack. In fact that would seem like a minimum precaution to avoid potential confrontation between two nuclear powers. If this wasn’t done then the US has evidently become suicidally insane

Apr 7, 2017 5:19 PM

The fact that Trump tipped off Putin about the missile strikes shows it is all a pantomimic charade.
Trump has shut up all the “something must be done”/”no-fly zone” nitwits across the western world.
What a relief for him and everyone else!
It also makes it more difficult for his own Republicans on Capitol Hill to defy him any more.
He has now safely got his Supreme Court choice through and can no doubt look forward to others too.
I’ll bet John McCain is none too happy with the restricted nature of this engagement…..

Stephen Sivonda
Stephen Sivonda
Apr 7, 2017 5:10 PM

The Pentagon says…..? I will tell you that is an outright lie. Historically it’s plain that our word is worthless. There are no doubt plans already made to, for whatever reason , try to institute a “No Fly Zone” , and probably send in more troops. Remember the Gulf of Tonkin scam which started the big push in Vietnam…right. We are seeing pretty much the same here. As to the NFZ…did you take note that Putin said this AM that the deconfliction agreement with the US is OFF. He knows what’s in the cards…and there is a strong possibility that at the UNSC meeting today Putin will state the US and Israeli overflights will be met with armed Russian warplanes. let’s see where this goes.

Apr 7, 2017 4:32 PM

Trump’s “Israel First” Policy: #Trump wants to become the war president Hillary #Clinton advocated to be for #Israel