Trump unleashes military strikes against Assad airbase in Syria

[webfact]

Trump unleashes military strikes against Assad airbase in Syria

By Steve Holland

REUTERS
 

FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump speaks about the gas attack in Syria during a joint news conference with Jordan's King Abdullah II in the Rose Garden at the White House in Washington, U.S., April 5, 2017. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas

 

PALM BEACH, Fla. (Reuters) - The U.S. military launched cruise missile strikes ordered by President Donald Trump against a Syrian airbase controlled by President Bashar al-Assad's forces in response to a deadly chemical attack in a rebel-held area, a U.S. official said on Thursday.

 

Facing his biggest foreign policy crisis since taking office in January, Trump took the toughest direct U.S. action yet in Syria's six-year-old civil war, raising the risk of confrontation with Russia and Iran, Assad's two main military backers.

 

Some 50 Tomahawk missiles were launched from U.S. Navy warships in the Mediterranean Sea, the U.S. official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. A target was identified as an airbase in Homs. Further details on the target and the results of the strikes were not immediately known.

 

Trump ordered the strikes just a day after he pointed the finger at Assad for this week's chemical attack, which killed at least 70 people, many of them children, in the Syrian town of Khan Sheikhoun. The Syrian government has denied it was behind the attack.

 

Trump, who was attending a summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping at his Florida resort, said earlier on Thursday that "something should happen" with Assad as the White House and Pentagon studied military options.

 

U.S. military action put the new president at odds with Russia, which has air and ground forces in Syria after intervening there on Assad's side in 2015 and turning the tide against mostly Sunni Muslim rebel groups.

 

Trump has until now focussed his Syria policy almost exclusively on defeating Islamic State militants in northern Syria, where U.S. special forces are supporting Arab and Kurdish armed groups.

 

The risks have grown worse since 2013, when Barack Obama, Trump's predecessor, considered and then rejected ordering a cruise missile strike in response to the use of chemical weapons by Assad's loyalists.

 

(Additional reporting by Phil Stewart in Washington; Writing by Matt Spetalnick and Jeff Mason; Editing by Yara Bayoumy and Peter Cooney)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-04-07

 

 

[boomerangutang]

Now Trump risks angering his bosom buddy, Putin.  Interesting times we live in.

[sirmud63]

let the games begin . 

[boomerangutang]

                    Another angle:   Syrian rebels, and others who hate Assad (there are many factions, not least the Israelis and Saudis) ......could clandestinely poison Syrians.   They all know how seriously poisoning is viewed, particularly by westerners.  So, a mass poisoning in a non-Assad-held territory would trigger serious US/western military response - against Assad's troops.

[steven100]

well done Mr Trump .........   a good decision,  if we are lucky enough one might hit Assad's palace by accident  

[steven100]

I hope they blow the Assad regime off the face of the planet .....   It cannot make it any worse for the people there. 

[thaibeachlovers]

According to google, one such missile costs 1.4 milllion $. 50 missiles.............. that's a lot of money to make a point. I doubt they made much real difference, and the point could have been made with a few. 

IMO, Trump will regret getting involved in Syria. If Assad is removed a Libyan type anarchy is likely to emerge, as all the different opposition groups probably hate each other.

Better by far to ignore Turkey and give the Kurds whatever they need to do the job. They are the only group I would have time for in a post Assad scenario.

[boomerangutang]

I would not want to be a Syrian soldier charged to stand guarding a Syrian military air field.

For that matter, I pity any Syrian soldier anywhere.  What a crappy job - to be required to follow orders given by a madman who would kill his own people.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, steven100 said:

I hope they blow the Assad regime off the face of the planet .....   It cannot make it any worse for the people there. 

Of course it could be worse for the people, as the likely result of removing Assad would, IMO, be outright civil war between the opposing groups resulting in a Libyan type anarchy which drags on for many years.

[NanLaew]

10 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

                    Another angle:   Syrian rebels, and others who hate Assad (there are many factions, not least the Israelis and Saudis) ......could clandestinely poison Syrians.   They all know how seriously poisoning is viewed, particularly by westerners.  So, a mass poisoning in a non-Assad-held territory would trigger serious US/western military response - against Assad's troops.

What do you mean another angle? Assad and Russia have already claimed that 'rebels' were responsible for the recent chemical weapons attack.

[boomerangutang]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

According to google, one such missile costs 1.4 milllion $. 50 missiles.............. that's a lot of money to make a point. I doubt they made much real difference, and the point could have been made with a few. 

IMO, Trump will regret getting involved in Syria. If Assad is removed a Libyan type anarchy is likely to emerge, as all the different opposition groups probably hate each other.

Better by far to ignore Turkey and give the Kurds whatever they need to do the job. They are the only group I would have time for in a post Assad scenario.

                     Trump has no sense of saving money.  He spends more on one of his weekly golf trips to FL than the annual budget for 'Meals on Wheels' program which he wants to eliminate.

 

                I too noticed that, in the OP article, that 50 Tomahawk cruise missiles were sent to that Syrian air field.  Two or 3 well-placed missiles would have sufficed.    On the other hand, Russia may not mind the US strike, because now the Russkies can replace the damaged jets - AND MAKE MORE MONEY.

[thaibeachlovers]

10 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

                    Another angle:   Syrian rebels, and others who hate Assad (there are many factions, not least the Israelis and Saudis) ......could clandestinely poison Syrians.   They all know how seriously poisoning is viewed, particularly by westerners.  So, a mass poisoning in a non-Assad-held territory would trigger serious US/western military response - against Assad's troops.

Hmmmmm. Isn't that what possibly happened in this situation? Rebels gassed the people in a non Assad held area resulting in ................................... I wouldn't put anything as too heinous for IS to do.

Far as I know, there is no definite proof Assad ordered it, or that it was carried out by Assad's forces.

[Rob13]

13 minutes ago, steven100 said:

well done Mr Trump .........   a good decision,  if we are lucky enough one might hit Assad's palace by accident  

And then what....a massive power vacuum with isis, russia abs us backed rebels all fighting to fill it. US goes down this road regularly and it never turns out well.

[darksidedog]

The Americans would seem to have some information on where the planes took off from, that launched the chemical strike.

50 Missiles is a lot, so I guess the idea was to render the place completely unusable again.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, darksidedog said:

The Americans would seem to have some information on where the planes took off from, that launched the chemical strike.

50 Missiles is a lot, so I guess the idea was to render the place completely unusable again.

Given they have probably been expecting such an attack since Obama's "line in the sand", it might have done little real damage, depending on how deep they are buried. If done properly, only the deep penetration bombs would do much damage.

[NanLaew]

4 minutes ago, darksidedog said:

The Americans would seem to have some information on where the planes took off from, that launched the chemical strike.

50 Missiles is a lot, so I guess the idea was to render the place completely unusable again.

...and place Assad, Putin and Khamenei on notice.

[craigt3365]

28 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

                    Another angle:   Syrian rebels, and others who hate Assad (there are many factions, not least the Israelis and Saudis) ......could clandestinely poison Syrians.   They all know how seriously poisoning is viewed, particularly by westerners.  So, a mass poisoning in a non-Assad-held territory would trigger serious US/western military response - against Assad's troops.

News reports are saying the US followed the planes from the time they took off until they landed.  Saw the strikes.  And then bombed those airbases.  About time.

[craigt3365]

21 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Of course it could be worse for the people, as the likely result of removing Assad would, IMO, be outright civil war between the opposing groups resulting in a Libyan type anarchy which drags on for many years.

Libya is better off than Syria.  But yes, both places are a mess.  No easy answers.

[NanLaew]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Given they have probably been expecting such an attack since Obama's "line in the sand", it might have done little real damage, depending on how deep they are buried. If done properly, only the deep penetration bombs would do much damage.

I would wager that the 59 Tomahawk's will have for all intents and purposes, pretty much buggered it.

 

Coming soon... B52 carpet bombing. Just for a few hours though.

[craigt3365]

Interesting comment.  Russian soldiers were at these bases 48 hours ago.  If so, were they aware of the use of chemical weapons?  If so, all bets are off.  But it's been confirmed Russian soldiers were there.  The US was in touch with Russia regarding these soldiers.  Who were obviously evacuated.

[craigt3365]

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

No dispute that that is horrible, but one must know who to take the fight too, and that is by no means clear so far, I believe. Entirely possible it was done by IS, or as I think the Russians said, caused when a rebel gas depot was hit by non gas weapons.

Obama back tracked on his threat to "do something" before, but he made the right decision, IMO.

The US wouldn't use 50 cruise missiles if a rebel gas depot was the cause of this.  They've got continuous surveillance of this area.  Pretty much guaranteed now it was a Syrian bomb.  Also confirmed by eye witnesses on the ground.  Who saw the explosion and the gas being let off.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Libya is better off than Syria.  But yes, both places are a mess.  No easy answers.

No easy answers.

Exactly, and in my opinion, none that turn out well for anyone.

If the US bombs Assad out of power it will be a civil war between all the opposing rebel groups. If it sends in troops, it will be worse than Iraq.

[Rob13]

Who makes the cruise missles and whats trumps holdings in that company?

[CGW]

Maybe Trump will now be accepted? he's proving that he is one of the boys who like to slaughter innocents!

Have to wonder who supplied the "chemicals" to the Syrians in the first place! surprise, surprise - was the UK, well done!

We have learnt nothing and remain the tools of the elites!

[craigt3365]

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

No easy answers.

Exactly, and in my opinion, none that turn out well for anyone.

If the US bombs Assad out of power it will be a civil war between all the opposing rebel groups. If it sends in troops, it will be worse than Iraq.

It's already worse than Iraq.  Talking heads on CNN are saying it's highly unlikely US troops will be deployed.  But all options are open now.

 

Too many innocents have been killed by Assad.  Time to stop the silliness.

[NanLaew]

6 minutes ago, Rob13 said:

Who makes the cruise missles and whats trumps holdings in that company?

Raytheon makes them and there's no evidence of Trump interests.

[attrayant]

What a difference four years makes. 

 

 

 

Did Trump get congressional approval?

[NanLaew]

1 minute ago, attrayant said:

What a difference four years makes. 

 

 

 

Did Trump get congressional approval?

Didn't need it for Gorsuch to (eventually) get on the Supreme Court so why should this be any different?

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

The US wouldn't use 50 cruise missiles if a rebel gas depot was the cause of this.  They've got continuous surveillance of this area.  Pretty much guaranteed now it was a Syrian bomb.  Also confirmed by eye witnesses on the ground.  Who saw the explosion and the gas being let off.

I don't know, obviously, but it wouldn't be the first time a government told porkies to enable a response. Remember the Gulf of Tonkin incident?

 

The only reason I even care is because I can't think of a good reason why Assad or his forces would do such a thing, while I can think of loads why IS would.

[Rob13]

AFAIK...As commander in chief he can carry out military actions within a set of parameters without going to congress. At some point he needs congress' approval to continue though.0