Thursday's US missile attack on Syria must represent the quickest foreign
policy U-turn in history. Less than a week after the White House gave Assad
permission to stay on as president of his own country, President Trump decided
that the US had to attack Syria and demand Assad's ouster after a chemical
attack earlier in the week. Trump blamed Assad for the attack, stated that "something's
going to happen"
in retaliation, and less than two days later he launched a volley of 59 Tomahawk
missiles (at a cost of $1.5 million each) onto a military airfield near where
the chemical attack took place.
President Trump said it is in the "vital national security interest of the
United States" to attack Syria over the use of poison gas. That is nonsense.
Even if what Trump claims about the gas attack is true -- and we've seen no
evidence that it is -- there is nothing about an isolated incident of inhuman
cruelty thousands of miles from our borders that is in our "vital national
security interest." Even if Assad gassed his own people last week it hardly
means he will launch chemical attacks on the United States even if he had the
ability, which he does not.
From the moment the chemical attack was blamed on Assad, however, I expressed
my doubts about the claims. It simply makes no sense for Assad to attack civilians
with a chemical weapon just as he is winning his war against ISIS and al-Qaeda
and has been told by the US that it no longer seeks regime change. On the verge
of victory, he commits a suicidal act to no strategic or tactical military
advantage? More likely the gas attack was a false flag by the rebels -- or
perhaps even by our CIA -- as a last ditch effort to forestall a rebel defeat
in the six year war.
Would the neocons and the mainstream media lie to us about what happened last
week in Syria? Of course they would. They lied us into attacking Iraq, they
lied us into attacking Gaddafi, they lied us into seeking regime change in
Syria in the first place. We should always assume they are lying.
Who benefits from the US attack on Syria? ISIS, which immediately after the
attack began a ground offensive. Does President Trump really want the US to
act as ISIS's air force?
The gas attack, which took some 70 civilian lives, was horrible and must be
condemned. But we must also remember that US bombs in Syria have killed hundreds
of civilians. Just recently, US bombs killed 300 Iraqi civilians in one strike!
Does it really make a difference if you are killed by poison gas or by a US
missile?
What's next for President Trump in Syria? Russia has not backed down from
its claim that the poison gas leaked as a result of a conventional Syrian bomb
on an ISIS chemical weapons factory. Moscow claims it is determined to defend
its ally, Syria. Will Trump unilaterally declare a no fly zone in parts of
Syria and attempt to prevent Russian air traffic? Some suggest this is his
next move. It is one that carries a great danger of igniting World War Three.
Donald Trump's attack on Syria was clearly illegal. However, Congress shows
no interest in reining in this out-of-control president. We should fear any
US escalation and must demand that our Representatives prohibit it. If there
ever was a time to flood the Capitol Hill switchboard demanding an end to US
military action in Syria, it is now!
