On Thursday evening CNN continued their campaign of attacks on President Donald Trump. This time they did it by first praising his decision making skills and then directly following it up with an attack intimating that Trump made the decision accidentally.
I kid you not.
CNN’s Fareed Zakaria praised President Trump’s decision to take a pound of flesh from Syria for their heinous attack on their helpless civilian population, but he immediately followed that praise by wondering if the decision was simply an “emotional outburst.”
I great deal will depend on what follows next because this is one action. It’s one relatively small military action. It’s quite intelligent, it’s quite effective. It does send a signal, but military force is not primarily an instrument for kind of emotional outbursts or signaling something, it is in purpose of a political strategy. It’s not clear what the political strategy here is.
There is a civil taking place in Syria. Is our goal now, is our political strategy that we want to defeat and oust the government of Assad? If that’s the case that is going to be a tall order, that is going to take a lot more strikes than this. It’s going to take many, many thousands of troops on the ground. If that isn’t the game, what exactly are we trying to achieve.
It is very unlikely that this strike itself will alter the military balance in some way to effect a political settlement. There’s an argument that could be made it will just drag on the civil war because now you are just going to have more fighting. But there is kind of a 20-sided civil war going on. And to just throw bombs in the middle of that, it will get people’s attention as you point out. It will get the country to support President Trump at a moment like this, but what have we actually achieved? We’ve entered the most complicated civil war in the Middle East, the most complicated civil war I’ve ever seen in my life and I don’t think we know exactly what our goal, what our strategy is.