a message to the public and Putin rather than Assad

Submitted by myth (Germany), Apr 7, 2017 at 08:45

I am in favor of such a limited action which I see not as an element of war as measured by the size and varieties in the American arsenal. This versatility constitutes quite a privilege of the US military. Only they can choose their own schedule and scope to act, say every friday from 4 to 5, and stay peaceful the rest of the week. The US military is the only force out there who commands the full range from doing nothing to all out war with every nuance in between. Call it granular armageddon.

The airstrike sends a message to the Western public and Putin rather than Assad.

If was Putin message I would understand the message like this: Merely telling cheap lies to protect Assad is not going to be enough if he uses chemical weapons. Lies do not deter the US military. The US will tolerate Assad as the head of government and protected by Russia. The US will not blindly tolerate everything Assad does. Russia ought to discipline Assad before the US does. In essence Putin may choose wether or not he wants Assad to be a leader with or without an airforce.

The message to the Western public is this: Western public opinion counts for more than Russian influence. Trump stays true to his populist ambitions. Note that the cruise missiles sent a message louder than Trump's words coming out of mouth.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".