|
I'm not often in favour of military action, and certainly not bombing, as a solution, but I honestly do not see what other option there was at this stage save for leaving the civilians of Syria to their awful fate.
There's been a lot of noise in the media about Obama having rolled back on his red line in 2013 and thereby giving Assad the impression he can get away with this kind of shit without any real come back. I don't buy that. I think Assad knew damn well he was on his last notice from the US under Obama - hence no chemical attacks until after the change in leader.
Like UT says, that approach can't be used twice. It's a one shot deal.
There's also a lot of noise in the media and international community that this was illegal and that the US should not have unilaterally chosen to act - but really, what other choice is there but for someone to act unilaterally?
If Russia stopped propping this war criminal up and assisting him in brutalising his own people, then there would be other options, like UN peacekeeping forces, and the enforcement of no-fly zones. None of that is possible as long as the UN is being crippled into inaction by the Russian veto.
For all the mockery, and I daresay there will be more of that to come, in this test, Trump has managed to project himself as decisive and a force to be reckoned with whilst simultaneously demonstrating independence from Russian influence. As political tests go for new leaders, I'd say he did pretty well.
|