US Strikes Syrian Base With Over 50 Tomahawk Missiles (nbcnews.com)

mi writes: Two U.S. warships in the Mediterranean Sea fired 59 Tomahawk missiles intended for a single target -- Shayrat Airfield in Homs province in western Syria, the Defense Department said. That's the airfield from which the United States believes the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad fired chemical weapons on Tuesday. There was no immediate word on casualties. U.S. officials told NBC News that people were not targeted and that aircraft and infrastructure at the site, including the runway, were hit. Slashdot reader Humbubba shares a similar report from Washington Post, adding that Thursday's strike was the "first direct American assault on the government of President Bashar al-Assad since that country's civil war began six years ago." The report also notes that the strike "dramatically expands U.S. military involvement in Syria and exposes the United States to heightened risk of direct confrontation with Russia and Iran, both backing Assad in his attempt to crush his opposition."

Comments

More US warmongering

[Anonymous Coward]

It was only a matter of time before Tump started another war in the middle east.

Re:More US warmongering

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. when the US does it in its own interests, it's 'warmongering.'

US is #1 arms dealer to the planet, if war is happening, US is profiting.

Re:More US warmongering

[Tough Love]

Appropriate and measured response to the nerve gassing of innocent civilians two days ago. A clear message from the West to psycho Assad and trouble maker Putin.

Re:More US warmongering

[jader3rd]

He relinquished his chemical weapons in 2013

Apparently he and Putin lied about it. I'm as shocked as you are.

Re:More US warmongering

[piojo]

You know arms dealing is a type of control, right? We really don't want our frenemies to buy arms somewhere else.

Re: More US warmongering

[Anonymous Coward]

The US sells to anyone, you aren't really naive enough to think they avoid selling to someone just because they're on opposing sides? They just won't sell them the latest and greatest.

Re:More US warmongering

[phantomfive]

I think the real question is whether Assad did it, or the rebels (in order to provoke a reaction from the US).

Re:More US warmongering

[dbIII]

I think the real question is whether Assad did it, or the rebels (in order to provoke a reaction from the US).

No sorry, that's not a real question just an attempt to sow doubt that you have been sucked into.
It's a "when will you stop beating your wife" question designed to imply that someone is beating their wife whether they are or not.

Putin and the people working for him are very good at asking that sort of "question" and that is where this one comes from. See what has been said about Crimea for the last few years for many examples. The "questions" about Ukraine shooting down MH-17 (instead of Russian troops who provided anti-aircraft support for rebels doing it, which appears to be that actual case) are some of the more obvious ones.

Re:More US warmongering

[piojo]

it's not about money, it's about sending a message. Because I wouldn't be surprised if using those weapons set back the US more than it did the side owning the targets.

In the short run, maybe so. In the long run, what's the value of deterring use of chemical weapons? How the value of US credibility when we make threats? That's surely worth something, particularly if the US wants to continue being the international police man. (Maybe the US isn't the best international police man, but we've done better than any other country that's held the post. Certainly better than Russia or China would do, if you value any type of freedom.)

Re:More US warmongering

[Rande]

When I heard this story on the radio this morning, the most surprising bit was that Syria is responsible for the rise of ISIS.
I'm sure last week it was the destabilization of Iraq that was the cause of ISIS.

Can someone send me the memo from the Ministry of Truth as I missed that one.

Re: More US warmongering

[Gryle]

The first gas attack in Ghouta in 2013 was confirmed by the UN to be initiated by the (US backed) rebels.

Incorrect. The UN report only confirms that chemical weapons had been used, but said nothing about responsibility. This is the conclusion from the UN report on Ghouta:

108. The United Nations Mission concludes that chemical weapons have been used in the ongoing conflict between the parties in the Syrian Arab Republic.
Ghouta, 21 August 2013
109. The United Nations Mission collected clear and convincing evidence that chemical weapons were used also against civilians, including children, on a relatively large scale in the Ghouta area of Damascus on 21 August 2013.
110. This conclusion was based on the following:
(a) Impacted and exploded surface-to-surface rockets, capable to carry a chemical payload, were found to contain Sarin;
(b) Close to the rocket impact sites, in the area where patients were affected, the environment was found to be contaminated by Sarin;
(c) The epidemiology of over 50 interviews given by survivors and health-care workers provided ample corroboration of the medical and scientific results;
(d) A number of patients/survivors were clearly diagnosed as intoxicated by an organophosphorous compound;
(e) Blood and urine samples from the same patients were found positive for Sarin and Sarin signatures.

The US, UK, France and Human Rights Watch blame Assad based on the trajectory of the rockets and type of rocket used (see Appendix 5 of the report). The Russians claim the Syrian government handed them material proof that the rebels carried out the attacks, but to my knowledge neither Russia or Syria ever made that evidence publicly available.
You're free to believe what you like, but don't misrepresent what's in the actual report. We're Slashdot and we're better than that.

Re:More US warmongering

[telchine]

When I heard this story on the radio this morning, the most surprising bit was that Syria is responsible for the rise of ISIS.
I'm sure last week it was the destabilization of Iraq that was the cause of ISIS.

Can someone send me the memo from the Ministry of Truth as I missed that one.

Oceania has always been at war with Syria.

Please report to the first room on the first floor for further information.

Re:More US warmongering

[dbIII]

if you had actually pointed to evidence

So complicated false flag stuff is OK without evidence but a suggestion that someone in politics is lying is not?
I think you have it backwards.
A lie is a lot simpler than a massive conspiracy theory that involves a group with very little in the way of resources killing their own members instead of using the very effective weapons involved against their enemies.


Maybe instead of a complicated Tom Clancy plot it's a lot more simple to suggest that this is just Putin's obvious lie number 2000 or so.


Besides, it's an opinion. Why do I need evidence for my opinion when you do not need it for yours?

Re:More US warmongering

[Rockoon]

Well, if the US had not destabilized the entire region by failing at nation-building it's unlikely that any of the current events in Syria/Iraq would have occurred.

The claim that the U.S. caused the Arab spring, even when its used derogatorily like you are doing, is pure bullshit American hubris. Your claim that Saddam was the guy that held the entire middle east together is a fucking joke, right?

What we did was influence the Arab spring. We certainly crippled the government of Libya. We certainly funded the rebels is Syria. Leaving Iraq when we did was a bigger mistake than it had been to invade in the first place. Our mistakes in Iraq began with Bush Sr and continued under Clinton. If right from the beginning in 1991 we had been bombing with prejudice all the places the U.N. inspections had been interfered with, one way or another Iraq would not have been the thorn it became a decade later. We didnt enforce the 1991 capitulation.

All these rebel movements, the Arab spring, is a result of something older than any significant American interference in the region. The spring provides the manpower that enables our interference.

Re:More US warmongering

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't pretend to know who did it, but I think a very relevant question is who gains from the release of chemical weapons? Right now I can see ways in which the rebels gain, Trump gains, the US military-industrial-complex gains, and even perhaps Russia gains some perverse way. Assad, on the other hand, what does he gain? Perhaps he thought he could simply get away with it and took a huge gamble that the international community wouldn't respond. That would demonstrate extremely poor judgment for a dictator who has held onto power for 16 years. In any case, I really hope politicians in the US can put a lid on things. This has the potential to spiral out of control fast.

Re:More US warmongering

[Kiuas]

Your claim that Saddam was the guy that held the entire middle east together is a fucking joke, right?

Saddam held iraq together. With despotism and an iron fist for sure, but he did keep it together. The removal of him and failure to provide Iraq with a functional government lead to the formation if Isis, which together, combined with factors you listed has made the current geopolitical situation as complicated and as bloody as it is.

No-one is saying that without Saddam's removal there'd be total peace in Syria/middle-east, but it should be pretty obvious that the way Iraq was handled has contributed to the situation in a major, major way.

the Arab spring, is a result of something older than any significant American interference in the region. The spring provides the manpower that enables our interference.

The US did not singlehandedly cause Arab spring obviously, but their geopolitics and interference in the region amplified the effects and not for the better.

Re:More US warmongering

[Maritz]

Yeah. The UK are cunts too. They sell weapons to the Saudi barbarians. You have a point? There can be more than one cunt. Hope that makes it clearer for you.

Re:More US warmongering

[Rei]

Amazing how the rebels keep bombing themselves with chemical weapons while never hitting Assad-controlled areas with them. And how they keep simultaneously destroying their hospitals at the same time. Silly rebels!

Re:More US warmongering

[phayes]

Saddam held iraq together. With despotism and an iron fist for sure, but he did keep it together.

Before calling for the return of a dictator that killed over a million of his own people, blame the man who created the power vacuum the Daesh grew into. Obama's cutting & running out of Iraq ASAP (and clearly before the government of Iraq was ready) fulfilled a his isolationist campaign promise but was the much greater and more proximate cause of the rise of Daesh. The American military presence in Iraq was a moderating force on their Sunni/Shiite strife and continued U.S. support of the Sunni Friendship Councils would have prevented Daesh from Iraqi gains.

Re:More US warmongering

[Solandri]

I'm sure last week it was the destabilization of Iraq that was the cause of ISIS.

While the second Iraq war provided the opportunity for ISIS/ISIL to form, they didn't become big players until two main events. The Arab Spring in 2011 caused unrest in the region; notably in Syria, which devolved into civil war giving them a window of opportunity to spread their influence (both by persuasion and by force). And the capture of massive amounts of U.S. military weapons that had been given to Iraqi troops. The Iraqis fled from ISIL's advance leaving the weapons, rather than stood to fight because U.S. troops had been withdrawn from Iraq to keep Obama's campaign promise. I think most would agree now that that withdrawal was premature, and the Iraqis could've used several more years of training and support before being left to fend for themselves.

There's plenty of blame to go around. Yeah Bush dropped the cake on the floor. But Obama tried to shove it under the carpet to meet a self-imposed deadline, instead of truly cleaning up the mess. Of course the ants were going to find it. And the situation with Syria being caught in a tug-of-war between the U.S. and Russia dates back to the Cold War, and arguably all the way back to the end of WWII and the formation of Israel.

If you really dig down into the root cause of instability in this portion of the Middle East, I'd blame the Europeans for carving up the region after they defeated the Ottoman Empire in the first World War. They drew those borders with little to no consideration for the indigenous cultural, lingual, and political boundaries. As a result, you have disparate peoples forced together into the same "country" trying to form a unified government. And (in the most extreme case) the Kurds - 28 million people spread across as minorities in four countries without a country to call their own.

Re:More US warmongering

[Dr. Evil]

Not only created a power vacuum, it left tens of thousands of trained Iraqi soldiers without jobs or means of income... many with families to feed.

Re:More US warmongering

[murdocj]

Unlike the British and the French, who carved up the Middle East and Africa into colonial empires with no regard for the local population. They did just fine and bear no responsibility for anything.

Re:More US warmongering

[dcw3]

Was the job in Germany and Japan not finished properly? You have to commit to it over decades, and you can't do it alone.

Re:More US warmongering

[Rei]

Given that Russia is reporting 6 jets destroyed, a radar system, a supply warehouse, hangars, and other facilities - and other sources reporting even more (including 3 additional jets) - getting hit wasn't exactly cheap either.

As for your false flag conspiracy stuff, why are you spending time over here when you could be actively contributing at forums.911wasaninsidejob.net?

Re:More US warmongering

[Nidi62]

Now reading from RT https://www.rt.com/news/383807.... The US managed to kill 2 civilians, three soldiers and injure seven others (so obviously the Syrians were fully aware of the attack and it looks like one of the missiles went a little astray), with a claim of 59 tomahawk cruise missiles fired, with an approximate cost of $1.59 million each https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., excluding firing costs, for a total cost of $93.81 million, excluding firing costs, operation of vessels and crew, which could really blow that figure out, likely double. So who was punishing whom for what is looking like a false flag gas attack (did the US government just roundly punish US taxpayers), although people really did die but it is looking like they were kidnap victims from pro-Syrian government villages who were murdered. So all in all, just what the fuck is going on, this is looking all sorts of crazy. A profitable day for Raytheon McDonald Douglas but it makes the US look like a pack of idiots. So panic of the Obama spying on Trump disclosures, the Clintons are feeling prosecutorial heat, Trump has been set up for impeachment with an attack upon another country without Congressional or US approval or Raytheon McDonald Douglas, were bitching because profits for this quarter are a little low and demanded expenditure. Make no mistake, the attack was clearly rushed because the false flag story was falling apart and now the evidence will expose Uncle Toms Obama's Syrian rape brigades as the actual culprits and Trump will be blamed for acting with congressional approval, what a stupid debacle. It seems very much like the US spent more money than the damage they caused, especially when the US government values foreign people with brown skins at $2,500 per https://www.theguardian.com/wo....

The goal wasn't to kill people, it was to make it harder for Syria to undertake attacks like this in the future. So you take out hangars, fuel depots, aircraft, and runways. And when you are hitting an airfield, you don't just hit it once and call it a day. You have to put multiple craters on every runway as well as damage ramp areas and support facilities. One crater on a runway can be prepared pretty quickly. You put holes all along every runway and you knock that base out for weeks at least.

Re:More US warmongering

[dcw3]

Since the Cold War, Russia has always tested the will and reactions of he U.S., especially when there's a new sheriff in town. Putin knew Obama wouldn't do anything when he put troops in Syria...he didn't do a thing when Assad crossed his "red line". Assad isn't acting w/o permission from his puppet master, and the gas attacks were getting top cover from the Kremlin, with claims they were caused by rebel production being hit...what utter bullshit. So, Trump is now calling the bluff, and I doubt we'll see a repeat of the gas attacks, but who knows for sure what the next move will be.

Re:More US warmongering

[dcw3]

Propaganda much? RT? Seriously? The gas attacks wouldn't have happened in the first place w/o Russian approval, and you're going to go with their top "news" source for information? I suppose you're okay with Assad killing women and children, and Russia preventing the UN from doing anything about it.

Re:More US warmongering

[Xest]

The problem is you're thinking about it from your point of view - i.e. that of a rational actor.

You could apply the same logic to saying who gains from bombing their own civilian population including women, kids, and hospitals with barrel bombs, he's only creating generations more hate towards himself, it's an irrational act.

And therein lies the problem. Dictators are not irrational actors, they believe themselves to be untouchable, they've built a personality cult and are surrounded by yes men. They believe themselves to be infallible, indefeatable. That view will only have grown when Obama warned of red lines for chemical weapons use, but then did not act on them. It'll have only grown even more when Russia rocked up and turned the tide of the war for him.

Do not for one second believe that Assad would think rationally, even that's assuming it was Assad's decision at all. For all we know it could've just been a local commander being fed up as fuck of seeing his men dying left and right and said to hell with it, I want you to bring in the gas.

Trying to argue that it doesn't make sense because an irrational actor acted irrationally in itself doesn't make much sense.

Re: More US warmongering

[Anonymous Coward]

Not exactly the party line talking point, but close enough. So you have to live with the fact that Obama was incapable of renegotiating a timeline that most every rational thinker agrees would have been in everyone's best interest? Oh, that's right, he didn't even try.

Re:More US warmongering

[mjwx]

Dump multi-millions of military hardware onto a target without even bothering to wanting to hit something.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say there, but the target was a military airfield. The one that they launched the sarin attack from.

The question is, where do you stop?

As soon as an opponent realises that you'll only hit military targets, they'll move all their military assets into civilian areas.

When that happens, Trump really has two options.
1. Back down and look weak (this will only happen if the other Republicans force it).
2. Target civilians and become the bad guy.

What I think Trump is going for is Shock and Awe without actually understanding that in the real world, Shock and Awe does not work. It doesn't scare people into submission, it makes them more resolute. Assad now has his great Satan in the west, Trump has handed Assad a huge propaganda tool on a platter. This is why Obama never got involved, this strike will be used as a rallying cry for the Syrians and a chance for Assad to cement power.

What Trump should do is call Assad and the Rebels to the negotiating table, saying "This is what we can do, but we'll only do it if we have to". This will be the only way the US wont lose face completely. Sure the republicans will hate him for it but it is really the only option where the US doesn't lose.

Also, 50 cruise missiles for 1 airfield... A bit of overkill there... do you think he was compensating for something.

$93.8M of my tax dollars

[Nova77]

Neat, more than $93M ($1.59M unit cost according to wikipedia) gone in a single (non war related) strike.
Thanks goodness he saved money by cutting the budget of EPA and NSF! /s

Re:$93.8M of my tax dollars

[slashmydots]

Oh no, how dare they spend money to stop civilians getting murdered by chemicals instead of buy another statue or bridge.

Re:$93.8M of my tax dollars

[AmiMoJo]

The reaction on Twitter is interesting.

Many Trump supporters upset that he is using military force, because one of the major reasons for voting against Clinton was the allegation that she was a warmonger.

Many other people worried that Trump has found a new way to get the media talking about him again. His tweets were becoming less effective (boy who cried wolf) and we really don't want missiles to become his new cry for attention.

Re:Rape Putin in da his cornhole

[religionofpeas]

Yeah, cause removing the only source of stability is such a great idea. Just look at Libya now.

Why are they so expensive?

[phantomfive]

Why are Tomahawk missiles so expensive? Can't the US get a bulk discount at this point?

Re:Why are they so expensive?

[Woldscum]

Look up what a Tomahawk cruise missile actually is. It is not a rocket. It is a self guided plane powered by a jet engine. A small unmanned Kamikaze that guides itself by looking at the ground and has a 1000 lbs. bomb built in.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Another promise out the window!

[Gravis Zero]

These actions seem to be yet another thing that run contrary to his rhetoric. I'm not commenting on whether that is good or bad, I'm just saying, he sure doesn't seem to be a man of his word.

Re:Another promise out the window!

[93 Escort Wagon]

I imagine the political pressure on Trump to do something to show he's not Putin's puppet has been pretty high. That's not a statement for or against this attack... but the strike may have served multiple purposes for the President.

Re:some perspective

[rsmith-mac]

Put those together and this is a very limited way to "must do something" that so many people have been calling for. It also sent a message to North Korea and China. Hopefully nothing more comes of it.

Agreed. I want the US to have nothing else to do with Syria. But using chemical weapons is simply too awful and too horrific to ignore. We can't stop parties from making or using the things, but we can damned well make sure there are painful consequences to doing so.

Personally, I find it implausible that Assad ordered a chemical attack now.

If not Assad, then who? The Russians aren't this stupid.

Re:some perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

If not Assad, then who?

False flag.

I thought you said Clinton would do this ?

[silentcoder]

Throughout 2016 we were told that Clinton would "declare a no-fly zone over Syria and cause a war with Russia". Not even 4 months on the job - Trump launches a massive airstrike against Syria... wasn't your whole argument against Clinton based on the idea that she would leave Asad to do whatever evil he wants to rather than provoke Russia ?

Something tells me Putin is seriously pissed right now, after all that effort to put a puppet in the white house.

Re:I thought you said Clinton would do this ?

[silentcoder]

A great many people (at least one, here on slashdot in reply to me) however used that as a justification to vote for Trump. Because apparently it makes some sort of moral difference WHICH brutal dictator you suck up to and which you oppose (hint: it doesn't - a good president would be opposed to and, if need be, willing to go to war with BOTH Russia and Syria) ?
We were told that her tough stance on Syria was a reason to vote for Trump, because, his voters seemed to believe: he would stay out of the Syrian mess and not provoke Russia.

He has now BOMBED Syria. Do you seriously think Russia is happy right now ?

Isolationism is an incredibly stupid idea, both times America ever tried it there was a world war, one of those times ended with the largest military attack on home soil in history. Now I won't say that hte US hasn't thoroughly fucked up in it's international role since world war 2 sometimes - hell I've repeatedly cited the fuckups, like removing a democratically elected leader in *insert list of over 50 countries here* to install a dictator, going to war in Iraq etc.

But, and this matter, over-all they global liberal order has stood - there has not been another world war. The US has kept wars local in this time, to it's own and the world's benefit.
Isolationism would dismantle all that, and almost certainly lead to a new world war.

Now the truth is also that the world, over the past 3 years, have reach the closest point to a world war since the last one ended. Tensions have not been this high in 70 years. Countries around the world are flexing their muscles and itching for a fight. I'm not a Clinton fan (I WAS a Sanders fan) but I did think she had the knowledge, experience and acumen required to hopefully keep a lid on things and calm things down. It was a longshot but it was also the ONLY shot. The one thing I was sure of was that a blustery buffoon like Donald Trump was the absolute worst possible person to have in charge of the US military at a time like this. A brash, loudmouth, egotist with authoritarian and fascist tendency who appeals to ethno-nationalist sentiments - worst possible person for the job.

Nobody saw world war 1 coming, the markets didn't even shift until 3 months after the events that started it. The tensions were there, the build-up is obvious in retrospect, but it was not visible at the time.
Now though, with the benefit of having seen it there - I see the same patterns in global geopolitics today. And it takes extremely skilled leadership to steer through this without igniting another one. No rash decisions can be made. 99.9999% very careful and skilled diplomacy, and the tiny 0.000001 surgical precision military strikes - that's what could keep things calm and resolve these tensions without breaking out.
Trump has none of the qualities required. Clinton did - she'd STILL be a longshot because of the other world leaders out there Merkel is ONLY other one who is up to the task. Could the two of them keep things calm ? I don't know - but there was a chance. With the election of Trump - there is no chance. Indeed a no-fly zone over Syria with diplomatic pressure to force Russia to accept it could potentially have been exactly the right approach. It would certainly have reduced the likelihood of bombing Syria today.

Do not be surprised if, in future decades, historians refer to this week as the week world war 3 started. And no, the poison gas attack would not be the start- Asad's been doing that for ages. It's this strike, this morning. This strike could very well be the first strike of world war 3.
I hope it isn't, I hope there is no world war 3. I hope that the leader of the free world Angela Merkel (oh remember the good old days when that title belonged to whoever was POTUS ?) and the leaders in her European alliances (France, the Netherlands, Scandinavia) have the wisdom (and the scars) to manage to keep a lid on things even in a world where Trump has the big red button.
It's not a big hope, but it's hope and I cling to it. I have never so badly wanted to be wrong.

I just fear I'm right, because it's far more than a possibility, it's a strong probability.