If Obama Gives A Go-ahead To Air Strikes On Syria

What are your thoughts on the United States missile strike on Syria on 6th April 2017 in response to the chemical weapons attack?

First, it is an invasion. The strike on the Syrian government does not have UN’s permission, so it is illegal, as illegal as Germany’s invasion towards Poland. Even if US claims Assad has committed war crime (which has not been proven yet), it is not American’s to punish, it should be UN.Second, US claims that the reason of this attack is because the Syrian government used the toxic gas upon civilians. Well, when everybody else think further investigation is needed, the western world has jumped to this conclusion. But as we know, Syria’s chemical weapons were already destoryed under supervison in 2014, right? But the rebels are considered incapable of manufacturing and preserving this kind of weapon. We don’t know if it is really used by Syrian government, or a false flag of the rebels. There are no solid evidence to back up either of these two opinions.Third, about 150 people were killed or wounded because of the gas attack. It is a lot, indeed, but it is still a small number compared to other incidents. Just days ago, US force accidently bombed another hospital and killed over 200 people. If Syrian government deserves 60 missiles because they killed civilians (which is just a one side opinion), then how much missiles does US deserves?

Why did Trump order the Syrian attack when Obama refused to do it for 8 years?

Actually, Obama did order airstrikes within Syria—against ISIS—under the provisions of the war authorization that Congress passed after the September, 11, 2001 attacks to fight al-Qaeda and its spin-offs across the globe.This authorization did not, however, authorize pre-emptive bombing against a sovereign nation—such as Syria--without further Congressional approval, and a Republican-dominated congress refused to grant President Obama such approval. Obama obeyed the law.Even Donald Trump—in multiple tweets—argued that Congressional authorization was required for such an offensive action: “The President must get Congressional approval before attacking Syria-big mistake if he does not!” “Obama needs congressional approval.”But then Trump ignored his own positions and bombed Syrian targets without consulting congress (though after notifying Russia of his intentions who in turn warned Syria).Why? Perhaps there is a clue in one of Mr. Trumps other tweets from that earlier period: “Now that Obama’s poll numbers are in tailspin – watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate.”

Should President Obama bomb Assad?

While I feel comfortable commenting on military capabilities and can speculate on hypothetical scenarios, discussing whether the president of the US should bomb the head of state of a UN member country is an entirely different matter.Bombing Assad would probably involve declaring war on Syria, whereas possible reasons for starting a new war are not only missing, but have not even been discussed in mainstream media for a few years. To wit, Assad’s agreement to get rid of his stockpiles of chemical weapons eliminated the last credible (although not necessarily compelling) reason discussed previously. So, I’d first like to see understand a better justification and answers to the obvious legal questions. Also, who is going to support those strikes? If the US Congress and the UNSC authorize those strikes, then sure - go ahead. If both are against, then no. If one of them authorizes strikes, and the other does not, then it’s the details that will matter.A different aspect of this question is whether the US actually can bomb Assad and get away with this (if not, then it’s probably better not try). The answer to that question is rather straightforwardSyrian air force and air defense are not an obstacle, as demonstrated before,Russian air defense (including the S-400 stationed in Hmeimim) can be circumvented by using a mix of below-the-radar cruise missiles, high-altitude stealth planes, heavy jamming, drones and decoys, etc.The Russian air force (also stationed in Hmeimim) is more of an issue, but can also be dealt with by similar means, as well as by using a much larger attack force approaching from 3–4 directions (Turkey, Eastern Syria, Jordan/KSA, and Mediterranean) and drawing out the handful of fighter planes Russia has left in Syria.The last two options must also be complemented by preparing powerful responses to Russia’s firing one or more missiles at US planes, and articulating some of them to Russian military leadership. Essentially, attacking US forces over Syria would endanger the entire Russian corps in Syria and, perhaps, all naval assets in the Mediterranean. Technically speaking (this is a speculation), the US might be able to invoke NATO Article V whereas an attack by Russia on the US in the Northern Hemisphere would be considered an attack on all NATO members, notably Turkey, which can then close the Turkish Straits to Russia, leaving Russian forces in Syria undersupplied - they may have to wrap up their entire campaign and leave.