China’s reaction to the Syrian missile strike.

by
Mike Norman
My articles My siteAbout meMy booksMy videos
Follow on:TwitterFacebook

US President Donald Trump announced on Friday he ordered strikes on the Syrian regime in response to a chemical attack last weekend. He said the strikes were in coordination with France and the United Kingdom. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad said his country is being "invaded" by the three countries. The Russian Embassy in the USA said in a statement that "insulting the President of Russia is unacceptable and inadmissible."

In a sensational statement, Trump asserted the Bashar Assad government used chemical weapons on civilians. He said "The evil and the despicable attack left mothers and fathers, infants and children thrashing in pain and gasping for air. These are not the actions of a man. They are crimes of a monster instead."Trump also warned "Russia must decide if it will continue down this dark path or if it will join with civilized nations as a force for stability and peace."

The facts cannot be distorted. This military strike was not authorized by the UN, and the strikes targeted a legal government of a UN member state. The US and its European allies launched strikes to punish President Bashar al-Assad for a suspected chemical attack in Duma last weekend. However, it has not been confirmed if the chemical weapons attack happened or if it did, whether government forces or opposition forces launched it. International organizations have not carried out any authoritative investigation.

The Syrian government has repeatedly stressed that there is no need for it to use chemical weapons to capture the opposition-controlled Duma city and the use of chemical weapons has provided an excuse for Western intervention. The Syrian government's argument or Trump's accusations against the "evil" Assad regime, which one is in line with basic logic? The answer is quite obvious.

The US has a record of launching wars on deceptive grounds. The Bush government asserted the Saddam regime held chemical weapons before the US-British coalition troops invaded Iraq in 2003. However, the coalition forces didn't find what they called weapons of mass destruction after overthrowing the Saddam regime. Both Washington and London admitted later that their intelligence was false.

Washington's attack on Syria where Russian troops are stationed constitute serious contempt for Russia's military capabilities and political dignity. Trump, like scolding a pupil, called on Moscow, one of the world's leading nuclear powers, to abandon its "dark path." Disturbingly, Washington seems to have become addicted to mocking Russia in this way. Russia is capable of launching a destructive retaliatory attack on the West. Russia's weak economy is plagued by Western sanctions and squeezing of its strategic space. That the West provokes Russia in such a manner is irresponsible for world peace.

The situation is still fomenting. The Trump administration said it will sustain the strikes. But how long will the military action continue and whether Russia will fight back as it claimed previously remain uncertain. Western countries continue bullying Russia but are seemingly not afraid of its possible counterattack. Their arrogance breeds risk and danger.

After US, British and French forces launched over 100 missiles at Syria, Washington quickly stated that it was satisfied with the effectiveness of the strike. US President Donald Trump tweeted "Mission Accomplished!" Will there be more military actions on Syria? The US said that will depend on whether Bashar al-Assad's regime will use more chemical weapons in the future.

According to these signals from Washington, most observers believe that this round of strikes against Syria by the US and its allies have come to an end. They have not actually weakened Syrian government forces or hurt Russia's military presence in Syria, but they conveyed a warning that Trump dares to strike.

As for what Trump wants in Syria, many people are confused. Does he really want to stop the Syrian government forces from using chemical weapons? In that case, it's simple, because there is no need at all for the nation's government forces, which already control the situation in Syria's battlefield, to use chemical weapons.

Using chemical weapons would only attract condemnation and attacks from the outside world. Hence, Assad's government has sufficient reason as it claims to keep away from chemical weapons.

Was Trump trying to turn the tables on the Syrian battlefield, where government forces are scoring victories while opposition forces are shrinking? Then 100 missiles are far from enough.

Was Washington attempting to humiliate Russia? Undoubtedly it embarrassed Moscow, but the strike avoided the region where Russian troops are stationed and the US issued a signal to stop the strike immediately afterward. Apparently, Washington restrained itself so as not to push the Kremlin into a corner and escalate the conflict.

Perhaps even Trump and his team have no clue what they want to do in Syria. They may want to showcase the might of the US and the West, send a warning to their potential opponents and boost the unity of the West. Washington may feel that it is no big deal to beat Syria up.

But the US severely underestimated the negative consequences of its reckless military action. It will inevitably stimulate hatred and make many countries and forces believe that the ultimate way to resolve conflicts and disputes can only be the use of force.

It can be foreseen that the military strike on Syria will have a negative impact on the upcoming talks between the two Koreas and the Trump-Kim summit.

One of the major characteristics of the Trump administration's diplomacy is willfulness and recklessness, as if the all-mighty US has the right to do everything.

However, the stronger a country is, the greater the responsibility it has to maintain world peace and order. The military actions of the US and its allies have breached the framework of the United Nations and violated the foundation of modern international relations. If the will of Washington and the West represents the will of all mankind and they can punish whoever they want, why do we need the UN, or international law?

Without UN authorization, the US, UK and France behaved like rogues. No matter how touching the excuses they find for themselves, they cannot change the fact that they were lynching Syria without due evidence.

It is worrying that the US may disturb Syria with yet more missiles from time to time, throwing yet more salt on an open wound of a country.