Probably at most, a token airstrike on something of secondary importance with the effect of mildly inconveniencing Assad for a few days.
The twitter description, though, will compare it to Hiroshima.
Should we not first establish whether there has actually been a chemical attack by Assad?
XT, I would like to remind you of what you said after the previous chemical attack.
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20199462&postcount=49
Aye; what’s up with that?
Trump, not Syria. I will assume you don’t need a cite that the idea is that Trump is Putin’s puppet, that Trump was colluding with Russia (I think it may have mentioned on these boards once or twice).
As I mentioned earlier, I suspect the French President is not going to be doing any bombing on his own.
Regards,
Shodan
Absolutely. I agree with my earlier post, and in another thread I brought this up. That said, the French President (which I apparently need to specify) said he DOES have proof, so part of the OP is asking about that as well. Of course, we get into an analysis paralysis situation as well, with the longer we wait (and with our own idiotic president tweeting about attacks) the longer the Syrian’s have to redeploy their critical systems and personnel to be shielded by the Russian’s.
Myself, I’d be fine with taking our time to look into this to really ensure we have all of the evidence, but if it is found to be the case (yet again), then I think a more sustained effort against Syria is in order…as well as more pressure on Russia to step aside. Personally, I was a bit suspicious about this chemical attack when I first heard about it, but the evidence does seem to be mounting, and while I think Trump is stupid in Biblical proportions that doesn’t preclude Assad from being as stupid or even more stupid.
It seems you don’t even have a consistent theory, in your own mind, about why Trump might bomb Syria. Within half an hour you went from “to get his attorney scandal off the headlines” to “bask in the rah-rah patriotic boost in popularity”. It’ll be fascinating to watch whatever additional made-up motives you ascribe to this hypothetical action in the future.
I’m surprised anyone thinks Trump is inclined to military action.
Make no mistake, this is serious shit. Any response is a genuine escalation of the confrontation between the west and Russia - an attack on Assad must be considered in the context of sophisticated Russian air defence systems. And cruise misslies won’t cut it - we know that from Trump’s last token response.
John Bolton will be inclined to action. Theresa May has no choice other than to follow after the international support following Salisbury. But make no mistake, for the first time in 20 years the USA will not be attacking guys in SUV’s, there are all manner of risks here.
If anything the attack is a baited trap.
In Allied Force in 1999, the US was going up against conventionally equipped, reasonably-modern armed Serb forces. In 2003, there was still conventional resistance from the Iraqi regular military. In Desert Fox, Saddam’s military was conventional and modern by regional standards likewise.
You think the Syrians are trying to bait the USN and USAF (and RAF and French Air Force / Navy) into attacking so that they can “spring a trap” on us, perhaps in conjunction with the Russians and their fancy S-400 SAM system?
There was also Odyssey Dawn. I don’t have a particularly high opinion of the martial prowess of the forces that were under Gaddafi’s command in 2011, but it’s certainly more comparable to the sort of organized military forces that are under Assad’s command today than just “guys in SUV’s”.
Note: The Russians could make it significantly more sporting, if they choose.
There is no such entity as “the Syrians”. What I think is that message board over simplifications contribute nothing.
These are not different reasons. Each would be an easily predicted rationale for Trump dropping bombs. Trump ain’t all that deep and complex.
You weren’t able to pick up, from the context of that comment, that I was referring to the forces under Assad’s command?
ETA: I was asking for clarification on your “the attack is a baited trap” comment. You seem disinclined to offer any.
Of course they’re different. It’s possible they’re both factors in Trump’s decision-making, but they are clearly “different reasons”. One is not just a synonym or restatement of the other.
For now all he’s doing is a bit of saber rattling. If he does as before he’ll launch several million dollars worth of bloated defense spending to shut down an airbase for a week or two until Assad can clean it up. I actually think that an increase in perceived tension up to and including one or two Russian Casualties, would probably be good for both sides. Trump can claim to be being harsh on Russia, and an international tough guy, Putin can focus the discontent of his people on an exterior boogieman. As long as no one hurts the Russian Oligarch Gravy train, or Putin’s greater strategic ambitions it’s Win-Win.
Ironic coming from a poster who generally posts in one line replies that are simplistic and generally contribute little to the discussion (I’m being generous here). As for what you probably think of as a sophisticated and nuanced reply here, while it’s true that there are a huge number of factions in this civil war, the reality is that ‘the Syrians’ can, in this case, be summed up by Assad, since only he has access to (Russian built) advanced air defense systems…the average faction, whether on Assad’s side, on one of the various rebels sides or even on ISIS/ISIL or on factions supporting their side don’t. So, nice try and thanks for the laugh.
I picture Admiral Ackbar with that last line there. It’s funny coming on the heels of the first post I quoted there that you have such a simplistic view of all things America and a really overblown view of Russian technological capabilities and forces deployed in Syria. While I have no doubt that the S-400 system is every bit as formidable as it’s touted, you really don’t know that much about how it’s deployed in Syria and what it’s capabilities are wrt guarding even the parts of Syria that Assad controls as opposed to what the US and it’s allies can bring to bear. While I doubt that Trump has any more of a clue than you seem to, and I doubt that Trump will do more than a token retaliatory strike (probably more to take the pressure off him at home than out of any sort of conviction that the US should be involved at all), the US and it’s allies can bring overwhelming force to bear in Syria if it and it’s allies so choose.
Your ridiculous prejudice against the US has blinded you to the fact that in the theater those cruise missiles alone, which you so disparage can almost certainly bring to bear enough to overwhelm the air defense network the Russian’s have deployed…and that’s if we actually went for them where they are most concentrated, which we certainly won’t. This doesn’t count the air assets that the US, UK, France and the rest could deploy in strikes…just the cruise missiles. Just to put this in some context, each destroyer the US has carries over 50…dedicated missile cruisers carry more. US boomers can carry over 100 of the things, and even attack subs have over 50. The Air Force, of course, can launch a huge number as well. No idea how many missiles you think the Russian’s have in the area, but even assuming they could shoot down half or even 2/3rds, which is fantasy, they are going to shoot themselves dry a hell of a lot faster than we are. And, of course, there are all those attack air craft.
As to your other point about the US fighting ‘guys in SUV’s’, I have to ask you…who do you suppose the Russian’s have been fighting during the same time period? Even if we accept this silly assertion on your part, that’s more experience that the Russian’s have. 
tbh, I’m somewhat disinclined to engage with you.
This is a nuanced calibration which is why it is taking days. I think it’s helpful to acknowledge that. It’s partly intended as a test of John Bolton, partly to throw light on the extent of the chaos in the White House, partly to flesh out the state of play in a tapestry of alliances. Not so much a boys own match up in military systems, though it may come to that as well.
The two are not mutually exclusive, to intelligent people. He can, and likely will, “bask in the rah rah” while enjoying his attorney scandal not being in the headline. But feel free to continue your patented pretzel logic. It amuses me.
“mutually exclusive” was not a claim I ever made. I said “It seems you don’t even have a consistent theory”. I suppose one could fairly summarize that as a claim that they were “different.”. That’s what bobot did. He jumped in with “These are not different reasons”, which I suspect you’d agree is patently false.
I am curious though, in your unified theory of Trump’s motivations, is there any room for humanitarian causes / international norms similar to May & Macron, or are you certain that’s not an issue that plays into this at all with President Trump?
There ain’t no good in an evil hearted…POTUS. Trump is motivated only by the greater glory of Trump. He has no core values, no principles, no honor, no respect for the rule of law, and no credibility. He’d likely hire someone to fiddle while metaphorical Rome burns, and then refuse to pay them.