What was our goal, and did we accomplish it?
Our goal was probably twofold a) to cripple the Syrian government's ability to use chemical weapons against their own people and b) to retaliate for their use of chemical weapons. We certainly accomplished b), but I don't think we did a) very well at all.
But we hit the air strip and did a lot of damage! Why wouldn't you say this will stop chemical weapons use by the Syrian government?
We hit the airstrip that was used in the chemical weapons attack, but we didn't hit the things you'd want to destroy in a precision attack. We destroyed four (4) airplanes but left two unharmed. We hit mostly outbuildings, fuel storage and Syrian radar/air defense systems. A bunch of other airplanes are at other bases, and we didn't hit those. The U.S. believes sarin was stored at the base, but did not hit it with a strike. (Though I could see an argument that there's a fear it could be spread in the air, but I haven't researched whether this is possible with sarin gas.) Perhaps most importantly, we didn't destroy the runways. The air strip was operating just fine the next day.
Why didn't we take out the runways?
Here's where Foxtrot Alpha helped me out: Tomahawk cruise missiles are good at blowing things up. But how do you blow up a flat, paved piece of road? If you hit it with a missile, a bulldozer can fix that up in a few hours. Heck, Trump understands that, tweeting: "The reason you don't generally hit runways is that they are easy and inexpensive to quickly fix (fill in and top)!" But what he didn't say is that you can destroy runways, but what you need are special types of bombs, and those can only be dropped from aircraft — not missiles. Those force you to get close.
So why didn't we?
The short answer is Russia. Russia's got a much more sophisticated/modern air defense system than the Syrians, and they've also got much better aircraft than the Syrians. Russia is camped out in the area and we'd have to get past them to get to the air strip in question. We only have 20 of the types of B-2 bombers (hi, nearby Whiteman Air Force Base!) that could do the job, and we're not exactly sure they're as stealthy as we pretend they are. So sending an aircraft in would be a provocation of Russia, it would be expensive, and it would risk American lives in the crew of the airplane.
What is our relationship with Russia?
Well, we called them to warn them we were going to strike with the missiles.
Why?
Partly because of an air agreement we made a while ago, partly because of international norms, and partly to tell them to get their troops out of the way. They may have/probably told the Syrians stationed there to get away from likely targets.
Who gets to call this a win?
Just about everyone except Syrian rebels. The U.S. has given the appearance (temporarily, and in the short-term) of strength, as though we won't tolerate chemical weapons attacks. We look like we actually did something, even if that something is "heightened tensions with Russia." That's the easy, lazy first read that most will take away. Russia can spin it their own way: look at how not-in-cahoots with America we are! Also, the America's attacks didn't even hit correctly (see coverage by the government-run network Russia Today), so we're much smarter/better at war then they are! It also gives Russia a pretext for ignoring that air agreement I mentioned in the last paragraph. The Syrian government gets to pretend this is an attack on their sovereignty while continuing with very little disruption to their side of the civil war.
So did we do the right thing or not?
Color me unimpressed, but accepting. I would have felt this way no matter who called for the strike. Surely if we cared at all about what was happening in Syria, we should have had a "response" to the chemical weapon use. I feel that a missile strike was probably our only option of looking authoritative without poking a Russian Bear into something more serious. But I'm also convinced that it's just appearances. I agree with Foxtrot Alpha, who said that this was not a military decision; it was a political one.
Maybe we should have used bigger bombs?
Well, we just used the biggest non-nuclear one we've got on Afghanistan.
Who did we drop it on?
It's a cave system near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border that's believed to be controlled by ISIS in Afghanistan (ISIS-K). If the blast didn't kill them, the removal of oxygen probably did. That said, it's not like we have people on the ground telling us how many are dead, nor do we have ISIS-K reporting any number. If they were hit, they're underground and not talking much.
Good, right?
Yeah, but here's a trend I've noticed with the (goodness, we're still in the first 100 days...) Trump administration. Syria is being aggressive, so we react aggressively, but ineffectively. North Korea is being aggressive, so we react by sending an aircraft carrier to the region (aggressively, but ineffectively). ISIS-K exists, so we react aggressively, but its effectiveness has yet to be seen. I don't know what our long-term strategy is in any of these conflicts. Are we going to continue to engage in Syria? Are we going to keep pushing North Korea? Are we ramping up our fight against ISIS or ISIS-K? It hasn't been said. All I know is that any aggression is countered by more aggression on the United States' part, and I wonder what sort of message we're sending. Right now, our military message might best be described as "posturing."
North Korea is feeling the pressure
Speaking of North Korea, it didn't get a lot of attention, but North Korea's aggression has already caused a reaction from their closest ally. China turned away ships full of North Korean coal this week, effectively rejecting all North Korean coal imports for the rest of the year. This is a bigger deal than you might think. Coal makes up 18 percent of all North Korean exports. And China is North Korea's biggest trade partner, too, roughly 42 percent of all North Korean exports. So, if you do some rough math/estimates, China's decision cuts the North Korea exports by about 7.5-8 percent. But another estimate was that coal shipments to China accounted for 40 percent of all exports.
But what's curious is that China's been slowly pulling away from North Korea even before the most recent activity. While China turned away the ships just this week, their announcement about rejecting North Korean coal until 2018 came in February. Further, China closed the account of North Korea's main foreign exchange bank in 2013. They've also ended financial support of North Korea as of last February. While China may be North Korea's only world friend, they're also not really as friendly with Pyongyang as they used to be.
Summary Judgments
I am stretching myself the Sunday after my birthday to run a 10K in the Plaza area of Kansas City. This is the dumbest running thing I'll ever do (I'm scaling back on races the next couple years). It's not the dumbest running thing ANYONE will ever do: That's the Barkley Marathons. It's called the anti-race, and amounts to about 100-130 miles over 60 hours, over rugged terrain, with checkpoints and ridges and creeks and thorns and... just read this story. • • • Incredible story by David Von Drehle here about the little-noted 100th anniversary of the U.S.'s entry into WWI. It's about how overlooked the National WWI Museum is (here in K.C. at Liberty Memorial) and WWI is in general. Also, Von Drehle spoke at William Jewell's Achievement Day last year, and I thought he was fantastic. • • • I am changing my running route so I cross one less major intersection, and it's messing with my time/ability. Sometimes, you get so used to a route that when it's changed, it messes with everything. • • • Roland has been waking up at night with bad dreams lately. I think it's because he's really into this book called "When I'm Feeling Scared." Anyway, when he wakes up, he's pretty loud and half-asleep, which makes it harder to get him back to bed. A couple of nights ago, he woke up two or three times in the night, and twice he was mad because Evie stole his cup. Evie sleeps in a different room. And that's how we knew he was having bad dreams.
No comments:
Post a Comment