After the bombing of Syria in the night of Saturday, April 14, the American press began to reveal new details about the impending strike. According to media reports, Donald trump was considered as one of the options even the attack of Russian air defense in Syria, but the President was dissuaded from such a scenario. In addition, the White house reiterated its intention to withdraw American military forces from Syria “as soon as possible”.
While in the mass media and social networks discuss the Parallels between trump’s tweet that “Mission accomplished”, as George W. Bush in 2003 announced a “victory” in the war in Iraq (behind his back then hung a banner with “mission accomplished”), the U.S. edition of the Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. defense Secretary suggested that the Trump three possible strike on Syria. The first option involved the firing of only those objects which, according to the Pentagon, was directly related to the production of chemical weapons. The following scenario assumed a more imposing list of goals, because the attack was planned to strike at Syrian command posts and military research centers. The third and most daring possible version included attacks on positions of Russian air defense forces. The purpose of this plan was to “undermine the military capabilities of the Syrian regime,” but in this case there was the risk of retaliation from Russia.
According to The Wall Street Journal, trump has bowed for the third option and wanted to strike at Russian and Iranian targets in Syria. But the Minister of defence of the USA James Mattis brought certain arguments that convinced the President to accept the “hybrid” option. In the end, was struck by the civilian and military infrastructure of Syria, according to official data, victims among the civilian population and casualties of the Syrian army is not.
Meanwhile, the unanimity in the American political establishment actions trump on the Syrian track no. If some are unhappy by the very fact of a strike without approval from Congress, others believe that an attack against Assad was too weak and ineffective.
“In principle, the us Congress was dissatisfied with the behavior of the trump, because there was hoping for a greater coherence of action. – says “MK” research fellow, Center for North American studies, IMEMO ran Alexander BORISOV. – Legally, the President had the right to carry out this attack. It could also be confirmed by the Congress of their actions. On the other hand, trump warned in advance about the intention to make an attack. Congress theoretically could thwart the attempt at the legislative level. Conflict with the Congress, lay not in the humanitarian nature of the operation, and that trump is not enough for them is agreed. There are individuals such as Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders, who actively and aggressively oppose trump.
This situation with the strikes on Syrian facilities is similar to the story of the Tonkin Gulf during the Vietnam war, when the Americans bombed the entire Bay, and Soviet ships are not affected. Now in Syria the US has said that howl is not from Russia. So as to enter into a hot war at the moment, especially with an opponent like Russia, is overkill even for the neo-conservatives.”
The current us President has also previously announced its intention to withdraw the US military presence from Syrian territory. This was confirmed by White house spokesman Sarah Sanders. “The goal of the US mission in Syria remained unchanged. He clearly stated that he wants the return of us forces home as soon as possible,” – said in a statement. While Sanders said that the aim of Washington is to complete the defeat of ISIL (banned in Russia and other countries as a terrorist organization).