US officials have been blaming Syria for an alleged chemical attack Saturday since early Sunday. President Trump today Tweeted that missiles “will be coming.” Defense Secretary James Mattis, however, appeared cautious about the question of whether the attack was real.
Asked specifically on whether there was evidence to blame Assad for the attack, Mattis told reporters that the US is “still assessing the intelligence,” and concluded that “we’re still working on this.” That sounds extremely uncertain, especially with the president suggesting an attack is imminent.
Mattis also indicated the Pentagon would be ready to attack when ordered. This is particularly concerning, as the US attacked Syria last year over an alleged Sarin attack, and nearly a year later Mattis recently admitted the US still doesn’t have evidence.
The reality is, that there really isn’t evidence to go off of yet. The Red Crescent has said they don’t think it happened. (This has been retracted, it is incorrect.) The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), the only watchdog that’s ever going to investigate the matter since the UN rejected a Russian call for an inquiry, isn’t even going to meet until next Monday to discuss what to do. By then, the US may have already started the war.
The US and its allies seem interested in reaching a consensus on what happened without investigations, or evidence. Russia, by contrast, is deploying troops to the site of the alleged attack, which is seen in part as an attempt to preclude the US bombing the site, and destroying any evidence before the OPCW can even get there.
It has already been confirmed, after all, that the US, Britain, France, and others are having discussions on exactly what sort of attack to carry out. Trump has indicated the attack will happen. There is no possibility of them being blocked by unfriendly facts about the situation, and likely that means they’ll decide to go in before such intelligence can be gathered.
Browsing the news, the exact plans of OPCW remain unclear. Reports of sending experts are abound, the “end of this week” can be found. The OPCW site mentions: “The team is preparing to deploy to Syria shortly” – which would mean this is not something still having to be decided next week? Of course preparing, getting permission and all that can still be done before the final go. It’s all way too slow in the face of anxious free-fall state governments longing to drown their sorrows in some imaginary limited conflict over Syria. The whole notion that, at this stage, and kind of additional military intervention is possible in the area looks like pure collective insanity on display. Egged on of course by those who believe war is transformative.
Acting quickly to pre-empt facts that would not support action? From Iraq to the Skripal pair, that has become standard. The Cold War was a restraint, and the end of the Cold War became not peace but permission to abuse at will.
I repeat self for about fifth time: 100% sure US/allies will not dare attack Syria militarily; for it can afford to bluff, threaten, deceive, etc., and Russia cannot.
So, if Putin said he’d try to stop the attack and also attack the sources of US attack; then, he will do it.
And even while having in mind that Russian military action against US military may lead to or cause a nuke war.
It is serious enough. You are probably correct.
I’d like to believe Mattis has or would refuse Presidential orders that would result in the deaths of innocent victims and American servicepeople. Impeachment can’t come fast enough, Trump is insane.
Mattis, May and Merkel stopped WW3.
“Germany will not take part in the possible operation” – Merkel
British Prime Minister Teresa May, during a telephone conversation with US President Donald Trump, announced that London too needed more evidence of a suspected chemical attack in Syria to join the US operation.
https://www.fort-russ.com/2018/04/germany-refuses-to-join-possible-us-intervention-in-syria/
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/382673-mattis-us-still-assessing-suspected-syria-chemical-weapons-attack
I’d like to believe that too but I don’t. If that were the case we wouldn’t have used our military since WW2.
And wouldn’t the world be much better off???
Yes. But I don’t believe Mattis “has or would refuse”, with “refuse” being the operative word here, any orders from Trump. He might advise but once given the order his ass kissing instincts will take over and it will be bombs away.
Trump is being driven to insanity by neocon-hawks and Democrat party neoliberals. To pluck him out and peg him as uniquely bloodthirsty verges on being politically motivated propaganda.
Pence better than Trump? Are we mad here?
Pence seems to believe we need to have Armageddon so he can get raptured.
Supporters of the New Democrat populated Demo-party are also, seemingly, pining for Armageddon…
“The US and its allies seem interested in reaching a consensus on what happened without investigations, or evidence.” This is the British way, too, as we have seen in the last month. Now I see Theresa May wants evidence in Syria- change of tactic?
Regardless of what Mattis or Trump think about the alleged Syrian chemical attack, the simple fact is that under international law, any military strike by the USA against Syria, unless conducted in self-defense or with UNSC approval, is illegal and constitutes an act of aggression.
……..and, according to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and Chief Prosecutor of the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, Robert Jackson, starting an aggressive war is the Act from which all other war crimes are children off.