Many were alarmed when Trump declared the targeted bombings of Syria to be “Mission Accomplished.”
Firstly, because that phrase is indelibly tied to George W. Bush’s 2003 declaration on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln — which was intended to indicate an end to the war on terror. But also because so many critics assumed that this bombing of Syria, not unlike last year’s bombing of Syria, would be little more than a few minutes of war theater intended for an approval ratings bump.
While the UN had no part in this. our only nuclear NATO allies (the United Kingdom and France) did take part. So there was the thought that perhaps people had been too quick to assume the bombing of Syria was a bust.
The news coming from the region, however, is telling a different story.
Israel’s Ynetnews quoted an unnamed Senior Defense Official as saying:
“If President Trump had ordered the strike only to show that the US responded to [Syrian President Bashar] Assad’s use of chemical weapons, then that goal has been achieved. But if there was another objective — such as paralyzing the ability to launch chemical weapons or deterring Assad from using it again — it’s doubtful any of these objectives have been met.”
Ynetnews has also published an op-ed in which Giora Eiland asks, “If the Russian claim that 70 percent of the missiles were intercepted by the Syrian defense system is true, there is cause for concern.
And why did the Americans limit the pretext for a future attack to the exclusive use of chemical weapons? Would it be wrong to retaliate if the Assad army burns hundreds of people alive?”