The shame of the Syria strike

Now that the dust has settled from the Syria strike and the usual suspects have had their say—among them Rand Paul that Trump’s order was as unconstitutional as LBJ’s dragging us into Vietnam and war-monger John McCain just as pleased as punch—I have to say I was surprised and saddened.

First off I’ve never understood why chemical weapons are supposed to be more heinous than high explosive or automatic rifles and machine guns. But given that they are seen that way, Trump’s comment about children dying horribly from poisonous gas couldn’t have been more disingenuous.

Does he not know that there were families at that air base he bombed? Families of the techs who labored there and undoubtedly some with children? Why is blowing them up less horrible that what Assad allegedly did? And how does this further American First? As Paul said Syria didn’t attack us.

Regrettably, Trump seems to be headed down the path that Bush 2 and Obama took, in stirring up the hornets nest of the Middle East, and getting more American soldiers killed—for the sake of what? Realpolitik? What a shame.

UPDATE:  The ZMan opines: “The United States has no interest in Syria. There are no good guys to back. There’s no ‘solution’ to what ails that part of the world, short of another flood. Syria is a mess because it is full of Syrians. The only sane policy is to make sure it remains full of Syrians. Let them kill each other there, not in Paris or Portland.” And hopes the Tumpet doesn’t get to like being President of the World. God help us.

One response to “The shame of the Syria strike

  1. I kinda feel the same way, only I have little sympathy for the Syrians bombing chirrens, chemicals or HE. Come to think of it, I have little sympathy for any of the nutbars over there.