The Syrian regime's use of chemical weapons Tuesday was a test. I am as surprised at the answer as the regime and its Russian backers must be.
Embattled dictator Bashar al-Assad was supposed to turn over his chemical weapons for destruction in 2013. This was after widespread use of them. The Russians agreed to broker the turnover.
Clearly, that did not fully happen. A rebel town in Syria was attacked Tuesday with nerve gas by the regime's aircraft. That was only the most flagrant of three attacks, according to the U.S. State Department. The Russian excuse for their client is ludicrous. Regime bombing hit a stockpile of gas the rebels had, they say.
Lies too outrageous to be believed still have use. Those who give this one any credence at all give a pass to a Russian client's use of nerve gas.
The U.S. secretary of state summed things up Thursday. "Clearly, Russia has failed in its responsibility to deliver on that commitment from 2013. So either Russia has been complicit or Russia has been simply incompetent in its ability to deliver on its end of that agreement."
There was much needless speculation on why the Syrian regime would use such weapons again. The simple answer is, such weapons are terrifying. Assad was doing what his daddy, Hafez al-Assad, did when faced with a rebellion in 1982. The father levelled the rebel town with heavy artillery, killing about 20,000 people. When confronted by a shocked world, the elder Assad described the destruction as even worse than it was. He promoted the commanders involved and razed what was left of the town's great mosque.
Terror as a weapon is an Assad family tradition. The younger Assad would have flattened another town this time with artillery if he still had the power. His goal with nerve gas was to show the rebels there was no limit to the suffering he could inflict. He could do what he wanted, including flout the 2013 agreement. No one would stop him. This tested the new and unpopular U.S. president, too. A lack of any response would prove Assad's threats to be true.
Then President Donald Trump, who supposedly owes his election to Russia, had the U.S. Navy shower 59 cruise missiles upon the airbase used to launch the gas attack.
Surprise.
Some say a president in trouble at home bombed something. I do not buy that. Plenty of useful distractions would not have involved confronting Russia.
Critics call the president a flaming hypocrite. They have a point, but it is not as good as they think. Yes, those beautiful babies, to use the president's words, who were killed in the chemical attack would still be alive if he had let them and their parents flee here. No one in the mainstream media in Arkansas has called louder or longer for bringing in refugees than I have. I wish this strike signaled a change on refugee policy. I do not believe it does.
The strike's message is not subtle: Do not use chemical weapons. It is no use to point out that high explosives kill beautiful babies, too. Whatever the reason, chemical weapons cross a red line and not just for Trump. Our allies from Germany to Israel to Saudi Arabia to New Zealand declared support for our strike. Even China just urged calm from here on out.
Now we are committed to a wider war with Syria and removing the Assad regime, another line of comment goes. No we are not. Again, the strike's purpose was not nuanced. Do not use chemical weapons. We mean it.
There is a question of whether this strike was constitutional. That would matter if Congress still functioned and defended its prerogatives any more.
Speaking of things that should matter to Congress but probably will not, our supply of Tomahawk missiles just went down by 59. Wars cost money. This one just got hotter. It could get very hot indeed.
There is no denying our situation in the Middle East just got more tense. The most important thing is that the Russians say they are cutting off most of the "deconflict" agreement. Fortunately they later said they would keep the direct line we used to warn the Russians this strike was coming. That "deconflict" agreement lessens the risk some Russian missile shoots down an American aircraft, for instance.
Syria just got much more dangerous than it already was. Taking a stand has risks.
Commentary on 04/08/2017