Let's consider for a moment. (1) Trump has previously been against acting without congressional approval. Is this Congress friendly or hostile to Trump? (2) The strikes come two full days after threatening to strike. You've taken some doctrine and strategy at this point, my friend - would an attack two days after threatening an attack be effective at damaging crucial materiel, particularly of the easily-transportable kind? (3) The strike was called two days after threatening them, ten days after the gas attack that provoked them, but before approval by the UN Security Council. Obviously, there are reasons to strike Syria (which could be debated, but I'm not in the mood). Obviously, there are methods to strike Syria and justifications to strike Syria. But can you say, in a confident and dispassionate tone of voice, that Trump was abiding by those methods and justifications, rather than taking tips from Ainsley Earhardt? I cannot. Fox and Friends airs at 6am EST. US missiles hit Syria between midnight and 1am EST. Do... you think you could talk May and Macron to fire a couple cruise missiles at Syria in eighteen hours?
So because Trump has set a precedent of acting without Congressional approval, and because his order was delayed, and (let's assume) it's unlikely the operation can accomplish its publicly stated mission, then it must be that Trump convinced May and Macron to fire a combined 100 missiles at Syria in order to control the American news cycle? kb, you're losing me here.. I'd be slightly more comfortable with people running wild with the threat-to-action delay than this claim that sounds, at the moment, like a rather lazy conspiracy theory. edit: I didn't consider that GB and FR had their own valid reasons to strike. Getting them involved, while I can submit that it might have been very easy, is still not relevant to the central claim. edit2: Just clarifying, I understand how an international missile strike can bury unwanted news. I'm rejecting the claim that this was why he did it.
The why is not up for debate. "missiles at Syria" is obviously a keyboard macro for this administration. The when is the subject at hand... Given the above, would you argue that the when of this strike was selected for tactical or strategic military reasons? This is far more your wheelhouse than mine, but my understanding is that the Joint Chiefs are in charge of strategy but without a formal declaration of war the President has to authorize military force. A set of strike solutions would have been studied and prioritized based on conditions. Once force has been authorized, the strike itself can happen within operational parameters. Suppose there was a joint strike mission in the works, along with congressional approval, coordination with the Russians and Turks, the whole enchilada. But then yesterday morning Trump tells Mattis "strike Syria as soon as possible." Your envelope is now a ticking-clock optimization between orders from the President and tactical advantage. You won't be getting congressional approval, you won't be coordinating with the Russians and Turks, and you'll be telling the British and French "we're lighting this candle before sunrise in Damascus." I'll bet the result looks a lot like what we saw.
