From 3 varied sources, for balance, yes? Tl? Try the sports page.

https://www.rt.com/news/424176-cynical- ... s-comment/
‘Cynical and illegal’: Journalists, activists slam US-led missile strike against Syria
Published time: 14 Apr, 2018 18:07

The US-led missile attack against Syria demonstrates Washington’s complete disregard for international law, and its timing, before a proper investigation was conducted, raises serious questions, experts told RT.

Describing Saturday morning’s missile attack as illegal, Joe Lauria, an independent journalist and former Wall Street Journal correspondent, told RT that the strike was shocking – but not surprising.

“They did not prove that they were acting under Article 51 of the UN Charter, which is self-defense – the US was not acting in self-defense,” Lauria told RT. “They did not get Security Council authorization, and the US Congress did not weigh in on this, so it’s illegal internationally and under US law.”
The decision to launch the missiles just hours before inspectors from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) were scheduled to begin a fact-finding mission at the site of the alleged gas attack in Douma on Saturday represents “quite an extraordinary moment,” Lauria told RT. “But I should say it’s not unusual. The United States has done this kind of thing before,” he added.

Rick Sterling, an investigative journalist and member of the Syria Solidarity Movement, agreed, telling RT that the missile attacks on Syria by the United States, France and the UK were nothing less than an “attack on international law.”According to Sterling, “There is no justification for three countries taking it upon [themselves] to become the judge, jury and executioner of whether or not chemical weapons have been used. There is a process that should be followed.”
Malik Ayub Sumbal, a political analyst and broadcaster, said the strikes “violated all international laws, all international rules” as well as being a direct affront to the UN Charter.
“This is a cynical act. It’s illegal under international law, it’s illegal under US law. The administration and its supporters have no plausible story that this act will make anything better,” Robert Naiman, policy director at Just Foreign Policy, told RT.

“Even the New York Times dismissed this act before it happened as a feel-good, limited strike, a symbolic act for domestic consumption. So what can we say about the United States, the United Kingdom, and France? These are cynical actors. They’re not interested in what happens to civilians in Syria, or in Yemen, or anywhere else in the Middle East. It’s a sad day for the world, to know that these countries are so cynical and callous.”

The decision to launch the missiles just hours before inspectors from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) were scheduled to begin a fact-finding mission at the site of the alleged gas attack in Douma on Saturday represents “quite an extraordinary moment,” Lauria told RT. “But I should say it’s not unusual. The United States has done this kind of thing before,” he added.

F. Michael Maloof, a former Pentagon security analyst, said that the timing of the strikes clearly showed that the US and its western allies “didn’t really care” about a proper investigation into the April 7 incident. Finding out who is actually behind the alleged gas attack is “not really their motivation,” Maloof said.
The OPCW said on Saturday that their fact-finding mission will continue despite the airstrikes.

“They will make their decision, and if it aligns with what Russia said, that there was no chemical attack – we don’t even know if there was one, let alone if it was chlorine or Sarin – you can be sure it won’t be broadcast or printed pretty much in the US media,” Lauria told RT. “We don’t even hear very much here in the US about the inspectors arriving. That was buried here.”

Asked if he thought the US would strike Syria again if more cases of alleged chemical weapon usage emerged, Lauria pointed out that “we don’t even know that [Syrian President Bashar al-Assad] used chemical weapons this time. Or the last time. So they’re talking about ‘if he does it again.’ Well, how about waiting to find out whether he did it this time? So in other words, they don’t need proof. That is clear,” he said.

Ultimately, the humanitarian pretext behind the strikes, coupled with Washington’s disinterest in waiting for a proper investigation into the Douma incident, should raise alarm bells, Naiman told RT.

“These are the same three governments who are arming, and facilitating, and participating in the Saudi war in Yemen. The cause of the worst humanitarian crisis in the world. Millions of human beings on the brink of famine, worst cholera outbreak in human history, millions of human beings suffering from the blockade of fuel, medicine and fuel. These are the governments that [would] have us believe that this bombing has something to do with protecting civilians,” Naiman said.

“Does anybody in the world actually believe this military action has anything to do with protecting civilians? I can’t imagine anyone would be so foolish to believe such an assertion.”

May bypassing Parliament…from The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... complished

Theresa May faces anger over Syria raids as Trump declares ‘mission accomplished’
UK opposition leaders insist that parliament should have been consulted before airstrikes

Sat 14 Apr 2018 20.57 BSTLast modified on Sat 14 Apr 2018 23.50 BST
Theresa May is facing a furious backlash from MPs after she ordered UK forces to join the US and France in targeted airstrikes on Syrian chemical weapons facilitiesearly – without having gained the consent of parliament.

Hours after four RAF Tornado GR4 fighter jets launched Storm Shadow missiles at a military facility 15 miles west of Homs, where the Assad regime is believed to stockpile the lethal weapons, the prime minister issued a passionate defence of the action, which she said had been taken for humanitarian reasons.
Having been briefed by military advisers at Downing Street after the 2am strikes, May said that she was “confident” they had been successful.
A Downing Street spokesman said May spoke to President Macron and President Trump yesterday afternoon and that they agreed the military strikes had been a success.

“The prime minister welcomed the public support which had been given by fellow world leaders for the strong stand the UK, France and the United States had taken in degrading Syria’s chemical weapons capability and deterring their use, defending global rules, and sending a clear message that the use of chemical weapons can never become normalised.”
Donald Trump struck a more triumphalist note. In a tweet he said: “A perfectly executed strike last night. Thank you to France and the United Kingdom for their wisdom and the power of their fine military. Could not have had a better result. Mission accomplished!”

But, while support came from fellow European leaders and much of the wider international community, Vladimir Putin condemned the action “in the most serious way”. The Russian president called an emergency meeting of the UN security council to address the crisis. As that meeting opened on Saturday night, amid talk in UN circles of a new cold war, the organisation’s secretary general, António Guterres, urged all security council members to show restraint and avoid further escalation. Nikki Haley, the US ambassador to the United Nations, told the meeting: “If the Syrian regime uses this poisonous gas again, the United States is locked and loaded.”

A Russian resolution at the UN security council condemning the air strikes met with a stinging diplomatic defeat. Moscow gained support from only two other countries, China and Bolivia. Four council members – Ethiopia, Kazakhstan, Peru and Equitorial Guinea - abstained, while the remaining eight members voted against. After the vote the Russian envoy, Vassily Nebenzia said “Today is a very sad day for the world, the UN, its charter, which was blatantly, blatantly violated.”
The strikes, which May maintained were “right and legal”, were ordered in response to the killing of 75 people, including children, in the Syrian town of Douma eight days ago. At a press conference early on Saturday May said the decision had been based on a mass of intelligence showing the Assad regime had been responsible for the Douma chemical weapons attacks.

But the prime minister came in for a barrage of criticism from opposition politicians at home. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn accused her of “trailing after Donald Trump” and insisted that the prime minister should have sought parliamentary approval first.
“Bombs won’t save lives or bring about peace,” he said. “This legally questionable action risks escalating further, as US defence secretary James Mattis has admitted, an already devastating conflict and therefore makes real accountability for war crimes and use of chemical weapons less, not more, likely.”
Even Labour MPs who believed that action was necessary questioned why she had not waited until parliament returns on Monday to try to get its backing. Labour MP John Woodcock said: “It was right that the UK joined our allies in action to degrade Assad’s chemical weapon capability in Syria” but added that “the prime minister must explain to parliament why she believed it was not appropriate to put this to [a] vote in advance.”

Scottish first minister Nicola Sturgeon condemned the attacks and accused May of “complying with presidential wishes”, while Lib Dem leader Vince Cable warned: “Riding the coat-tails of an erratic US president is no substitute for a mandate from the House of Commons.” Caroline Lucas and Jonathan Bartley, the co-leaders of the Green party, said May had “trampled over parliamentary democracy” and called for a vote to be held on Monday.

May – who appeared to leave the door open to more strikes if the Assad regime repeated the used of chemical weapons – repeatedly dodged questions on whether she would seek some form of retrospective vote in parliament, saying only that she would address parliament on Monday, and take MPs’ questions.
At a Pentagon briefing Lt Gen Kenneth McKenzie said three targets had been struck in a “precise, overwhelming and effective” manner. One of these, the Barzah chemical weapons research and development centre near Damascus, was hit and “destroyed” by 76 missiles, 57 of them Tomahawks. “Initial indications are that we accomplished the military objectives without interference from Syria,” he said.

In the Syrian capital, Damascus, hundreds gathered to show their defiance in the face of western attacks, honking their car horns, flashing victory signs and waving Syrian flags after the airstrikes.

Some supporters of the anti-Assad opposition said they were disappointed that the strikes had been limited. “We had high hopes,” said Hussam, 40, who opposes the regime. “Unfortunately the only thing reverberating among us is disappointment. It wasn’t as intense as they’re making it sound. We have no more faith in the international community. Trump has been saying he will bomb for days now, like he’s warning Bashar ahead of time to be safe. If I am coming to murder someone, will I tell him beforehand? It’s ridiculous, it’s nonsense. They are laughing at us.”

May said the action, while specifically targeted at Assad, sent a wider message to others, including Russia, about the use of chemical weapons. Referring to the recent chemical weapons attack in Salisbury on former MI6 spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia she said: “We cannot allow the use of chemical weapons to become normalised – either within Syria, on the streets of the UK or elsewhere.”

Several European leaders rallied behind the joint UK, US and French action. German chancellor Angela Merkel said: “We support the fact that our UK and French allies took on responsibility in this way as permanent members of the UN security council. The military strike was necessary and appropriate in order to preserve the effectiveness of the international ban on the use of chemical weapons and to warn the Syrian regime against further violations.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/13/opin ... eft-region

Trump’s Syria Strikes Show What’s Wrong With U.S. Foreign Policy
By Emma Ashford
Ms. Ashford researches international security at the Cato Institute.
April 13, 2018

This article has been updated to reflect news developments.

President Trump’s announcement Friday night that the United States, France and Britain had launched airstrikes against Syria in response to a chemical weapons attack might have surprised the people who listened to him campaigning in 2016, when he repeatedly critiqued “stupid” Middle Eastern interventions.
Yet since entering office, Mr. Trump has reversed course. He evidently shares the assumption that America must do something in response to atrocities in Syria — a wholehearted embrace of the Washington bias toward action.

In this, Mr. Trump and his predecessor have something in common: Both he and Barack Obama came into office promising to change America’s foreign policy, but when faced with crises, both yielded to pressure to intervene. This bias toward action is one of the biggest problems in American foreign policy. It produces poorly thought-out interventions and, sometimes, disastrous long-term consequences, effects likely to be magnified in the era of Mr. Trump.

The concept of a bias for action originated in the business world, but psychological studies have shown a broad human tendency toward action over inaction. Researchers have found that World Cup goalkeepers, for example, are more likely to dive during a penalty kick, though they’d have a better chance of catching the ball by remaining in the center of the goal.

Of course, foreign policy has higher stakes than business or soccer. But historians and political scientists have also applied this concept to explain the decisions of leaders like George W. Bush, whose impetuous choices have been attributed by scholars to his “impatience for unnecessary delay.”
The American policymaking system reinforces this tendency. Political pressure and criticism from opponents, combined with the news media’s habit of disparaging inaction, can render even the most cautious leaders vulnerable to pressure. America’s overwhelming military strength and the low cost of airstrikes only add to the notion that action is less costly than inaction.

Consider the reaction to two other recent intervention decisions.
In 2013, Mr. Obama chose not to approve military strikes against Syria. Instead, he negotiated the removal of most of Syria’s chemical weapons, an imperfect compromise, but one that reduced the risk of chemical weapons attacks on civilians for several years.

In 2017, in contrast, Mr. Trump chose to authorize missile strikes on Syria in response to another chemical attack. The American strikes cratered a few runways but did little to stop continuing attacks on civilians and the Syrian government’s continued use of chemical weapons.

While the first decision arguably had more positive impact on the conflict, Mr. Obama was widely criticized for his inaction. Mr. Trump was lauded for his inconsequential strike, with even critics like Fareed Zakariaproclaiming after the strike, “I think Donald Trump became president of the United States.” Action receives praise; inaction receives ridicule.
Acting too quickly means that policymakers don’t have full information when making key decisions, and it prevents them from carefully considering the long-term consequences. In best-case scenarios, like Mr. Trump’s 2017 Syrian airstrikes, the harm done of rushing to action is minor. In other cases, it can be disastrous. Just look at the Obama administration’s 2011 decision to intervene in Libya.

The speed of that decision — relying on limited intelligence and questionable assumptions about impending genocide — effectively committed the United States to overthrowing Muammar Qaddafi. The result was the European refugee crisis and a civil war that scholars believe has killed more civilians than the initial intervention saved. Indeed, Mr. Obama’s own reflections on Libya (as well as Iraq) and his criticisms of the bias for action in American foreign policymaking were ultimately behind his decision to resist pressure to strike Syria in 2013. Mr. Obama came to understand that poorly thought-out military interventions can be even costlier.

Donald Trump is not Barack Obama. If Mr. Obama found it challenging to resist the bias for action in foreign policy, imagine how difficult it is for a president with questionable impulse control, a military-centric foreign policy and a fixation on media praise.

Within a day of the recent chemical attack in Syria, the president’s tweetsbetrayed a willingness to strike, with no clear goal other than retribution. His advisers reportedly had to persuade him to wait the few days necessary to put together an international coalition and pick appropriate targets.

It takes a determined leader to resist the overwhelming pressure to “do something” in a crisis. Mr. Trump is not that leader.