Syrian Serial

Given space for reflection, let's review the American attack on Syria that occurred on Friday the thirteenth (or fourteenth, varying by timezone).

Events eerily resemble April of last year, when in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack purported to have been committed by the Syrian regime, President Trump ordered the destruction of the Syrian airbase connected to the attack. Twenty percent of the Syrian air force was obliterated in that strike by two American destroyers firing fifty-nine missiles from stand-off range. Given last-minute warning, Syrian casualties were minimal. Trump warned that any further chemical attacks would face similar response.

This year, isis is almost defeated in Syria, and Trump declared military withdrawal, saying that Syrian forces were capable of cleaning up the little that remained without further assistance from the US. Almost immediately afterward, another chemical weapons attack was shoved onto the world scene.

Once again Trump struck Syria, using the same sudden precision as before, but this time with twice the ordinance. Instead of an airfield, combined US, French, and British forces destroyed a Syrian chemical weapon's factory and two storage facilities. All weapons hit within the space of two minutes, and the blind Syrian AA systems fired uselessly after the attack concluded.

As best as I can tell, there were four possible negative consequences of this second attack on Syria. Firstly, nuclear exchange or at least full-scale war with Russia, Syria's ally and sponsor. Secondly, a long-term entrenched ground war to depose Assad and create a power vacuum. Thirdly, military embarrassment of air defence systems foiling our attack. Fourthly, widespread civilian casualties.

Despite initial alarm, none of the above calamities has occurred: the world has not gone up in radioactive inferno nor has WWIII begun, nor have we become isis's air force, been technologically embarrassed, and, so far as I can tell, not a single civilian casualty has been reported. That's absolutely incredible.

So did Assad actually use chemical weapons on his own people? It seems unlikely. But when all is said and done, the game of geopolitics is not entirely dissimilar to the society of a chicken yard: security can be obtained only through dominance; boasts, posturing, and threats are the order of the day, and any failure to sustain and enforce such threats invariably results the humiliation, degradation, and insecurity of the one to chicken out. Whether or not Assad was the one to cross the line, the line had been crossed. President Trump had promised to punish the further use of chemical weapons, and the world-wide consensus was that Assad was the culprit.

Given a choice between a ducking his head or enforcing his own warning, President Trump called Putin's bluff; Russia had promised "the gravest of consequences" should anyone attack Syria. But attack Syria Trump did, with ruthless precision that annihilated exclusively relevant facilities without any allied or civilian casualties. And in response, Putin did nothing.

At the end of this little game of high-stakes poker, President Trump has once again come out on top. America stands supreme in its new image of efficacy, resolve, and overwhelming military power. Putin looks as big a chump as did Obama when that individual wagged a limp finger at him for seizing Crimea.

I've always supported a non-interventionist policy of not getting involved in foreign wars. But in this case, it seems our outstanding President has once more pulled off an impossible stunt, inexplicably coming out on top of an impossible situation. Look out folks. Putin's not the only tough guy around anymore; there's a new sheriff in town.