QUESTIONS REMAIN

I hate conspiracy theories.  Conspiracy theories are nothing more than shiny objects distracting us from reality. If a story line cannot be proven by fact then it is little more than mere speculation.

However, there are occasions when these seemingly wild and random assertions contain nuggets of truth that lead to some very interesting findings.

Consider if you will President Trump’s military response to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people.

Pro-Trump factions hail this event as a show of strength by a decisive president.  This particular view seems to have gained wide support resulting in positive poling numbers for the president.

Anti-Trump factions see it as an impulsive move by an erratic and dangerous man.  A reckless effort to change the narrative from the deluge of bad press and self-inflicted wounds that have plagued this presidency.

Which of these narratives is true.  Perhaps both!

In order to find out the truth we need to stick to the facts.  What specifically do we know?

We know with great certainty that nothing happens in Syria without the approval of the regime’s protector, Vladimir Putin.  Syria is critical to Putin.  It provides strategic access to the west and his only foreign naval port.  As respects Assad’s atrocities; Putin has not only looked the other way he has on numerous occasions ordered his military to assist in the butchery. Putin wants Assad to remain in power.  

We know that Bashir al Assad spent the last five years killing innocent citizens with conventional weapons.  So why did he decide to use chemical weapons in this latest attack?  This question is particularly troublesome when you consider that Assad had agreed to dispose of his chemical munition stockpiles and the Russian government, which was responsible for overseeing the disposal, told the world that Assad had complied. 

Clearly Assad and Putin knew that was a lie.  This chemical attack revealed the lie.  Why would Assad and Putin choose to reveal the lie now?  Why engage in a chemical attack now when conventional weapons would have been just as deadly?

We know that Putin was aware of Assad’s intention to use chemical weapons in this attack.  We know this because our intelligence community says that Russian military personnel are stationed at this particular base and assist in its daily operations.  We know this because arming aircraft with these types of munitions requires specific procedures and precautions….hazmat suits etc.; procedures far different from those routinely used for arming conventional weapons.  Clearly this type of activity could not have occurred without the Kremlin’s knowledge. 

Now consider the US response to this heinous attack. 

The US notified the Russians in advance that we intended to bomb the airfield so they could remove their personnel from harm’s way.   We didn’t use our military aircraft for fear of getting into an air war with Russian aircraft patrolling the area.  We didn’t use anti-bio-munitions designed to incinerate chemical targets on impact.  We didn’t use 2,000 pound bunker busting munitions that would have destroyed the runways and surrounding infrastructure making the airfield inoperable for months to come. 

Instead we engaged in a pin-prick attack that resulted in minor damage to the airfield and did nothing to alter the conditions on the ground. Not much of a response for such a horrific attack.   

This was not the effective use of our military capabilities to strike a serious blow against a ruthless dictator who was massacring his own people.  This attack was nothing more than a political statement.

The official response from the administration is that the president wanted to send a message that use of weapons of mass destruction will not be tolerated.  Secretary of State Tillerson said that the US isolationist foreign policy had not changed.

If you are paying attention you have to be scratching you head.

Why does Putin allow Assad to use chemical weapons and run the risk of motivating a US response?  Why does Putin allow Assad to reveal the lie that Syria’s chemical stockpiles had been destroyed? Why does Trump authorize such a limited response to such a heinous act?

Was Putin simply playing puppet master?  Testing the mettle of this new president?

Did Putin intentionally offer up an opportunity for Trump to lift his plummeting approval ratings? 

Did Trump seize the opportunity to change the negative narrative surrounding his presidency?

Did Trump recklessly risk the possibility of a global conflict to embellish his tough guy image?

Given the erratic behavior of both of these powerful leaders; these are questions worthy of consideration.  

This story will continue to play out today when Secretary of State Tillerson meets with his counterpart at the Kremlin.  The Russians announced yesterday that Putin will not be meeting with the United States’ chief envoy.

Is Putin angered by the US military response in Syria?  Or is this all kabuki theatre?

We don’t have the answers to these questions…yet.