The strike conducted by the US Military in the pre-dawn hours Friday morning on a Syrian Air Base was a classic naval bombardment using new style weapons.\u00a0 The weapons employed were 59 Tomahawk Cruise Missiles which travel at sub-sonic speeds, are terrain hugging, and can carry payloads of different types.\u00a0 The payloads employed last week were conventional explosive ordinance of 1000 pounds apiece. The missiles are somewhat misnamed as they use a two stage propulsion system with the bulk of flight time using a jet engine.\u00a0 In essence, they are unmanned, self-guided, self-propelled, airplane bombs.\u00a0 They were launched from the destroyers USS Porter and the USS Ross stationed in the Mediterranean Sea.\u00a0 There was complete destruction of the intended target with nine Syrian airmen killed.\u00a0 A little arithmetic for those so inclined:\u00a0 59 x 1000 pounds of TNT = 59,000 pounds or approximately 30 tons of explosive ordinance dropped in an area of approximately one square mile.\u00a0 The strike was in response to an attack against anti-Syrian government rebels carried out by the Syrian Air Force three days prior. That attack, in the town of Idlib used chemical weapons, probably the nerve agent\u00a0Sarin<\/a>,\u00a0killing at least 86 people including children.<\/p>\n

Of course, naval bombardments are nothing new.\u00a0 Ship to shore attacks have taken place since men first took to the seas in boats.\u00a0 Evolution of weaponry has led to naval guns and ship borne artillery being\u00a0largely replaced by\u00a0the more modern weapons just described.\u00a0 Off the top of our heads, the last full scale naval bombardment using old style artillery guns was after the evacuation of US Marines from Beirut, Lebanon in February 1984.\u00a0 Then, the\u00a0USS New Jersey<\/a>,\u00a0fired almost 300 explosive shells at Druze and Syrian positions in the Beqaa Valley east of Beirut in retaliation for the truck\u00a0bombing of the Marine Barracks earlier in October of 1983<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Commentary on the recent strike from main stream media outlets has been mixed from outright joy at an American President taking decisive action in the face of outrage to pleas for caution.\u00a0\u00a0 Let us be as straightforward as possible.\u00a0 The strike raises the stakes in Syria significantly.\u00a0 The US action was an attack against Syria, a client state of Russia.\u00a0 Vladimir Putin has made significant economic and military investments in the country and the US strike may be perceived as a strike against Russia.\u00a0Now, today, there is a flurry of diplomatic activity to put the blame directly on the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad, and away from the Kremlin.\u00a0 As a reminder, it is not what the US press thinks of the strike that is of importance.\u00a0 What is important in the aftermath is what Mr. Putin thinks and his response.<\/p>\n

The US strike on Syrian territory cannot be viewed in isolation.\u00a0 Our military\u00a0is conducting ground operations against Islamic State in ungoverned Eastern Syria and Northern Iraq with approximately 5000 troops deployed.\u00a0 Further, the strike is not isolated in time either.\u00a0 The United States first became engaged in the region with the Invasion of 2003 under President Bush.\u00a0 Looking across this span of time, we see ebbs and flows of troop levels with the Iraq surge of 2007 and then near complete withdrawal under Obama but with continuing air strikes.\u00a0 Ground troops were redeployed in the last year of Obama’s presidency to their current levels.\u00a0\u00a0With the withdrawal of US ground forces, Mr. Putin saw an opportunity to expand his footprint into the region for reasons of economic and military expansionism.\u00a0 Syria is now his client state and he directly supports President Assad.<\/p>\n

What will be Mr. Putin’s response?\u00a0 Only Mr. Putin knows and he may not say what he actually thinks.\u00a0 Are his options limited?\u00a0In a conventional sense they may be.\u00a0He is unlikely to directly confront the United States with\u00a0conventional forces of his own, for example making a counter-strike against US ships in the region or directly attacking US ground forces.\u00a0\u00a0 And in an unconventional sense?\u00a0Not by a long shot is he limited.\u00a0 In this era of unconventional conflict, Mr. Putin may choose to take his time and make\u00a0continued US involvement in the region extremely painful.\u00a0 He can do this by giving support to rebel groups in the area including Al-Nusra Front or even Islamic State.\u00a0 He could give further support to Iran and their proxies in the region including Hezbollah.\u00a0 Any one of these groups would be eager to get US Servicemen in their\u00a0sights.\u00a0 Up until this point, US and Russian operations have scrupulously avoided each other with some level of communication between forces.\u00a0\u00a0As first reaction to the US strike, Mr.Putin withdrew his end of that cooperation.<\/p>\n

Mr. Putin has expressed through word and deed his long term goals in\u00a0Syria.\u00a0 Mr. Trump has made no such statements.\u00a0 He may very well be able to incorporate Friday’s strike into a long-range\u00a0strategic plan\u00a0for the region.\u00a0 He may\u00a0choose to articulate any such plan in a public way.\u00a0 Or he may not.\u00a0 To date, he has not articulated such a plan;\u00a0not on\u00a0the campaign trail leading up to his election, not during the period of transition, and not since his inauguration.\u00a0We choose to see Friday’s strike as Mr. Trump staking his territory and making a statement to America’s rivals and enemies; that is, the Obama Era of inaction and appeasement is over.\u00a0 That’s fine.\u00a0\u00a0But, he should also roll the strike into a long-term vision of what America is doing in this part of the world or whether America should be in this part of the World, at all.\u00a0Let’s call it the, as yet unstated, Trump Doctrine.<\/p>\n

Diplomatically, America should be in all places at all times.\u00a0 Our military should not.\u00a0 Our military goals in Syria and Iraq should be the destruction of Islamic State.\u00a0 Period.\u00a0 Full stop. \u00a0Friday’s strike may have complicated that effort immensely. \u00a0It is now Mr. Putin’s move.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The strike conducted by the US Military in the pre-dawn hours Friday morning on a Syrian Air Base was a classic naval bombardment using new style weapons.\u00a0 The weapons employed were 59 Tomahawk Cruise Missiles which travel at sub-sonic speeds, are terrain hugging, and can carry payloads of different types.\u00a0 The payloads employed last week were conventional explosive ordinance of 1000 pounds apiece. The missiles are somewhat misnamed as they use a two stage propulsion…… <\/p>\n