The aftermath of US and its ally's action of claiming to have targeted Syrian Chemical weapon related establishments, and taught a lesson to Syria is full of contradictions and conflicting news from its intent to actions.

The US President may claim it to be a 'Mission Accomplished' but was it an accomplishment of any sort, without UN sanction or a debate in US Congress? Was it an effort of concerned players to show Russia and Syria in poor light, besides threatening them?

The US President may find it difficult to convince its Congressmen, opposing citizens and rest of the world. Controversies like Mattis wanted Congress to be informed before strikes, but was over-ruled, Nikki Haley wanted tougher sanctions on Russia but it was not implemented, indicate that all were not on the same page regarding this action.

Was it a plan executed by US President to divert domestic attention from the controversy over alleged Russian meddling in US elections to favor him? How could two specific US allies agree to President Trump's plan knowing well that neither Assad will quit nor Russia will give a walk over only by missile strikes?

If missile attack in 2017 on Syria did not achieve anything, then how US and allies were convinced that it will achieve anything in 2018? There is also a wide variation in the description of damages inflicted by US and Syrians.

On the other side also there are many controversies, which will find answers in times to come. Did Syria actually use chemical weapons against its countrymen or was it a story built over a period by the US and its allies, who want to change Assad regime and push Russia out of the region?

Was the double agent killed by nerve agent of Russia or planted by someone else? If chemical weapons/nerve agents were used then the culprit nation/organisation is shame on humanity and needs to be condemned by the global community.

The controversy is that Assad denies the use of chemical weapons based on simple logic that there was no need for Syria to use chemical agents when they were already nearing victory in that area? Similarly, Russians also deny any such attack because nothing very much was at stake in a besieged dilapidated township with militants holed up.

At the same time, the US and its allies are very confident of possession and use of chemical weapons by Syria. The recent media reports of three Belgium companies accused of supplying heavy amount of chemicals, which can be used for manufacturing deadly sarin nerve agent is a new revelation, to which Assad was quick to blame anti-government groups of such possible involvement/use of chemical weapons.

While the US and allies hold Syria and Russia for a delay in investigations and allege that the evidences would have been tampered by them, whereas Russia blames untimely US attack as the cause of the delay. With such controversies, the question is that can OPCW findings be relied upon or can they be manipulated?

Even some of the Russian actions seem controversial. How did such a magnitude of attack not cause a single casualty to Russians troops or equipment, if the US claims it did not inform Russians in advance? If Russians were informed, it is likely that they would have informed the Syrians, because they also claim not to have lost any troops or equipment, and claim that the attacks caused damage to few buildings and civilian casualties, then the whole operation raises a doubt about its credibility in the mind of an analyst?

If this operation was like a Hollywood drama as commented by some, then how could Russia and Syria agree to it? Russians knew it fully well that any UNSC resolution against the three participating countries having veto powers who took part in operations had to be defeated, still went for it.

Was it to convince that they explored all peaceful means of retaliation before going in for some other means in current spectrum of warfare, which is not limited to only conventional domain only? Does Russian and Iranian threat to retaliate is eyewash or it has some potential to make subsequent events dangerous.

There is another angle to read this event. After the release of National Security Strategy of US, which indirectly brands Russia, China, Iran and North Korea as a threat, the signaling to embarrass Russia can be a messaging for China and North Korea prior to the meeting of Kim. Notwithstanding the claims and counterclaims few points which emerge out are:-

-The action did not help innocents in Syria in any way. The action continues to be marred by controversies.

-It would have given joy to ISIS and other militants, observing countries who were chasing them fighting amongst each other and are diverting from goal to get into their power-politics in the region.

-It does not guarantee non-use of chemical agents unless it is established who the culprit was, and was the use accidental or deliberate?

-The attackers may not be able to avoid criticism and suspicions even in the domestic constituency.

-Russia may have additional pressure to prove the credibility of its threat, before being branded as fading power, if they were not part of this suspected drama. It may show its strength in cyber or other domains.

-The use of chemical weapons is inhumane, but the reality is that such stockpiles exist and can be used. Its proliferation to militants is easier than nukes hence the world has another dimension of terrorism to worry.

-The countries not involved in this power-play like India will like the grip of militants like IS should not be loosened and humanity must be protected from chemical weapons, besides calling for peaceful resolution of the controversy.

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

How did such a magnitude of attack not cause a single casualty to Russians troops or equipment, if the US claims it did not inform Russians in advance?

The aftermath of US and its ally's action of claiming to have targeted Syrian Chemical weapon related establishments, and taught a lesson to Syria is full of contradictions and conflicting news from its intent to actions. The US President may claim it to be a 'Mission Accomplished' but was it an accomplishment of any sort, without UN sanction or a debate in US Congress? Was it an effort of concerned players to show Russia and Syria in poor light, besides threatening them? The US President may find it difficult to convince its Congressmen, opposing citizens and rest of the world. Controversies like Mattis wanted Congress to be informed before strikes, but was over-ruled, Nikki Haley wanted tougher sanctions on Russia but it was not implemented, indicate that all were not on the same page regarding this action. Was it a plan executed by US President to divert domestic attention from the controversy over alleged Russian meddling in US elections to favor him? How could two specific US allies agree to President Trump's plan knowing well that neither Assad will quit nor Russia will give a walk over only by missile strikes? If missile attack in 2017 on Syria did not achieve anything, then how US and allies were convinced that it will achieve anything in 2018? There is also a wide variation in the description of damages inflicted by US and Syrians. On the other side also there are many controversies, which will find answers in times to come. Did Syria actually use chemical weapons against its countrymen or was it a story built over a period by the US and its allies, who want to change Assad regime and push Russia out of the region? Was the double agent killed by nerve agent of Russia or planted by someone else? If chemical weapons/nerve agents were used then the culprit nation/organisation is shame on humanity and needs to be condemned by the global community. The controversy is that Assad denies the use of chemical weapons based on simple logic that there was no need for Syria to use chemical agents when they were already nearing victory in that area? Similarly, Russians also deny any such attack because nothing very much was at stake in a besieged dilapidated township with militants holed up. At the same time, the US and its allies are very confident of possession and use of chemical weapons by Syria. The recent media reports of three Belgium companies accused of supplying heavy amount of chemicals, which can be used for manufacturing deadly sarin nerve agent is a new revelation, to which Assad was quick to blame anti-government groups of such possible involvement/use of chemical weapons. While the US and allies hold Syria and Russia for a delay in investigations and allege that the evidences would have been tampered by them, whereas Russia blames untimely US attack as the cause of the delay. With such controversies, the question is that can OPCW findings be relied upon or can they be manipulated? Even some of the Russian actions seem controversial. How did such a magnitude of attack not cause a single casualty to Russians troops or equipment, if the US claims it did not inform Russians in advance? If Russians were informed, it is likely that they would have informed the Syrians, because they also claim not to have lost any troops or equipment, and claim that the attacks caused damage to few buildings and civilian casualties, then the whole operation raises a doubt about its credibility in the mind of an analyst? If this operation was like a Hollywood drama as commented by some, then how could Russia and Syria agree to it? Russians knew it fully well that any UNSC resolution against the three participating countries having veto powers who took part in operations had to be defeated, still went for it. Was it to convince that they explored all peaceful means of retaliation before going in for some other means in current spectrum of warfare, which is not limited to only conventional domain only? Does Russian and Iranian threat to retaliate is eyewash or it has some potential to make subsequent events dangerous. There is another angle to read this event. After the release of National Security Strategy of US, which indirectly brands Russia, China, Iran and North Korea as a threat, the signaling to embarrass Russia can be a messaging for China and North Korea prior to the meeting of Kim. Notwithstanding the claims and counterclaims few points which emerge out are:- -The action did not help innocents in Syria in any way. The action continues to be marred by controversies. -It would have given joy to ISIS and other militants, observing countries who were chasing them fighting amongst each other and are diverting from goal to get into their power-politics in the region. -It does not guarantee non-use of chemical agents unless it is established who the culprit was, and was the use accidental or deliberate? -The attackers may not be able to avoid criticism and suspicions even in the domestic constituency. -Russia may have additional pressure to prove the credibility of its threat, before being branded as fading power, if they were not part of this suspected drama. It may show its strength in cyber or other domains. -The use of chemical weapons is inhumane, but the reality is that such stockpiles exist and can be used. Its proliferation to militants is easier than nukes hence the world has another dimension of terrorism to worry. -The countries not involved in this power-play like India will like the grip of militants like IS should not be loosened and humanity must be protected from chemical weapons, besides calling for peaceful resolution of the controversy. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Aftermath of US missiles attack on Syria — Is it really 'mission accomplished'?

missiles-attack

Missiles Attack, News on Missiles Attack, stories on Missiles Attack, articles on Missiles Attack, Missiles Attack stories at Wion, Missiles Attack news, Missiles Attack latest news