Military officials said it was never intended to be the leading edge of a broader campaign to dislodge Mr. Assad from power, or force a political settlement in a country that has been ripped apart by six years of a bloody civil war.
The question for the Pentagon, however, is whether this 21st-century equivalent of a shot across the bow will ensure that poisonous gas will no longer be among the many scourges that plague Syria, or whether it will gradually draw the United States in a multisided military tug of war over the future of the Syrian state.
If there is one description that summed up the plan, which was developed at the headquarters of the United States Central Command in Tampa, Fla., it is “proportional.” Details of the plan were described to reporters at a briefing on Friday by senior military officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity in accordance with Pentagon protocol.
The Americans wanted to send a specific signal by striking only the airfield that a Syrian Su-22 warplane had used for its mission on Tuesday to drop a chemical bomb in the middle of the town of Khan Sheikhoun, in southern Idlib Province.
Before the American attack could go forward, however, American intelligence officials had to satisfy senior commanders — and, presumably, President Trump — that it had the culprit. The evidence was abundant, and American intelligence analysts concluded they had “high confidence” in their assessments.
The Americans had tracked the Syrian jet as it took off from the Al Shayrat airfield and dropped a bomb in the middle of a street. The time of the chemical attack, just before 7 a.m., correlated with reports that residents were exhibiting signs of having been subjected to nerve agent. The crater from the bomb showed staining that experts associated with a shell filled with chemical agents.
American intelligence officials also suspect that an attempt might have been made to frustrate efforts to gather evidence of a chemical assault. After victims were rushed to a hospital, a small drone appeared overhead before disappearing. About five hours later, the drone returned and another airstrike hit the medical center; American officials do not know if the drone or the second strike was launched by Syria or Russia.
The shifting fortunes on the battlefield may explain why the Assad government mounted its largest chemical weapons attack since August 2013. In recent weeks, rebel forces have pushed to connect the areas they controlled in Hama and Idlib Provinces. The Syrian government’s control of the Hama airfield was at risk; it was being used by the Assad government as a helicopter base and, it is suspected, as a factory for some of the barrel bombs Syria’s forces had used to deadly effect.
American military officials say they do not believe the strike on Tuesday, which they said was carried out with a nerve agent, was necessarily unique. On March 30, panicky Syrian forces may have used a similar nerve agent in Hama Province, though American officials said they lacked forensic evidence to prove it. On March 25, the Syrians also mounted an attack using chlorine; its use in war is illegal under an international convention banning chemical weapons.
Having concluded that chemical weapons were used by Syrian forces, the next challenge for the Trump administration was to settle on a response. The military options were developed on Wednesday, and when they were narrowed down, the Al Shayrat airfield was in the cross hairs.
Equipped with bunkers for storing chemical munitions, the airfield had been built as a potential launching pad for attacks with chemical weapons — weapons that Mr. Assad was supposed to have given up as part of an agreement that was worked out by the United States and Russia.
Surveying the airfield, American war planners developed a list of 59 targets: aircraft, hardened plane shelters, radars, an air defense system, ammunition bunkers and petroleum storage sites. One Tomahawk cruise missile was fired at each of the 59 targets, and the Pentagon asserted that each hit its mark. An additional missile aborted after launch and fell into the Mediterranean.
One American official who spoke separately from the briefing estimated that 20 to 25 Syrian warplanes were destroyed in the attack, at 3:40 a.m. local time, four hours after President Trump’s order to go ahead was relayed to the Central Command. The runway was not a target.
The strike was aimed at avoiding the 12 to 100 Russian pilots, maintenance and other military personnel who manned a helicopter unit at different parts of the base, and to avoid striking Russian aircraft. American officials said they had no independent information on possible casualties but were confident that Russians were not among them.
The presence of the Russians is just one factor that is leading American intelligence officials to investigate if Moscow was complicit, disinterested or ignorant of the Syrian government’s use of a covert chemical arsenal.
As long as Syrian forces do not use chemical weapons again, American officials have signaled that Mr. Trump’s first use of force against Mr. Assad’s military is likely to have been a shot heard around the world — but also a riposte that will not be repeated.
Limiting the effect of even a narrow operation, however, may be difficult. One potential danger is that Shiite militias backed by Iran, including Shiite fighters in Iraq, might try to retaliate against American troops.
Another is that Russian and American relations may deteriorate to the point that the procedures the two nations use to notify each other about air operations in Syria will be suspended, raising the risk of an inadvertent confrontation.
A more fundamental question is whether the Trump administration will now pursue a diplomatic strategy to quell the fighting in Syria, which has attracted thousands of militants, including many of the volunteers who have joined the Islamic State.
Cliff Kupchan and Ayham Kamel of the Eurasia Group .. https://www.eurasiagroup.net/people-analysts , a political risk consultancy, predicted that Mr. Assad would avoid a direct confrontation with the United States in the near term, calculating that he has enough aircraft, barrel bombs, missiles and troops to continue his fight against the rebels without resorting to poison gas.
Mr. Assad and his aides, they wrote in an assessment, “will probably steer away from any escalation that would lead the international community to recommit itself to a regime change policy.”
Mr. Trump’s intervention against the Assad government may be over for now, but the Syrian war appears certain to go on.
Donald Trump's Syria strike looks a lot like Barack Obama's plan, despite what Rubio, others say
The Obama administration’s 2013 Syria proposal "had no clear objective," while Trump’s Syria strike "had a clear strategic objective." — Marco Rubio on Sunday, April 9th, 2017 in an interview on ABC "This Week"
[i don't know why the 'false' image won't show here]
By Lauren Carroll on Wednesday, April 12th, 2017 at 11:22 a.m.
Surprise House Vote Rolls Back Authority for the ‘War on Terror’
"How Trump's Syria airstrike is different from -- and similar to -- Obama's"
By Robbie Gramer June 29, 2017 - 2:56 pm robbie.gramer @robbiegramer
In a surprising twist, the U.S. House Appropriations Committee passed an amendment to repeal a sweeping 2001 law that gives the president wide-ranging authority to wage war against terrorist groups all over the world.
Republican lawmakers backed the proposal, put forth by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), a rare and surprising show of bipartisanship on a controversial issue that has traditionally fallen along party lines.
The amendment would repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), the legal authorization passed in the wake of the 9/11 attacks that gave the president the ability to battle the Taliban and associated groups. In the years since, the AUMF has been stretched to encompass war against an ever wider net of terrorist outfits, from al Qaeda and its affiliates to the Islamic State.
The vote, while only in one committee for now, could signal Congress’s increasing willingness to straitjacket the Trump administration’s ability to wage war against terrorist organizations without prior congressional approval.
“It’s a signal from Republicans they’re finally willing to talk about this,” one Democratic congressional aide said.
Aides told Foreign Policy that if it’s passed, the repeal would be a binding law, not a nonbinding resolution. From there, Congress would have to create an entirely new AUMF, which would prompt a new and full-scale debate on the wars the United States is waging now.
Lee was the only member of Congress to vote against the AUMF in 2001, arguing that it gave the executive branch too much authority over when and where to wage war.
Since its passage, successive administrations have used it as a tool to kick-start new military operations without need for congressional approval or input. According to the Congressional Research Service, the AUMF has been used 37 times to justify military operations in 14 countries. It was used to start the Iraq War and the war against the Islamic State in Syria.
Many legal experts and lawmakers criticized presidents for abusing the AUMF and using it to justify military action that goes well beyond the scope of its original intended use, which was to allow for retaliation against the Taliban and al Qaeda for the attacks on New York and Washington.
Lee’s new amendment still has to go a long way before becoming law — it has to survive passage through the Senate and make it into the final defense spending bill, always a massive and hotly contested political fight in the House.
But the fact that the Republican majority passed the amendment still floored veteran congressional staffers and Democratic members of Congress.
“Being included in the committee markup is a pretty big advancement,” one Democratic congressional aide told FP.
And it wasn’t just that it happened; it was how it happened.
Everyone assumed Rep. Lee’s amendment would be rejected “out of hand,” one Democratic congressional aide told FP — all her past attempts to push this amendment through have, too.
But then-Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), the deputy majority whip, stood up and surprised everyone by supporting it.
“This is something where Congress has collectively avoided taking responsibility for years,” he said. “The Constitution is awfully clear, as my friend points out, about where war-making authority resides. It resides in this body. And we’ve had leadership honestly on both sides that put off this debate again and again and again.”
“I was floored,” said one congressional aide in attendance.
Cole broke the ice for his Republican colleagues. “I feel like my world is rocked because I see these two that have very different opinions, and yet I agree with you,” said Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah). The military has “the courage to go out and fight these wars, and they notice we don’t have the courage to debate this,” he added. “They notice that Congress doesn’t have the guts to stand up and have this debate.”
Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.) followed and said the surprise comments changed his mind. “I was going to vote, ‘No,’ but we’re debating right now. I’m going to be with you on this, and your tenacity has come through,” he told Rep. Lee.
It even seemed to surprise Lee herself:
- IMAGE
Rep. Barbara Lee? @RepBarbaraLee
Whoa. My amdt to sunset 2001 AUMF was adopted in DOD Approps markup! GOP & Dems agree: a floor debate & vote on endless war is long overdue. 1:55 AM - 30 Jun 2017 -
Lee’s amendment would repeal the AUMF after 240 days. If passed, it would set a countdown clock for the Trump administration and Congress to hash out what laws should replace it — and how much leeway Congress will give to the executive branch to wage war.
Only the chair of the defense appropriations subcommittee, Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas), spoke out against repealing the AUMF. She said it was “necessary to fight the global war on terrorism.”
“The amendment is a deal breaker and would tie the hands of the U.S. to act unilaterally or with partner nations” to fight terrorism, she said. “It cripples our ability to conduct counterterrorism operations.”
Photo credit: Mark Wilson/Getty Images
Correction, June 29, 2017: The AUMF has been used 37 times to justify military operations. A previous version of this article incorrectly stated the number of times it had been used as 27.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
