"I would go to Syria unexpectedly ..."

The American media praise and scold Trump for a blow to the Syrian military airport. They also ask what next

Donald Trump turned the US foreign policy in Syria with a blow to the airfield of government forces. On the night of Thursday to Friday, two American warships in the Mediterranean Sea launched 59 Tomagavk missiles on the Hims Air Force base in the province of Homs, which located Syrian and Russian forces. According to the representative of the Pentagon, the Russian military was warned about the blow. The operation was a response to a chemical attack in the province of Idlib, of which government troops accuse. The reaction inside America is ambiguous, primarily because previously Donald Trump always spoke out against the active intervention of America conflicts abroad, urging to focus on the economy and other problems within the country.

Before becoming the president, Donald Trump repeatedly condemned all US participation in the Syrian war and called on to stay away from it. The McClatchy Publishing campaign (owns a network of American city newspapers, including Miami Herald), published on her website a selection of Tvits Trump about Syria, starting in September 2013, when the first chemical attack was committed in the vicinity of Damascus. Then Trump publicly urged not to respond to her with military operations.

For example, on September 4, 2013, he wrote: “Everything I want to say is to stay away from Syria,” - dozens of others similar in content followed this tweet. However, on August 29, 2013, in response to another user, Trump set out a slightly different position: “No, a fool, I would not go to Syria, but if I did this, then unexpectedly, and not throwing ads in all the media like a fool.”

In fact, this happened on the night of April 7: the attack of Tomagavkov was a surprise for everyone, including the head of the PRC, who at that moment dinner with Trump in Florida.

On Wednesday, the president said that he changed his mind about Syria and Bashar al-Assade due to a chemical attack on the city of Khan-Sheikhun in the Idlib province-the Syrian army was suspected of bombing the city using Zarin. “I will tell you that my position on Syria and Assad has already changed a lot. What happened yesterday is unacceptable for me. When you kill innocent children, innocent babies, babies, chemical gas, which is so fatal ... It crosses a lot of borders, this is beyond the red line, ”the US president said at a joint conference with the king of Jordan Abdullah the second.

Trump's opponents immediately pointed out the inconsistency of the president, for example, the Congressman-Democrat Ted Lew wrote on Twitter that Trump “during the election campaign promised to withdraw the United States out of the wars abroad. But his actions in Syria, Iraq and Yemen show that he acts as a militarist. ” “We all condemn war crimes in Syria, but still there were no attacks on the United States,” the Republican Senator Rand Paul, who was a competitor of Trump for presidential primaries, remembers. - For hostilities, the president needs to receive the approval of the congress, as the constitution requires. Our past interventions in conflicts in this region have not improved our safety in any way, and in the case of Syria there will be no other way. ”

There are votes in support of the president: Senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham issued a joint statement with the approval of the bombardment. “Acting by order of the Supreme Commander -in -Chief, they [the American military] sent an important signal that the United States would no longer be inactive while Assad, with the help and incitement of Putin's Russia, destroys the innocent Syrians with chemical weapons and barrel bombs. Unlike the previous administration, President Trump ran into a turning point in Syria and began to act. For this, he deserves the support of the American people. ”

The New York Times correspondent Mark Landler in a column on April 7 believes that the president was shocked by the dying children of Khan-Sheikhun, and the air base was his impulsive response to this terrible sight. “The advisers of Mr. Trump explained his decision with a dry language of international norms and a deterrence strategy. In fact, it was an emotional act of a person who suddenly realized that world problems are from now on his problems and there is no more opportunity to turn away from them, ”Landler said.

Journalists of MIAMI GERALD notes that the surge of activity in Syria will allow the president to distract attention from his failures in domestic politics: “The failed attempt to abolish the Obama medical insurance system, the courts reject the ban on the entrance (citizens of Muslim countries - ed.), Investigation of the FBI and the Congress about the possible conspiracy of the Russians about intervention on the choice, Trump's historically low rating - all this is likely to fade into the background in relation to an attack in Syria. ”

Boston Globe pays attention to the unpredictable executives of Trump’s yesterday’s decision for American soldiers fighting in Syria: “This attack threatens to push America into the center of the Syrian conflict, complicating security for hundreds of American military fighting with the Islamic state (the group prohibited in Russia) in the north of the country. If the Assad army will continue to carry out gas attacks, it is logical to assume that the Trump administration can continue to insist on retaliation. ”

Washington Post notes very specific circumstances and the time when America struck - during a meeting with the head of China: “A safely going summit, from a Chinese point of view, this is clearly not a summit on which Si [Jinping] sits in dinner, obviously in the ignorance that Trump changed his position on a key foreign policy,” writes The correspondent of Emily Rukhala from Beijing, noting that China will not make a unilateral decision of the United States in Syria. At the same time, America and China have to discuss a number of difficult issues in the near future: bilateral trade, opposition to the North Korean nuclear program, the situation in the South China Sea and Taiwan. One way or another, while there are no signs of the acute reaction of the Chinese to bombing.

Journalist Dexter Filkins sees the long -awaited justice in Trump’s decision - his opinion is published by the New Yorker magazine: “Now Assad is paying for the first time for the crimes of his regime. It is unlikely that the goal of today's blow was to overthrow the Syrian government, rather simply punish him. ” However, official comments lead to other thoughts - on Thursday, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson spoke out about Assade quite clearly: "He can no longer participate in the management of the Syrian people."

John Cassidy at New Yorker wonders: what made the president abandon his original views on foreign policy? “Which of Trump's advisers pushed him to fighting? Was other opportunities considered? What will the Trump administration strategy in Syria will now and does it now suggest a change in the regime? .. Will Trump help with the decision of the refugee crisis, taking more Syrian immigrants in the United States? ”, Roses Cassidy’s questions one after another and notes that the next day after the bombing, they all require answers.