Rumors of War - Doomed Damascus

Donald Trump dials back Syria message as Britain, Germany mull response - UPI.com
UPI reports: "President Donald Trump indicated Thursday that an attack on Syria may not be imminent -- in a tweet with a much different message than one he sent a day earlier to 'get ready' for a missile strike. [...] British Prime Minister Theresa May was set to hold a cabinet meeting Thursday to discuss possibly joining the United States and allies in military action, saying the weekend chemical attack on Douma 'cannot go unchallenged.' May and Trump spoke by phone on Wednesday, in which they discussed the attack."

AP - Analysis: Putin unlikely to leave strike on Syria unanswered
AP reports: "If driven into a corner by a U.S. attack, Putin will be unlikely to sit back. Inaction would threaten his hard-won gains in Syria, dent Russia’s prestige and erode his tough-guy image. [...] A year ago, Putin was nurturing hopes for better ties with the U.S. under President Donald Trump. After a purported chemical weapons attack in Syria, he allowed a U.S. missile strike on a Syrian air base go unanswered, apparently trying to leave the door open for better relations with Washington. Moscow, which had received an advance tip by the U.S. to get its servicemen out of harm’s way, limited its response to angry statements of protest. With Kremlin expectations of a cozy relationship with Trump fizzling amid U.S. investigations into allegations of Russia’s meddling in the 2016 U.S. election, Putin is unlikely to show such tolerance now."

Comment: There seem to be many unexamined assumptions in the U.S. about another missile strike on Syria. One assumption, as the second report notes, is that Russia will respond as it did last year, with words of protest and nothing more. We don't know that they will. Another assumption is that President Trump has the authority to attack Syria without Congressional authorization. Even if we accept the stretch that the Authorization of Force (AUMF) passed by Congress in 2002 for the Iraq War covers military operations in Syria we would have to say that it only covers military operations against the Islamic State and not the government of Syria, a country we are not at war with.  At any rate, Congress seems unwilling to assert the authority it has under the Constitution and Trump no doubt feels he has the legal authority to attack as he did last year. If we move from attacking the Islamic State to attacking Syrian military forces in something more than a pinprick attack (for PR purposes) then do we make ourselves a party to the civil war and a target for Syrian, Russian and Iranian forces? There are many ways a missile attack either alone or with allies can go wrong and very few ways it can go right. At this point, I find myself hoping that Trump opts for the same kind of attack as last April: heavy on symbolism and light on actual damage or casualties.