Kathianne
06-27-2017, 08:43 AM
Ok, here's the story, which Syria, Russia, Iran of course deny:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/26/politics/syria-chemical-weapons-white-house-warning/index.html
What's weird to me is that the media seems to be doubting the thrust of the argument being made, sort of playing Russia's advocate if you will. Lack of 'proof', implying that there's more of a 'making noise' type of claim:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-usa-idUSKBN19I083
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-us-warning-possible-syria-chemical-attack-unprecedented-provocation/
Granted the US isn't putting much, if any 'proof' out there, but to do so would actually give away how we came across said proof. In this case, I give kudos to DOD and the WH playing it this way. If nothing happens, the story goes away, there's no 'there, there.' On the other hand, if the chemical attack happens, the aggressors were preempted from denials.
It seems like common sense that making the cryptic statement-which I normally loath, in this case is a great play. Odds seem in favor of preventing an attack.The lack of attack will not result in anything to 'crow about,' thus I fail to see how this is just an opportunity for bluster.
The communications between US and Russia are not at a high point, especially in regards to Syria. This seems a good move to me.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/26/politics/syria-chemical-weapons-white-house-warning/index.html
What's weird to me is that the media seems to be doubting the thrust of the argument being made, sort of playing Russia's advocate if you will. Lack of 'proof', implying that there's more of a 'making noise' type of claim:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-usa-idUSKBN19I083
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-us-warning-possible-syria-chemical-attack-unprecedented-provocation/
Granted the US isn't putting much, if any 'proof' out there, but to do so would actually give away how we came across said proof. In this case, I give kudos to DOD and the WH playing it this way. If nothing happens, the story goes away, there's no 'there, there.' On the other hand, if the chemical attack happens, the aggressors were preempted from denials.
It seems like common sense that making the cryptic statement-which I normally loath, in this case is a great play. Odds seem in favor of preventing an attack.The lack of attack will not result in anything to 'crow about,' thus I fail to see how this is just an opportunity for bluster.
The communications between US and Russia are not at a high point, especially in regards to Syria. This seems a good move to me.