Analysis: Coalition strikes Syria, Russia blinks

TRUE TO HIS WORD: In a speech that was crafted as carefully as the military action it announced, President Trump last night informed the nation and the world that his vow to make Syrian President Bashar Assad pay a price for his use of chemical weapons was not an empty gesture.

“Last Saturday, the Assad regime again deployed chemical weapons to slaughter innocent civilians — this time, in the town of Douma, near the Syrian capital of Damascus,” Trump said, calling the attack “a significant escalation in a pattern of chemical weapons use by that very terrible regime.” The death toll has been reported as more than 40, but Britain has said as many as 75 people died from chemical exposure.

HAPPENING TODAY: Last night’s briefing was sketchy on the nut and bolts of the military operation. We are expecting more details when Pentagon chief spokesperson Dana White and Marine Lt. Gen. Kenneth McKenzie hold a follow-up briefing this morning as the U.S. assesses the effectiveness of the strike. That briefing will be live-streamed at www.defense.gov/live.

UPDATE: Read our story from the briefing here.

THE WEAPONS: We know the strikes included both manned aircraft and Tomahawk cruise missile fired from ships offshore. The French Defense Ministry posted images of fighter jets taking off, and at least one cruise missile fired from a French warship.

Britain confirmed that its contribution consisted of four RAF Tornado GR4s, which launched Storm Shadow missiles at a military facility some 15 miles west of Homs .

And the Pentagon confirmed last night at least one B-1 bomber was used, along with Tomahawk cruise missiles from U.S. ships.

THE TARGETS: “It was done on targets that we believed were selected to hurt the chemical weapons program. We confined it to the chemical weapons-type targets,” Mattis said. “We were not out to expand this. We were very precise and proportionate.”

Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford listed three targets:

• A scientific research center located in the greater Damascus area. “This military facility was a Syrian center for the research, development, production and testing of chemical and biological warfare technology.”

• A chemical weapons storage facility west of Homs. “We assessed that this was the primary location of Syrian sarin and precursor production equipment.”

• A chemical weapons equipment storage facility and command post.

SIZE AND SCALE: Dunford insisted this strike was “qualitatively and quantitatively different,” from the Tomahawk attack of last April, when 58 U.S. cruise missiles hit a Syrian airfield, and according to the Pentagon destroyed 20 percent of the Syrian air force.

“Last year we conducted a unilateral strike on a single site. The focus was on the aircraft associated with the Syrian chemical weapons attack in April of 2017,” Dunford said. In contrast this time around the strikes against multiple sites will, he said “result in a long-term degradation of Syria’s capability to research, develop and employ chemical and biological weapons.

“Important infrastructure was destroyed, which will result in a setback for the Syrian regime. They will lose years of research and development data, specialized equipment and expensive chemical weapons precursors.”

Mattis said the strike used “a little over double” the number of weapons compared to last year, and that targets were “precise and proportionate” and specifically designed to cripple Syria’s chemical weapons capabilities. “But at the same time, it was a heavy strike,” Mattis said.

KEEPING THE RUSSIANS OUT OF IT: After Russia’s threat to shoot down incoming US missiles, the Pentagon plan went to great lengths to avoid any additional provocation. “We specifically identified these targets to mitigate the risk of Russian forces being involved, and we used our normal deconfliction channels — those were active this week — to work through the airspace issue,” Dunford said.

What Dunford meant is that the U.S. used its regular telephone line to notify Russia that U.S. and allied planes would be operating in a certain airspace over Syria, without saying what they would be doing. It’s something that happens on a daily basis, as the U.S. continues to bomb ISIS positions.

“We did do not do any coordination with the Russians on the strikes, nor did we pre-notify them,” Dunford said.

RUSSIA BLINKED: Despite deploying its state-of-the-art S-400 air defense system to Syria, the U.S. did not detect any effort by Russia to shoot down allied planes or missiles. Dunford, who watched the operation unfold in the Pentagon’s National Military Command Center, said all he saw was some initial anti-aircraft fire from Syrian air defenses.

“The only reaction that I’m aware of at this time was Syrian surface-to-air missiles,” Dunford said. “I’m not aware of any Russian activity.”

Nevertheless, Russia claims to have shot down 71 of 103 Tomahawk missiles, but it also claims that airfields were bombed that the U.S. says were not targeted. It also vaguely warned of consequences.

“We warned that such actions will not be left without consequences,” said Anatoly Antonov, the Russian ambassador to the U.S. “All responsibility for them rests with Washington, London and Paris.”

SARIN OR NO SARIN? It’s still not clear if the attack last weekend consisted solely of deadly chlorine gas, or whether the nerve agent sarin was part of the chemical cocktail. “Yes, we’re very confident that chlorine was used. We are not ruling out sarin right now,” Mattis said.

HILL REACTION:

Sen. John McCain: “I applaud the President for taking military action against the Assad regime. … I hope these strikes impose meaningful costs on Assad. The message to Assad must be that the cost of using chemical weapons is worse than any perceived benefit…”

Rep. Paul Ryan: “We are united in our resolve that Assad’s barbaric use of chemical weapons cannot go unanswered. His regime’s unconscionable brutality against innocent civilians cannot be tolerated. There should be no doubt that Russia and Iran have blood on their hands, and their partnership with Assad reveals the true nature of their regimes.”

Sen. Chuck Schumer: “A pinpointed, limited action to punish and hopefully deter Assad from doing this again is appropriate, but the administration has to be careful about not getting us into a greater and more involved war in Syria.”

Sen. David Perdue: “Assad must know his inhumane actions will not be tolerated. I’ve met some of the Syrian families who fled Assad’s terror and are living in a refugee camp at the Turkish border. For too long, the world has been asking: When will Assad stop? It is time for action. President Trump is engaged and led our allies in measured response to hold Assad accountable.”

NO NEW AUMF: Yesterday’s strikes apparently won’t bring serious demands on Capitol Hill for a full-blown debate on reauthorizing the president to use military force abroad.

Those who control the floor schedules in the House and Senate and the committee agendas in the panels overseeing the matter said this week they have little interest in a vote — months out from an election — on a new bill authorizing the president to use of military force.

“In this particular case I think the authority would be preventing a humanitarian crisis,” Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Sen Bob Corker, who would oversee a new AUMF, said this week. “I think for a surgical strike they easy have the authority to do it.”