Back in December, when asked by my friend Frenchie, who (naturally) is Italian, if I thought that Trump would launch a nuke, I replied that I didn't think he would, but that he would attack Iran, a long-held Republican fantasy. While this hasn't come to pass, Trump's Tomahawk missile barrage on a Syrian airfield occurred not even three months into his presiduncey. This new policy on Syria contradicts Trump's old attitude toward President Obama's potential courses of action in Syria... I guess that the Kenyan Usurper's use of America's penis substitutes was beyond the Pale for Vulgarmort.
The idea that Trump was motivated by concern for the 'beautiful babies' is belied by his refusal to succor refugee children. Why actually rescue children when you can bomb the hell out of an airfield?
This attack on Assad's regime is a puzzler- the area is such a quagmire, is the U.S. really going to fight against two sides in a multi-pronged civil war? Is ISIS the number one enemy or is Assad's regime? This is a repeat of the muddled U.S. policy in Yemen, in which our military is fighting both the extremist Sunni group Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and the Shiite Houthi rebel group. Fighting against both sides in an armed struggle only makes sense if one is playing the two sides against each other for personal gain... and in a creepy sidenote, Raytheon is making a fistful of dollars since the Tomahawk strike, Syrian civilians and American taxpayers be damned.
In one odd turn of events, the alt-right Trump base has gone ballistic because of the strike, though, as a leftist, I would dispute their assertion that the attack appeals to 'leftists'. Chuck Schumer is a centrist, despite his support of fillibustering Gorsuch.
My primary concern at this point, being an observer of current events and a cynical bastard, is that Trump, citing Iran's support for Assad's regime, will pivot and launch an attack on Iran. I predicted such a move back in December, and I sure hope that I am wrong.