Why Trump's "limited strike" on Syria probably won't work

Share
Embed
  • Loading...
  • Published on:  Monday, April 16, 2018
  • Trump gave the same reason last year, and Assad’s use of chemical weapons hasn’t changed.Read more on the Syria strikes from Vox's defense and foreign writer Alex Ward: http://bit.ly/2JRFbmvSubscribe to our channel! http://goo.gl/0bsAjOPresident Donald Trump’s limited strike on Syria in April is an established tactic among presidents — his predecessors from Obama through Reagan all used similar actions, with varying results.But limited strikes that accomplish all their goals are exceedingly rare — only about 6 percent can make that claim, according to research by expert Micah Zenko. Most strikes have mixed success, at best. For example: Trump’s justification for attacking Syria was to send a message about Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons. That’s the same justification he used when authorizing a limited strike on Syria one year earlier. Why do presidents even use limited strikes if they’re rarely effective? There is some logic to it. For one, they’re not very costly. But more importantly, these strikes generally don’t put US troops in harm's way. And well, politically, presidents have very little to lose by exercising the option. In fact, authorizing a limited strike can give the appearance of strength and decisiveness and can sometimes have a positive effect on approval, whether or not the strike actually achieves its intended goals. Follow Vox's full coverage of Trump's Syria strikes here: http://bit.ly/2HquSrmVox.com is a news website that helps you cut through the noise and understand what's really driving the events in the headlines. Check out http://www.vox.com.Watch our full video catalog: http://goo.gl/IZONyEFollow Vox on Facebook: http://goo.gl/U2g06oOr Twitter: http://goo.gl/XFrZ5H
  • Source: https://youtu.be/Tc90I4FrLqM
Loading...

Comment

  • Vox

     1 years ago

    Read more on the Syria strikes from Vox's defense and foreign writer Alex Ward: http://bit.ly/2JRFbmv

  • Peter Pan

     1 years ago

    Still glad Trump ordered the attack

  • Thomas Fernandez

     1 years ago

    Logan Howell not EVERY president needs a pet.

  • Van Hendrix

     1 years ago

    Iraq didn't go well; Libya didn't go well. It would be a tragedy to get bogged down in another war

  • DMC1

     10 months ago

    Fun fact: Bush campaigned on an anti war platform.

  • Parelyzed

     1 years ago

    U.S is bullshit they ruined Iraq a beautiful place and now isis is their course shitton (Clinton +Shit)

  • Julia Crawford

     1 years ago

    Typical American day = facepalming at what the government is doing

  • Balanced

     1 years ago

    You are aware this isn't "trump's" strike

  • bob smith

     1 years ago

    Julia Crawford

  • AlanTheBest97

     1 years ago

    Assad is winning the war, with or without chemical weapons, he has Russian support and has the rebels contained and mostly under siege. Time is on his side, I doubt he would risk NATO interference by using chemical weapons, when conventional means will do the job. The attack was staged no doubt, the only mistery is by whom...

  • Jake Holsten

     9 months ago

    You spelled mystery wrong

  • DMC1

     10 months ago

    Why are we even in Syria and Afghanistan again? We've been in their for years w/ multiple presidential candidates saying they won't do exactly that.

  • Peter Hardie

     1 years ago

    The sad thing is that Hillary would do the same. Two parties both beholden to the Military Industrial Complex.

  • DMC1

     10 months ago

    Hirnlego999 she is a neocon. I'd say the trump presidency has shaped exactly to that tune as well. They're are democrats who are pro israel and pro war like chuck schumer or Anthony wiener. Though i'd for sure say the democratic party isn't nearly as horrific as the GOP is.

  • GroovyVideo2

     1 years ago

    both parties are war crooks Money/ oil

  • kayok07

     1 years ago

    Hate to be the common sense comment since this is YouTube, but why use gas when you are winning the civil war especially when it guarantees UN intervention? Lots of facts just don't line up that's why it was a limited strike other wise if information gets out that it wasn't the Syrian government we don't look 100% like idiots just 95%

  • Billsama Bin Clinten

     1 years ago

    +Claire Knight We did it as a battlefield test and a warning to the Soviets. In reality, firebomb raids killed similar amounts of people. The Japanese surrendered to the US because the Soviets invaded Hokkaido, and they knew the they would hang the Emperor.

  • Our Founding Liars

     1 years ago

    Trump is a strange breed of orange Reptilian. We must keep him alive to study. Keep asking questions.

  • synthes1ze

     1 years ago

    Get the Joke! You’ve got a point. Well let’s just keep questioning then.

  • Get the Joke!

     1 years ago

    CadenSkii We really don't know how long this species lives. Mitch McConnells can live up to 250 years, other reptilians shoot themselves when they're 27. There is no knowledge about the live expectancy of orange reptilians.

  • _X Y Z_

     1 years ago

    The goal of the entire war in the Middle East is to destabilize the region.

  • Tiomthy Suk

     1 years ago

    It’s a good thing Trump warned Syria... If no one told that the missile were coming and killled many people that would just escalate the situation. And don’t tell me they moved all the equipment that fast because that’s just not practical

  • onee

     1 years ago

    So, what is the alternative? To invade Syria? Why would you want to invade Syria? It's not like they're your neighbour or are attacking you?

  • AppleJooc Park

     1 years ago

    altrag That's not the point at all. The missile attack was not to stop the war, but to punish them for their use of illegal weapons and to make people think twice about using them in the future.

  • askjiir

     1 years ago

    Vox is tied to Israel. Assad is allied with Iran which is an enemy of Israel