Numerous media commentaries criticized the so-called “limited” attack
by US, British and French naval and air forces as inadequate and
demanded a more extensive and sustained military offensive. The New York Times
quoted Republican Senator Lindsey Graham as saying, “I fear that when
the dust settles, this strike will be seen as a weak military response
and Assad will have paid a small price…”
The Washington Post in its lead editorial Sunday attacked
Trump for again hinting at removing US troops from Syria. It pointed to
the huge swath of territory in eastern Syria occupied by US troops and
American proxy forces and demanded that Trump “further fortify” the US
position on the ground in order to force the departure of Syrian Prime
Minister Bashar al-Assad.
The New York Times’ David Sanger and Ben Hubbard in a
front-page article Sunday argued against Pentagon claims that the
strikes had seriously damaged Assad’s alleged chemical weapons program.
They wrote: “While it is easy to blow up Mr. Assad’s chemical
facilities, it is also relatively simple for him to reconstitute them
elsewhere, or just turn to a commercially available substance like
chlorine to make a poison that any nation is allowed to possess.”
The bases for new provocations and fresh pretexts for military
aggression are already being laid. If not another staged chemical
attack, the next casus belli for war could well be a terrorist attack or an assault on US troops in the Middle East attributed to Assad.
For more than 25 years the United States has been engaged in
continual warfare, justifying each conflict with bogus claims of
committed or imminent atrocities by the targeted country: “weapons of
mass destruction” against Iraq, a looming massacre of civilians against
Libya, and now gas attacks against Syria.
-- Barry Grey, "US-British-French missile strikes on Syria heighten danger of a catastrophic war" (WSWS).