Quick, get rid of the evidence

Less than 10 days after Trump "instructed military leaders to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria as soon as possible and told them he wants Arab allies to take over and pay for stabilizing and reconstructing areas liberated from the Islamic State," he bombed the country instead.

Two days after making that announcement, there was an alleged chemical attack by Assad on innocent civilians of Douma, presumably the reason Trump reversed course. Who wants the US to stay in Syria is, I think, a fair question, and I can think of several answers. Syrian and American citizens are not any of them.

The United States and its allies tried to walk a fine line with the airstrikes, sending a strong message to President Bashar al-Assad of Syria without provoking a military response from Russia and Iran, Mr. Assad’s two strongest allies.

The operation on Saturday was more powerful than an airstrike ordered by President Trump last year — this time there were three targets, rather than one, employing twice as many weapons. But it was limited to one night, at least for the moment; was specifically aimed at chemical weapons facilities’ and steered clear of Russian soldiers and bases.

“Right now this is a one-time shot, and I believe it has sent a very strong message to dissuade him, to deter him from doing it again,” Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said of Mr. Assad, although Mr. Trump suggested there might be more to come.

  NYT

Mattis doesn't believe that any more than you do.

The United States and its allies went ahead with the airstrikes in the face of several developments that suggested they could be delayed.

And why would that be?

Inspectors from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons were expected to arrive in Douma, Syria, on Saturday to investigate the attack last weekend.

What a coincidence that we just bombed the areas in question.

But why did it take them a week to go investigate?

Mr. Mattis was working to slow the move toward a military response, concerned that a missile strike could spark a wider conflict between Russia, Iran and the West.

You think? Well, if he lives long enough, he'll have a book to write.

And Mr. Trump sent mixed signals about timing. On Wednesday, he warned Russia on Twitter that missiles “will be coming, nice and new and ‘smart!’ ”

Smarter than he anyway.

The airstrikes sent an unambiguous message to Mr. Assad, and it was not clear that it would change his thinking. He remained firmly in power thanks to the support of Russia and Iran.

Just like after last year's airstrikes ostensibly for the same reason: chemical attacks.

Mr. Assad has essentially been under siege since the Syrian civil war began more than seven years ago. In that time, he has dealt with the war, airstrikes, sanctions, Islamic State militants, a variety of rebel groups and a crumbling economy.

And he's still there.

The reaction in Washington was divided along party lines, with the strikes bringing praise from Republicans and criticism from Democrats.

Unsurprisingly the opposite from when Obama did it.

“The Butcher of Damascus learned two lessons tonight the hard way,” Senator Tom Cotton, Republican of Arkansas, said in a statement. “Weapons of mass destruction won’t create a military advantage once the United States is done with you and Russia cannot protect its clients from the United States.”

Tin pot bluster. Why didn't "The Butcher of Damascus" learn that lesson last year?

Gen. Valery V. Gerasimov, the chief of staff for the armed forces, had warned that Russia would “take retaliatory measures,” but he included an important caveat: Russia would attack missiles and the platforms from which they were launched only in the event that Russian military personnel were placed in danger.

Gee, could that be why Trump announced nice, smart missiles would be heading to Syria with enough time to move those troops?

[Britain's Teresa] May, who made an explicit connection between the airstrikes in Syria and the poisoning of the Skripals, benefited from the timing of the airstrikes, two days before lawmakers were to return from vacation. While not obligated to consult Parliament, she may have felt constrained to do so and could easily have lost a vote on a strike, as her predecessor David Cameron did in 2013.

How convenient.

 ...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.