The BBC gets to the point: "Trump’s lack of clarity on foreign policy may prove catastrophic"
Of course the thing about red lines is that they need to be crystal clear. In the immediate aftermath of the strike this seemed to be the case. The message was: use nerve gas again and consequences will follow.
But on Monday, White House press secretary Sean Spicer muddied the waters.
Asked if air attacks with conventional weapons might also draw US punitive action, he said: "If you gas a baby, if you put a barrel bomb into innocent people, you will see a response from this president."
Barrel bombs, though, tend to be large canisters filled with explosives and shrapnel that are typically dropped by Syrian government forces from helicopters. In other words they are conventional rather than chemical munitions.
So was Mr Spicer broadening the red line? Belatedly the White House had to issue a clarification noting that what he really was saying was that barrel bombs containing chemical weapons would draw a US response.
This lack of clarity would not matter quite so much if it was not characteristic of the Trump administration's whole approach to foreign policy.
My only safe space from that thought is that the Trumps are energetic self promoters, so Eric's comments may just be part of that.
But somehow the BBC's headline and Eric's boast seem oddly and depressingly related.
For a strategic analysis of the missile strike, see my essay "Just War and Syria Strikes" from last Saturday.
Posts
