Now as well as then: The bombing

I refer to the Trump Administration bombing of an airfield in Syria and the later bombing of a network of tunnels in Afghanistan. President Trump had seen horrific pictures of children suffering the effects of a nerve gas allegedly dropped on them by Syrian warplanes. His daughter drove home the horror of the scene and he was forced to act in response to her complaint.

Interestingly, the President had railed against his predecessor’s intention of doing the same thing after an even more egregious chemical attack several years before. President Obama had appropriately requested Congress’ agreement to strike Syria, as was necessary within the law, but had had his request denied. Congress had given the Presidency the right to strike Al Qaeda or any of its affiliates anywhere in the Middle East after the September 9 attack on the World Trade Centre in New York. Any other attack needed the approval of Congress.

President Trump sought no such approval. He saw the “beautiful babies” on TV and instinctively authorised the bombing of the airfield with 59 Tomahawks launched from battleships in the Mediterranean. At the time of the requested Obama strike, only 22% of Republicans approved of the idea. When Trump did it, the approval rating had gone up to 86%! And therein lies a tale.

At the time, Trump, not even a presidential candidate had railed against the idea of intervention in Syria. He continued to do so until he saw the pictures of the “beautiful babies” on television just over a fortnight ago. It turned out to be a boost for his administration still reeling under suspicion of collusion with Russia during the most recent US elections. It was more than a simple distraction. He received elaborate praise from some countries abroad as well as from his supporters. It also improved his below 40% approval rating.

What is interesting is the actual ineffectual use of expensive Tomahawks in the attack. President Trump needed to alert the Russians before the strike, as the death of any Russian working at that base would have caused a wider rift with Russia and possibly a counter-attack on US forces based in the Southern Syrian border town of Al Tanaf. In the process of warning the Russians, Syrian forces at the base would also have been forewarned. The strike therefore hit a deserted base. Judging
by the three differing numbers used for planes destroyed or damaged, it is unclear how much damage was inflicted on the airfield. Some hangars were damaged or destroyed, but the airstrip remained undamaged. Indeed, airplanes and helicopters took off from the same airfield the following day. There was not either any indication that any chemical weapons were destroyed.

Interestingly, the jihadists may also have had some forewarning, as the immediate aftermath seemed to suggest. Naturally, the US forces in Al Tanaf were informed of the strike and they moved rapidly
out of their base into the desert. The jihadists took this as an occasion to be able to capture the base. However, the US force returned and demolished the small attacking force.

The strike may be written off as a token strike, nothing more. The President still has no intention of doing anything more in Syria. There is even speculation as to whether both the attack and the limit to the damage to be done was not also discussed with the Russians. This may, however, not be more than suspicion arising from the contacts between Trump’s staff and the Russians during the Election or Trump’s own continued expression of admiration for the Russian President, Vladimir Putin.

The second bomb was not Trump’s initiative. The President admitted that he had given his generals (who were now “great generals”, while being sadly useless while he was campaigning) permission to do whatever was necessary. So they dropped a GBU-43B, an extremely large thermo-baric bomb on a series of tunnels and bunkers used by ISIS fighters on the border town of Nangahar close to Pakistan. The massive bomb releases incredible energy, which manifests itself both in heat and in pressure on the area of contact. It can therefore tear through tunnels and bunkers as it did.

According to villagers’ figures, some ninety, jihadist fighters were killed in the attack. According to other sources, this included some four, group leaders.

This was clearly a successful strike.

The question remains whether it was necessary to use such a large bomb costing some 16 million dollars, and whether the same effect could not have been achieved by a number of smaller bombs. When asked if this was a warning to North Korea, the President’s answer was that North Korea was a different issue. One wonders, however, whether the use of such a powerful bomb – second largest after an atom bomb – was not an effort to show the North Koreans that the US could strike anywhere and that there was nowhere to hide from such a bomb.

One hopes that it was not. Unlike the Syrians, the North Koreans are unlikely to be unresponsive to any form of physical attack.

Bombs have their limitations.