I still have not heard an explanation as to why Assad would order a gas attack that makes any sense. Being 'evil' is not enough to explain it, at least for me. That is not to say he is or isn't evil. There is plenty of confirmed evidence to lead anybody to their own conclusion on that count.  I expect that everyone reading this will have already read enough to know the arguments that make it seem crazy for him to have made the choice to use a chemical weapon. O'Donnell's theory would require that Trump and Putin conspired on a specific plan after the election at a time when Trump needed a political boost.  Another idea, that Assad was "testing" Trump, seems just as ridiculous. The little guy with a slingshot doesn't walk up to Goliath and spit in his face when one result of the test is that he would get his head ripped off and there is no possible good result. The result would be too predictable and so not one that would be chosen unless the little guy was suicidal. Or else real stupid, which we know for a fact is a possibility among world leaders.

Whose position was advanced by the gas attack? Forget for now that it is an obvious boon to the various forces opposing Assad and so an obvious incentive for a false flag action. The article linked above makes an important point about the always war-happy neocons but it actually seems like almost everybody supports the retaliatory strike and it seems to me that much of that support is based on a chance to climb to some moral high ground and express our outrage at a particular way of killing people, especially children. That is extremely shallow cover-your-ass ad hoc moralizing, IMO.

 I think the strike on Syria was stupid and counter productive as well as obviously illegal. We have now put ourselves on at least three sides in the Syrian civil war. It is interesting to wonder if Hillary would have done more. I very much doubt she would have done less. Is that speculation beside the point?  The retaliation by Trump may be a zig in the zig-zag of our foreign policy but it does nothing to change the long trend line of our policies.  Trump has full responsibility for the decision but it was a political decision and it wasn't made in a vacuum. 

Vast efforts to portray Donald Trump as Vladimir Putin’s flunky have given Trump huge incentives to prove otherwise. Last Thursday, he began the process in a big way by ordering a missile attack on Russia’s close ally Syria. In the aftermath of the attack, the cheerleading from U.S. mass media was close to unanimous, and the assault won lots of praise on Capitol Hill. Finally, the protracted and fervent depictions of Trump as a Kremlin tool were getting some tangible results. 

The incoherence of President Trump’s foreign policy – and his reliance on “the shows” to get his military advice – have made Syria a dangerous temptation