Although the coalition that attacked Syria ensures a resounding success in the military attack, for Russia and the regime of Bashar al Assad the aggression was not devastating

– Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 14, 2018

Leer en español: Siria: ¿Realmente Estados Unidos, Reino Unido y Francia cumplieron la misión?

It had not been more than twelve hours and the US president, Donald Trump, celebrated in his Twitter the supposed success of the military attack perpetrated, in coalition with the United Kingdom and France, against the regime of Bashar al Assad in Syria. A total of 105 missiles were launched, directed against three facilities where, according to the coalition, it is the center of operations of the chemical and biological weapons program of the Syrian regime.

For the president of the United States, the attack was "perfectly executed" and was a "Mission Accomplished." However, for the Syrian regime, and even for its biggest ally, Russia, the attack did not entail anything extraordinary, nor was it a success.

Although there is no exact congruence between the two sides to say the amount of missiles that were derived by the Syrian antiaircraft defenses, there is a margin that more than 55% of the missiles were shot down. This taking IGNORE INTO account information from the Russian Ministry of Defense and the Syrian state news agency.

The pentagon, through the chairperson of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Dunford Jr., said the three targets were strategically selected to delay President Assad's chemical weapons program. In addition, it was said that Russia had not been notified of the military attack.

However, France denied that information, claiming that Kremlin had been previously advised of such action. Even, Syria assured through its news agency, that thanks to a warning from its Russian ally, the attacked installations were evacuated days before the attack.

Lack of coherence in the information

The day after the attack, perpetrated by the Western coalition, a video of the Syrian president peacefully arriving at his office invaded social networks. Also, according to data from international news agencies, the material damages are not large and neither, according to the information of the allies, there were human losses. So, what was the success of the operation?

Not only for the allies that carried out the attack, the military attack was a success, for other countries that supported the attack, the military mission carried out implied a retaliation against the Syrian regime and its attack with chemical weapons. For Germany, Turkey, Canada, and Australia the attack was measured and a warning to the regime of what can happen if it continues to attack the civilian population.

Now, contrasting what was affirmed by the coalition, what was said by the Syrian regime, Russia, and countries that supported the attack, the material damages were reduced; more than half of the missiles were shot down by the defense system; and there were no human losses. Therefore, it is not possible to talk about a success where everything indicates that there was not.

It is enough to remember the former president George W. Bush, who in 2003, affirmed the success of the war in Iraq with the same phrase: "mission accomplished", which was criticized because it was far from being fulfilled.

Translated from “¿Realmente Estados Unidos, Reino Unido y Francia cumplieron la misión?”
Latin American Post | Carlos Eduardo Gómez Avella