So We Got Away With It?
The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Display list of topics
Sarah's Resources You Should See
Sarah's Blog Buy Sarah's Pictures
Full-Text Search & Archives
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.


The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2018-04-17 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Foreign Policy , 152 references Ignore this thread
So We Got Away With It?
[Comments enabled]


But..... what did we do, other than blow off ~100 cruise missiles and make some vendors a lot of money for new ones to replace those expended.

Good question.

We blew **** up -- that's for sure.  And Russia didn't immediately turn around and sink one or more of our ships, which she probably could have, and had that happened we might be at war right now.

There aren't any reports -- yet -- on casualties.  Maybe there were few -- or even none.  That seems unlikely, but it's not impossible by any means; blowing **** up at 3:00 AM, if there's nobody working there at the time, might well come with a zero or near-zero (e.g. the night guard) casualty count.  The odds go up if there was prior warning of some sort.

The Russians are claimed to have not used any of their air-defense assets in the area; the Syrians are known to have tried, and there's video evidence that someone fired anti-aircraft/missile weapons at the incoming.  Nonetheless, a good number of our shots (and those of the British and French) were apparently "good".

We still don't know what actually happened with these gas attacks -- even the previous ones, as Mattis has said himself.  Never mind that from my bird's eye view at 30,000' dead is dead and it appears that we don't give a flying **** about people getting shot, blown up with anti-aircraft rounds (as Kim-Jung-Nutball has done by using them on people) and similar.

I get it -- gas attacks are bad because they're weapons of mass-destruction, right up until they're not.  You can gas yourself accidentally and people do from time to time.  I also get the horror of WWI and the gas used during trench warfare; not only chlorine but mustard gas and similar "blistering" agents which were used with devastating effect, never mind that the effects move with the wind and thus have a nasty habit of nailing civilians.

But the bottom line is that I have a hell of a problem blasting some Syrian positions because a handful of people were impacted by a chemical attack we cannot prove the Syrian government initiated and yet, at the same time, we think it's perfectly fine if those same people are shot or blown up.  Like, for instance, the follow-on strike by "someone" that is reported to have killed a couple dozen -- by explosion, one assumes.

Never mind the underlying issue -- for what purpose and with what right are we there and involved in what looks like a civil war in the first place, especially when we have been arming one side of it?  What gives the US the right to determine whether a foreign government is subject to removal, through the use of deadly force, and then supply the means of said deadly force?  What is the objective criteria and what are the thresholds at which it applies?

Perhaps you can explain what I'm missing here in the comments....

View with responses (opens new window)