>>Kind of surprised no one is talking about this (yet)
>
>Despite all the hollering in the press about the ineptitude of the Trump administration up till now there were no serious negative effects.
>
>This blunder is real and will have negative effects.
>
>The US is not threatened by Syria and is not responsible for the safety of anyone in Syria.
>There was zero justification for this strike.

I have mixed feelings.

On the one hand, I disagree that there was no justification. Assad had it coming to him. (And I'm really curious about this new report that Russia might have played a role in the Syrian chemical attack the other day). Clearly the Obama administration was wrong when it boasted of playing a role in diplomacy to supposedly purge Syria of chemical weapons. You can argue about whether we are supposed to be the one doing the spankings - but there's no argument that Assad had it coming to him.

On the other hand, I find myself in agreement with Ann Coulter (who is ripping him on social media right now). When U.S. Presidents attempt to meddle in the mess of the Middle East, it usually ends badly for us. With all the different factions in Syria now, it's an even bigger mess. Coulter's view is essentially, "I want a president who will put America first, will avoid foreign messes, and will enforce immigration laws". On that point, I have to agree with her. Having said that, if we are not "responsible for the safety of anyone in Syria", then you can probably guess that my next question relates to any responsibility we have for refugees.

In general, I wish Trump hadn't done it - but if the strike in itself sends a message to Assad/Iran/North Korea, then it succeeds. Though more likely the strike will either have no positive impact, or might backfire.