within a few hours. there s no action that it does deter assad from using chemical weapons in the future. and hundreds of thousands have died. it s a sim bymbolic way, it s a for trump to say i m drawing this line in the sand. and what effect does it have on the region and the civil war and assad is very unclear. thanks very much. lawyer is a political reporter and seema, l.a. times reporter. thanks to both to you. up next, the optics and public relations battle over syria. this you re watching syrian tv, people celebrating in the streets but why. an award-winning journal effo n work in the streets of syria joins us next.
because you know more about military things than most people around. there s still some confusion in some people s minds about whether the syrians were responsible for the chemical attack last night. there s a group of inspectors who have arrived today in damascus. the syrians have said, they re welcome to come in. and yet, we targeted what the americans say say syrian chemical weapons manufacturing plant. how is it that we have certainty about this chemical weapons manufacturing plant. but not about whether the chemical weapons used in last saturday s attack were done by the syrian government? well, they have evidence. they don t have proof. and i think secretary mattis acknowledged that last night. he was even more skeptical testifying before capitol hill. now, last night, he said they have more evidence and more proof. and whether or not they share that with the broader international community is going to come down whether or not they think they can release the intelligence. there
television they have not had for decades. for 40 years. yeah. this is all that they wanted. as americans, this is what the american revolution is about. so there should be some kind of, in a sense, sympathy, and people confuse it with the iraq war in 2003. there were similarities. there was an accusation that chemical weapons were used. proof was never found. but we got ourselves in a war 15 years ago that we re not out of. and there was no presence of al qaeda in iraq. we know that now. and saddam hussein was is not slaughtering his people. and also what will happen? will he be brought to a war crimes tribunal? will he go to the hague? will there ever be justice for this man who has so much blood
he slaughtered tens and thousands of people. he s incarcerated, in one prison alone, amnesty international said 13,000 men were tortured to death. he s killed children. so, the kind of we come awake when we hear chemical weapons. yes. and there s a kind of moral imperative to impose which is not wrong. which is not wrong and should be done but i think we should not forget that shouldn t be a red line drawn. you can t use poison gas but you can do everything else. you can commit every heinous war crime as long agency you don t use chemical weapons. we forgot what is happening to syria and the syrian population and the suffering they ve undergone for seven years. why should we care, because to have a failed state is not in our political interest. right, and there are examples of that in syria, lebanon,
u.s. and russia. what we saw was a very limited air strike in which russia and the u.s. seemed desperate to avoid any kind of escalation. and you know, we were look at not just what hans was saying what was hit. but what was not hit. command and control centers were not hit. syria s air force were not hit. its helicopters were not hit. and there s a different between a tactical success. and the question remains what is the strategy going forward? is the u.s. in syria or out? what about those 2,000 troops in the east. and of course, the unanswered question, will this actually be a deterrent and what if bashar al assad uses chemical weapons again. nikki haley says we re locked and loaded.