A wise missile strike

IN THE end, the joint international attack on the Syrian regime was carefully calibrated and restrained. The fundamental point was made, that the civilised world cannot tolerate the use of barbaric poison gas weapons and will punish those states that break this rule.

The genuine dangers of widening the conflict in a direct clash with Russia were avoided. The phrase ‘surgical strike’ is a misleading one, as 100% accuracy simply is not possible in reality. But the loss of innocent life was kept to a minimum.

It is very likely that the involvement of France and Britain played some part in restraining President Trump from the much larger attacks which he seemed to be planning earlier in the week.

London and Paris have long and hardbought experience in this region, and are well aware of its traps and pitfalls.

Britain also had its own special point to make in this mission, having been the subject of more than one chemical attack on its own soil, outrages which undoubtedly originated in the Russian state, the same state which stands behind Syria’s despot, President Assad.

Now we must also ask what the West should do next to try to end the suffering which has convulsed Syria, so we can banish for good the horror of gas attacks. Missiles have their uses in administering swift retribution. But they cannot make permanent peace or rebuild Syria’s devastated cities.