The missile attack on Syria was not an American military attack on Syria for a chemical weapons attack, but rather was a response to a political maneuver intended to overturn Brexit and discredit Trump.
Consider the propaganda article in the New York Times: Helene Cooper, Michael Shearer, Ben Hubbard, “Trump Launches Strikes on Syria; Britain and France Join the Mission To Punish Assad, the President Says”, in New York Times, April 14, 2018. pp. A1, A8.
PM Theresa May, with the backing of her cabinet, as well as Trump and Macron (#MeToo) fired and unknown number of missiles, at unknown targets in Syria, with unknown results. The attack comes before the OPCW forensics team was to arrive in Damascus. [Unnamed] groups [the “White Helmets” controlled by Britain] and [unnamed] rebels [Jaysh Al-Islam, aligned with Britain] provided reports on the use of the chemical weapons Russia accused Britain of faking photographs of victims, which Britain denied. The article notes that Trump have previously launched cruise missiles at the Khan Sheikhoun airfield after a chemical weapons attack [without noting that Secretary of Defense James Mattis later acknowledged that the US had been deceived about who had perpetrated the attack]
Jaysh Al-Islam has previous used chemical weapons in Aleppo and openly admits to having done so. Few people in the United States, and almost no one in Britain realize that the United States has officially stated that the missile attack on Khan Sheikhoun was based on a chemical weapons attack hoax.
Note: In a map on page A9, NYT asserts that 2013 Ghouta attack killed 1400 people, a discredited number no one stands behind now, except the New York Times. There was never any attempt to substantiate that 1400 number and for the NYT to bring it up again, without proof, goes beyond Fake News, it is a crime. The UN Mission survey and report found zero confirmed deaths.
Early reports note that most missiles were shot down, and most of the remainder hit abandoned airfields. As PM Teresa May quickly and stridently defended the action, Trump tweeted that it was “mission accomplished” and it was over. (While many saw Trump’s tweet as arrogance, but surely it was an attempt to end the military adventure he showed no interest in sustaining.)
Militarily, the missile attack was meaningless.
So why was it done? Politics, certainly. But whose?
The momentum for the attack started with the Skirpal incident, which has not been investigated yet. (Russia Today reports a Swiss defense lab found the poison to be BZ, not Novochik.) The British government has been evasive about the investigation and blamed Russia immediately, before it even started an investigation.
Then the “gas” attack in Douma and the usual photos of poisoned children, pictures of a type routinely falsified by Jihadis pretending they are the victims. The Douma attack is claimed, without independent evidence, by a fake human rights group controlled by Britain, the White Helmets, and a Jihadi group, Jaysh Al-Islam, aligned with Britain. The longtime British [use] of such assets led to the Al-Qaeda-aligned Libyan Islamic Fighting Group being based in Manchester for a generation, even as it sent fighters to Al-Qaeda worldwide, and even after one of the LIFG oldtimer’s sons did the Manchester Arena bombing, slaughtering English children.)
BTW, did the British establishment lift a finger against the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group’s main base in Manchester or do they value them more than our children?
The credibility of the Douma attack is based on the credibility of the Salisbury Skirpal-poisoning. Everything was in the hands of the British government. The attack was not an American attack, but a British-French-USA attack. It came after Trump said his goal was to withdraw from Syria, and the Douma attack closed that possibility for a while. Trump responded with his usual brinksmanship and then backed off. Trump apparently even told Nigel Farage (!) that he did not plan to make such an attack. Then the attack came. The urgency was an product of the necessity of making sure the attack came before the OPCW survey team could visit the purported chemical weapons site. (Some people have suggested some of the cruise missiles had chemical weapons in the warheads to salt sites with chemical weapons residues that could then be “discovered” by OPCW, much like the sample sites were manipulated by terrorists in the 2013 Ghouta investigation.)
Trump’s conduct and words are not consistent with him being the prime mover in the attack, but PM May’s words and actions are. (Macron is just #MeToo)
Consider, the great enemy of the “Conservative” May government is not Syria or the Jihadis, but rather Brexit and the majority of the British people. Aspiring to a Thatcher-like military toughness, May could overturn the Brexit movement (and maybe crush Trump, who faced a solid front of support for an attack on Syria in the Congress and media) by being forced to undertaken the attack on Syria without the United States (stabbed in the back! and only the EU stands with us!). Macron’s role in this drama was to put a European, a European Union, face on the attack. If Trump did not participate in the attack, May would be forced to turn to the European Union for its joint defense. (Joint defense has become a centerpiece of the opposition to Brexit.)
A British-French attack on Syria, without the United States, would solidify British ties to the EU, while discrediting Brexit domestically, and slamming Trump.
The attack was political, not military. It was Deep State, not Trump. Trump had to fire missiles at Syria to deflect a Deep State plot. It is not pretty, but that is about where we are these days.
Here is an American news broadcast from Douma: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSXwG-901yU&t=6s
Their conclusion: No chemical weapons attack took place at Douma.