The Trump administration’s recent airstrikes in Syria – just the latest action in a long-running conflict that has challenged U.S. presidents of both parties – has prompted a new round of questions on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers are asking where last week's strikes fit in the larger U.S. strategy in response to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and for greater clarity to prevent an escalation of the conflict.  “There needs to be a comprehensive strategy here laid out by the administration for Congress in terms of the options to pursue because of the urgency,” House Foreign Affairs Chairman Ed Royce said during a House panel Wednesday. “Does the administration support imposing costs on the Russians and the Iranians for their role in the Assad regime’s war crimes against its own people?”  In his speech announcing the air strikes to the American people Friday, President Trump said the United States is “prepared to sustain this response until the Syrian regime stops its use of prohibited chemical agents.” But later Friday, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said the latest action against Assad was a “one-time shot.” Trump ordered Friday's strikes just weeks after saying the U.S. would “be coming out of Syria like very soon," reflecting changes in the administration’s posture in response to Assad’s reported use of prohibited chemical agents.  “We’re at a real risk here of conducting strikes without any clear strategy,” Brian Katulis, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, told VOA. “The Trump administration for the past several months has issued contradictory statements, with former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and some diplomats saying that the U.S. troops inside Syria, in eastern Syria, would be dedicated to also countering Iran inside Syria. The Pentagon was saying something completely different – defeating ISIS and continuing that campaign,” he said.  Trump administration officials told a hearing of the House Foreign Affairs committee Wednesday the president’s goals in Syria remain clear. Question: Why did the Trump administration order Syrian airstrikes? === The answer to the above question is
in response to use of chemical weapons against Syrians
--
WHITE HOUSE/BROWNSVILLE, TEXAS — A day after U.S. President Donald Trump reversed a policy of separating migrant families at the U.S.-Mexico border, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said there is a plan to reunite the more than 2,000 children who have been detained apart from their parents. "We have a plan to do that," the secretary told reporters at an event in Washington Thursday morning. Shortly before she spoke, a VOA reporter at an immigration court hearing in Brownsville, Texas, said prosecutors dropped misdemeanor charges against 17 migrants. The migrants, who were separated from their children remain detained, but dropping the charges could be a means to reunite them and allow the families to be detained as units. David Bier, an Immigration Policy Analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, said if government prosecutors are dropping criminal charges in similar cases across the immigration court system, it calls into question the Trump Administration's 'Zero Tolerance' policy towards immigration. It's "an even more clear signal that the whole purpose of bringing these prosecutions is to separate parents from children and not about enforcing the law." he told VOA. The administration's policy requires that anyone who crosses the border illegally face criminal charges. "If it continues to be the case that some of these cases or many of them are dismissed by courts – that should be the end of the policy," Bier added. The moves come as the House of Representatives prepares to vote Thursday on a pair of immigration bills that address the separations, as well as other issues that have divided the country's major political parties. Nielsen repeated her calls for lawmakers to act. "I want to be very clear on this. Congress has the authority and responsibility to make the law of the land and to fix the immigration system," the secretary said. "We have done everything we can do in the executive branch." The outcome of the votes is uncertain. One measure is more hard-line, while the other... Question: What did Bier think about the Zero immigration policy? === The answer to the above question is
He thinks they are enforcing the law
--
But corrected figures, provided by the U.S. military and published Tuesday by SIGAR, suggest that the actual decline was 17,980. Pentagon officials acknowledged originally providing inaccurate figures to SIGAR because of a failure "to account for the transfer of most of the Afghan Border Force from the Afghan National Police to the Afghan National Army," according to a SIGAR statement. According to the new figures, there were 313,728 members of the Afghan defense forces as of January 31, 2018. That compares to a total of 296,409, as previously reported. "SIGAR receives all of the (Afghan National Defense and Security Forces) personnel strength numbers published in the quarterly report from USFOR-A and has no means of independently verifying them," the statement added. The new figures still amount to a sharp decline. Afghan forces suffered unprecedented casualties in 2017, reportedly losing about 10,000 personnel, according to reports. SIGAR has been unable to publicly disclose the exact number of Afghan forces killed, because that information continues to be classified by Washington and Kabul. The violence has led to increased reports of Afghan military desertions, but that information too has been classified. Senior U.S. military officials repeatedly have acknowledged the nearly 17-year-old conflict remains a stalemate, even while touting some successes under the new strategy announced by President Donald Trump in August. Those success include the increasing capability of the Afghan military, which began conducting airstrikes two years ago. The Afghan air force carries out between four to 12 airstrikes every day, according to the Afghan Ministry of Defense. But the Kabul government controls just over half of the country's districts, SIGAR says. Trump's strategy appeared to commit the U.S. to Afghanistan indefinitely. It involves pressuring Pakistan to end its support for Afghan militants, supporting Kabul's effort to engage the Taliban in peace talks, and dropping more bombs on the country. The U.S.-led... Question: After the Pentagon released the corrected figures on the decline in forces, SIGAR officials probably felt that: === The answer to the above question is
The situation was not as bad as they had previously thought
--
Hello I have been chased by a couple of angry dogs. I was visiting one of my clients, when, suddenly, out of the bushes, two snarling dogs attacked me. They weren’t necessarily mad, as in crazy, but they were very angry. They were large dogs, and they attacked my legs, knocking me down. I knew it was very dangerous to be down on the ground, as I was most vulnerable. I covered my genitalia, my neck and my face, as I struggled to regain my feet. Fortunately, during my fall, I saw a large tree branch on the ground near me. I grabbed it, and starting beating the dogs with it. I managed to land a few good hits. As I was hitting the dogs, their owner (my client) came outside, stood on her porch and laughed at me. When she saw me hitting her dogs with a stick, she called the dogs off of me. I asked her why her dogs attacked me, and why she laughed at me. She said that she had just given her dogs a big steak bone and they were upset when I came near and attacked me. I asked her why she would set me up in this way when she knew I was on the way over. She admitted that she wanted to see what happened, and she said that when she saw what happened she thought that it was funny. I did not keep the appointment with her. My trousers were torn, and my ankles, legs, and hands were bleeding. I told her that I would not be back, and left. Later that night, her husband called to apologize on her behalf. I told him that I appreciated the call, but he wasn’t the one who needed to apologize. Peace Question: Why was the writer attacked? === The answer to the above question is

Because the woman set him up to be attacked.
--