It's good to see the New York Times and Rand Paul on the same page, for once!
1
Let me get this straight Obama is wrong because he did nothing, although he followed the constitution and asked congress for authorization to do exactly what Trump did BOMB Syria. Congress did nothing no vote just nothing but blame. Trump doesn't ask congress anything just bombs Syria and everyone is like Wow he did a great thing. No the great thing would be to bomb Syria and actually destroy that airfield and then let Syrian refugees into our country.
The Russians are playing a great game they are encouraging the Syrian refugees to flee and then encouraging the far right to cry and scream no more refugees. What a great strategy it's a win win for them. When is this going to be called out on. When are we going to say enough.
Most republicans since Trumps election have become hypocrites it is fascinating to see them change their attitudes and minds on various policies. They want to say the bad Democrats are holding up Gorsuch without mentioning the fact that they held up that seat on the Supreme Court for a Republican president.
I would just like a elected representatives to start putting our country first instead of their own party. The Democrats have done this and played fairly and have been penalized for it. But it looks like now they will do the same thing party before country this leads down a very slippery slope. Someone has to put the country first let's see who steps up to do just that, I won't hold my breath. P
The Russians are playing a great game they are encouraging the Syrian refugees to flee and then encouraging the far right to cry and scream no more refugees. What a great strategy it's a win win for them. When is this going to be called out on. When are we going to say enough.
Most republicans since Trumps election have become hypocrites it is fascinating to see them change their attitudes and minds on various policies. They want to say the bad Democrats are holding up Gorsuch without mentioning the fact that they held up that seat on the Supreme Court for a Republican president.
I would just like a elected representatives to start putting our country first instead of their own party. The Democrats have done this and played fairly and have been penalized for it. But it looks like now they will do the same thing party before country this leads down a very slippery slope. Someone has to put the country first let's see who steps up to do just that, I won't hold my breath. P
28
What would "originalist" Neil Gorsuch have to say about an American President instigating a military strike, without Congressional approval or even input, against a foreign government because of an atrocity committed by that government inside its borders and against its own people?
Did the Founders imply a threshold of moral revulsion above which our written laws no longer apply?
Did the Founders imply a threshold of moral revulsion above which our written laws no longer apply?
23
what's next? a big old trial?
EVERYONE in the chain of command knew that firing 50 missiles at a country we are not at war with, that has not attacked us or our citizens, requires congress to approve.
so - EVERYONE in the chain of command broke the law - EVERYONE!
when's the trial?
EVERYONE in the chain of command knew that firing 50 missiles at a country we are not at war with, that has not attacked us or our citizens, requires congress to approve.
so - EVERYONE in the chain of command broke the law - EVERYONE!
when's the trial?
27
I know it's hard for the media to concentrate because of this new bright shiny object flashing in their eyes but now is the time to ask Trump whether he now believes the US should maintain or even strengthen sanctions on Russia.
After all, Putin must be complicit in Assad's chemical weapons attacks.
After all, Putin must be complicit in Assad's chemical weapons attacks.
9
This event was a consciously politically engendered move to do several things.
1. To distract us form the investigation into the Russia Gates investigations going on by the FBI, the House and Senate sub committees and several others.
2. It was an awfully shallow attempt to show that Trump has some kind of feelings for others.
3. to continue the absurd attack on the Obama Administration.
This event had nothing to do with Trumps concern for little children, which all of his actions concerning the suffering of hundreds of thousand of starving and sick refuges many, many of who are little children proves he does not have. That his action resonated with the true empathy of many people was part of the con.
Friends do not be deceived by this phony display of having a heart. Trump has a 4 chambered blood pump, but he knows nothing about compassion. It is part of the art of the deal. this man and those sycophants and boot lickers that crowd around him care only for their own personal power and wealth.
1. To distract us form the investigation into the Russia Gates investigations going on by the FBI, the House and Senate sub committees and several others.
2. It was an awfully shallow attempt to show that Trump has some kind of feelings for others.
3. to continue the absurd attack on the Obama Administration.
This event had nothing to do with Trumps concern for little children, which all of his actions concerning the suffering of hundreds of thousand of starving and sick refuges many, many of who are little children proves he does not have. That his action resonated with the true empathy of many people was part of the con.
Friends do not be deceived by this phony display of having a heart. Trump has a 4 chambered blood pump, but he knows nothing about compassion. It is part of the art of the deal. this man and those sycophants and boot lickers that crowd around him care only for their own personal power and wealth.
20
What's next after a service ace? The next point, I suppose, once the ball's back in play. Whatever it is, it never hurts to have that heady feeling from the ace going into it though, so long as one keeps their eye on the ball. I!m sure you'll help him focus on that, if you want to win. Or you could jump up and down in the stands, waving your hands wildly over your help and telling Trump you hope he chokes, like usual.
1
Mr. President, truly open up your heart. Allow these people refuge. The cost of one of your weekend trips to FL would support 1,000 refugees for a year while they assimilate into our society. The cost of the bombs you just dropped in a 30 minute timeframe would support 30,000.
22
The recent Airstrikes on Syria are representative of the Trump Administration's "Shoot first and ask questions later" policy of making America Great Again. We should consider ourselves lucky that President Trump's first military act was not nuking North Korea, though it may be his second military act.
Mystics have forecast the Middle East as the site of conflict that leads to World War Three - is this possibly Donald J. Trump's destiny to fulfill?
Mystics have forecast the Middle East as the site of conflict that leads to World War Three - is this possibly Donald J. Trump's destiny to fulfill?
3
Oh, the horrors….The babies….Oh, the horrors. Trump sheds crocodile tears over images of babies and their mothers in the aftermath of a chemical bombing while keeping Our doors shut for the babies and their mothers who are starving and suffering along the refugee trail of tears they tread.
The cynic in me, and when it comes to this so called president, cynic is about all I can muster, says this made for TV bombing was done with a co-starring role by his best bud Vlad playing the aggrieved friend. This takes the klieg lights off his role with Putin in the election stealing scandal that currently rocks his White House.
Sad
The cynic in me, and when it comes to this so called president, cynic is about all I can muster, says this made for TV bombing was done with a co-starring role by his best bud Vlad playing the aggrieved friend. This takes the klieg lights off his role with Putin in the election stealing scandal that currently rocks his White House.
Sad
19
So yesterday's poisoned Skittles are today's innocent babies. It's easy to drop a few bombs to prove your manhood, but will Trump open our borders to those same innocent victims? Does he even realize they are one and the same?!
4
These are complex issues as illustrated by the multiple thoughtful comments from various contributors on this topic throughout the pages of this newspaper in others. My opinions are not set, and I welcome the rational dialogue we are now having.
But I am immensely troubled by a president whose statements I cannot trust, whose willingness to lie knows no limits. I believe that Sarin gas was used in Syria, but NOT because Trump said so, but because of evidence provided by others.
If Mr. Trump is to have any chance of being judged positively by history, he will need to change his behavior dramatically. Tell the truth. Admit lack of knowledge and show a willingness to learn. Think about future generations, and those less fortunate, both here in the US and elsewhere.
But I am immensely troubled by a president whose statements I cannot trust, whose willingness to lie knows no limits. I believe that Sarin gas was used in Syria, but NOT because Trump said so, but because of evidence provided by others.
If Mr. Trump is to have any chance of being judged positively by history, he will need to change his behavior dramatically. Tell the truth. Admit lack of knowledge and show a willingness to learn. Think about future generations, and those less fortunate, both here in the US and elsewhere.
5
After the airstrikes on Syria, what's next. Stay tuned. Await the new tweet from the White House!
2
What if we cause Assad to fall? Who would fill the power vacuum? If the US claims "responsibility", how will we oust Iran and Russia, let alone deal with Isis? It seems to me we are looking at not just another debilitating ground war run by US troups, but also a destabilization of the continguous countries, including Israel. In other words, we are looking at the prospect of world war. Precisely what Obama knew to avoid.
2
"...the spectacle of a president precipitously reversing course on war and peace on the basis of emotion or what his defenders describe as “instinct” does not inspire confidence."
But it does inspire uncertainty and possibly fear with at least some key enemies, who will now need to think twice before committing their heinous acts. That was never the case with Obama. Russia and Syria threw him a bone with regard to chemical weapons and Obama lunged for it.
But it does inspire uncertainty and possibly fear with at least some key enemies, who will now need to think twice before committing their heinous acts. That was never the case with Obama. Russia and Syria threw him a bone with regard to chemical weapons and Obama lunged for it.
Libs in Congress have near fallen over backward in their praise for the new commander's action in Syria. They claim to hate US violence in sovereign countries with whom we are not at war, and love getting Congress's approval (rubber stamp) first but ... golly gee that was masterful!
Trump's not fit enough to nominate a SC Justice but he's more than fit enough to project hard power abroad after thinking about it for a day or two. Guess I don't know how to think like a Dem.
Trump's not fit enough to nominate a SC Justice but he's more than fit enough to project hard power abroad after thinking about it for a day or two. Guess I don't know how to think like a Dem.
3
Your editorial is, like the Left, all over the place.
Obama's course was "smarter," except the Russians duped him.
Trump's strike was satisfying, but we should then let in more refugees so we can risk becoming the next Stockholm or London, instead of creating "safe zones" for Syrians to live in Syria.
Trump diverted attention from your media witch hunt for "collusion" with the Russians,
But you fret about the possibility that the Russians "suspended" Air Force notification with us.
Trump "has no plan," but all our allies get it, and so do Syrian civilians betrayed by our "red lines."
Wish your editorial board would be as clear as Trump.
But uncertainty and confusion and moral vacuity must be the new wisdom in foreign policy.
Obama's course was "smarter," except the Russians duped him.
Trump's strike was satisfying, but we should then let in more refugees so we can risk becoming the next Stockholm or London, instead of creating "safe zones" for Syrians to live in Syria.
Trump diverted attention from your media witch hunt for "collusion" with the Russians,
But you fret about the possibility that the Russians "suspended" Air Force notification with us.
Trump "has no plan," but all our allies get it, and so do Syrian civilians betrayed by our "red lines."
Wish your editorial board would be as clear as Trump.
But uncertainty and confusion and moral vacuity must be the new wisdom in foreign policy.
5
I do not trust that it was pity and horror that DT felt as an excuse to bomb Syria. How many pictures of dead babies have been front and center during this war? What about the fate of the starving children in the Sudan? Where is the pity there? Where the responsibility? I can't presume to know his real reasons, but I've seen enough of his callousness and narcissism never to believe his stated 'feelings'.
8
Trying to reconcile the Trumpian mode with the non-Trumpian is a dead end. We have no choice but to give up trying to attribute intention, significance, continuity, or policy to Trump's words and acts. Trying to put two different puzzles together can't work and won't change. We must switch to a different frequency, the one that tracks whatever shows up on Trump's radar - his and only his.
As of now Planet Earth is stuck with a U.S. President who has but one agenda: what works for him. What feels good. Trying to anticipate Trump is like planning how to hit a ball in a game of chess.
Trump said he bombed Syria when he saw on his TV the image of beautiful innocent children - babies even - grotesquely maimed or exterminated under the Assad regime. That's all there is to it: you see the image, you dispatch the bombs, and while everyone in the world is trying to figure out what's going on you're onto the next thing to hit the radar - your radar, your next thing.
Trump may be our blessing in disguise. Republicans and Democrats. reds and blues, conservatives and progressives, haves and have-nots, believers and nons all frozen in the polarizing roles of Pragmatists and Moralists, deadlocked in the eternal struggle of Might and Right.
Maybe Trump is the neither/nor monkey wrench that will force us to retool and recalibrate.
Just wondering......
As of now Planet Earth is stuck with a U.S. President who has but one agenda: what works for him. What feels good. Trying to anticipate Trump is like planning how to hit a ball in a game of chess.
Trump said he bombed Syria when he saw on his TV the image of beautiful innocent children - babies even - grotesquely maimed or exterminated under the Assad regime. That's all there is to it: you see the image, you dispatch the bombs, and while everyone in the world is trying to figure out what's going on you're onto the next thing to hit the radar - your radar, your next thing.
Trump may be our blessing in disguise. Republicans and Democrats. reds and blues, conservatives and progressives, haves and have-nots, believers and nons all frozen in the polarizing roles of Pragmatists and Moralists, deadlocked in the eternal struggle of Might and Right.
Maybe Trump is the neither/nor monkey wrench that will force us to retool and recalibrate.
Just wondering......
Wow! Short attention span. Obama had it right when he pulled back from an aggressive military response and choose instead the far more difficult route of seeking to set in place an agreement that would both reduce and control any chemical weapons of the Syrian government. And Obama and Secretary of State Kerry did just that with success to show until this moment. I have to think that this atrocious chemical weapon attack coming after the end of the Obama administration, indicates that Obama had it right in dealing with Syria. I am inclined to believe (and aren't we all just guessing) that the Syrian government wasn't taking advantage of Obama's holding back on use of military power or Trump's campaign rhetoric that he wouldn't get involved with Syria, but rather was responding to a Trump administration that could do something easy like drop a bomb but could never put together an international coalition that would isolate and economically sanction Syria. Obama was right. Trump was not only wrong, he was looking for the easy answer.
4
The strike on Syria was made by a man-baby's emotional reaction with his finger on a trigger. If he had as much 'emotion' about 24 million people being thrown of health care causing many thousands more deaths 'right here in America' maybe he would fix Obamacare instead on replacing it with the American Death Care Act. The Syria attack is a distraction and the media should quickly return to his collaboration with Russia during the election. Think about it, how convenient that there were NO Russian presence at that airbase during the attack. Assad played the 'chemical' card to bait Trump into a knee jerk reaction. Assad, like Saddam of Iraq was NEVER a national security threat. The more press this gets, the less we will see of Trump's treason and the closer we will get to war.
6
"What's Next" in Syria?
Perhaps a Crusade to the tune of the hymn of the French Second Empire of Napoleon III, "Partant pour la Syrie". Or more effective air strikes.
Apart the questionable effects of such actions, there are opinions that Trump's order was illegal both in the US and International Law. Then impeachment?
Perhaps a Crusade to the tune of the hymn of the French Second Empire of Napoleon III, "Partant pour la Syrie". Or more effective air strikes.
Apart the questionable effects of such actions, there are opinions that Trump's order was illegal both in the US and International Law. Then impeachment?
3
It's folly to expect the Editorial Board to publish anything Trump does as positive and it didn't disappoint. Obama made a smarter decision getting Russia to agree to force Syria to remove all chemical weapons? The same Russia that denies there are any? The one that denied the unmarked troops in the Ukraine were Russian? The one that annexed Crimea arguing it was protecting it's Russian citizens? And the Board is also advocating Trump provide a detailed long term strategy for it's readers and for Assad to read with his morning coffee and dates! One thing may be correct, that Trump may have negatively impacted his and our relationship with Putin and Russia. But President Obama had the same issue. And Putin may be figuring out he didn't have Trump figured out when he backed him.
1
Mr Trump's thought processes are probably at the same level as his vocabulary.
4
If this was a serious military effort, why did we not destroy the runways?
2
So who is the statesman? In whose hands do you feel safer--Obama or Trump? Consider the facts (not alt facts...).
On one side is President Obama who refrained from unauthorized bombing, threatened Syrians with reprisals, negotiated an accord with Russia to remove poison gas, went to Congress for legal permission to retaliate (denied) and worked to build coalitions to confront Assad. On the other side is Trump who cautioned Obama against striking Syria, announced America First would not risk US assets in military adventures like Syria which did not pose a security threat, only last week had his State Dept. Secretary and UN head disabuse America and the world that removing Assad was an American problem, but then opportunistically reversed all of this by lobbing 59 tomahawk missiles (after seeing pictures of suffering civilians --almost daily fare in media for years) at an airfield (that is already being used by Assad to attack the same province this morning) and who has left the US and the world pondering whether there is any strategy orienting his response or if he's even capable of thinking strategically.
So which one is the real leader? Who do you feel safest with? Anyone who cant see beyond the feel good one-off strike at Assad and GoP spin is part of the problem. Whether there is a solution who knows. But it is not through Trumpian chaos that this will be revealed.
On one side is President Obama who refrained from unauthorized bombing, threatened Syrians with reprisals, negotiated an accord with Russia to remove poison gas, went to Congress for legal permission to retaliate (denied) and worked to build coalitions to confront Assad. On the other side is Trump who cautioned Obama against striking Syria, announced America First would not risk US assets in military adventures like Syria which did not pose a security threat, only last week had his State Dept. Secretary and UN head disabuse America and the world that removing Assad was an American problem, but then opportunistically reversed all of this by lobbing 59 tomahawk missiles (after seeing pictures of suffering civilians --almost daily fare in media for years) at an airfield (that is already being used by Assad to attack the same province this morning) and who has left the US and the world pondering whether there is any strategy orienting his response or if he's even capable of thinking strategically.
So which one is the real leader? Who do you feel safest with? Anyone who cant see beyond the feel good one-off strike at Assad and GoP spin is part of the problem. Whether there is a solution who knows. But it is not through Trumpian chaos that this will be revealed.
6
This missile strike was minor in material impact, but it should signal something far more troubling to the Assad regime. For all the public condemnations from the Russians, did they do a thing to stop the missiles? The Russians stood by and watched their Syrian client get hit, proving that there are limits to how much they care about Assad.
2
The Editors are trying to have it both ways by embracing the prextext for missile attack, with a broader question of presidential judgement. Sorry: the reported chemical attack is uninvestigated. There are so many players in Syria, from Americans to Israelis, Saudis to Russians; contractors, paramilitary, intelligence agencies, suppliers and more, that the only certain thing is obfuscation. The entire Syria and larger Middle East destabilization strategy is the more relevant topic of Editorial, and public, consideration.
5
After months of watching Donald Trump falter with one implusive decision after another, there's no reason to doubt that his move to launch airstrikes in Syria was also the result of an idea that came off the top of his head.
It also came from an almost pathological need to appear to be the first in anything, and if possible, take a stab at his predecessor.
There are many reasons why President Obama was reluctant to take a more active role in Syria. He knew what a quagmire it is, and how it could easily draw the U.S. into a possible World War.
Not so with Trump.
His is always the glory of the moment, and the cheers of adulation that go along with it.
Not having gone to VietNam, and probably blissfully unaware of its place in U.S. history, he has now thrust this country into a perilous position without the first thought of what's next -- or how we might extricate ourselves.
And with both Russia and Iran in the picture, it won't be easy, and it won't be fun.
It also came from an almost pathological need to appear to be the first in anything, and if possible, take a stab at his predecessor.
There are many reasons why President Obama was reluctant to take a more active role in Syria. He knew what a quagmire it is, and how it could easily draw the U.S. into a possible World War.
Not so with Trump.
His is always the glory of the moment, and the cheers of adulation that go along with it.
Not having gone to VietNam, and probably blissfully unaware of its place in U.S. history, he has now thrust this country into a perilous position without the first thought of what's next -- or how we might extricate ourselves.
And with both Russia and Iran in the picture, it won't be easy, and it won't be fun.
2
"So far, there is no evidence that Mr. Trump has thought through the implications of using military force or figured out what to do next."
What a disaster to have a president who acts on impulse. President Trump has no clue what the results of his ordered attack will be or what to do next.
What a disaster to have a president who acts on impulse. President Trump has no clue what the results of his ordered attack will be or what to do next.
3
I sometimes get the impression that Trump behaves like some of the actors he's seen being "presidential," like, Harrison Ford, Michael Douglas or Martin Sheen. He uses these performances to model behavior that he thinks will elevate him in the eyes of the public. It's all just an act. He thought he'd earn some points by showing his soft side ("beautiful babies ... cruelly murdered") followed up with showing his tough-guy side ("Tonight I ordered a targeted military strike...). But, like everything he does, his actions are only intended to advance his own self image. Trump hasn't cared that Assad has been bombing and killing his own people (including beautiful babies) for months and months. Now, all of a sudden, with his approval rating hovering around 40% and investigations looking into the many controversies swirling around his administration, he becomes a champion of the Syrians--people he has called terrorists and banned from entering the US. This isn't a coherent foreign policy, it's policy based on whim and personality. There is no long-term view, because the movies that Trump bases his performance on only last a couple hours. No long-term view is needed. It's all just right here, right now.
15
It is quite possible that the most devious munition the orange one deployed was a "rabbit hole" cluster bomb calculated to distract from the investigations by the House and Senate, the deployment of the nuclear option to get Gorsuch installed in the SCOTUS and the perception of an administration in disarray. As usual the orange raises more questions about is acumen to govern but in the mean time we were not talking about all of those other things.
9
Senator Cotton should have read your editorial BEFORE writing his opinion piece. These little air strikes that did so little damage the air field was usable next day "restored our credibility"? Come on, Senator Cotton!
8
In the process of remembering a searing article about Assad's targeting of medical heroes trying to provide medical help to Syria's victims, I came across this article by the same author, Ben Taub, due to be published in the April 17th New Yorker issue.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/04/18/bashar-al-assads-war-crimes...
"The Assad Files: Capturing the top-secret documents that tie the Syrian regime to mass torture and killings."
This from another article by Steve Coll seems to sum up the situation about Trump:
"Unfortunately, Donald Trump’s continual search for approval seems to contribute to his unpredictability. Perhaps he will soon rediscover his inclination to proceed cautiously in Middle Eastern wars. Given his bombast, his inconsistency, and his preference for gut instinct over policy knowledge, he always seemed likely to be a dangerous wartime President. The worry now is that he will also be an ambitious one."
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/04/17/trumps-confusing-strike-on-...
I do wish the world would spend more of its money on high quality in-depth reporting and less on passive entertainment and upgrades of fancy electronics (and, of course, the old ones become toxic waste and use up the planet's resources at speed). But I digress.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/04/18/bashar-al-assads-war-crimes...
"The Assad Files: Capturing the top-secret documents that tie the Syrian regime to mass torture and killings."
This from another article by Steve Coll seems to sum up the situation about Trump:
"Unfortunately, Donald Trump’s continual search for approval seems to contribute to his unpredictability. Perhaps he will soon rediscover his inclination to proceed cautiously in Middle Eastern wars. Given his bombast, his inconsistency, and his preference for gut instinct over policy knowledge, he always seemed likely to be a dangerous wartime President. The worry now is that he will also be an ambitious one."
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/04/17/trumps-confusing-strike-on-...
I do wish the world would spend more of its money on high quality in-depth reporting and less on passive entertainment and upgrades of fancy electronics (and, of course, the old ones become toxic waste and use up the planet's resources at speed). But I digress.
6
Quote from the new Taub article:
"links the systematic torture and murder of tens of thousands of Syrians to a written policy approved by President Bashar al-Assad, coördinated among his security-intelligence agencies, and implemented by regime operatives, who reported the successes of their campaign to their superiors in Damascus. The brief narrates daily events in Syria through the eyes of Assad and his associates and their victims, and offers a record of state-sponsored torture that is almost unimaginable in its scope and its cruelty. Such acts had been reported by survivors in Syria before, but they had never been traced back to signed orders."
"links the systematic torture and murder of tens of thousands of Syrians to a written policy approved by President Bashar al-Assad, coördinated among his security-intelligence agencies, and implemented by regime operatives, who reported the successes of their campaign to their superiors in Damascus. The brief narrates daily events in Syria through the eyes of Assad and his associates and their victims, and offers a record of state-sponsored torture that is almost unimaginable in its scope and its cruelty. Such acts had been reported by survivors in Syria before, but they had never been traced back to signed orders."
4
There are a lot of wealthy Syrian families living in the United States. Freeze their assets and tell THEM to talk to Assad. Otherwise we will confiscate their second homes and expel their kids studying at our universities. We should employ the same tactic with elite oligarch families from Russia, China, Iran, Mexico, Nigeria, Israel, Iraq, Indonesia, India, Saudi Arabia .. the list goes on and on. No more enjoying our "creature comforts" until you straighten out your countries- I'm tired of doing all their heavy lifting. It may sound harsh and cruel- but certainly not as bad as gassing innocent children or watching your host government trample on human rights while you live here- driving a fancy car and using our free WiFi.
It's finally time to redraw the map of Middle East created by Gertude Bell after World War I that ignored the religious differences in favor of western European "spheres of influence." The ongoing civil war in Syria as well as in Iraq is a reflection of that failure. What is required is, like post-Yugoslavia, the creation of ethnic and religious states. There needs to be a Sunni state in Syria (where they are 70 percent of the population) that encompasses northern Iraq. There also should be Kurdish Republic that similarly extends from Syria into Iraq. And, finally, there should be two separate Shiite states--one in Syria under the rule of Bashar al-assad, and the other in southern Iraq. This repartioning of Iraq and Syria will simultaneously correct the map and allow and end to the ongoing Sunni-Shiite Islamic civil war. Moreover, it will allow a more consistent U.S. foreign policy that has been pro-Sunni in our support of Saudi Arabia while being both anti-Assad and anti-Iran.
3
Your editorial is unconvincing and contradictory. You state that Obama chose a "smarter course" which nonetheless resulted in the Syrian thug of a president still having "his chemical weapons".
Obama's policy in Syria was sterile, inhumane, shameful, abdication of American responsibility and values, and a manifest failure that blew a big hole in his legacy.
As what comes next, it is simple, as Mr. Mccain has been advocating for a long time: take out the Syrian air force altogether. There will be one result to that: civilian populations will no longer suffer barrel bombs thrown at hospitals, homes, and schools.
And yes, don't worry about Russia, they are a paper tiger. Put them back to size.
Obama's policy in Syria was sterile, inhumane, shameful, abdication of American responsibility and values, and a manifest failure that blew a big hole in his legacy.
As what comes next, it is simple, as Mr. Mccain has been advocating for a long time: take out the Syrian air force altogether. There will be one result to that: civilian populations will no longer suffer barrel bombs thrown at hospitals, homes, and schools.
And yes, don't worry about Russia, they are a paper tiger. Put them back to size.
2
How can you say that Obama chose a "smarter course" after Syria crossed the red line by cutting a deal with Russia? In the next breath you admit that it's not clear whether the Kremlin failed to follow through or allowed Assad to retain his lethal capability" (A distinction without a difference.) The conclusion has to be that Obama should never have drawn a red line when he knew that he wouldn't or couldn't follow through. It's no use trying to rescue Obama's reputation in this affair.
2
Truth is the first casualty of war.
7
Mr. Trump has risen to the top in business and in politics by presenting himself as a strong, decisive leader, and there can be little doubt that sustaining that image will require him to rely primarily on military operations. This week's strike is just a foretaste of his trigger-happy tendencies. As the rest of his presidency implodes, it seems likely that he will turn to his generals to make hm look like the greatest commander-in-chief in American history.
7
GWB started an illegal war, and look how that played out. Assad needs to go as did Sadam Hussein, but not with a thoughtless, impulsive move to divert the attention from him. He feels exonerated now and his body language after showed more swagger and relief.
3
I'm no friend of President Trump, but it seems disingenuous to suggest that he should have gotten approval from the UN Security Council. The veto system makes it impossible for the Council to address illegal actions taken or supported by any of the five permanent members. Don't look for the UN Security Council to put a hold on China's actions in the South China Sea, Russia's actions in Ukraine or Syria, or, for that matter, actions the USA may take that the rest of the world disapproves of. An attack with sarin crosses a line that has been amply recognized internationally for a century. Of course, it is our shame that we looked the other way when Sadaam Hussein used such weapons in the 1980s, and that we coddle other repressive and violent autocrats in the region (Sisi, the Saudis) while condemning Assad for his repression. Still, the gas attack could not go unpunished -- and Assad's earlier attacks with chlorine gas should have been addressed more forcefully. The issue here is not Assad's murderous repression which we may not be able to stop without causing worse problems; the issue is maintaining an international norm about chemical weapons. Discarding that would have devastating consequences around the globe. Whether one strike on an airfield, highly publicized but of very limited military effect, makes a difference remains to be seen.
Imagine if Hillary Clinton was president and made a military decision based on her emotional reaction to pictures of suffering children. It would have been taken as clear proof that women are emotionally unsuitable for leadership positions.
15
This is amusing if not downright stupid. He fired nearly 100 million dollars worth of missiles at an empty air field that is back in operation one day later. One missile fired and hitting Assad's bunker would have had the entire world cheering for us.
3
We must consider the following: did this attack cripple Assad's ability to wage civil war? No. Did this attack kill or somehow affect physically any of those who may have perpetrated the crime of attacking citizens with gas? No. Did the attack do anything that would be calculated to push either side towards peace negotiations and an ultimate end to the war? No. Did the missile strikes provide some cover for Donald Trump and enhance his own self image as a strong man? Yes. Bottom line: this was done for Donald Trump's benefit and no one else. If the missiles have been launched along with a simultaneous proposal to admit many more Syrian refugees and somehow alleviate their plight, then I could see some other ultimate end game. This would also bolster his claim that it was done for humanitarian purposes. As it is now, this is just more of Donald Trump's ego.
7
And when 546 children were killed by chemical weapons in 2013 by Assad and Pres. Obama sought Congressional approval for the authorization of military force, Trump opposed it. So did McConnell, Ryan, and others who are now cheering the change. Last week Trump was pro Assad; this week he bombs him.
Chemical weapons are atrocities. The president should have sought Congressional approval for legality. Republicans control Congress, and he would have had it with no problem. Then the American people could understand the ramifications and have had some discussion.
Trump is now a war-monger. His America First means nothing. His claim that he would keep everything secret until he acted did not include the Russians, Syria's allies, who were informed in advance of the attack. 24 hours later, the bombed base is back in operation so this was token damage.
How will this upset the Middle East? Relationships with Russia? Trump did this impulsively but he has authorized numerous bombings in which children were killed violently.
And he is rewarded by the media with paeans of praise. Next time he is in political trouble, he will bomb another target and start a war. This is like the run up to the Iraqi war in which the U.S. lost many military personnel, much taxpayer money, and achieved next to nothing.
Rewarding an unstable and immoral con artist for bombing is pretty much it for this country.
Chemical weapons are atrocities. The president should have sought Congressional approval for legality. Republicans control Congress, and he would have had it with no problem. Then the American people could understand the ramifications and have had some discussion.
Trump is now a war-monger. His America First means nothing. His claim that he would keep everything secret until he acted did not include the Russians, Syria's allies, who were informed in advance of the attack. 24 hours later, the bombed base is back in operation so this was token damage.
How will this upset the Middle East? Relationships with Russia? Trump did this impulsively but he has authorized numerous bombings in which children were killed violently.
And he is rewarded by the media with paeans of praise. Next time he is in political trouble, he will bomb another target and start a war. This is like the run up to the Iraqi war in which the U.S. lost many military personnel, much taxpayer money, and achieved next to nothing.
Rewarding an unstable and immoral con artist for bombing is pretty much it for this country.
10
Let's be realistic about President Trump's brave decisive actions in bombing an airfield in Syria. He had little choice. Doing nothing would be an unequivocal statement that the U.S. is unwilling to take action against Syria regardless of provocation. In a larger and more dangerous sense it would be a clear message to Russia, as well as to North Korea, China, and our allies, that the U.S. is unwilling to defend core principles, rejects its role in world leadership, and a military responses to protect of its legitimate interests may occur only with great provocation - if at all.
Yet, Mr. Trump did as little as possible and as much as he could. If he had done much more, he risked a widening conflict with Russia over a barbaric, sickening situation, but one with little strategic importance to the U.S. and a great deal of importance to Russia. The response of Mr. Trump is the same as suggested by Hillary Clinton. In all likelihood it was a military response long in planning.
If President Obama had attacked the same airfield many years ago, it is unlikely to have had any effect on the Syrians as long as they have Russian support? Through a deal with the Russians and Assad, chemical weapons were destroyed under supervision, and the onus for ensuring compliance was on the Russians. That was a far better response than an isolated air attack or any steps that would have brought the U.S. into greater conflict.
What options remain if chemical weapons are used again?
Yet, Mr. Trump did as little as possible and as much as he could. If he had done much more, he risked a widening conflict with Russia over a barbaric, sickening situation, but one with little strategic importance to the U.S. and a great deal of importance to Russia. The response of Mr. Trump is the same as suggested by Hillary Clinton. In all likelihood it was a military response long in planning.
If President Obama had attacked the same airfield many years ago, it is unlikely to have had any effect on the Syrians as long as they have Russian support? Through a deal with the Russians and Assad, chemical weapons were destroyed under supervision, and the onus for ensuring compliance was on the Russians. That was a far better response than an isolated air attack or any steps that would have brought the U.S. into greater conflict.
What options remain if chemical weapons are used again?
4
Here's more information. Targeting innocent victims and especially the people who sacrifice to help them is not new:
"The Shadow Doctors: The underground race to spread medical knowledge as the Syrian regime erases it"
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/06/27/syrias-war-on-doctors
The final paragraphs (all quote)
"One of Nott’s best students is Abu Waseem. When the war began, he was a fourth-year plastic- and reconstructive-surgery resident at a government hospital. “He sacrificed his future” to continue treating patients in Syria, Aziz told me. “He has no way to graduate, no way to do his fifth or sixth year and become a specialist.” While other physicians in Aleppo take frequent breaks and visit family members who have escaped to Turkey, Abu Waseem remains at M1, because he doesn’t have a passport.
Nott often asks Abu Waseem how he’s coping. Not long ago, he replied, “Thank you, my friend, I am fine. But I am so sad.” He sent two photographs of a young child with horrific injuries. “Look at this girl. This is one of the victims of a Russian bombing today. She lost her whole arm and her face.”
“Terrible,” Nott wrote back. “Is she going to survive?”
“Unfortunately, yes.”
"The Shadow Doctors: The underground race to spread medical knowledge as the Syrian regime erases it"
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/06/27/syrias-war-on-doctors
The final paragraphs (all quote)
"One of Nott’s best students is Abu Waseem. When the war began, he was a fourth-year plastic- and reconstructive-surgery resident at a government hospital. “He sacrificed his future” to continue treating patients in Syria, Aziz told me. “He has no way to graduate, no way to do his fifth or sixth year and become a specialist.” While other physicians in Aleppo take frequent breaks and visit family members who have escaped to Turkey, Abu Waseem remains at M1, because he doesn’t have a passport.
Nott often asks Abu Waseem how he’s coping. Not long ago, he replied, “Thank you, my friend, I am fine. But I am so sad.” He sent two photographs of a young child with horrific injuries. “Look at this girl. This is one of the victims of a Russian bombing today. She lost her whole arm and her face.”
“Terrible,” Nott wrote back. “Is she going to survive?”
“Unfortunately, yes.”
3
What's next? C'mon, people, you already know the answer......prison camps, endless hearings, POW torture (which now is permitted somehow,), millions of refugees and homeless people, and the list goes on.......you already know. A great number of you still have active memories of our "old" wars: Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, etc. etc. The drones will soon be coming "this" way instead of going "that" way. Just wait........
3
Do not be fooled my American friends. There is no way he feels compassion for the people affected by the depraved Sarin strike. He wanted to pound his chest and watch those "beautiful " shiny missiles go off. He will never pivot from the cold,heartless person he is. He is not a leader and never will be. We are in peril.
4
Trump has made it clear. When killing women and children, Assad may only use conventional munitions.
We told them we were coming, so hardly anyone got hurt. The videos of the missiles taking off were pretty and combined with Trump's serious demeanor and noble poses, the optics were great. The Russians say they'll make up for whatever hardware Assad's lost and improve his antiaircraft defenses. So, for now at least, he comes out ahead.
So what was the point? I don't know. Does Donald Trump know? His history with the Russians has been pushed off the front pages. People are cheering, and he's got the bit in his teeth. Exciting times ahead.
As a French general said in another context, "It's magnificent, but it's not war, it's madness."
We told them we were coming, so hardly anyone got hurt. The videos of the missiles taking off were pretty and combined with Trump's serious demeanor and noble poses, the optics were great. The Russians say they'll make up for whatever hardware Assad's lost and improve his antiaircraft defenses. So, for now at least, he comes out ahead.
So what was the point? I don't know. Does Donald Trump know? His history with the Russians has been pushed off the front pages. People are cheering, and he's got the bit in his teeth. Exciting times ahead.
As a French general said in another context, "It's magnificent, but it's not war, it's madness."
7
"However sincere this sentiment, the spectacle of a president precipitously reversing course on war and peace on the basis of emotion.... does not inspire confidence."
Really ? Do bears defecate in the woods ?
America , what have done to yourself ! You have elected , sort of , a deranged conman as your president. He doesn`t remember the last lie he uttered & operates on Fake News. The only reality he believes in involves himself as the greatest person on earth.
Please do not wait 2-4 yrs to fix this disaster & the GOP enablers that are supporting him to achieve their tax cuts for the 2%ers.
Really ? Do bears defecate in the woods ?
America , what have done to yourself ! You have elected , sort of , a deranged conman as your president. He doesn`t remember the last lie he uttered & operates on Fake News. The only reality he believes in involves himself as the greatest person on earth.
Please do not wait 2-4 yrs to fix this disaster & the GOP enablers that are supporting him to achieve their tax cuts for the 2%ers.
3
Assad's a monster. The first 300,000 or 400,000 Syrians he killed did not move Trump but the sight of dead babies that had been gassed did. So Trump sends out a few dozens tomahawk missiles and breaks a few of Assad's toys. Fine.
What bothers me is that Trump's base really appreciates. And knowing how much Trump loves applause, I am very fearful that there will be an encore. And an other one, and an other one.
What bothers me is that Trump's base really appreciates. And knowing how much Trump loves applause, I am very fearful that there will be an encore. And an other one, and an other one.
5
So where is President Trump's long-term strategy? What's the next move? There are always negative repercussions and unintended consequences, so will we be all undone when those materialize? Is there any winning long-term strategy against Assad and his cruel regime? And have we already forgotten hard lessons from Iraq? Do we really have the capacity to make anything any better for anyone, anywhere in the Middle East?
And was this move really a "punishment?" There are reports that the Shayrat airfield has already returned to operational status, and is again launching planes to strike against the rebels. Syria's Assad has shown that he's willing to sacrifice his pawns to achieve larger objectives. Has he lured Trump into what might turn out to be a trap of Trump's own device?
And on a more global scale, how is Trump's strike playing in Pyongyang? Will Trump's alter ego Kim Jong-un take this as an indication that he'd better strike USA first? We've already heard from defectors that he's itching to strike us.
And was this move really a "punishment?" There are reports that the Shayrat airfield has already returned to operational status, and is again launching planes to strike against the rebels. Syria's Assad has shown that he's willing to sacrifice his pawns to achieve larger objectives. Has he lured Trump into what might turn out to be a trap of Trump's own device?
And on a more global scale, how is Trump's strike playing in Pyongyang? Will Trump's alter ego Kim Jong-un take this as an indication that he'd better strike USA first? We've already heard from defectors that he's itching to strike us.
3
President Obama set out a "red line" and then acquiesced when it was crossed. This sent to the message that American military threats were a bluff. It arguably opened the door to the latest chemical attacks. President Obama stepped back because he didn't want to get drawn into a war, he saw a military strike as a new policy, and policies would have down the road implications.
President Trump was largely indifferent to Assad and warned against getting drawn in. Secretary Clinton was the hawk. President Trump's "policy" arguably gave a green light to the attack--or, President Obama turned on the green light, and President Trump left it on. But then President Trump switched entirely. There may be an underlying political dynamic, but the substantive reason strikes me as that President Trump was shown pictures. He is impulsive and does not see himself as bound by past representations.
I doubt that President Trump sees himself is now committed to a policy of involvement or intervention that would get us drawn into a war. Consistency and coherent policy aren't part of his operating scheme. Keeping people guessing is. I don't mean to make value judgments about either Obama or Trump, though I think both are wrong on this, but the role of America in the world has changed profoundly--no one can know what we'll do next, and when we'll deem an action worthy of military response. It's going to be a volatile world for the foreseeable future...
President Trump was largely indifferent to Assad and warned against getting drawn in. Secretary Clinton was the hawk. President Trump's "policy" arguably gave a green light to the attack--or, President Obama turned on the green light, and President Trump left it on. But then President Trump switched entirely. There may be an underlying political dynamic, but the substantive reason strikes me as that President Trump was shown pictures. He is impulsive and does not see himself as bound by past representations.
I doubt that President Trump sees himself is now committed to a policy of involvement or intervention that would get us drawn into a war. Consistency and coherent policy aren't part of his operating scheme. Keeping people guessing is. I don't mean to make value judgments about either Obama or Trump, though I think both are wrong on this, but the role of America in the world has changed profoundly--no one can know what we'll do next, and when we'll deem an action worthy of military response. It's going to be a volatile world for the foreseeable future...
2
It was a volatile world before Trump assumed office.
So why was your angst stifled during the Obama years?
Do I detect a touch of politics in your remarks?
So why was your angst stifled during the Obama years?
Do I detect a touch of politics in your remarks?
1
So, once again it is clearly stated on all sides that slaughtering civilians with drones, bombs, missiles, guns, depleted uranium, phosphorus, starvation, destruction of water treatment plants and other health infrastructure, or any other method than certain defined chemical weapons is perfectly acceptable - and indeed, if carried out by "our side" or countries we support is at worst slightly unfortunate, and in many cases a morally-demanded clear positive in the Orwellian-eternal war to smash Those People until they come to love Us.
3
It's time for all of us to stop finding fault in anything this President does.The bottom line here is that most Americans approve of this action, as do most of our allies internationally.The main purpose of this action was to send a signal that the US will not tolerate certain extreme and illegal acts of barbarism.It was not a declaration of war, nor was it an act of war.The net result is that all those involved in the conflict will need to reassess their strategies.The President showed himself to be human and the option he picked amongst those presented to him by a "Dream Team" National Security Council was specific, measured and effective. Moreover, it comes at a time when the Alt right ideologues in the WH are in retreat and much more nuanced, pragmatic and globally oriented group of advisors are on the ascent.No one believes that this act alone will lead to piece.What it will do however is change the calculus for all players and hopefully accelerate efforts towards a political solution, something the last Administration failed at miserably.It is also entirely consistent with the goal of creating an environment that makes it possible for Syrians to be safe within Syria.
This shows how easily 45 can be "provoked". Fortunately, in this case, there was an existing plan dating back to Obama's time that did not get the support from Congress or the American People to defend the commander-in-chief's red line (typical GOP Congressional action to continue to weaken and cripple Obama).
This was an easy decision to make for "I'm the Man" Trump - one I wish Obama had made to back up his red line. At least Obama and Kerry "chose a smarter course" and managed to get the bulk of chemical weapons out and reduced their use significantly until now.
Now what happens when something unexpected comes out of the blue where a response has not been fully prepared for or vetted? Our adversaries know how easily it is to provoke and bait him into a quagmire. What happens when we shoot down a Russian aircraft (baited by Putin?) - or worse, they shoot down one of ours?
Perhaps all chemical weapons had originally been removed. What are the chances the chemical weapons just used were supplied by Putin as a way to let Assad test 45's reaction? It's not as if there is any humanity in Assad or Putin. Iran could also have supplied the weapons too.
The problem with impulse control is that one tends to react on a preconceived idea or perception - which frequently can be wrong or inaccurate, especially in 45's case. Will Kim jr. bait 45 next?
"Rich irony" it is not. Rich Hypocrisy by 45 and a GOP controlled Congress under both Obama and 45, is more accurate.
This was an easy decision to make for "I'm the Man" Trump - one I wish Obama had made to back up his red line. At least Obama and Kerry "chose a smarter course" and managed to get the bulk of chemical weapons out and reduced their use significantly until now.
Now what happens when something unexpected comes out of the blue where a response has not been fully prepared for or vetted? Our adversaries know how easily it is to provoke and bait him into a quagmire. What happens when we shoot down a Russian aircraft (baited by Putin?) - or worse, they shoot down one of ours?
Perhaps all chemical weapons had originally been removed. What are the chances the chemical weapons just used were supplied by Putin as a way to let Assad test 45's reaction? It's not as if there is any humanity in Assad or Putin. Iran could also have supplied the weapons too.
The problem with impulse control is that one tends to react on a preconceived idea or perception - which frequently can be wrong or inaccurate, especially in 45's case. Will Kim jr. bait 45 next?
"Rich irony" it is not. Rich Hypocrisy by 45 and a GOP controlled Congress under both Obama and 45, is more accurate.
2
Now if these "poor babies " were living in America under Trumpcare their mothers would already have been denied maternity care and the babies themselves would be denied health insurance for any problems they had. But as it is the "poor babies" live in a far away land and have only been denied the possibility of having relief through a just immigration policy. How's that for the shining goals held up by an "exceptional" nation?
3
Wondering why Trump felt he had to give the Russians a heads-up before this attack, but not Congress?
9
Has all this febrile media obsession with the baseless claims of Trump collusion and the wildly exaggerated claims of Russia "hacking our election" finally pushed Trump into a military confrontation with Russia in the Middle East?
3
Yes, as intended. Mission accomplished. The Russian connection story is over, it served its purpose.
The terminology used to describe the gas attacks and the missile strikes favors our missile attacks by calling them strikes. A strike sounds less pejorative, but we did attack the airbase.
Wonderful piece and dead-on. Three huzzahs for the NY Times editorial Board.
According to constitutional scholar Bruce Ackerman at Yale, Obama's decision to restart the war in Iraq and quickly expand it into Syria to battle ISIL violated both the constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973. American military actions have been ongoing since 2014 without Congress taking any action under the Resolution. That means American military force should have ended within 60 days of the start of hostilities and then had another 30 days to withdraw all forces. So, Donald's impetuous decision to launch 59 cruise missiles is part and parcel of the entire illegal military operations that have been ongoing since 2014.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/12/opinion/obamas-betrayal-of-the-consti...®ion=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0
and
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/09/worst-of-all-possible-wor...
According to constitutional scholar Bruce Ackerman at Yale, Obama's decision to restart the war in Iraq and quickly expand it into Syria to battle ISIL violated both the constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973. American military actions have been ongoing since 2014 without Congress taking any action under the Resolution. That means American military force should have ended within 60 days of the start of hostilities and then had another 30 days to withdraw all forces. So, Donald's impetuous decision to launch 59 cruise missiles is part and parcel of the entire illegal military operations that have been ongoing since 2014.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/12/opinion/obamas-betrayal-of-the-consti...®ion=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0
and
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/09/worst-of-all-possible-wor...
2
Is Trump now ok amongst the liberal humanitarian interventionists ? Will all the stuff that liberals said about Trump, the Russian spy , be erased?
The deeper problem is our response to the rest of the world rests on two flawed premises: a) we are a city on a hill, a shinning example for the rest of the world to see and copy and b) we are exceptional as well as indispensable.
The reality is that we've become, as Martin Luther King noted, a violent, interventionist country. (See Vietnam , the Middle East, etc.)
Our best response to Syria is to have the UN work out, with Russian support, a peace place. Morever, we need to pull out our proxy armies, CIA armies, the drones , etc, The Saudis also need to stop funding Sunni Jahadi groups. Ditto Israel.
Making the world safe for US oil interests only creates a very unstable world,
The deeper problem is our response to the rest of the world rests on two flawed premises: a) we are a city on a hill, a shinning example for the rest of the world to see and copy and b) we are exceptional as well as indispensable.
The reality is that we've become, as Martin Luther King noted, a violent, interventionist country. (See Vietnam , the Middle East, etc.)
Our best response to Syria is to have the UN work out, with Russian support, a peace place. Morever, we need to pull out our proxy armies, CIA armies, the drones , etc, The Saudis also need to stop funding Sunni Jahadi groups. Ditto Israel.
Making the world safe for US oil interests only creates a very unstable world,
7
Yemen - Trump's first military action, resulted in 9 children being killed.
He expressed no sympathy then. Was it because he killed them by 'conventional' means, and somehow that's really different?
He expressed no sympathy then. Was it because he killed them by 'conventional' means, and somehow that's really different?
6
What's frightening to me is that our president said he made a military decision based on what he saw on television. Think about that.
6
"My attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much." enough to send in missiles but not enough to offer asylum? How did they managed to load the poison on to the planes while the Russians were there at the base? As a candidate he said he didn't believe in warnings. It was understandable they wanted to get the Russians out of harms way, but what else left the base prior to the strike?
He is a failure and the coincidence of this and his own Russian scandal, makes me wonder if this was just a ploy to distract from what could become his impeachment. Show us your taxes.
He is a failure and the coincidence of this and his own Russian scandal, makes me wonder if this was just a ploy to distract from what could become his impeachment. Show us your taxes.
4
Why should many children of God in America die for lack of healthcare insurance?
To provide tax cuts for millionaires & billionaires.
To provide tax cuts for millionaires & billionaires.
6
“…Mr. Trump made a breathtaking turnaround in the space of 63 hours after the chemical attack.”
Yes, we’ve gone from the deliberative presidency of Obama to the impulsive presidency of Trump. President Obama did not follow up on a very similar chemical attack in 2013; despite Assad having crossed his redline. It was almost as if Obama heeded Trump’s tweeted advice (not once, but twice over a few days) at that time admonishing Obama not to attack Syria. And, lo and behold, when faced with the same situation, Trump changed his position on the same issue in a matter of a few days.
Trump has no plan on Syria and it was probably the right thing to do now, as it would have been in 2013. But Trump was shooting from the hip because it also helped him send a message to President Xi of China, who happened to be with him in Mar-a-Lago, on the North Korean threat. But as people have noted Xi does not like surprises, so not only did solving the North Korean problem get more difficult, but also Russia is not too happy with Trump’s flip-flop on Syria.
Yes, we’ve gone from the deliberative presidency of Obama to the impulsive presidency of Trump. President Obama did not follow up on a very similar chemical attack in 2013; despite Assad having crossed his redline. It was almost as if Obama heeded Trump’s tweeted advice (not once, but twice over a few days) at that time admonishing Obama not to attack Syria. And, lo and behold, when faced with the same situation, Trump changed his position on the same issue in a matter of a few days.
Trump has no plan on Syria and it was probably the right thing to do now, as it would have been in 2013. But Trump was shooting from the hip because it also helped him send a message to President Xi of China, who happened to be with him in Mar-a-Lago, on the North Korean threat. But as people have noted Xi does not like surprises, so not only did solving the North Korean problem get more difficult, but also Russia is not too happy with Trump’s flip-flop on Syria.
1
What's next? Easy. Trump will tour the coal mining states promoting coal fired cruise missiles.
5
In the pages of the New York Times Donald Trump can't win for losing.
This is a similar fate to that of Barack Obama with the Republican Party: The man could not win for losing. Ever.
Today's politicians are blind with greed, hubris, hatred of the opposition, and ideology.
What happened to emotional intelligence, maturity, civic sense, and just plain ethics of governing for all Americans?
Why have We The People, the American People come to be cowed and bullied, robbed and stomped on by the elected casino gamblers that WE elected into office to represent OUR best interests?
Our best interests are the best interests of the United States as a whole, and they have been hijacked by special interests who work in secret for themselves, effectively excluding the rest of the citizenry who has become easy prey.
For all of us it is dangerous to be uninformed, disingaged, passive, resigned, or otherwise cut off from the society as a whole.
By allowing our so-called "leaders" to perpetrate their excesses unchecked, we're all racing to the bottom.
oz.
This is a similar fate to that of Barack Obama with the Republican Party: The man could not win for losing. Ever.
Today's politicians are blind with greed, hubris, hatred of the opposition, and ideology.
What happened to emotional intelligence, maturity, civic sense, and just plain ethics of governing for all Americans?
Why have We The People, the American People come to be cowed and bullied, robbed and stomped on by the elected casino gamblers that WE elected into office to represent OUR best interests?
Our best interests are the best interests of the United States as a whole, and they have been hijacked by special interests who work in secret for themselves, effectively excluding the rest of the citizenry who has become easy prey.
For all of us it is dangerous to be uninformed, disingaged, passive, resigned, or otherwise cut off from the society as a whole.
By allowing our so-called "leaders" to perpetrate their excesses unchecked, we're all racing to the bottom.
oz.
There you go again, editorial board. Trying to put logic and reasoned thinking to the situation.
2
Regardless of whether the Syrian military used chemical agent, which has not been conclusively proven, did the editorial board ever thought about international law, national sovereignty, and the UN? I'm not making excuse for the Syrian government if it is proven that it was responsible. I'm dishearten by the fact that the editorial board seemingly endorsing the dangerous idea that "might makes right," that international law, sovereignty, and acting through the UN do not matter when you are as powerful militarily as the US. Other powerful nations will use the US unilateral action as excuse. Unilateral military action begets unilateral military action. When will this end?
The NYT, on more than one occasion, laments the fact that the US has lost its moral compass and forgone its values and that it has become a transactional nation. Is the NYT talking out of both sides of its mouth?
The editorial board rightfully condemned the chemical attack against civilians but it should have advocated the course of action that elevates the US above other nations in terms of respecting international law, due process, national sovereignty, and acting through the UN.
The NYT, on more than one occasion, laments the fact that the US has lost its moral compass and forgone its values and that it has become a transactional nation. Is the NYT talking out of both sides of its mouth?
The editorial board rightfully condemned the chemical attack against civilians but it should have advocated the course of action that elevates the US above other nations in terms of respecting international law, due process, national sovereignty, and acting through the UN.
1
Thanks to the Times for raising the hair on the back of my neck, trembling at the thought of Trump's aspiration to be "king of kings" in Mid East.
Please dear god/gods if you could just take out a moment from your busy schedule of world carnage to listen to a lonely deplorable pacifist voice amongst the flag waving, armed, beer drinking, cod piece sporting red blooded American crowd.
Dear god/gods, I humbly pray, let this recent Trump attack be just a little "patriotic" fire works display for the home crowd brought to you by the US Military to rev up our he-men and wet the pants of their women, rather than yet another US President, Congress and his media enablers on track for 8 more years of American blood and treasure soaking into the limitless Mid East sand at the feet of trunkless Ozymandias, still standing alone in the blowing desert.
Amen.
Please dear god/gods if you could just take out a moment from your busy schedule of world carnage to listen to a lonely deplorable pacifist voice amongst the flag waving, armed, beer drinking, cod piece sporting red blooded American crowd.
Dear god/gods, I humbly pray, let this recent Trump attack be just a little "patriotic" fire works display for the home crowd brought to you by the US Military to rev up our he-men and wet the pants of their women, rather than yet another US President, Congress and his media enablers on track for 8 more years of American blood and treasure soaking into the limitless Mid East sand at the feet of trunkless Ozymandias, still standing alone in the blowing desert.
Amen.
1
I read your editorial twice. I cannot figure out whether you agree that the strike on Syria was a good thing or a bad thing. What's clear, however, that there's nothing Trump can do, from saying "good morning" to "good night" you can't carp on. -- And I'm no fan of Trump.
It would be valuable if you could cover the administration from an objective position, rather than as an organ of the opposition.
It would be valuable if you could cover the administration from an objective position, rather than as an organ of the opposition.
3
Yes!
The NYT Ed Board is falling into the Trump trap of assuming Trump means what he says. After so many years of lying, manipulation, and callous disregard for people not in his family, he did not suddenly become an honest, empathetic person last week.
Here is the reality. 1. Trump could care less about Syrian babies being gassed. He has shown no empathy for hundreds of thousands of African children starving (who could be fed with the money the cruise missiles cost).
2. Trump and Putin are on the same team.
3. Trump and his advisors have said recently Assad could stay in power.
4. The Russians were notified of the attack before it happened, and they made the decision to not shoot down the cruise missiles, which they could easily have done.
5. The cruise missile attack did negligible damage to the Syrian airfield. It was still being used by the Syrian Air Force the next day. Do we really think the US military is that incompetent?
6. To call the Syrian and Russian "condemnations" of the attack mild, would be an understatement.
7. The event gives Trump cover, just when the probe into his Russian connections is stepping up. "How could he be colluding with Putin if he attacked Syria?" Watch the GOP reference the attack to try to restrict the investigation.
8. When a US president launches a military strike, it usually results in a short-lived popularity boost. Just want T needs.
The media should be much more skeptical of Trump on this issue. Do not legitimize his dishonesty.
Here is the reality. 1. Trump could care less about Syrian babies being gassed. He has shown no empathy for hundreds of thousands of African children starving (who could be fed with the money the cruise missiles cost).
2. Trump and Putin are on the same team.
3. Trump and his advisors have said recently Assad could stay in power.
4. The Russians were notified of the attack before it happened, and they made the decision to not shoot down the cruise missiles, which they could easily have done.
5. The cruise missile attack did negligible damage to the Syrian airfield. It was still being used by the Syrian Air Force the next day. Do we really think the US military is that incompetent?
6. To call the Syrian and Russian "condemnations" of the attack mild, would be an understatement.
7. The event gives Trump cover, just when the probe into his Russian connections is stepping up. "How could he be colluding with Putin if he attacked Syria?" Watch the GOP reference the attack to try to restrict the investigation.
8. When a US president launches a military strike, it usually results in a short-lived popularity boost. Just want T needs.
The media should be much more skeptical of Trump on this issue. Do not legitimize his dishonesty.
11
Carl Von Clausewitz, in the early 19th century, wrote that "War is the continuation of diplomacy by other means." He also explained that to win a war, the government must have "Clear concepts of what is to be achieved be war," and this action required the "resolve and support of the nation's population." These are quotes from Von Clausewitz's 1832 classic work On War still clearly apply.
The unilateral action taken by our Idiot-in-Chief was an impulsive and emotion-driven response to photographs of victims.
In addition, this action had little impact on the targeted airstrip, since we have reports that it is already again operational.
It is clear that to have impact in Syria, we will need to deploy a large ground assault force. Air strikes don't work without ground troops to back them up.
As a retired military officer, I am constantly appalled by the willingness of political leaders with no military experience to want to start a war, as long as it is somebody else's children who will be killed and maimed.
What are we going to do to keep the nation from once again engaging in a war we cannot win? Reliance on intelligent decisions from the White House is obviously not a choice!
The unilateral action taken by our Idiot-in-Chief was an impulsive and emotion-driven response to photographs of victims.
In addition, this action had little impact on the targeted airstrip, since we have reports that it is already again operational.
It is clear that to have impact in Syria, we will need to deploy a large ground assault force. Air strikes don't work without ground troops to back them up.
As a retired military officer, I am constantly appalled by the willingness of political leaders with no military experience to want to start a war, as long as it is somebody else's children who will be killed and maimed.
What are we going to do to keep the nation from once again engaging in a war we cannot win? Reliance on intelligent decisions from the White House is obviously not a choice!
4
If President Trump had consulted the Congress for authorization to launch an attack on Bash Al Assad's heinous reign what do you think the result would be?.
Probably Congress would have dithered and dickered for a couple of weeks and then done nothing. When Hitler marched into Poland in 1939 England wasn't content to say "Oh, My! this is terrible". The Brits didn't sit on their hands.
Probably Congress would have dithered and dickered for a couple of weeks and then done nothing. When Hitler marched into Poland in 1939 England wasn't content to say "Oh, My! this is terrible". The Brits didn't sit on their hands.
1
Where is the news from Syria, in any conflict before you pass a judgement you take the arguements from both sides, why is the public opinion and judgement being shaped by one sided news media and pentagon story line.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/united-nations-confirmed-that-us-supported-...
What we are afraid of, is what is unraveling right in front of us, a prolonged ME war and increasing civilian deaths all around the world due to "terrorist" attacks.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/united-nations-confirmed-that-us-supported-...
What we are afraid of, is what is unraveling right in front of us, a prolonged ME war and increasing civilian deaths all around the world due to "terrorist" attacks.
2
It is sad to read the outpouring of conspiracy theories, paranoia, false moral equivalence, and sheer ignorance in the comments below. If this is the liberal opposition to the Trump administration, we are in deep trouble. Trump did the right thing. If you cannot accept that use of prohibited chemical weapons is a justified reason for military intervention, you have no right to a high moral ground. If you seriously think that the whole thing is some sort of collusion between Trump and Putin, you need medical help. And if you don't understand that what is going on in Syria is a civil war in which neither party is innocent or "good", you have to get out of your sandbox and grow up.
3
Hey, Reagan's one-time strike on Libya accomplished something. It killed a three year old child and provoked the Lockerbie bombing a couple of years later. Meanwhile, sure enough, Moammar Qaddafi fell, only three decades later.
4
President Donald Trump and his men (mostly) must have been feeling extreme discomfort last week in the face of the massed and prolonged press and TV ("media") accounts of their business with all those Russians. It is striking how effectively and deftly he dealt with it. Now the media are all about a fireworks show and the 59 guided missiles. Congressional intelligence committees, the FBI, conspiracy and the election of 2016 are gone from view. The Assads took a small hit, but Trump and his gang, and Vladimir Putin's, are back in control.
4
Under similar cicumstances there was a time when HRC recommended destroying all that is all airfields in Syria She was in Texas yesterday and the professional she is didn't criticize Trump but said what was important is what comes next . Implying she woukd bf she would be tougher.If she were president today she would have Moreli in charge of the CIA. He's on the record for wanting destroy Assad at any cost. Think some here should be counting their blessings right now.
Not that either should be president, that is.
Not that either should be president, that is.
One of the most profound and regrettable results of the Trump Presidency is never knowing what to expect from one day to the next. His disregard of Congressional approval is not the sign of a strong leadership but rather a pointed disregard of the rules of play.
He is a very confused "leader."
He is a very confused "leader."
3
The airstrike did nothing of long-term tangible damage to Syria. Assad is still safe. Russia was warned in advance. Trump is still Putin's puppet.
The filthy rich continue to have nothing to fear. And the military and their civilian contractors will make out like bandits.
This Syria episode tells us nothing new about Trump. He is the same selfish, pretentious, mendacious, arrogant, ignorant coward he was before the attack. He fears only for himself and his related family interests. We should cull from this worthless theatrical event that he has no plans to start World War III (primarily out of fear for his own self-preservation), although over time his ineptitude could trigger something collaterally catastrophic.
Trump has no understanding of the use of force, or nuance, in international affairs. Because of this same failing, he is similarly destructive in our domestic policy. He is a clear and present danger to everyone.
He simply needs to go.
The filthy rich continue to have nothing to fear. And the military and their civilian contractors will make out like bandits.
This Syria episode tells us nothing new about Trump. He is the same selfish, pretentious, mendacious, arrogant, ignorant coward he was before the attack. He fears only for himself and his related family interests. We should cull from this worthless theatrical event that he has no plans to start World War III (primarily out of fear for his own self-preservation), although over time his ineptitude could trigger something collaterally catastrophic.
Trump has no understanding of the use of force, or nuance, in international affairs. Because of this same failing, he is similarly destructive in our domestic policy. He is a clear and present danger to everyone.
He simply needs to go.
4
Why would the Editorial Board even question if Trump thought anything through? He acts purely impulsively and even then only if he gets a glimpse that he actions would benefit only him.
I'm done bashing Trump - for now.
His recognized favorite child is Ivanka and she married a real estate guy and they are definitely NOT Republicans. Jared's family are long-time Democratic donors in NJ and they couldn't one in the NY Republican primary.
I believe Trump is a Republican because it suited his purposes. Who knows what those were but they got him into the White House where he is completely clueless, as we knew he would be. Republican health insurance bill was completely opposite to what Trump promised, which was really closer to single-payer and Bernie's plan than anything. The Republican plan failed. The Muslim ban failed - twice. They got Gorsuch in, but it was ugly.
Now Bannon and Kushner are at war, I think Trump will side with Kushner, favorite child's husband, fellow real estate guy, etc. I think the Syria strike was the right thing to do - Assad, and Putin, had to be shown that we care about the world. Obama should have done it (and I love the guy and voted for him twice). In this case, Trump listened to the people who knew 'things' - generals, in this case.
Trump should NOT be President. He is completely unqualified. I don't like anything about him. But we're stuck with him for 4 years and I'm willing to sit quiet for a while and see where the Kushner-Bannon war takes us.
His recognized favorite child is Ivanka and she married a real estate guy and they are definitely NOT Republicans. Jared's family are long-time Democratic donors in NJ and they couldn't one in the NY Republican primary.
I believe Trump is a Republican because it suited his purposes. Who knows what those were but they got him into the White House where he is completely clueless, as we knew he would be. Republican health insurance bill was completely opposite to what Trump promised, which was really closer to single-payer and Bernie's plan than anything. The Republican plan failed. The Muslim ban failed - twice. They got Gorsuch in, but it was ugly.
Now Bannon and Kushner are at war, I think Trump will side with Kushner, favorite child's husband, fellow real estate guy, etc. I think the Syria strike was the right thing to do - Assad, and Putin, had to be shown that we care about the world. Obama should have done it (and I love the guy and voted for him twice). In this case, Trump listened to the people who knew 'things' - generals, in this case.
Trump should NOT be President. He is completely unqualified. I don't like anything about him. But we're stuck with him for 4 years and I'm willing to sit quiet for a while and see where the Kushner-Bannon war takes us.
Trump has accomplished a trifecta : he has found a new power base to feed his bottomless ego, played tough guy to China's leader, and diverted our obsession with his bumbling treacherous cohorts.
What I fear is that he now sees himself as the new marshal in town, endowed with an innate ability to predict evil therefore justifying whatever he feels like doing.
I listened to his little speech on Syrian poison gas horrors. He can't even read with conviction. This was just another fake performance calculated for personal political benefit.
He is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing.
What I fear is that he now sees himself as the new marshal in town, endowed with an innate ability to predict evil therefore justifying whatever he feels like doing.
I listened to his little speech on Syrian poison gas horrors. He can't even read with conviction. This was just another fake performance calculated for personal political benefit.
He is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing.
2
Congratulations to our gaslighting commander-in-chief. Going against your own opinions. Anything for a headline. The Russians are just as guilty as Assad and have nothing to complain about.
1
All you news organizations have to quit praising Trump when he kills people and reads stuff off teleprompters without sounding like the nut job he normally is. This doesn't make him suddenly presidential. He only launched this strike to distract from the Russia investigations and his tanking popularity. He may have even colluded with Russians in order to make his sanctions deal look legit. He is Trump, will always be Trump. There is no miraculous change. It's lies all the way down.
1
This may have been pointed out already, but at a cost of $1.59.million per Tomahawk, we blew a $95 million wad on this pointless raid. Assad probably spent $5,000 on his sarin bomb. Priorities, anyone?
So sayeth the Times: "Bashar al-Assad, needed to understand that there would finally be a cost for his brutality..."
Presumably, he and his Mukhabarat operatives were compensated for their willingness in receiving captives seized by the CIA and turned over to the Syrians to be, ahem, "interrogated" on behalf of a grateful US government? How would the more religious types put it? Render unto Caesar, etc, or would it instead be, Render unto others as thou would wish to be rendered? Oh, it's all so... extraordinary!
Presumably, he and his Mukhabarat operatives were compensated for their willingness in receiving captives seized by the CIA and turned over to the Syrians to be, ahem, "interrogated" on behalf of a grateful US government? How would the more religious types put it? Render unto Caesar, etc, or would it instead be, Render unto others as thou would wish to be rendered? Oh, it's all so... extraordinary!
Trump: What, me worry?
2
Ron Paul is probably not to be believed, but he thinks the gas attack was a "false flag" - an attack launched by a proxy of the United States, made to look like an Assad attack. I mean, it makes a certain amount of sense, like most conspiracy theories. Think of all the bases it hits for the Trump Administration. It shifts the conversation away from his involvement with Russia, and proves he's not Putin's puppet. It gets him the admiration of Republican hawks and neo-cons who formerly hated him. It gets him the reflexive national support always given to a "war president". It intimidates North Korea. It shows how decisive he is in contradistinction to Obama, who backed down from responding to an Assad chemical attack. It distances him from his "deplorable " alt-right supporters, who oppose involvement in foreign conflict.
False flag or not, Assad's chemical attack was a godsend for Trump.
False flag or not, Assad's chemical attack was a godsend for Trump.
3
Welcome to the Trump show, episode 2, the Syria bomb and death series brought to you by the Syria-Russia-Trump Distraction Factory. Obviously there was a deal to not bomb the airstrip since fighter planes are making use of it Saturday morning. So, Trump was it worth it to spend millions on missiles to generate some applause?
Does anyone in the world genuinely care for the Syrian people?
Let's get back to the task at hand, the investigation of the Trump administration and Russia as there must be something really bad there....bad enough to bomb and kill to hide.
I am deeply saddened and horrified by my country...America.
Does anyone in the world genuinely care for the Syrian people?
Let's get back to the task at hand, the investigation of the Trump administration and Russia as there must be something really bad there....bad enough to bomb and kill to hide.
I am deeply saddened and horrified by my country...America.
3
I can only wonder if Mr. T consulted Mr. P on this decision. What a Machiavellian (or should it be Bannonian) way to distract the public from mounting evidence of Russian efforts to influence the election in Mr. T's favor and to attempt to repudiate the characterizations of Mr. T as Mr. P's puppet.
1
I published a comment on the Wall Street Journal saying exactly what this editorial says. I was harshly criticized. It is scary how people cannot see even one day into the future to consider how other people will react.
Here we are. We no longer can be sure that this whole thing wasn't cooked up by Putin and Tillerson et. al. to what you pointed out. Was this just a cold-blooded, staged provocation to change the conversation from Trump probable treason? Was it another brilliant bit of Disinformation, like when, under pressure, Trump tweeted the amazing sudden accusation of an Obama wiretap. That one served to take pressure off the Gorsuch betrayal. Why should we even believe Putin when he says there is going to be distance between him and his boy Trump? Truth or lies? How can we know which is which? Once again through the Looking Glass.
1
Advance warning or not, a Russian working at the Syrian airbase could have been killed. What then, war? There is frightening silence from the politicians and the media about the shattering of America's 60-year doctrine of keeping physically away from a military confontation with the Russians.
"Was it an impetuous, isolated response unrelated to a larger strategy for resolving the complex dilemma of Syria..."
Parents and those in authority should be role models of consistency--rules are not changed on whim; they obey the rules too. It's acting on principle--the essence of "rule of law;"
But the role Trump models is the autocratic--I like/don't like this/that--be careful of my ire, supplicate for my whim.
Yes he did say--the gassing of innocent children crossed his line. But the emphasis was on HIS line.
Does he knows what it is to act on principle? Does he know what "rule of law" means?
Parents and those in authority should be role models of consistency--rules are not changed on whim; they obey the rules too. It's acting on principle--the essence of "rule of law;"
But the role Trump models is the autocratic--I like/don't like this/that--be careful of my ire, supplicate for my whim.
Yes he did say--the gassing of innocent children crossed his line. But the emphasis was on HIS line.
Does he knows what it is to act on principle? Does he know what "rule of law" means?
1
While I'm loath to quote Jeb Bush, calling Trump "the chaos candidate," was an understatement; it's now clear that he's the most chaotic president in US history. There's no strategy here folks except - maybe - to deflect the media's attention from the Russia scandal. In that case, it worked. So, what's next? More chaos. Thanks Trump voters, just what America needed.
Ahh, putting the chaos aside, he knows what the working people need, as he looks down on them from his ivory tower. The chaos is just the nature of the beast.
Objective assessment of military impact: low risk, low reward strike. The airfield remains operational.
Political impact? Applause in the USA. That was, after all, the target. Abroad? TBD. Potentially very negative without intelligent follow up.
Political impact? Applause in the USA. That was, after all, the target. Abroad? TBD. Potentially very negative without intelligent follow up.
1
"It was hard not to feel some sense of emotional satisfaction, and justice done, when American cruise missiles struck an airfield in Syria on Thursday."
This is a typical editorial statement featured on the opinion pages of our nation's major newspapers (and TV news programs.) It seems as if, in spite of the long history of wars lowering humanity into a cesspool of violence and hatreds, the press loves war. It sells papers! It relieves boredom (when some other people die.) It inflates rhetoric and debate.
But, clearly the right thing to do, instead, was to parachute drop many tons of food and medicines on Assad's opponents. The right thing to do was to help the people suffering under his brutal agency. The right thing to do was to accept refugees from Syria. And, clearly the wrong thing to do was to kill more people, people that did not manufacture or disperse sarin gas.
So, how come the press is so ignorant about right and wrong? I suspect the reason is money. Lots of it. It may compromise the judgment of editorial boards, if they have sound judgment to be compromised. It's a barely unanswered question, given the record of the press during the Vietnam war, the war on Iraq, the war on drugs, the war on, well, you name it.
The press is consistent in this support for wars of any kind. So, why don't they just say it? Oh, never mind. Upon rereading the first sentence, I guess they already did. You can't beat "emotional satisfaction" and newspapers sold.
This is a typical editorial statement featured on the opinion pages of our nation's major newspapers (and TV news programs.) It seems as if, in spite of the long history of wars lowering humanity into a cesspool of violence and hatreds, the press loves war. It sells papers! It relieves boredom (when some other people die.) It inflates rhetoric and debate.
But, clearly the right thing to do, instead, was to parachute drop many tons of food and medicines on Assad's opponents. The right thing to do was to help the people suffering under his brutal agency. The right thing to do was to accept refugees from Syria. And, clearly the wrong thing to do was to kill more people, people that did not manufacture or disperse sarin gas.
So, how come the press is so ignorant about right and wrong? I suspect the reason is money. Lots of it. It may compromise the judgment of editorial boards, if they have sound judgment to be compromised. It's a barely unanswered question, given the record of the press during the Vietnam war, the war on Iraq, the war on drugs, the war on, well, you name it.
The press is consistent in this support for wars of any kind. So, why don't they just say it? Oh, never mind. Upon rereading the first sentence, I guess they already did. You can't beat "emotional satisfaction" and newspapers sold.
1
How do we decide which methods of mass murdering "beautiful" babies are more moral and acceptable than others? In the past 5 years, at least 5 million Syrians, a fair proportion of whom were babies and children, have been killed. Most were killed by bombs, missiles, bullets, and a particularly deadly device called a thermobaric bomb (called fuel-air bombs or barrel bombs). The thermobaric bomb, pound for pound, is second only to nuclear weapons in its killing capacity. Assad has used them repeatedly. We were all moved emotionally by the video of dead & dying children after the sarin attack killed between 70 & 100 civilians &, after a half-million deaths, suddenly became outraged & cheered Trump's token slap on the wrist. We very rarely see such videos after attacks with explosive weapons that turn people into raw meat & "beautiful" babies into hamburger, because they are too gruesome for TV, so, apparently are not so moved by the tragedy. BTW, Syria's answer to Trump's missiles was given yesterday when Assad attacked the same neighborhood with conventional bombs. Today, all over the world, children & "beautiful" babies are dying in wars all over the globe, but few in the US seem to care.
BTW, last week, US planes leafleted people in a Mosul neighborhood telling them to stay in their houses. Then US bombers flew over & flattened the very same neighborhood, killing over 200, including children & "beautiful" babies. How is this somehow less upsetting than the sarin attack?
BTW, last week, US planes leafleted people in a Mosul neighborhood telling them to stay in their houses. Then US bombers flew over & flattened the very same neighborhood, killing over 200, including children & "beautiful" babies. How is this somehow less upsetting than the sarin attack?
5
"So far, there is no evidence that Mr. Trump has thought through the implications of using military force or figured out what to do next."
Neither I nor the NYT editorial board have access to strategy / policy papers that might have been drafted in the NSC. So we really do not know whether the US strike was part of a broader approach to addressing the Syrian conflict.
It seems to me that the most important message was sent to Chinese President Xi, who was shaking hands and dining with Mr. Trump whilst the Tomahawks were falling. What was the message? That the US, where everything appears in print media and where law demands a rigorous accounting and method for implementing controversial foreign policy maneuvers, can still play a trick or two on its adversaries.
For China and North Korea, who thrive on US passivity and predictability, the strike must have come as a helluva shock.
Neither I nor the NYT editorial board have access to strategy / policy papers that might have been drafted in the NSC. So we really do not know whether the US strike was part of a broader approach to addressing the Syrian conflict.
It seems to me that the most important message was sent to Chinese President Xi, who was shaking hands and dining with Mr. Trump whilst the Tomahawks were falling. What was the message? That the US, where everything appears in print media and where law demands a rigorous accounting and method for implementing controversial foreign policy maneuvers, can still play a trick or two on its adversaries.
For China and North Korea, who thrive on US passivity and predictability, the strike must have come as a helluva shock.
1
Appears Trump had approval from Putin. The Russian and Syrian damage was mine male and the runways are open. Russian response was a softball.
In just 63 hours our president changed his foreign policy views, made his Secretary of State reverse his statements about Syria,consulted with his inner circle (some if not all are his family members) ,considered military options and decided to launch an attack on Syria,all while he was supposedly getting ready for a meeting with China's leader. And ,oh yes, post a few tweets.
When did he have the time to think anything through?
This is scary stuff.
When did he have the time to think anything through?
This is scary stuff.
2
On the contrary, this strike was entirely consistent with America First. By punishing a bad actor without risking American lives or our further entanglement in this quagmire, Trumps action is perfectly balanced.
2
I believe the balance is how to distract from the Russia debacles and make the people like me.
It sounds like Trump is relying on the advice of McMaster and others whom he hired to make these decisions and not his own instincts to not to get involved. Call me a cynic, but I don't believe Trump has the capacity to act on moral grounds. The question is what is their long term plan? It sounds like they now want Assad out. You don't jump into the fight without being able to see it through. Now, we all see that the U.S. is willing to fight for that. But how do we ensure that Syria does not become another Libya without Assad there? They must have a cohesive plan for that before going further.
2
"They must have a cohesive plan...". Hopefully it will not be the plan that was used in Iraq.
2
There was an important lesson taught and learned during this Syrian escapade. Namely all that our newly anointed dictator has to do to gain instant adulation is launch a feckless missile attack on the most recent villain of choice. Let us not forget the fallout of the patriotic fervor following Sept 11, 2001 that resulted in the loss of civil liberties by the vast multitude of Americans who waved flags frantically while W & co. busily capitalized on the blindness of the public.
1
In my opinion, ordering missile strikes was akin to the president's tweets; just another thoughtless reflex. But fifty-nine missiles to satisfy an impulse? Exactly what we feared from a president who knows nothing and surrounds himself with generals. Asking advice from the military was certain to result in military action. We do not know what the plan is because there is no plan, just one executive order after another according to the commander in chief's "instinct".
1
Three cheers for President Trump from someone who is normally not a fan. Trump reinforced a redline against the war crime of chemical warfare. He did so by suspending his previous posture on Syria, which I think doesn't show he is impulsive but adaptive. Cynics think he did it boost is poll numbers. I think he did it because he is now POTUS and he felt he had a moral responsibility to act. Remember, Trump has five children and eight grandchildren. Do you think he would be indifferent to pictures of children murdered by Assad and his henchmen?
The strategic implications of his actions are indeed complex and very challenging. But they were just as challenging and complex before he took military action. Trump's response was predetermined by many years of military planning for the contingency in question. He could have ordered a far more aggressive response such as disabling all of Syria's air force by cratering the six operational airfields they use to war war on the indigenous armed groups opposing the Syrian regime. He could have ordered attacks on Syrian leadership targets. But assaults of that magnitude would have been very dangerous, given the presence of Russian soldiers and personnel all over Syria. The Russians have twenty military bases in country, and let there me no misunderstanding, they are a military superpower with the means to destroy the United States and the European Union with missiles held in reserve. Trump's response was measured and right.
The strategic implications of his actions are indeed complex and very challenging. But they were just as challenging and complex before he took military action. Trump's response was predetermined by many years of military planning for the contingency in question. He could have ordered a far more aggressive response such as disabling all of Syria's air force by cratering the six operational airfields they use to war war on the indigenous armed groups opposing the Syrian regime. He could have ordered attacks on Syrian leadership targets. But assaults of that magnitude would have been very dangerous, given the presence of Russian soldiers and personnel all over Syria. The Russians have twenty military bases in country, and let there me no misunderstanding, they are a military superpower with the means to destroy the United States and the European Union with missiles held in reserve. Trump's response was measured and right.
2
Many of us do not share your optimism and do not believe this was nothing more than a show in thinking the world will respect his wartime acumen, and have us believe the strike was meaningful and a success.
The 2013 deal as reported involved removing the chemical weapons arsenal Syria had. Reporting after the fact said the deal had been kept and the weapons removed. But did the deal include that Syria would not make more? Or that anyone would report that it had if it did? Or that anyone had agreed to removal of newly acquired or made chemical weapons? I don't know the answers to those questions. Answering them would be a good story for the Times to report/explain.
1
The only thing the strikes accomplished was helping the terrorist groups in Syria. If that was the intention, well done.
It's entirely illogical to believe Assad, who had all but won the battle, tried to sabotage himself by using chemical weapons. The area in question is occupied by Al Nusra, and we know they are real cozy with our allies in the region. We also know terror groups had taken possession of chemical weapons (See "How the Islamic State Seized a Chemical Weapons Stockpile" from Foreign Policy), and terror groups were losing the battle, thus had all the incentives to change the equation.
We did it to gain some leverage with Russia in diplomatic negotiations by demonizing them so they agree to push Iran out of Syria.
It's entirely illogical to believe Assad, who had all but won the battle, tried to sabotage himself by using chemical weapons. The area in question is occupied by Al Nusra, and we know they are real cozy with our allies in the region. We also know terror groups had taken possession of chemical weapons (See "How the Islamic State Seized a Chemical Weapons Stockpile" from Foreign Policy), and terror groups were losing the battle, thus had all the incentives to change the equation.
We did it to gain some leverage with Russia in diplomatic negotiations by demonizing them so they agree to push Iran out of Syria.
This airstrike changes nothing. The Syrian conflict remains a religious-ethnic civil war, Assad's side maintains the support of powerful local governments, removing Assad's government still leaves the minority populations he protects at grave risk for genocide. President Trump understands none of the details, the players and instead just watches Fox news to figure out how he feels, what he will do.
The Tomahawks cost $100 million. Did we do 100 million dollars worth of damage to Assad? I doubt it.
1
I agree with the NYTimes but I really wonder about what has happened at the United Nations. It seems to me that as soon as the use of the banned chemical weapon was confirmed, probably within 10 hours or so, the UN should have been called into session and the intelligence community's findings should have been shared with the international community.
My feelings are we need to do more to understand and resolve these conflicts including developing a plan for creating and achieving socio-economic goals that will make living possible. We live in a wealthy world-- a world with many conventions of humanitarism already in place -- to resort to more military violence.
Syria is only a very small actor in the greater region of the middle east. So far, it seems to me that Syria is being used to benefit the arms industry. I am not convinced that the United States should take unilateral action to resolve the problems in Syria or any of the other countries in the Mideast or the World for that matter.
To my knowledge the Congress has not yet even voted to declare war on I.S.I.S., but I may be wrong. I think the World public needs a lot more information about the social and economic situation in the Mideast and so that we can multilaterally work with other people of good will to end the conflicts in this region.
I served in Vietnam and I think there were a lessons that should be heeded and learned. War, and killing is not the most rational collective endeavor of our species.
My feelings are we need to do more to understand and resolve these conflicts including developing a plan for creating and achieving socio-economic goals that will make living possible. We live in a wealthy world-- a world with many conventions of humanitarism already in place -- to resort to more military violence.
Syria is only a very small actor in the greater region of the middle east. So far, it seems to me that Syria is being used to benefit the arms industry. I am not convinced that the United States should take unilateral action to resolve the problems in Syria or any of the other countries in the Mideast or the World for that matter.
To my knowledge the Congress has not yet even voted to declare war on I.S.I.S., but I may be wrong. I think the World public needs a lot more information about the social and economic situation in the Mideast and so that we can multilaterally work with other people of good will to end the conflicts in this region.
I served in Vietnam and I think there were a lessons that should be heeded and learned. War, and killing is not the most rational collective endeavor of our species.
3
"So far, there is no evidence that drump has thought ..."
1
In an earlier comment, I failed to note that Syria is a so-called sovereign nation with which the U.S. is not at war. That makes for even less "emotional satisfaction" in launching missile strikes.
2
Does it really matter how a human life is taken, are there more human ways of killing? Is it better to incinerate a life in the fire of an explosion than to use poison? Hundreds of thousands were killed in the bombings of Aleppo, we were okay with that. Thousands of refugees are starving to death and we are okay with that. Trumps retaliates for a chemical weapons attack that killed less than 80 people and he is a hero, I don't get it.
5
Yes, there are more humane ways to wage war.
1
were we?
Every once in a while, an impulsive decision turns out to be the right one. But Americans should not mistake a lucky break for leadership. Until Donald Trump can explain his foreign policy in terms more strategic than "I can't bear the sight of beautiful babies being killed" we should not expect any lasting accomplishments.
I don't think it's fair to assume that Obama's approach in 2013 would be his approach now, but I do think his objectives would still be current - namely to remove WMD from Syria, ensure the safety of our troops in the region and ensure WMD never returns. Under Obama, I believe this week's events would have entailed a mix of military and diplomatic efforts led by diplomacy and the well thought out objective above. I'm afraid that Trump's administration has no clear objective (perhaps his objective is "retribution for the babies"??) and will stumble forward creating either a larger mess or take no further action, either military or diplomatic, and the event will be just become another act of violence adding to the body count in Syria.
As horrible as was the chemical attack on Syrian civilians, the casualty count pales in comparison to American casualties (death, suffering) to be incurred when Mr. Trump and the GOP repeal the ACA.
Of the 24 million fewer Americans to have healthcare insurance after repeal of the ACA, many will die; many, many more will suffer severe ill heath.
Where is Trump’s empathy for American life?
Of the 24 million fewer Americans to have healthcare insurance after repeal of the ACA, many will die; many, many more will suffer severe ill heath.
Where is Trump’s empathy for American life?
9
The editorial writers wrote: "It was hard not to feel some sense of emotional satisfaction, and justice done, when American cruise missiles struck an airfield in Syria on Thursday." It wasn't hard for me. I don't feel a sense of emotional satisfaction. My emotion is DISsatisfaction.
3
Congratulations to President Trump for properly addressing yet another mess he inherited from Obama!
2
We've been down this road before, but it still baffles the mind how easily the media, and the NY Times in particular, climbs aboard militarist train. When George W. Bush campaigned for office, he too, claimed to want a kinder, gentler foreign policy. That didn't last long under the unrelenting pressure of the Neocons and the military-industrial-espionage wing of the government. Telling blatant lies about weapons of mass destruction and implications of involvement in 9/11, we undertook the invasion of Iraq, a moral, political and economic disaster for Iraq and for ourselves. The media blithely and without question spread the government propaganda story about the absolute need to invade Iraq. When there proved to be no WMD and the full extent of the damage to Iraq and cost to ourselves was known, there were some weak, half-hearted mea-culpas by the media, but the lessons were soon forgotten or ignored, because we are right back there again. While the UN had reported that some of these rebels groups did have access to sarin gas canisters, no thought was given to having an investigation on what actually happened, before more bombing was authorized to great applause by our compliant media. No one questions if once again we are being lied to. There was a great deal of breast beating over the civilians killed in Syria, but almost virtual media silence about the 200 civilians killed in our bombing of Mosul, which is now entirely forgotten.
3
"It was hard not to feel some sense of emotional satisfaction, and justice done, when American cruise missiles struck an airfield in Syria on Thursday."
Is this editorial statement in line with the Times reporting on the lead-up to the war in Iraq: Weapons of mass destruction and the aluminum tubes for making nuclear weapons?
I didn't get any satisfaction, emotional or otherwise, from yet another U.S. expansion of war in the Middle East. Those wars have become endless affairs. Syria is a complex cauldron of war including the ruthless authoritarian Assad, a proxy war, religious fundamentalists let loose by the vacuum of organized government during a civil war, a failed democracy movement, and the arms bazaar fueled but he arms manufacturers and arms exporters of the world.
The world has turned its collective back on refugees fleeing this horror. The last issue the U.S. needs to consider at this point is whether or not Mr. Trump needed to get Congressional authority to launch the missiles. Congress has abandoned its role in declaring war. Early in the week Mr. Trump supported Assad and then he took military action against him with no definitive proof that he ordered the chemical attack against his own people. If he did, he needs to be brought to justice before an international body and held accountable. Civilians have been abandoned all over the world in contemporary warfare. It's as if the rules and laws of war were written for some other time besides the present.
Is this editorial statement in line with the Times reporting on the lead-up to the war in Iraq: Weapons of mass destruction and the aluminum tubes for making nuclear weapons?
I didn't get any satisfaction, emotional or otherwise, from yet another U.S. expansion of war in the Middle East. Those wars have become endless affairs. Syria is a complex cauldron of war including the ruthless authoritarian Assad, a proxy war, religious fundamentalists let loose by the vacuum of organized government during a civil war, a failed democracy movement, and the arms bazaar fueled but he arms manufacturers and arms exporters of the world.
The world has turned its collective back on refugees fleeing this horror. The last issue the U.S. needs to consider at this point is whether or not Mr. Trump needed to get Congressional authority to launch the missiles. Congress has abandoned its role in declaring war. Early in the week Mr. Trump supported Assad and then he took military action against him with no definitive proof that he ordered the chemical attack against his own people. If he did, he needs to be brought to justice before an international body and held accountable. Civilians have been abandoned all over the world in contemporary warfare. It's as if the rules and laws of war were written for some other time besides the present.
7
Should read "fueled by the arms..."
The world has turned its back on refugees? How many have you taken in?
1
As soon as Trump starts leading with phrases like, "No child of God..." you know it's all smoke and mirrors, bells and whistles. It doesn't mean it isn't true, but coming from Trump, it's so patently false it's really nearly like a slime and sickness is spreading and taking hold.
25
If you believe everything you've just typed -- that coming from Trump it has to be false -- I think your audience knows which of the two of you is short on the Truth.
That's basically how the rest of us feel about the Clintons, I'm pretty sure.
2
Right, because Trump has repeatedly demonstrated how morally guided, sincere and reliably principled he is.
1
“With respect to Assad, there is a political reality that we have to accept,” - Sean Spicer, White House press secretary. That was on March 31. Less than a week later, Assad used a nerve agent in an attack on civilians. Did Assad interpret Spicer’s fumbling attempt to communicate Trump’s irrational foreign policy as a green light to escalate the use of chemical weapons?
3
An act of war against a sovereign state that has not attacked the United States without Congressional or UN approval is an act of violence contrary to international law. A rogue action is not a well thought out foreign policy and will not bring peace to Syria and its suffering people.
Is this just the logical extension of Trump's January 2016 claim that "I Could Stand In the Middle Of Fifth Avenue And Shoot Somebody And I Wouldn't Lose Any Voters"?
Who knew that the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria would start WW I? Predictable rational behavior by national leaders preserves peace among nations.
Is this just the logical extension of Trump's January 2016 claim that "I Could Stand In the Middle Of Fifth Avenue And Shoot Somebody And I Wouldn't Lose Any Voters"?
Who knew that the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria would start WW I? Predictable rational behavior by national leaders preserves peace among nations.
6
If it was President Obama, he would have deliberated, think about possible fall-outs and consequences, our relationships with allies and adversaries, possible diplomacy after the attacks. Trump is right about one thing though. He has confirmed that he is very different from President Obama. He wants to be macho, appear strong, decisive, empathetic. But has he succeeded? Maybe, maybe not! Now we Americans have to wait and watch with bated breaths!
2
Right. Act without thinking. Don't weigh the consequences. Is this really what you want in a President? Sad.
Isn't this the very thing so many of us have been concerned about? He acts on impulse, doesn't think things through, and has no long term strategy. Given his lack of credibility secondary to impulsive lying, it's a bit hard to swallow his justification for this attack. It appears to have been orchestrated for political gain and distraction, to boost his abysmal poll numbers. The timing is rather interesting. What did he really accomplish? Although Americans always love it when we do something really flashy with our military, yep we'll show them. As far as I can see, this all looks increasingly worrisome. Meanwhile Mitch McConnell just blew up the Senate. I feel sick to my stomach. It's even getting hard to laugh at political satire.
7
1.Trump,Tillerson,Haley said two days prior there was no interest in removing Asad 2. Trump had warned Pres. Obama against making strikes in Syria w/o congressional approval;Trump does exactly what he previously said was dumb 3. The airport trump attacked is till in service 4. Trump had alerted the russians that an airstrike was coming 5. Trumps ban against Syrians coming to this country is unchanged even with trumps "emotional" response 6. What of the 5 years of photos of syria's decimation, barrel bombs, chemical bombs, hospitals bombed, aide being cut off, where was trump's emotional response then 6. Anyone who has seen what the syrians have suffered for 6 years knows their desperate state and trumps ban on syrians makes no sense if he truly cares about babies AND their families 7. Trump made syrians and all muslims victims of the hate coalition that is drawn to hate, following the fascist playbook of giving the people someone to hate 8. The fascist playbook also calls for a mighty military to create the illusion that the fascist leader is strong and will protect those who obey him 9. The truth of this event is more like: we need a military moment of bravado,we attack an airport but won't do too much damage; we call Putin, let him know ahead of time that his is what we're doing and why to give Putin a chance to respond in words but not by attacking us;the trump team comes out looking strong for accomplishing nothing so trump's ratings go up & trumps supporters pacified.
6
While I agree with the idea that this attack leaves many question about what is next I think this editorial is weakened by it's defense of the Obama administration's handling of the previous event. Claiming that making a deal to remove these weapons was smarter is absurd at face value given the fact that it is now clear that some number of these weapons are obviously still in Assad's hands. The egg is on our faces for not being able to successfully confirm that the weapons had actually been removed. Condemning Iran and Russian is futile, they are our rivals at best enemies at worst I doubt we take them at face value on any other topic.
4
Know your place and run your franchise, and if you cause trouble, next time.....there wont be a next time.
President Trump is not a mobster, but he has dealt with organized crime groups his whole life. The mob's street rules are foreign to most Americans, but it's the way things worked in NYC for a long time, and even if you were not in the mob you were still expected to follow the codes.
One other thing, if you want to influence our new president, run commercials in a way he understands, and present solutions.
He is more open minded to sales pitches than people realize, and the strike Assad proves that.
President Trump is not a mobster, but he has dealt with organized crime groups his whole life. The mob's street rules are foreign to most Americans, but it's the way things worked in NYC for a long time, and even if you were not in the mob you were still expected to follow the codes.
One other thing, if you want to influence our new president, run commercials in a way he understands, and present solutions.
He is more open minded to sales pitches than people realize, and the strike Assad proves that.
The nex ...bye bye Bannon. The Saturday is the first day ! It would be cynical to ask the journalist if he would still call the order saying: Let Bannon be Bannon. They also criticize him for what he calls "incompetent liberals" for turning a blind eye to the chaotic world created in the White House. But it is not unjust to say that the unemployment of the questioned racist, isolationist and rebellious without cause when leaving where it should never have been, leaves an open door for thought and just action and without primitive dogmas. It is time for the Immigration Reform to pass, the true equality of work and life of women and men, the retreat in the construction of an infamous border wall as anachronistic and useless as Bannon and that would become a horrible memory and inheritance of Trump's presidency (we know that a pit with crocodiles and piranhas is being set aside, that is not the solution to the problem of illegal migration.) There are short- and medium-term measures that will contain, first and then minimize Limit this historical phenomenon).
One observation I have on the New York Times Editorial Board's assessment of the missile strike is their exclusion of the obvious, which so far the "Times Pick" comments have also missed this mark.
It is in plain sight and perhaps carries the most weight behind the decision to have an missile strike after the main reason of not tolerating the direct intentions to kill people and children with chemical weapons.
The obvious I am hinting to is multifaceted, however I will not mention the exclusion of this particular factor.
This is not a riddle, nor do I claim this factor was the decisive reason to "pull the trigger". But for as astute as the editorial board should be, I doubt they do not see the obvious, yet their intentions of not referencing the obvious speaks volumes in itself.
Note, other assessments in the media have spoke or written about this, and it is more than likely mentioned in other NYT articles or op-ed on the missile strike.
It is in plain sight and perhaps carries the most weight behind the decision to have an missile strike after the main reason of not tolerating the direct intentions to kill people and children with chemical weapons.
The obvious I am hinting to is multifaceted, however I will not mention the exclusion of this particular factor.
This is not a riddle, nor do I claim this factor was the decisive reason to "pull the trigger". But for as astute as the editorial board should be, I doubt they do not see the obvious, yet their intentions of not referencing the obvious speaks volumes in itself.
Note, other assessments in the media have spoke or written about this, and it is more than likely mentioned in other NYT articles or op-ed on the missile strike.
"It was hard not to feel some sense of emotional satisfaction, and justice done, when American cruise missiles struck an airfield in Syria on Thursday." That is the same rationale that has been used forever to justify the death penalty in the US, one of the few countries in the world that maintains it. The death penalty, which is used far too often to be labeled a "one-off strike," has never been proven to have deterred even one murder. So much for teaching Assad a lesson and warning others.
The real danger is that a man who can decide in less than 72 hours to use military force against a country where he has counseled, and as president, spoken against the use of such force many years, on his next instinct may push a different button. Subsequent emotional responses will not matter because humanity as we know it will have ceased to exist.
The real danger is that a man who can decide in less than 72 hours to use military force against a country where he has counseled, and as president, spoken against the use of such force many years, on his next instinct may push a different button. Subsequent emotional responses will not matter because humanity as we know it will have ceased to exist.
2
What is it about draft dodging Presidents who throw bombs and send other peoples children to war that I find so infuriating.
Truman served in WW1. Eisenhower commanded all allied forces in Europe during WW2 never actually served in combat himself. Kennedy served in combat during WW2 as commander of a PT Boat. Nixon served in the Navy in an administrative capacity that at least was within the general region of war in the South Pacific. Reagan served in the military during WW2 but spent his time in hollywood making movies. Bush 1 also served in real combat during WW2 as a Navy Pilot.
Then we have Clinton who legally dodged the Draft during Vietnam, followed by Bush 2, who used family influence to get a cushy job as a pilot in the Air National Guard stationed in Texas that avoided service in Vietnam. Obama never served in the military at a time when the military had become all volunteer.
And now we have Trump, who like Clinton used an educational deferment, and then claimed a bad foot to keep him out of Vietnam. Apparently, whatever his foot problem was at the time he doesn't have it now and can't remember what foot it was giving him a problem. I would call it a foot in the mouth problem.
Is there something different in the way presidents performed based on military service? Not really it seems, but if there is a difference between Trump and the rest it seems they all gave a lot of thought before they acted while Trump gives no thought at all.
Truman served in WW1. Eisenhower commanded all allied forces in Europe during WW2 never actually served in combat himself. Kennedy served in combat during WW2 as commander of a PT Boat. Nixon served in the Navy in an administrative capacity that at least was within the general region of war in the South Pacific. Reagan served in the military during WW2 but spent his time in hollywood making movies. Bush 1 also served in real combat during WW2 as a Navy Pilot.
Then we have Clinton who legally dodged the Draft during Vietnam, followed by Bush 2, who used family influence to get a cushy job as a pilot in the Air National Guard stationed in Texas that avoided service in Vietnam. Obama never served in the military at a time when the military had become all volunteer.
And now we have Trump, who like Clinton used an educational deferment, and then claimed a bad foot to keep him out of Vietnam. Apparently, whatever his foot problem was at the time he doesn't have it now and can't remember what foot it was giving him a problem. I would call it a foot in the mouth problem.
Is there something different in the way presidents performed based on military service? Not really it seems, but if there is a difference between Trump and the rest it seems they all gave a lot of thought before they acted while Trump gives no thought at all.
3
Ironically, the reason Nixon was assigned to administrative status is that Nixon applied for and was granted 1-A-0 non-combatant conscientious objector status based on his mother's Quaker religion, and was granted it. He was ineligible for a combat role. Apparently around the nice safe motor pool he was assigned to, he made a fair amount of money playing poker. At the time Reagan and John Wayne (who never joined the military) were "winning" WW II on Hollywood sound stages, their contemporaries Jimmy Stewart (bomber pilot over Europe) and Clark Gable (fighter escort pilot over Europe) were both doing their part.
Unlike Nixon, GWB, & Trump, at least Clinton wrote to his draft board and explained that he had religious and moral objections to fighting in a war - especially one that was in no way existential to the United States. Nixon claimed conscientious objector status, but by 1948, his political posters showed him in dress uniform and were labeled Richard Nixon, Veteran.
Since it is now an all-volunteer army, Trump's three oldest children, Donald, Jr., Eric, & Evanka were able to elect to stay home & tend their father's & their own wealth while those of lower social standing died in the Gulf War, Afghanistan, & Iraq to protect the idle rich.
Unlike Nixon, GWB, & Trump, at least Clinton wrote to his draft board and explained that he had religious and moral objections to fighting in a war - especially one that was in no way existential to the United States. Nixon claimed conscientious objector status, but by 1948, his political posters showed him in dress uniform and were labeled Richard Nixon, Veteran.
Since it is now an all-volunteer army, Trump's three oldest children, Donald, Jr., Eric, & Evanka were able to elect to stay home & tend their father's & their own wealth while those of lower social standing died in the Gulf War, Afghanistan, & Iraq to protect the idle rich.
There seems to be no way to make any sense out of what Trump does from one minute to the next. His strike against the Syrian air base was like the "flash-bangs" used by the police--they create a lot of noise and smoke, but don't do much real damage except to startle the bad guys.
Since Russia was informed that the air strike was going to happen--and thus surely Assad was informed--not much damage occurred. So what was the point? Don't imagine for a moment that Trump was overcome with empathy for the babies--sociopaths just don't feel empathy (or remorse).
We don't know what his rag tag band of advisers had to say. Was it a cunning way to demonstrate that he's not in thrall to Russia? And is the Russian response part of the script? How will we know, and more importantly, how can Democrats prevent Trump from breaking international law again? Or starting another war solely for the purpose of propping up an unpopular president.
Since Russia was informed that the air strike was going to happen--and thus surely Assad was informed--not much damage occurred. So what was the point? Don't imagine for a moment that Trump was overcome with empathy for the babies--sociopaths just don't feel empathy (or remorse).
We don't know what his rag tag band of advisers had to say. Was it a cunning way to demonstrate that he's not in thrall to Russia? And is the Russian response part of the script? How will we know, and more importantly, how can Democrats prevent Trump from breaking international law again? Or starting another war solely for the purpose of propping up an unpopular president.
4
I am not a supporter of Mr. Trump. Still, I applaud his orders that led to the strike on the Syrian airbase because the strike has diminished Assad's military capability to attack the Syrian people and because it has the potential to put the Syrian and Russian governments on notice that the United States will not stand idly by while the two governments continue to kill the Syrian people. The effectiveness of the strike will depend on the strategic and operational plans that Mr. Trump has to influence events in Syria, the region, and globally . Mr. Trump must ensure the Mr. Putin understands that the game has changed, that the United States - that has abundantly greater non-conventional military force to bring to bear than does Russia - will no longer stand idly by while Syria and Russia indiscriminately murder the Syrian people, and that the United States will ensure the protection of its forces now in the theater. Lastly, let's not allow this U.S. activity in Syria not distract us from the on-going investigation into Russian efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. Presidential campaign and into contacts by members of the Trump entourage with representatives of the Russian government.
This strike was nothing more than a slap on the wrist for domestic theatrical and political effect on his sinking ratings. Nothing increases a president's approval more than a display of blood lust, even if it is either pointless if not followed up, or will drag us into a quagmire among a dozen warring factions if he does follow up. A few planes are easily replaced. Tomahawks are notoriously ineffective as runway busters, so the base will be up & running quickly, & Trump explicitly admitted that the planners avoided targeting the buildings where the actual sarin is stored, so Assad still has plenty to use again. Trump's constant warnings for the past few years - up until last week - that Hillary would lead us into military action in Syria & that we should stay away and let the Syrians solve their own problems make this move either an act of blind, impulsive caprice or a calculated ploy to distract us from his possible involvement with Putin in the election. I'm not sure which scares me more. Is there ANYTHING he has said in the past two years that we can truly trust him to stick by?
After the Airstrikes on Syria, What’s Next?
Very obvious step to the outside world is American legislators should seriously consider impeaching their unbalanced President.
The fact is that Trump will have almost untrammeled power to wipe out the world — the same power possessed by every postwar president. Trump's predecessors, terrified by this power, would have never used it. Will he do the same?
Very obvious step to the outside world is American legislators should seriously consider impeaching their unbalanced President.
The fact is that Trump will have almost untrammeled power to wipe out the world — the same power possessed by every postwar president. Trump's predecessors, terrified by this power, would have never used it. Will he do the same?
3
There's Yemen, Somalia, Congo, Libya, and dozens of other brutal wars that Trump can throw a few Tomahawks at. Gassing strikes an emotional chord in people reminiscent of WW I, but it is by no means the most dangerous weapon in the world's arsenals. A year after Saddam Hussein gassed Kurds in Halabjah, GHW Bush rewarded him by increasing our annual financial support by a billion dollars. During Reagan's tenure, his Commerce Department made over 770 exemptions, allowing American companies to supply Saddam with the technology, precursor chemicals, and actual lethal chemicals and biologicals to use against the Iranians.
We are a strange species. We grade our weapons of mass murder on some bizarre moral scale.
We are a strange species. We grade our weapons of mass murder on some bizarre moral scale.
Some 59 Tomahawk missiles fired and only six dead Syrians. That will really intimidate Assad. Putin was warned to remove his people from the base we targeted and shared the data with Assad who removed most of the aircraft that should have been destroyed. What happened to unpredictability and announcing military intentions beforehand? This event was simple subterfuge to deflect from the dismal failure of the Trump Presidency and Putin's interference with the election. Suddenly, after years of horror, Trump has a conscience attack? Give me a break. The previous horrific images of dead Syrian children weren't enough over the years but this one was too much to bear? This event was political in nature and had little to do with Trump's concern about the plight of Syrians struggling to stay alive in this civil war. A pin prick strike that did little damage is meaningless and will not deter future atrocities. Do not be fooled by people that applaud this ruse, especially the leaders of other countries who have done nothing to oust Assad but limit their outrage to verbal condemnations. If the world had any interest in stopping Assad's reign of terror they'd have done something already. The only was to stop a madman is to kill him. Trump and the rest of the world don't have the will to do it. A symbolic strike that did nothing is meaningless. The next plane crash or scandal will move this story to the back burner where it belongs.
2
60 were fired, but one crashed into the ocean. So that's $30 million dollars spent to kill 6 low-ranking soldiers who were only following their officers' orders. That works out to $5 million a person, not including the costs of running the two missile cruisers. I'm sure Assad didn't even miss dessert or his favorite TV shows that night. He probably enjoyed them even more since he now has a brand new bogeyman to blame all of his own problems on.
The moral thing would be to think about repercussions, too. The media echo was pretty positive. And we know it was positive because it fell squarely into the agenda of his political opponents.
If there is such a thing as doing the right thing for the wrong reasons then there is also a thing like doing the wrong thing for the right reasons.
If there is such a thing as doing the right thing for the wrong reasons then there is also a thing like doing the wrong thing for the right reasons.
I am firmly anti-Trump. But it is disturbing to see liberals expressing so many reservations about Trump doing what Obama should have done: show some muscle against Syria's use of chemical weapons. This editorial is perfect for the prior administration: talk, plan, issue public statements, plan some more, issue some toughly worded statements, confer with allies . . . Until the reason for all the ineffective "action" fades from the headlines. This does not mean Trump's unpredictability and lack of knowledge will not one day cause inappropriate and dangerous conduct. But, for now, give him, McMaster and Tillerson credit. No real follow up is needed. Bashir got the message. So did Putin and Iran. If they didn't, and gas is used again, they know an even more forceful one will result.
3
So why is Trump calling for a 54 billion dollar increase in military spending?
"... What's next?"
Well, UK's Telegraph reports: "Syrian warplanes take off once again from air base bombed by US Tomahawks" http://tinyurl.com/mc3ev6n
So, business as usual by Assad and co. and probably more missile and airstrikes by the US to "save" the Syrians.
Those poor people can't catch a break. Very sad, indeed.
Well, UK's Telegraph reports: "Syrian warplanes take off once again from air base bombed by US Tomahawks" http://tinyurl.com/mc3ev6n
So, business as usual by Assad and co. and probably more missile and airstrikes by the US to "save" the Syrians.
Those poor people can't catch a break. Very sad, indeed.
1
Remember how good everyone felt when Bush stood on the rumble of the Trade Buildings and vowed vengeance on those who perpetrated the act. Remember how good everyone felt when those first pictures of our "shock and awe" campaign began in Iraq. Think about how we feel about those "great feelings," now. Could those same great feelings of retribution against Assad be taking us over now and several years from now could we be feeling like we are now about Iraq and Afghanistan?
10
One thing is clear, Mr. Assad is a brutal, immoral dictator who needs to be stopped from killing his citizens and be held accountable for his grievous actions.
After 6 years of ghastly civil war in Syria, the who and how this will be accomplished remains unclear. So many rogue elements are now swarming in Syria making decisions difficult to formulate.
What is equally baffling are the recent actions by President Trump. The only thing that is clear is that he ordered the bombing of a Syrian airport. Yeah or nay the speculation that is now rampant surrounding the WHY this was done is getting out of control. The simple answer that this action was in response to the use of chemical weapons is even being questioned as regards the timing of Trump's new found outrage. Everyone is debating motive especially.
This is happening because President Trump is a liar. The 'truth' of A happened then action B followed is being overshadowed by doubt because President Trump has consistently lied throughout his political public life. His insistence of an 'alternative facts' based world has resulted in an American public that no longer trusts what it sees and hears.
What are Trump's motives for the attack? What is Trump's Syrian policy? Who is advising Trump? Was the military mission successful? Was it legal? The news and the public are going from 'deep state plot' all the way to 'Trump was moved by TV images' in trying to figure out what happened.
This is not healthy for America.
After 6 years of ghastly civil war in Syria, the who and how this will be accomplished remains unclear. So many rogue elements are now swarming in Syria making decisions difficult to formulate.
What is equally baffling are the recent actions by President Trump. The only thing that is clear is that he ordered the bombing of a Syrian airport. Yeah or nay the speculation that is now rampant surrounding the WHY this was done is getting out of control. The simple answer that this action was in response to the use of chemical weapons is even being questioned as regards the timing of Trump's new found outrage. Everyone is debating motive especially.
This is happening because President Trump is a liar. The 'truth' of A happened then action B followed is being overshadowed by doubt because President Trump has consistently lied throughout his political public life. His insistence of an 'alternative facts' based world has resulted in an American public that no longer trusts what it sees and hears.
What are Trump's motives for the attack? What is Trump's Syrian policy? Who is advising Trump? Was the military mission successful? Was it legal? The news and the public are going from 'deep state plot' all the way to 'Trump was moved by TV images' in trying to figure out what happened.
This is not healthy for America.
2
I hope that Donald Trump does the moral thing the next time he sees the body of some "beautiful child" refugee washed up on a beach.
His action was moral, yes, but illegal (he didn't go to Congress), confusing (in light of Haley and Tillerson comments a few days earlier), hypocritical (he chided Obama for legally asking to do the same in 2013), and cynical (designed to distract us from the growing body of evidence of collusion with Russia).
His action was moral, yes, but illegal (he didn't go to Congress), confusing (in light of Haley and Tillerson comments a few days earlier), hypocritical (he chided Obama for legally asking to do the same in 2013), and cynical (designed to distract us from the growing body of evidence of collusion with Russia).
10
A mentally unstable President, who is often obviously delusional, with the emotional maturity of a 9 year old, is starting to get us deeper into the Syrian Civil War and a certain confrontation with the equally unstable Russian President Putin.
If we overthrow the Syrian Government we are going to have another Iraq on our hands - Are we mad?
If we overthrow the Syrian Government we are going to have another Iraq on our hands - Are we mad?
3
As far a Trump bombing the Syrian airfield I think it was impulsive with the hope his favorable rating goes up, pure and simple.
16
Let's hope not. There is much more to this story than the corporate news is telling us. Syria had absolutely NO reason to drop sarin gas on anyone. It is winning the war, handily. Besides, the chemicals were removed, and certified so, in 2013. Would the US ever fight a war for oil? Nah.
2
It seems clear that whatever Mr. Trump does, be it good, bad, or ugly, the Times Editorial Board will object. In an incredibly complex situation such as this, only history may tell whether or not the attack on a Syrian military base was wise or not, and perhaps even in retrospect we may never know. Most observers seem to feel that the US's measured response was appropriate.
It is, however, hard to justify this editorial's claim that Mr. Obama's policy of doing nothing was the "smarter course." In light of the chemical attack on civilians, it is hard to argue, as the Times does, that Mr. Obama's policy was in any sense effective.
The most likely truth is that virtually nothing will stop a tyrant like Mr. Assad. But it was probably reasonable to give a "surgical" military strike a try.
It is, however, hard to justify this editorial's claim that Mr. Obama's policy of doing nothing was the "smarter course." In light of the chemical attack on civilians, it is hard to argue, as the Times does, that Mr. Obama's policy was in any sense effective.
The most likely truth is that virtually nothing will stop a tyrant like Mr. Assad. But it was probably reasonable to give a "surgical" military strike a try.
4
President Obama wanted the Congress to okay any actions he took in Syria but they refused to do their job and take a vote. Trump was against any action in Syria at that time too. So Trump sees some dead babies and feels compelled to do something yet he wants to ban live Syrian babies and their families from coming into the US, hypocrisy to the max!
2
@ alex indiana - Alex, it did not take much "time to tell" The runways were not damaged and the planes are flying, just not the 6 planes that rockets did hit.
When you use or see that word "surgical" look out!
Larry L.
When you use or see that word "surgical" look out!
Larry L.
This circus is not a policy following administration. Thinking that this whole affair has actually been thought through is like someone believing they can find a 3 BR on West End Ave for $300 a month.
of course
"...Whether by design or not, the American military action has also shifted the focus from the scandal over Russia's interference in the election on Mr. Trump’s behalf and allegations that the president and his allies may have colluded with Moscow..."
"...Whether by design or not, the American military action has also shifted the focus from the scandal over Russia's interference in the election on Mr. Trump’s behalf and allegations that the president and his allies may have colluded with Moscow..."
1
What are your thoughts about our President's foray into the Syrian situation? Is this a "preview of coming attractions"? What are the long term consequences? How will Trump handle similar challenges?
Personally, I think he accidentally did the right thing. However, he established a dangerous, probably illegal precedent. Under similar circumstances will he be encouraged to take action? What are the implications for the constitutional limits to Presidential war powers and the need for congressional approval? What are the past precedents of similar executive actions, if any?
The Trump Presidency is not boring.
Personally, I think he accidentally did the right thing. However, he established a dangerous, probably illegal precedent. Under similar circumstances will he be encouraged to take action? What are the implications for the constitutional limits to Presidential war powers and the need for congressional approval? What are the past precedents of similar executive actions, if any?
The Trump Presidency is not boring.
1
It's enough to punish Assad. That is a worthy goal in itself.
If you try to solve everything, how to solve Syria, how to solve ISIS, how to solve the Palastinian Israeli conflict, how to solve world peace, you end up vacillating between choices, paralyzed and end up worse off.
Look at Obama. Drew a red line. Watched hundreds of kids foam at the mouth, twitching in death. Response? Debated with team. Consulted with allies. Consulted with Congress. Debated whether he needed UN authorization. Debated whether he needed Congressional approval. Debated whether he could strike a deal with Russia and Assad. blah blah blah. It was, frankly pathetic.
Trump? You gas kids? Ok, within 62 hours, we are going to retaliate on behalf of humanity. China, N.Korea, Russia, Iran - there's a new sheriff in town.
If you try to solve everything, how to solve Syria, how to solve ISIS, how to solve the Palastinian Israeli conflict, how to solve world peace, you end up vacillating between choices, paralyzed and end up worse off.
Look at Obama. Drew a red line. Watched hundreds of kids foam at the mouth, twitching in death. Response? Debated with team. Consulted with allies. Consulted with Congress. Debated whether he needed UN authorization. Debated whether he needed Congressional approval. Debated whether he could strike a deal with Russia and Assad. blah blah blah. It was, frankly pathetic.
Trump? You gas kids? Ok, within 62 hours, we are going to retaliate on behalf of humanity. China, N.Korea, Russia, Iran - there's a new sheriff in town.
3
Yes, he's such a tough guy. Just like going to Vietnam when called upon. Another chickenhawk republican. It takes a real man to start a fight he doesn't have to fight.
1
Hillary Clinton responded to the strike on the Syrian airfield by accusing President Trump of hypocrisy, saying “We cannot speak of protecting Syrian babies and in the next breath close our doors to them? When CNN’s Brooke Baldwin play a clip of the Clinton quote to Syrian chemical attack survivor Kassem Eid, he answered: “I didn’t see you raising your voice against President Obama’s inaction in Syria that made us refugees. If you really care about refugees, if you really care about us, please help us stay in our country. We don’t want to come to the United States. We want to stay in our country. We don’t want to become refugees.” The best way to stop refugee crises is by eliminating the cause.
2
I greatly admire Barack Obama and sorely miss him. But, let's face it: his Syria policy was a failure -- and this failure started with the deal with Russia Obama used to avoid doing what Trump just did. That deal was "smarter"? Come on. Is it in the slightest surprising that a deal which depended on compliance by two murderous tyrants -- Putin and Assad -- failed to rid Syria of its chemical weapons? (What? There's gambling at Rick's? I'm shocked. Just shocked.) Of course, when Trump says he was shocked by Assad's latest barbarity, he's just, as always, blowing words out his -- er -- ears. Nothing means anything to that psychopath. I'm sure Trump seized on this as a perfect opportunity to distract from the investigation into his collusion with Putin. What better distraction than a military strike (start up the band, set out the flags) which has the added advantage, in terms of optics, of being sure to anger Putin.
2
War is always politics by other means. As the editorial points out, DT and people around him were accused of being cozy with Putin's Russia. To divert attention from many under-hand dealings, the air strike appears to be timely. When Bill Clinton was in the thick of Lewinsky scandal, the US bombs were hurled in Sudan. The targeted sites were alleged as chemical weapons' factory, whereas, in fact, they were pharmaceutical establishments. Coinciding the attack with the Chinese president's visit to the USA should be embarrassing to any decent and honorable guest.
Double standards in international relations are now known as a long-established tradition: DT says he was emotionally horrified by the sight of the dead and injured children. Didn't he see the images of innocent children, men and women killed and maimed in Yemen just a few weeks ago? The first ever bombing operation authorized by president DT in Yemen resulted in disastrous loss of innocent lives and that of a marine.
The deadly weaponry sold to the Saudis by the USA has been killing with impunity any one in the Middle East who questions the Saudi's authority.
President Obama had his ear close to the ground in the ME and therefore, he resisted from undertaking another bombing in Syria -- he did, however, get Assad to cleanse his chemical weapons' inventory, largely if not entirely. Secondly, he asked the Congress to fund fully if it wanted another war.
He had taken the country out of the consequences of unfunded wars.
Double standards in international relations are now known as a long-established tradition: DT says he was emotionally horrified by the sight of the dead and injured children. Didn't he see the images of innocent children, men and women killed and maimed in Yemen just a few weeks ago? The first ever bombing operation authorized by president DT in Yemen resulted in disastrous loss of innocent lives and that of a marine.
The deadly weaponry sold to the Saudis by the USA has been killing with impunity any one in the Middle East who questions the Saudi's authority.
President Obama had his ear close to the ground in the ME and therefore, he resisted from undertaking another bombing in Syria -- he did, however, get Assad to cleanse his chemical weapons' inventory, largely if not entirely. Secondly, he asked the Congress to fund fully if it wanted another war.
He had taken the country out of the consequences of unfunded wars.
2
The missile attack was an effort to deflect attention from the Russia hacking scandal and gain a boost in poll ratings. This may sound cynical but that is the way Trump operates. As for his claim that he was moved by pictures of injured children -- C'mon man!
10
President Trump, who has been described, accurately I believe, as undisciplined and impulsive, made a decision based on instinct and emotion. Trump seems to have listened to his military advisors and ordered a strike that was, arguably, effective and appropriate.
Having watched Trump closely for the last year I feel that he would reasonably feel emboldened by this "success". What will happen when he decides not to heed his advisors, who may, in some instances, have the country's best interests at heart, rather than his own chaotic interests?
Having watched Trump closely for the last year I feel that he would reasonably feel emboldened by this "success". What will happen when he decides not to heed his advisors, who may, in some instances, have the country's best interests at heart, rather than his own chaotic interests?
If Trump hadn't done anything, this editorial would have been about the failure of isolationists policies. He could turn around and become a liberal tomorrow and the result would be most journalists deciding they were conservatives. I don't even like the guy, but give him a break. This attack was legal and justified. It should have been ordered in 2012 when Assad used chem weapons for the first time.
5
Would that the President's heart would also open to all those Americans who need health coverage whom the Republicans want to leave gasping for air.
What next has been the question since the British and French united the Mideast into warring states. Since World War 1 and 2, the establishment of Israel in 1948, the overthrow of the Iranian Government in 1953, the implementation of the Carter Doctrine circa 1979, the invasions of Lebanon by the Israelis, the Marine Barracks disaster during Reagan, the USS Cole, 911, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, Al Qaeda Hezbollah, Hamas and ISIS and the Syrian crisis. Thats only a partial rendering of which the introduction of American troops in large numbers and an ongoing diplomatic package has failed to resolve. It is time to rethink what American power can realistically accomplish, or insanely continue to do the same policies with the same result.
Or, we can admit, the Mideast is in chaos with many failed states and that is the policy. Take your choice.
Or, we can admit, the Mideast is in chaos with many failed states and that is the policy. Take your choice.
Yes. I also feel the same satisfaction. Followed by concern because as you pointed out there is the eminent need of a comprehensive strategy in a government that is not able to provide one.
At its best, Trump provides for mere tactical moves based on his sense of reality entertainment, ego and the instinct of surviving an impeachment process in his near future.
I wonder if his change of mind about the victims of so many horrible crimes against humanity also includes a radical change in his immigration policy so we can accept those victims as refugees in our mainland.
At its best, Trump provides for mere tactical moves based on his sense of reality entertainment, ego and the instinct of surviving an impeachment process in his near future.
I wonder if his change of mind about the victims of so many horrible crimes against humanity also includes a radical change in his immigration policy so we can accept those victims as refugees in our mainland.
1. Why did Assad wait until T was president to do this?
2. Asking if this was impulsive or planned is oxymoronic.
2. Asking if this was impulsive or planned is oxymoronic.
Want to know what's next? Ask the Top 1% Global Financial Elite Robber Baron/ Radical Religion Good Old Boys' Party/ Corporate Cabal.
They have a plan. Everything being reported is choreographed. They are in it together. They plan to destroy the lives of average people around the world.
Did anyone notice that Sweden had a terrorist attack yesterday? Did anyone notice that The Con Don talked about attacks in Sweden weeks ago? Does anyone really think this is "spontaneous"? Terrorists get paid. They are just common criminals looking for an easy buck.
The International Mafia is in control - as long as WE allow it. WE THE AVERAGE PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD are the only ones who can stop it.
NOW is the time.
They have a plan. Everything being reported is choreographed. They are in it together. They plan to destroy the lives of average people around the world.
Did anyone notice that Sweden had a terrorist attack yesterday? Did anyone notice that The Con Don talked about attacks in Sweden weeks ago? Does anyone really think this is "spontaneous"? Terrorists get paid. They are just common criminals looking for an easy buck.
The International Mafia is in control - as long as WE allow it. WE THE AVERAGE PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD are the only ones who can stop it.
NOW is the time.
Funny, if Hillary Clinton was elected President, and did the same action, as President Trump, this newspapers, and the media, would be lauding it. The same would have happened, if President Obama acted against Syria. They will be celebrating that the US finally has taken action against a brutal dictator which has not only been killing his own people, with the help of the Russians, but housing terrorist groups which have been attacking various parts of the world.
But, what are we getting? President Trump may have committed an illegal act. He is a hot head. It was a dangerous action. He is trigger happy. He will not use diplomacy. Etc.
Don't Get me wrong, I do not consider Donal Trump presidential material. But, in all fairness, he did what not only Americans wanted, but a number of our allies wanted. Assad is as dangerous, if not more, than Kim Jong-Un. A brutal dictator that needs to be brought down and brought to justice for crimes against humanity. Also, people, like Assad, Putin and Kim do not not the meaning of the word "diplomacy"; "force" is the only word they understand.
By the way, we know we did the right things. Russia reaction was, like some of the commentators here, that the US did an illegal act on foreign territory. Anyone remember what Russia did with the Crimea and Georgia? An attack on two sovereign nations and annexed territory? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
But, what are we getting? President Trump may have committed an illegal act. He is a hot head. It was a dangerous action. He is trigger happy. He will not use diplomacy. Etc.
Don't Get me wrong, I do not consider Donal Trump presidential material. But, in all fairness, he did what not only Americans wanted, but a number of our allies wanted. Assad is as dangerous, if not more, than Kim Jong-Un. A brutal dictator that needs to be brought down and brought to justice for crimes against humanity. Also, people, like Assad, Putin and Kim do not not the meaning of the word "diplomacy"; "force" is the only word they understand.
By the way, we know we did the right things. Russia reaction was, like some of the commentators here, that the US did an illegal act on foreign territory. Anyone remember what Russia did with the Crimea and Georgia? An attack on two sovereign nations and annexed territory? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
3
Is Trump operating foreign policy on pure instinct? On impulses, based upon an immediately felt emotion from watching television?
In one breath, he's troubled by suffering children in Syria.
But his proposed budget intends to ignore humanitarian crises where nearly
16 million people are at risk of famine, drought and severe malnutrition in South Sudan, Somalia and Nigeria.
In March, Trump's budget director boasted they were absolutely cutting out programs for the vulnerable overseas. He said with a smile the proposed budget will "absolutely" cut programs that help the most vulnerable people in the world.
This despite UN humanitarian chief Stephen O'Brien telling the UN Security Council "we are facing the largest humanitarian crisis since the creation of the United Nations," after his visit in March to Somalia and South Sudan.
"I've never seen this kind of threat to what otherwise has been a bipartisan consensus that food aid and humanitarian assistance programs are morally essential and critical to our security," claimed Steven Feldstein, a former Obama state department assistant.
Sadly, The Trump administration has signaled it will stop responding to urgent humanitarian emergencies. Despite our military leaders noting such aid is a critical part of US national security.
And despite Trump bothered by suffering children after watching televised coverage of Syria.
In one breath, he's troubled by suffering children in Syria.
But his proposed budget intends to ignore humanitarian crises where nearly
16 million people are at risk of famine, drought and severe malnutrition in South Sudan, Somalia and Nigeria.
In March, Trump's budget director boasted they were absolutely cutting out programs for the vulnerable overseas. He said with a smile the proposed budget will "absolutely" cut programs that help the most vulnerable people in the world.
This despite UN humanitarian chief Stephen O'Brien telling the UN Security Council "we are facing the largest humanitarian crisis since the creation of the United Nations," after his visit in March to Somalia and South Sudan.
"I've never seen this kind of threat to what otherwise has been a bipartisan consensus that food aid and humanitarian assistance programs are morally essential and critical to our security," claimed Steven Feldstein, a former Obama state department assistant.
Sadly, The Trump administration has signaled it will stop responding to urgent humanitarian emergencies. Despite our military leaders noting such aid is a critical part of US national security.
And despite Trump bothered by suffering children after watching televised coverage of Syria.
1
Trump's missile strike was initially a good idea, but it may just be a flash in the pan. Little has been achieved, because it merely destroyed the Al Shayrat airfield but not grounded Syria’s air force. Trump may have basked in praises for showing compassion, but he could also expose himself to manipulations, and be easily duped into taking military actions in the future. There are already many players involved in the Syrian war, and America shouldn't complicate it further. There is no military solution to the conflict there.
2
The editorial presupposes the brute fact that the Syrian government deliberately gassed people when there is strong doubt on this still, I'm no fan of Assad, but I'm no fan of world Wars either.
2
"Because there was no good option on any given day, we always chose to do little or nothing. The result was that more than 300,000 people were killed.."
The above quote was from Mr. Kristof's recent op-ed that praised Trump's first use of his new toys.
Now I'm not a logician, but I can't follow how it's our fault that a country tearing itself apart via civil war and the 300,000 deaths are somehow on our head.
That's just utter nonsense, and somebody with the educational opportunities that Mr. Kristof had ought to be ashamed to put forth a conclusion that devoid of logic, reason and simple common sense.
Not that many of the readers here don't share that same misguided thought process, i.e., "well, we have do do "something"".
Actually, no we don't. Because the "something" that everybody seems to crave like having that second piece of chocolate cake always seems like a good idea before you actually go ahead with it.
Now what?
Symbolism when it comes in the form of 60 tomahawk missiles has a steep price when you have absolutely no strategic plan to follow it up and Putin most likely laying a trap for you.
Do you really think Trump has thought this through, and in the off chance he did actually spend 5 minutes on the subject came up with a plan that made any sense at all?
Give me a break. It's disappoints me that this publication can put forth such drivel and most of the readers just nod their head in approval.
Obama had this so right.
The above quote was from Mr. Kristof's recent op-ed that praised Trump's first use of his new toys.
Now I'm not a logician, but I can't follow how it's our fault that a country tearing itself apart via civil war and the 300,000 deaths are somehow on our head.
That's just utter nonsense, and somebody with the educational opportunities that Mr. Kristof had ought to be ashamed to put forth a conclusion that devoid of logic, reason and simple common sense.
Not that many of the readers here don't share that same misguided thought process, i.e., "well, we have do do "something"".
Actually, no we don't. Because the "something" that everybody seems to crave like having that second piece of chocolate cake always seems like a good idea before you actually go ahead with it.
Now what?
Symbolism when it comes in the form of 60 tomahawk missiles has a steep price when you have absolutely no strategic plan to follow it up and Putin most likely laying a trap for you.
Do you really think Trump has thought this through, and in the off chance he did actually spend 5 minutes on the subject came up with a plan that made any sense at all?
Give me a break. It's disappoints me that this publication can put forth such drivel and most of the readers just nod their head in approval.
Obama had this so right.
1
Trump said it himself of Obama. If you're popularity numbers are slipping, you need to blow something up. Trump already said Syria should take care of itself. Are we to believe he feels bad about the very people he's trying to ban from entering the country legally?
The greater concern is what pals Putin and Trump are up to. What plans have they made? Create a war so that they can allow Putin to land grab and bolster his economy? One so Trump can seem powerful and create jobs as he feeds defense contracts to his cronies? Perhaps grab another countries oil reserves?
From BFFs to enemies over one bombing raid of extremely suspect motives is sketchy at best. Trump and Putin are not to be trusted.
The greater concern is what pals Putin and Trump are up to. What plans have they made? Create a war so that they can allow Putin to land grab and bolster his economy? One so Trump can seem powerful and create jobs as he feeds defense contracts to his cronies? Perhaps grab another countries oil reserves?
From BFFs to enemies over one bombing raid of extremely suspect motives is sketchy at best. Trump and Putin are not to be trusted.
1
After the Airstrikes? Watch some cable news, hit the tanning bed, weekends at the seaside resort, plenty of golf, tend to the family business, send out barely literate tweets, have campaign rallies 5 months after the election, tell a few bald faced lies every day . . .
I usually have strong opinions, but as far as Syria is concerned I have no idea what is the right thing to do. Basically I think we need to react to outrageous war crimes like the use of poison gas. I think President Obama's words about a red line hurt us and him. It was a better choice to work with the Russians, but his earlier words made us seem ineffectual. Syria is more than a civil war, because there is also the Islamic State to deal with. Regime change did not work out too well in Iraq or Libya. I lay all this at the feet of President Bush II. If he had just focused on Afghanistan and those who blew up the World Trade Center the Middle East would not have become the never ending war zone that we face today. What to do now.......?
Where is the condemnation for Trump's forays to Mar A Lago golf and dining after he's signed legislation to end a simple nutritious meal program for our elderly, Meals on Wheels, and his actions to end the Head Start Breakfast Program, a simple attempt to feed the hungry children in our country? The "oh, the babies, the little babies" Trump cried rings hollow against his Marl A Lago forays. Trump's sudden reversal after telling Obama numerous times to beg off going after Assad in Syria is theater on a world stage, simply for effect, another slice of reality TV for the masses to view. And for his ratings. His viewership ratings. What doesn't the viewing public get? He's after better ratings, staging this theater for his own singular benefit, and at our expense. He's robbing our coffers yet again, adding to his delinquent tax bill.
3
My greatest fear for having Trump as President has been that his incompetence
and ignorance in world affairs will put America in a very dangerous path. I fear that we have a man like him with the finger on the RED button. His "63 hours
turnaround on Syria" scares me and it should all Americans. David Brooks
said "Trump's greatest achievements are in the field of ignorance"
GOD HELP US
and ignorance in world affairs will put America in a very dangerous path. I fear that we have a man like him with the finger on the RED button. His "63 hours
turnaround on Syria" scares me and it should all Americans. David Brooks
said "Trump's greatest achievements are in the field of ignorance"
GOD HELP US
1
Several possibilities explain the motivation and goals. However, they mostly fall under the banner of traditional (post WWII) foreign policy for which a term was coined. It can now be called Urban Cowboy Diplomacy.
1
Trump’s unilateral action based on some kind of an emotional epiphany regarding the slaughter of Syrian civilians including infants and children in the recent chemical attack is exactly the kind of response that was most feared from this president.
His proclivity for knee jerk, spur of the moment emotive response was an issue raised again and again throughout the 2016 campaign. That rightly grave concern has now come to fruition as a highly questionable military action.
What President Trump directed and authorized was an overt act of war as a punitive response that had nothing directly to do with the immediate security of the United States. This without any consultation with the US Congress.
To be sure, Trump has profoundly changed the discussion, the tenor, and the scope of America’s future role and involvement in the Syrian conflict — this despite repeated assertion that the US strike was a one time action.
What now resounds are mostly political calls for the US to formulate a comprehensive strategy to directly address ending the 5 year civil war and the horrendous carnage it has wrought on the Syrian people.
The implications of such a formulation and undertaking are monumental and certainly not something that has been even tacitly broached, openly presented to, or justified to the American people.
His proclivity for knee jerk, spur of the moment emotive response was an issue raised again and again throughout the 2016 campaign. That rightly grave concern has now come to fruition as a highly questionable military action.
What President Trump directed and authorized was an overt act of war as a punitive response that had nothing directly to do with the immediate security of the United States. This without any consultation with the US Congress.
To be sure, Trump has profoundly changed the discussion, the tenor, and the scope of America’s future role and involvement in the Syrian conflict — this despite repeated assertion that the US strike was a one time action.
What now resounds are mostly political calls for the US to formulate a comprehensive strategy to directly address ending the 5 year civil war and the horrendous carnage it has wrought on the Syrian people.
The implications of such a formulation and undertaking are monumental and certainly not something that has been even tacitly broached, openly presented to, or justified to the American people.
2
The stated purpose of this attack was to discourage the use of chemical weapons, not to force Assad from power. The "comprehensive strategy" I believe is to continue to stay out of another nation's civil war. Both ideas make sense to me.
1
This was not a calculated distraction.
Trump made the call, himself, because he saw images on tv. He's not lying about that because he's not smart enough to determine it would be a believable lie.
This exact same reason is why voters chose him, based on their gut instinct rather than any intellect or logical reasoning about their best interests. If anything, those few critical swing states rejected the past 8 years of measured and deliberate progress in favor of bombast and chest thumping, they voted for change regardless of hope.
This is chest thumping on an international stage. The emotional satisfaction that we feel, as educated and concerned citizens, comes from the reptilian part of our brain which screams for a response to a bully no matter the purpose or result.
Trump made the call, himself, because he saw images on tv. He's not lying about that because he's not smart enough to determine it would be a believable lie.
This exact same reason is why voters chose him, based on their gut instinct rather than any intellect or logical reasoning about their best interests. If anything, those few critical swing states rejected the past 8 years of measured and deliberate progress in favor of bombast and chest thumping, they voted for change regardless of hope.
This is chest thumping on an international stage. The emotional satisfaction that we feel, as educated and concerned citizens, comes from the reptilian part of our brain which screams for a response to a bully no matter the purpose or result.
1
I have the fear that the Syrian bombing is the act of a bully and not that of a warrior. There is a serious and distinct difference between the two. The latter knows what he is doing. The former simply acts.
3
"So what did the 59 missiles accomplish?". I offer my answer to that question-nothing at all other than distract, deflect and deceive any attention to the Russia controversy. Several media outlets have reported the airfield runway is back in service-so, the question again arises, what did it accomplish? It provided red meat to his supporters and perhaps some bragging rights (oh, look, Obama didn't but Trump did, see, Obama was a failure) while failing to state why Obama didn't launch 59 cruise missiles.
This nothing but show from a reality TV show host, a wagging the dog episode that many will see as success. Sad.
This nothing but show from a reality TV show host, a wagging the dog episode that many will see as success. Sad.
4
I agree with you. We should all watch the movie Wag the Dog. Step one: buy Raytheon stock. Step 2: launch missiles that hit nothing and do nothing to advance any cause anywhere. Step 3: watch the Trump cheerleaders fall in line while Raytheon stock jumps. Where is the strategy? Where is the plan? I always liked to believe my leaders were smarter than me. That ain't happening.
1
I think we need to reassess what "we" all mean by "thought through". We all think-thru various subjects, and possibilities of choice, etc - with varying degrees of thoroughness. Some people are quick decision makers and they do very well, while others deliberate over lunch like its the most important decision of their days and week. (odd thing is for some, lunch is that critical as it either sets them up for productivity, or an afternoon of guilt and self abuse.)
We had a president who deliberated, some say too long on too many subjects, and far too often when a quick decision was most needed. Now we have Impetuous Man/IM, who from all accounts of his previous and woefully unimportant life (in the grand scheme) rarely took time to consider all that much, or often. He's impetuous in thought, spoken word, and action. He's the far to the other side pendulum swing from Obama...as well as most of his predecessors. Some were faster then others.
I doubt the WH has a solid, even semi-solidifying plan right now. They have action, which Trump thinks is enough for now...as he's likely filed this affair in the past-due box,and wants to move on. Plans seem to NOT be a "thing" with the Trump Camp, unless it involves "who's coming to dinner this weekend at Mar-a-Largonna costa too much." They appear to think these weekends are strategic. Look at me in my kitschy Man-cave, surrounded by wealthy wanna-touch-the-stars members strategy.
Plans are for those who are afraid of action.
We had a president who deliberated, some say too long on too many subjects, and far too often when a quick decision was most needed. Now we have Impetuous Man/IM, who from all accounts of his previous and woefully unimportant life (in the grand scheme) rarely took time to consider all that much, or often. He's impetuous in thought, spoken word, and action. He's the far to the other side pendulum swing from Obama...as well as most of his predecessors. Some were faster then others.
I doubt the WH has a solid, even semi-solidifying plan right now. They have action, which Trump thinks is enough for now...as he's likely filed this affair in the past-due box,and wants to move on. Plans seem to NOT be a "thing" with the Trump Camp, unless it involves "who's coming to dinner this weekend at Mar-a-Largonna costa too much." They appear to think these weekends are strategic. Look at me in my kitschy Man-cave, surrounded by wealthy wanna-touch-the-stars members strategy.
Plans are for those who are afraid of action.
1
History is repeating itself. Trump's knee jerk shooting response to Syria's gas attack is similar to Bush/Cheney ramping up militarization and authoritarian control after 911. Trump says nothing without being scripted as president. This man without normal human compassion did not suddenly develop such because of some war torn photos (Remember, Trump would have overseen the deaths of thousands in this country due to lack of health care on his watch.). This is a ploy using human lives as props. Hold him accountable!
1
This is one of those moments, like his speech before congress, where Trump surprises everyone by imitating normal behaviour. For the good or the bad, the strike was a normal action by a US president, with normal advantages (broad centrist support, possibly gaining diplomatic leverage) and normal drawbacks (lack of congressional authorization, worsened relations with Russia). Now, in the past, Trump has quickly followed up by doing something extreme and crazy. . . . like the wire-tapping allegations. . .
This whole bombing thing was theater. Why does the NYT look for deeper meaning, strategies, plans?
10
Yes, Virginia, this Syria stuff is serious. However, Trump's second military action is NOT the soul stirring, redemptive event so many are willing to extol. Trump has been looking for his "hero moment." What better way to appear sympathetic than in the defense of children? These are the same children and families that he has condemned as refugees since his ascension. He was "fine" with Assad until the Syrian leader gave him a fat pitch. Trump was "fine" working with Russia to solve world problems. Now it appears he is "distancing" himself from his favorite man crush. This strident action and distancing is FAKE. Trump and Putin are still in bed together, however, a Syrian airbase had to be sacrificed for appearances. He's deflecting the heat of the Russia election investigation to appear morally decisive. There is no coordinated strategy here. Trump just did what we all have feared. He lashed out impulsively like a child. Trump did not go through Congress or the Security Counsil to get consensus or approval. This was a rogue move with no real context (Unless you want to liken it to Jimmy Doolittle's raid on Tokyo.).
Trump is a dangerous bull in a China shop. He does not follow laws or rules! Supporting this action, executed in this way, gives him license for more swashbuckling misadventure. America is about to see whether our laws, checks, and balances mean anything, at home or abroad. Saying nothing is complicity.
Trump is a dangerous bull in a China shop. He does not follow laws or rules! Supporting this action, executed in this way, gives him license for more swashbuckling misadventure. America is about to see whether our laws, checks, and balances mean anything, at home or abroad. Saying nothing is complicity.
3
I've seen estimates as high as $94M as the cost of the 1-day Syria operation.
That, by the way, is 64% of 2016 ANNUAL appropriation for the National Endowment for the Arts, spent in ONE DAY.
Trump just spent 94 million of American taxpayer dollars. Businessman that I am, I ask, what am I getting for my money?
That, by the way, is 64% of 2016 ANNUAL appropriation for the National Endowment for the Arts, spent in ONE DAY.
Trump just spent 94 million of American taxpayer dollars. Businessman that I am, I ask, what am I getting for my money?
19
The Washington Post reports that he has had to have intelligence reports distilled to easier to understand content, graphics and photos, and apparently was swayed by disturbing photos of the gas victims. Is anyone else not comforted by this information?
The testosterone-fueled gratification of single missile strike is short lived. What happens when the next gas attack occurs, as some say has already happened today? What happens if we bomb a facility that kills Russians? What happens when Russia rebuilds the airfield? What happens when one of our increasing number of soldiers in Syria is taken captive by ISIS? What happens when we keep acting on impulse with no long-term strategy that is approved by Congress, lacks mission creep, and does not place us in another quagmire in the Middle East?
The testosterone-fueled gratification of single missile strike is short lived. What happens when the next gas attack occurs, as some say has already happened today? What happens if we bomb a facility that kills Russians? What happens when Russia rebuilds the airfield? What happens when one of our increasing number of soldiers in Syria is taken captive by ISIS? What happens when we keep acting on impulse with no long-term strategy that is approved by Congress, lacks mission creep, and does not place us in another quagmire in the Middle East?
1
Two men are seen giving their spouses a bouquet of roses. How romantic, you say. So very much the right thing to do. Until you learn that the one man honors his twenty year happy marriage to his wife, and the other tries to placate his wife after he hit her again, hoping she'll fall for it and think this time around he'll keep his promise to never do it again. Who did the right thing? Let's not fall for it. Let's not behave like the abused wife.
10
I would like to see a series in the paper depicting a running total of just how many taxpayer dollars this so-called presidency is costing us. Start with the extra secret service protection, add in the costs of not having offices staffed, the cost of all those missiles themselves and the cost of actually deploying them.....graph it all and then compare it to the budget!
We could provide a whole raft of social services, healthcare, and education...all things the tweeter has deplored...if he were not in the White House. Oh, that's right, he's not in the White House, he's in Florida...AGAIN!
We could provide a whole raft of social services, healthcare, and education...all things the tweeter has deplored...if he were not in the White House. Oh, that's right, he's not in the White House, he's in Florida...AGAIN!
8
Perhaps you are missing the overall strategy of Mr.Trump's path through life - always keep 'em guessing. He is not going to announce 'red lines' nor is he going to proclaim the date of pulling out troops and the end of the war. He wants to surprise his adversaries and keep our military strategies out of the media. When you think about it, it's really quite sane.
2
Surprise can be an effective weapon in war. Not so much in diplomacy.
Surprising, erratic behavior can get a country into deep trouble. Kim Jong-Un of North Korea is unpredictable. And that gets him increasingly painful sanction and maybe preemptive strikes.).
Moreover, Trump is not a monarch.
Don't , We the People, have a right to know what the policies and strategic objectives are? Don't we have a right to know if we are about to start a war?
Surprising, erratic behavior can get a country into deep trouble. Kim Jong-Un of North Korea is unpredictable. And that gets him increasingly painful sanction and maybe preemptive strikes.).
Moreover, Trump is not a monarch.
Don't , We the People, have a right to know what the policies and strategic objectives are? Don't we have a right to know if we are about to start a war?
4
This was the first thing Trump has done that was not totally criticized by normal people. He likes the praise so I imagine he will continue bombing places to keep the heat off of his other scandals. No thought out plan of course.
3
Last evening on the CBC radio program As it Happens spokespersons from the Syrian government and from the rebel forces in Syria were interviewed about the gas attack. The Syrian government spokesperson said the rebels faked the attack to undermine Assad. He said they have no stocks of poison gas, all stocks were destroyed. He said they have been lobbying the US for months to improve the impression of the Assad government, and they succeeded just a few days ago with Trump's statement that it was not the objective of the US to see Assad replaced. He said why after all this effort would they then immediately institute a gas attack ? He said it makes no sense it's just not something they would do after achieving this major step forward.
He said the rebels brought in the gas from Libya and planted it on the site He asked why were there children in that area, that is not an area where children would be found in those numbers, he said the children were planted there and sacrificed by the rebels as part of the faked attack staged to undermine Assad.
It was convincing. If it is true, it is a great victory for the rebels and Lybia, it has certainly worked.
On the news before the As It Happens program Justin Trudeau's remarks on the air strike were broadcast. He supported the airstrike of course, but he made it clear that he was relying on the determination made by the US that the Assad regime actually committed the chemical weapons attack.
He said the rebels brought in the gas from Libya and planted it on the site He asked why were there children in that area, that is not an area where children would be found in those numbers, he said the children were planted there and sacrificed by the rebels as part of the faked attack staged to undermine Assad.
It was convincing. If it is true, it is a great victory for the rebels and Lybia, it has certainly worked.
On the news before the As It Happens program Justin Trudeau's remarks on the air strike were broadcast. He supported the airstrike of course, but he made it clear that he was relying on the determination made by the US that the Assad regime actually committed the chemical weapons attack.
2
So the Russians were there hanging out with the rebels? That is news.
Like everyone else, I was struck by the horrendous images of children and babies struggling to breathe after the chemical attack. Watching these innocents die before one's eyes was deeply troubling. I can understand how it would provoke such a response by Donald Trump.
Anyone with a conscience, or any sense of human decency, would be sickened and appalled by the actions of Assad. The man needed to be taught a lesson: that there are consequences to one's actions.
Russia is partially to blame for Assad's actions for having reneged on its responsibility to insist that such an action by Assad would be totally unacceptable. Russia failed to fulfill its prior obligation in which it agreed to remove the chemical weapons as per a previous agreement.
The bottom line is that Assad is a tyrant of the worst order. He's apparently incapable of feeling any sense of remorse or guilt for the outrageous acts done on his behalf. He, and he alone, deserves all of the punishment that can be delivered in his direction.
Assad is a mass murderer, a man without a conscience. Good riddance to him and to all those like him.
Anyone with a conscience, or any sense of human decency, would be sickened and appalled by the actions of Assad. The man needed to be taught a lesson: that there are consequences to one's actions.
Russia is partially to blame for Assad's actions for having reneged on its responsibility to insist that such an action by Assad would be totally unacceptable. Russia failed to fulfill its prior obligation in which it agreed to remove the chemical weapons as per a previous agreement.
The bottom line is that Assad is a tyrant of the worst order. He's apparently incapable of feeling any sense of remorse or guilt for the outrageous acts done on his behalf. He, and he alone, deserves all of the punishment that can be delivered in his direction.
Assad is a mass murderer, a man without a conscience. Good riddance to him and to all those like him.
2
What's next? I wonder if we care, I am so very sorry to say. President Obama ignored his red line but Trump suggested a green light, just days ago, by signaling that Assad does not have to go. Will Congress will now rotate its Janus face from a frown for Obama to a smile for Trump and his military strike against the Syrian dictator? We are happy, generally, with the missile strike against the Syrian military airfield because chemical weapons were used. And when the next filthy barrel bombs fall shredding people to pieces, what then? Will we all just take another civic selfie, smile, at ourselves, and go on to see what happens next?
How does any of this square with our dismissive, punitive rejection of the very Syrian people who are trying to find refuge from the war there that we find so abhorrent, now?
Do we have a position that can be called moral or in any way principled? What do we stand for, what are we doing? Is there any here, here?
How does any of this square with our dismissive, punitive rejection of the very Syrian people who are trying to find refuge from the war there that we find so abhorrent, now?
Do we have a position that can be called moral or in any way principled? What do we stand for, what are we doing? Is there any here, here?
9
"Obama ignored his red line" could very well be the great lie of this decade. 1. Read exactly what Obama said about a red line. 2. Recall that congress refused to endorse military action. 3. Recall that Obama told Putin he would still strike unilaterally if Putin did not get the CWs out. 4. CWs were removed. You may have projected a desire for military strike in the situation but it was far more nuanced and focused. History will record nothing "feckless" about Obama's response, only that he did not take a bombastic victory lap.
Whether the US airstrikes in Syria remain a one-off action driven by the humanitarian instincts of Trump or a long military involvement in the region with the achievable identified goals, in the absence of domestic backing and availability of diplomatic leverage to extract compliance from the other major stakeholders, the US military action in Syria might prove to be a self-defeating exercise on the cost-benefit matrix.
Exquisite timing - the missiles were launched during the main course at Mar-a-Lago so that Trump and his guests could finish dessert before Trump had to address the nation.
Tillerson said, after the attack, that this did not represent a change in the Administration's Syrian policy. Hmmmm.... what exactly is the Administration's Syrian policy? Non-intervention with a side of showy but ineffectual missiles strikes as needed to bolster Trump's tv ratings?
Tillerson said, after the attack, that this did not represent a change in the Administration's Syrian policy. Hmmmm.... what exactly is the Administration's Syrian policy? Non-intervention with a side of showy but ineffectual missiles strikes as needed to bolster Trump's tv ratings?
2
DJT wanted and badly needed a ratings bump. He got it. Within ten days his ratings will be right back in the tank ... where they belong. Bigly.
1
Being a conspiracy theorist for entertainment purposes only, here is what makes sense to me in this $50,000,000 +/- political distraction/theater...
Trump's team is once again colluding with Russia. Reports indicate that Russia was notified well in advance of the air strike and that the Assad regime had plenty of time to empty the air base with the exception of a few 'expendables'.
Russia, in its role as Trump supporter from afar, provided the chemical munitions to Assad or was directly responsible for setting up the low fatality (again of 'expendables') since the regime allegedly no longer had any chemical weapons.
Russia's 'outrage' is merely more theater to assist Trump by calling into question the Putin/Trump coziness in regards to the ongoing investigatory narrative. We will find out by how strongly they pursue a U.N. reprimand.
Congressional Republicans are peripherally complicit in this charade since it assists them in their 0.1%er legislative juggernaut, hence their not questioning the constitutional nature of the strike.
My questions would include:
Was it the Trump team or the Russian intelligence chess masters who dreamed up this fairly well executed play?
Who on the Trump team was involved in setting the play up since this clearly wasn't the deep thinking of Trump himself?
Will there be an independent investigation into the incident?
This American sees just more money down the rat hole to prop up a deplorable administration destined to self-implosion.
Trump's team is once again colluding with Russia. Reports indicate that Russia was notified well in advance of the air strike and that the Assad regime had plenty of time to empty the air base with the exception of a few 'expendables'.
Russia, in its role as Trump supporter from afar, provided the chemical munitions to Assad or was directly responsible for setting up the low fatality (again of 'expendables') since the regime allegedly no longer had any chemical weapons.
Russia's 'outrage' is merely more theater to assist Trump by calling into question the Putin/Trump coziness in regards to the ongoing investigatory narrative. We will find out by how strongly they pursue a U.N. reprimand.
Congressional Republicans are peripherally complicit in this charade since it assists them in their 0.1%er legislative juggernaut, hence their not questioning the constitutional nature of the strike.
My questions would include:
Was it the Trump team or the Russian intelligence chess masters who dreamed up this fairly well executed play?
Who on the Trump team was involved in setting the play up since this clearly wasn't the deep thinking of Trump himself?
Will there be an independent investigation into the incident?
This American sees just more money down the rat hole to prop up a deplorable administration destined to self-implosion.
1
Certainly worth pursuing this idea but who knows how. Small correction. At $1.5mm each more or less for the Tomahawks, that's $90mm other direct and indirect costs. Was it a $200mm mission?
1
The Syrian situation has gone on for several years and Trump has consistently shown no interest in the matter. He urged President Obama to stay out and described it as not our problem. Then, his presidency has been in the tank since its inception and he was in need of some positive reinforcement. Being ever the opportunist, he saw a chance to picture himself as the avenger of dead children so he ordered a strike against the Syrians. He didn't care before and he doesn't care now. The strike was a ploy to enhance his image and feed his ego.
2
Strategy? This incompetent masquerading as our president has an attention span of about 2 minutes and has no appetite for strategy or plans or doctrines. He is a hip shooter who will do anything that gets him in the spotlight with his supporters. Thank goodness for Dunford, Mattis, Kelly and McMasters who are the most competent leaders in the government and will make rational decisions when it comes to security and defense. Clinton ran strikes in Bosnia for 90 days and brought the warring parties to the table. Later the *International Court convicted the leaders of the Serbian massacres. Keep SOC folks in, keep regular troops out of Syria, garner support from other Middle East countries and provide logistic support, drones, and intelligence, and upgrade the weapons for the rebels.
1
It seems like a big bluster move. The air strips are fine, aircraft are taking off frim it, no chemical weapons were destroyed, it did nothing to help the Syrian people or affect the Assad regime. It sounds like it made Trump feel better about himself; isn't that what motivates him anyway!
"Studies show that one-off military strikes achieve little." While this one might very well achieve little, it is naive to suggest--given the complexities of the world and the limitations of our capacities--that the lack of efficacy of one-off strikes has been "proven." (Perhaps: "Studies suggest that past one-off military strikes have achieved little"?) Come on, NYT. You're better than that--and you have a responsibility to be better than that.
1
Genocide is Genocide, you cannot be Intellectual about it if you have an ounce of humanity. Trump did what he had to do, impulsive or otherwise doesn't matter. Russian Government is not known for civilized behavior, history books will tell you that. Syria is Obama Rwanda
1
You want to end the suffering of the Syrian people, you end the war. Trump wanted to do that but this False Flag gas attack fabricated by the CIA put an end to that, peace is not the American way. You end the war brought on by the U.S. via Saudi Arabia, Quatar, Turkey by ending the funding and weapons sales that end up with El Nusra, Isis and Al Queada.
The U.S. once again has had no moral or legal justification to drop bombs on Syria only the intention of ousting Assad and running a natural gas pipeline from the Gulf States through Syria into Turkey for export to the EU. All to undercut Russian natural gas sales. If its in the Middle East its always about fossil fuels. Why else would we be in Syria, certainly not for humanitarian purposes? Bombing hospitals and civilians is the exact opposite, its state sponsored terror, and nobody is better than the US military and CIA at that.
The U.S. once again has had no moral or legal justification to drop bombs on Syria only the intention of ousting Assad and running a natural gas pipeline from the Gulf States through Syria into Turkey for export to the EU. All to undercut Russian natural gas sales. If its in the Middle East its always about fossil fuels. Why else would we be in Syria, certainly not for humanitarian purposes? Bombing hospitals and civilians is the exact opposite, its state sponsored terror, and nobody is better than the US military and CIA at that.
That pipeline plan is working real well. Just like the alleged one Bush and Company wanted to run thru Afghanistan. Lol.
While events and US action reactions to same in the ME are often about fossil fuels, the miasma that is Syria is not one of them.
While events and US action reactions to same in the ME are often about fossil fuels, the miasma that is Syria is not one of them.
How to square, in one's mind, the right move made by the wrong guy?
2
Welcome to the new Cold War 3.0. Hosted by the same old characters, just this time a few of them are better armed. Ratcheted up with the newest battlefield - the 'Net. More important then its given credit by most of the populations.
I see no leadership in a man who acts impetuously and unilaterally on his emotional response to a single event. I do, however, see a man who longs for approval and basks in praise, both of which have come his way from quite a few individuals, states, and institutions after this bombing.
Out the window with America First. Here come the bombs!
If we thought it was bad up to now, we have not seen the worst of it, not by a long shot.
Out the window with America First. Here come the bombs!
If we thought it was bad up to now, we have not seen the worst of it, not by a long shot.
89
When does the media stop acting like cheerleaders when this country shoots missiles into a troubled part of the world. It is scary enough having an incompetent President playing war games, without the media doing happy dance about how Presidential it is to plunge us deeper into the muck of war. This administration disdains Syrians refugees and has offered to cut back on humanitiran aid , but will lob a few missiles into an air base with no clue on what to do next.
1
I guess they are little overwhelmed. My understanding is that they are eleven wars going on down there.
What the main conundrum is to me and inexplicable is how Trump could pass a pro-pesticide bill authorizing the use of chlorpyrifos (a pesticide which is known to cause brain-damage in children) at home in the US, while condemning the use of chemical weaponry by Assad on HIS own people. Is it only the fact that one leader's poison is an acute toxin, while the other is 'merely' damaging?
12
Hooray for Trump! Those pictures of dying children in Syria were enough to make any human cry and respond with anger, revenge and a desire to end the killing.
However, for a President who thrives on and seeks adulation, unbridled praise and rising poll numbers will only lead to more aggressive warlike behavior.
However, for a President who thrives on and seeks adulation, unbridled praise and rising poll numbers will only lead to more aggressive warlike behavior.
1
Gee. Trump warns Putin of his air strike on Syria without even consulting his own congress? This is a bit like Nunes consulting Trump about newly-acquired intelligence without discussing the intelligence with his own committee first. There are no priorities in this administration beyond impetuousness and sensationalism and smokescreening. Can't really consider Trump/Russia ties while we are at war, can we? And, hey, Putin himself disapproved, so no way there's a Putin/Trump tie, right? This is beginning to read like a cheap espionage novel! Is this what passes for governance now?
1
Trump is getting much credit, again, for being presidential.
What he did was not presidential. It came from no different a place than my instinct to give money to Doctors Without Borders because I was moved by the Syrian pictures on TV.
He said 'I have changed my mind, 'I've been watching it and seeing it', 'my attitude towards Syria has changed', it crossed a lot of lines for me'. People who were involved in his decision said it was a gut reaction.
The president of the United States makes decisions for the US, our country, not because of something that moves him on TV. Right or wrong, what he approved will have long standing consequences that he needed to consider.
Most conflict doesn't make it to TV. How will he make a decision then. Perhaps he will see men being shot in the street or children in a school and decide the horror is too much and support gun control legislation.
The United States needs a president who thinks for the country, not for himself. He had an airfield bombed in Syria like he was writing a check to Doctors Without Borders.
Obama may have crossed a red line but he decided that it was far more rational to work with the Russians on removing chemical weapons from Syria than escalating the US into the Syrian civil war with Putin in the wings waiting to clean up what was left of the country. The fact was that that agreement did stop Assad. Trump's personal statement I am not president of the world gave him license to believe the deal was off.
What he did was not presidential. It came from no different a place than my instinct to give money to Doctors Without Borders because I was moved by the Syrian pictures on TV.
He said 'I have changed my mind, 'I've been watching it and seeing it', 'my attitude towards Syria has changed', it crossed a lot of lines for me'. People who were involved in his decision said it was a gut reaction.
The president of the United States makes decisions for the US, our country, not because of something that moves him on TV. Right or wrong, what he approved will have long standing consequences that he needed to consider.
Most conflict doesn't make it to TV. How will he make a decision then. Perhaps he will see men being shot in the street or children in a school and decide the horror is too much and support gun control legislation.
The United States needs a president who thinks for the country, not for himself. He had an airfield bombed in Syria like he was writing a check to Doctors Without Borders.
Obama may have crossed a red line but he decided that it was far more rational to work with the Russians on removing chemical weapons from Syria than escalating the US into the Syrian civil war with Putin in the wings waiting to clean up what was left of the country. The fact was that that agreement did stop Assad. Trump's personal statement I am not president of the world gave him license to believe the deal was off.
3
The missile strike, I'm afraid to ponder, is a literal smoke screen for Trump and the utter disarray of his administration.
3
"It was hard not to feel some sense of emotional satisfaction, and justice done"
I feel no - ZERO - emotional satisfaction about Donald Trump's $30million/minute caprice. This, to me, must be termed "Operation: What Collusion?" I see no other justification for the senseless expenditure of arms....to what purpose?
Russia (and, therefore, Syria) were warned about this strike. What, exactly, was the point if not to distract the American public from the noose tightening around Trump's neck?
$30million....why, that's ten weekends at Mar-a-Lago! A mere bagatelle.
NOT my president
I feel no - ZERO - emotional satisfaction about Donald Trump's $30million/minute caprice. This, to me, must be termed "Operation: What Collusion?" I see no other justification for the senseless expenditure of arms....to what purpose?
Russia (and, therefore, Syria) were warned about this strike. What, exactly, was the point if not to distract the American public from the noose tightening around Trump's neck?
$30million....why, that's ten weekends at Mar-a-Lago! A mere bagatelle.
NOT my president
1
Lucky for us: that General Mattis and McMasters and Kelly....will NOT tolerate
any of Trump's clownish nonsense...
We are in good hands, folks....
Trump should worry only about being dismissed because he nd his camp
have colluded to win the Presidential election...
and
I hope Trump is dismissed...we do not need amateurs in the Oval Office.
any of Trump's clownish nonsense...
We are in good hands, folks....
Trump should worry only about being dismissed because he nd his camp
have colluded to win the Presidential election...
and
I hope Trump is dismissed...we do not need amateurs in the Oval Office.
2
About 20 days to go of the first 100 days. This was like the goose that laid the golden egg for the Trump administration. Trump's approval rate will now start to climb rather than consistently fall for a change. However its my belief that its most likely to be a sugar hit unless North Korea fires another test missile.
1
This is not complicated to figure out. Trump will do the opposite of Obama. Almost everything he's done so far is the reverse of Obama. He and the GOP have nothing but vicious hatred toward the man. They will do absolutely anything to delete Obama from history. Even start a world war. And yes, use nuclear weapons.
1
My guess isNorth Korea will be next. Russia Syria, Yemen, Iran,and North Korea, made considerable headway, (un deterred), while Obama was in office. He tried but diplomacy with our enemies unfortunately remains of no use. Our enemies understand power, period.
2
This guy does nothing for anyone but himself. Trump's claim that all of a sudden he's capable of caring about a few foreigners, who he otherwise despises just because they were gassed, stinks of insincerity. Trump's decision to call for air strikes is just a ploy to divert attention from the Russian investigation into their involvement in his election and Trump's investments in Russia.
2
This is proof of how dangerous this man is. An impulse whether twitter first thing in the morning, or an airstrike before bed is hardly rational. What if he decides to hit North Korea some morning and launches a new regional conflict involving the Chinese? The stock market sheds ten thousand points because South Korea is in flames and there is suddenly no Chinese assembled iPhones or trade of any kind. Knee jerk not at all calculated. Sending a message to our enemies to arm up. And fast.
1
Since this administration came into power the only purpose for any of them to step in front of a camera is to make themselves look good. "The best, the biggest, never in the history of mankind has ..." The problem is that now, when something like Syria occurs, I can't trust any of them to tell me the truth. I look to responses from allies and antagonists, then try to figure out the real meaning myself. This president has no credibility. He never tells the truth about anything. This was a scary situation before, now it's much worse.
1
If press reports are correct, Trump acted against the advice of Bannon and any time he ignores Bannon he is doing better, in my opinion. Bannon, Miller and the rest of the alt-right bomb throwers should be thrown out of the White House if Trump wants his approval ratings to climb. And he should let the Mercers know they too are no longer welcome. Then maybe the saner heads among his advisers will dissuade him from building that stupid wall, rolling back environmental protections and victimizing immigrants.
2
How odd that someone who has all sorts of advisers and who is briefed in detail on policy matters is still relying on media outlets, in this case television reports of the atrocity in Syria, to provide the impetus for whatever actions he takes. Let's just hope Trump never watches that movie that used marionette puppets to portray covert agents pitted against a North Korean dictator.
1
While currently staying in Copenhagen, we just returned from a fantastic tour, of this remarkably civilized city.
In that regard, I felt obligated to share, what our guide told us about Trump's truely-courageous Skud Missile, sneak attack on Syria.
As we were passing the largest opera house in the world, that cost $500,000,000 to build (donated by Danish philanthropists) he noted that that's what President Trump, just spent, on behalf of the people of the USA's people, for this Skud missle assault.
And he hoped that the lone missile, thatmissed its target, didn't hit a maternity hospital -- because Trump would have to deny it.
I told him (our tour guide) that it was good that Trump hadn't found out, that North Korea, had used poison gas against one of its minority groups, otherwise "The Last World War might have easily just begun.
But, it's reasonable to conjure, that Trump traded the opportunity to bomb Iran, in exchange for Putin's permanent control of Crimea.
So if Putin, only reacts, by badmouthing Putin, it's a good bet, that's what happened.
Nonetheless, Trump's protracted references, to horribly slaughtered dead babies, was "milked to the "last drop of milk" possible, which is clearly the mark of a world-class demagogue.
After-all, does anyone know any better technique to garner the support of the public, than painting images of brutally burned little babies, while clutched in the arms of their close to being dead, moms?
How many think Putin was in on it?
In that regard, I felt obligated to share, what our guide told us about Trump's truely-courageous Skud Missile, sneak attack on Syria.
As we were passing the largest opera house in the world, that cost $500,000,000 to build (donated by Danish philanthropists) he noted that that's what President Trump, just spent, on behalf of the people of the USA's people, for this Skud missle assault.
And he hoped that the lone missile, thatmissed its target, didn't hit a maternity hospital -- because Trump would have to deny it.
I told him (our tour guide) that it was good that Trump hadn't found out, that North Korea, had used poison gas against one of its minority groups, otherwise "The Last World War might have easily just begun.
But, it's reasonable to conjure, that Trump traded the opportunity to bomb Iran, in exchange for Putin's permanent control of Crimea.
So if Putin, only reacts, by badmouthing Putin, it's a good bet, that's what happened.
Nonetheless, Trump's protracted references, to horribly slaughtered dead babies, was "milked to the "last drop of milk" possible, which is clearly the mark of a world-class demagogue.
After-all, does anyone know any better technique to garner the support of the public, than painting images of brutally burned little babies, while clutched in the arms of their close to being dead, moms?
How many think Putin was in on it?
I look on with baited breath on what going to happen next.
1
Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq . . .
Millions dead, displaced, and lives ruined.
So NYT's Editorial Board--Did you find that "emotionally satisfying" also?
Iraq WMD--Syria's chemical weapons.
What could possibly go wrong and who could ever question that Syria initiated the attack.
Millions dead, displaced, and lives ruined.
So NYT's Editorial Board--Did you find that "emotionally satisfying" also?
Iraq WMD--Syria's chemical weapons.
What could possibly go wrong and who could ever question that Syria initiated the attack.
6
You break it, you own it. Obama is criticized for standing back and allowing events to unfold, forcing locals to confront the issues. Now we own it again. We own the mess. Trump admitted as much. We own the drought that triggered the migrations that started the unrest and the civil war, opening the way for ISIS. As much as anything else, Trump has declared Congress and the Constitution to be nuisances to be ignored so long as he has a speech-writer who can coin cute phrases. And we are once more the chief recruiters for ISIS.
2
My recommendation: go to Youtube.com and search for 'Charlie and his Orchestra'. The title is 'Let's go bombing'.
It's Joseph Goebbel's wartime Propaganda Band with really excellent jazz music.
It's Joseph Goebbel's wartime Propaganda Band with really excellent jazz music.
1
Once again the "feckless Obama" trope. I challenge anyone to show where Obama threatened "military action" over a red line. Wise leaders retain maximum flexibility and he did just that. He methodically explored all possible responses, asking for participation from the (GOP-dominated) congress and getting no support. Still retaining the unilateral military option he told Putin that if the chems were not removed he would bring the hammer down on his own, and Putin, never one to do a "favor", acceded. This is what stable, thoughtful leadership looks like. Sadly, Americans measure it by bombast and victory laps. Obama was a pearl before swine, and now we have someone suited to the latter. Fie!
2
Whats next? Well, we are bound to see more widespread use of chemical agents by ISIL forces because its such a great tool against Assad. Then we get an invasion, one or the other way. Followed by a very likly revision of US RU relation to cold war levels.
If you got a hidden ace card, this would be the time to play it.
If you got a hidden ace card, this would be the time to play it.
1
If symbolism trumps policy, then this was a wise decision. Domestically, it was a winner for a stumbling Administration. Globally, much depends upon whether a depleted State Department can successfully mollify our allies that the President is not trigger happy, while also putting our foes on notice that America will not tolerate mindless, cruel, evil.
For everyone, is world safer with Trump at the helm of the most powerful nation on the planet? Or more succinctly: can he be trusted to be strong but also careful?
For everyone, is world safer with Trump at the helm of the most powerful nation on the planet? Or more succinctly: can he be trusted to be strong but also careful?
1
Abductive theory:
TRUMP and Putin are worried about investigations concerning the TRUMP campaign coordination with Putin.
Chemical attack in Syria is convenient outrage.
TRUMP calls Putin and they work out a win-win.
TRUMP strikes Syria (with a heads-up to Russia) making him seem like his own man, and not Putin's puppet. Syria gets punished for being awful, which is in Putin's interest as well.
American public will cheer, because they always do when we blow stuff up.
TRUMP and Putin are worried about investigations concerning the TRUMP campaign coordination with Putin.
Chemical attack in Syria is convenient outrage.
TRUMP calls Putin and they work out a win-win.
TRUMP strikes Syria (with a heads-up to Russia) making him seem like his own man, and not Putin's puppet. Syria gets punished for being awful, which is in Putin's interest as well.
American public will cheer, because they always do when we blow stuff up.
2
"there is no evidence that Mr Trump has thought through the implications..."
Why is this a surprise? Go back and read your own article of the interview with Mr Trump published a few days ago. Incoherent rambling, unable to form a sentence, unable to focus on one thought, easily distracted. Mr Trump isn't running the show, and it should be no surprise to anyone. What happens next depends on who made the decision to do this. Trump is still counting his electoral votes and thinking about the crowd size at his rallies.
Why is this a surprise? Go back and read your own article of the interview with Mr Trump published a few days ago. Incoherent rambling, unable to form a sentence, unable to focus on one thought, easily distracted. Mr Trump isn't running the show, and it should be no surprise to anyone. What happens next depends on who made the decision to do this. Trump is still counting his electoral votes and thinking about the crowd size at his rallies.
7
Our President has the same goal he has always had: get his ratings to go up. The Apprentice in Chief acts tactically, not strategically.
1
The media must not be manipulated again. Again! The use of poison gas is clearly a red line, but questions must be asked about this photo op attack as strategy. Was the air strike effective as a military choice, or was it an effective media moment? Does this remind one of the election, all that free Trump advertising, slander about HRC, and James Comey? Sigh! Russian bravado is forever suspect. Earth to Trump: Syria is like health care, really complicated. Not real estate development! The political upheaval in the Middle East started with another poorly thought out plan over 15 years ago. Too many have paid the ultimate price for a knee jerk response. It is also a great hypocrisy for Trump to cry over God's children while undoing environmental regulations here in the United States, actions which will absolutely sicken infants and young children: lead, asbestos, gas mileage, air quality, you name it. Will Syria distract the media from other real news? Does Citizens United increase domestic and foreign meddling in our nation, which, in turn, affects Syrian policy? Possible? So I would ask, yes, what is next for Syria. I would also ask if the media is just another pawn, and if this is just another game, like the election.
4
Weak leaders like Trump turn to foreign adventures. This was a deliberate attempt to distract from Russian investigations.
The message to Syria and Russia is it is OK to shoot, dismember and blow up Syrian kids and people just don't gas them.
The message to Syria and Russia is it is OK to shoot, dismember and blow up Syrian kids and people just don't gas them.
3
The NYTs says "Studies show that one-off military strikes achieve little." I suspect Secretary of Defense Mattis and other top military advisors know this.
Hillary Clinton had called for airstrikes on Syrian airfields, just prior to the attack. Many Democrats had been disappointed with President Obama's passive stance relative to Assad. Obama's administration had action plans--certainly available to Trump's skilled military advisors--that had been tabled. The Trump administration was not starting from scratch.
Very few of us knows what happens next and tensions will remain high for now. That does not mean this situation and its aftermath will not be discussed in depth in the public press. It is not easy to see this deteriorating into another paralyzing partisan squabble. You can see it on these boards.
Congressional reluctance to take a vote on these sorts of actions should be no surprise: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/all-the-previous-de... . That is more the norm.
For the record, I am a Democrat who voted for Hillary Clinton. I am not fond of President Trump's public behaviors and performances on most levels. I am, however, very suspicious of comments beginning with "the truth is" or some equivalent thereof. I have little doubt that the public's emotions will be whipsawed over the Syrian issue--why should things be different now?
Hillary Clinton had called for airstrikes on Syrian airfields, just prior to the attack. Many Democrats had been disappointed with President Obama's passive stance relative to Assad. Obama's administration had action plans--certainly available to Trump's skilled military advisors--that had been tabled. The Trump administration was not starting from scratch.
Very few of us knows what happens next and tensions will remain high for now. That does not mean this situation and its aftermath will not be discussed in depth in the public press. It is not easy to see this deteriorating into another paralyzing partisan squabble. You can see it on these boards.
Congressional reluctance to take a vote on these sorts of actions should be no surprise: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/all-the-previous-de... . That is more the norm.
For the record, I am a Democrat who voted for Hillary Clinton. I am not fond of President Trump's public behaviors and performances on most levels. I am, however, very suspicious of comments beginning with "the truth is" or some equivalent thereof. I have little doubt that the public's emotions will be whipsawed over the Syrian issue--why should things be different now?
Team Trump is smart.
All mention of investigations into the Trump/Russia campaign hacking has completely disappeared from the main pages of the NY Times website.
The Editorial Board and its band of brilliant reporters has swallowed the bait whole.
In a week or two when the public has bored of the Syria bombing Team Trump will come up with some new distraction. Maybe another Syria bombing, or something else entirely.
Justice will not be served.
All mention of investigations into the Trump/Russia campaign hacking has completely disappeared from the main pages of the NY Times website.
The Editorial Board and its band of brilliant reporters has swallowed the bait whole.
In a week or two when the public has bored of the Syria bombing Team Trump will come up with some new distraction. Maybe another Syria bombing, or something else entirely.
Justice will not be served.
5
Having made my comment, I see a number of other readers made similar.
I'm pleased to see that the Times readership is less easily distracted than our "opinion makers".
I'm pleased to see that the Times readership is less easily distracted than our "opinion makers".
1
Trump's views are so plastic and elastic, he stretches and distorts events. The logic of his hidden intent introduces a new discussion of existentialism in American thought.
Trump's actions and words, his situations and claims test the meaning and construction of reality. In this case, is it an attack if the planes/helicopters of the bombed base are up and flying missions the next day, after the heralded “attack”? Reality asks, was this attack a staged event? It offers no reports of destroying chemical weapons used against civilians that precipitated its order; only taking out an old Russian-made radar and few non-vital buildings.
Were 59 tomahawks creating no causalities, their firing forewarned to Russia (but not to the Chinese President), explosive rounds that didn't shut the base down for a single day, any more than Trump's usual eagerness to politicize grief—this time through a confluence of circumstances and his bluster and fury in the Commander-in-Chief role?
The attack may be the greatest photo-op in modern military history, igniting global applause for it timed, calculated appearance (the Navy performed well). Maybe it will make country forget the children, including a 8 year-old American, Trump's SEAL team order raid killed only weeks ago in a Yemeni village.
The new Trump existentialism denies any details and is shorn of memory and proportional comparisons; tries to turn threats into truth, abandoning deep evaluation for immediate appearances! Look! See!
Trump's actions and words, his situations and claims test the meaning and construction of reality. In this case, is it an attack if the planes/helicopters of the bombed base are up and flying missions the next day, after the heralded “attack”? Reality asks, was this attack a staged event? It offers no reports of destroying chemical weapons used against civilians that precipitated its order; only taking out an old Russian-made radar and few non-vital buildings.
Were 59 tomahawks creating no causalities, their firing forewarned to Russia (but not to the Chinese President), explosive rounds that didn't shut the base down for a single day, any more than Trump's usual eagerness to politicize grief—this time through a confluence of circumstances and his bluster and fury in the Commander-in-Chief role?
The attack may be the greatest photo-op in modern military history, igniting global applause for it timed, calculated appearance (the Navy performed well). Maybe it will make country forget the children, including a 8 year-old American, Trump's SEAL team order raid killed only weeks ago in a Yemeni village.
The new Trump existentialism denies any details and is shorn of memory and proportional comparisons; tries to turn threats into truth, abandoning deep evaluation for immediate appearances! Look! See!
1
The average cost of an Air Strike is 2.5 million dollars. How many Syrian refuges could we have brought it? https://www.quora.com/How-much-does-one-airstrike-cost
4
Tomahawk cruise missiles cost about $1,000,000 each. Trump's airstrike cost well over $60 million dollars when you factor in deployment costs. However the US military does not plan on replacing them.
1
The use of swift and decisive force by this President puts the world on notice that America once again has a commander in chief after 8 years of timidity and broken promises that emboldened tyrants and dictators alike. Stay tuned.
3
From all we have seen of Trump's inability to empathize with anyone but himself, I think it is unlikely that the horror of the chemical attacks were the reason for the airstrike on Syria. In the great tradition of all leaders, Trump exploited the situation to divert attention from his poor ratings and the Russia-U.S. election scandal. Why the press and the Western world is praising him is beyond my ability to comprehend. The horrors of Syria are not new...nor is our visual exposure to what bombings have done to Syria's people, including its babies. But I do agree that the likelihood that the Trump administration has thought things through is essentially zero.
4
I would be willing to give the President and his advisers the benefit of the doubt if I thought we had a plan that would work in Syria. But this missile strike came only days after Tillerson et al. strongly suggested that Assad was a problem for the Syrian people to solve. This latest gas attack, assuming it was ordered by Assad, was not the first. Indeed, people like Mitch McConnell opposed Obama's request for Congressional approval to do the same darn thing back in 2013. Now he's singing a different tune because there's a Republican in the White House? Hard not to see this as an effort to "change the optics" on Trump's presidency.
1
At this point it should be clear to everyone that Trump only responds to what he sees on TV. He spends late hours in the White House watching FOX and CNN, always looking for glorification from a compliant media. Now that he's made a telegenic BOOM BOOM, they're all falling right into line.
There is no plan for "what's next" in Syria, just like there hasn't been a plan for "what's next" concerning Trump's pretending to be "president." As we've seen with the recent fiasco trying to repeal the ACA, these people simply have no plan for anything.
There is no plan for "what's next" in Syria, just like there hasn't been a plan for "what's next" concerning Trump's pretending to be "president." As we've seen with the recent fiasco trying to repeal the ACA, these people simply have no plan for anything.
3
Dear NYT
Life does not give us The Big Plan, and leaders from Germany's Von Moltke WW1 and Eisenhower WW2 said - no plan survives contact with the enemy or with reality
So go ask for the Big Plan
Life does not give us The Big Plan, and leaders from Germany's Von Moltke WW1 and Eisenhower WW2 said - no plan survives contact with the enemy or with reality
So go ask for the Big Plan
Did They Warn The Russians and Then Did The Russians Warn Syria? Did we just waste 500.000$ x 50 = 25Million Dollars because we have no diplomats?
Did Russia Drone Bomb The Hospital Where The Chemical Victims Were Being Treated?
Did Russia Drone Bomb The Hospital Where The Chemical Victims Were Being Treated?
3
Calm down, folks. There are plenty of reasons to criticize Trump if that is what you want to do, an embarrassment of riches, in fact But the fact is that in carrying out this airstrike, he did something right. And it was a measured response that by itself should not lead us into a quagmire. By the simple test of whether it was better to do this or not to do this, he did the right thing. No, it doesn't solve the Syria problem, and yes, Rex Tillerson's comments of last week about leaving the fate of Syria to its people may have emboldened Assad, but please, let's give credit where it is due. It may well be that this airstrike will deter Assad from further chemical weapons use, hardly a solution to Syria's mess, but a good result all the same.
3
The effects of the attack on Al Shayrat are not yet clear. The attack is significant only to the extent that it hampers Assad's ability to provide air support for ground operations. Maybe we have an inept attack with nothing to show for the expenditure of 59 valuable Tomahawk missiles.
2
The only thing that Trump has accomplished with his strike on the Syrian Airfield is to take Russian gate off the front pages. Assad, Russia, Iran have not been affected, & Assad & Russia will continue to murder the enemies of Assad.
If anything, warning Russia of the impending missile strike, confirms that Trump & Putin are still kissing cousins, no matter what Putin says.
If anything, warning Russia of the impending missile strike, confirms that Trump & Putin are still kissing cousins, no matter what Putin says.
6
"What next"?
Why, the confirmation of Mr. Gorsuch, that's "what's next".
What better way to divert EVERYONE's attention than attacking a vile, gas dropping, evil dictator with cruise missiles while an equally vile act was done in the Senate;
a. Filibuster
b. Get rid of it
c. Ta-Da, Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch at your service!
Just wonderful smoke and mirrors! Shed a few tears over innocent lives lost (Like the 400,000 dead Syrians was not enough in their civil war), zip out a few cruise missiles (After warning the Russians/Syrians that the attack was coming) and while people are either happy/sad that "Twitler" did this, slide the Supreme Court nomination right through!
Forget that this guy is bemoaning dead babies; his "ban" won't even let the LIVING Syrian babies come here for refuge!
But the altright got it's "Justice"!
Why, the confirmation of Mr. Gorsuch, that's "what's next".
What better way to divert EVERYONE's attention than attacking a vile, gas dropping, evil dictator with cruise missiles while an equally vile act was done in the Senate;
a. Filibuster
b. Get rid of it
c. Ta-Da, Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch at your service!
Just wonderful smoke and mirrors! Shed a few tears over innocent lives lost (Like the 400,000 dead Syrians was not enough in their civil war), zip out a few cruise missiles (After warning the Russians/Syrians that the attack was coming) and while people are either happy/sad that "Twitler" did this, slide the Supreme Court nomination right through!
Forget that this guy is bemoaning dead babies; his "ban" won't even let the LIVING Syrian babies come here for refuge!
But the altright got it's "Justice"!
1
A Gulf of Toxin incident?
I'd like to think that this was just an impulsive act that doesn't necessarily imply any recurrence of Trump's itchy trigger-finger.
If not that, I'd like to think that it is consistent with his American First statements in that it means that, unlike Bush 43 after 9/11, he would prefer to just blow up Kabul without a full-fledged invasion of the country.
I'd also like to think that Congress will remind him very quickly that he had absolutely no constitutional reason or any authorization to do this thing. Apparently, no one has a clue, maybe not even Trump.
If not that, I'd like to think that it is consistent with his American First statements in that it means that, unlike Bush 43 after 9/11, he would prefer to just blow up Kabul without a full-fledged invasion of the country.
I'd also like to think that Congress will remind him very quickly that he had absolutely no constitutional reason or any authorization to do this thing. Apparently, no one has a clue, maybe not even Trump.
1
I have strong anti-war convictions, and I'm past any doubt that Trump lacks any substantive knowledge or clear thinking about international affairs - or anything else. Yet I find that I approve of this action. It was limited in scope and it was aimed not to kill human beings, but simply to destroy the weaponry and facilities they used to commit an unspeakable atrocity against defenseless people.
We do not want to involve ourselves in yet another war, and we certainly want no trouble with Russia. But as one of the few entities in the world with the power to have any say in the matter, is standing by and doing nothing not in itself an action with profound ethical and practical implications? I have observed that there is only one way to deal with bullies, and that is to stand up to them and push back, and I think that applies to the Assad regime and Russia. If we do nothing, they will be emboldened to commit further crimes. We do not need to say to them, "We will destroy you," or overthrow them, or escalate into further warfare. We just need to say No, this use of chemical weapons we will not stand for. I think that is what we did. Yes the bullies will complain, but I don't think they want to mess with us any more than we do with them, and they may well decide the chemical weapons aren't worth losing another airport full of planes.
I only wonder who was the wise voice who advised the administration to take this, and only this action.
We do not want to involve ourselves in yet another war, and we certainly want no trouble with Russia. But as one of the few entities in the world with the power to have any say in the matter, is standing by and doing nothing not in itself an action with profound ethical and practical implications? I have observed that there is only one way to deal with bullies, and that is to stand up to them and push back, and I think that applies to the Assad regime and Russia. If we do nothing, they will be emboldened to commit further crimes. We do not need to say to them, "We will destroy you," or overthrow them, or escalate into further warfare. We just need to say No, this use of chemical weapons we will not stand for. I think that is what we did. Yes the bullies will complain, but I don't think they want to mess with us any more than we do with them, and they may well decide the chemical weapons aren't worth losing another airport full of planes.
I only wonder who was the wise voice who advised the administration to take this, and only this action.
1
As usual the Congress is missing in action. A war powers vote is needed if Mr. trump and his generals are to proceed with more attacks. Congressional inaction discredits the constitutional obligation regarding war. The country, so badly divided needs a thoughtful discussion from its elected leaders if thet will asked to support a global war or wars. A similar discussion with all of our allies is needed or they, like Congress, will hold back as usual. Unsupported wars do not have a very positive history.
The goal remans the same:
Tillerson will go to Moscow.
The Russians will back off Syria in some way.
Tillerson will promise to lift the sanctions.
Exxon Mobil can then drill in Russia.
Tillerson will go back to Exxon Mobil because being Secretary of State was never his purpose.
Trump, Putin, Exxon Mobil, and Tillerson will make out like bandits - in that order.
What we may never know: How much of the chemical weapon attack on innocent people was all part of Trump's and Putin's plan to achieve the drilling goal.
Tillerson will go to Moscow.
The Russians will back off Syria in some way.
Tillerson will promise to lift the sanctions.
Exxon Mobil can then drill in Russia.
Tillerson will go back to Exxon Mobil because being Secretary of State was never his purpose.
Trump, Putin, Exxon Mobil, and Tillerson will make out like bandits - in that order.
What we may never know: How much of the chemical weapon attack on innocent people was all part of Trump's and Putin's plan to achieve the drilling goal.
5
A stopped clock is correct twice a day. Trump, who is otherwise incompetent, unprincipled, and bumbling in his foreign policy debut, was right to order the cruise missile attacks following Assad's use of chemical weapons. Obama was deadly wrong in permitting Syrian use of chemical weapons to go unpunished, including by wimping out by requesting prior congressional authorization. Contrary to the Times editorial, as this week's events demonstrated, there was nothing "smart" about the Russian-Syrian deal to remove chemical weapons and thereby avert US air strikes. Setting a redline about use of chemical weapons and allowing it to be crossed without consequences was the gravest foreign policy error of the Obama administration.
"Was it legal? Was it an impetuous, isolated response unrelated to a larger strategy for resolving the complex dilemma of Syria, a nation tormented not just by civil war but also by the fight against the Islamic State?"
Lets go back a few years.
Invasion of Iraq, destabilization of Libya and Syria - Legal?
Domino effect, Tunisia, Libya and Egypt.
What strategy? The only one who has a clear strategy is Putin.
The Islamic State thrived during the occupation of Iraq, turning a fight against an occupying force into a war of religion.
Maybe it is time to forget these noble ideas of bringing democracy to people by force. By the time Syria is free of Assad, it will be a landscape devoid of life. Was the loss of human life worth it? Ask the refugees, they will tell you.
Lets go back a few years.
Invasion of Iraq, destabilization of Libya and Syria - Legal?
Domino effect, Tunisia, Libya and Egypt.
What strategy? The only one who has a clear strategy is Putin.
The Islamic State thrived during the occupation of Iraq, turning a fight against an occupying force into a war of religion.
Maybe it is time to forget these noble ideas of bringing democracy to people by force. By the time Syria is free of Assad, it will be a landscape devoid of life. Was the loss of human life worth it? Ask the refugees, they will tell you.
1
Ok. I'll go ahead and say what I bet a number of you are thinking, but think it's just too far out to be true. The only difference is that I believe there is nothing too far out for this President and his band of not so merry men.
I believe that this attack could have been cooked up between Trump and the Russians - at least done with their knowledge and tacit approval - the sound and fury of their public response if not orchestrated, at least expected.
For very little loss by Assad and/or Russia, minimal damage to one part of one airport - planes are flying from there already already - Trump gets off the hot seat, gets to look Presidential, humane, takes a decisive step no one can really dispute, sticks it to Obama - and the response of Assad/Putin is already known so there's little risk - the best kind of "deal" to Trump. In return? Putin gets reassurance that later, after he has had the chance to flex his international muscles and things calm down, after America's short memory fades, he will be rewarded appropriately in the name of "finding common ground" and "improving our relations".
How would such a deal be brokered and transmitted? There are too many conduits - direct and shadow - from the Trump administration to the Kremlin to count.
Paranoia? Perhaps. But with Trump and his cronies, your wildest imagination is never half enough to match what comes to light every day.
I believe that this attack could have been cooked up between Trump and the Russians - at least done with their knowledge and tacit approval - the sound and fury of their public response if not orchestrated, at least expected.
For very little loss by Assad and/or Russia, minimal damage to one part of one airport - planes are flying from there already already - Trump gets off the hot seat, gets to look Presidential, humane, takes a decisive step no one can really dispute, sticks it to Obama - and the response of Assad/Putin is already known so there's little risk - the best kind of "deal" to Trump. In return? Putin gets reassurance that later, after he has had the chance to flex his international muscles and things calm down, after America's short memory fades, he will be rewarded appropriately in the name of "finding common ground" and "improving our relations".
How would such a deal be brokered and transmitted? There are too many conduits - direct and shadow - from the Trump administration to the Kremlin to count.
Paranoia? Perhaps. But with Trump and his cronies, your wildest imagination is never half enough to match what comes to light every day.
6
Failure to secure authorization for the use of force from Congress will not excuse Trump from the next atrocity in Syria but just put Trump in the same narrative that Republicans propagandized about Obama: irresolute, weak. If he does get the Congress to OK escalation, Trump will face his isolationist voters, the Bernie Sanders Party, the Freedom Caucus/Tea Party imbeciles. All citizens who are sick of the "forever war" the military budget that has ruined our infrastructure, education, and health care and threatens Social Security and Medicare with it's ravenous demand for resources will oppose American intervention.
Trump already knows he lost the popular vote, has the very worst approval ratings, and is routinely referred to as a liar. How will he decide?
If Trump goes for intervention will he also accept refugees? Abandon his crush on Putin, abandon tax reform, abandon healthcare, abandon Infrastructure plans, the Wall? Maintaining a coalition in Congress and the country will not be possible. The chaos that characterizes the White House will be unleashed on the country. Voters will be confronted with the choices that our elected officials fail to face in the next election. A Third Party Candidate can win in 2020, the House will become more fractured and the Senate has already chosen a parliamentary scheme.
Can Iran be far behind?
Trump already knows he lost the popular vote, has the very worst approval ratings, and is routinely referred to as a liar. How will he decide?
If Trump goes for intervention will he also accept refugees? Abandon his crush on Putin, abandon tax reform, abandon healthcare, abandon Infrastructure plans, the Wall? Maintaining a coalition in Congress and the country will not be possible. The chaos that characterizes the White House will be unleashed on the country. Voters will be confronted with the choices that our elected officials fail to face in the next election. A Third Party Candidate can win in 2020, the House will become more fractured and the Senate has already chosen a parliamentary scheme.
Can Iran be far behind?
1
President Trump was manipulated into launching a missile strike Thursday against Bashar al-Assad's air base in Syria. Assad has committed atrocities against his own Syrian people for the past 27 years of his dictatorship, succeeding his tyrannical father, Hassan al-Assad. That President Trump acted decisively, attacking Syria for using Sarin gas to kill scores of innocent Syrians, doesn't raise any sense of emotional satisfaction in we the American people. Was Trump's attack legal? No. And who will advise our impetuous president what to do next? We remember how Trump berated Barack Obama against military action in Syria, and lo and behold, Trump launched 6- Tomahawk missiles al-Assad's way! Yesterday, Nikki Haley, his UN Ambassador promised "more to come" at the UN. Trump contravened his mantra,"America First"; countries using weapons of mass destruction will be punished. Russia (also in this mix of international olla podrida) had guaranteed removal of Syria's chemical weapons when Obama was our President. Didn't happen. Russia is Syria's enabler and only guarantee for Russia's port on the Mediterranean Sea. Does this look like war? Trump's attack reminds us that GW Bush ignorantly initiated two Middle Eastern wars that are still ongoing, shedding American treasure and blood and innocent collateral. Is Trump's attack on Syria a one-off? Can President Trump take military action on his own? Our Secretary of State Tillerson visits Moscow next week. Stay tuned.
1
Yes, and with all those drone strikes in Yemen and Syria Obama never articulated a "strategy" or objective other then short-run operational tactics. The Times seemed to have been strangely silent about these, which I believe also had been undertaken without UN or congressional authorization. Perhaps it isn't all that strange in the context of The Times' editorial positions concerning the two occupants of the White House.
1
''the American military action has also shifted the focus from the scandal over Russia's interference in the election''
The mission reached it's goal.
Monday, back to work on solving the Russian ties and the emoluments clause.
If we haven't bombed N.K.
The mission reached it's goal.
Monday, back to work on solving the Russian ties and the emoluments clause.
If we haven't bombed N.K.
1
Obama's failure to enforce a red line in Syria and the Russians & Syrians duplicity in not removing all chemical weapons illustrates why Trump had to change course. How the Times still contends that Obama followed a smarter course than retaliating makes no factual sense at this point. Most importantly, the North Koreans and others are on notice that once again, the USA means what it says.
1
Many more people were killed recently in Mosul by USA bombs than were killed by the gas attack.
Gas is more dramatic but, "Dead is dead."
Gas is more dramatic but, "Dead is dead."
1
The timelines seem to be 63 hours from the chemical attack to the bombing to the question "now what?"
But in the childlike Trump-world and not understanding the consequences of his own words didn't this episode start with Tillerson saying US policy was Assad is Syria's problem, not that of the US?
Tillerson reassured Assad, who then gasses his own people.
So where do we go from here? Who knows but one can almost bet some counter productive words will come out of the administration
But in the childlike Trump-world and not understanding the consequences of his own words didn't this episode start with Tillerson saying US policy was Assad is Syria's problem, not that of the US?
Tillerson reassured Assad, who then gasses his own people.
So where do we go from here? Who knows but one can almost bet some counter productive words will come out of the administration
Presidential Apprentice Donald John Trump will follow the personal and corporate interests of whatever is hidden in his income tax returns and business holdings and deals along with whatever is the nature of the respectful Trump understanding with Russian President Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin.
And the Syrian people will continue to be trampled and crushed by two macho maniacal thugs juvenile testosterone swampy muck mud wrestling. Who is the better credible alternative to Bashar al-Assad as leader of Syria?
The Syrian chemical attack did not target America nor Americans. America is not at war with Syria. Congress has not been asked to for authority to make nor pay for a war against Syria. Unlike ISIS and al Qaeda, Syria is a sovereign nation state. Trump is not the Emperor of the Roman Empire. With only 0.75% of Americans volunteering to serve in the military since 9/11/01, America is clearly not Sparta.
Congress needs to do it's job by going on voting record for or against war in Syria and paying or not paying for same.
And the Syrian people will continue to be trampled and crushed by two macho maniacal thugs juvenile testosterone swampy muck mud wrestling. Who is the better credible alternative to Bashar al-Assad as leader of Syria?
The Syrian chemical attack did not target America nor Americans. America is not at war with Syria. Congress has not been asked to for authority to make nor pay for a war against Syria. Unlike ISIS and al Qaeda, Syria is a sovereign nation state. Trump is not the Emperor of the Roman Empire. With only 0.75% of Americans volunteering to serve in the military since 9/11/01, America is clearly not Sparta.
Congress needs to do it's job by going on voting record for or against war in Syria and paying or not paying for same.
3
It is hard not to think that the NYT is finding it hard to find the appropriate response to Trump's Syrian adventure: their preferred candidate would have taken out all Assad's airfields, according to her comments. Their previous President did nothing. So their only choice is back seat driving and accumulating some liberal cred by discussing all the possible risks and drawbacks that may accrue from that adventure, and demanding that Congress approve any future action, knowing full well that Congress would dither away, and that past Presidents have generally called their own shots on similar military adventures. It is unclear if and when the NYT will ever write an editorial that just praises an action by Trump and offers support for his stated goal of peace in Syria. But I hope the day comes soon.
1
Even a broken clock is right twice a day, but it's still broken. Hillary Clinton would have weighed the consequences and have a follow-up plan. Trump doesn't. Maybe McMaster and the Security Council do, but I didn't hear about it.
1
The valuable lesson Trump has already learnt, which his predecessor consistently got wrong, was that it's more important to not get it wrong than to get it right. In this particular instance, Trump's achieved both. Not only did he draw an indelible red line, on concrete using Tomahawk marker as opposed to wobbly index finger on mushy sand, Trump drew it simultaneously for China and their errant protege, North Korea. Then, for added emphasis, he drew one for the United Nations, making clear that their days of foot-dragging and stymieing US leadership, that too on US soil using pure blather, mics and translators, are also over.
So this was a win, win, win all over the place, plus an amazing but fitting arrival for Trump on world stage. His recipe? First, rip sham world agreements, then land a few Tomahawks on cruel dictators. Great way to show who's boss, and rather fitting that it comes from Trump himself.
As to the NYT's deep questions, aka paralysis by analysis, they better get used to doing a lot of that after-the-fact, since the Trump administration has made clear, telegraphing motives and strategies is not something they'll be indulging in a lot. But no worries, armchair analysts like this commenter, sure to help along the way.
The only big question (which, surprise, surprise, hasn't been asked), is whether Trump will nix Tillerson's upcoming visit to Moscow. Heck, going by his smiles, Tillerson might even be recommending/wishing it. We will see.
So this was a win, win, win all over the place, plus an amazing but fitting arrival for Trump on world stage. His recipe? First, rip sham world agreements, then land a few Tomahawks on cruel dictators. Great way to show who's boss, and rather fitting that it comes from Trump himself.
As to the NYT's deep questions, aka paralysis by analysis, they better get used to doing a lot of that after-the-fact, since the Trump administration has made clear, telegraphing motives and strategies is not something they'll be indulging in a lot. But no worries, armchair analysts like this commenter, sure to help along the way.
The only big question (which, surprise, surprise, hasn't been asked), is whether Trump will nix Tillerson's upcoming visit to Moscow. Heck, going by his smiles, Tillerson might even be recommending/wishing it. We will see.
1
"since the Trump administration has made clear, telegraphing motives and strategies is not something they'll be indulging in a lot."
Sounds a lot like W's administration, and look where that got us.
Sounds a lot like W's administration, and look where that got us.
2
The attack was clearly a reflexive emotional reaction. Understandable, but worrisome because the man behind the trigger reacted like a guy in a bar yelling "I'll punch his lights out", and following through with the greatest arsenal in the world at his fingertips. What other snap decisions can follow? Bomb Pyongyang if Kim Jong-un tweets a salacious photo of Trump in a compromising situation? The President is allowed to be emotional -- but required to check his emotions at the door. Did the Pentagon push back on Trump's demand for action -- or did it enable it by merely saying "OK boss, here's the trigger"? Yes, the result felt good for a day. But was the action morally justified, or merely the reaction of a mad child-mind who now feels free to use the weapons in his toy box?
3
Why are we so sure Assad was the one behind the civilian deaths? Where is the hard evidence? Seymour Hersch wrote a believable account of the sarin attacks in Iraq…and it remains unclear to this day who was behind them. For me its a false flag. Ron Paul's views on this attack are correct.
Did Assad use the gas or the rebels?
Was Trump suckered into an attack?
Did Poland attack Germany in WW2?
Was Trump suckered into an attack?
Did Poland attack Germany in WW2?
3
The major question you note is; Is the pinprick cruise missile attack on an empty Syrian airfield the equivalent of a "Tweet heard around the world" to distract from all the bad news about the failed attempts to repeal and replace Obamacare and more importantly the ongoing investigation into potential collusion with Russia in the 2016 election, OR is it a reset of the "America First" foreign policy and increased U.S. involvement in the Syrian civil war? As with the "House of Cards," a war is a great distraction and an immediate boost to a President's sagging approval ratings, but lacking a political vision of how to end the war in Syria (perhaps by partition into Alewite-Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish semi-autonomous states) it's just a very cynical, Frank Underwood, way to wrap the bullet-proof flag around you as yet another "wartime President."
5
As to the question of what is next, I would advise Mr. Trump to increase the production of nerve agent antidotes (atropine and 2-PAM chloride) "bigly" and drop those throughout rebel held areas in Syria. Whether Syria hid some stockpiles from Russians vouchsafing their removal or Russian did a poor job in supervising removal of chemical agents or Syria made more (all possibilities), deploying more chemical weapons to a region "armed" with antidotes would make their use just as reprehensible but far less destructive to the "beautiful little babies" Mr. Trump now seems to care about.
5
Ok so when do we get back to Trump & Russia in bed together? Trump n Putin think they're slick....Starting a mini-war hoping we will forget how Putin installed Trump in the Oval office.....smh
7
So the death of Syrian children "moved" him, but not the death of 20 kindergarteners at Sandy Hook? Children are killed Every.Single.Day right here in the USA from guns, and the NRA still goes its merry way.
I don't believe this guy for a second. And boo-hoo, the bromance with Putin is on the rocks. This is all too contrived.
I don't believe this guy for a second. And boo-hoo, the bromance with Putin is on the rocks. This is all too contrived.
48
@ JanTG VA - Thanks for adding that, I was going to write a version that included what I learned about the children who live in East Palo Alto CA in a BBC World Radio program.
Trump cries for the camera, period.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Trump cries for the camera, period.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
President Trump did exactly the right thing in Syria, a fact that has disappointed and infuriated many liberal Democrats, who desire nothing but a complete failure of his presidency. It is possible that Trump, even after committing many missteps in learning his new job, may turn out to be a much better president than was expected by anyone.
1
On the basis of one "correct" action amidst a sea of mistakes you imagine Trump is now "learning his new job"? Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
What next is a good question, but as much as we dislike Trump here in the comments section, I think it makes sense to step back and acknowledge it when he gets something right. This was the right response. All the questions raised in the editorial are valid, and we can continue to judge Trump as we move forward, but not everything the guy does will be automatically wrong.
25
There's more to getting something right than performing a single action that happens to be right in a particular context. Only if/when the United States can demonstrate that this missile attack was part of a plan to effect real change for the people of Syria, that we have a cohesive strategy for managing and concluding the chain of events resulting from the attack, and that this military response is part of a consistent American foreign policy, will we be able to say, in retrospect, that Trump got it right. The fact that we are asking "What's next?" doesn't inspire confidence that, even by accident, he may have.
"the spectacle of a president precipitously reversing course on war and peace on the basis of emotion or what his defenders describe as “instinct” does not inspire confidence."
You articulated exactly what I was thinking when I saw the video of Trump explaining his decision to bomb Syria. War should never be entered into for emotional reasons, but rather a well-thought out strategy based on knowledge.
You articulated exactly what I was thinking when I saw the video of Trump explaining his decision to bomb Syria. War should never be entered into for emotional reasons, but rather a well-thought out strategy based on knowledge.
17
He saw pictures of babies killed on his TV set. He bombed an airfield. His poll numbers will go up. He'll bomb some more.
18
In my 1st comment just accepted 12:05 GMT I end with this question: Do 59 such missiles all land on a target area the size of the al Shayrat airfield?
Here, from today's Guardian, is a report, from the Syrians and the Russians. Perhaps the US military can provide its own images if it questions the following assessment:
From the Guardian: "Syria’s military said seven people were killed and several wounded. Six Syrian air force planes undergoing repairs at the base were destroyed, but the runways were undamaged, the Russian defence ministry said after the attack."
If this is correct, then the 59 missile attack has no effect on Bashar al Assad's capacity to strike again, and shows the absurdity (stronger word than in my original comment) of Nikki Haley's or her puppeteer's assertion that stopping Assad's chemical warfare is a vital interest for the safety of the US (not a quote, see comment 1).
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
Comment 1 @
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/opinion/after-the-airstrikes-whats-nex...
Here, from today's Guardian, is a report, from the Syrians and the Russians. Perhaps the US military can provide its own images if it questions the following assessment:
From the Guardian: "Syria’s military said seven people were killed and several wounded. Six Syrian air force planes undergoing repairs at the base were destroyed, but the runways were undamaged, the Russian defence ministry said after the attack."
If this is correct, then the 59 missile attack has no effect on Bashar al Assad's capacity to strike again, and shows the absurdity (stronger word than in my original comment) of Nikki Haley's or her puppeteer's assertion that stopping Assad's chemical warfare is a vital interest for the safety of the US (not a quote, see comment 1).
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
Comment 1 @
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/opinion/after-the-airstrikes-whats-nex...
23
I'm confused. Why exactly was Mr. Obama's decision to entrust the Russians to seize Syria's chemical weapons stash in 2013 a smarter decision than Trump's limited strike? Couldn't the editorial board have chosen a more appropriate adjective than 'smart' to describe an Obama era decision that was at best naive, feckless, and ultimately ineffective? Is the editorial board really surprised that Russia, whose leader's hobbies include undermining democracies and executing unilateral annexations, didn't follow through?
1
All that's left to do is to get out the Mission Accomplished banner.
6
What humanitarian efforts are being sent to Syria (and other places) by Trump?
Seriously, he doesn't want to take in those ruthless gassed children of Syria, and he's cut other needy areas out of the budget as well.
Always money for missiles and bombs, though. Makes a President look tough, right?
Seriously, he doesn't want to take in those ruthless gassed children of Syria, and he's cut other needy areas out of the budget as well.
Always money for missiles and bombs, though. Makes a President look tough, right?
16
I have been thinking about Trump's motivation for this action. I have been asking myself; 1. I am in the very early stages of presidency, and nothing big that I have wanted done has happened without controversy and backlash. 2. I am constant consumer of news from media who emphasize danger and chaos. 3. The "aides" around me are constantly fighting and leaking, and 4. I have had immense military power handed to me by election.
He also may have been stimulated to act by the pictures of suffering children, but I question his capability for empathy. It is in complete contrast with his earlier actions.
I think he may have realized somehow, that he could look strong and decisive, and have virtually instant results. I imagine that this realization of power will have huge effects in the future, sooner or later. It frightens me to have, as a leader, a person who is that easily moved to precipitous action.
He also may have been stimulated to act by the pictures of suffering children, but I question his capability for empathy. It is in complete contrast with his earlier actions.
I think he may have realized somehow, that he could look strong and decisive, and have virtually instant results. I imagine that this realization of power will have huge effects in the future, sooner or later. It frightens me to have, as a leader, a person who is that easily moved to precipitous action.
10
I did not like that Trump was ratcheting up war before his missile strike.
I do not like that many in power promote using our military and war. It's sad that they think war first, diplomacy and international efforts later.
Why was it our missiles, with no help from other countries? What did this strike accomplish?
Look at Iraq and our interference there. Do you think Syria will turn out better than Iraq, if we get involved militarily? Then we will own the cost of rebuilding Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.
I do not like that many in power promote using our military and war. It's sad that they think war first, diplomacy and international efforts later.
Why was it our missiles, with no help from other countries? What did this strike accomplish?
Look at Iraq and our interference there. Do you think Syria will turn out better than Iraq, if we get involved militarily? Then we will own the cost of rebuilding Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.
5
So one despot kills his citizens by nerve gas, and the other kills by eliminating their health insurance and food safety net. What's the diff?
34
Trump's action was clearly an attempt to distract from the investigation into his collusion with the Russians during the election. Nothing more.
10
That big question mark belongs to Donald Trump. Who is this man ?
Once a reality start, real estate tycoon now a President.
What we see in his impulsive tweets, in front of the microphone is not comforting at all.
Is this a distraction from Russia investigation, health care failure, when he throws absurdities of bread crumbs like President Obama wiretapping, Susan Rice, for very low approval ratings and so on ?
Did once in his first one hundred days Donald Trump did the right thing for all the wrong reasons ?
This impulsive President is one finger away from nuclear codes .
Once a reality start, real estate tycoon now a President.
What we see in his impulsive tweets, in front of the microphone is not comforting at all.
Is this a distraction from Russia investigation, health care failure, when he throws absurdities of bread crumbs like President Obama wiretapping, Susan Rice, for very low approval ratings and so on ?
Did once in his first one hundred days Donald Trump did the right thing for all the wrong reasons ?
This impulsive President is one finger away from nuclear codes .
10
There is no part of the world more complex than the Middle East. My initial reaction was that this was proportional and measured response, who could argue with an action taken to demonstrate that we will not stand idly while Assad uses chemical weapons on women and children.
But the Middle East is fundamentally different where normal rules do not apply which is why Obama's doctrine "Don't do stupid shit" was spot on. For years we supported Saudi Arabia which created the 9/11 bombers because we wanted their oil. We invaded Iraq on the WMD narrative but based on Hussein's record of war crimes against his own people we could have attacked earlier which is why I am ambivalent even today on the Iraq war. Every time we pick a side it either creates a vacuum for terrorists to flourish or the side we pick turns out to be just as bad or even worse.
Trump has no strategy, is not capable of the deep thought to evaluate all of this regions nuances. His visceral reactions was in direct opposition to his statements criticizing Bush and Obama and is bereft of any plan or overall doctrine. The military strike in Syria had nothing to do with national security, the only rationale that candidate Trump said would be reason for war. We can add hypocrisy to the long list of Trump character flaws. What will be interesting to watch are the future chess moves that Trump so beholden to Russia takes.
But the Middle East is fundamentally different where normal rules do not apply which is why Obama's doctrine "Don't do stupid shit" was spot on. For years we supported Saudi Arabia which created the 9/11 bombers because we wanted their oil. We invaded Iraq on the WMD narrative but based on Hussein's record of war crimes against his own people we could have attacked earlier which is why I am ambivalent even today on the Iraq war. Every time we pick a side it either creates a vacuum for terrorists to flourish or the side we pick turns out to be just as bad or even worse.
Trump has no strategy, is not capable of the deep thought to evaluate all of this regions nuances. His visceral reactions was in direct opposition to his statements criticizing Bush and Obama and is bereft of any plan or overall doctrine. The military strike in Syria had nothing to do with national security, the only rationale that candidate Trump said would be reason for war. We can add hypocrisy to the long list of Trump character flaws. What will be interesting to watch are the future chess moves that Trump so beholden to Russia takes.
5
This requires a simple calculus. First, there are fewer wise, old white men in the U.S. today. Second, there are many more wise women than ever before. Third, there are millions of smart and humanitarian minded young men and women in the millennial generation.
If the Congress were made up of 40 women in the Senate combined with young millennials of both genders, and if we had 180 women in the House also combined with young millennials we wouldn' t be dealing with a fractious Congress and a debilitated president.
The only thing we can do now is plan for 2018 and 2020 and hope.
If the Congress were made up of 40 women in the Senate combined with young millennials of both genders, and if we had 180 women in the House also combined with young millennials we wouldn' t be dealing with a fractious Congress and a debilitated president.
The only thing we can do now is plan for 2018 and 2020 and hope.
3
Trump picked an easy win. He needed one badly, and what enemy could be better beaten by weak and untrustworthy president than a baby killer. Trump had to act or be painted "coward" forever by his opponents. He has no future strategy.
7
This is a throwback to the imperialist days of gunboat diplomacy. Some third world country would do something to offend a western power, a naval ship would appear off its coast, and bombard a target for a short time. Message sent. Militarily, such actions were symbolic, not substantive.
But the limitation here is the assumption that the offender will by duly chastened and desist the offensive conduct. If not, then it was just a display of force without meaning.
So, the next step is Assad's (and Putin's) - do they (a) stop using chemical weapons and just kill with bombs, bullets, and starvation or (b) defy Trump and go chemical again. The first, with our non-response to follow, would be a war crime that we are complicit in. The second, however, might lead to a general war or to our backing down (and remember, North Korea is listening).
No good choices at this time.
But the limitation here is the assumption that the offender will by duly chastened and desist the offensive conduct. If not, then it was just a display of force without meaning.
So, the next step is Assad's (and Putin's) - do they (a) stop using chemical weapons and just kill with bombs, bullets, and starvation or (b) defy Trump and go chemical again. The first, with our non-response to follow, would be a war crime that we are complicit in. The second, however, might lead to a general war or to our backing down (and remember, North Korea is listening).
No good choices at this time.
1
Gaddafi in Libya paid a price with the Reagan air strikes. It put the fear of God in him when the attack struck some of his homes and chased him into the desert. Minimal damage at a Syrian airport where the bombers originated from (the airport is still operational) seems inconsequential. Assad on the other hand still appears to have the strong support of both Russia and Iran. In fact Russia seems to be rallying around him. Trump never seems to have a comprehensive strategy on anything. His acts appear to be isolated symbolic theater to please the whim of the moment. The photo op of him sitting in a conference room at his resort surrounded by an odd assortment of Cabinet members had the air of the boys retreating to a smoking room after a round of golf to view their Commander and Chiefs first major military foray.
7
One might say the producers at Fox News are the true power brokers of the world right now. Their decisions on what to air and what not to air are what makes the leader of the free world act. It would be very funny if it weren't absurdly true.
6
We know precisely how many Syrians died because of Assad's gas. How many were killed by Trump's tomahawks?
2
According to Foreign Policy magazine, the attack accomplished little.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/04/07/assad-shrugs-off-trumps-strike-uses...
https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/04/07/assad-shrugs-off-trumps-strike-uses...
4
These are "dark times" we live in. When all we do is speculate and question our own minds as to the motives of our President in this retaliatory strike against Syria. Unfortunately many of us think, at least I do, that Trump did it for less than noble and humanitarian reasons. Since he has been in the spotlight of the country and world he has demonstrated over and over again a disdain for Muslims. Why should I think he did it for the greater good?
What next after the air strikes again Syria? God only knows. Trump has probably already forgotten this incident and waiting for the next "impulse" to hit him. We are in a very dangerous place in the history of our country right now. And I dread tomorrow and the day after, and the day after that, and.......
What next after the air strikes again Syria? God only knows. Trump has probably already forgotten this incident and waiting for the next "impulse" to hit him. We are in a very dangerous place in the history of our country right now. And I dread tomorrow and the day after, and the day after that, and.......
2
"Since he has been in the spotlight of the country and world he has demonstrated over and over again a disdain for Muslims. Why should I think he did it for the greater good?"
I agree but let's expand that list to include a disdain for anyone who is struggling or who needs government assistance or protection. Despite what Trump may say, he is not a compassionate man.
I agree but let's expand that list to include a disdain for anyone who is struggling or who needs government assistance or protection. Despite what Trump may say, he is not a compassionate man.
2
“There is no evidence that the president has thought through the implications of using force.”
Thinking through the implications of using force has rarely been the American modus operandi in the post-war period, by either the Republicans or the Democrats. Cases in point:
--Vietnam
--Afghanistan
--Iraq, 2003 (and the words then from Bush, “Mission Accomplished”, when 14 years later, whatever that “mission” was, it’s anything but “accomplished”)
--Iraq, 2011 (Obama walking away from Iraq, one cause for the rise of ISIS in Syria, spreading to Iraq)
--Syria, 2011-2017.
American foreign policy is just that: not thinking things through. So, why should Trump’s impulsive nature be any different from what’s gone before him…with the major exception of Russian and US war planes being in the same airspace with each other over Syria?
Thinking through the implications of using force has rarely been the American modus operandi in the post-war period, by either the Republicans or the Democrats. Cases in point:
--Vietnam
--Afghanistan
--Iraq, 2003 (and the words then from Bush, “Mission Accomplished”, when 14 years later, whatever that “mission” was, it’s anything but “accomplished”)
--Iraq, 2011 (Obama walking away from Iraq, one cause for the rise of ISIS in Syria, spreading to Iraq)
--Syria, 2011-2017.
American foreign policy is just that: not thinking things through. So, why should Trump’s impulsive nature be any different from what’s gone before him…with the major exception of Russian and US war planes being in the same airspace with each other over Syria?
Good thing President Obama never launched air strikes or deployed ground troops in Syria! Oh, wait.....
2
All that has happened is that Trump has found a new way to throw sand in everyone's eyes and a new tool for self-aggrandizement: the tomahawk missile. It is hard to believe that anyone still thinks he has put any kind of thought into this or into anything else. The man again and again demonstrates evidence of frontal lobe dysfunction and a personality disorder the size of Texas.
5
The Geneva Conventions make it a war crime if you attack a country that isn't either attacking you or in imminent danger of doing so. The U.S. Military's SROE (Standing Rules of Engagement) provide the same limitations. You can stretch the original Congressional approval to go after al-Qaida to cover current actions against its successor, ISIS. But, the government of Bashir al-Assad and the nation of Syria have never made so much as a threat against the United States. In fact, they have gone out of their way not to interfere with coalition troops fighting ISIS in Rakka. This makes Trump's Tomahawk attack an illegal war crime.
We all reacted viscerally & emotionally to the videos of the aftermath of Assad's gas attack. But, killing children and "beautiful babies" has been going on for half a decade using other, often worse, weapons. Assad is fond of thermobaric bombs (fuel-air or barrel bombs), which basically turn the old & the young, males & females, children & babies into something resembling hamburger. Half a million have been killed. It seems irrational to single out one vicious way of killing of innocents while ignoring the many other vicious ways of doing the same. Last week, the U.S. dropped leaflets on a neighborhood in Mosul, telling residents to all go into their homes. Then the bombers flew over the neighborhood & bombed these same houses, resulting in a civilian death toll more than double Assad's. Heck, Trump's even talking about putting nukes in S. Korea.
We all reacted viscerally & emotionally to the videos of the aftermath of Assad's gas attack. But, killing children and "beautiful babies" has been going on for half a decade using other, often worse, weapons. Assad is fond of thermobaric bombs (fuel-air or barrel bombs), which basically turn the old & the young, males & females, children & babies into something resembling hamburger. Half a million have been killed. It seems irrational to single out one vicious way of killing of innocents while ignoring the many other vicious ways of doing the same. Last week, the U.S. dropped leaflets on a neighborhood in Mosul, telling residents to all go into their homes. Then the bombers flew over the neighborhood & bombed these same houses, resulting in a civilian death toll more than double Assad's. Heck, Trump's even talking about putting nukes in S. Korea.
i would call the Grifter and Liar in Chief’s military action a staged event for his own benefit. His friend Putin called Assad, wrote the scerario and then, the Man in DC yelled ACTION. In a few months, the men from Moscow and Washington will meet, kiss and make up. The $$$ will flow for these traitors.
1
Has the NYT editorial board ever met a war it didn't like?
"So far, there is no evidence that Mr. Trump has thought through the implications of using military force or figured out what to do next."
What an arrogant, presumptuous statement. The NY Times takes it as the default that Trump doesn't think things through. Were they at the meetings?
What an arrogant, presumptuous statement. The NY Times takes it as the default that Trump doesn't think things through. Were they at the meetings?
1
"So far, there is no evidence that Mr. Trump has thought through the implications of using military force or figured out what to do next."
Hahah, does anyone think otherwise? Is there any evidence that this reality show business man knows anything about politics or how to run a country? No.
His statement, "I alone can fix this," alarmed me, but apparently not enough ignorant voters.
Hahah, does anyone think otherwise? Is there any evidence that this reality show business man knows anything about politics or how to run a country? No.
His statement, "I alone can fix this," alarmed me, but apparently not enough ignorant voters.
1
"Mr. Obama, who threatened military action in the event of a chemical attack but who, after such an attack, chose a smarter course, a deal in which Russia guaranteed the removal of Syria’s chemical weapons."
Maybe the NYTimes Editorial Board should ask the 70+ civilians killed and 550+ injured by Assad's chemical weapons this past week if Obama's inaction was the "smarter course."
Maybe the NYTimes Editorial Board should ask the 70+ civilians killed and 550+ injured by Assad's chemical weapons this past week if Obama's inaction was the "smarter course."
The attack on Syria is not a vindication of your hasty judgment on Asad’s responsibility for the April 4 event. Other than Syria’s opponents’ claims, there has been no independent verification of onus.
Your past record should have made you cautious about leaping to conclusions. Your aluminum tube story in 2002 proved incorrect. Your vector analysis of 2013 proved incorrect. Your 2014 of Russian soldiers entered the Ukraine was retracted.
Root Claim, that came to the conclusion that Asad was not responsible for the 2013 incident, has done an analysis of the present accusation. It notes that evidence is still being gathered, but probability is that Damascus is not to blame.
Rather than acting as cheerleaders for continued American militarism, you should be a critical eye on unsubstantiated claims. There was a time when responsible news media provided a fair and balanced picture for its consumers could make an informed evaluation. Now, the media acts with partisanship and deliberately fails to provide both sides accurately.
As with Iraq, there will be unwelcome consequences with our Syrian regime change war. Those who would replace Asad are not democratic/secular founding fathers. Nor do they represent the majority of the Syrian people.
Your past record should have made you cautious about leaping to conclusions. Your aluminum tube story in 2002 proved incorrect. Your vector analysis of 2013 proved incorrect. Your 2014 of Russian soldiers entered the Ukraine was retracted.
Root Claim, that came to the conclusion that Asad was not responsible for the 2013 incident, has done an analysis of the present accusation. It notes that evidence is still being gathered, but probability is that Damascus is not to blame.
Rather than acting as cheerleaders for continued American militarism, you should be a critical eye on unsubstantiated claims. There was a time when responsible news media provided a fair and balanced picture for its consumers could make an informed evaluation. Now, the media acts with partisanship and deliberately fails to provide both sides accurately.
As with Iraq, there will be unwelcome consequences with our Syrian regime change war. Those who would replace Asad are not democratic/secular founding fathers. Nor do they represent the majority of the Syrian people.
Here is what truly frightens me;
I have little confidence that Trump's only intention of the air strikes in Syria was humanitarian. Is it also a diversion from the Russian probe? Is it tied to the surge in oil prices? Is it to gain popularity? How in the world can an administration respond so quickly without have any plan? How can you order a strike without playing the whole scenario, all the questions asked in this editorial?
Along with everyone I am horrified and sickened by this genocide in Syria!
I don't know....has this president led us down a journey with a "ripple effect" that will lead to all out war? Who are our allies in this complicated world we live in? I am frightened.
I have little confidence that Trump's only intention of the air strikes in Syria was humanitarian. Is it also a diversion from the Russian probe? Is it tied to the surge in oil prices? Is it to gain popularity? How in the world can an administration respond so quickly without have any plan? How can you order a strike without playing the whole scenario, all the questions asked in this editorial?
Along with everyone I am horrified and sickened by this genocide in Syria!
I don't know....has this president led us down a journey with a "ripple effect" that will lead to all out war? Who are our allies in this complicated world we live in? I am frightened.
2
I am baffled by this whole situation, but especially Assad's use of chemical weapons. And believe an independent UN investigation should take place before any further action is considered (and in retrospect should have taken place before the first strike)
Assad's position as president before the attack was the most secure it had been in years, perhaps in the entire Civil War. Russia was involved, Aleppo had fallen, Trump acquiesced to Assad, the Kurds were staying out of his way, and ISIS, AQ, and the rebels were more or less doomed and had no position at the table in Geneva.
Even the logic the NYT ("Grim logic of Assad's use of CW") and other pundits put forth still doesn't exactly make sense 1) to wear down the rebels 2) to flaunt impunity. Assad was and will continue to do both with conventional weapons that rain down on civilians daily. He was already accomplishing strings of war crimes with impunity and had zero incentive to wander into international taboos.
Who knows what to believe? Any possibility is plausible and no one should trust Assad/Russia, the rebels, or the West/Turkey/Israel/Gulf States in regards to the Syrian Civil War. So with that in mind and the history of US foreign wars (Vietnam, Iraq) we should require ourselves to wait for an independent investigation by the UN before we get into another bloody quagmire.
Assad's position as president before the attack was the most secure it had been in years, perhaps in the entire Civil War. Russia was involved, Aleppo had fallen, Trump acquiesced to Assad, the Kurds were staying out of his way, and ISIS, AQ, and the rebels were more or less doomed and had no position at the table in Geneva.
Even the logic the NYT ("Grim logic of Assad's use of CW") and other pundits put forth still doesn't exactly make sense 1) to wear down the rebels 2) to flaunt impunity. Assad was and will continue to do both with conventional weapons that rain down on civilians daily. He was already accomplishing strings of war crimes with impunity and had zero incentive to wander into international taboos.
Who knows what to believe? Any possibility is plausible and no one should trust Assad/Russia, the rebels, or the West/Turkey/Israel/Gulf States in regards to the Syrian Civil War. So with that in mind and the history of US foreign wars (Vietnam, Iraq) we should require ourselves to wait for an independent investigation by the UN before we get into another bloody quagmire.
3
Miles
Thanks for your well argued comment.
Thanks for your well argued comment.
1
Why doesn't Trump hold a summit with Assad at Mar-a- Lago?
1
I think Trump acted impetuously and that the liberal press has done likewise in immediately justifying the missile strike on humanitarian grounds. Doubt over what Trump will do next isn’t really the point. A man prone to impulsiveness is basking in the glory of feeling bilaterally congratulated for an act of violence. Stay tuned for more. Is it 100% percent sure Assad was responsible for the terrible gas attack? That’s what needed and still needs to be determined. I have nothing but disgust for whoever gassed those poor people. But this seems like another trigger-happy American fiasco to me.
It seems the revival of US engagement in vietnam, whereby after 10 years of brutal engagement they lost badly. History revealed that worthless engagement in war always lead to disastrous consequences.Russians in 1979 had on Afghanistan, resultcwas dissolution of former Soviet Union. According to economic forum survey, US had consumed $ 5-6 trillion dollars in 15 years of war on terror, this has semblance with former soviet's economic position during second phase of cold war, but this time US is more on stake than Russians. Additional decision of air strikes on Syria is not a sane and rational decision by President Trump, this will not lead him with support in sunni areas, because, apart from- support, banned on Muslim countries already put his foreign policy in crisis, so, a meagre of attacks in a muslim stakes will cause equal casualities beyound support.
The President should now announce a long series of targets which will get the same treatment if Syria or their Partners attack civilians.
Straw men don't think. They grope and feel their way along. This is a very dangerous man. Capable of anything.
If the chemical attack had elicited no response, would The Times have written an op-ed entitled, "After Kan Sheikhoun, What's Next?" Considering that the board mirrored Obama's thinking on foreign policy -- dissenting only to advise caution (!) -- no one should take them seriously, unless he or she thinks that what we witnessed during the last presidency was restrained wisdom rather than naivety, dithering, and saccharine speeches. Have the members of the board changed their views? Does anyone? Ever?
Did Obama have a plan for the day, the week, the month, the years, after his inaction? The world is always messy. Asking someone to spell out in detail every possible contingency of every possible action is a recipe for Tolstoyan inaction. As for why the dimwit in the Oval Office changes his mind over a picture but not a statistic: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/04/06/how-to-get...
We'll assess the situation as we go. The president has no thoughts, much less a plan. But he has a good team. Without a course correction, the slaughter will go on. Remember the socialists who told us we'd start WWIII this way, as if the Russians will engage a power whose technological prowess and war chest dwarfs their own? The only reason they're there in the first place is because Obama left a vacuum. We can and should ground Assad's air force and build safe zones. Syria no longer exists.
Did Obama have a plan for the day, the week, the month, the years, after his inaction? The world is always messy. Asking someone to spell out in detail every possible contingency of every possible action is a recipe for Tolstoyan inaction. As for why the dimwit in the Oval Office changes his mind over a picture but not a statistic: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/04/06/how-to-get...
We'll assess the situation as we go. The president has no thoughts, much less a plan. But he has a good team. Without a course correction, the slaughter will go on. Remember the socialists who told us we'd start WWIII this way, as if the Russians will engage a power whose technological prowess and war chest dwarfs their own? The only reason they're there in the first place is because Obama left a vacuum. We can and should ground Assad's air force and build safe zones. Syria no longer exists.
Following his 180 degree reversal from earlier statements Mr. Trump reminded us that during the campaign he might act 'impulsively' in order to surprise opponents and keep them off track. That sounds reasonable, and this missile strike may work out as a positive move.
However, behaving 'impulsively' could also devolve into responding to a slight, or a misunderstanding, or somehow confusing one's own personal pride with what is best for the country in any particular situation. That is what we need to be aware of.
For example, look at the specifics of the 'deal' he tried to make with the 40 ultra conservatives during the waning hours of the health care negotiations. Brutal. Mr. Trump seemed to lose sight of that fact because he so desperately needed to make 'a deal'. Thankfully, so brutal that the 'moderates' bolted.
The fact that Mr. Trump has so many generals in his inner circle gives us some hope; they know what war is and what power means beyond the immediate, ego fulfilling thrill of 'making a deal'. They also have the power to adjust and define the specifics.
However, behaving 'impulsively' could also devolve into responding to a slight, or a misunderstanding, or somehow confusing one's own personal pride with what is best for the country in any particular situation. That is what we need to be aware of.
For example, look at the specifics of the 'deal' he tried to make with the 40 ultra conservatives during the waning hours of the health care negotiations. Brutal. Mr. Trump seemed to lose sight of that fact because he so desperately needed to make 'a deal'. Thankfully, so brutal that the 'moderates' bolted.
The fact that Mr. Trump has so many generals in his inner circle gives us some hope; they know what war is and what power means beyond the immediate, ego fulfilling thrill of 'making a deal'. They also have the power to adjust and define the specifics.
Why Syria now? A wild and crazy guess: Lifting of Russia sanctions... Coming soon...
Why? Here from BBC World Radio 05:00 GMT 2017-04-08:
”The US Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, said stopping the use of chemical weapons was a vital national security interest."
Vital national security interest? Not a chance.
Taking a single 59 missile action on an airfield near Homs changes nothing significant. It does distract, elicit the praise Trump lives by, but does not change truth on the ground.
A question: Do 59 such missiles all land on a target area the size of the al Shayrat airfield? At least the target was military unlike the building in Mosul where we, the USA, are held responsible for 100 civilian deaths.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
”The US Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, said stopping the use of chemical weapons was a vital national security interest."
Vital national security interest? Not a chance.
Taking a single 59 missile action on an airfield near Homs changes nothing significant. It does distract, elicit the praise Trump lives by, but does not change truth on the ground.
A question: Do 59 such missiles all land on a target area the size of the al Shayrat airfield? At least the target was military unlike the building in Mosul where we, the USA, are held responsible for 100 civilian deaths.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
One can only feel pity for a president who believes the propaganda of a false flag attack and commits murder in reaction. He truly is a fool.
My impression is that Trump wasn't moved as much by the suffering as by the media spectacle. We haven't seen any similar empathy from him from towards Yemen where his policies are creating a famine and killing large numbers of civilians.
My impression is that Trump wasn't moved as much by the suffering as by the media spectacle. We haven't seen any similar empathy from him from towards Yemen where his policies are creating a famine and killing large numbers of civilians.
Are you serious? Obama's smarter course was to set a red line on Assad's use of chemical weapons, saw the bluff called, dealt with Russia to reign in Assad's chemical weapons just as you praise him for doing, and now we see them used again. Do you know what the word "played" means and that being played is universally recognized as a trait that is the opposite of smartness?
2
He will confer with his friend Putin? His stance regarding Syria is symbolic, at best. He simply wanted to be Commander in Chief for a few hours! He is a sad excuse for any elected official. HRC should be mad.....the election was stolen from her, with Putin's help. Why do Trumpty Dumpty's advisors and selected entourage all have memory difficulties remembering their meetings with the Russian Ambassador to the US? A new brand of Kool Aid?
Perhaps Trump sees that Obama was too prissy in his foreign policy, confused as it was by the power-tripping BIllary duo who led it into the mire of Libya. Obama was neither black nor white, neither Christian nor Muslim but a person who originated in the nowhere in between those insuperable divisions. So he did nothing about Syria but talk. Now that the token strike has occurred, may we not anticipate a preemptive nuclear strike on Pyongyang or the North Korean missile bases? May we not look for armed drones to be deployed on the murder-infested streets of Englewood in Chicago, where the gangbangers sell their heroin and homicide with seeming impunity?
1
"Studies show that one-off military strikes achieve little."
This is eerily similar to what the Sick! and Sad! twins -- McCain and Graham -- said today, "Building on tonight’s credible first step ..."
Enough beating the war drums for the military industrial complex.
What next ?
- Stay out of Middle East
- Reinstate Arab travel ban
- MAGA
This is eerily similar to what the Sick! and Sad! twins -- McCain and Graham -- said today, "Building on tonight’s credible first step ..."
Enough beating the war drums for the military industrial complex.
What next ?
- Stay out of Middle East
- Reinstate Arab travel ban
- MAGA
Fascinating. Americans are psychotic. The bloody war in Syria is in part the result of US and Gulf Arab support for the rebels. We have poured billions into the conflict. Our weapons often landed in the hands of extremists. The Saudis not so secretly support ISIS. The policy has been a bloody catastrophe. And Americans across the political spectrum think the problem is we haven't intervened. And the NYT thinks that it is a plus that the Gulf states will be pleased.
Meanwhile, we help the Saudis starve Yemen. Maybe we should launch air strikes against our allies, after warning ourselves to evacuate he Saudi bases.
Meanwhile, we help the Saudis starve Yemen. Maybe we should launch air strikes against our allies, after warning ourselves to evacuate he Saudi bases.
1
On the Syrian chemical weapons story we need hard facts not unsubstaniated assertions. The media seems driven to pin the use on Syria, but Syria has no apparent reason to use chemical weapons. When facts are lacking, however, it is usually a strong indication of a manufactured story.
Any day now, we may find Mr. Trump taking us to war in a show of emotional bravado we never should have allowed him to indulge in. Our generals tell us war is hell not to be taken lightly. It would be well for us to take that observation to heart.
Any day now, we may find Mr. Trump taking us to war in a show of emotional bravado we never should have allowed him to indulge in. Our generals tell us war is hell not to be taken lightly. It would be well for us to take that observation to heart.
Trump is not capable of thinking anything through. He's flying by the seat of his pants. That's why we have to put our trust in Mattis and McMaster. Unlike the gang that couldn't straight minions, they are capable and experienced. I'd like to include Kushner as he seems rational and low key. But his inexperience and slightly mendacious behavior makes me skeptical. Hopefully there is a plan b. Trump needs to keep his mouth shut, and defer to his generals in this case.
When did Trump have the time to think this through?
Let's assume for a moment that he is capable of weighing in on the consequences of an attack on Syria (an assumption based on what?)- it took less than three days from the time he watched the pictures that moved him to change his entire foreign policy outlook (assuming he's ever had one), consider military options , discuss them with his Secretary of State (who quickly reversed his views on Syria ),consult with his inner circle ( Kushner? Bannon? Ivanka?),post a couple of tweets and decide to give the launching order.
There are too many assumptions and question marks here to trust his decision making process.
Let's assume for a moment that he is capable of weighing in on the consequences of an attack on Syria (an assumption based on what?)- it took less than three days from the time he watched the pictures that moved him to change his entire foreign policy outlook (assuming he's ever had one), consider military options , discuss them with his Secretary of State (who quickly reversed his views on Syria ),consult with his inner circle ( Kushner? Bannon? Ivanka?),post a couple of tweets and decide to give the launching order.
There are too many assumptions and question marks here to trust his decision making process.
"...Sunni states in the Persian Gulf, which chafed at Mr. Obama’s refusal to take direct military action against Mr. Assad."
To my knowledge, pretty much every one of those Sunni states has an army, an air force, and in some cases a navy, all capable of at least some level of offensive action - especially if they could motivate themselves to play nice with others. The US has to get away from doing everyone else's dirty work. We've got plenty of our own to tend to.
To my knowledge, pretty much every one of those Sunni states has an army, an air force, and in some cases a navy, all capable of at least some level of offensive action - especially if they could motivate themselves to play nice with others. The US has to get away from doing everyone else's dirty work. We've got plenty of our own to tend to.
1
"emotional satisfaction" from 60 missiles.... I'm still reeling from this line and hardly know how to formulate a response. what is wrong with you people? Who feels "emotional satisfaction" from sending 100 million dollars in death to a country that has been hell for 6 years, at least in part because of American hubris. This gives the NYT Editorial board "satisfaction"? Here's some humanitarian love death bombs. Don't worry, we'll have a coherent plan to send you more later. And we promise it will be a better plan than the last 15 years that have systematically destroyed your entire region. :) Ps. you can't come here because we're scared of you.
The commentaries about Trump's counter to Assad seem to miss that the world of humans is not always, if ever, a thing of logic and permanence. The congress is not a logical organization, not now, and it is generally thought of as dysfunctional, so to all of a sudden imply that all is well with it and Trump should get approval drops these facts. Then there is the attack itself. The common thread is that once you do something there is no lasting effect on the party you do your thing to is changed. So Assad is going to continue with his campaign, Russia theirs, etc. also supposes logic and permanence, but you blow on a bully, as many know, and they cower away permanently, illogically changed. The reverse is also true: if you give someone a lot of rope they start hanging themselves, us, and everthing else. It's best to blow on them. These illogical humans get confused often. Look at all these comments admidst Assad has stopped and Russia is back on their heels.
I am confused about Trump's breakneck decision to lob missiles on Syrian soil, destroying, among other things, a mess hall. Our commander in chief is skeptical about our intelligence experts, dismissive of the state department, ignores congress, and has boasted he knows more than our generals. Whose voice whispered in his ear this time? His son-in-law? Bannon? A Fox news commentator? Who will it be the next time he turns to a military "solution." The Syrian people deserve real help, not a "one off" fireworks display.
Forgive me the conspiracy theories but haven't we seen this ploy before?
"...as recently as last week, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and the United Nations ambassador, Nikki Haley, had reinforced the perception that Mr. Trump was perfectly willing to live with Mr. Assad."
Putting an aggressive violent despot at ease, so that he commits an overly aggressive act against international law, which, in turn, gives our Commander in Chief an opportunity/ reason to attack.
Though there are different accounts of the meeting between America envoy April Gaspie and Sadaam Hussein in July 1990, she supposedly told him that the United States had no opinion regarding the oil dispute between Iraq and Kuwait. Shortly thereafter, Sadaam invaded Kuwait and the US responded with the first Gulf War. The war raised the first President Bush's poll numbers. Unfortunately for Bush, the war ended too quickly to sustain his popularity.
A response to aggression also saved the second Bush presidency. In each case, the American response to unlawful violence was arguably appropriate, but it has been known for centuries that war making raises the leaders popularity in the short run.
Mr Trump must do more for the American people than satisfy our collective sense of justice in attacking the airfields of Assad before we reward him with adulation.
"...as recently as last week, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and the United Nations ambassador, Nikki Haley, had reinforced the perception that Mr. Trump was perfectly willing to live with Mr. Assad."
Putting an aggressive violent despot at ease, so that he commits an overly aggressive act against international law, which, in turn, gives our Commander in Chief an opportunity/ reason to attack.
Though there are different accounts of the meeting between America envoy April Gaspie and Sadaam Hussein in July 1990, she supposedly told him that the United States had no opinion regarding the oil dispute between Iraq and Kuwait. Shortly thereafter, Sadaam invaded Kuwait and the US responded with the first Gulf War. The war raised the first President Bush's poll numbers. Unfortunately for Bush, the war ended too quickly to sustain his popularity.
A response to aggression also saved the second Bush presidency. In each case, the American response to unlawful violence was arguably appropriate, but it has been known for centuries that war making raises the leaders popularity in the short run.
Mr Trump must do more for the American people than satisfy our collective sense of justice in attacking the airfields of Assad before we reward him with adulation.
1
Look for another target to divert attention to the corruption and the wholesale influence of Little Putin in the Oval Office.
It is time to indict this fraud and his sycophants who have usurped the democratic process in the United States with help from Little Putin, for treason against the United States of America.
It is time to indict this fraud and his sycophants who have usurped the democratic process in the United States with help from Little Putin, for treason against the United States of America.
Trump's supposed anguish over "the babies, the little babies" rings hollow against his budget cuts to our elderly citizen neighbors, taking away the Meals on Wheels 'meal -a-day' program for those without enough money nor resources to get them a bit of nutritious food to get them through another day, by the way-something I witnessed first hand and can tell you it isn't anything you'd see at Mar a Lago, and add his boldly cutting the Headstart Breakfast Program, a simple attempt to provide a bit of nutritious food to feed hungry children and aid them as they try and get up to speed and face another day. And all the while as Trump and Family eat to their hearts content the best of the best White House chefs can provide, then fly off to Mar A Lago for another weekend of golf and fine dining, for a staff of 30, then add the security personnel and all the other glad-handers along for the ride. "Oh, the babies, the little babies." Give me a break.
3
So Trump acted and the Times said it led to "some sense of emotional satisfaction, and justice done." It was something that Barrack Obama should have done years ago, which the Times did not say.
Now the Times raises questions. Was it legal? Hardly anyone believes a single limited attack in response to belligerence requires Congressional authorization. Is there a larger strategy? Three days after the stunning use of poison gas by Assad, it seems a little early to ask for a comprehensive strategy, particularly before the reaction of other players is known.
The key is that power has been projected - changing the pattern of the last few years. It may have many uses: stopping further use of poison gas; reining in Assad; sending an oblique lesson to North Korea. There seems to be no immediate downside, only time will tell if there is any lasting impact.
Now the Times raises questions. Was it legal? Hardly anyone believes a single limited attack in response to belligerence requires Congressional authorization. Is there a larger strategy? Three days after the stunning use of poison gas by Assad, it seems a little early to ask for a comprehensive strategy, particularly before the reaction of other players is known.
The key is that power has been projected - changing the pattern of the last few years. It may have many uses: stopping further use of poison gas; reining in Assad; sending an oblique lesson to North Korea. There seems to be no immediate downside, only time will tell if there is any lasting impact.
Menachem Begin and Arik Sharon, both extreme right-wing hawks, performed serious flip-flops: Begin made peace with Egypt and Sharon removed all Israeli presence from Gaza. Lives were undoubtably saved on all sides, though neither move prevented fundamentalist Islam from continuing to advance their agenda to make the entire world into an Islamic state. The Sinai is crawling with ISIS and in Gaza, extremists rule. The end game is the war between the free world and radical Islam. There are lot of moves in this game, most of which are impossible to predict. But to bring down one of the main kingpins of terrorism would seriously hinder the world-wide Sha'aria movement. This game will not be over in a decade and perhaps not in a century, but it must be won by those who support free societies. And meanwhile the planet is dying. How do I explain all this to my grandchildren?
1
Dear reader,
The reader is politely suggested to consider the Westminster manner of government and its model to remove an incompetent prime minister.
Mr Trump seems to exhibit the worst of a Presidential government.
He is unaccountable to a Cabinet comprising elected Congressional representatives.
He is not elected by Congress.
Unlike the UK monarchy the US president does not serve at the discretion of an elected congress.
He cannot be out voted by Cabinet.
Mr Trump's behaviour and choices may turn the elected Congress to consider dealing with a president who is an idiot.
The louder the crowds yell for unfettered leadership the quieter becomes the soul.
When irrationality is lauded there is a problem.
Read Erich Fromm.
A Australian
\
The reader is politely suggested to consider the Westminster manner of government and its model to remove an incompetent prime minister.
Mr Trump seems to exhibit the worst of a Presidential government.
He is unaccountable to a Cabinet comprising elected Congressional representatives.
He is not elected by Congress.
Unlike the UK monarchy the US president does not serve at the discretion of an elected congress.
He cannot be out voted by Cabinet.
Mr Trump's behaviour and choices may turn the elected Congress to consider dealing with a president who is an idiot.
The louder the crowds yell for unfettered leadership the quieter becomes the soul.
When irrationality is lauded there is a problem.
Read Erich Fromm.
A Australian
\
While it is too early to dissect this action, one can certainly guess based on the events preceding Trump's decision. 1. Bannon gets thrown off the NSC. 2. McMaster has the ear of the President. 3. Ivanka saw the coverage of children dying and was upset. 4. The generals saw an opening for a reasoned response and gently guided and cajoled Trump to his decision by promising good tv coverage for him. What happens next week will depend on how Trump responds to his generals.
1
a self-indulgent operation by DJT and the Generals...
only his aggrandizement was improved.
the action was illegal, and it was an act of war.
it was a real-life re-enactment of Hollywood's "Wag the Dog",
divert, distract, and disguise.
the lack of decisiveness and obvious destruction from the
videos and pictures provided to date make this $120m++
'exercise' another classic waste of our treasure.
but,
what else should we expect from this incompetent little boy?
grrrrr
1
Duh, this is only about domestic politics. If the health care bill had passed and Trump had been cruising along on an agenda, with decent approval ratings, he would have told all those gassed Syrians to just buck up and appreciate their strong, excellent leader, like him. TV news at last gave him the distraction he needed to draw attention away from his non-functioning administration.
99
The real question, as Obama often said, is what do we do on Day Two? Are we trying to get rid of Assad, or not? If the answer is yes, who will run Syria, where the population is ethnically even more fragmented than in Iraq? Who will prevent civil war or anarchy? The world needs another failed state like a hole in the head.
120
Syria is engaged in a civil war, we cannot pick the winner.
1
Pay attention to what the President said. He was sending a message to Assad (and by implication to Putin) that the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable. He is NOT trying to force Assad from powerl
1
People wanting Assad toppled should be careful for what they wish for. A peaceful transition to shared power-great. A chaotic endgame with militias grappling for control-not so great. Been there, done that. Libya on steroids, closer to Israel, Turkey, Iraq... Assad should go and be punished for the atrocities of the war. But the complexity of this region should not escape people. Russia, Turkey, Kurds, Iraq, Iran, Gulf States: all vying for influence and not likely to roll over anytime soon.
52
"After the Airstrikes on Syria, What’s Next?"?
A) MORE chaos in the Middle East?
B) Another ruinous US military involvement in the Middle East?
C) A perfect recruiting tool for ISIS, etc?
D) The US media "forgetting" about the Trump's relations with Russian and election hacking?
E) ALL OF THE ABOVE?
A) MORE chaos in the Middle East?
B) Another ruinous US military involvement in the Middle East?
C) A perfect recruiting tool for ISIS, etc?
D) The US media "forgetting" about the Trump's relations with Russian and election hacking?
E) ALL OF THE ABOVE?
7
"So far, there is no evidence that Mr. Trump has thought through the implications of military force or figured out what to do next."
Sounds like a perfect description of Dubya, and look where he led us. Trump, at least, acted on something that wasn't imaginary.
Scary, for sure, but not nearly a scary as what George W. Bush did. Trump has a lot of catching up to do before he surpasses Dubya in bloodshed and wasted opportunities in foreign policy.
Sounds like a perfect description of Dubya, and look where he led us. Trump, at least, acted on something that wasn't imaginary.
Scary, for sure, but not nearly a scary as what George W. Bush did. Trump has a lot of catching up to do before he surpasses Dubya in bloodshed and wasted opportunities in foreign policy.
2
In 2016 Gavin Eugene Long killed 3 police officers probably as an act of retaliation for the killings of innocent blacks at the hand of the police and in order to shock and awe them into knowing that continuation of senseless slaughtering of whom he identified with would not remain without consequence.
And now Trump kills 9 Syrians in an act of retaliation for the killings of Sunni rebels and civilians with poison gas by presumably Assad and in order to shock and awe him into knowing that continuation of the senseless slaughtering of whom he feels prompted to protect against the use of sarin will not remain without consequence.
Both actions were perpetrated lawlessly.
A difference is Trump feels on top of the world, whereas Long most likely felt left behind on the bottom of the world.
Another difference is that Trump fears no consequences (if, from something else, of which he is diverting), whereas Long seems to have sacrificed himself for what he saw as justice.
A legal path for vindication seems implausible in both cases.
The God of the bible kills or orders to kill over a million people in "an eye for an eye" acts. If deemed convenient or imperative, He feels free to instruct to kill women and children first.
It's not that Trump or Long lack precedent.
Is it also wise and advisable to follow?
I'd say the world is aching for the precedent to be unpresidented.
Sadly primitive un(der)reflected religious precedent seems to preside still in most of American minds.
And now Trump kills 9 Syrians in an act of retaliation for the killings of Sunni rebels and civilians with poison gas by presumably Assad and in order to shock and awe him into knowing that continuation of the senseless slaughtering of whom he feels prompted to protect against the use of sarin will not remain without consequence.
Both actions were perpetrated lawlessly.
A difference is Trump feels on top of the world, whereas Long most likely felt left behind on the bottom of the world.
Another difference is that Trump fears no consequences (if, from something else, of which he is diverting), whereas Long seems to have sacrificed himself for what he saw as justice.
A legal path for vindication seems implausible in both cases.
The God of the bible kills or orders to kill over a million people in "an eye for an eye" acts. If deemed convenient or imperative, He feels free to instruct to kill women and children first.
It's not that Trump or Long lack precedent.
Is it also wise and advisable to follow?
I'd say the world is aching for the precedent to be unpresidented.
Sadly primitive un(der)reflected religious precedent seems to preside still in most of American minds.
After over five years, 500,000 casualties, 5,000,000 displaced persons- and mostly without the use of chemical weapons- we join the show with a short skit with only a $60,000,000 production cost, that got a lot of viewers.
O.K., chemical weapons are nasty.
Back to the ordinary, day-to-day grind of bombing more cities into rubble, on the other channel.
Definitely not prime-time viewing here.
Let's stream a movie or play World at War on the internet.
Meanwhile, back at the factory, another $900,000 Tomahawk Cruise missile rolls off the assembly line and Putin trailers a few more nuclear missiles up to the border....
And another 18 wheeler runs down a crowd in Stockholm....
Yeah, good question, what is next?
O.K., chemical weapons are nasty.
Back to the ordinary, day-to-day grind of bombing more cities into rubble, on the other channel.
Definitely not prime-time viewing here.
Let's stream a movie or play World at War on the internet.
Meanwhile, back at the factory, another $900,000 Tomahawk Cruise missile rolls off the assembly line and Putin trailers a few more nuclear missiles up to the border....
And another 18 wheeler runs down a crowd in Stockholm....
Yeah, good question, what is next?
Launching the Syrian attacks while hosting China's leader sent the wrong message to China. The attack could have waited till after the China visit.
Under Trump, we have all become armchair psychologists. Here is my take:
Our President, a full-on sociopath, felt nothing on seeing those pictures of dead children for to him human beings are just objects to be used. He was worried, though, about being blamed for their deaths. His laissez-faire policy and statements about Assad encouraged the latter to think he could act with impunity. Putin may even have messaged Assad that he need not worry about Trump. "Because I have something on him."
Just guessing.
Our President, a full-on sociopath, felt nothing on seeing those pictures of dead children for to him human beings are just objects to be used. He was worried, though, about being blamed for their deaths. His laissez-faire policy and statements about Assad encouraged the latter to think he could act with impunity. Putin may even have messaged Assad that he need not worry about Trump. "Because I have something on him."
Just guessing.
1
I remember A. Whitney Brown talking about 9/11... my response was the same as everyone's: I wanted to grab a gun and go out and kill someone browner than me.
Revenge is guttural. Feels good. But we all know that there are always consequences...
Revenge is guttural. Feels good. But we all know that there are always consequences...
Is there any evidence he hasn't?
Very little damage. Russia told in advance, word leaks out. Planned perfectly, for maximum SHOW and minimal results. Well done, Donald.
Must see TV. Great shiny new distraction.
Must see TV. Great shiny new distraction.
7
I wonder if this article with be shown in some future documentary about the beginnings of a new war....Just in case, HI FUTURE PEOPLE!! btw-sorry... :(
2
The biggest threat to Putin's puppet Trump is the looming investigation into Trump's collusion with Putin. Putin ordered his other puppet Assad to launch a gratuitous chemical attack on some random set of civilians, the only requirement is we need to see extremely gruesome scenes with mothers and children. Perfect opportunity to show Trump as a hero and man of action, and as against Putin, and tough on Assad simultaneously for the cost of fifty US missiles and s few of Assad's airplanes.
I agree with all of this, and very nervous of what comes next. Will this lead to all out war? And if this strike is found to be unlawful, impeachment? Hopefully.
1
I don't even know who to root for anymore - the Syrian women who are standing up against a group of religious extremists who would like to see them in burkhas, or the innocent children who are being poisoned. The choice is insane and so is this clustermuck of a conflict.
And what is Trump's end game here anyway - if he is so moved by these suffering children, then why did he turn them away? The poor babies. So tragic. It's tragic. Little babies.
And what is Trump's end game here anyway - if he is so moved by these suffering children, then why did he turn them away? The poor babies. So tragic. It's tragic. Little babies.
Down here in Brazil, the view on the street is that Trump will "botar fogo no mundo" (set the world on fire). This missile attack didn't surprise anyone, but everybody is still waiting for the other shoe to drop.
What concrete evidence to we have of these chemical weapons attacks? I saw the pictures, but absent reliable news accounts, they don't really prove whether sarin was used. Third party news accounts from the war front are often bogus. Our president claims to be convinced, but is this just another fake issue, like his claim that President Obama was born in Kenya? Credibility is a key issue in deciding whether to go to war and our current president is simply not credible.
2
That first military action always feels great, striking a blow against some outrage. Remember the Maine, the Alamo, the Tonkin Gulf Incident, Bad Sadaam Hussein, and so forth. Then come the small escalations, and finally the quagmire and the body bags bring our soldiers home.
Whether this was the thoughtless impulse of our child-president or calculated distraction from his Russian-tainted presidency doesn't matter. We do not need another war in the Middle East. If you want to help Syrian children give them a home here.
Whether this was the thoughtless impulse of our child-president or calculated distraction from his Russian-tainted presidency doesn't matter. We do not need another war in the Middle East. If you want to help Syrian children give them a home here.
4
What next? Contrary to the lust wishes of some, Trump's action is not (intended as) the first act in an escalation of conflict involving the U.S. in Syria. It was an appropriate, measured, singular response to a criminal act of inhumanity carried out by the Assad regime.
Our president was COMMUNICATING with international players. The action was a MESSAGE to Syria, Russia, Iran, China and N Korea (also the allies, the wider regions, and even the U.N.). The message is of greater import than the action. Trump was 'tested' by Assad (possibly the Russians) and he answered.
Trump has made known his strategy since day-one. He is to viewed as a loose cannon, he is not going to telegraph his moves to his opponents, he is to keep them (even us) guessing- it's classic Sun Tzu.
Too many are focusing on the small 'game'. The 'game' is much bigger (certainly bigger than Syria). Think bigger, I doubt Trump is ignoring N Korea in his reckoning. The opportunity for Xi to deliver the SERIOUSNESS of his message will not have been lost to Trump.
I wish we had been provided with more reporting on XLV meets XI, that's where the real news was over the last few days.
Our president was COMMUNICATING with international players. The action was a MESSAGE to Syria, Russia, Iran, China and N Korea (also the allies, the wider regions, and even the U.N.). The message is of greater import than the action. Trump was 'tested' by Assad (possibly the Russians) and he answered.
Trump has made known his strategy since day-one. He is to viewed as a loose cannon, he is not going to telegraph his moves to his opponents, he is to keep them (even us) guessing- it's classic Sun Tzu.
Too many are focusing on the small 'game'. The 'game' is much bigger (certainly bigger than Syria). Think bigger, I doubt Trump is ignoring N Korea in his reckoning. The opportunity for Xi to deliver the SERIOUSNESS of his message will not have been lost to Trump.
I wish we had been provided with more reporting on XLV meets XI, that's where the real news was over the last few days.
"Was it an impetuous, isolated response unrelated to a larger strategy for resolving the complex dilemma of Syria?"
Yes.
Yes.
2
For every action the question is, "What's the desired outcome?" A message has been sent (willingness to act, unpredictability, impulsiveness, etc. take your pick) but to what end? The North Koreans now know talk of preemptive action is not just talk. Probably time to call Dennis Rodman.
1
Clearly, it's not enough for Syrian children to wash up dead on beaches, or be found drowned or starved in boats...they must be choking on deadly gas. Is a similar atrocity is needed for him to recognize the suffering of America's own children in Flint, Appalachia, and low-income neighborhoods in countless large and small US cities? It seems their suffering--directly by our own hands or by our failure to act--is insufficient. But who knows? It seems he could change his mind at any time.
157
Indeed e w. However, in the U.S., we the people can
force the legislators, state and local, to do the work they were elected, employed, hired, paid handsomely to do for the children of Flint, Appalachia, inner cities, and anywhere we find them. Let the citizen voters do their
jobs of holding their feet to the fire. The president (and I didn't vote for him) cannot be held accountable for our own children until our local and state legislators do their jobs.
force the legislators, state and local, to do the work they were elected, employed, hired, paid handsomely to do for the children of Flint, Appalachia, inner cities, and anywhere we find them. Let the citizen voters do their
jobs of holding their feet to the fire. The president (and I didn't vote for him) cannot be held accountable for our own children until our local and state legislators do their jobs.
Mr. Assad is surely responsible for many deaths among the Syrian population, but how many Alawite lives has he saved by his staying in power? As a nation, we refuse to consider the plight of the Alawites if Mr. Assad left the country or was deposed by external forces. I have a question: Suppose we guarantee the safety of the entire Alawite population: what would change? Isn't it clear that one reason why Iran is supporting Mr. Assad's government is that the Alawites are seen to be Shiites, at least by some Muslims? Wouldn't the Sunnis kill all Alawites if they had a chance? Why is it so difficult to understand the religious nature of the civil war in Syria?
39
It is most unfair to drag Obama into this. Put into the context of the time, he faced a war-weary America that had lost over 4000 of its military in a "mission accomplished" Iraq. Add to that the conflict in Syria is and always was a civil war.
Take my word for it, we have not seen the last of Trump's blunders. I shudder to think about what's next.
Take my word for it, we have not seen the last of Trump's blunders. I shudder to think about what's next.
199
Maybe next Trump will order the invasion of Mexico as he indicated if they don't control their Hombres and pay the bill for the "A Big Beautiful Wall" to make America Great Again.
Judging from the overwhelming comments, there's encouragement that some of the American People, as the Republicans now call us, see through this phony fraud of a president.
Judging from the overwhelming comments, there's encouragement that some of the American People, as the Republicans now call us, see through this phony fraud of a president.
A measured, effective strike to make it clear that such a war crime has consequences is an appropriate response that deserves Americans' support.
Supporting one action by a President does not mean one supports everything he does. Supporting nothing he does because he is Trump is just as wrong putting party before truth and justice.
Putin is a habitual, lying bully who false indignation and protests of Syrian innocence are more bold-faced lies. The evidence is clear. Truth is still important and punishing such a crime is a good step that does not in anyway tie U.S. hands for the future.
Supporting one action by a President does not mean one supports everything he does. Supporting nothing he does because he is Trump is just as wrong putting party before truth and justice.
Putin is a habitual, lying bully who false indignation and protests of Syrian innocence are more bold-faced lies. The evidence is clear. Truth is still important and punishing such a crime is a good step that does not in anyway tie U.S. hands for the future.
24
Since the US missile strike, Assad has already launched a chlorine gas attack.
No lesson was learned, the gas attacks continue. Trump looks like the dope that he is.
If the decade long invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afganistan didn't teach any lesson, the Syrian missile attack surely didn't either. If there was any lesson learned over the past half century, it is that US military adventures in the Middle East is a waste of blood and treasure, and completely ineffectual..
No lesson was learned, the gas attacks continue. Trump looks like the dope that he is.
If the decade long invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afganistan didn't teach any lesson, the Syrian missile attack surely didn't either. If there was any lesson learned over the past half century, it is that US military adventures in the Middle East is a waste of blood and treasure, and completely ineffectual..
Frankly I don't see the widespread condemnation of this act because it was Trump who ordered it. I myself have questions about his motivation, because we have seen his penchant for distraction and a missile attack is a big distraction.
Others applaud his action but just want a more comprehensive plan.
The NY Times had a nice article on flip flops amongst politicians regarding bombing Assad, and members of both Parties switched but it was more blatant and common amongst Republican Senators.
The one person who has been steadfast is forgotten and irrelevant Hillary Clinton. Too bad we reject solid informed leadership for the drumbeat of empty scandals.
Others applaud his action but just want a more comprehensive plan.
The NY Times had a nice article on flip flops amongst politicians regarding bombing Assad, and members of both Parties switched but it was more blatant and common amongst Republican Senators.
The one person who has been steadfast is forgotten and irrelevant Hillary Clinton. Too bad we reject solid informed leadership for the drumbeat of empty scandals.
True enough. Maybe a useful outcome of this will be that Trump can see that Russia is truly not our friend and he can develop a more reasoned approach because of it. Perhaps now we will see if the Russians actually have anything on him. By the way, I am embarrassed and humiliated to have that deviate as my president. That does not mean that I hope everything he does fails. The stakes are too high. This is the first time he has shown any inkling of listening to advice, and it is encouraging. Since we are stuck with this moron, I'm happy to see how he proceeded in this case. May it be the beginning of a shift toward actual statesmanship. The first step of an incredibly long journey.
This editorial misses the point. Obama did not chose the smarter course by backing off of his threats to use military force and instead making a deal in which Russia guaranteed the removal of Syria's chemical weapons. Obama lost all credibility and obviously the Russian guarantee meant nothing. In fact it's likely that Russia knew of and was complicit in Assad's ongoing use use of chemical weapons. The strike sends a clear and strong message that the use of WMD will not be tolerated.
22
Unfortunately, good old fashioned killing will go on. Does it really matter to a huge degree how you are killed once you are dead? It seems that you are saying that as long as WMD are not used, bring on the killing. How about actually working to stop the war? Not an easy task, especially when you remember that a majority of Syrians support Assad. It is a civil war. One side will lose. That's the way these things work. Yes, Assad could step down and that might help. The rebels could also concede defeat and life would go on as well. The place is a mess. Having the US throw its weight around is not likely to change that.
The strike sends a clear message all right: get your PR act together, Syria, or we will make a weak and ineffective response to you.
In what universe does the cessation of chemical weapons for four years mean that 'Obama lost all credibility and obviously the Russian guarantee meant nothing'?
Don't you think Trump's very public musing on Syria going its own way might have influenced its behavior?
In what universe does the cessation of chemical weapons for four years mean that 'Obama lost all credibility and obviously the Russian guarantee meant nothing'?
Don't you think Trump's very public musing on Syria going its own way might have influenced its behavior?
Obama took the interesting step of acting according to our constitution, and approaching Congress for approval of an act of war. With no support from Congress - they wouldn't support anything he did, sticking to the deeply held Republican principle of hating Obama - he managed to get the deal involving Russia - which lasted quite well, up until the Trump administration announced that it was no longer opposed to Assad remaining in power. A few days later, the Sarin gas attacks. Now we seem to be returning to something more like Obama's policy, but it's impossible to tell, really. I'm afraid it's still the Trump watch-TV-and-Tweet thing - not a policy at all.
The "Ugly American" redux? Or never really gone?
How disheartening to read editorials and op-eds at platforms like the NYT which draw a solid degree of satisfaction and smirking comeuppance from missile strikes against Assad's forces.
To what end?
Find me the "good guys" in Syria. If you can't (and I'll tell you right here, "you can't") then stop crowing about missile attacks that do next to nothing, but only give excuse to extremists of all stripes to only do worse.
Shameful commentary by the NYT. It has learned nothing from Vietnam, Iraq, Cambodia, Gaza/West Bank, Sudan (and that genius NYT advocated Sudan split), and a host of disastrously "managed" conflicts (where media assessment was so often so very far off the mark).
The arrogance and feeling of "yeah America's gonna show those guys" is just so sadly pitiful. Pitiful for what it says about America and its leading intellectual lights. Sad, because of what it indicates the world has ahead of it.
How disheartening to read editorials and op-eds at platforms like the NYT which draw a solid degree of satisfaction and smirking comeuppance from missile strikes against Assad's forces.
To what end?
Find me the "good guys" in Syria. If you can't (and I'll tell you right here, "you can't") then stop crowing about missile attacks that do next to nothing, but only give excuse to extremists of all stripes to only do worse.
Shameful commentary by the NYT. It has learned nothing from Vietnam, Iraq, Cambodia, Gaza/West Bank, Sudan (and that genius NYT advocated Sudan split), and a host of disastrously "managed" conflicts (where media assessment was so often so very far off the mark).
The arrogance and feeling of "yeah America's gonna show those guys" is just so sadly pitiful. Pitiful for what it says about America and its leading intellectual lights. Sad, because of what it indicates the world has ahead of it.
1
Generally, when you are building something, you decide what you will be making, preparing, building, first. You devise the strategy, or what is the end-game. And only then do you develop the various tactical--more doc used things.
For instance, a child who beginning a science project has an idea of the principal they wish to prover, ir the item they wish to build. And, that's when you gather the tools and necessary items to complete the project, buy what additional thins you will need and, then you do your research and, perhaps, list the various intermediate points.
One of Trump's favorite generals, George S. Patton, didn't look out of a window and say that he wants to go to Germany, and then leave the next days. He drew intermediate moans--with battles along the way--from North Africa, ti=o nItaly and on to Germany, where he met-up with the Russians
Unfortunately, if Donald Trump were told that his ultimate target would be Germany, he would have mere drawn a line on a map, from London to Germany, and headed East!
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
For instance, a child who beginning a science project has an idea of the principal they wish to prover, ir the item they wish to build. And, that's when you gather the tools and necessary items to complete the project, buy what additional thins you will need and, then you do your research and, perhaps, list the various intermediate points.
One of Trump's favorite generals, George S. Patton, didn't look out of a window and say that he wants to go to Germany, and then leave the next days. He drew intermediate moans--with battles along the way--from North Africa, ti=o nItaly and on to Germany, where he met-up with the Russians
Unfortunately, if Donald Trump were told that his ultimate target would be Germany, he would have mere drawn a line on a map, from London to Germany, and headed East!
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
I am just speculating but is it possible at all that this is just smoke and mirrors posturing to alleviate pressure? Grandstanding? WWE at its very finest? Just because Mr Putin has called it a blow, is it? How do we know it is? Media pivots on the whims of politicians it seems, blowing in the wind like leaves. Let's pause and consider everything.
1
I am afraid. Not that Trump did the wrong thing here - he actually accidentally did the morally correct thing - but that Trump will get a popularity bump here, and that he will learn that he gets a popularity bump when he uses the military.
That he will begin to use the military any time he is in an uncomfortable bind.
Too many bad stories in the news week? Attack Syria.
Getting uncomfortably close to discovering the truth about Russia? Attack North Korea.
Is this how militaristic authoritarian regimes start?
That he will begin to use the military any time he is in an uncomfortable bind.
Too many bad stories in the news week? Attack Syria.
Getting uncomfortably close to discovering the truth about Russia? Attack North Korea.
Is this how militaristic authoritarian regimes start?
2
"Mr. Obama, who threatened military action in the event of a chemical attack but who, after such an attack, chose a smarter course, a deal in which Russia guaranteed the removal of Syria’s chemical weapons."
Do you have any idea how ridiculous it is to refer to Mr. Obama's cowardly reversal as a smarter choice, especially now, in the aftermath of the use of saran gas on civilians? You are just so indoctrinated in the religion of Obama as the intelligent and benevolent Chosen One, that you must reflexively call his choices "smarter."
Do you have any idea how ridiculous it is to refer to Mr. Obama's cowardly reversal as a smarter choice, especially now, in the aftermath of the use of saran gas on civilians? You are just so indoctrinated in the religion of Obama as the intelligent and benevolent Chosen One, that you must reflexively call his choices "smarter."
1
I don';t believe that the trump Regime has figured-out what's next. If you look at today's video of the airstrip that was hit, there is no debris from planes that were destroyed. After we told Russia ahead own time, and they told the Syrian Air Force, how else would they evacuate? Call uber? They flew their plaines to another airstrip. So, the Syrians are without one airfield for awhile.
By the way, answer two questions for me if you can, Mr. Trump:
1. Who were all those people in that-a-Lago,":Situation Room?" If they were going to make hard decisions, why don't they have their jackets off, sleeves rolled-up, and at notebook or computer pad in from of them?
2, If you had a major action all ready to go, why didn't you switch the meeting with Chinese President Xi to Washington? I'm sutra that his Embassy could find accommodations for him and his wife. And that way, melanin might get to sleep in the White House.
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
By the way, answer two questions for me if you can, Mr. Trump:
1. Who were all those people in that-a-Lago,":Situation Room?" If they were going to make hard decisions, why don't they have their jackets off, sleeves rolled-up, and at notebook or computer pad in from of them?
2, If you had a major action all ready to go, why didn't you switch the meeting with Chinese President Xi to Washington? I'm sutra that his Embassy could find accommodations for him and his wife. And that way, melanin might get to sleep in the White House.
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
A dilettante act of a frighteningly indolent mind.
1
If the Times editors and reporters are banned from started a sentence in 'There is no evidence', you would be speechless.
You argue that Obama drew the redline in the sand but chose a "WISER COURSE" by ignoring his own redline? Are you serious? That was not a wiser course; that was a dumb move. It allowed Russian influence to be strengthened in that region, and Iran got emboldened. Besides, as it appears, Assad did not get rid of his chemical weapons arsenal as EVIDENCED by the recent chemical attacks on innocent civilians in rebel-controlled areas.
Secondly, regardless of what Trump said when he was not in government and when he had no access to intelligence as Obama did, to argue that Obama did not act on his redline because of Trump's tweet is to be disingenuous. How ridiculously low can you go, editors?
Thirdly, regardless of your earlier postures on not rattling sabers, if you are not moved by the scenes of babies and children being carried in arms after a chemical strike, then you are not a human. Fortunately, we do not elect robots to govern. And, surprise surprise, liberals are not the only ones with feelings.
Bill Clinton taught us that presidents can lob missiles on any target, including aspirin factory in Kosovo, and did not need Congressional approval. Unless Trump plans to carry on war-making for more than 60 days, it is not necessary to go to Congress and have them debate AUMF. The earlier AUMF that Obama relied on will serve Trump's purpose as well.
You argue that Obama drew the redline in the sand but chose a "WISER COURSE" by ignoring his own redline? Are you serious? That was not a wiser course; that was a dumb move. It allowed Russian influence to be strengthened in that region, and Iran got emboldened. Besides, as it appears, Assad did not get rid of his chemical weapons arsenal as EVIDENCED by the recent chemical attacks on innocent civilians in rebel-controlled areas.
Secondly, regardless of what Trump said when he was not in government and when he had no access to intelligence as Obama did, to argue that Obama did not act on his redline because of Trump's tweet is to be disingenuous. How ridiculously low can you go, editors?
Thirdly, regardless of your earlier postures on not rattling sabers, if you are not moved by the scenes of babies and children being carried in arms after a chemical strike, then you are not a human. Fortunately, we do not elect robots to govern. And, surprise surprise, liberals are not the only ones with feelings.
Bill Clinton taught us that presidents can lob missiles on any target, including aspirin factory in Kosovo, and did not need Congressional approval. Unless Trump plans to carry on war-making for more than 60 days, it is not necessary to go to Congress and have them debate AUMF. The earlier AUMF that Obama relied on will serve Trump's purpose as well.
2
"Mr. Obama, who threatened military action in the event of a chemical attack but who, after such an attack, chose a smarter course..." This is a joke, right? Hundreds of chemical deaths (not to mention hundreds of thousands of deaths generally) later, the NYT is still favoring the do-nothing (except supporting our enemies over our allies) Obama policy? Even the Trump-hating, Obama-loving NYT cannot possibly have written such a fatuous sentence, right? Not only is it stupid, it is inconsistent with other parts of the editorial, which admit the salutary affects of Trump's action. As is the case with liberals generally, the NYT is suffering from anti-Trump disorder.
There is no hard evidence who those chemical weapons belong to, Assed or some of the rebels who are close to ISIS, both of them have used chemical weapons against their enemies before. To the rest of the world, it makes no sense for Assed to use the chemical weapons at this moment because he is winning the war with the help of Russia. Without the authorization of the Congress and United Nations, we feel here we go again. We repeat the same mistake when Bush invaded Iraq without the authorization of UN, and later we found no Mass Destructed Weapons as we claimed they have. From then on, nobody trust us American anymore. Why N. Korean insists to develop nuclear weapon? Because they know if they have the weapon, then U.S. would not dare to invade them like we did to Iraq and Panama. That is how the rest of the world sees us.
1
I am from syria , and despite consedring my self a member of the oppision of Bashar Assad , but as an American , iam asking you The NY Times
Is there any solid proof that Assad was behind the chemical attack in khan shaykhun
Is there any solid proof that Assad was behind the chemical attack in khan shaykhun
When Obama was president, he carried out the assassination of Osama bin Laden and supported overthrowing both Hosni Mubarak and Muammar Qaddhafi--all Sunnis. On the other hand, he did not speak out in favor of the Iranian Green Movement of 2009, nor did he act against Assad. Iran is Shiite and Assad is Alawite--a Shiite sect. At the moment, we don't know what the results of the airstrikes on Syria will lead to. However, it's a relief that the United States no longer favors one branch of Islam over another.
This is the question that the last 4 or 5 Presidents haven't been able to answer: What does success look like? How do we disengage? When do we win and leave? Do we lose and leave or just walk away?
There has been no plan to the entire Middle East war. We have been there for decades, working with allies, going it alone, draw downs, surges, democracy building, commitment, re-commitment, this, that, the other, mostly running in circles. One thing has been steady throughout this entire process, we have been very successful at killing our people for no reason. We have not changed anything in the dynamic of the region.
We have wasted the sacrifice of thousands of our men and women for nothing. We have spent $ Trillions that could have been used to "Make America Great Again" for nothing. None of the money spent in the Middle East has benefited America. In fact by spending the money there we have chosen to let problems we could have solved: homelessness, hunger, bad schools, bad water systems, fester. We have chosen to ignore our own people when they are suffering in order to throw money at people who have been fighting for over 1,000 years.
It is time to walk away. Let them decide their own fate. Take care of us first. Keep your promise Mr. President, put America first. Withdraw from the Middle East. Spend that money at home.
There has been no plan to the entire Middle East war. We have been there for decades, working with allies, going it alone, draw downs, surges, democracy building, commitment, re-commitment, this, that, the other, mostly running in circles. One thing has been steady throughout this entire process, we have been very successful at killing our people for no reason. We have not changed anything in the dynamic of the region.
We have wasted the sacrifice of thousands of our men and women for nothing. We have spent $ Trillions that could have been used to "Make America Great Again" for nothing. None of the money spent in the Middle East has benefited America. In fact by spending the money there we have chosen to let problems we could have solved: homelessness, hunger, bad schools, bad water systems, fester. We have chosen to ignore our own people when they are suffering in order to throw money at people who have been fighting for over 1,000 years.
It is time to walk away. Let them decide their own fate. Take care of us first. Keep your promise Mr. President, put America first. Withdraw from the Middle East. Spend that money at home.
1
I have read that the US alerted the Russians ahead of time so as not to inadvertently cause Russian casualties. I have also read that a number of Syrian planes were hit. This implies that the Russians did not alert the Syrians when they were alerted. You would think that, as allies, they would have given the Syrians a heads up. It doesn't make sense to me. I wish someone would provide some insight or analysis over this puzzling aspect of the raid.
There are just bad options. Ousting Assad is not an objective, simply because we do not know what will replace him, and it could get worse. There are simply no next steps towards some kind of solution. Just talking and hoping that worse things don't happen, which is just wishful thinking.
This airstrike just puts another option on the table, that Trump is willing to take, it is not any kind of a step forward. And broadening our options, with all their pros and cons, should be enough for itself. Whatever plan we will come up with, maybe we can get along with a 'please', but we get further with a please and some big guns. And this is what it is all about.
This airstrike just puts another option on the table, that Trump is willing to take, it is not any kind of a step forward. And broadening our options, with all their pros and cons, should be enough for itself. Whatever plan we will come up with, maybe we can get along with a 'please', but we get further with a please and some big guns. And this is what it is all about.
This was CLEARLY designed to pull focus from the allegations of collusion with Russia. He is using the Syrians like a photo-op. His "concern" for them will wane as soon as they've served their purpose.
2
It was a very reasonable, measured attack. The flight paths identified the aircraft's source, the timelines of the bombings matched the chemical attack.
Sarin is tricky to handle as a binary weapon because mixing produces a strong acid that eats through typical armament casings. Jets were likely used because these were the only type of delivery platform available that matched the characteristics of the weapon. Helicopters might not be able to trigger the mixing needed to synthesize the Sarin or trigger the secondary explosive charge required to disperse the contents - and with chemical weapons, you "don't make up some triggering mechanism in the field".
Russia assured the US that Syria had disposed of it's chemical weapons. It's clear they lied - you don't have Sarin rockets/bombs unknown at a military airfield staffed, managed and secured by Syrian and Russian soldiers.
The big question is why did they (Russia and Syria) do it? If it was a test of Trump, well they know, if they're stupid, well we know.
Sarin is tricky to handle as a binary weapon because mixing produces a strong acid that eats through typical armament casings. Jets were likely used because these were the only type of delivery platform available that matched the characteristics of the weapon. Helicopters might not be able to trigger the mixing needed to synthesize the Sarin or trigger the secondary explosive charge required to disperse the contents - and with chemical weapons, you "don't make up some triggering mechanism in the field".
Russia assured the US that Syria had disposed of it's chemical weapons. It's clear they lied - you don't have Sarin rockets/bombs unknown at a military airfield staffed, managed and secured by Syrian and Russian soldiers.
The big question is why did they (Russia and Syria) do it? If it was a test of Trump, well they know, if they're stupid, well we know.
1
What's next is what trump is wondering. Fox and Friends won't be on until Monday. That's when he'll find out.
Candidate Trump wanted to avoid further military involvement in the ME. President Obama and SOS Kerry assured us in 2014 that they had negotiated a deal under which Syria had removed 100% of their chemical weapons. Assad used Sarin gas against Syrian civilians on Tuesday. President Trump felt compelled to act against Syria for that breach of agreement and his heinous use of WMD. The 60 cruise missle strike was a measured response to Assad's outrageous WMD drop.
This operation was professionally planned by the US military, presented among options to POTUS, and executed timely and decisively. It likely has follow on options. This event could lead to further ME conflict, but it has drawn support from regional allies whom we want to engage more fully at the front against ISIS. While Russia objected vigorously, it is not expected to react militarily. And the mission of our SOS to Russia next week is to have direct dialogue with Russia about this and the rest of the diplomatic agenda.
For the past three months, the MSM has relentlessly promoted the narrative that Trump has been in collusion with Putin to advance Russia's interests. No hard evidence has been produced. Doesn't seem very convincing today. Trump reassessed his ME position based on new developments. When's the MSM going to reassess their position on Trump/Putin collusion?
This operation was professionally planned by the US military, presented among options to POTUS, and executed timely and decisively. It likely has follow on options. This event could lead to further ME conflict, but it has drawn support from regional allies whom we want to engage more fully at the front against ISIS. While Russia objected vigorously, it is not expected to react militarily. And the mission of our SOS to Russia next week is to have direct dialogue with Russia about this and the rest of the diplomatic agenda.
For the past three months, the MSM has relentlessly promoted the narrative that Trump has been in collusion with Putin to advance Russia's interests. No hard evidence has been produced. Doesn't seem very convincing today. Trump reassessed his ME position based on new developments. When's the MSM going to reassess their position on Trump/Putin collusion?
The world has got to come to an understanding on "spheres of influence." Russia conducts military actions in neighboring territory because, they say, that's its sphere of influence. China, same. American actions indicate that, for years, our presidents have concluded that the US sphere of influence is everywhere. But as far as I know, there is no legal framework that allows for breaching national borders without a UN mandate, so something has to give. Either the concept of "sphere of influence" is a thing, or it's not, and if the latter, who enforces a ban?
1
Hasn't thought it through, has he? Not like W, Cheney & Co. thought through the invasions & occupations of Iraq & Afghanistan ... or how Obama & HRC thought through the destruction of Libya, for example ……… Americans aren't very good at thinking through, not beyond careers & contracts. So why expect Trump & Co to be better?
2
I know that Trump is a genius at one thing-deflection. We are talking about the Tomahawk assault on a tertiary airport. No one is talking about Russia or how he accused Susan Rice of spying on him.
Yes, I am a skeptic!
Nothing that this compulsive prevaricator does is to be trusted.His motivation will always be self-preservation first.What a handy situation to derail, at least momentarily, the Russia/Corruption/Election stories from the press and media.
He lives to lie another day!
The sudden change of heart from the same one would ban refugees from these regions, the people has continuously vilified,is highly suspicious.
Nothing that this compulsive prevaricator does is to be trusted.His motivation will always be self-preservation first.What a handy situation to derail, at least momentarily, the Russia/Corruption/Election stories from the press and media.
He lives to lie another day!
The sudden change of heart from the same one would ban refugees from these regions, the people has continuously vilified,is highly suspicious.
3
What's next is easy. Trump tweets that he is one mean hombre and don't mess with him.
What next? Well I suppose that depends on how effectively Trump manages to convince his base that he's not in cahoots with Putin after all.
Anybody who has ever been intellectually stimulated enough to read a book will understand that Trump's top priority is and will always be Trump, and that this whole operation was probably concocted with the full complicity of Putin.
Anybody who has ever been intellectually stimulated enough to read a book will understand that Trump's top priority is and will always be Trump, and that this whole operation was probably concocted with the full complicity of Putin.
1
What next? Just look at Trump's modus operandi for the past 40 years - he flourishes by creating chaos around him. As Trump has boasted, he does not endure hurricanes - he is the hurricane. This currently applies to his jumbled administration, and it will spin outward into the world.
Any stability in foreign policy might come from Gen. McMaster and possibly his son-in-law Kushner, at least for this month, but Trump has a history of replacing right-hand men in quick succession well before he entered the White House.
If Trump has only one negative 'advantage' it is that he appears to be semi-deranged at all times. Armed with a nuclear arsenal this makes Trump a more risky gamble for any international adversary to engage than dealing with, say, the cool-tempered and pragmatic Obama.
Trump has no seasoned political philosophy, only the swaggering, contemptuous, aggressive, and bellicose demeanor that his followers adore, and he has absolutely no respect for the personal dignity and lives of other people, as his campaign and career have proved. This man is seriously dangerous both domestically and abroad.
Any stability in foreign policy might come from Gen. McMaster and possibly his son-in-law Kushner, at least for this month, but Trump has a history of replacing right-hand men in quick succession well before he entered the White House.
If Trump has only one negative 'advantage' it is that he appears to be semi-deranged at all times. Armed with a nuclear arsenal this makes Trump a more risky gamble for any international adversary to engage than dealing with, say, the cool-tempered and pragmatic Obama.
Trump has no seasoned political philosophy, only the swaggering, contemptuous, aggressive, and bellicose demeanor that his followers adore, and he has absolutely no respect for the personal dignity and lives of other people, as his campaign and career have proved. This man is seriously dangerous both domestically and abroad.
1
The Mouse That Roared
Up to 11 million people displaced in Syria, either forced to flee or dead, and this civil war has gone on since March of 2011, the crisis can be blamed on not only Bashar al-Assad and his military, but those in the region as well. Then, the UN, the EU, and President Obama did next to nothing. What does anyone expect after this latest gas attack? Who was responsible, was it Assad, the rebels, Russia, only time will tell, and time anymore seems to not matter. When I think of Assad, educated abroad, President Obama, an educated man, those in Europe, it makes me wonder what good are all those educated men as they haven't done anything really. Maybe, Tillerson, and those in military positions in this administration can figure it out. Believe me, if it hadn't of been for some of those military persons, this strike would not of gone forward.
2
Get Donald Trump out of the loop before he starts World War III.
It is astounding that a President with such a minuscule vocabulary can dupe so many Americans. The ploy of Trump to use the murder of Syrian men, women, and children as political achievement is disgusting.
The world will need more than Trump's appeal to God to survive his presidency.
Foreign policy is not a parlor game of Risk.
There will be nothing for the next president of the United States to "inherit" since there will be just that---nothing.
The world will need more than Trump's appeal to God to survive his presidency.
Foreign policy is not a parlor game of Risk.
There will be nothing for the next president of the United States to "inherit" since there will be just that---nothing.
"Thinking through implications...?" Yes, please let us know when our WH occupier gets within striking distance of that notion.
After the pronouncements by Trump, Haley and Tillerson that the U.S. would leave Syria to work out its own problems, and turn its attention to Isis, the impulsive reversal of those statements is a big warning. There is a strange idea that Assad may have been "testing" whether the Trump administration really meant he could do what he wanted when he gassed his own citizens. But those statements were part of an ongoing acceptance by Trump of dictators — Putin, al Sissi, Assad. Imagine, he showed more friendliness to al Sissi than to Angela Merkel. I don't think Trump sees much bad about dictators because he would like to be one. So I think Assad did perceive he could do what he wanted. Just as violence against immigrants breaks out on the streets when Presidents vilify immigrants, so there may be disastrous results from Presidents giving signals to dictators that their excesses will be ignored. This is why his flirting with Putin is of great concern. I do think that the dictators will quickly learn the capriciousness of Trump's support. I am also disturbed that Trump didn't bat an eyelash at the dead children from his brash air raid in Yemen. If the emotion Trump felt for the "beautiful" dead and dying Syrian children is real, he will lift his ban on Syrian refugees entering the U.S., and he will rethink the excessive use of force the U.S. has been displaying in its Mideast air war. Many a beautiful arab child has suffered the torments of hell due to U.S. bombing.
1
A rich irony? How genteel! Caviar anyone? Given the sublimly awesome destructive potential of America's dogs of war it would seem Janus-faced posturing to the question of when the release of those dogs is justified should warrant something on the order of felonious hypocrisy!
It's very simple... we have elected the wrong man to be President of the United States. This is a one dimensional person lacking any depth of understanding or philosophical foundation. Expect all decisions to be poorly made.
2
If President Trump had demonstrated a respect for facts, consistency and truth, this impulsive one-off attack would be far less suspect.
Given President Trump's history of misdirection and deflection, the "Wag the Dog" interpretation of this event remains open.
Absent anything approaching a consistent policy, this impulsive attack seems to be another instance of shoot first and plan for the consequences later. Unknown unknowns then give rise to unintended consequences?
Then a "coalition of the willing"?
I have seen this movie before. Indeed, the last reel of that movie is far from being in the can. The current call for "Lights! Camera! Action!" initiates the shooting of one more reel in the longest running cinematic event in U.S. history.
Personally, I have no wish to continue watching this unending flick.
I can't help thinking that the Great Deflector at this early juncture already has seized upon the most powerful distractor within his reach: military action.
I hope I am wrong in suspecting this, but that possibility strikes me and many others as not devoid of merit.
Has the Distractor in Chief once again consulted "Ye Olde Deflectionary"?
Given President Trump's history of misdirection and deflection, the "Wag the Dog" interpretation of this event remains open.
Absent anything approaching a consistent policy, this impulsive attack seems to be another instance of shoot first and plan for the consequences later. Unknown unknowns then give rise to unintended consequences?
Then a "coalition of the willing"?
I have seen this movie before. Indeed, the last reel of that movie is far from being in the can. The current call for "Lights! Camera! Action!" initiates the shooting of one more reel in the longest running cinematic event in U.S. history.
Personally, I have no wish to continue watching this unending flick.
I can't help thinking that the Great Deflector at this early juncture already has seized upon the most powerful distractor within his reach: military action.
I hope I am wrong in suspecting this, but that possibility strikes me and many others as not devoid of merit.
Has the Distractor in Chief once again consulted "Ye Olde Deflectionary"?
1
Jared whips out his Crayola Crayons and marks up new middle east boundaries. Problem solved, next issue?
1
A vague sense of emotional satisfaction is hardly a defensible tactical objective and has no role in the formulation of foreign policy. Launch a tweet storm if you must, but hold it on the missiles. The death of six hapless Syrians is hardly justice done.
Has anyone checked to see whether someone on "Fox and Friends" suggested the airstrikes? I am not joking here.
2
Unfortunately, this episode reveals just how easily distracted Mr. Trump can become, and how dangerous he can be wielding weapons of mass destruction. In coping with his dyslexia, imagery has become the primary form of emotional-informational content in communicating with the reading-reasoning. Imagine if the TV report had only shown a few old men lying prostrate and a smiling baby. No problem, no bombing. Now if we can only figure out a way to control what he sees on the TV, we can at least control his emotional roller coaster.
Wee Donald wanted to show what a big boy he is now, messed up an airfield. Assad will build a new one. Probably faster and for less money than the replacement of the missiles. Those who revel in satisfaction for this theatrical pique should consider: stuff gets blown up in Syria all the time - yesterday was much like any other day except a bigger bang.
Now if he had persuaded the Russians to withdraw ... that would have been useful, even clever, but that's asking a lot.
Now if he had persuaded the Russians to withdraw ... that would have been useful, even clever, but that's asking a lot.
2
It was hard not to feel some sense of emotional satisfaction, and justice done, when American cruise missiles struck an airfield in Syria on Thursday.
Yeah, we know, the rockets red glare, the bombs bursting in air - Barack Obama had a vastly bigger concept of America's role in the world than for her to be the dumbest cop on the block; one that emphasized restraint in the use of military power in favour of seriously seeking diplomatic solutions. This is how sanctions were imposed on Russia. This is how Iran's nuclear ambitions were reined in. This is how America made friends instead of enemies over the past eight years. Of course another boring round of talks in Switzerland won't get the heart pumping like bombs bursting in air, nor would it silence the critics and the comedians who have been tearing Trump to little, little pieces these past long months.
Yeah, we know, the rockets red glare, the bombs bursting in air - Barack Obama had a vastly bigger concept of America's role in the world than for her to be the dumbest cop on the block; one that emphasized restraint in the use of military power in favour of seriously seeking diplomatic solutions. This is how sanctions were imposed on Russia. This is how Iran's nuclear ambitions were reined in. This is how America made friends instead of enemies over the past eight years. Of course another boring round of talks in Switzerland won't get the heart pumping like bombs bursting in air, nor would it silence the critics and the comedians who have been tearing Trump to little, little pieces these past long months.
2
What's next? Strutting like a popinjay, right up until the indictments start rolling in.
What's next? How about "anything", Are you comfortable with "anything" ,because that's what you're gonna get. Nobody can guess the next move because you're not involved in the next move. This man could say that the moon is made of green cheese and force a vote in the Congress to subsidize a NASA mission to prove him wrong. It turn's out that the worst that can happen is a headline saying "What's next?".
No question: Bashar al-Assad is a war criminal. He is also a terrorist in the purest sense of that word: this latest horrific chemical attack was about striking terror into the hearts of Syria's citizens more than any standard military objective.
Enter Donald Trump, who, in response to similar but far more massive versions of Assad's chemical atrocities repeatedly urged then President Obama to refrain from responding.
From a 2013 Trump tweet: "What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval".
Assad is a horrible human being; however, we are bombing him and we are bombing his enemies. And now Trump is taking a bow for his "principled, proportional reaction", without a coherent policy (not that there are any easy solutions).
One profound irony sticks out, however: The very Syrians - whose humanity apparently "moved" Trump to action - are the most prominent specific group of refugees in dire need, that Trump seeks to exclude from the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Enter Donald Trump, who, in response to similar but far more massive versions of Assad's chemical atrocities repeatedly urged then President Obama to refrain from responding.
From a 2013 Trump tweet: "What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval".
Assad is a horrible human being; however, we are bombing him and we are bombing his enemies. And now Trump is taking a bow for his "principled, proportional reaction", without a coherent policy (not that there are any easy solutions).
One profound irony sticks out, however: The very Syrians - whose humanity apparently "moved" Trump to action - are the most prominent specific group of refugees in dire need, that Trump seeks to exclude from the land of the free and the home of the brave.
196
"No question: Bashar al-Assad is a war criminal. He is also a terrorist in the purest sense of that word: this latest horrific chemical attack was about striking terror into the hearts of Syria's citizens more than any standard military objective."
But as a war criminal he is just a very minor one compared to the Israeli with Netanyahu, and in particular compared to the US, with every government after WW2 consisting of war criminals that eclipse all earlier ones, and on par with Nazi Germany!
But as a war criminal he is just a very minor one compared to the Israeli with Netanyahu, and in particular compared to the US, with every government after WW2 consisting of war criminals that eclipse all earlier ones, and on par with Nazi Germany!
1
"Obama chose a smarter course" - you've got to be kidding. Chemical weapons weren't destroyed and this led to a number of other chemical attacks. The "smarter course" was a failure.
33
To Bob
Obama's course was smarter because 1) he didn't ban Syrian refugees and 2) he did not take military actions halfcocked (see Larry Lundgren's comment above on what the Guardian reports about it). Trump acts every day to reinforce the fear that he can easily be manipulated, has no coherent views on anything, has no plan for day 2 on anything. I'm more frightened by his unfitness to be president today than I was before this latest madness.
Obama's course was smarter because 1) he didn't ban Syrian refugees and 2) he did not take military actions halfcocked (see Larry Lundgren's comment above on what the Guardian reports about it). Trump acts every day to reinforce the fear that he can easily be manipulated, has no coherent views on anything, has no plan for day 2 on anything. I'm more frightened by his unfitness to be president today than I was before this latest madness.
So does this make Trump's phony caring decision any better? Had Obama or any Democrat done this, you'd be full of condemnation.
You might add in Congress whiff as well.
Following the meteoric rise of president Donald Trump, from far away Brazil, it is like watching a real time political version of Disney's "The Sorcerer's Apprentice."
For foreigners, the most frightening thing is the most powerful military machine in the world being now in the hands of Trump, the sorcerer apprentice.
A fundamental aspect of America's global leadership post-WWII was PREDICABILITY.
Friends and foes knew the rules of the game when dealing with America. This is gone. Before reaching 100 days in power, Trump has destroyed that intangible power asset both domestically and internationally.
Americans and the world face a conundrum during Trump's 4 years mandate. How to adapt and evolve when America is guided by a president considered a con man/mental case?
For foreigners, the most frightening thing is the most powerful military machine in the world being now in the hands of Trump, the sorcerer apprentice.
A fundamental aspect of America's global leadership post-WWII was PREDICABILITY.
Friends and foes knew the rules of the game when dealing with America. This is gone. Before reaching 100 days in power, Trump has destroyed that intangible power asset both domestically and internationally.
Americans and the world face a conundrum during Trump's 4 years mandate. How to adapt and evolve when America is guided by a president considered a con man/mental case?
236
Worry about your own country problems first. Put your energy saving Brazil from its never ending crime/corruption/poverty.
After Donald Trump took office, the ISIS criticized Trump, insulting his intelligence and political leadership. They told US: There is no more evidence than you being run by an idiot who does not know what Syria or Iraq or Islam is," Now they are happy, they praised Donald Trump and celebrated the US attack on Assad. all along defeating ISIS was the top priority for Donald trump Of course Assad is a bad guy. Not much evidence at this time that he used the sarin gas. Russia and Syria have claimed the sarin came from rebel stockpiles hit accidentally by government bombs. We do not know the truth. A former British ambassador to Syria ( Peter Ford) said: “Assad is not mad and would have known that when Donald Trump produced an olive branch in his direction [then] any use of chemical weapons would have been counter-productive,” But there are enough reasons Assad might have used sarin gas this time. Assad’s military gains since 2015 have been slow and costly. His army is battle-weary, he is running low on military alternatives, they have a depleted and exhausted army. As for as US, what comes next ? more attacks on Assad ? If Assad is eliminated like Saddam Hussein, we will have another Iraq situation in our hand and the ISIS will welcome that.
2
"But the greater need is for a comprehensive strategy and congressional authorization for any further military action"
Ah, there's the rub. One does not generally think of Mr. Trump and the idea of a strategy in the same breath. Trump is, unfortunately, a gut-driven, shoot from the hip guy who has a short attention span and very thin skin. It has been widely reported that he is not a reader; it was, in fact, pretty obvious that he did not even read some of the executive orders he recently signed.
It may or may not, therefore, be a good thing that he has ceded more of his military decision making to the generals. Hopefully, at least some of them are good at strategizing. If he interferes based upon his emotions of the moment, the world is in for a rough ride.
Ah, there's the rub. One does not generally think of Mr. Trump and the idea of a strategy in the same breath. Trump is, unfortunately, a gut-driven, shoot from the hip guy who has a short attention span and very thin skin. It has been widely reported that he is not a reader; it was, in fact, pretty obvious that he did not even read some of the executive orders he recently signed.
It may or may not, therefore, be a good thing that he has ceded more of his military decision making to the generals. Hopefully, at least some of them are good at strategizing. If he interferes based upon his emotions of the moment, the world is in for a rough ride.
1
Wait till Trump starts on the intractable Chicago gang-banger homicide issue. Do you suppose he'll drop armed drones into Englewood?
1
Some pretty good comments today I must say. Keep up the good words!
This is not complicated. Trump doesn't read anything but media and polls. He's a showman. Those he reads very well. He saw images on TV that affected him, understanding that, because they affected him, they would affect the American people and their opinion of him if he did not respond with belligerence. What he most feared was appearing a paper tiger. So he struck, with no further plan than the next day's headlines.
Now it is the next day. Trump has no further plans. He is that paper tiger. Putin knows it; and if he sticks to his course, the smart course, he will do little in response except continue the conventional slaughter to re-subjugate the Syrian people. He won't hand Trump another excuse for belligerence, which Trump has aplenty, in place of the strategic plan he does not.
And so Trump will do nothing, because it's simply too risky, too real, to do anything beyond blowing up some facilities vacated by adversaries forewarned. (So much for the "element of surprise" which Trump trumpets as the sum total of military doctrine.) The American people will not forgive being dragged deeper into the Shia-Sunni quagmire. Trump will enjoy a brief bump in the polls until this is forgotten very quickly; another brief respite from looming investigations and the White House circus of incompetence.
But Trump is ok with that. He's a showman. He fights each day to live another day in the limelight. The element of surprise that does work is surprising our gullible media with "news."
Now it is the next day. Trump has no further plans. He is that paper tiger. Putin knows it; and if he sticks to his course, the smart course, he will do little in response except continue the conventional slaughter to re-subjugate the Syrian people. He won't hand Trump another excuse for belligerence, which Trump has aplenty, in place of the strategic plan he does not.
And so Trump will do nothing, because it's simply too risky, too real, to do anything beyond blowing up some facilities vacated by adversaries forewarned. (So much for the "element of surprise" which Trump trumpets as the sum total of military doctrine.) The American people will not forgive being dragged deeper into the Shia-Sunni quagmire. Trump will enjoy a brief bump in the polls until this is forgotten very quickly; another brief respite from looming investigations and the White House circus of incompetence.
But Trump is ok with that. He's a showman. He fights each day to live another day in the limelight. The element of surprise that does work is surprising our gullible media with "news."
1
Well timed to divert attention from the another atrocity taking place in our Senate!
1
The Editorial Board says, "Whether by design or not, the American military action has also shifted the focus from the scandal over Russia's interference in the election on Mr. Trump’s behalf and allegations that the president and his allies may have colluded with Moscow."
This statement will be true only insofar as The NY Times, and other major news organizations, allow the President to distract you all with the shiny object called "war." You owe it to the American people to keep your eye on the ball with this truth-defying administration and not let the President and his minions have their insidious way by letting what's happening in Syria overshadow the much larger and existential issues that are facing our republic.
This statement will be true only insofar as The NY Times, and other major news organizations, allow the President to distract you all with the shiny object called "war." You owe it to the American people to keep your eye on the ball with this truth-defying administration and not let the President and his minions have their insidious way by letting what's happening in Syria overshadow the much larger and existential issues that are facing our republic.
The US has had nothing but failure in the Middle East and Afghanistan. We need to pull out. Assad may be a villain, but this action does nothing. Everything the US touches in this region turns to lead and there is no evidence that we have a strategy to go forward.
1
In 2016 Gavin Eugene Long killed 3 police officers probably as an act of retaliation for the killings of innocent blacks at the hand of the police and in order to shock and awe them into knowing that continuation of senseless slaughtering of whom he identified with would not remain without consequence.
And now Trump kills 9 Syrians in retaliation for the killings of Sunni rebels and civilians with poison gas by presumably Assad and in order to shock and awe him into knowing that continuation of the senseless slaughtering of whom he feels prompted to protect against the use of sarin will not remain without consequence.
Both actions were perpetrated lawlessly. A legal path for vindication seems implausible in both cases.
A difference is Trump feels on top of the world, whereas Long most likely felt left behind on the bottom of the world.
Another is that Trump fears no consequences (if, from something else, he is diverting from), whereas Long seems to have sacrificed himself for what he saw as justice or as effective.
The God of the bible kills or orders to kill over a million people in "an eye for an eye" acts, if deemed convenient or imperative, and He feels free to instruct to kill women and children first.
It's not that Trump or Long or Assad lack precedent.
Is it also wise and advisable to follow?
I'd say the world is aching for the precedent to be unpresidented.
Sadly primitive un(der)reflected religious precedent seems to preside still in most of American minds.
And now Trump kills 9 Syrians in retaliation for the killings of Sunni rebels and civilians with poison gas by presumably Assad and in order to shock and awe him into knowing that continuation of the senseless slaughtering of whom he feels prompted to protect against the use of sarin will not remain without consequence.
Both actions were perpetrated lawlessly. A legal path for vindication seems implausible in both cases.
A difference is Trump feels on top of the world, whereas Long most likely felt left behind on the bottom of the world.
Another is that Trump fears no consequences (if, from something else, he is diverting from), whereas Long seems to have sacrificed himself for what he saw as justice or as effective.
The God of the bible kills or orders to kill over a million people in "an eye for an eye" acts, if deemed convenient or imperative, and He feels free to instruct to kill women and children first.
It's not that Trump or Long or Assad lack precedent.
Is it also wise and advisable to follow?
I'd say the world is aching for the precedent to be unpresidented.
Sadly primitive un(der)reflected religious precedent seems to preside still in most of American minds.
1
Another crucial difference is Trump intended to hit infrastructure and undertook action to prevent human casualties.
Still there were casualties, as there were many more civilian casualties from Trump strikes recently in Mosul, Syria and Yemen. And from Obama strikes for that matter.
This leaves the argument to fundamentally differentiate between what Long has done and what Obama and Trump have done difficult.
Saddam's use of chemical weapons against Iran once was both facilitated and left unpunished. The use of cluster bombs by both Israel and Assad and Assad's use of chlorine were also left without retaliation. Here too the argument to differentiate the level of cruelty and inhumaneness involved in their use is arduous.
Extending the debate to taking out Assad:
I don't think taking out Assad would stop gas attacks, as Reverend Slick has implicated it would do in a reader comment on Kristof's blog. Chances are high it might take the lid off them.
Assad versus the rebels is a conflict of Alawites and Shiites versus Sunnites and their respective freedoms to live in peace from each other's repression. This larger issue cannot be resolved but is likely to be aggravated too by taking out Assad.
Diplomatic paths to contain the Shiite - Sunnite conflict, however arduous themselves, seem more promising than loose lawless warning strikes against incidental use of gradually ever more inhumane weapons, as much as these strikes may reap short-lived and seeming behavioral rewards.
Still there were casualties, as there were many more civilian casualties from Trump strikes recently in Mosul, Syria and Yemen. And from Obama strikes for that matter.
This leaves the argument to fundamentally differentiate between what Long has done and what Obama and Trump have done difficult.
Saddam's use of chemical weapons against Iran once was both facilitated and left unpunished. The use of cluster bombs by both Israel and Assad and Assad's use of chlorine were also left without retaliation. Here too the argument to differentiate the level of cruelty and inhumaneness involved in their use is arduous.
Extending the debate to taking out Assad:
I don't think taking out Assad would stop gas attacks, as Reverend Slick has implicated it would do in a reader comment on Kristof's blog. Chances are high it might take the lid off them.
Assad versus the rebels is a conflict of Alawites and Shiites versus Sunnites and their respective freedoms to live in peace from each other's repression. This larger issue cannot be resolved but is likely to be aggravated too by taking out Assad.
Diplomatic paths to contain the Shiite - Sunnite conflict, however arduous themselves, seem more promising than loose lawless warning strikes against incidental use of gradually ever more inhumane weapons, as much as these strikes may reap short-lived and seeming behavioral rewards.
2
It’s not clear whether the Editors are gloating on the fact that the bombing “has made it harder for Mr. Trump to meet his goal of improving ties with Russia” (after all, the Editors have proven to be among the most ardent anti-Putin campaigners), or bemoan the rising tensions with Russia (after all, quite likely the Editors haven’t secured reservations to a nuclear-resistant bunker, or have they?). I vote for the first option, furthermore, I agree with the Editors admonition that “There are risks the president simply cannot take on his own” – first among them the risk of taking the Editors advice on Russia.
1
Donald Trump seems to be a "one and done" kind of guy. Saved 800 jobs in Indianapolis, done with NAFTA; rounded up a few thousand undocumented workers, done with immigration; lost a vote in the House, done with health care; hit an airbase in Syria, done with the Middle East.
2
Actually, Mr. Trump thought through the implications of using military force in Syria very clearly: it was the only way he could think of to divert attention from his Russian connection and utter incompetence since taking office.
Unfortunately, blowing up an Air Base to send a message to Assad is like killing a mass murder's mailman. It may temporarily stop the mail from getting sent but it does little to stop the mass murder who could care less about the mailman.
Besides that, anyone who actually thinks this meaningless attack changes the fact that Russia hacked our election to help Trump is probably the kind of person to have voted for Trump in the first place. It would not surprise me in the least if Putin actually gave Trump the idea for the attack just so as to give the appearance Trump is tough on Russia instead of bought and paid for by Russia.
Unfortunately, blowing up an Air Base to send a message to Assad is like killing a mass murder's mailman. It may temporarily stop the mail from getting sent but it does little to stop the mass murder who could care less about the mailman.
Besides that, anyone who actually thinks this meaningless attack changes the fact that Russia hacked our election to help Trump is probably the kind of person to have voted for Trump in the first place. It would not surprise me in the least if Putin actually gave Trump the idea for the attack just so as to give the appearance Trump is tough on Russia instead of bought and paid for by Russia.
3
Because of the administration's strange Russian-cozy behavior it is natural to think that this was a simply an opportunity to change the Trump/Russia optics. Which illustrates why we need to get to the bottom of the Trump/Putin romance. Otherwise we will not be able to trust anything he does.
Trump's Budget gives the military a huge boost at the cost of everything else. The chemical strike by Assad was a gift sent from heaven to the administration for rationalizing such a needless gift to the military in their budget. "War looming" is actually better than a war strategy for ramming through such a massibe increase, which otherwise would have faced enormous opposition. Assad deserves every missle sent his way, but this was from the beginning a war without good guys, just bad guys and victims, and it's going to stay that way, no matter how much we get involved in it or pull out.
It may feel good to retaliate against a horrific act, but attacking a nation without any authorization from any body ... Congress, U.N. or world nations certainly borders on being illegal. Using our expensive missile as a response to the use of a banned nerve agent did exactly what? Already, we are being told this is a one time response. It is very dubious that a one time action which did limited damage to one airport will provide any hope to the Sunnis or millions who have been displaced.
This editorial is right to observe that the military action "has shifted the focus from the scandal over Russia's interference in the election" and possible collusion of Trump personnel. When Congress returns it is imperative the investigation continues with much resolve.
This editorial is right to observe that the military action "has shifted the focus from the scandal over Russia's interference in the election" and possible collusion of Trump personnel. When Congress returns it is imperative the investigation continues with much resolve.
1
I fully understand your disapproval of the Trump presidency. After all, I share it. But the way to defeat Trump is to create an alternative worthy of respect, which Hillary Clinton was not and which the pointless tut-tutery of this editorial is not.
This is what's troubling about Trump. He has the attention span of a gnat. He figured that he would bomb the airfield to show the world that he's a tough guy and a doer, unlike his predecessor, but he has no apprehension of the consequences of the bombing, nor is he inclined to work with his staff to deal with the next steps. The NYT editorial board is asking a rhetorical question when it states: "Was it an impetuous, isolated response unrelated to a larger strategy for resolving the complex dilemma of Syria."
1
Unfortunately, Mr Trump acts first and thinks later, a recipe for disaster. He will inflate this attack to boost his ego. I'm afraid this will give him the excuse to flex his muscles militarily and rashly.
Almost certainly one of the main reasons President Obama refused to intervene in the Syrian conflict more decisively stemmed from the bizarre complexity of the struggle, which features so many 'players' one needs a scorecard to keep them straight. Trump's missile strike may deter Assad from gassing his people again, but it will not prevent him from using more conventional means to murder them.
But that intervention has surely created expectations in the region that the US will attempt to use its military power to determine the outcome of the war. Trump seems unlikely to satisfy that expectation, if only because his advisers lack any consensus on whom to support, other than the Kurds. That same dilemma confronted Mr. Obama and restrained his hand.
Who knew foreign policy was so complicated? Apparently not President Trump.
But that intervention has surely created expectations in the region that the US will attempt to use its military power to determine the outcome of the war. Trump seems unlikely to satisfy that expectation, if only because his advisers lack any consensus on whom to support, other than the Kurds. That same dilemma confronted Mr. Obama and restrained his hand.
Who knew foreign policy was so complicated? Apparently not President Trump.
Rex Tillerson, Putin's old pal who received from him The Order of Friendship medal in 2013, needs to tell Vladimir to get out of Syria. All that Putin has done is to embolden Assad to kill the rebels who desire his overthrow by any means necessary including the use of Saran gas. As a result, over six years, 400,000 Syrians have died including innocent children.
If Tillerson has the leverage and respect of Putin as evinced by their past dealings, he must draw a red line for Putin to stop Assad from using chemical weapons against his own people. Instead of Putin sailing his battleships across the Mediterranean and filling the air space over Syria, Tillerson should tell him in no uncertain terms that it's time Putin clears out of Dodge.
If Tillerson has the leverage and respect of Putin as evinced by their past dealings, he must draw a red line for Putin to stop Assad from using chemical weapons against his own people. Instead of Putin sailing his battleships across the Mediterranean and filling the air space over Syria, Tillerson should tell him in no uncertain terms that it's time Putin clears out of Dodge.
1
A sense of emotional satisfaction is hardly a defensible tactical objective and it certainly has no role to play in the formulation of foreign policy. Launch a tweet storm if you must but hold it with the missiles., The death of six hapless Syrians is not justice done.
Notwithstanding how President Trump's veering pivot from acceptance of Assad to attacking Syria suggests a dangerous impulsivity that this time uses not Tweets but missiles... and ignoring how this action contrasts with Citizen Trump's criticisms of President Obama, and further affirms President Trump's shameless hypocrisy (though of course President Trump is hardly the first to say one thing as candidate and do the exact opposite as president) ... despite all this, is it worth recognizing that President Trump has served notice not only to Assad that further use of chemical weapons could carry consequences but possibly served notice to Russia, what's more? For a Presidency clouded by questions of collusion with the Russians, seeing the President act in way that is antagonistic to Russian interests is somehow perversely reassuring.
3
this is so full of american exceptionalism, it is hard to accept it is a editorial.
4
The editorial opinion is full of exceptionalism? Can you clarify? I don't see it. This is a pretty neutral summary of what just happened with the U.S. and Syria. It asks a lot of questions without proclaiming much. If anything, it raises serious questions about American exceptionalism. The U.S. appears to be disjointed and rudderless in its quest to influence global affairs.
1
I think a lot of people are dismissing the fact that when it comes to matters of military action and its ramifications Trump relies heavily on two of the more respected military minds of this generation in Generals Mattis and McMaster. Not only do these men have a firm grasp of military strategy but, by all accounts, they understand the geopolitical consequences of their actions. I believe claiming that the strike in Syria was shortsighted or simply an impulse decision made by Trump with no follow up strategy is a disservice to Mattis and McMaster.
4
It is beyond sad that suddenly one method of murdering civilians is deemed "horrific" and "unacceptable" while all others methods that have been used so far to kill 400,000 people raise little genuine concern, or action.
404
Suddenly? I guess you call a century time 'sudden'. It's been 100 years since the end of WWI. All agreed then that chemical/biological weapons were so horrific that countries convened to ban them. Nothing wrong with a president making sure that those weapons are not used in any war theater. Weak Obama knew that he needed to act, but he didn't.
1
Are you trying to criticize Barack Obama, or is it all the fault of either George Bush or those dastardly Republican obsrtictionists in Congress?
Your point isn't as clear as it could be.
Your point isn't as clear as it could be.
1
"One also has to wonder why he was not similarly moved by the 400,000 Syrians who have died since the war broke out in 2011, or by the thousands of Syrian refugees he has barred from the United States."
One of the warnings about the Trump administration since his inauguration was how he risked losing credibility from the many impetuous false tweets he loved to unleash at 5AM. The reasoning was, and still is, if one can't trust what the president says about say, the size of his crowds on January 20, how can we trust him when he finds himself between a rock and a hard place as he did last week?
Yes, I am cynical. Something was, and is, very, odd about a presidential action that was so right that it has to be questioned as to underlying motive. And yes, the Syrian Tomahawk strike too the Russian investigations off the front page--as they should be. It's time to give investigators time to assess all that without leaks, without charades, without further news until they reach a conclusion.
Personally, I find it frightening that in the space of 7 days, Mr. Tillerson tells Assad we're leaving him alone, he does the unspeakable, and Donald Trump orders a missile strike. Something is off: it's not just the president's total lack of coherent foreign policy and inability to stop slamming President Obama for "the mess I inherited".
Like many, I have questions: what's next? What's our plan in the Middle East?
"Unpredictability" and "flexibility aren't foreign policy.
One of the warnings about the Trump administration since his inauguration was how he risked losing credibility from the many impetuous false tweets he loved to unleash at 5AM. The reasoning was, and still is, if one can't trust what the president says about say, the size of his crowds on January 20, how can we trust him when he finds himself between a rock and a hard place as he did last week?
Yes, I am cynical. Something was, and is, very, odd about a presidential action that was so right that it has to be questioned as to underlying motive. And yes, the Syrian Tomahawk strike too the Russian investigations off the front page--as they should be. It's time to give investigators time to assess all that without leaks, without charades, without further news until they reach a conclusion.
Personally, I find it frightening that in the space of 7 days, Mr. Tillerson tells Assad we're leaving him alone, he does the unspeakable, and Donald Trump orders a missile strike. Something is off: it's not just the president's total lack of coherent foreign policy and inability to stop slamming President Obama for "the mess I inherited".
Like many, I have questions: what's next? What's our plan in the Middle East?
"Unpredictability" and "flexibility aren't foreign policy.
33
The Syrians and Russians say that that the Syrians shelled a storage of terrorist weapons that included chemical weapons without knowing that these chemical weapons were there.
Anyway, there is a Lebanese saying that "if it doesn't grow it will not become smaller" which means that now that there is a danger of war, perhaps the two super powers will sit down and discuss seriously how to cooperate to bring peace to Syria and the world.
Anyway, there is a Lebanese saying that "if it doesn't grow it will not become smaller" which means that now that there is a danger of war, perhaps the two super powers will sit down and discuss seriously how to cooperate to bring peace to Syria and the world.
...not to put to put too fine a point on it, but Trump allies' probable collusion with Russia is still a thing.
1
The Number One lesson from Iraq War 2 was why you need a diplomatic strategy for dealing with what happens after the Military actions are finished. Sadly like Iraq there will now be the nasty "so what now" scramble as knee jerk ideologically driven military "success" turns into diplomatic disaster....
There has been no indication that Trump gives much thought to anything other than the suit he will wear the next day or his next golf date. This man should never have been president and is as ill-prepared to exercise the duties of a head of state as Gary Busey. That he is now mucking around in Syria, using the immense and nearly unfettered powers of the presidency in matters of war, ought to lead to the declaration of a national emergency.
1
The historical reticence of Congress to go to war is in my opinion a strength rather than a weakness. In the end, war must be a last resort, something that a country turns to when all other options fail. Using military force is something that will have such severe and unforeseeable consequences, with loss of human life assured on one side of the other. Going it alone, without international consensus, is the behaviour of a rogue state, not one that leads the rest of the world.
126
"The historical reticence of Congress to go to war is in my opinion a strength rather than a weakness."
The problem is that Congress does not weigh in on the subject of war, not their reticence. They criticize Obama for not going to war but fail to be counted.
The problem is that Congress does not weigh in on the subject of war, not their reticence. They criticize Obama for not going to war but fail to be counted.
You misunderstand the problem.
Not only has Congress abdicated its responsibility to declare war, but it has also stood by and watched as president after president quietly assume the power to do so on their own.
Not only has Congress abdicated its responsibility to declare war, but it has also stood by and watched as president after president quietly assume the power to do so on their own.
2
we had diplomacy for eight long pitiful years with Obama, Kerry and Hillary and it got us NOWHERE............
Well what's next is more of the unscripted and unsolicited actions of an administration gleeful at the confusion it sows among the self-important arbiters of news. No back channel or off the record heads-up, no cozying up to favored newsies, no late night phone calls to publishers. It must be driving them mad. In addition, this particular display has the effect of not only garnering grudging approval from certain liberal voices, but it renders certain other made-up "exposes" as yesterday's fish wrap. It's quite simple in its application yet very sophisticated in its longer term effect on coverage. Seeing the almighty press led around by their noses by someone they consider a neophyte and unworthy master of the universe is beyong hilarious; it's downright therapeutic.
I don't believe it's possible to launch 59 missiles in a precise surgical strike on a whim. This mission has long-standing Pentagon planning written all over it. The target, the speed of converting an executive order into military action (there's one for the books) and the lack of a counterbalancing opinion in Trump's circle speaks to one General Herbert Raymond "H. R." McMaster asserting himself as National Security Advisor. Trump's troubles and struggles, stemming from his absolute lack of knowledge and experience, are just beginning - and by association so too are America's. Putting America's awesome military firepower in this man's hands is the equivalent of handing a primed and loaded RPG launcher to a ten year old.
274
Trump executed Obamas' plan from 2013. The sallient question here should be posed to the congress........ what (save the president) is different in the circumstances that led to military action now as opposed to 2013?
Yes it is possible to launch a strike like this on a moment's notice. It has nothing to do with Trump. The US military has 1000s of contingency plans on the shelf ready for execution. Of course they have strike plans for a major Syrian airbase that can be executed by ships and planes already in the area. Nothing nefarious there.
Trump's sudden concern for victims is totally hypocritical. Aside from years opposing helping Syrian refugees, he will totally ignore the starving and dying children in the famine hitting east Africa or the famine brought on by Boko Haram in Nigeria
Trump's sudden concern for victims is totally hypocritical. Aside from years opposing helping Syrian refugees, he will totally ignore the starving and dying children in the famine hitting east Africa or the famine brought on by Boko Haram in Nigeria
2
Trump has discovered he has many, many new toys to play with and little restraint and knowledge in their use and destructive capabilities on both sides of the battle.
Missing from this editorial is an ominous message from Russia: they have closed the channel with the White House which allowed the U.S. and Russia to avoid stumbling into each other in the skies and territory of Syria in pursuit of their various efforts.
6
Trump is undoubtedly counting on Americans rallying behind him for a military intervention against a despised foreign leader.
The unfortunate flipside is that some people on the other end of said military intervention will then rally around said despised foreign leader and against Americans (see: Iraq, Afghanistan).
The unfortunate flipside is that some people on the other end of said military intervention will then rally around said despised foreign leader and against Americans (see: Iraq, Afghanistan).
My theory as to why Trump cared enough to take action and speak against the chemical weapon situation as opposed to taking no action before is that this actually happened now during the time Trump is president. And the world and its events occur in a different way to a president than to someone who is not, or not yet, president.
2
He saw it on TV, and that was enough. One can hardly avoid comparisons to Chauncey Gardner, the protagonist of Jerzy Kosinski's Being There: "I like to watch."
1
If Trump was truly moved by the images of the victims of this attack, then he would reconsider his attitude toward refugees. After all, this is the violence from which they are fleeing. But dropping bombs is easier than actually providing humanitarian aid and a safe home for these innocent victims.
416
I'm pretty certain that the loved ones of the victims of the recent gas attack would not agree that Obama took the smarter strategy of relying on the Russians to confiscate Syrian ĺethal gas weaponry.
2
I love that we still discuss Trump as if he were capable of governing. He has no plans, no policies, no strategies. He has whims and a talent for moving the spotlight to wherever he would like it to be.
19
Above all else, it demonstrates that our president is easily manipulated.
338
That Trump was manipulated implies some other person made this decision - to me it seems it was pure Trump opportunism accompanied by a totally unbelievable sentiment for "little babies."
1
By whom? For what?
I am totally disinclined to give Trump the benefit of the doubt on his motivations. When he tells us his shift was caused by his being so deeply moved by the footage of child victims gasping for breath, as you did, I ask where has he been for the last 5 years? Hospitals bombed (including a maternity clinic), children dead in the ruins of their shelled homes, others on the beaches of Greece in failed attempts to flee. This was not new or unique, but it was convenient. I question whether the man is capable of honest empathy and only seeks to use it appearance as a ploy.
586
The biggest learning curve ever.
It seems that absolutely everything in reality is a revelation to TRUMP. He's had his head up Bannon's hole for so long he hasn't realized that presidentin' is hard. The ACA is complicated. Taxes are complicated. Syria and Russia are complicated. Wait till he gets a load of climate science and toxic chemicals in our water. Or when he realizes that guns kill people or that banning abortion actually creates more misery, not less.
No doubt, some of these he'll never wrap his head around, but as circumstances present themselves, he has to confront reality, not Fox-fantasy.
It seems that absolutely everything in reality is a revelation to TRUMP. He's had his head up Bannon's hole for so long he hasn't realized that presidentin' is hard. The ACA is complicated. Taxes are complicated. Syria and Russia are complicated. Wait till he gets a load of climate science and toxic chemicals in our water. Or when he realizes that guns kill people or that banning abortion actually creates more misery, not less.
No doubt, some of these he'll never wrap his head around, but as circumstances present themselves, he has to confront reality, not Fox-fantasy.
2
Executing a tactic without a strategy is NOT presidential. ..
This was knee-jerk childish and stupid...
This was knee-jerk childish and stupid...
2
Yes, beyond the question of What Next? lies the more troubling one of Why? But really, it is quite simple, and Trump has been telling everyone the answer for a long time: it's all about Winning, and specifically the perception of him Winning. Nothing else matters in his life except turning all attention to himself and his self-importance. Therefore, all actions by this nacissitic president are explained simply. There is no change of heart brought by gassed children: it is an opportunity to gain worldwide attention (and distraction from problems at home) and been seen as a decider, helping the helpless. Unfortunately, as the op-ed and others point out, this is a dangerous thing to do--which leads one to wonder what the next narcisstic move will be. That's the most real question, and not what his motivation is.
If Mr Trump or his associates colluded with Russia in the stolen election, then the aim of improving relations with Russia is impossible. The value of improving relations would be gains in America's interests; but if Mr Trump is beholden to Mr Putin, he will be led by the nose without regard for America's interests, except a small concession now and then to please only his most rabid supporters.
1
Here is the probable actual sequence of events: (1) Assad stupidly allowed a chemical attack to take place; (2) Trump was watching Fox News and realized for the first time that babies were dying of nerve gas; (3) He had this vague feeling that "something should be done;" (4) The US military, which is capable of ordering a missile strike on almost no notice and coordinating it perfectly -- even to the point of courteously warning the Russians -- converted our glorious leader's vague desires into reality; (5) Since there was no actual advance planning involved, people are now scrambling to come up with something that passes for a strategy. This is what national security policy amounts to these days.
35
I wonder if Congress heading home for Easter, had any affect on Trumps thinking, no Congress, no interference!
I think Trump really did come around in his sentiments after seeing the images of children dying. Whether this indicates any meaningful change in the US's posture towards the Syrian conflict remains to be seen. The strike has certainly served to distract and deflect attention from Trump's continuing Russian election intervention investigation problems, and questions about collusion between his campaign staff and Russian agents are in the background for now. But Trump's newfound sensitivity to the Syrian conflict's horrendous impacts on the civilian population of Syria changes none of the limited ineffectual choices the US can make. Short of a massive military intervention, the conflict's continuing impact on the civilian population, and Assad's presence, seem certain to remain intact. Trump now faces the need for a 'next step', and will find his steps match those available to President Obama, a search for the 'least worst' path out of the mess. Whether Trump has any better outcomes remains to be seen, and his campaign's Russian ties, and Russia's election interference must still be investigated and the truth determined. I wonder what the next distraction and deflection will be?
88
How did we get such graphic video in the midst of Sarin attack? It's uncommon to see so much outrage producing video regardless of the situation. It certainly created the sympathy for a limited attack, and an excuse for Trump to change his mind.
But children killed in Yemen and Mosul, they don't really count do they, because they are killed by Americans and the US vassal countries (like UK)?
Or children killed in Gaza, because Israel can do whatever atrocity they like with impunity. Long live US hypocrisy!
Or children killed in Gaza, because Israel can do whatever atrocity they like with impunity. Long live US hypocrisy!
4
If he came around, thern he should come around to allowing Syrian refugees in too. It seems like play acting to me to distract from the real Russian problem.
1
"So far, there is no evidence that Mr. Trump has thought through the implications of using military force or figured out what to do next."
That's quite an understatement.
Jonathan Freedland wrote about the isolationists and said, "Their mistake was to think Trump had a consistent foreign policy, rather than just a series of wildly contradictory impulses that can vary from day to day."
Trump's contradictory impulses is what is on display and not any deep thoughts about his actions or its implications.
It's important to remember that hundreds of thousands of Syrians have been killed, including "beautiful babies," *before* the most recent chemical weapons attack by Assad.
Trump was steadfastly against any sort of intervention in Syria until very recently. So to think that Trump all of sudden had an epiphany that changed his whole view of the Syrian situation is incredulous.
It's equally important to realize that the US and others have been dropping bombs and missiles in Syria for quite a while now. Assad has been there--and continues to be there--even after all that.
The only constant, sadly, is the continuing suffering of the Syrian people under the hands of not only Assad but Russia, Iran, Turkey, US and others.
That's quite an understatement.
Jonathan Freedland wrote about the isolationists and said, "Their mistake was to think Trump had a consistent foreign policy, rather than just a series of wildly contradictory impulses that can vary from day to day."
Trump's contradictory impulses is what is on display and not any deep thoughts about his actions or its implications.
It's important to remember that hundreds of thousands of Syrians have been killed, including "beautiful babies," *before* the most recent chemical weapons attack by Assad.
Trump was steadfastly against any sort of intervention in Syria until very recently. So to think that Trump all of sudden had an epiphany that changed his whole view of the Syrian situation is incredulous.
It's equally important to realize that the US and others have been dropping bombs and missiles in Syria for quite a while now. Assad has been there--and continues to be there--even after all that.
The only constant, sadly, is the continuing suffering of the Syrian people under the hands of not only Assad but Russia, Iran, Turkey, US and others.
14
When it comes to strategy, Trump plays a mean game of tic tac toe.
93
Thank you to the Editorial Board of the Times for writing a well-reasoned, moderate opinion on President Trump's missile attack on Syria. The pros and cons, and the limitations of the President's actions are fairly comprehensively listed.
3
Do we really need to wonder why trump sent missiles when he did? He wants to distract attention from Russia and the Trump associates' many collusions, contacts, conversations (whatever you call them) with Russian representatives. It's so obvious, it's painful. I fear I see the beginning of a war.
351
Well COMEY is not distracted. Keep working, COMEY!
1
Even more chilling..why was there a chemical attack at this time, so opportune for Trump, whose approval rating is in the toilet and who is being investigated for possibly 'cooperating' with Russians during the election.
There will be no war with Russia because the fix is in. These is too much money to be made in maintaining Middle East conflict and arms say
1
According to the news tonight, the targeted air base in Syria is already operational again. That means the impact on Assad will be negligible and that Trump's unilateral action was not proportional to the heinous gas attack. That begs the question, was it worth it to defy constitutional law for such insignificant results? It is far past time that the Trump administration explained its strategy or foreign policy not only on Syria but the rest of the world. The trouble is that the inexperienced and amateurish Trump is winging it on international policy just as he was winging it on domestic issues like health care, which turned out to be a disaster.
3
After this episode of chest-thumping, we should expect more. The other narcissist dictators and aspiring dictators of the world will follow suit. Does Trump now plan on bombing Iran and North Korea without the consent of Congress? Will those equally delusional narcissists respond with missiles regardless of the consequences to themselves and the people of the world?
It's not difficult to predict the next moves of small-minded, overcompensating men. They announce their plans daily for all the world to see, and every statement begins with "Me, Me, Me!"
It's not difficult to predict the next moves of small-minded, overcompensating men. They announce their plans daily for all the world to see, and every statement begins with "Me, Me, Me!"
225
Hillary called for the same action hours before it occurred. What's she overcompensating for?
Better keep the nuclear codes away from Trump!
My guess is the administration felt this was a great opportunity serving multiple purposes:
1) Easily defensible military answer (Americans love it when bombs drop, right?) to war crime committed by Assad regime regardless of whether anyone else agrees with their defense of it.
2) Clearly juxtaposes Trump foreign policy against Obama foreign policy- "weak Obama failed to act, but we will". (Notwithstanding the fact that this will do nothing to prevent Syria's air campaign on the whole and does not constitute some grander approach to the region altogether. Oh and didn't Obama get the cold shoulder from R's when he suggested doing the same thing.)
3) Bomb dropping is a shiny thing waved in front of gullible ill-informed Americans that serves to distract them from drip drip of broken promises, scandals and failures thus far: "Oh look, bombs everyone..."
1) Easily defensible military answer (Americans love it when bombs drop, right?) to war crime committed by Assad regime regardless of whether anyone else agrees with their defense of it.
2) Clearly juxtaposes Trump foreign policy against Obama foreign policy- "weak Obama failed to act, but we will". (Notwithstanding the fact that this will do nothing to prevent Syria's air campaign on the whole and does not constitute some grander approach to the region altogether. Oh and didn't Obama get the cold shoulder from R's when he suggested doing the same thing.)
3) Bomb dropping is a shiny thing waved in front of gullible ill-informed Americans that serves to distract them from drip drip of broken promises, scandals and failures thus far: "Oh look, bombs everyone..."
495
4) Distraction from congress's intelligence investigation of Trump and Russia relationship before he was elected President.
1
There is no next move in Syria, as long as Assad doesn't use any more sarin. The President showed he was willing to use military force to uphold civilized norms. That will be comforting to American allies all around the world. It will also give the North Koreans something to think about.
Mission accomplished.
Mission accomplished.
2
If the mission was to distract from the Russia connection probe into Trump, you're right. Otherwise, it was likely just another knee-jerk impulse in a long line of Trump knee-jerk impulses.
3
Although Trump is a shallow and ineffectual president, this strike on a single airfield doesn't keep Assad or the Russians from using other airfields to carry out strikes. The Russians know it is much ado about nothing. Assad knows it, too.
While news organizations, politicians and pundits worry this bare bone to death, Trump (or the American military) has managed to distract from Trump's Russian ties at the same time as it makes Trump look strong and decisive. Put clearly, it is a public relations stunt.
Look behind the curtain, folks. Don't be dupes.
While news organizations, politicians and pundits worry this bare bone to death, Trump (or the American military) has managed to distract from Trump's Russian ties at the same time as it makes Trump look strong and decisive. Put clearly, it is a public relations stunt.
Look behind the curtain, folks. Don't be dupes.
136
@ db sweden - according to the russians (my 2d comment from the Guardian) the runways were not damaged.
larry
larry
6
There are several critical issues emanating from this attack:
1. Does a President have the right to attack? This is not a response to an attack on our forces or territory which would have legitimated a counter-attack.
It is an attack on a foreign country and therefore a declaration of war which requires Congressional approval. Congress better claim its authority on this issue or become irrelevant.
2. What should Trump do now? There is no necessity to do anything immediately. Syria has been warned not to use chemical warfare. It can now take heed to the warning or ignore it. In this case, it will be up to the US to decide whether to increase its punishment. Syria and/or Russia may react by initiating another action that is not chemical, thus showing their displeasure. If the US warning was predicated only on the nature of the attack, chemical, Trump will have to decide whether their new and different move requires a US response. So, for the moment, Trump's administration can wait for reaction while considering whether to intervene only if chemical weapons are used or intervene to try to stop this eternal carnage.
1. Does a President have the right to attack? This is not a response to an attack on our forces or territory which would have legitimated a counter-attack.
It is an attack on a foreign country and therefore a declaration of war which requires Congressional approval. Congress better claim its authority on this issue or become irrelevant.
2. What should Trump do now? There is no necessity to do anything immediately. Syria has been warned not to use chemical warfare. It can now take heed to the warning or ignore it. In this case, it will be up to the US to decide whether to increase its punishment. Syria and/or Russia may react by initiating another action that is not chemical, thus showing their displeasure. If the US warning was predicated only on the nature of the attack, chemical, Trump will have to decide whether their new and different move requires a US response. So, for the moment, Trump's administration can wait for reaction while considering whether to intervene only if chemical weapons are used or intervene to try to stop this eternal carnage.
3
Only the NYTs would feel emotional satisfaction at such a dangerous turn of events. Assad was over confident and continued his reckless air campaign against al Qaeda jihadists who were hiding amongst civilians. A chemical weapon controlled by the jihadists was hit by a Syrian bomb and exploded. The NYTs and their faux humanitarianism, which is a smoke screen for regime change, found a pretext to goad Trump, who was reeling from the constant charges of ineptitude and pro Russian sentiments, to leap at the opportunity to attack Syria. And the world moves a little closer to nuclear midnight.
5
Another liberal who feels anything like a backbone will bring on WW III, with a country having a small and declining population.
what makes YOU so certain? methinks you grasp at straws.
ONLY the NYT felt emotional satisfaction at such a dangerous turn of events? First, what events are you referring to: the use of Saran gas on innocent people; the bombing the Syrian airfield in response to Assad's atrocity? The NYT, along with MANY others, did expressed satisfaction that there was a response this time. Had President Obama responded in a similar fashion when Assad crossed his red line, perhaps this latest event would not have occurred.
And then there is this: "The NYTs and their faux humanitarianism, which is a smoke screen for regime change," Really? I suspect that most people would like to see regime change in Syria, but most, including the NYT, probably would be reluctant to commit the troops and years of involvement necessary to achieve regime change. And, how does humanitarianism equate to regime change and how does any of this "goad" Trump? Nothing you say makes sense.
And then there is this: "The NYTs and their faux humanitarianism, which is a smoke screen for regime change," Really? I suspect that most people would like to see regime change in Syria, but most, including the NYT, probably would be reluctant to commit the troops and years of involvement necessary to achieve regime change. And, how does humanitarianism equate to regime change and how does any of this "goad" Trump? Nothing you say makes sense.
3
Tonight on Charlie Rose a physician who is providing medical care to the Syrian populace there, with another guest noted that Assad conducted another air raid upon civilians using chlorine there, today. Further, she noted that some some of these chemical agents cause a particularly painful death, as they destroy ones insides, ending in a painful death.
So, it is important for Trump to formulate and to clarify, the stated purpose of yesterday's attack, and further define our policy and actions, if any, upon Assad and his ilk, Russia and Iran. Assad is already flaunting our attack in our faces, while continuing to use chemical weapons causing further unwarranted deaths against his innocent citizens.
So, it is important for Trump to formulate and to clarify, the stated purpose of yesterday's attack, and further define our policy and actions, if any, upon Assad and his ilk, Russia and Iran. Assad is already flaunting our attack in our faces, while continuing to use chemical weapons causing further unwarranted deaths against his innocent citizens.
71
We've had a trigger happy Republican with a rootin' tootin' shoot em up approach, unwilling to have a plan for a peace, refusing to consider the results of the chaos - war is hell - before.
I wish we humans could get rid of this vengeful eye for an eye thing. I'm as guilty as everyone else, too. But the satisfaction will not last as the horror grows. Two wrongs don't make a right.
What a mess! We now have the "popular war" element that many of us thought might be used as a tool to gain popularity and keep power.
Trouble is, building community and solving problems is hard. Shooting is easy, though expensive.
It is easier to destroy than to build.
I wish we humans could get rid of this vengeful eye for an eye thing. I'm as guilty as everyone else, too. But the satisfaction will not last as the horror grows. Two wrongs don't make a right.
What a mess! We now have the "popular war" element that many of us thought might be used as a tool to gain popularity and keep power.
Trouble is, building community and solving problems is hard. Shooting is easy, though expensive.
It is easier to destroy than to build.
131
Briefly to acknowledge that the wholesale destruction of the Middle East (and Sudan, and other places), especially Syria, is not amenable to simple "building community and solving problems" but I seriously doubt this will end well.
Arms sales are looking up (and they were superb before).
Sad.
Arms sales are looking up (and they were superb before).
Sad.
48
An eye for an eye never works, since the initial perpetrator knows that, at worst, he will end up on the same level as his victim. What we need is a two eyes for one eye policy. That's called deterrence.
1
@ Susan Anderson
"Arms sales are looking up...."
So are oil prices. Exxon-Mobil, not to mention OPEC, must be happy.
With the possibility of war, relaxing of regulations, impending tax cuts, Scalia II in Supreme Court, back to "market-based" healthcare, etc., we may be looking at the reenactment of the W. Bush era.
Trump may become the "disaster" he said W. Bush was, but in record time.
"Arms sales are looking up...."
So are oil prices. Exxon-Mobil, not to mention OPEC, must be happy.
With the possibility of war, relaxing of regulations, impending tax cuts, Scalia II in Supreme Court, back to "market-based" healthcare, etc., we may be looking at the reenactment of the W. Bush era.
Trump may become the "disaster" he said W. Bush was, but in record time.
11
Trump has been strident in his denunciations of bootless American war gambits, risking our blood and fortune for the conception by elites of what is “good” for the world yet unable to point to strategic and legitimate U.S. interests involved. In this he is a lot like Obama, whom I generally praised for this reasoning, except in the enforcement of a Syrian red-line, his vacillation about giving weapons to the Ukrainians, his timid reaction from the skies to ISIS except at the very end of his time, and the inability to see how useless our presence in Afghanistan ultimately is and always will be.
Indeed, Trump says it took the sight of children dying, gasping for breath, to summon the Tomahawks on Assad. I believe him. He doesn’t admire Assad – he simply recognizes that regime-change is a ship that sailed years ago, when we refused to do what Trump just did in response to similar chemical weapons outrages. With Russia in the mix, it’s just too high an investment and too risky to be worth it. In the end, Syria will be partitioned and Assad will run the Shi’a elements. So, other than calling him a bad man, what SHOULD Trump do about that?
As to a vision for Syria or for America’s general use of its military anywhere, it’s clear that Trump doesn’t see imposing a Pax Americana on the world to be America’s job … anymore, at least. So, he will be reactive and succeed where others were visionary and failed – with Syria, with Russia, with China and so many others.
Why is that bad?
Indeed, Trump says it took the sight of children dying, gasping for breath, to summon the Tomahawks on Assad. I believe him. He doesn’t admire Assad – he simply recognizes that regime-change is a ship that sailed years ago, when we refused to do what Trump just did in response to similar chemical weapons outrages. With Russia in the mix, it’s just too high an investment and too risky to be worth it. In the end, Syria will be partitioned and Assad will run the Shi’a elements. So, other than calling him a bad man, what SHOULD Trump do about that?
As to a vision for Syria or for America’s general use of its military anywhere, it’s clear that Trump doesn’t see imposing a Pax Americana on the world to be America’s job … anymore, at least. So, he will be reactive and succeed where others were visionary and failed – with Syria, with Russia, with China and so many others.
Why is that bad?
13
Do you really think he has the intellectual capacity to think this through as lucidly as you? Good luck with that!
7
He talked a good game but when push came to shove Trump proves he has no discipline and no strategy. That's dangerous.
7
May end up good, but The World is full of unintended consequences,Mr. Trump has no idea of what might be coming and what anymore it will mean. Will he win some, yes and good for him. Will he also lose, yes and bad for the many Americans who will suffer from his hubris.
1
"Whether this one has given Mr. Trump any leverage with which to press Russia for a diplomatic solution"
That is a euphemism for whether Russia will let us remove Assad. Answer: No. This one off cannot possibly inspire an about face by Russia and Iran.
More meaning might be found by drilling deeper.
Why would Assad do this now, just as he was finally winning? It demonstrates that he has his WMD deterrent weapon. He displayed it. We were told four years ago he wouldn't, by two years ago that he didn't, and now he does.
He's back, and he's got WMD too.
That tends to end talk of taking away the rest of the Golan, or a border zone with Jordan, or breaking up Syria more generally. Nobody is going in on the ground against that in the way they might have considered last week. Israel for political reasons is especially sensitive to gas weapons, and was the one making the most aggressive noises in the last few weeks.
So, did hitting this airfield change any of that? Answer: No. Not a bit of it.
Also, Trump has his own reasons. He won the primary and then the general by manipulating the media and the nation's attention. He just did it again.
He'll do another, and another, until getting back to Russia-gate will be ancient news, buried. Nothing new, just more Benghazi someone won't let go.
Trump had let the news media drift off on its own, easing up his driving the daily media story. Well, not today.
That is a euphemism for whether Russia will let us remove Assad. Answer: No. This one off cannot possibly inspire an about face by Russia and Iran.
More meaning might be found by drilling deeper.
Why would Assad do this now, just as he was finally winning? It demonstrates that he has his WMD deterrent weapon. He displayed it. We were told four years ago he wouldn't, by two years ago that he didn't, and now he does.
He's back, and he's got WMD too.
That tends to end talk of taking away the rest of the Golan, or a border zone with Jordan, or breaking up Syria more generally. Nobody is going in on the ground against that in the way they might have considered last week. Israel for political reasons is especially sensitive to gas weapons, and was the one making the most aggressive noises in the last few weeks.
So, did hitting this airfield change any of that? Answer: No. Not a bit of it.
Also, Trump has his own reasons. He won the primary and then the general by manipulating the media and the nation's attention. He just did it again.
He'll do another, and another, until getting back to Russia-gate will be ancient news, buried. Nothing new, just more Benghazi someone won't let go.
Trump had let the news media drift off on its own, easing up his driving the daily media story. Well, not today.
110
Of course, there is zip, zero, nada evidence thus far (despite all the surveillance and investigation over the last year or two) of any collusion between Trump and Russia to do something illegal. But that doesn't seem to bother those suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And Assad is a petty tyrant, who creates fear in his citizens but not in any country, let alone a major military power like Israel. If and when Israel wants more of Syria it will take it.
And Assad is a petty tyrant, who creates fear in his citizens but not in any country, let alone a major military power like Israel. If and when Israel wants more of Syria it will take it.
Thank god, Susan Rice came out of her shell!
Regardless of how necessary this strike was or was not, Trump just painted himself into a corner. If he does not keep up the military pressure, Assad will just repair the airfield and Trump will look a fool. If Trump escalates, he will drag us into another unsolvable conflict and his base will desert him and his opponents will pile on.
Of course there is always the diplomatic path that he has always condemned. There is the regional allied path but we have alienated all of the parties that can influence the outcome.
There is the global leadership path but Trump has openly rejected that role. Besides, since he changes positions 180 degrees from day to day, no other world leaders can take seriously what he says. Then there is the constant lying thing which doesn't exactly help his credibility.
ISIS, Hezbollah and the other terrorists have yet to react, but they will. It's just a matter of time. Iraqi Shiites may decide to have their say. Iran??? Who knows?
We will find out what happens next after it happens. When that happens, we can tell Tump and he will take it from there.
Of course there is always the diplomatic path that he has always condemned. There is the regional allied path but we have alienated all of the parties that can influence the outcome.
There is the global leadership path but Trump has openly rejected that role. Besides, since he changes positions 180 degrees from day to day, no other world leaders can take seriously what he says. Then there is the constant lying thing which doesn't exactly help his credibility.
ISIS, Hezbollah and the other terrorists have yet to react, but they will. It's just a matter of time. Iraqi Shiites may decide to have their say. Iran??? Who knows?
We will find out what happens next after it happens. When that happens, we can tell Tump and he will take it from there.
174
Trump is in danger of running into the "Law of Unintended Consequences." The CIA calls it "blowback." The only time you can get out of a war like this is not to start it. Once the first American dies, no president dares to back off or he will be conveying the message that this person died in vain. In Vietnam, that cost us almost 60,000 people. After the first American deaths in 1956 & 1959, the progression had begun. And we all know where that ended up almost two decades later.
5
Yes, Congress refused to support military action in Syria when Obama was President. And yet, there was John McCain, arguing that this week's civilian Syria attack was President Obama's legacy. McCain seems to suffer from that same amnesia affecting so many Congressional Republicans. Maybe it's something in that GOP kool-aid...
367
So the bottom line is that it's a waste of time to consult congress before pulling the trigger?
What would Barak say to this?
My guess is that he feels winsome for what could have been.
Distasteful as it may be for many, standing up against flagrant inhuman war crimes is always the right thing to do.
What would Barak say to this?
My guess is that he feels winsome for what could have been.
Distasteful as it may be for many, standing up against flagrant inhuman war crimes is always the right thing to do.
1
John McCain needs to retire. His senility is starting to show. There is much more to talk about in the Senate other than war and the military. Time to step down John.
The never ending liberal defense of a thoughtful, articulate president whose main international policy centered on the mantra "don't do stupid stuff", which in reality was code for don't do anything... and he didn't during 7 years of the Syrian civil war in which 400,000 civilians were murdered during his watch, and has led to the greatest refugee crisis since WW2. This "stand on the sidelines" policy was Mr. Obama's despite the desire of his secretary of state to arm and support the rebels early on when Assad was on the ropes. Now liberals like to spin hystory and point to the fact that Mr. Obama asked congress to authorize the use of force and congress refused. Yes they did, but the facts are that when Assad used chemical weapons and crossed Mr. Obama's "Red Line", he got cold feet ("don't do stupid stuff") and went to congress for cover knowing full well they would not authorize the use of military force. The middle east burned while Mr. Obama fiddled in Washington and abdicated American leadership to the world.
16
" there is no evidence the President has thought through....."
Well, ANYTHING. Just fill in the blank, daily.
Well, ANYTHING. Just fill in the blank, daily.
409
If he thought anything, it was this: "Yemen was supposed to be my big macho he-man moment that proved I was stronger than Obama, but it didn't go too well so I'm taking a mulligan."
I love this. Lawrence O'Donnell (MSNBC) said that a likely scenario is that Putin got Assad to use Chemical Weapons on children so that Trump could fire missiles and take the pressure off the investigation into the hacking and collusion.
Isn't the complexity of possibilities wonderful?
Isn't the complexity of possibilities wonderful?
254
To be honest, he didn't exactly say it was likely. He said it was impossible not to imagine such a scenario, given the other shenanigans we've all witnessed.
Though it is not impossible, and makes all kinds of sense in a "you dog, you went to Prague to make me think you were going to Warsaw when all along you were going to Prague" kind of way, it is not useful to pursue this line, since it is likely to induce plausible incredulity. That said, it is, as you say, amusing in a perverse kind of way.
Though it is not impossible, and makes all kinds of sense in a "you dog, you went to Prague to make me think you were going to Warsaw when all along you were going to Prague" kind of way, it is not useful to pursue this line, since it is likely to induce plausible incredulity. That said, it is, as you say, amusing in a perverse kind of way.
11
Lawrence is wrong : the goal is simply chaos. Trump being President leads naturally to distraction of America from whatever Putin does or plans to do. Missiles and tension in the Middle East effect the same outcome elsewhere: that is the primary purpose of the gas attack (who needs Assad for that?) not simply to assist Trump at home.
I am a leftie, progressive, liberal, or whatever label one wishes to apply - but I cannot stand MSNBC (or Fox for that matter). Any organisation which relies on emotion and knee-jerk arguments or loud voices rather than critical thinking, facts, or logic to make an argument I absolutely avoid . . . I don't want my views or biases confirmed. I want them challenged . . .
7
Hail Mary full of tomahawk missiles
The joints chiefs of staff,
the national security agency,
Tom Brady and Bill Belichick
Are with you and me
Blessed art thou among travel bans,
unaffordable health care failures,
unsubstantiated tweets about wiretapping
and fake news concerning Russians,
blessed is the fruit of the
Military industrial complex
To inflate my poll numbers
Pray for us dealmakers
Now and at the hour of
Our impeachment . Amen.