Do you believe Britain and France are doing this to distract from Trumps other problems?

[jberryhill]

Whatever the media goes on about, the fact of the matter is that Monday morning the SDNY USAG’s office turns on the lights and goes back to work, as do the courts, as does the special counsel’s office.

The process of law is the process of law, and it doesn’t stop to care what leads on the hourly news.

The Syrian action does not have any real impact on what is already in motion on the Trumpster Fire front.

I sincerely doubt that Macron has any interest in using French military assets to do Trunp some sort of personal favor. If you believe otherwise, please explain what’s in it for France?

[BootinUp]

1. I don't think you are considering politics?

[jberryhill]

4. Im asking a question

Explain me why France is doing this?

What political calculation could the French government be making here?

[BootinUp]

8. Difficult to answer except to say

Macron is a bit of a maverick.

[jberryhill]

12. But not much of a nutcase

[thucythucy]

18. To drive a wedge between Trump and Putin

and thus push back on Putin's attempts to disrupt French elections, as he did America's?

The Trump/Putin alliance isn't in the French (or British) national interest. If this gets Putin pissed off at Trump, it's all good for the rest of NATO.

My two cents.

[jberryhill]

21. Okay

I can appreciate that. The point being that the cooperation is really intended to undermine Trump.

Plausible.

But what about the UK. The May government and their insistence on making Brexit a bad implemtation of an even worse idea, doesn’t fit as well.

[thucythucy]

30. The dangers inherent in the Trump/Putin collusion

and its threat the British/American "special relationship" may well override all other considerations.

I don't know if most Americans appreciate just how rattled the Europeans are by what's happening here. It's much worse than it was under Bush II. Bush II was seen as incompetent, Trump is seen by many as out to undermine if not destroy the western alliance.

Besides which, the British and French have a very long history of meddling in Middle Eastern politics, way longer than ours. Syria was once a French colony, a part of the division of the Middle East between the British and French secretly made during the First World War. Add to this the national security concerns raised by the existence of a Russian warm water port on the Mediterranean (which is one of the main reasons why Russia supports Assad). It has been a traditional aim of French and British foreign policy to keep the Russian fleet corked up in the Black Sea, going all the way back to the Crimean War.

So it's not surprising they'd be a part of this attack. And if it also works to undermine the Trump/Putin axis, so much the better.

Again, this is just my quasi-educated guess.

[DFW]

64. May and Macron both have scores to settle with Putin, so you're onto something

May for using imported chemical weapons on her doorstep and Macron for election interference. Both of them know Trump to be dangerous and unbalanced, but if they can get him to realize that Putin's support will end costing more than he's willing to pay (and remember, Trump has a history of stiffing his creditors), well this is a small price to pay.

As a side note, I got to spend an hour with Obama in July, 2012, and Syria came up. He said then that he had reached out to Putin in 2010, asking if they could work on a joint solution to prevent Syria from total deterioration. Putin told him, essentially, to fuck off, as Syria was Russia's sphere of influence, and Putin was not interested in our "outside" meddling. Obama said further that "now, 2 years later (i.e. 2012)," Syria had devolved into a nasty civil war with about five factions, all of whom hated each other, and all of whom hated us. As great a human tragedy it would be (Obama saw it coming), he said there is no one there that really wants our troops as help. Guns? Yes, please. But no Americans. And that's what they got.

[unc70]

25. Macron is also dealing with domestic issues

He is trying to break the major unions in France. The unions are responding with a series of strikes, slowdowns, etc. most visible is the rail strike currently scheduled through June -- two days on strike alternating with three days non strike. Air France has a separate strike schedule. Add in sanitation / garbage, universities, and assorted others. Most serious strikes since 1995, still far from 1968. But it is not summer yet.

BTW I have several weeks travel starting now mostly in Italy and France. The strikes pose some challenges.

[jberryhill]

29. French labor issues are hardly unusual

I hear there’s a strong wind in Provence as well, but that’s pretty much normal.

Try leaving your passport in a hotel in Geneva and having the hotel send it by post to Chamomix on the eve of a postal strike. I feel your pain.

[unc70]

41. Hardly unusual, but politically very dangerous

When the unions prevail, the government usually falls. That happened in my 1995 example. Looks like Macron also may want to soft privatize the railroads "to make them more competitive". This year is shaping up to be more than normally active French labor unrest.

The people I've worked with at CFDT have retired so I no longer have the benefit of their insights. I should know a lot more after a few weeks there.

BTW I've spent about 18 months total in France, used to own a company in the UK. With than considerable experience, I understand almost nothing of the politics of either place.

[bobbieinok]

38. Why out to break the unions? I know nothing abouf France's labor/union history.

[joshcryer]

34. There is a severe migration issue happening to EU.

France is but one of the large countries in the EU who wants to head it off. And probably the only country that can do it without a lot of people complaining (ie, it's France, who cares).

[Kentonio]

47. Why would you imagine no-one would care because its France?

France is one of the major EU players, their actions come
under massive scrutiny in Europe, just like Germany’s.

[joshcryer]

72. Because they've been doing a LOT of meddling and there has been little outcry in markets that matter

[Kentonio]

73. Meddling in what?

[mercuryblues]

65. I am going to add a question to yours

Do you find it odd that during the week leading up to this strike we found out a lot about Cohen and other R's? It almost seems like Putin was saying to trump: I made you and I can destroy you.

So trump gets on the phone and we bomb empty buildings again.

[elleng]

2. I agree with you, berryhill.

[Thekaspervote]

3. In just one word..l no

[Bernardo de La Paz]

5. I'm not convinced the rationale for this is any more true than Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Rumors Russia, Syria, rebels, Iranians made the chem attack.

[jberryhill]

11. Thats all fine

But, regardless of rationale or whatever measure of “that’s enough” is applied here, do you believe that this was done as a distraction from Trumps legal/political issues, and that the French believe that’s a worthy incentive for them?

(And I’m intentionally leaving the UK out because May strikes me as something of a cuckoo in her own right)

Walk me through the conversation that starts with “I need a distraction” and ends with “Mais ouí!”

[Bernardo de La Paz]

15. I don't think France or UK want to wag tRump's dog. But they may have been sucked in by Bolton

Like Powell at UN.

[mr_lebowski]

57. Well, because the conversation wouldn't occur the way you're imagining & not to say 'duh', but ...

Duh.

If Putin ordered this to help Donnie in his time of trouble, how does France or UK 'know that'? They just know that a chem attack happened, & now the US is asking for help to combat it ...

Simply put why exactly would they dig into all the details that informed Assad in making the decision to attack? They're helping the US cause we asked, and because there was a chem weapons attack.

They don't HAVE to think any deeper than that, do they?

It's a bit of a straw man to set up a scenario where these governments 'know' Donnie and Putin are engaged in Kabuki Theater, then argue against the likelihood the Europeans elect to 'play along' ... Just MHO.

[blake2012]

6. Yep. In this case, there may be some spillover benefit for Trump

But this joint action at least makes sense re: international relations.

[lunasun]

7. History of things like French mandate

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Mandate_for_Syria_and_the_Lebanon

So no nothing to do with trumps plethora of domestic issues imo

[Wellstone ruled]

45. Once France bailed,

The Assad Family and free reign over this Nation. it is,after all,Assad Family Dictatorship.

[Mr. Ected]

9. Each of these sovereigns has its own reason for endorsing and joining in this military attack

Ours is replete with an element of wag the dog. Could be 10%, could be 99%.

Trump can't stop the immutable force known as rule of law. But he can control the airwaves and, in turn, the attention of masses of Americans. That's his play.

[Kaleva]

10. I agree.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

13. No, why on earth would they?

What Trump's personal motivation might be is another matter, but obviously he wasn't in complete control of the operation (I suspect he would have wanted something much more dramatic). This will be a major news story for another day or two but unless it continues beyond the weekend it will be old news by Monday. Most Americans couldn't find Syria on a map and probably don't care much about this whole thing, maybe except for some Trumpers who think it was awesomely manly. But the wheels of justice will continue to grind on.

[janx]

14. No, but I think this has little to do with Trump. n/t

[Kirk Lover]

16. WHAT?

[jberryhill]

17. There is a lot of Wag The Dog sentiment

So I am hoping someone will explain to me what’s in it for France.

[Kirk Lover]

19. It's very simple...they are our ally.

[jberryhill]

22. Yeah, so is Canada

The French, as you will recall over a warm serving of Freedom Fries, do not simply jump to the tune of what the US President is playing.

[Kirk Lover]

24. Well if you think they are doing it to give cover for RUMP that is crazy.

[jberryhill]

31. Some people apparently do

If this is an instance of Wag The Dog, then how does one account for British and French action?

That’s my question. I believe you may have misunderstood the OP.

[Kirk Lover]

37. Sorry I reread your post....I agree with you!

[cwydro]

32. No. That is not what the OP thinks.

Perhaps reread the OP.

[bluestarone]

20. If i remember right Britain sent a ship BEFORE any decisions were made?

I feel they are independent from tRUMP.

[procon]

23. Don't they each have lots of their own domestic problems that might be

briefly knocked off the top headlines by their willingness to join Trump's minimal air power display?

[Kirk Lover]

26. Now this I would believe before Macron giving cover to someone quite frankly he and his

country despise. Is there anything going on in France that would need such an act like this? I really can't imagine there is anything remotely scandalous going on in Europe compared to what the hell is going on here at the moment.

[leftstreet]

33. Bank puppet Macron is becoming extremely unpopular in France

He'd love a little wag-the-dog of his own

And May would probably wag just to get people to look away from Corbyn for five minutes

[bobbieinok]

42. Why do you call him 'bank puppet'? Know little about him or French politics.

[leftstreet]

43. He was an investment banker

Almost immediately after former investment banker Emmanuel Macron was elected president of France, speculation mounted that he plans to take advantage of Brexit chaos and lure London’s bankers to Paris. If true, this gives some insight into the type of free-market structural transformation Macron has in mind for the French economy.

But enticing bankers away from Europe’s financial capital will not be easy. And successful or not, a battle for the banks spells bad news for workers on both sides of the English Channel.

Considering bankers are as unpopular in France as in most European states suffering the fallout of the 2008 financial crisis, this ruse is unlikely to garner support from already skeptical French workers. Nevertheless, Macron’s priorities lie in finding solutions to France’s three long-standing economic woes; high unemployment, low growth, and a large national debt.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/06/macron-and-mays-battle-for-the-banks

[procon]

36. Macron is up against a nationwide wave of strikes and protests from

railroad workers, pilot unions, student groups, teachers, retirees and pensioners. He's also feuding with Germany's Merkel about changes in the EU. A little "Wag the Dog" might give him a break from all his problems at home.

[Kirk Lover]

40. But how long will this wagging really last without a sustained attack? If Macron is

having trouble at home this attack would ingratiate him with the French people or would they resent him even more? I would think the latter because most folks seem not to want to get involved in Syria much no matter what continent they are from.

[jberryhill]

50. That is my question also

No one has connected the dots between “Macron has problems” and “the French population thinks this is a good idea”.

[Kirk Lover]

68. People think this shit based on emotion(s). These assertions are not based in thinking or

often objectivity either. It's all over this board on a myriad of topics.

[cwydro]

27. Uh,

Nope.

[joshcryer]

28. Nope, Obama's red line wasn't a political statement.

Obama's red line was a moral and ethical statement. This is the third gassing of Syrians by Syrians. Hundreds dead.

France agreed with Obama's red line at the time and still does. The French have been increasingly getting involved in humanitarian issues (being largely force behind the Blue Hats that the UN sends out most significantly in Africa).

My suspicion is that Trump didn't want to do anything but was told he would look weak, and France and Israel forced his hand. Israel for its own geopolitical reasons (Syria is right next door, right across the Golan Heights). France for the aforementioned UN enforcement reasons. France has been kind of been able to get away with being EU's police force (North African humanitarian actions).

[GulfCoast66]

35. No. Not everything trump does is evil. Almost everything, yes.

Perhaps President Obama’s largest error was calling out a red line and then refusing to act when it was crossed. And I know the Congress did not support him. But had he acted in response to Syrian use of chemical weapons on civilians, DU would have supported him.

France and the UK participated because the use of chemical weapons against civilians is just a bridge too far.

At the end of the day this is just more fallout from the invasion of Iraq. By far the worst foreign policy mistake in the 240 years of American history. There is no good answer or course of action which violates Americans basic understanding of the world. We always want to believe there is a good solution. More mature cultures realize that often all choices are crapple.

[FarCenter]

39. The UK is even more pissed at the Russian that we are. With Macron, it is simply status.

Macron wishes to keep France in a position of leadership, more or less.

With Brexit, France becomes the leading military power in the EU, since Germany is diffident for historical reasons.

[Spider Jerusalem]

44. Nope, I think the UK and France are doing it because of NATO

it signals US commitment to NATO and the Atlantic alliance, which is probably important to the British and French governments.

[loyalsister]

46. Nope

I am reserving judgement for now. Obama did not get congressional approval for every military strike, and I was disappointed in some of his actions. I was under the impression that conditions in Syria were heavily influenced not only by the Iraq war, but also by our actions in Libya.
I worry a lot about what kind of damage Trump will ultimately do to the world. But, I also tend to think this was likely inevitable and would have happened under any US president. I don't like it, but at this point, military action is not so much partisan as a constant possibility/probability under any administration.

[oberliner]

48. US couldn't do it without allies, and UK and France were not going to say no

[jberryhill]

49. Why not? Did Cohen pay them or something?

[oberliner]

51. Because they are allies who are currently part of the coalition fighting Assad

[jberryhill]

52. And like Ado Annie, they cant say no

They will blithely do what Trump tells them?

[oberliner]

53. They are working in concert with the US

What reason would they have to say no? They are in agreement with the US with respect to Assad and chemical weapons.

[jberryhill]

55. Yes, however

Some have posited that this action is not about the use of chemical weapons, but is a manufactured event due to Trumps legal problems.

My question is, if that hypothesis is true, why would the British and French agree to an operation with such a purpose?

Your answer is non-responsive.

[oberliner]

56. Here's my response

Trump definitely wanted to take this action to distract from what is going on.

That said, the action is one that our military, along with those of Britain and France, are in support of.

It was kind of a "happy circumstance" for Trump - in that there was an opportunity to take military action to distract from his problems that arose "fortuitously" thanks to Assad.

[Captain Stern]

54. Absolutely not.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think sometimes we all tend to live in our own bubble, regardless of how well informed we are, or think we are.

The truth is, that even though the shitshow of the trump "Presidency" is by far the biggest issue on our plate....that's simply not true for other nations. Sure, they'd much rather we have a real President, but they don't spend near as much time worrying about it as we do, because they shouldn't.

They have their own reasons for doing things that they feel are in their best interests. I'm pretty sure that 'let's help trump' isn't one of those reasons.

[samnsara]

58. i think they were gonna do this all along and trump called up and begged to be invited to the party.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

60. Obviously.

[jberryhill]

61. Really?

Could you explain why that would be a sufficient motivator for them?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

62. Yes, it's obvious... $$$

[DemocratSinceBirth]

63. Unless Trump will be bombing someone every day we will eventually return to discussing his perfidy.

[yardwork]

66. Lots of voters in Britain and France are worried about immigration.

May was elected on the Brexit wave. France has been struggling for years with political turmoil around Muslim immigration.

The fact that Trump could only get two countries to kind of sort of partner with him on this strike shows how deeply unpopular and distrusted he is by our European allies.

This strike was a bad idea, poorly executed.

[uponit7771]

67. I don't see how UK and France are that involved Red Don willing to use them for cover

[workinclasszero]

69. They are NATO allies

Trying to hold up their end of the bargain I assume.

They wouldn't have done this on their own I bet.

[Baclava]

70. yep - Germany backs airstrikes in Syria as 'necessary and appropriate'

German Chancellor Angela Merkel voiced her support Saturday for the previous day's US-led joint airstrikes in Syria, describing them as a "necessary and appropriate" measure to hinder the Syrian government's potential future use of chemical weapons and make sure international responses to their use remain effective.

"We support the fact that our American, British and French allies have taken responsibility in this way as permanent members of the UN Security Council," Merkel said.

http://www.dw.com/en/germany-backs-airstrikes-in-syria-as-necessary-and-appropriate/a-43386145

[Maeve]

71. Both have their own reasons for striking back at Russia

And keeping the US involved in Syria at this time does that.

[Renoir]

74. No.

Why would France be comcerned with making Trump look good? Macron has explained why: The red line of using chemical weapons cannot be crossed, and a response is necessary to show there is no tolerance for it, or it will continue. I happen to agree with Macron that a response is necessary, but I couldn't care less what Trump thinks. He was against attacking Syria before, so I guess he flip-flopped, but America can't solve the problem of Syria without the involvment of the rest of the international community - and even then it will be difficult. But believe it or not, not every geopolitical event revolves around whatever idea Trump gets in his head as he tweets in his soiled underwear every morning.

[LeftishBrit]

75. No, not directly

If you knew the current British government, they have no planning abilities whatsoever, and just lurch along from day to day, acting on impulse. Nonetheless, they are likely to do as Trump tells them if he's persuasive enough. Since Britain voted to become the first country in history to impose economic and trade sanctions on itself, aka Brexit, we have become increasingly dependent on the highly undependable Trump.

[dubyadiprecession]

76. Britain and France are probably just concerned about chemical weapons being used on civilians.

I don't believe there is some sort of conspiracy taking place here. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.