Rolling Stone - What to Make of Trump's About-Face on Syria

[TomCADem]

Why did Trump oppose intervention when over a thousand Syrians were killed in chemical attacks, but launched a missle strike almost immediately after about 80 people were killed shortly after declaring that the U.S. was no longer in the business of opposing the Assad regime?

A reasonable argument could have been made for intervention if the U.S. had been consistent in explaining why the international community could not tolerate the casual use of WMDs. But, to offer mix messages and military action with the impulsivity of a tweet is dangerous.



http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/what-to-make-of-trumps-about-face-on-syria-w475725

There are several ways to look at Donald Trump's abrupt about-face on Syria. One is that Thursday night's Tomahawk missile strike on an airbase near Homs – a so-called "proportional response" to the Assad regime's apparent sarin gas attack on Tuesday – was a cave to the Pentagon and a signal that at long last "the adults have taken control," as a military source, echoing the entire D.C. foreign policy establishment, puts it. Some believe a nascent national security strategy may be in the works. On the other hand, Trump is Trump.

Thursday evening, shifty eyed and uncomfortable in front of dual teleprompters at Mar-a-Lago, Trump made a scripted assertion that it was in the "vital national security interest of the United States" to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons like sarin. "The use of that term, 'vital national interest,' was most welcome, and I agree," says one former Pentagon official. "The prevention of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is in our vital national interest as well as the vital interests of our allies. Now the administration needs to flesh out our remaining vital national interests and build a strategy that meets those interests."

* * *
"People are so hungry to believe that they have a solid, 'presidential' commander-in-chief at the helm that they are willing to overlook everything Donald Trump said before Thursday – including on Monday and Tuesday," says Daniel Benaim, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, and a former Obama administration official. "But there's nothing presidential about launching missiles in service of a policy that didn't exist until a few days ago. And when it comes to each new declaration that now is the moment when Trump finally became 'presidential,' people get tired of buying the same horse twice. Launching a few missiles from offshore is in some ways the easy part, and the one that better fits the impulsive nature of a president who seems to think more in macho gestures to win news cycles than long-term politico-military strategies to end wars.

"The bigger question is whether the experienced members of Trump's team can help him leverage this short-term burst of American power projection toward a strategy to hasten the end of a civil war that has been wrecking the country and sucking foreign powers into a vortex of instability," Benaim says. "Strategy – not strikes – should be the measure of presidential leadership."

[guillaumeb]

1. Deflection and desperation.

Hoping to deflect attention from Trump's Russian ties and desperate to do something to improve his abysmal ratings.

[stevenleser]

2. That was my take too

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017433370

[cheyanne]

3. A demagogue's tao: start war when popularity drops.

During a war or threat of war, people are less likely to questions authority or want to change leaders. Of the enemies that Trump has denounced lately No. Korea and China were his favorites. But he chose Syria because he knew that Syria couldn't fight back and Putin didn't want to fight. N. Korea and China could plausibly make real trouble for him, one with arms and the other with trade.

As his poll numbers crater, Trump will turn next on internal enemies. Since the Latinos are already under siege, it will be liberals, protesters, etc.

We don't have time to wait for the Russian collusion investigations. Impeach now.

[L. Coyote]

4. Poll numbers were approaching 29% approval and #TrumpRussia was distracting everyone.

His saying "vital national security interest of the United States" was to circumvent the law requiring Congress declare war. Trump committed an act of war w/o approval.

Authorization for Military Force Against Syria to Respond to Use of Chemical Weapons

Link to tweet

Saner minds want to know who committed the gas attack.

Link to tweet

If Iran is calling for an investigation, Assad may be trying to figure out who did it too. Was it a US false flag? Was it ISIS trying to draw in the US? Was it Russia? Saudis? Qatar? So-called "rebel" proxy warriors for any of the above?

[Wellstone ruled]

5. Sure appears the real story is

floating to the surface. This was nothing more than a Cruel Stunt to change the Evening News Narrative. Talk about timing, 4:35 pm EDT,duh. Donnie knows he is toast,and he and his Crime Family are about to take the hit.

[L. Coyote]

7. The Real Targets of Trumps Strike Were His Domestic Critics

 The Real Targets of Trump’s Strike Were His Domestic Critics
Six thoughts on the US bombing of Syria. -- Greg Grandin

1. The bombing was for domestic consumption. According to The New York Times, “The Pentagon informed Russian military officials, through its established deconfliction channel, of the strike before the launching of the missiles, the official said, with American officials knowing when they did that Russian authorities may well have alerted the Assad regime.” In other words, the object of Trump’s Tomahawks was not Syria’s capacity to deploy gas, but domestic liberal opponents .....

.....

3.  The bombing reveals that there are no limits to the media’s ability to be awed, if not shocked, by manufactured displays of techno-omnipotence. ......

4.  All criticism from the Democratic leadership has been framed in terms of procedure, focused on the fact that Trump didn’t get congressional approval. Schumer, Schiff, and the rest of them have all pronounced thusly, promising to bring the matter to Congress. This is exactly the kind of danger I warned about here, comparing Democrats’ opposition to Trump—and particularly their obsession with Russia—to Iran/Contra. That was a crime that should have handed the keys to all three branches of government to the Democrats. Instead, by accepting the premises of Reagan’s objectives but dissenting over how he achieved them, Democrats blew it then, just as they blew it in 2004 when John Kerry ran for president criticizing how the war in Iraq was being waged but accepting the justifications for why it was being waged. ................

...........

[Wellstone ruled]

8. Again,our Party Leadership did not

nail Trump's ass to the barn door. With a complicit Media,milk toast reply's are not going anywhere other than ridicule from the Talking Heads. Maxine Waters seems to be onto something with her style of getting in Trump's face.

[L. Coyote]

9. Ted Lieu is in his face too, and others.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[Wellstone ruled]

10. Lieu is the new face of Democratic

Politics. Tom Harkin and Wellstone were the last to kick ass and take names.

[yurbud]

6. he is a demagogue not a martyr

You don't stop the bipartisan foreign policy consensus on something as big as control of Eurasia without risking your life.

Trump said what people wanted to hear (or if you like, what Russia wanted him to say), but has no conviction about anything and certainly not enough to risk his life.