Trump's Fail on Syria

[Stardreamer]

^That the WH/Russian relationship has been dealt a blow by Trump's decision to launch a missile attack on a Syrian government airbase does suggest that Bannon's influence has been stymied....for the present...enablingTrump to continue with Barack Obama's strategy of confronting Assad. This evidences the input of McMaster determined that Russian influence in Syria should be contested.

It is telling though that reportedly we used a deconfliction channel we had established with the local Russian forces to warn the Russians and therefore the Syrians that the strike was coming. Given that most of Syria's air defenses are manned by Russians this was a wise move. It gave the US just the right amount of diplomatic cover and likely reduced casualties while still letting the WH send a pointed message. To me this is very reassuring, it indicates that Trump is listening to some the cooler heads in his military staff.

 

[rareboy]

Trump's Syria Strike Was Unconstitutional and Unwise


The military intervention solved nothing, while bypassing Congress, betraying the president’s non-interventionist supporters, and highlighting his hypocrisy.

So this is a thing too that made me wonder.

I really don't care, but it was always a huge deal for the right wingers whenever Obama undertook a military strike that they didn't feel had been sanctioned by the GOP.

Early the morning of August 21, 2013, six densely populated neighborhoods in Syria “were jolted awake by a series of explosions, followed by an oozing blanket of suffocating gas,” the Washington Post reported at the time. “Unknown to Syrian officials, U.S. spy agencies recorded each step in the alleged chemical attack, from the extensive preparations to the launching of rockets to the after-action assessments by Syrian officials. Those records and intercepts would become the core of the Obama administration’s evidentiary case linking the Syrian government to what one official called an ‘indiscriminate, inconceivable horror’—the use of outlawed toxins to kill nearly 1,500 civilians, including at least 426 children.”

Days later, President Obama declared that he was ready to order a military strike on Syria to punish its leader, Bashar al-Assad, for using chemical weapons while waging civil war, but added that as “president of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy,” he would consult Congress. Legislators never did vote to approve a strike, in part because the American public did not want to intervene militarily in Syria.

So what has changed now?

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...trike-was-unconstitutional-and-unwise/522228/

 

[Stardreamer]

Syria and Russia used chemical weapons in violation of international law, because they thought, after 8 years of Obamian weakness, that they could get away with it. Democrats always think that weakness brings peace and strength brings war. The world works exactly oppositely. Strength brings peace.

This 'Obama weakness' excuse is pure ignorance. It assumes that Putin and Assad are complete idiots who don't watch the US news. The attack was to test Trump to see if he was weak and how he would react, they would likely have done it regardless of who was in the WH before Trump.

 

[Stardreamer]

So this is a thing too that made me wonder.

I really don't care, but it was always a huge deal for the right wingers whenever Obama undertook a military strike that they didn't feel had been sanctioned by the GOP.



So what has changed now?

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...trike-was-unconstitutional-and-unwise/522228/

What is telling is Trump is on record as being opposed to Obama taking action and demanding he get congressional approval. So his acting now could be seen as a flip flop on the subject.

 

[Vitamin]

It is telling though that reportedly we used a deconfliction channel we had established with the local Russian forces to warn the Russians and therefore the Syrians that the strike was coming. Given that most of Syria's air defenses are manned by Russians this was a wise move. It gave the US just the right amount of diplomatic cover and likely reduced casualties while still letting the WH send a pointed message. To me this is very reassuring, it indicates that Trump is listening to some the cooler heads in his military staff.

There are multiple problems with telling beforehand as well. First of all, it questions how seriously you're committed to your cause. If this is true retaliation for Khan Shiekhoun then military casualties from the other side shouldn't really matter. Secondly, it becomes a matter of when to tell them, and whether or not they have time to escape with your intended targets(in this case chemical weapons). Given the extremely small number of casualties(6 according to the BBC or 9 says USA Today) it seems the Syrians we're given plenty of time to evacuate at least.

Of course the risk of too many dead Russians has more consequence than these points, but it still calls into question how "clear" the American point actually is and shows why there are no good options for what to do with Syria.

 

[Stardreamer]

There are multiple problems with telling beforehand as well. First of all, it questions how seriously you're committed to your cause. If this is true retaliation for Khan Shiekhoun then military casualties from the other side shouldn't really matter. Secondly, it becomes a matter of when to tell them, and whether or not they have time to escape with your intended targets(in this case chemical weapons). Given the extremely small number of casualties(6 according to the BBC or 9 says USA Today) it seems the Syrians we're given plenty of time to evacuate at least.

Of course the risk of too many dead Russians has more consequence than these points, but it still calls into question how "clear" the American point actually is and shows why there are no good options for what to do with Syria.

In terms of a measured response and considering the Russian factor, minimizing casualties does matter. We do not appear to have been targeting the facilities where we suspect the chemical weapons were stored. That is also a reasonable response as such facilities are usually hardened bunkers and if you can't ensure you can get enough incendiaries into the structure to completely destroy the contents you risk a massive release of chemical agents over a large region.

The intent of the strike based on what I've been able to read so far was to inflict punishing damage to the airfield itself.

Warships launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at the Shayrat Air Base near the city of Homs, where the gas attack originated, the Pentagon said. The missiles were launched at 8:40 p.m. EDT, which was early Friday morning in Syria. They targeted aircraft, shelters, petroleum and logistical storage, ammunition supply bunkers, air defense systems and radars at the Shayrat Air Base, the Pentagon said in a statement.
....
The Pentagon said that initial reports indicate that the strike "severely damaged or destroyed Syrian aircraft and support infrastructure and equipment at Shayrat Airfield, reducing the Syrian Government's ability to deliver chemical weapons."

 

[Kulindahr]

Well, looks like POTUS has decided, like his Democrat Liberal predecessor that Assad has to go. 50 missles on one of Assad's airfields, or what used to be one of his airfields. Interesting to see what our Russian allies...uh, his Russian allies will think about that.

I just heard n the tube that they have the airfield back in operation. So WTF did they fire those missiles at?????

 

[Kulindahr]

I would only add that this strike has pissed off a lot of core Trump supporters who see it as a betrayal of his non-interventionist America First Policy.

Many see it as only emboldening the very Islamist State radicals.

And as I noted in the other thread, it is in itself, a meaningless gesture.

If they'd actually wiped out the airport, it would have been an effective one-shot slapdown for the use of chemical weapons.

 

[Kulindahr]

It is essentially Twitter fodder.

If anything internationally, it is a call to the U.N. to grow a pair, but that is never going to happen. It was designed to be a eunuch by the Great Powers.

It had to be designed that way, or it would have been a way to guarantee a world war.

 

[Kulindahr]

Most people believed the WMD's in Iraq story. And now they believe this story as well. And once again, they do so quite unquestioningly.

I'm seeing it questioned. But independent sources have come forward with evidence showing it really was Assad's forces using the chemicals.

 

[Kulindahr]

By the way, listening to Trump's slow talk speech was like attending public speaking day at a school for the developmentally delayed.

It was mawkish and more the work of a 14 year old 'special' child than the address of the President of the United States.

Yeah.

My mom can't remember his name, but whenever he's on the tube she calls him "that idiot".

 

[Kulindahr]

This 'Obama weakness' excuse is pure ignorance. It assumes that Putin and Assad are complete idiots who don't watch the US news. The attack was to test Trump to see if he was weak and how he would react, they would likely have done it regardless of who was in the WH before Trump.

I agree with an analysis I read that said Assad was already testing because Obama hadn't acted when Assad crossed some stated "red lines" before -- and with Trump acting like Syria was unimportant, it was enough to make him decide to go for it.

 

[cocksucker4use]

Syria and Russia used chemical weapons in violation of international law, because they thought, after 8 years of Obamian weakness, that they could get away with it. Democrats always think that weakness brings peace and strength brings war. The world works exactly oppositely. Strength brings peace.

It's more than a little disconcerting that POTUS watches FOX News and unilaterally decides to attack Syria, reversing his stated foreign policy course, now saying that Assad has to go. Basically pissing in the face of President Putin, who got him elected. Where's the loyalty there? We should soon see where random aggression gets us. Think ongoing wars in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. Republicans decry the national debt that is burdened by entitlements for the poor, disabled, old and sick. Tax cuts and deregulation will jump start the economy. Simultaneous tax cuts and more wars fuckin kill any hope of reducing the national debt, increasing it exponentially. Deregulate banking and Jamie Dimon gets a bigger bonus and I get higher interest rates. Trump is a fucking poster boy for the fallacy of trickle down economics. Through bankruptcies and stiffing most anybody who has come in contact with him, he has like $95 Million in tax credits and how in the hell is giving tax breaks to assholes like him is going to benefit the poor ignorant sons of bitches who voted for him....how? Don't get me wrong, I'm hopin for another $20K or so a year, but I realize who's paying for it. And it ain't Trump, Inc.

 

[frankfrank]

I just heard n the tube that they have the airfield back in operation. So WTF did they fire those missiles at?????

If they'd actually wiped out the airport, it would have been an effective one-shot slapdown for the use of chemical weapons.

Seems like I have to depend on international sources such as Reuters to hear anything about this. The mainstream US media is in lockstep claiming that the potential for further Syrian offensives has been irreparably harmed (though somewhat less than completely), etc.

We should soon see where random aggression gets us. Think ongoing wars in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Just wait until they start opening up theaters of war around Africa, too.

 

[Kulindahr]

It's more than a little disconcerting that POTUS watches FOX News and unilaterally decides to attack Syria, reversing his stated foreign policy course, now saying that Assad has to go. Basically pissing in the face of President Putin, who got him elected. Where's the loyalty there? We should soon see where random aggression gets us. Think ongoing wars in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. Republicans decry the national debt that is burdened by entitlements for the poor, disabled, old and sick. Tax cuts and deregulation will jump start the economy. Simultaneous tax cuts and more wars fuckin kill any hope of reducing the national debt, increasing it exponentially. Deregulate banking and Jamie Dimon gets a bigger bonus and I get higher interest rates. Trump is a fucking poster boy for the fallacy of trickle down economics. Through bankruptcies and stiffing most anybody who has come in contact with him, he has like $95 Million in tax credits and how in the hell is giving tax breaks to assholes like him is going to benefit the poor ignorant sons of bitches who voted for him....how? Don't get me wrong, I'm hopin for another $20K or so a year, but I realize who's paying for it. And it ain't Trump, Inc.

"Another $20k or so a year"? A LOT of people would be insanely elated to get a first $20k/yr.

 

[Kulindahr]

Seems like I have to depend on international sources such as Reuters to hear anything about this. The mainstream US media is in lockstep claiming that the potential for further Syrian offensives has been irreparably harmed (though somewhat less than completely), etc.


Just wait until they start opening up theaters of war around Africa, too.

Whatever major channel my mom watches reported the runway was back open and running, whatever damage may have been done.

Though cruise missiles aren't really meant for harming runways. We have toys for that, but none are ship-fired missiles as far as I know.

 

[rareboy]

Sean Hannity tweeted:

"Glad our arrogant Pres. is enjoying his taxpayer funded golf outing after announcing the US should take military action against Syria"

oh wait.

That was when Obama did it. In sep 2013.

 

[rareboy]

Also interesting how Trump went from bloviating about Syria to undertaking a unilateral military action. It shows that his depth perception about Syria has never been founded on a thoughtful consideration of the position that the US finds itself in, in this proxy war between Putin's USSR, China and the west.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/us/politics/donald-trump-syria-twitter.html

And also still disturbing that his action seems to be based more on watching FOX and friends and some weepy personal emotions about little babies frothing at the mouth.

Why wasn't he looking at the same pictures in 2013?

 

[Vitamin]

In terms of a measured response and considering the Russian factor, minimizing casualties does matter.

Considering I already acknowledged this point, no one was impressed by this statement but you. That's okay, I'll just remember to not bother you from now on since I'd rather not roll my eyes at my computer screen.

We do not appear to have been targeting the facilities where we suspect the chemical weapons were stored. That is also a reasonable response as such facilities are usually hardened bunkers and if you can't ensure you can get enough incendiaries into the structure to completely destroy the contents you risk a massive release of chemical agents over a large region.

The intent of the strike based on what I've been able to read so far was to inflict punishing damage to the airfield itself.

I suppose so now that I look at the issue further, which just makes the whole thing even more feckless then I originally thought.

 

[gsdx]

oh wait.

That was when Obama did it. In sep 2013.

And for those who missed it in the 'Trump This' thread: