Michael Totten isn’t impressed with the Trump administration’s foreign-policy acumen:
…we need to get a couple of things straight here. Bashar al-Assad is not fighting ISIS in Syria. Not really. Nor are the Russians. Assad and the Russians are fighting every rebel army in the country except ISIS. Look at a map of the country. ISIS’s territory is centered on its “capital” in Raqqa in the northeast, but Assad and Russia’s theater of operations is in the west and along the coast. Only the United States has bombed ISIS in Syria, and only Kurdish militias have seriously resisted ISIS on the ground.
Assad did, however, facilitate ISIS’s rise in Syria and Iraq. Thousands of Americans and Iraqis are dead thanks to his sponsorship of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s al-Qaeda in Iraq—the precursor to ISIS—during the Iraqi insurgency.
This is hardly a secret. “We in Syria intelligence opened all the doors for [the jihadists] to go to Iraq,” Mahmud al-Naser, an intelligence officer who defected to the United States, told the Daily Beast.
Before writing off Syrian malfeasance during the Iraq war as irrelevant history, understand something else: ISIS in its current form is also a creature of the Assad regime. Assad wanted ISIS to rise. He needed ISIS to rise. He made damn sure that ISIS did rise and that it did so inside Syria.
I wish I had some reason to think that Trump has a plan.
I am reminded that plans can fail but purpose can guide you when no plan can be assured.
Striking the Syrian airbase is a move that will save lives because it is a message that can not be ignored (unlike Obama’s idiotic statement, “Don’t call my bluff!”)
Trump is not a prophet and can not predict the future any more than anyone else can. But he has demonstrated that he will move forward on his promises and he does have principles even if many are unwilling to acknowledge them. He’s getting things done while the media continues to do what they always do. They misinform.
Trump is in a long game and he’s moving the ball forward. it’s no surprise the media is ignoring this.
Ken, people voted for Trump (or said they did) because he said he wouldn’t do things like this. It was a violation of his “promises” and stated principles, because he had an emotional reaction to kids being gassed. I get that there’s nothing he can do that you will disapprove of, but you’re looking ever more ridiculous.
Rand, Trump did say he’d “bomb the sh!t outta them.”
We both know he was talking about ISIS at the time, but most Trump voters won’t care all that much that instead of bombing an army of baby killing terrorist Muslim wanna-be dictators, he bombed the air force of a baby killing terrorist supporting Muslim dictator.
He didn’t “bomb the sh!t outta them.” He warned them ahead of time, spent ninety million dollars to take out a few plans, and left runway intact.
Targeting runways is only useful if you’re trying to establish immediate air superiority. Runways are just dirt, cement, and asphalt, and all of them can be repaired in just a few days, just as every combatant in WW-II repair runways as a matter of daily routine after the enemy’s last bombing and strafing run.
Unless you establish and maintain air dominance, dropping bombs on a runway is only slightly more useful than bombing a gravel pit. Since we had no intention of suppressing Syrian repair crews with wheelbarrows, dump trucks, and bulldozers, there was no point in making an afternoon’s extra work for them.
Ken links to the Daily Beast …
I think this is a pretty good view of what’s going on. Lots of razzle-dazzle to occupy small minds while moving forward on his agenda. The airbase strike seems to be similar, aka much ado about nothing, we can hope that it’s in the service of a bigger gain.
Still incredibly better than Killary Klinton.
This Salon headline and its implication are beyond stupid. A third party nuclear power should be warned and implies nothing about being a ‘puppet.’ Anyone that bought this implication is just as stupid. This is exactly how the media has been playing us for decades.
Now to your point, Rand. We are already engaged in Syria thanks to “don’t call my bluff” Obama. Trump gave a measured response to a situation that had to have a response. This in no way takes away from Trumps position on committing troops when we have no national interest. It’s the same as a situation where some boat attacked one of our military ships. Trumps response would be to ‘blow it out of the water’ which is exactly the right response. If the world sees us as a paper tiger, unwilling to ever use our forces, they will simply press the envelope further and further.
This is entirely consistent with everything Trump has said.
Imagine what the media would have said about Trump if he did nothing? If you think 59 Tomahawks was nothing or that the base that was the source of the chemicals didn’t send the right message your bias is revealed.
As for me defending Trump. It pisses me off that I have to because the bias is worse than we’ve ever seen. Something they always do when they aren’t protecting some lefty. In this case, dialed up way past 11!
When Trump needs confrontation I’ll be first in line but when he should be defended I will that too. Perhaps you may see a correlation between the qty of attacks on Trump and the qty of my defenses?
Why isn’t the media interested in outright lies and crimes by the left?
Actually I think 10 Tomahawks would have done the job (note I am disagreeing rather than defending!?) 59 does qualify as ‘bomimg the shit’ and perhaps could be justified because an over reaction us also a message,
How do you think Assad will respond? (By actions, not just hit air.)
“Imagine what the media would have said about Trump if he did nothing?”
They would have hated him. Just as they have ever since he stood for President.
So what’s new?
ISIS were apparently celebrating yesterday because Trump attacked the people who are attacking them.
How exactly do Americans benefit from helping ISIS?
How exactly do Americans benefit from helping ISIS?
Oh, please.
It looks like ISIS is the new global warming.
Assad isn’t primarily targeting ISIS because he’s smart. He needs to defeat all the “moderate” rebel factions while ISIS is still in the field so that the rest of the world will have no terrorist targets left other than ISIS, and no viable native allied opposition to Assad’s regime that they could support.
From an operational standpoint, this also makes sense because Western, Iraqi, and Kurdish forces are taking the fight to ISIS, so Assad’s best use of resources is to fight all the rebels who aren’t ISIS.
This in no way takes away from Trumps position on committing troops when we have no national interest.
We already have troops in Syria though. Obama sent in special forces and Trump sent in Marines to provide artillery support. The stated goal is the defeat of ISIS and the fall of Raqqa.
Imagine what the media would have said about Trump if he did nothing?
The day before, Morning Joe were calling for military action. But the same people will turn in a heartbeat. Other MSNBC shows are even claiming the Putin and Trump orchestrated the gas attack so that Trump could look good responding to it.
Yeah. Well I’m not a US citizen. But I thought one of the few things in Trump’s stated policies that made sense was the disengagement from the pointless wars in the Middle East. Instead the USA is ramping up activities not only in Iraq but in Syria and even Yemen as well. Then again what should I expect given all of Trump’s Jewish connections. It just shows that regardless of who you guys elect, Democrat or Republican, you’re gonna get the same shit sandwich. It’s like I’m in the 1980s watching a re-run on the war on Lebanon again.
It is not true the Syrian government isn’t fighting ISIL. Palmyra is one example. But sure, they can’t fight in a place they can’t even access like Ar-Raqqah. Plus of course they’re gonna prioritize the second largest city in the country, Aleppo. They would be idiots if they did not.
As for them harboring Al-Qaeda in the expectation of getting something out of them at one time. It doesn’t mean that much. The USA also sponsored Bin-Laden at one point. Most of the other “rebels” in the country are Al-Qaeda in a different disguise anyway.
It’s just a damned proxy war by the Saudis. They want to take Damascus. Ever watched Lawrence of Arabia? It’s been their dream since before their damned state was founded.
If the USA ramps up their air presence in the country it’s gonna make a nice occasion for someone to get themselves some chunks of an F-22.
I had a feeling this was going to turn into WW3 a couple of years back. Unfortunately it seems to be headed this way. I’m pretty sure it’s gonna happen over the next decade and it could even go hot.
I thought one of the few things in Trump’s stated policies that made sense was the disengagement from the pointless wars in the Middle East.
He made conflicting statements. He said that the wars in Iraq and Libya were a mistake but he also said pulling the troops out was also a mistake. He also campaigned on defeating ISIS. We already had troops in Syria before Trump, so this doesn’t change much except the calculation that the USA will fight with both arms tied behind our back.
It is not true the Syrian government isn’t fighting ISIL. Palmyra is one example.
Yup, people should stop saying otherwise. There are a lot of groups fighting over there. Not sure why anyone would expect Assad to fight who we want him to when we want him to.
Syria is a huge problem because doing nothing has destabilized all of its neighbors, the EU, and the USA with more refugees than can assimilate into a society in a generation. Doing nothing isn’t really an option.
” Then again what should I expect given all of Trump’s Jewish connections.”
What do you suppose all of Trump’s Jewish connections want that is different from Trump’s non-Jewish connections want? Note Israel’s actions in during the years of war in Syria have been limited to a) stopping weapons transfers, and b) providing humanitarian aid to injured people deposited at their border.
It just shows that regardless of who you guys elect, Democrat or Republican, you’re gonna get the same shit sandwich.
The sandwich in question is the bipartisan desire in the USA to limit the use of WMDs (including chemical weapons). Yes, Obama tried to work out a chemical weapons deal with the Russians rather than attack Assad , and yes, Trump attacked Assad (mildly) after saying we shouldn’t, and both can be criticized at length but the common thread is that Obama, Trump, and the people advising them were all trying to differentiate between the use of chemical weapons and conventional attacks, because that’s the American position.
Trump get a wake-up call, of the “3:00 am” variety. We’ll see what he does with it. One encouraging point is that he doesn’t pre-announce his negotiating and diplomatic moves in public and in advance. That alone is an improvement over Mr. Wonderful.
As Eisenhower said, planning is essential; plans are useless.
Scuttlebutt is the Chinese have started building their next generation carrier (Type 002) and that they’re going to build it at two shipyards. They sure seem to be in a hurry. Type 001A should be launched in a couple of months.
The Chinese can see the writing on the wall. The left denies there is a wall.
How people can keep convincing themselves that the last war to end all wars is the last war is insane.
This is the game of highlander. Either dominate or be dominated.
We win/they lose is the only option both foreign and domestic. We are going to see a future the past could never imagine and when it happens it will happen fast.
Jerry P has some comments.
The message is clear: You had six air bases, Now you have five. Do you care to try for four? Or fewer?
He seems skeptical it was sarin.
I wish I had some reason to think that Trump has a plan.
Mattis will be sure to speak up if there isn’t one.
This. The fact that neither Mattis nor McMaster has publicly objected, much less resigned, over this, gives me a degree (if only that) of comfort that I would not have had otherwise.
It doesn’t seem a lot of people get the fundamental purpose. It’s the Grenada maneuver that Reagan used to such effect. Serve notice on the bad guys early on that you mean business, and you’ll have a lot less trouble with them down the road.
It’s like being the teacher in a new classroom. The students are always trying to probe boundaries. You’ve gotta’ let ’em know early on you’re no pushover, or you will lose control of the class.
I think this is correct – at least I hope it is. Hopefully it’s a message to Fatboy in NoKo and it’s a message to Xi himself, and Putin as well.
Just imagine Xi visiting with Trump at Mar-A-Lago and debating a thorny issue regarding, oh, creating islands in the Pacific or declaring open seas to be Chinese territory…and Trump graciously excuses himself for a moment…goes out and makes his speech that the bombing has begin…then going back to Xi and saying, “Ok now where were we: more tea?”
The thing is: I can’t totally convince myself that Trump is actually that savvy.
I don’t see why the Chinese would be impressed at all. They are used to acting in the middle east, and given the essential trade relationship between China and the US, and given China’s nuclear weapons, I think they’d be much less impressed than, say, they were impressed with the British first fighting in the Falklands and then shortly after transferring the sovereignty of Hong Kong.
that should have read “They are used to *us* acting in the middle east”
“I don’t see why the Chinese would be impressed at all. ”
Of course you don’t.
Gregg, you crack me up. 😉
Why am I reminded of the Gulf of Tonkin incident?
No idea, as there is no similarity.
Really? That mired the US and my country (Australia) in Vietnam for years and was at least partly faked. None of us know for sure if Assad used chemical weapons in this attack or if it was a rebel factory or store that was damaged in an air strike or even if the rebels staged the whole thing using the air strike for cover. I think Trump just got played and if further information shows that it wasn’t Assad then he and the US will look foolish and trigger happy. This sort of stupidity I had expected from Clinton. I thought Trump was better and smarter than that.
“None of us know for sure if Assad used chemical weapons in this attack or if it was a rebel factory or store that was damaged in an air strike or even if the rebels staged the whole thing using the air strike for cover. I think Trump just got played…”
Perhaps. But I’m hoping guys like McMaster and Mattis are grounded enough to know a play when they see one and say so to Trump’s face.
Obama admin likes to declare themselves a winner and lies about Syria not having chemical weapons. But suppose it were true? Perhaps Russia used the chemicals. You can’t deny they have them.
Does it make any difference? No. Not in the slightest. Russia is backing Assad. This is a proxy situation where truth is the first casualty. Our response must be the same.
Why would Russia even use chemical weapons when they could just drop a thermobaric weapon on them? Like they’ve been doing. It also fits better with their doctrine on Afghanistan with the Su-22 Fitters.
“Obama admin likes to declare themselves a winner and lies about Syria not having chemical weapons. But suppose it were true? Perhaps Russia used the chemicals. You can’t deny they have them.”
Just this morning a former Obama flunky said this:
“A former Obama official acknowledged Sunday that the U.S. “always knew” an agreement with Syrian President Bashar Assad did not clear all chemical weapons out of Syria, despite the fact that the administration touted the deal as an unequivocal success at the time.
“We always knew we had not gotten everything, that the Syrians had not been fully forthcoming in their declaration,” Tony Blinken, a former deputy secretary of state and former deputy national security adviser under Barack Obama, told the New York Times.”
So those two faced lying bastards are doign it again. Changing their story and hoping no one will hold them to it.
But the point to your comment is that Obama officials are saying the chemicals were Syrian not Russian.
Putin is playing high stakes poker. He’s testing Trump, in part because the media keeps up the narrative about Trump rather than rallying as they have done in the past. Now Trump must make Syria a no fly zone, but this time only telling Russia that they can either withdraw or suffer but not telling them about specific targets.
It’s MAD again and for the same reson.
A no fly zone? In which case the Russians could just give them more S-300 systems.
Then you have the rules of engagement… any target lock on any aircraft enforcing the no fly rules gets eliminated by any means necessary. That would include Russian because we would warn them of the rules first.
Susan Rice last January:
” We were able to get the Syrian government to voluntarily and verifiably give up its chemical weapons stockpile.”
John Kerry:
“Kerry said in a television interview that in Syria, “we got 100 percent of the chemical weapons out.””
This morning:
“A former Obama official acknowledged Sunday that the U.S. “always knew” an agreement with Syrian President Bashar Assad did not clear all chemical weapons out of Syria, despite the fact that the administration touted the deal as an unequivocal success at the time.
“We always knew we had not gotten everything, that the Syrians had not been fully forthcoming in their declaration,” Tony Blinken, a former deputy secretary of state and former deputy national security adviser under Barack Obama, told the New York Times.”