Search Box

Saturday, April 8, 2017

What we'll never know about Trump's Syrian escapade

Trump campaigned as a guy who wanted to ally with Russia -- and possibly Syria -- against ISIS and al Qaeda. Now he's done an about face.

It's disappointing. It's not as if Trump had been unaware that Syria had used chemical weapons before, given the publicity Obama's infamous "red line" pronouncement had engendered.

And this isn't just a waffling on policy, but a 180 degree change. What caused it? It can't have just been the pictures of the children who were killed.

Trump himself killed children in that Yemen raid two months ago. Does he now consider himself a war criminal?

So what really happened? What goes on behind the scenes is always far more interesting than the predigested version we're fed by the authorities. Unfortunately, we can only speculate.

Is Trump doing Israel's bidding? Israel has always considered the Shiite regimes (like Syria and Iran) much more of a threat than the more primitive Sunni movements (like ISIS and al Qaeda). My first thought upon hearing of this bombing was, what does Israel have on Trump?

My second thought was, what does this do to our relationship with Russia? It's possible that part of Trump's motivations was to "prove" that he's not in cahoots with Russia in any nefarious way after all the recent efforts of the Democrats to show that he is.

It's also possible that Trump wanted to show himself a more dynamic leader than Obama, who, after talking about that "red line," did nothing about it.

You also have to wonder if the chemical weapons couldn't possibly have been a false flag attack. So far Syria has denied using chemical weapons; while that denial means nothing, why would Assad invite international censure like that in a war he's already winning? It's certainly possible that Mossad or deep state forces within the CIA somehow managed to release the poison gas themselves.

What role did son-in-law Jared Kushner play in all this? It's been made public that he and Stephen Bannon have been at each other's throats, and it seems a fairly safe conclusion that while Bannon favored an America First policy, Kushner was pushing for more involvement in the Middle East.

The only thing we really know is that we'll never be certain of what happened behind the scenes, or what was going through Trump's mind when he changed it so abruptly.

I would have far preferred we ally with Russia to stamp out al Qaeda and ISIS, and then keep our subsequent involvement in the Middle East to a minimum.

In fact, that's a large part of why I voted for Trump.


Mark Caplan said...

I'm trying not to lose heart in thinking that Trump has been kidnapped by the Neocons. Maybe the fact that Assad allegedly did use poison gas warrants the American response, rather than that Assad "cruelly murdered" "beautiful babies." "No child of God should ever suffer such horror" (quotes from Trump's speech explaining why he ordered a unilateral attack on a Syrian airfield).

The use of poison gas in war has been outlawed by international convention for almost a hundred years, which I suppose is a good thing. It's probably a worthy goal to at least try to deter countries from violating the convention. If Assad had merely incinerated the beautiful babies with conventional weapons, I don't think Trump would have even issued a tweet on the matter.

This past January the liberal British newspaper The Guardian wrote: "In 2016 alone, the Obama administration dropped at least 26,171 bombs. This means that every day last year, the US military blasted combatants or civilians overseas with 72 bombs; that’s three bombs every hour, 24 hours a day."

"[Obama] dramatically expanded the air wars and the use of special operations forces around the globe. In 2016, US special operators could be found in 70% of the world’s nations, 138 countries – a staggering jump of 130% since the days of the Bush administration."

"Obama's Bloody Reign"

John Craig said...

Mark --
I thought the same thing: what difference does it make HOW the children were killed? Something's going on behind the scenes we're not privy to.

Wow, that's an amazing statistic about Obama's bombs. Three every hour, 24 hours a boggles the mind. I'm embarrassed to say I had no idea it was that many.

And the MSM never reports on that. Instead all their attention is focused on whether trannies should be allowed in bathrooms with little girls, and how horrible North Carolina is for not allowing that. All while we incinerate children. Amazing.

Thank you for sending along that article, that was eye-opening.

Mark Caplan said...

I'm saying the opposite: Since poison gas and germ warfare have been pretty successfully banned by international convention for a long, it's worth trying to maintain the ban if reasonably possible. Similarly for treating POWs humanely, avoiding unnecessary civilian casualties, and other conventions that make war slightly less barbaric.

Unfortunately Trump barely mentioned the poison gas aspect of the attack and instead emphasized the cruel murder of beautiful babies, which I thought made him sound like a pussy. I liked him better when he was grabbing pussy rather than acting like one.

John Craig said...

Mark --

"If Assad had merely incinerated the beautiful babies with conventional weapons, I don't think Trump would have even issued a tweet on the matter." -- That sounded to me as if you were saying there wasn't much difference, though I see you did say in your first paragraph that using poison gas would have justified the attack.

Personally, I feel there's not much difference, though I agree that the international laws against poison gas and inhumane treatment of prisoners are good. (ISIS isn't exactly playing by those rules either.)

Anonymous said...

I suspect that having a Jewish daughter and a Jewish son-in-law is impacting Trump (though I don't know this for sure). They can share their world view with him and he can respond as he chooses to. Regarding the chemical attack on Syrian citizens, I cannot fathom how anyone could murder fellow countrymen. What good comes from killing average people. I don't know what is occurring right now, behind the scenes. We live in unsettling times.



Steven said...

What I found striking was how quickly the liberal media changed their tone when writing about Trump in relation to this. The Guardian article the day after was decidedly respectful of 'the president' (no longer quite the sexist, racist, bigot who is totally beyond the pale) and complimentary about his motives. Apparently it was the same in the NYT and WP.

It makes you wonder whether their real problem with him wasn't that he was a bigot but that he wouldn't toe the line on foreign policy and confront Russia. That's not true of the sjw journalists of course but the higher ups? Maybe it was just a natural human reaction of him doing what they liked or maybe its a bit more calculated.

I'd also like to know whether this really came from Trump or whether the hawks in the CIA and pentagon got some control over him, but you raised those questions in the piece.

John Craig said...

Steven --
Yes, it was disgusting how the media changed their tone about him immediately following the attack. And yes, you have to wonder what their real motivations were.

Anonymous said...

Poisin gas may be more painful depending on the kind, if it's the painful kind, then thats a really bad way to go. A quick death by being blown up by a bomb or slowly suffocating in agonizing pain, your eyes melting, all until your lungs turn to mush?

Sometimes the most violent methods of killing are the most merciful.
I remember in history class about how the British tied Indian prisoners to the ends of cannons with their chest pointed out ("blowing from a gun").

It leaves a very gruesome and frightening mess, incinerated body parts everywhere, nauseating, but it's painless, the prisoner died instantly. Hanging them, if done in the slow method, while not as disgusting to watch, causes more suffering in their final moments.

John Craig said...

Anon --
That's true, the quicker the death, the more painless. I've always thought that being at ground zero of a nuclear bomb blast would be the best way to go.

europeasant said...

Okay I'll throw in my two cents.
The cruise missile launch was good for the economy especially for the military industrial one.Itz been estimated that just the missiles cost roughly fifty million.
Fifty million here fifty million there and soon we're talking money.Same with the Russkies, they can lob some missiles at some sparsely populated areas. Our two countries can then rev up the economy. Those bunkers, buildings need to be rebuilt putting people to work. And War of course is good for business but unfortunately some people suffer, not the generals of course.
Maybe we need to reread Smedly Butlers "War is a racket".

John Craig said...

Europeasant --
All true. I guess one promise Trump hasn't gone back on is his desire to get the economy going.

Anonymous said...

Buchanan suspects false flag attack.

I agree. I have no idea on the details. But it defies any logic for Assad to have used chemical weapons at this time. It makes all the sense for those who want to pull the US into the Syria war. (who benefits?)

Hillary would very likely have dragged us into the Syria war. Trump campaigned like the man to thwart the neo-con agenda. Since taking office he's been 'saber rattling' against Iran, taken action in Syria, and it sounds like he's ready to take action against North Korea.

Who pulls the strings? Great question.

If Trump can pull of other aspects of his agenda, he will still be a better president than Hillary. Hillary campaigned with the neo-cons, so that point is likely a push between them - as things have turned out.

Still I cannot express the magnitude of my disappointment in Trump's apparent jump to the neo-con camp. Disgusting, demoralizing, exasperating - it appears the neo-con power structure is invincible.

- Ed

Anonymous said...

I am disappointed in Trump as well. What's going on with North Korea, scary. Who wants to be on the brink of war with any country, especially with nuclear war being an option. God help us.

- birdie

John Craig said...

Birdie --
I'm surprised by how quickly he's become militaristic too. First Syria, now threats to North Korea. This is not what he campaigned as.

Anonymous said...

Were would the world have been if Hilary won? I don't know, but maybe more of the same bad crap, more expectable.
Hopes get up, then disappointment...who next in 2020? It seems there is no way out of bad politics. I admit, I am not a Trump supporter, but I was hoping he would at least stick to what he promised to do even if I disagreed with some of it. It would make him have more integrity, a refreshing difference. He could promised to give out free ice cream every wednesday at 4 PM and if he followed through it would make me at little glad.


John Craig said...

Ga --
I was a Trump supporter so am even more disappointed bytes Syrian bombing. But he's made clear he's not going in there with both feet on the ground, and otherwise has acted on his campaign promises, or at least tried to, in the case of health care, where he made the mistake of putting the project into Paul Ryan's less than capable hands. I wouldn't blame him if he can't get his programs through Congress, as long as he tries to do what he said. (But I do think with Republican majorities he will get tax reform through.)

Anonymous said...

Andrew Napolitano's article "A Hole in the Constitution" walks through the steps that brought us to an unimaginable Big Brother surveillance that we have in the US today.

".... Beginning in 1978 and continuing up to the present, Congress has passed statutes that purport to confine domestic spying to foreign people communicating with anyone in America. Yet that confinement is a myth - a myth accepted even by the Congresses that have authorized and reauthorized it.

In theory spying in America is done pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and subsequent statutes that provide for the intervention of judges who issue warrants. In practice, the warrants are general warrants. They are not based on suspicion. They do not identify the person whose communications are to be intercepted. They permit the NSA to search where it wishes - for example, in certain ZIP codes, area codes and service provider customer lists - and retain whatever it finds.

On top of this subterfuge is the below-the-radar-screen behavior of the NSA, which looks to a Reagan-era executive order to justify its capture in real time of every telephone conversation and every computer keystroke of everyone in the US since 2005.

That massive amount of data is stored digitally in NSA facilities in Maryland and Utah and is available for examination by select people. ......"

Think about that. Is there a chance that Trump has said something on the phone (or sent an Email, or text message, etc.), between 2005 and the present, that's much more embarrassing than his "P-word" comment? Maybe even something that is an admission of illegal behavior, or some other humiliating or horribly shameful statement?

It seems that any president could likely be blackmailed.

And therefore, any president is a puppet directed by the Deep State, and the agenda of those who truly 'pull the strings'.

- Ed

John Craig said...

Ed --
That's a great point, and maybe it explains his about-face on Syria. The Deep State is all-knowing, and therefore all-powerful. I've never gotten as upset as some people do at the thought that my phone conversations and emails might be eavesdropped upon by the NSA, since my life is so incredibly boring. But if the can blackmail people in positions of power.......that's horrible.