Tuesday, April 11, 2017

Has Washington Embraced War As A Strategy?

U.S. Navy and Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force ships steam in formation during their military manoeuvre exercise known as Keen Sword 15 in the sea south of Japan, in this November 19, 2014 handout provided by the U.S. Navy. REUTERS/Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Chris Cavagnaro/U.S. Navy/Handout

Damon Linker, The Week: D.C.'s war madness

The past week has been an immensely clarifying — and profoundly demoralizing — one in American politics. It has demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that the country's foreign policy establishment, along with its leading center-right and center-left politicians and pundits, are hopelessly, perhaps irredeemably, deluded about the role of the United States in the world.

From the start of the 2016 Republican primaries on down through Donald Trump's surprise electoral college victory, the transition, and the opening months of his administration, members of this foreign policy establishment and these leading politicians and pundits have been united in expressing dismay and alarm about Trump's lack of temperamental and intellectual fitness to serve as commander-in-chief. Yet the moment Trump gave the order to launch 59 Tomahawk missiles at a Syrian airbase used in a chemical weapons attack a few days earlier, all was forgotten and forgiven. Finally Trump became president! Finally he put Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in his place! Finally the U.S. showed it had moved beyond former President Barack Obama's reluctance to use military force!

Read more ....

WNU editor:  The U.S. foreign policy establishment with the support of the political establishment have always acted in what they believed was the right thing to do .... that their positions and reasons for why they must intervene are both moral and just .... and this in turn will strengthen and secure America's long term strategic interests. Unfortunately .... this policy and approach has been a disaster .... both for the U.S. and in the countries that the U.S. has intervened in. They say that the road to hell is always paved with good intentions. In the case of the U.S. .... I have always heard nothing but good intentions. But in practice .... hell in the countries where the U.S. military has intervened .... and hell for the U.S. families who have either lost a loved one, or who are dealing with a severely injured veteran. A new approach is desperately needed. Unfortunately .... I just do not see it .... and for those who are advocating it like Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (see previous post), derision and isolation.


King Aragon said...

And how

B.Poster said...

Assuming the country survives people like Tulsi Gabbard, at least in terms of their foreign policy positions, are going to be vindicated. DJ was elected for his stances on improving relations with Russia, changing the nature of the NATO "alliance", and ensuring America would not be the world's policeman. Perhaps people only heard what they wanted to hear and see, perhaps he lied, or perhaps he has been coopted by unscrupulous elements.

If DJT and his team do not gain their senses and assuming the country survives as America's adversaries are not going to strive with America forever, the "establishment" will be dealing with Tulsi Gabbard's who are going to multiply as they win election after election.

If that fails, the only option would seem to be a coup. America is ill equipped for this mission even if it made sense, which it does not, and with the litany of other issues the country faces the madness has to end. Surely military leaders and the rank and file soldiers who signed on to defend America not some far off lands who don't give a whit about America or its interests must know this to. As such, we should be able to fine the officers and soldiers who can lead the coup. Sadly we are close to the point and getting closer to the point where a coup would seem the only viable option.

How that ends I do not know. At this point, we are almost out of viable options. A coup and hope and pray for the best may well be the only option for us and the world as a change in US policies away from the current insane policies would seem to be a benefit for everyone.

With that said it is easy for some to cheer on these insane policies as other than token contributions they have nothing at stake. It isn't their heads or the heads of their loved ones who are on the chopping block.

fred lapides said...

There will be no coup here.

B.Poster said...


"There will be no coup here." How can you be sure? Coups have happened around the world for a variety of reasons in multiple nations across many decades if not centuries for quite some time. There is nothing exceptional about America that would make it immune to such a thing.

With that said a coup is NOT the best or optimal outcome. Unfortunately, given the current level of insanity that is pervasive in YS foreign policy, we are fast running out of viable options.

Stephen Davenport said...

The dude struck one base with some missiles and the libertarians and alt-right are talking Armageddon, fire and brimstone.lol...relax.

Stephen Davenport said...

I will back up Fred and say there will be no coup, step off the ledge Poster.

RussInSoCal said...

What the Trump admin is doing right now is (re)establishing the credible threat of force. Because without it, diplomacy is meaningless. As was demonstrated over the last 8 years.

Jay Farquharson said...

"Not Trump. The simpleton simply watched Fox News and then gave the order to launch TLAMs. We did not see a single senior officer resign and speak out in protest over this fraud. They simply saluted and then carried out an unlawful order. The United States had not been attacked by Syria and was not threatening to attack us. "


Won't be the Beltway, as Fareed Zakaria of CNN went from calling Trump a "bullshitter", in less than a week to "Presidential", as he had an on air orgasm at the sight of Trump's Tomahawks flying through the air and blowing something up, somewhere.

Won't be the 1%, they've already exceeded the best excesses of the Guilded Age, Trump promises even greater inequality and with Gorduch on the Supreme Court.


You can expect the return of "droit de seigneur".


Won't be the Gullibillies, they ate loving them some bombing of brown people, immigrants living in fear, and Sessions promising to bring back both "The Racist War on Drugs" and Segregation and Vote Suppression.

Won't be the Deplorables. They are divided on Trump, started their own Civil War, against each other, and are generally known for being only online agitators and trolls, and when push comes to shove, are known for being pussies, as any real world action would require they put down the Cheeto's and leave the safety of their Momma's basement for the dangers of the real world.

Won't be the Liberals, Dems or Left. They don't have the guns, don't believe in violent change, and unlike most American's, mnow a little history,


B.Poster said...


While I disagree with you vehemently on the notion that America is a racist country, I do agree that most of the people you mention probably won't be the ones to lead the change. It'll probably be the military. So far, the attack on Syria was a pin prick attack that did not real damage. There will come a "straw that breaks the camel's back." What precisely that will be I'm not sure. When it does happen, it will probably be led by the military. The ones you call the "gullibles" and the "deplorables" will likely be involved. The 1% will likely be involved as well as they see these ridiculous and stupid policies threatening their hard earned wealth. At that point, even the liberals will start believing in guns. I agree it probably won't e the beltway.

I would add that we don't even know who carried out the chemical attack. It may have been the "rebels." We couldn't possibly have had the time or the resources devoted to investigate properly.

The "accomplishments" from this action are several fold. 1.)Syria was fighting ISIS. This fight has now been undermined. 2.)The US and the Russians appear to have had a tacit agreement to cooperate with one another in the fight against ISIS. Mow this is destroyed making the fight much harder. 3.)Any change of negotiating an end to cold War II is likely over. 4.)We need Russian help in dealing with Iran "death to America." Any possibility of obtaining such help is now likely lost.

While there may have been a time and place for attacking Syria, this was not it. Furthermore, while this was the military equivalent of a pin prick attack that caused little harm to the target, the Russians/Syrians/Iranians are not the type who respond tit for tat like this is some sort of game. They will respond somewhere with the military equivalent of a punch. WE DIDN'T NEED THIS!! At this rate, the mothers of US leaders will curse the day their children were born.

B.Poster said...

Aaaaand if this was supposed to send some sort of "message" to North Korea, they are not going to be impressed. North Korea is a far tougher country than Syria. As such, that kind of attack would not be effective and would invite a massive retaliation against our "ally" South Korea and very likely the US mainland by North Korean operatives who are all but certain to be in the US already especially given our lax immigration policies.

While a preposterous notion let's suppose this little military strike took out 20% of Syria's air force. Syria's fight against ISIS had actually been going quite well. This combined with efforts in Iraq had the defeat of ISIS while some ways away on the visible horizon. Taking out Syria's air force in this manner undermines this fight. Also, it cuts the legs out from under any possibility of coming to a peaceful understanding with their chief benefactors of Russia and Iran. North Korea got the message alright. The "message" is one of two things. 1.) We are complete idiots who have no understanding of strategic thinking. 2.)We are operating under nefarious pretenses and are not to be trusted. Either way this ain't good.

On top of this, as some commentators have recently pointed out, we don't even know who carried out the attack. How much better it would have been to do a proper investigation or at least attempt one and then decide what our response was going to be. This is at best an unforced error on the part of the Trump Administration and the US government.

A fate would have it, there is a chance to get this right during the upcoming meetings with Russian officials. Unfortunately US officials seem to be doubling down on stupid/insane.

Suggestion to Mr. Tillerson: apply the same negotiating skills you used to negotiate the 500,000,000 oil deal with Russia when you were CEO of Exxon Mobil. This would have been a fabulous deal that would have been hugely beneficial to both countries. Unfortunately some idiots had to trash it by foolishly slapping sanctions on Russia over Ukraine. Now someone else will likely get this deal.

Jay Farquharson said...

LMFAO at all the stupid,

This is particularly stupid:

" The 1% will likely be involved as well as they see these ridiculous and stupid policies threatening their hard earned wealth"


Winning the sperm lottery isn't hard earned anything, it's luck,



B.Poster said...


More fake news as some call it. As a Canadian, you may not understand how wealth creation in America generally works. While some do inherit it, there are a substantial number who do not and even for those who do inherit someone worked hard for it generally speaking. As such, the comment is not "stupid" as you put it. Very respectfully please make an effort to understand America and Americans as they truly are before taking the bait at such fake news.

Even if the wealth per say isn't earned and clearly in some cases it is not, the policies do threaten this wealth. As such, an uprising should be expected at some point. Hopefully this will occur before it is to late as I don't expect America's adversaries to strive with it for ever.

Jay Farquharson said...


The Trump "wealth" creation occured, when his Grandfather, earned a small fortune running brothels in mining towns from Colorado to the Klondike. When he won his criminal extradition case brought by Germany, and managed to stay in the US, he invested his money in being a slumlord.



Trump's Dad took his inheritance and became a racist Slumlord Millionaire.


Trump took his inheritance, and rather than parking it in the DJ 100 index fund and becoming a millionaire, bought his own hype and lost millions, remaining a mere multi-millionaire at best.



Horatio Algier wrote childrens fairytales, not economic textbooks.


B.Poster said...


I think we agree. Some do inherit their wealth. I wasn't talking about Mr. Trump per say. Each allegation would need to be researched individually. Most probably are true though. Thank you for the links. That will be plenty to get started with.