Joshua Roberts / Reuters
Conor Friedersdorf, The Atlantic: Donald Trump No Longer Wants to 'Stay Out' of Syria
His interventionism is a betrayal of all who supported him due to his claim that the U.S. “gets nothing” from the conflict and should “stay out.”
During the 2016 election, many voters were dismayed by both major-party candidates. Hillary Clinton was the personification of the Washington establishment foreign-policy hawk, with her dismal track record of urging ill-conceived military interventions. And Donald Trump, who railed against squandering American blood and treasure abroad, possessed neither the knowledge nor the experience nor the discipline nor the character to steer America’s approach to geopolitics in a better direction.
As if those choices weren't dispiriting enough, I fretted that for all Donald Trump’s denunciations of the Iraq War and promises to spend money at home rather than abroad, a careful assessment of his words showed that his own instincts were interventionist—that he was no less likely than his opponent to blunder into a major war.
In Syria today, President Trump is risking just such a conflict.
Read more ....
Update: Memo to America: You should still be terrified of World War III (Ryan Cooper, The Week)
WNU Editor: I could easily post 20 more commentaries from columnists and commentators who have never supported Trump and who saying the same thing .... President Trump is an unfit President and he will drag us into a major war. Sighhh .... the crisis and conflicts of the world did not start on January 20 when President Trump was inaugurated .... they have been with us for a very long time. In the case of the Middle East .... the entire region has been engulfed in wars since the Arab spring 6 years ago, and in the middle of all of this has been the U.S.. No fears then that President Obama would drag us into a major war .... expect from those who were worried on where this was all going to end up .... this blogger included. Will today's wars drag the U.S. into a bigger and wider war .... maybe. Much of the conflicts that are occurring in the world today are ignoring U.S. pressure and influence .... and to put it bluntly .... they do not care what the U.S. thinks, and will proceed with their war plans even if the U.S. may be in their way. The big flash point right now is Syria .... and Iran has made their objectives and goals in this conflict very clear .... a complete and utter defeat of all Sunni rebel groups from Iraq straight to Lebanon .... As Russia And The US Clash, Iran Ramps Up Involvement In The Syrian Civil War (Task & Purpose). The U.S. is in their way right now .... hence Iran is testing the limits on what they can do. Can this explode .... definitely .... and Iran has made no secret that they want to. The next few weeks are going to be critical .... and my eyes are right now on what Russia will do. Iran will not confront the U.S. military presence in Syria in any major way as long as the Russians stay back .... and for the moment the Kremlin is adopting a wait and see altitude. But this can change quickly .... correction .... very quickly .... Tensions Rise in Syria as Russia, Iran Send US Warnings (NBC). But to blame President Trump for all of this .... for someone who has been President for only a few months .... now that is a stretch.
19 comments:
Dear Editor:
No one is blaming Trump for what has been a mess. What the post says is that his critics feel he might drag us into a major war...that may or may not be so but that is the issue here. Major? Attack North Korea; confront Iran and Russia in Syria etc.
Fred. I know that they are not blaming Trump for today's mess ... how can they (though they are trying). They are voicing their fears. I am just saying where have they been for the past few years .... they had no fear then as everything went to hell. And now they are all of a sudden afraid!!!!!
WNU,
I'm smelling a deal.
Here are a few posts that are basically blaming the current mess in Syria on President Trump
The Many Foreign Policies of Donald Trump
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/many-foreign-policies-donald-trump-n774356
No Strategy in Syria: A downed jet, a Russian warning, and a president nowhere to be found.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2017/06/the_escalation_over_downed_syria_jet.html
Trump still doesn't have a strategy for dealing with Assad
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/19/trump-russia-syria-assad-239728
James,
I am not sure about that. The Western media is not reporting on what the Russian media is reporting .... and in Russia it is overwhelmingly negative and hostile at a level that I have not seen in a very long time.
WNU,
Maybe. Putin's in a pretty good position. I think Putin is watching the Georgia election trying to gauge Trump's relative political strength. Over the years I've seen media u turns that would break your neck. One thing is certain there is very little wriggle room left.
If I was Iran I would be very nervous right now.
WNU, I forgot Assad will do what he's told to do (oh you'd see the normal bluster and maybe a minor bombing or two, but if he wants to hang around in his current capacity....) by Putin.
Assad is dependent on both Russia and Iran. But Iran and Russia are not on the same page on what needs to be done next. If pushed came to shove who would Assad choose .... who is he most loyal to. That is a question that needs to be asked.
It's the "quality" of Hair Twitler's Administration:
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2017/6/20/121445/973
Where there is actually any Administration,
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2017/06/19/the-overarching-middle-east-problem-set-proxy-war-and-forced-realignment/
The US has put a moron in charge and Tillerson and Mattis are haring all around the world, trying to put out the fires he's started.
http://warisboring.com/confusion-in-the-air-and-on-the-ground-as-u-s-and-syrian-planes-clashed/
It's just a matter of time, before Adolph Twitler starts a fire, or ignores a fire, that Tillerson and Mattis can't put out with diplomacy.
I have a somewhat different view from the authors of the main articles.
I think that the Trump Administration remains fatalistic regarding the outcome of the war, in the sense that the USA will not object whether Assad stays president of Syria, or is replaced. I also think that the Administration has relatively little interest in the exact boundaries of Assad's influence as the war winds down. In that sense, I disagree with the articles' assertions that the USA's goals are changing and so the Administration now wants to enter the war.
In my view, the Trump Administration has had two goals in Syria: (1) to fight ISIS, and (2) to impede Iran's goal of creating a Shiite corridor from Iran to Lebanon. Until recently, it was possible for the USA to pursue its policy goals without directly confronting Iran, Assad, and Russia. There was room, physical, military, and political, in Syria for the USA (and others) to pursue such policies.
As the territory controlled by ISIS has shrunk, and as Assad has gained territory, the "room" for conducting the USA's policy is getting smaller and smaller. Case in point: who will liberate Raqaa? Proxies backed by the USA/West, proxies backed by Turkey, Iran/Hezbollah, or Assad's troops? All of them cannot reach Raqaa first.
Assad and Iran are testing whether the USA/West will permit attacks on its proxy ground forces from the air. Note well that the USA shot down the Syrian jet only after the USA used the deconfliction hotline to try to persuade Syria to stop the attacks. The Iranian drone was, according to the articles, firing or about to fire on ground forces allied to the West. I think that Assad, Iran, and Russia are testing to see what we will do if they attack our proxies with air power.
Russian anger is real, but I don't think Russia wants a war with the USA/West. Moreover, I think the Russia/Iran/Assad coalition can achieve its goals without one. In my view, the real test will be whether the West uses air power to prevent Assad/Iranian/Hezbollah ground troops from expelling the rebels supported by the West from territory the rebels now control. So far I have not seen the USA/West use its air power for that purpose. I am not at all sure that the Administration would use its air power to attack a Iran/Hezbollah/Assad ground offensive, even if the territory would be used by Iran to create its corridor. In my view, Turkey is more likely to take that step. Moreover, I agree with WNU Editor that Iran and Russia may not be on the same page about all the final elements of an Assad victory.
Hillary was ready to charge head long into a direct confrontation against Russia in Syria, and these guys are worried, NOW, that Trump will drag us into a war? The situation is so dangerous now largely because of the track Obama put us on and his loyalists are working hard to keep Trump from finding a way out. That's what Russiagate is really all about. The question is, is Trump statesman enough to outflank that attack, or is his own attitude towards Iran a weak flank that will be used against him?
[Russian naval strikes] The frigate Admiral Essen and submarine Krasnodar carried out four strikes against military hardware and fighters from the militnat group who had left its de-facto capital Raqa, the Russian military said in a statement.
“All the targets were hit,” the statement said, without specifying when the strikes happened.
Moscow said that the US, Turkish and Israeli military “were informed in a timely manner of the missile launches through existing communication channels.”
If both sides stay in touch, things might not go haywire...but an error...and...
Hair Twitler....lol
Must make you Der Dueshebag
LMFAO
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176298/tomgram%3A_william_hartung%2C_trump%27s_love_affair_with_the_saudis/#more
Just want to chime in and say thank you WNU, your analysis was a good read.
DemoKKKrat is more worried about regaining power.
Thus the appointment of an independent counsel.
They are not worried so much about worried with Russia.
Childish snark
Fred,
Simple observation of fact. If the platform is burning, they do not want to put it out unless they are in charge.
The good thing is that if the s*** hit the fan, the strategic nuclear strikes
Maps shows up that the Russian would kill almost all livertard if what FEMA has on their website.. is worth anything.
Post a Comment