The Trump Administration and Syria

The funny part is someone thinks he read it. He doesn’t read.

Classic Trump move: we already finished “defeating” ISIS, but haven’t paid yet, so why should we pay now. Never let the Drumph buy on credit.

Those $200 million could go toward building the wall.

I’ve never really wanted to watch a Presidential video intel briefing until just about right now.

Not helping

What are rumored to be Israeli missile strikes have hit in Syria. Tiyas, specifically. “Pentagon officials” have denied US involvement, but Trump has announced a coming “strong” response with Macron.

Yeah, I’ve seen surprisingly little coverage of this even before it was determined to most likely be the Israelis. Decent coverage with updates for those who care: http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/19981/punitive-air-strikes-targeting-syrian-military-sites-have-begun-live-updating

Bolton has been at work for three hours.

And we still haven’t launched a full-scale invasion? Slacker.

It’s good we both have the “Blue D” avatars, looks more professional than the other times I converse with myself ;)

If we toss in @delirium, too, I think we win a jackpot.

Which hopefully isn’t [a very one-sided] nuclear war with Syria.

Reporting for duty!

Just here to chime in that I’m sure Bolton is letting Trump know that Israel is beating us in Syria with their recent missile strikes, and we can’t let them win

Apologies if it was posted previously, but I found this article from Vox to be a very good concise rundown of everything that plays into where we are right now with Syria.

It pains me to say it, but this is probably the only policy issue I might actually sort of agree with Trump on. I thought Obama made a mistake with Syria during his administration. When they crossed his “red line” with the first chemical attack, he should have sent in the Tomahawks and taken out an airfield and a couple of bunkers to show that the U.S., and by extension our allies, were deadly serious about chemical weapons being off limits. I get that it would have infuriated Putin, but honestly, at that point in time, what the fuck would he have been able to do about it? Any sort of retaliation or escalation by Russia would have pitted them against not just the U.S., but Israel and the Arab state coalition backing the rebels. With Syria being Russia’s only real ally left in the Middle East, they would have been forced to slap Assad on the wrist and demand he use only conventional weapons in his fight against the rebels. Instead, Obama’s agreement let Assad and Russia know he wasn’t going to pull the trigger on actual retaliation, that the U.S. was only sabre rattling.

Now, today, we’re faced with a much more confident Assad whose forces have had success after success with the backing of a much more entrenched Russia, and sending in the missiles may be either too little too late (if it’s done like Trump’s first missile strike) or the start of an escalation the U.S. can ill afford (meaning we get heavily involved in toppling Assad and pushing Russia out of the region entirely). It’s a lose-lose scenario.

The U.S. needs to pressure the U.N. to condemn Assad, Syria and by association Russia, for the chemical attacks. The entire world needs to speak up. If it’s a Russian vs. American interests conflict, then the atrocities continue unabated. If it’s a World vs. Russia & Assad issue on human rights, with U.N. countries approving military and economic retaliation, then Russia is much more likely to back down or bail out.

The problem with that is that Russia sits on the UN Security Council with veto power, and has used it in the past to veto this very thing.

Indeed, both the strength and weakness of the UN. It doesn’t let a single nation or even coalition run roughshod, but at the same time ties the UN’s hands in this era of client states.