Posted on 04/07/2017 5:55:55 AM PDT by pgkdan
As the crisis in Syria deepened, Barack Obama pursued a policy of all talk and no action. President Trump’s policy can be described as no talk and then action.
Once again defying convention, Trump struck Syria decisively on Thursday, throwing Dems who have been caricaturing him as a puppet of Putin into a state of perplexity. Where Obama famously “led from behind” — a rhetorical nod to his feckless and slavish regard for “international consensus” — Trump’s strike sends the signal to world leaders, including the Chinese premier with whom he is now meeting, that he takes his cues from nobody.
What’s likely to happen now is that Putin will follow Trump in finding a resolution to the crisis. Russia grumbled about Trump’s strike, but not as loudly as one might have expected. Both Trump and Putin appear already in agreement on one point: that a post-Assad future can’t involve any slackening in the war on ISIS or give an opening to Islamic radicals.
The media is casting Trump’s strike as a “contradiction,” without bothering to explain what he is contradicting. An isolationism that he never held? The “America First” policies that he espoused on the campaign trail didn’t exclude the use of military force, and on Thursday night he justified the strike on nationalist grounds:
Tonight I ordered a targeted military strike on the airfield in Syria from where the chemical attack was launched. It is in this vital, national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons. There can be no dispute that Syria used banned chemical weapons, violated its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention and ignored the urging of the U.N. Security Council.
Years of previous attempts at changing Assad’s behavior have all failed and failed very dramatically. As a result, the refugee crisis continues to deepen, and the region continues to destabilize, threatening the United States and its allies.
The speech had a Reaganesque flavor to it, with plain language about Assad’s “barbaric” behavior, along with several theistic touches:
My fellow Americans, on Tuesday, Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad launched a horrible chemical weapons attack on innocent civilians. Using a deadly nerve agent, Assad choked out the life of innocent men, women and children. It was a slow and brutal death for so many, even beautiful babies were cruelly murdered in this very barbaric attack. No child of God should ever suffer such horror.
He closed by invoking “God’s wisdom” and asked that “We pray for the lives of the wounded and for the souls of those who have passed.”
The politics of Trump’s strike leave the Democrats scrambling for a new line of attack against him. Before the strike, they sounded like anti-Russian hawks. After it, some of them now sound like doves and lashed out at Trump for not checking with them first.
As the Washington Examiner reported, “Democratic lawmakers and members of the press criticized President Trump Thursday for what they said was a military action against Syria without approval from Congress.”
The Examiner quoted several Democrats who described the strike as “unconstitutional,” an “act of war,” and a slight to the international community. Other Democrats, such as Ben Cardin, perhaps recognizing that this strike is a political winner for Trump, adopted a more circumspect tone. A few even offered words of sparing praise if you listened closely enough. “Making sure Assad knows that when he commits such despicable atrocities he will pay a price is the right thing to do,” said Chuck Schumer. Despite its pained construction, that line qualifies as a compliment to Trump.
Meanwhile, Ted Cruz welcomed the strike as end to an era of “Obama foreign policy failures,” even as he stressed that any further action “be justified as protecting the vital national security interests of America – including decisive action to prevent chemical weapons from falling into the hands of radical Islamic terrorists.”
This much is clear: Gone is the half-Assad policy of Obama for whom the rhetoric of “red lines” served as a substitute for enforcing them. Trump’s pragmatic approach is the exact reverse: speak less and strike more.
One of my first thoughts was “Well, with one simple action Trump crushed the ignorant notion that he is a Russian agent.”
I still am concerned about jumping the gun though. I trust his judgement, but I can’t dismiss the idea the chemical attack story was a false flag...or that there are NO good guys in Syria.
“Speak softly and carry a big stick.”
MAGA!
The Arab Spring is under new management that’s about the best argument he can make but look at the mess created so far with what Libya and Egypt went through and Syria’s six years of suffering......
[Obama’s Half-Assad Policy]
LOL!!!! The headline itself should earn this author a Pulitzer!!!
I like the style, am not crazy about not knowing who the good guys and bad guys are(as usual) and a proxy war with Russia.
“Earlier on Friday, Damascus denied using chemical weapons, saying that its jets targeted an arms depot where chemical weapons stockpiles were stored by Islamic State and Al-Nusra Front militants. Later in the day, the Russian Ministry of Defense confirmed that account of events.
The strike, which was launched midday Tuesday, targeted a major rebel ammunition depot east of the town of Khan Sheikhoun, Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Major-General Igor Konashenkov said in a statement. According to Konashenkov, the warehouse was used to both produce and store shells containing toxic gas. The shells were delivered to Iraq and repeatedly used there, said the spokesman, pointing out that both Iraq and international organizations have confirmed the use of such weapons by militants.”
I like the way Trump carried this out. No words, just action.
I still question the wisdom of our involvement in this mess. It’s hard to tell who the actual good guys are, if any.
I know...that's half the reason I posted it.
The False Flag scenario is the only thing about this mess that bothers me. It bothers me a lot. I am clear that Assad is a dictator who has got to go. There are a few others around the world, some marginally better, some a lot worse. They have got to go as well.
ISIS has got to go. It is every bit as likely that ISIS deliberately killed these people with poison as it is that Assad did it with an air strike. Tactically we get more bang by destroying an airfield than by bombing some more terrorist supply dumps complete with kidnapped civilians.
Nothing about this is simple except that Trump has threaded the needle with a strong act of defiance against Putin that cannot easily be gainsaid. He has changed the conversation again, this time with Tomahawks.
I half agree. We know who the good guys are. No one. All sides stink in this mess.
And I am strongly opposed to a proxy war with Russia. But I repeat, I respect the courage to stand up and act decisively. Now, if he could do that for the wall.. I might really warm up.
Sarah Palin had it right on this middle east clusterf***.
Go home and let Allah sort it out.
IMO, the Syria attack had very little to do with Syria.
It was for North Korea’s benefit.
Syria was just a convenient place to stage the demonstration.
And then there's the timing and political collateral effects. This cuts the legs out from under Democrats' pathetically inane story that Trump is a tool of the Russians. And Premier Xi, having a friendly sumptuous dinner across the table from a relaxed and smiling Donald Trump as almost five dozen cruise missiles rained down on and destroyed a large air force base should make him want to check a Chinese-French dictionary for the word sangfroid.
That's all the glass-half-full version I can come up with and I hope it's accurate.
“Trump Tears Up Obama’s Half-Assad Policy”
Arguably one of the best headlines ever!
Bingo! All while the President was having dinner with Xi.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.