Ben Stein’s Diary Bombing Syria: Six Reasons Why We Shouldn’t Have

The American Spectator ^ | 04/07/17 | Ben Stein

[TheStickman]

400 new troops + the 1000 on the ground now = GW policies? Please. That doesn’t pass the laugh test. When President Trump orders 20,000 troops into Syria get back to me so we can agree that’s a bad thing.

You wish we would pull out & let Assad, Russia & ISIS fight it out. It’s not going to happen until President Trump decides it would be in America’s best interest to do so.

I think President’s Trump’s actions in Syria thus far have been spot on. You disagree. I get it.

Now go have a nice rest of the day. K?

[Garth Tater]

And by this illogic I assume you would have been in favor of Great Britain, France, Germany and Russia taking part in our civil war?

The atrocities are being done on both sides in the Syrian civil war. We have no reason to support one group of brutal, uncivilized murderers over an other.

[Seruzawa]

With the US Army made up mainly of inadequate Divisions we couldn’t possibly fight Russia conventionally. To move the heavy weapons and troops needed for such a conflict (if we had them) takes ships. All the airlift we have would takes years and years to move the stuff. And the Russians would be happy to trade a sub for every equipment laden ship crossing the Atlantic. I know it’s fulfilling to some to wave the Flag and go all jingoist but we can’t fight Russia conventionally. Only a moron or fool thinks there could be limited or winnable nuclear war. The logistics of fighting Russia are out of our reach. We don’t even have the ships. Russia will be in Syria as long as they want. They aren’t going to give up that port on the Mediterranean.

[Dante3]

Calm down. Nobody has claimed that Trump is G.W. Bush. Of course he is not. But the situation brings to mind 2003 and Bush's lies. I see no reason for us to have gone after Assad yet.

Who is for this action? Many of the neverTrumpers such as McCain and Lindsey Graham. Also Nikki Haley. This should raise red flags. Who gains? Of course ISIS gains.

Seems even the White House is worried about the results. There was the muddled response at the press conference - I missed part of it - that it was Ivanka's idea? I find hard to believe Trump would act on bases of orders from somebody that unqualified. Then there was the statement that Assad is worse that Hitler, that Hitler never used gassed people. Incredible.

[Garth Tater]

400 new troops + the 1000 on the ground now = GW policies? Please. That doesn’t pass the laugh test.

You can laugh about committing acts of war against sovereign nations if you wish. I find it disturbing. There are international bodies and laws that we say we support that are designed to handle situations like this where innocents are being slaughtered.

G.W. Bush went to the United Nations to get the world's permission before he sent troops into Iraq. He also went to and received approval from Congress before doing so. What has changed between now and then?

[jobim]

Even the Obama administration engaged in offensive acts of war

Trump won our support in part because he rejected the CIA & Globalist NWO agenda for nation manipulation in the ME, or so we thought.

stupid for Trump to plan his actions just on the doing the opposite of what those groups call

Of course, but in the aftermath, isn't part of our assessment based upon the reaction of people and groups?

From Zero Hedge, a long article based upon a 1983 CIA assessment of the region, that perhaps puts these Tomahawks into a larger, albeit more alarming, perspective:

Prophetically foreshadowing the current crisis (and apparent action plan), leaked CIA documents from the reign of Bashar al-Assad's father in the 1980s show a Washington Deep State plan coalescing to "bring real muscle to bear against Syria," toppling its leader (in favor of one amenable to US demands) , severing ties with Russia (its primary arms dealer), and paving the way for an oil and gas pipeline of Washington's choosing.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-10/1983-cia-document-reveals-plan-destroy-syria-foreshadows-current-crisis

[TheStickman]

“I see no reason for us to have gone after Assad yet.”

If President Trump wanted to go specifically after Assad I expect Assad would either be in custody or dead by now.

“Who is for this action? Many of the neverTrumpers such as McCain and Lindsey Graham. Also Nikki Haley. This should raise red flags. Who gains? Of course ISIS gains.”

Because Nancy Graham & McLame support President Trump’s action in Syria is not a yardstick to use to judge the action. It’s a handy dandy fallacy that’s been pushed ad-nauseaum for the last 3-5 days but that’s all it is. No one ever bothers to explain how this single action “helps ISIS”. It’s a classic case of disordered thinking.

Nikkie Haley is supporting the action because she is President Trump’s ambassador to the UN. It’s HER JOB to tell the UN what President Trump’s policy on the matter is. So far she’s surprised me by doing a damn fine job.

Take your fallacies to a swimming hole & wash them out real good & the bury them. Maybe a tree will grow cuz’ crap makes for a good fertilizer. :)

[Magnum44]

I assume you would have been in favor of Great Britain, France, Germany and Russia taking part in our civil war?

There is no parallel on any level there. Our Civil War was entirely an internal feud and no threat to any other peoples or nations. There were no WMD's in the 1800's to spread or terrorist armies to spread them. There is no comparison of the farmers and citizens who made up either northern or southern armies, and the tyrants and barbarians who either work for Assad or want to overthrow him.

Assad works to destabilize the region and encourage terrorists groups of the appropriate color to threaten regional neighbors. ISIS and other extremist groups in the region want to export their Sharia and their brutal justice to the west.

So I agree there aren't any real good guys here, except the Syrian Christians being slaughtered, but that doesn't mean the best thing to do is sit back and do nothing. It was 8 years of that that has brought us to this point.

[TheStickman]

“What has changed between now and then?”

President Trump for one thing. Did you notice he didn’t bother to waste time on the UN before he decided to act? He didn’t go to Congress before hand because he’s not required to do so. Look up the War Powers Act & educate yourself. You’ll glad you did.

He did give Congress a report explaining his actions to Congress after the fact as he is required by law (War Powers Act) to do. Funny how you folks who bitch & moan haven’t been waving it around & pushing it down our throats. Probably because it doesn’t fit the BS narrative you & others have been regurgitating for the last few days.

[Dante3]

No reason to get this nasty and emotional just because we see things differently. I never said McCain was a yard stick but rather that his glee raises a red flag. McCain is not one to stand up for the best interest of this nation as revealed by, among others, his views on amnesty and his recent attacks on Trump while overseas.

I see no reason for Trump to go after Assad when we should be focusing on ISIS and other issues. I have no reason to believe Assad will attack the US but ISIS poses a clear danger.

[Sam Gamgee]

But are those killed ISIS and its Sunni enablers?

[Slyfox]

I see no hard evidence that Assad is the sole culprit. In this wiki you supplied, when I read of the events, there are “implications” that he was responsible with some UN dudes reporting. That is not hard evidence.

True hard evidence is in short supply.

McCain is one guy who has had illegal meetings with that Al Bagdaddy guy who just happens to be a real bad guy, and McCain yells the loudest when it comes to finding Assad as the bad guy.

People who have a vested interest in making sure that ISIS is not the guilty party is way too evident.

Look in detail at all the massacres from 2012 on:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Syria

[sargon]

Who is for this action? Many of the neverTrumpers such as McCain and Lindsey Graham. Also Nikki Haley. This should raise red flags. Who gains? Of course ISIS gains.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Citing the fact that hawks like McCain and Graham supported this action is ridiculous, because hawks always support military action.

So "guilt by association" doesnt' work in this case.

The action was extremely limited in scope.

As far as "ISIS gains", that's laughable on its face. Whatever happens to Syria, it won't be determined by ISIS. If ISIS thinks they gained anything, I anticipate that such a perception will be short-lived.

There can be no doubt that President Trump is going to be more aggressive against ISIS than the previous administration. Does anyone really challenge that assertion?

Historically, it's certainly possible that two warring factions—ISIS & Assad—can both be enemies of the United States.

The President, the Secretary of Defense, and Cabinet and advisors obviously have much more information than we do. So if you trust this President, it makes no sense to second-guess him for making this judgement call.

And if you don't trust him—in such a limited action as this one was—then you likely never will.

What appears most clear to me is that many are simply indulging their NeverTrump impulses, or else are trapped inside a rigid bubble of cut-and-dried notions regarding the propriety of the military action which the President took.

If I can draw only one conclusion from this incident, it's that I trust President Trump far more than I will ever trust the knee-jerk naysayer crowd. The unhinged reaction to this incident convinces me of that truth more than ever.

There's no way that a minor action like this—a judgement call carefully decided on by President Trump—should be hysterically second-guessed by anyone who claims to be a supporter who trusts this man.

If I didn't trust Donald J. Trump, I wouldn't have voted for him for President in the first place. This action on his part doesn't damage that trust one iota.

If those here who are acting as armchair generals don't trust President Trump in this isolated incident—not blindly, but based on his record thus far—then they likely never will.

We need to have unity, even when we as individuals don't agree with this or that decision by President Trump. To instead tear each other apart plays into the hands of the Enemy...

[Garth Tater]

ISIS and other extremist groups in the region want to export their Sharia and their brutal justice to the west.

Which explains why we have been arming and training them, right?



There are no good guys over there. We are there because Obama wanted his islamic buddies to take over control of another mostly secular Arab nation as he did in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt. Russia is there supporting the Syrian government because the Syrian government is stopping the Gulf States' natural gas pipeline from being pushed through into Europe. That pipeline would end Russia's monopoly position as Europe's only natural gas provider and ending that monopoly would end the immense political power Russia holds over Europe with its ability to cut off that gas supply in the dead of winter if Europe doesn't do as Putin tells them to do.

It's not just about dead babies. Plenty of them on both sides of the conflict. This is mostly a battle over money and political power. The pictures of dead kids on the news are just one more weapon being used in this war. A war we should stay out of.

[Magnum44]

There are no good guys over there. We are there because Obama wanted his islamic buddies to take over control of another mostly secular Arab nation as he did in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt. Russia is there supporting the Syrian government because the Syrian government is stopping the Gulf States' natural gas pipeline from being pushed through into Europe. That pipeline would end Russia's monopoly position as Europe's only natural gas provider and ending that monopoly would end the immense political power Russia holds over Europe with its ability to cut off that gas supply in the dead of winter if Europe doesn't do as Putin tells them to do

I am pretty much in agreement with you here. What we disagree on is whether of not we have some role to be here that is in our national interest to do so.

I do not agree we should go in and topple regimes to replace with democracies. I certainly don't agree in toppling regimes to replace with caliphates. McCain and Obama were wrong and useful idiots to these despots.

There are dictators around the world. Its when they cross lines that threaten regional or world stability that actions must be taken. Use of WMDs is universally accepted by the civilized world as having crossed that line. This is where we have a national interest.

[Garth Tater]

He didn’t go to Congress before hand because he’s not required to do so. Look up the War Powers Act & educate yourself. You’ll glad you did.

One of us certainly needs an education...

"The War Powers Act of 1973, passed in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, puts limits on the ability of the President to send American troops into combat areas without Congressional approval.

Under the act, the President can only send combat troops into battle or into areas where ''imminent'' hostilities are likely, for 60 days without either a declaration of war by Congress or a specific Congressional mandate.

The President can extend the time the troops are in the combat area for 30 extra days, without Congressional approval, for a total of 90 days."

     link - How War Powers Act Works

We've had troops in a combat zone for a lot longer than 90 days now without "either a declaration of war by Congress or a specific Congressional mandate."

[Avalon Memories]

Eric Trump’s comments about his sister’s influence on the decision to strike the Syrian airfield are being carried on multiple news outlets. While I don’t trust the media, this story is openly sourced, so it is more credible than the usual anonymously sourced media crap. To the extent that Jared and Ivanka are influencing such serious policy decisions, that is the extent to which this administration will fail. It’s one thing to have adult children involved in a family business, but quite another to have them playing at being co-presidents. The last thing we conservatives should do is be blind sycophantic lapdogs to any politician.

[Garth Tater]

Finally, a well reasoned post laying out the side of the argument FOR our involvement in Syria. Thank you. I disagree with your conclusion but I applaud you for making your case well.

[Jane Austen]

I also agree with him about this.

[odawg]

Trump had nothing to do with CIA plans, which I am sure are nefarious. Just as Trump had nothing to do with all the previous administrations’ dithering with North Korea, but there will come a crisis point where action will have to be taken. Just as Trump had nothing to do with Obama’s criminal actions in the Middle East, and will have to deal with it.

I personally don’t have a clue on how to resolve the Middle East problem, nor does anyone else for that matter. But something has to be done, since Obama let Russia in. Either Russia or China will move in to fill the vacuum if we leave. You fine with that?