>
I think some people misconstrued Trump to be some kind of Quaker pacifist. They forgot that he ran on a platform of beating the crap out of our enemies. How was he supposed to accomplish this, by casting flowers and wearing a pussyhat?
>
IIRC, he also ran saying Syria was a ‘bad call’.
Lastly, I fail to note when/how/why Syria is ‘our enemy’ to beat the crap out of....what’s our ‘vital national interest’ (IMO, the last refuge and used as often as ‘regulate commerce’ to do anything anywhere) in the area?
Do you really think the Russian and the Syrian militaries are targeting ISIS? I’ve got the San Francisco-Oakland bay bridge to sell you ;-)
Presidents sometimes say things on the campaign trail, then change their minds when in the oval because they become privy to Intel they hadn’t avail themselves to as candidates.
And on core issues, no one can convince me that Trump hasn’t kept his campaign promises – executive orders overturning a plethora of regulations, withdrawing from the TPP, rebuilding the military. Each of these decisions takes balls.
He said Syria was a bad call. That`s a pretty vague statement, but most of those watching him during the campaign understood him to be refering specifically to OBAMA`s policies in Syria, and not implying that he (Trump) would have no policy at all with respect to Syria.
And what was Trump`s chief objection to Obama`s Syrian policy? Two things, mainly. The first criticism adressed the way that Obama`s policies destablized the region, creating a myriad of problems, not the least of which is a dangerous refugee crisis. The other criticism was the way we were supporting and emboldening
ISIS and other unsavory groups in our effort to depose Assad.
Well with regards to the first objection (the destablizing effect of Syrian intervention) you may have noted that the destablization has already occured. Dealing with an already destable area requires a differant policy approach than dealing with a relatively stable region.
The second objection - that we were aiding ISIS in our effort to depose Assad - is in no way compromised by this airstrike. Trump has made it clear that this strike was specifically a response to the chemical weapons use.
Two other quick points. Trump was always clear that while serving the national interest would be his number one priority, he believed there could be occassional instances when we take action even when our vital national interests are not directly at stake. These are situations where the problem involves such a degree of evil, that an action may have to be taken based soley on the moral imperative to address such evil. Trump argued that the defeat of ISIS represents one such instance. The use of chemical weapons would seem to be another.
Lastly is the argument that many others have already made over the last few days, namely the fact that the Syrian attack didn`t occur in a vacuum, and sent a clear and not insignificant message to many other trouble spots and adversaries around the world, such as North Korea, China, Russia, and Iran.