Posted on 04/09/2017 7:38:52 PM PDT by LS
By way of disclaimer, I have known Steve Bannon for years and we regularly communicate in rather short bursts. So my info on the "inside Team Trump" is pretty one-sided. I don't know Jared Kushner, know OF McMaster and recommended him to Team Trump (as did Victor Davis Hanson). So I know what I know, but it's a pretty limited range of insight.
1. The Syria strikes. I knew going in this would be a firestorm for Trump among his voters, especially the Ron Paul/non-interventionist backers (many of whom you see on Twitter).
I agree with many of you that the evidence was not clear that it was Assad---indeed, it could well have been ISIS. I also agree this does not help in our fight against ISIS. I further agree that regime change is dangerous on a number of levels.
That said, the strike was a multifaceted message, and unfortunately one that absolutely had to be sent, somewhere, somehow.
Recall as many of you have posted, in the past two years, the Russkies have been getting extremely provocative, doing flybys of American ships, sailing into our waters, and so on. Forget who is "responsible" for Ukraine, the fact is Ukraine unloaded its nukes cuz we promised them we would protect them via NATO. Now that promise is vanishing. Our word certainly is not good from the Ukrainian perspective.
I start Syria with Russia because at some point, somewhere, Putin had to get a message that while we want peace and want to work with him, he cannot possibly be allowed to threaten (as he already has) American ships at sea and sail in our waters. This is flat out aggression.
It can be stopped, and nipped in the bud, but how? Consider Syria a "brush back pitch" to the Russian batter. (In baseball, when the hitter takes advantage of the plate and gets too far into the pitcher's zone, the pitcher throws one high and tight to brush him back and say, "No, you have to play by the rules.")
I do believe Putin not only got this message, but was expecting it. He wanted to see if Trump was Obama The bad news is that it had to go on this long, but like any aggressor, the longer you wait, the bloodier it becomes to stop him. I think Putin got the message. Yes, he's making a lot of threats. But he now knows Trump will act when provoked and act DECISIVELY. Whether you agree with the strike or not, you can't accuse Trump of "indecision."
Further, I think the brush-back pitch worked on Iran and the NORKs. Coming as it did when Xi was at dinner (indeed, I hear he was the first one to receive the news of the attack!), it was the equivalent of Trump pulling out a Colt .45 and laying it on the table and saying, "ok, Xi, let's chat." The fact that Xi apparently gave his blessing to American responses to the NORKs--in their own back yard---suggests the meeting was a 100% success. The brush back pitch was felt in China, too.
Many here do not agree with Trump's action. Many think he was being "played." I have heard (haven't verified it) that the "vote" to fire the missiles was unanimous among the NatSec team, including Bannon. He of course would never confirm or deny, nor would I ask. But what we have from "fake" news is one story that it was Kush v Bannon, another that it was Kush/Bannon v Mattis, and a third that it was everyone agreeing.
For the reasons I've outlined above NOT particularly relating to Syria, I believe the latter. Further, this was an opportunity to throw the brush-back pitch without civilian casualties and without a bunch of dead bodies being hauled out of a mosque. In other words, if Team Trump was looking for the "perfect" place to send a message, gas or no gas, this was it.
2. "Chaos/Turmoil inside Team Trump" Lately the Twitter people have been going nuts against Kushner thinking he is engaging in a war on Bannon. First, if you look at the picture of the "bunker" with everyone during the strike, the two people closest to Trump are Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon, right behind him. Kush is one person removed. Small things. Second, Bannon himself told me three nights ago, "I ain't goin' anywhere." I'm pretty sure that means DT said so, too. We keep missing this and missing this, but REGULARLY Team Trump throws out a piece of media "cheese" into the maze and the media rats chase it while Team Trump governs. I don't know if the Kush/Bannon "clash" is real or just cheese, but it would not surprise me if the two guys don't go get a beer every night and laugh.
Trump's management style is much like Lincoln's: get a bunch of top, smart people who have different ideas, let them fight, come to a decision that may favor one, the other, or even neither. Don't forget businessmen do not hesitate to drop non-producers. Trump fired Lewandowski, Manafort, and his OWN BROTHER (as did Thomas Watson, Jr. at IBM!) If anyone thinks he won't dump Kush for good reason, think again. Ditto Bannon.
3. McMaster. I vouched for McMaster as did Victor Davis Hanson. McMaster is one of the few people in the Pentagon with actual hands-on success at forming alliances with Muslims against other Muslims. He was a rebel throughout the Iraq war, which kept him from being promoted. He's exactly the type of outside-the-box thinker you want. I'm NOT concerned about his early comments on "radicals" being a minority. Folks, you will not find any commanders in the field, anywhere, saying all Muslims are terrorists. Won't happen, cuz they need locals as interpreters and most of the time as allies. Maybe personally they have different thoughts, but they cannot express those in a combat zone. I think McM's comments were typical of that battlefield thinking.
Bannon's removal from the NSC planning group was predicted in Trump's own plans early on. Bannon was there to de-politicize it, and he has, and he still has top clearance, as you've all seen. I could be wrong, but of all the things to worry about, McM ain't one of them.
Finally, we are in a VERY dangerous position due to Obama. If anyone thinks we could just retreat to our borders, it's way too late for that. The NORK nut could wipe out the entire west coast with a single EMP bomb over the north Pacific. Many here would say "yay," but of course that's crazy. The entire US would be set back massively, Japan would be wiped out and we'd have to retaliate big time. (I do think it's time we reconsider assassination as a policy). Zero let the Russkies run wild. We can nudge them back into their stall, but to act like they aren't out would be a mistake. And we still have to deal with Iran.
None of this is easy, and no one will agree with any one policy. Trump was handed an absolute bag of excrement in foreign policy. I think he is trying to avoid not just one, but three wars, and we all better hope the "brush back pitch" was heeded.
Brilliant! Thanks.
I am sure Mr. Trump listens to all of them and makes his own assessment which guides his actions.
Can our military do a “massive” invasionary force right now without somebody else’s army?
‘Just like the Carter administration and what had to happen after when Reagan took over. Of course, there arent a lot on here that remember the Carter years. You may think this country is effed up now, you youngsters should have tried to live during that assholes administration.’
haha!! WELL SAID!!!!
I seriously doubt the President would launch this attack if he didn't really think Assad had done this. Why give the intelligence community any more leverage than they already have.
I understand the other factors that went into the decision. It all seems very practical and logical.
It'll never satisfy the hand-wringers, of course.
I can accept the conclusion that this was "a multifaceted message, and unfortunately one that absolutely had to be sent, somewhere, somehow."
So thanks for the briefing. Second-guessing the President in the absence of our access to classified information seems rather gratuitous.
Barring compelling evidence to the contrary, I trust President Trump's judgement in these matters—or I would never have voted for him in the first place.
I was one of those double badge guys.
My job was more entailed with engaging NATO aircraft with Soviet technology. It was a dog every day.
We on the US side did very well. Me on the Soviet side had to get as smart as we could.
No Cameras allowed. Sometimes wild horses would come up for some water.
I think the part that was omitted from LS’s essay is that this was intended to not send a warning, but to start the process of reducing Iran’s hegemony over the Middle East. Iran controls much of Iraq and Syria is a puppet state. By cleaving Syria from Iraq, President Trump will be able to reduce Iran’s power in the Middle East and also make it more difficult for Iran to use Syria as a launchpad for missiles (NBC) against Israel.
Please add me to ping lis.
Thank you.
Second guessing DJT is a fool’s game.
Erdogen is rebuilding the Ottoman empire.
When Reagan took over we didn’t manage to undo the Iranian disaster that Carter perpetrated. We have a fair chance of neutralizing the perils that Hussein engineered over there and maybe even the old one left by Carter.
Without the ‘Harvest of the Steppes’ he can’t.
That was the economic foundation of the Ottoman Empire’s economy.
So long as the USA was unwilling to take on Kim and maybe put a formal end to the Korean War, NK was doing and being just what China wanted of it. Itkeeps the Americans occupied and holds their attention while securing massive economic aid to and through NK. That situation has apparently changed and NK and its Kims may not be so useful to China now.
The Ping and shared insight is much appreciated.
A high airburst would have to be over the USA proper to do the maximum damage to the country. One offshore would kick the off switch for a good part of the coast, though and the damage to the country, while not maximum, would be pretty massive.
Straits.
I’m not that knowledgeable about that. I know he fancies himself the next Caliph. He’s bent on the islamization of europe.
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.
