Update: Syria, NORKs, Chicoms, & Russkies

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.

Our Founders intended this as a representative democracy, not a popular democracy. We elect people to represent our interests. Popular opinion is not supposed to be informed about every aspect of national security, because the People are supposed to be free to put their efforts into a robust private sector generating commerce.

The grassroots also rely on leadership networks to winnow contenders for office and help the People to elect someone whom they want to lead, in the direction that person has promised, such as how Trump in speech after speech promised to appoint hard-nosed military and defense advisors, strike hard and fast, clean up the ISIS mess and employ the element of surprise in dealing with targets.

Sorry if that disappoints you, Garth. How about running for Congress and getting yourself appointed to committee, since you want to tweak the defense policy that many of us voted for?

Popular opinion is not supposed to be informed about every aspect of national security, because the People are supposed to be free to put their efforts into a robust private sector generating commerce.

No one has said the people should be informed of every aspect of national security, Albion. Obviously there are matters that must be kept secret - but matters that affect the nation should be discussed by the people and the people should be kept informed of these matters so the discussions will not be led astray by falsehoods. Nothing is more conducive to truth than full information. Lies and deceit hide in the darkness and wither in the light. Your idea that since we are a representative democracy and not a popular democracy and therefore "Popular opinion is not supposed to be informed" is exactly the opposite of what our Founding Fathers believed.

The Founders believed that the right of the people to freely assemble is one of our most important rights. They knew that when the people are free to come together and discuss matters important to them, and to the nation, the people will spread knowledge among themselves and the lies and corruption and treachery of politicians will be exposed by the people. Have you not wondered why dictatorships go to such great lengths in keeping their subjects apart? It is hard to spread the knowledge among ourselves if it is being withheld from us by our leaders. We will still get the job done but it will take longer and we run the risk of events outrunning our knowledge. A dangerous position for a people to be in because, as Thomas Jefferson says:

"Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights."

The Founders believed that another right, the right to petition the government to redress wrongs, is also one of most important rights of the people - but it would be quite difficult to ask for wrongs that are kept secret to be righted, now wouldn't it? Keeping information from the people (as Molly insists should be done because we are now too ignorant to be able to reach an informed consensus as a people) should be kept to an absolute minimum and if errors are going to be made they should be made on the side of more widely disclosed information - which we as a nation wisely do by ensuring the freedom of the press and strictly limiting prior restraint on the dissemination of information. All three of these rights I have just gone over are listed in the FIRST Amendment to the Constitution. There is a reason for that.

I appreciate your joining the conversation Albion but I think you have a flawed understanding of the peoples' place in our own governance. Maybe my biggest disagreement with you is with your assertion that the people are not supposed to be informed "because the People are supposed to be free to put their efforts into a robust private sector generating commerce." We are an industrious people and have no problem with getting our jobs done AND taking care of our nation's business too. It is after all our job to govern ourselves. Government of the people, for the people and by the people Albion, not just "of the people."

Molly thinks we should not be informed because we are too ignorant to make use of the information. You think we should not be informed because we need to be spending our time at our jobs. Just to keep with the tradition of swapping quotes that Molly and I have been following, I will leave you with one from our Founders that illustrates their disagreement with your point of view, so here you go:

The love of power, like the love of money, increases with the possession of it; and we know in what ruin these baneful passions have involved human societies in all ages when they have been let loose and suffered to rage uncontrolled - There is no restraint like the pervading eye of the virtuous citizens.
- Samuel Adams

It seems like old Sam agrees with me that the watchful eye of the citizen is very important in keeping our leaders on the proper path. That would be very difficult if we allowed them to keep us uninformed, now wouldn't it?

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.