Posted on 04/11/2017 5:07:02 AM PDT by Kaslin
Did anyone expect Trump voters to enjoy a four-year journey of harmony among the ranks? In these unpredictable times, one thing anyone could easily predict is that the President’s mercurial curiosities would lead us to moments that would delight some of his base and repel the rest.
Welcome to Syria vs. “America First.”
Equally predictable: a media narrative that seeks to pit Trump supporters against each other; witness the series of questions to administration key players as to whether the vastly popular Shayrat airfield raid constitutes an abandonment of his familiar campaign theme of avoiding fruitless foreign entanglements.
But the question has merit. Many Trump voters hinged their support on his passion for solving problems within our shores: jobs, immigration, tax reform, sensible environmental policies and dismantling the oppressive regulatory state. A corollary to that support was enthusiasm for what he indicated he would not do: enmesh the American military in further exploits among the brutal moonscapes of the Middle East.
Much notice has been paid to the power of the visuals of the chemical attacks that motivated Trump to launch those Tomahawks. To those supportive of the response, it shows a Commander-in-Chief open to examining wide latitude of actions when appropriate circumstances arise. But to those opposed, it is alarming evidence that Trump can be lured away from his own past pronouncements and into a habit of engagement which could lead to a nationalist nightmare: the distraction of more foreign warfare.
So who is right?
Everyone sharing analysis should lay cards on the table, so here are mine. I love the portions of Trump doctrine that promise devotion to finding solutions at home, and the accompanying commitment to view foreign policy through a lens that puts U.S. interests ahead of United Nations whims and globalist folly.
But I confess, I cheered the air strikes. So what kind of odd hybrid creature am I?
I don’t believe I am rare. I believe most Trump voters supported delivering a message to Assad, and do not believe that he has now cast “America First” to the wind. In fact, I believe there is an argument to be made that last week’s surgical response can be a worthy part of a Mideast policy package that contains eradication of ISIS, advocacy of Syrian regime change and a wake-up call to Russia, Iran and North Korea.
What is necessary now is restraint. Easy to say, I know, but does anyone think President Trump is eager to roll 100,000 troops into Syria as we did in Iraq more than a decade ago? Against that backdrop of history, even the hawkish Sen. Lindsey Graham sounds low-key when he suggests a force of roughly 5,000 to show we are vitally interested in helping to stabilize Syria in ways that fall short of toppling Bashar al-Assad’s palaces and overseeing more torturous nation-building.
Some may draw their own line in the sand: not one soldier. Not one baby-step toward mission creep. No means no. That is not unreasonable. But here’s a domestic Trump policy that is well served by some attention to the inner workings of Syria: the influx of refugees.
Virtually every Trump supporter has railed against the ill wisdom of allowing insufficiently vetted waves of Syrian refugees to storm our shores. A large subset of that view is the observation that if Syria were less of a hellhole, maybe the Syrians would be happy to stay in their own country.
(Pause button: Was that the greatest CNN segment in history Friday as a Syrian expatriate not only rejected a force-fed narrative that kindness to Syrians requires broad refugee acceptance, but profusely thanked Trump for his actions?)
There is no part of “America First” that requires isolationism. Trump did promise to vanquish ISIS in a variety of colorful descriptions; did anyone imagine some magic wand that would achieve this?
A sensible, measured American engagement in the Middle East is thoroughly compatible with what most Trump voters saw, and admired, as a stark contrast with Barack Obama’s feckless, impotent “leading from behind.” Most Trump votes did not come from the Rand Paul wing of Republican Land.
But they did come from millions of voters ranging from hesitant to hostile if faced with the prospect of diving into more Mideast quagmires. One particular Ann Coulter tweet spoke for them on Thursday night: “I expected to spend this part of the Trump presidency tweeting that it’s legal to deport anchor babies, not arguing against another Mideast war.”
I suggest that one airstrike need not dissolve the miraculous coalition that fended off a Hillary Clinton presidency, and that her embrace of the idea of airstrikes does not make them an inherently bad idea. In fact, I do not fully believe she ever would have done it.
I do not expect hardcore nationalists to suspend their objections. But it is wise to note that this brief flash of American muscle was well noticed in capitals from Damascus to Moscow to Tehran to Pyongyang. And it is noticed in Beijing, where the Chinese President is freshly returned from watching Trump give the launch order over dessert at Mar-a- Lago.
And if we are indeed interested in policies that have meaning in the daily lives of Americans, there is no conflict in welcoming an American moment of response that says we are paying attention to the worst behaviors of the world’s worst tyrants.
There is no basis for forcing some binary choice between “America First” sensibilities and appreciation of the lesson we just delivered to Syria. It may well be that we have been well served by that message, and that various misbehaving regimes now realize that if they envision further mischief, they had best weigh the reaction of America first.
Yes, in this situation, it does.
Nope.
Not many people wanted more war with Trump. I hope he doesn’t ruin his chance to help fix America by bogging us down in perpetual war. People really did not vote for that.
I hope he chooses wisely.
No, but I expected Trump to defend and promote conservative values.
I'm growing concerned. I'm probably wrong.
I support President’s surgical strike on Syria. I do not support a massive invasion into Syria.
The USA has very, very serious problems right here at home that will destroy us if not addressed - and soon.
That is the reality.
We put a majority of Republicans in charge to take care of business so we can once again be the land of the free; the home of the brave.
We do not see that happening, nor do we see evidence of any urgency to put this country on a proper heading.
Failing to react to aggression invites more agression.
Anyone who expected Pres. Trump to color between the lines is going to be disappointed.
b o amply demonstrated the futility of a policy of a “hands off” US. I don’t support a mass deployment of military to Syria. I agree with the missile strike, especially if, in fact, assad is responsible. Tillerson’s meet at the g7 with middle east countries is a good move.
Candidate Trump:
Repeal replace ACA
Cut Taxes to spur economic growth
Will not escalate conflict in Syria, no call for regime change.
President Trump:
Can’t repeal ACA,...oops
Will get around to cutting taxes eventually,.. maybe
We need regime change NOW in Syria, will start with illegal bombing of their military airfield (declared illegal by the UN).
Will Trump start wearing ugly pantsuits as well? We did not vote for this.
Your exactly right. If they think we can be mesmerized by focusing the news narratives on “foreign policy” they are sadly mistaken. They will pay politically if their domestic agenda is not enacted to a significant degree.
Yes. Especially since opposing Assad equals supporting our enemies.
By taking sides against Assad in Syria’s civil war, we have encouraged more agression.
He is defending conservative values. My Lord have you not paid attention to what he has accomplished?
The author of this article is either misinformed or dishonest. Hillary was advocating strikes against Assad when she was Obama's Secretary of State. Obama was willing to go along, and if it weren't for opposition from Congressional Republicans, we would have (at best) had a replay of Libya 2011 or more likely a quagmire like Iraq or Afghanistan.
The same people who (rightly) opposed the intervention when Hillary advocated it are going along with it when a Republican administration is doing the same.
A one-off strike like this one isn't a problem or threat to an America-first agenda. A program of regime change and nation-building is a threat, and I hope that President Trump is not moving in that direction. If that's what we wanted, we could have just voted for Lindsey Graham, Jeb Bush, or even Hillary Clinton.
You apparently aren’t paying to what Trump has already done
Get mad at congress if you want. Trump is doing what he promised
Trump has done all he can about ACA. He has the IRS no longer checking hence no penalty. He has Price rolling back regulations. Blame Ryan for not having a bill ready day one.
Tax reform must come from the house. Again the GOP fails to do their job
Trump has escalated nothing. He did get Putin’s and Xi’s attention. And the attention of the world
Lordy you pearl clutches are hysterical
We had telemetry that showed the flight path of the plane that dropped the gas, so they knew from where the plane took off.
Whether it was the Assad government, rebels, or a rogue military operation, wouldn't it still be an appropriate proportional response to knock out the site where the gas was stored and loaded onto planes?
I wonder whether the United States, in this case, can act as a sort of referee, saying that if you're going to war, there are certain rules of engagement that we are not going to allow you to break. One of those is the use of chemical weapons of indiscriminate destruction. We didn't just send a message with that strike, we destroyed a chemical weapons depot and the aircraft used to deliver them. Those weapons cannot be used again.
If an argument is that destroying the airbase weakens Assad's ability to fight Isis (even if he didn't order the attack), then I think there are other actors (like Russia) who will step up to fill the void on Syria's behalf. That's not ideal, but it's the field that Obama set for us.
Yes, this strike shakes things up a bit. Yes, there is some saber-rattling going on right now. I think that some of it is the players shuffling to reposition in light of the strike, and then things will settle down again. I do not believe this will lead to an escalation past the rhetoric going on right now, because people recognize the humanity of destroying the chemical weapons that were used in this way.
I heard concerns the other day that Putin will see Trump as a "one punch and run" leader, and will take this as free reign to escalate multiple times because the one punch was thrown, but I don't think so. Conventional military escalation is one thing, but the use of chemical weapons on civilians is NOT the event that world leaders want as justification for causing MORE destruction, when one side took the bold step to only surgically take out the source as a humanitarian act.
-PJ
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.