[QUOTE=QuickSilver]
I think it would be a foolish thing to do, given Russia presence and the potential problems it would cause. I was just puzzled by Trump’s sudden “change of attitude”, what with the King of Jordan in the White House at the time.
[/QUOTE]
It’s not really all that puzzling. The earlier gas attacks in Syria aren’t real to Trump…in fact, there is a good chance he didn’t even know about them (or someone tried to tell him and he didn’t care enough to pay attention). What was real to him was that Obama was weak…that’s really all he cared about. THIS attack happened on his watch, so it’s real to him. It also was probably a shock…he most likely figured that now that HE is in charge, no one would do anything like this on his watch. I think he’s having similar issues with North Korea still testing ICBM designs. I don’t think he counted on things like this happening on Trump’s Watch™, because I think HE figured no one would do such things for fear of his mad skilz…or something. It’s been a wake up call.
But I seriously doubt that Jordan’s president, of all people, would be whispering in Trump’s ear about a direct US intervention against Assad. That is VERY unlikely, IMHO.
I think Trump cares less about what Russia thinks than folks think he does. Me, I think he basically has been caught flat footed (again), and doesn’t know what to do.
The situation has changed, though. At one time, it was reasonable to think that Assad might go (or be driven out), but that’s no longer the case. Abdullah is pragmatic about adapting to circumstances.
What about Haley’s remarks about Russia at the UN?
Probably coming off as a total raving anti-Trump person (which I kind of am), but, again, I don’t think Trump knows enough about the subject to even know about the previous administration’s stance or the agreement with Russia or Syria’s agreement to supposedly remove their chemical weapons. Trump seems, to me at least, to be a sound bites type person. He might have SAID these things in a speech (i.e. about Obama, Syria, chemical weapons, etc), but I think it was just him mouthing the words…they didn’t sink in as real, coherent concepts. What’s happened now though…that has sunk in and, I think, is ‘real’ to him. And it’s once again something he (and his administration) isn’t mentally prepared for. They have no idea what to do, and are just reacting. I was reading a CNN article earlier where Russia basically put Trump et al on the spot and asked, directly, what would we do? And thus far there has been silence from what I can tell.
Just my opinion here based on what I’m seeing and based on how ridiculously unprepared the Trump administration has been about everything. I think Trump et al had a game plan to win the presidency, but zero idea of what to do once they won (I honestly don’t think they thought they WOULD win)…and they haven’t gone out of their way to bring in people who have any sort of understanding of how any of this stuff works in the real (political) world.
I don’t think there’s any evidence that Jordan would ever seek a military invasion to overthrow the Assad regime. The risk of toppling Assad violently opens up the potential of a post-war Iraq or post-war Libya sort of chaos.
Jordan appears to be very consistent in saying that order is brought to Syria by having a diplomatic agreement that results in Assad leaving. I don’t see that changing at all. Suggestions that Jordan wants a military intervention to force Assad out are as unfounded as the idea that Jordan should want Assad to stay because “stability.”
McCain and Graham are urging a US-led attack on Assad’s air force – Link
CNN is also reporting that Trump is considering military options. As much as I am horrified by the chemical attacks, an American attack on Assad, which is not based on our own self-defense, is a really big issue. Obama did the right thing after his poorly-conceived “red line” remark in asking for Congress to authorize an attack on Assad. Trump should do the same, as opposed to launching a unilateral war.
Military options almost surely amount to a few more official “boots on the ground” and a bunch of unofficial “advisors who are prohibited from wearing boots that touch the ground”.
Then Trump unveils his new concept that no one has ever considered before and puts up one or two no-fly zones, Russia excepted, of course.
It’s called leadership. If Obama or Trump for that matter really believed/believes that it’s in the best interest of the U.S. and the world to take a stand on this issue, than he needs to take that stand, and do his level best to persuade the nation, Congress, and U.S. allies that this type of behavior cannot stand. Just making a half hearted effort at best and then throwing up your hands and saying “Congress didn’t want to do it” is both disheartening and disingenuous.
From my perspective, if you let bullies, either on your street, school or in the world get away with being bullies, you can’t possibly be surprised in what you get. And I think what the world is getting now is a world shaped by the Assad’s and Putin’s of the world.
Obama was tested and the world learned he could be pushed around. Trump is being tested now. It will be interesting to see what he does.
I just told you what he’ll do. Even though it’s Trump, there’s not a lot of mystery because weakening the regime at this point just prolongs the war and direct conflict with Russia and Iran is not something anybody trusts Trump enough to handle.
It’s like Neville Chamberlain who complained about Hitler scheduling his pre-WWII speeches to sabotage the UK government by picking inconvenient times to make things awkward for Britain, when in fact the speeches’ timing probably had nothing to do with the Brits.
We’ll, it’s happened over 100 times in our nation’s history.
You might want to look up the War Powers Resolution which every president since Carter (except for Trump) has availed themselves of.
Making the tough call, and poking, prodding, cajoling, and pressuring others to do what’s right. Yes, it’s called leadership.
Taking the easy route, making a weak proposal and letting it die without any effort - not leadership, no matter who the President is or what party he’s from.
I could probably recite the key portions of the War Powers Resolution from memory, so you don’t need to lecture me about reading it.
You’re just making the case that the President should go to war, Congress be damned. I’m saying that is tyranny. I thought conservatives wanted to protect the Constitution? Textual orgininalists, etc?