Trump's Playing With His Military Toys!

[rubato]

So what was the theory here? The blast would collapse the caves? The pressure wave would kill the Isis fighters even inside the cave? The bomb would consume all of the oxygen in a large enough area to asphyxiate them? A terror tactic?

yrs,
rubato

[BoSoxGal]

DON'T FUCK WITH AMERICA!!!!!!! WE WILL FUCK YOU UP!!!!!!!!


That's the Trump foreign policy in a nutshell, I believe.

[ex-khobar Andy]

I think those of us who oppose Mr T for all the right reasons should applaud when he gets something right. If the intelligence that Assad was responsible for the chemical attack is correct, then bombing the airstrip whence they came seems reasonable. If dropping MOAB gets rid of 100 or even 50 ISIS type without civilian casualties then it seems reasonable to me. The fact that he (or the military's) have got a couple of things right does not alter my basic belief that the guy is a fucking idiot who should be nowhere near the presidency. Even Scary Spicer gets a few things right.

[Bicycle Bill]

We're supposed to applaud when Trump and his "administration" gets something right once in a while?
So what?  Even a broken clock on the mantelpiece is correct twice a day.

-"BB"-

[Lord Jim]

I think those of us who oppose Mr T for all the right reasons should applaud when he gets something right. If the intelligence that Assad was responsible for the chemical attack is correct, then bombing the airstrip whence they came seems reasonable. If dropping MOAB gets rid of 100 or even 50 ISIS type without civilian casualties then it seems reasonable to me. The fact that he (or the military's) have got a couple of things right does not alter my basic belief that the guy is a fucking idiot who should be nowhere near the presidency. Even Scary Spicer gets a few things right.

This.

[Lord Jim]

I guess this means that the liberal Washington Post columnist David Ignatius is now a "Trump fan":

Trump gets a taste of success

President Trump, after a mostly disastrous first two months, has had a good run these past two weeks in foreign policy. He acted decisively in Syria, gained China as a possible partner in dealing with North Korea, repaired relations with NATO and began addressing the serious tensions with Russia.

Why is Trump making better decisions now? And what could disrupt his progress toward a more coherent foreign policy?

Trump is making gains because he has assembled a competent national security team — and listens to its advice. There was a consensus among his top advisers for a quick, limited strike on a Syrian air base, and Trump took the recommendation. He didn’t amplify, augment or otherwise disrupt it with his own tweets. He allowed the process to work.

If Trump goes back to his freewheeling, tweeter-in-chief role, or if the disruptive would-be chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon regains influence, then chaos could return. But for now, Trump has bonded with his core team. And in this White House, starved for a win, nothing succeeds like success.

The Trump team, for now, is basking in self-congratulation. Bannon’s power is diminished and H.R. McMaster has taken over as a disciplined national security adviser. Comity reigns in part because Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson hammer out common positions before every meeting in the Situation Room.

Trump’s strength and weakness is his emphasis on personality politics. That was evident in his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, which included nearly four hours of one-on-one conversation. Trump was bubbly at a news conference Wednesday in describing the “good chemistry” of the meeting. Such talk is the elevator music of summits, but in this case, the two do seem to have developed a mutually opportunistic bond. Xi is signaling that China’s interests are served by working with the United States to check North Korea, short of war. Will that last? We’ll see.

Trump’s North Korea strategy had a coherent rollout. First Mattis visited the region, followed by Tillerson; as tensions rose this week, the United States signaled resolve by dispatching an aircraft-carrier task force. Behind these tactical moves are some big strategic ideas about a future North Korea that wouldn’t threaten China’s interests.

The danger is over-personalizing policy. Trump likes people who make him look good (as Xi has done). But personal success can’t be the engine of statecraft.

Trump’s first two months were a case study in self-destructive actions. An example of how he undermined his team’s good ideas was a plan back in January for defusing trade and immigration tensions with Mexico. The centerpiece would have been a visit to Washington by President Enrique Peña Nieto. But Trump got defensive about criticism that he was backing away from his campaign rhetoric and unleashed an inflammatory tweet that led Peña Nieto to cancel the visit.

The Mexico flap added to the uproar and disarray of Trump’s first weeks. Trump was running at government with his head; he was behaving like a guy who gets into bar fights. Somebody (presumably Bannon) must have told him that this was a good idea. That’s how advisers lose clout.

Over the past week, Trump has adopted a different approach — more careful and consensual. Yes, it brings him closer to the foreign policy mainstream that he and Bannon derided during the campaign. But it also gives him a taste of the success he craves.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 319a2b89be

[RayThom]

Lord Dampnut's "success" will most likely explode into a threefer.

I wonder what ordnance he's planning to use on his maniacal clone in North Korea?

Brace yourself... incoming!

[rubato]

I think those of us who oppose Mr T for all the right reasons should applaud when he gets something right. If the intelligence that Assad was responsible for the chemical attack is correct, then bombing the airstrip whence they came seems reasonable. If dropping MOAB gets rid of 100 or even 50 ISIS type without civilian casualties then it seems reasonable to me. The fact that he (or the military's) have got a couple of things right does not alter my basic belief that the guy is a fucking idiot who should be nowhere near the presidency. Even Scary Spicer gets a few things right.

I agree but wish to point out that planning for this attack began under Obama. Which is probably why Trump gives credit to the military rather than himself.


yrs,
rubato

[Big RR]

Which is probably why Trump gives credit to the military rather than himself.

No, I think he does that to avoid being blamed if there are any problems; he never wants to take any blame.

[Sue U]

Which is probably why Trump gives credit to the military rather than himself.

No, I think he does that to avoid being blamed if there are any problems; he never wants to take any blame.

This, exactly. When he was asked yesterday if he had actually authorized use of the bomb he evaded giving a direct answer so he could duck any personal responsibility and blame the military if anything untoward had occurred -- the same way he shirked responsibility and blamed the military for that disastrous clusterfuck in Yemen.

[rubato]

I don't believe that Trump could resist taking credit for something which was so widely popular on the left and the right and did so only because it knew it would actually reflect better on Obama.

In Yemen, IIR, he didn't say he did not authorize it he just said that dog shit smelled like a rose.

yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

did so only because it knew it would actually reflect better on Obama.

That's a ridiculous explanation that doesn't track at all with Trump's behavior...

Trump had no problem whatsoever trying to take credit for the January job creation numbers, even though he didn't even become President until the month was 2/3 over...

He did this even though the whole country knew that he didn't become President until January 20th...

You really think he'd be worried about Obama getting credit for dropping the MOAB on ISIS in Afghanistan, when a far smaller percentage of the public would be aware that the military planning for the attack dated back before his Presidency?

Big RR and Sue have got the far better and more logical explanation...

Plus it really would have been impossible even for Trump to claim that he had personally signed off on the bomb drop, since it would have leaked so quickly that he hadn't...

[ex-khobar Andy]

Interesting poll numbers from the Washington post:

In 2013, when Barack Obama was president, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that only 22 percent of Republicans supported the U.S. launching missile strikes against Syria in response to Bashar al-Assad using chemical weapons against civilians.

A new Post-ABC poll finds that 86 percent of Republicans support Donald Trump’s decision to launch strikes on Syria for the same reason. Only 11 percent are opposed.

-- Overall, a bare 51 percent majority of U.S. adults support the president’s action in our new poll. In 2013, just 30 percent supported strikes. That swing is driven primarily by GOP partisans. For context, 37 percent of Democrats back Trump’s missile strikes. In 2013, 38 percent of Democrats supported Obama’s plan. That is well within the margin of error.

Independents are split evenly, with 46 percent backing Trump’s decision and 45 percent opposing it.

Remember that the Obama-era poison gas incident in Ghouta killed several hundred and maybe close to 1000 people; and barely 1 in 5 Republicans supported the idea of some sort of retaliatory strike. Then when 80 or so people were killed in the Trump-era Khan Shaykun poison gas attack, 5 of 6 Republicans supported the strike. So it seems that faced with the same facts, Democrats and Independents are very consistent in their attitude while Republicans shape their response to whoever made the decision.

LJ you are not a typical Republican. But I think we knew that.

[BoSoxGal]

No bombing while black!!

[Lord Jim]

LJ you are not a typical Republican.

Yeah, I'm a Reagan Republican, which nowadays makes me a RINO...

[ex-khobar Andy]

Yes one of most personal crises I have with Trump is that he makes me look back fondly on Reagan and Bush 2. Almost in the same way that Thatcher made me regret (not really, but almost) the days I spent marching in the seventies chanting 'Heath out! Heath out!'

[rubato]

Bush II will always be the worst president of the previous century. Trump has a lock on "worst president of all time".


yrs,
rubato

[ex-khobar Andy]

Er - Bush 2 was this century IIRC.

[RayThom]

Er - Bush 2 was this century IIRC.

Well, technically the 21st century Anno Domini began on January 1, 2001.

On December 12, 2000, SCOTUS declared Dubya to be president-elect and that was still in the 20th century. Of course George wasn't officially sworn in until January 20, 2001 but for all intents and purposes he was widely assumed to be president prior to January 1.

That's my take and I'm sticking with it.

[Lord Jim]

Er - Bush 2 was this century IIRC.

Well, you know math ain't rube's strong suit....