Trump Foreign Policy

[BigRedBuster]

Here is what is wrong with American politics.

 

The amount of people I have seen on social media (or here) that are getting more glee out of citing 4+ year old DJT tweets advising against Syrian involvement and enjoy "being right" is ludicrous. The same people who seemingly don't want to look at the pictures of dead children in the streets of Syria. Who haven't seen the videos of children gasping for breath as the sufficate. This is what Obama wanted too - can we at least agree that that is true?

 

We'd rather gloat over 5 year old tweets than try to constructively rationalize a national security/humanitarian efforts decision.

 

Zero patience for people like that. This, along with the nuclear invoke today (Surprise, I can criticize both sides of the aisle) is exactly why American politics will implode and collapse before I die (next 60-70 years?), and we are screwed when that happens.

With all due respect, I believe you are missing the point.

 

I don't see anyone "getting glee out of citing 4+ year old DJT tweets".

 

However, ironically, your post does point out what is wrong with American politics. When the hypocrisy is pointed out, the conversation goes to pointing out the hypocrisy instead of the hypocrisy itself. So, instead of having a discussion about the issues and how they relate to points in history through various administrations, the conversation is centered around....should someone be bringing up 4+ year old tweets.

[knapplc]

A Syrian-American chimes in with some good thoughts.

 

 

Here's the text of those tweets if you don't want to sift through the replies mess:

 

 

1) Many of you have asked for my thoughts about President Trump’s unexpected decision to launch cruise missile attacks on Syrian airfields.

2) My thoughts can not be easily compressed into a tweet, or even a series of tweets, so bear with me. This will be long.

3) I recommend you read my Ringer article on the horrors of the Assad regime, and Obama’s mistake in ignoring them.

4) On the surface, Trump’s decision to launch attacks is remarkable, the boldest and potentially best decision of his presidency so far. BUT

5) I have some serious reservations about this decision. The first is the sheer hypocrisy of Trump itself, and the GOP establishment,

6) in supporting in 2017 what they opposed in 2013. As angry as I was and am with Obama’s inaction after Assad gassed his people, Congress

7) was reluctant to support military action in 2013, which led to a Putin-brokered deal to eliminate Assad’s chemical weapons instead.

8) (A deal which, as Tuesday’s gas attack proved, Assad never intended to honor). As with Obamacare, an idea which was originally espoused

9) by Republicans (using force to depose tyrants) was rejected by many in the GOP because it was proposed by Obama.

10) (Here I praise John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who were clear-eyed and vocal about what a mistake inaction was):

11) And let’s not forget that, as everyone retweeting him from 2013 knows, Trump himself was VERY much against intervening in Syria then.

12) Second, I’m skeptical as to what motivated this attack. Genuine concern for Syrian refugees? Where was that concern when he banned them?

13) I worry a decision made this quickly was either made emotionally, without thinking through the long-term consequences,

14) or politically, in an attempt to distract America from Trump’s domestic issues. Neither motivation would augur well going forward.

15) Third, I worry as to what the end-game is here. The moderate Syrian opposition has been almost annihilated; unlike in 2013, they’re

16) not strong enough to overcome Assad even without his air force. So if Assad remains in power, I don’t know where this goes from here.

17) Fourth, and again unlike in 2013, the Russian army is basically fully embedded with the Assad regime,

18) meaning there is a non-zero chance that this leads to a WW3-level escalation. That would be A Very Bad Thing.

19) I think those odds are slim, but I also think those odds assume rational actors on all sides. I’m not certain that’s the case here.

20) One scenario may be that this attack is an end unto itself, and once the Syrian air force is neutralized, no further

21) immediate attacks are planned. In which case this might have been simply a case of muscle-flexing theater designed for PR gain only.

22) If it’s not theater-and Putin responds with force-I’m not optimistic Trump will outmaneuver him without escalating things dangerously.

23) But, in a vacuum, destroying Assad’s runways is *exactly* the initial response the Syrian opposition has asked of America for years.

24) Most of Assad's worst atrocities - chemical attacks, barrel bombs dropped on civilian populations - rely on his air force to carry out.

25) These missile attacks are completely justifiable in light of the evidence that Assad again used chemical weapons to gas his own people

26) in violation of the agreement he made in 2013 to destroy them all. It would be hard for me to not support this decision in a vacuum.

27) If this is followed by setting up protective no-fly zones to shelter innocent Syrians fleeing the violence, so much the better.

28) My fervent hope is this attack means either that Trump is not a total Putin stooge, or that even Putin has tired of Assad’s atrocities.

29) Both of those outcomes would be Good Things. But this could also lead to Very Bad Things.

30) And it’s also possible that the outcome will be Not Much Of Anything, if - like Bill Clinton’s attack on a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant

31) in 1998 - it’s a one-off event whose impact will be mostly limited to the news cycle.

32) So I am withholding judgment on this for now. I am optimistic – and terrified. I am incredibly skeptical that the Trump adminstration

33) will navigate a very complex geopolitical issue and make things better, rather than worse, for the Syrian people.

34) But if they do, I will be incredibly happy, and incredibly happy to give President Trump credit. That’s a big if.

35) And sorry to beat a dead horse, but this proves yet again how terrible President Obama’s policy of inaction in Syria was.

36) Obama cut a deal with Assad to avoid airstrikes - and 4 years, 100000s of murders, and millions of refugees later, they happened anyway.

37) End of tweetstorm.

 

Being Syrian, and close to the atrocities being done there by Assad, he is, of course, angry that Obama didn't intervene militarily. It's hard to say he's wrong. It's also hard to say he's right in that an American intervention under Obama would have "fixed" anything as of today. Recent American interventions in the Middle East have not turned out well for America. He is also not unbiased - those are, presumably, his family and friends dying in Syria. He has a vested interest.

 

But I think his criticisms of Obama and Trump are fair, and I think his concerns about Trump's motivation and plan are dead on. He's scared, and I think a rational person should be. There are dozens of ways this scenario can end badly.

[BigRedBuster]

Russia has come out and condemned the air attacks. It would be interesting if Trump would publicly point out to Russia that Assad didn't honor their agreement to destroy the chemical weapons. Not saying that would be a good or bad move. Just saying it would be interesting to see Russia's response.

[The Dude]

27 is a key point to me.

[Atbone95]

How do you feel about Syrian refugees, At one?

1) I think we need to be doing more. If that is on our end to start figuring out how to do some vetting, then f'ing sh#t or get off the pot.

2) I think there is a lot of validity to the fear of bringing in people in the area if we're unsure of who they are. I am okay with holding the current administration's stance until we figure out #1. But dear God figure it out quickly, please.

 

 

I agree with your general sentiment but it's interesting that people showing his hypocrisy upset you (Assad has been killing scores of civilians for years now so it's relevant that Trump did a sudden 180) but you have no comment on Republicans telling Obama they would vote no on a strike on Syria's airfields. That's worse, and it's done by Congress. Not FB friends.

 

Come on now, you didn't even ask me about that. Don't characterize me not having a comment without asking. Yes, that was f'd up.

 

 

 

Here is what is wrong with American politics.

With all due respect, I believe you are missing the point.

 

I don't see anyone "getting glee out of citing 4+ year old DJT tweets".

 

However, ironically, your post does point out what is wrong with American politics. When the hypocrisy is pointed out, the conversation goes to pointing out the hypocrisy instead of the hypocrisy itself. So, instead of having a discussion about the issues and how they relate to points in history through various administrations, the conversation is centered around....should someone be bringing up 4+ year old tweets.

 

But... am I just not following you? I literally said we need to be discussing the issues, not the tweets... like, word for word...

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

Here is what is wrong with American politics.

With all due respect, I believe you are missing the point.

 

I don't see anyone "getting glee out of citing 4+ year old DJT tweets".

 

However, ironically, your post does point out what is wrong with American politics. When the hypocrisy is pointed out, the conversation goes to pointing out the hypocrisy instead of the hypocrisy itself. So, instead of having a discussion about the issues and how they relate to points in history through various administrations, the conversation is centered around....should someone be bringing up 4+ year old tweets.

 

But... am I just not following you? I literally said we need to be discussing the issues, not the tweets... like, word for word...

 

But, all the tweets did was point out hypocrisy which is a very valid point to make. Instead of talking about the hypocrisy that is a major problem in our politics, you ridiculed the use of pointing out the tweets.

 

Here's the real issue that the tweets are a very valid point of evidence of. Many times, something could or would be done if not for major push back from people for political purposes. Back when these tweets were written, maybe Obama would have done something more if there wasn't political pushback. NOW....since Trump is sitting in the big boys chair, his attitude all of a sudden changes.

 

The only other possible explanation is that Trump was absolutely F***ing clueless before this week and he has been spouting off about stuff he doesn't know anything about all along.....which is a major problem in and of itself when you think about all the other stuff he has been spewing crap about.

 

So, which is it....has he just been playing politics all along and he really didn't believe what he was writing in these tweets back then? Or, was/is he friggen clueless and has had no clue what he has been ranting about all this time?

 

 

And...I guess if we aren't to look back at past tweets of Trump's, are we to totally ignore anything political people have said over the last 4-5 years? Is that really what Republicans want to agree to?

[knapplc]

Most of us can multitask well enough to discuss the Syrian issue, and at the same time discuss the hypocritical stance Trump has taken on this issue over the years.

[Danny Bateman]

AtBone, I very much agree with your stance on accepting more Syrian refugees. Thanks for the level-headed take.

 

I truly think Trump's campaign demonization of poor, scared, Syrian refugees seeking shelter from a humanitarian crisis as "unknowns pouring into our country [seeking to do us harm] and we have no idea who they are" as one of the most vile, deplorable lies of his campaign.

 

I get the sentiment of wanting safety. But how many times must Landlord post that miles long "Immigration Process" diagram before we all agree it's extremely extensive?

[BigRedBuster]

I've heard over and over again that Trump "tells it like it is".

 

Meanwhile, when Obama was close to bombing Syria, he sends these tweets out talking about how horrible of a decision it would be.

 

THEN....he constantly talks about how weak Obama was. THEN....he blames Obama for not being tougher on Assad and that was the cause of the chemical weapons attack.

 

NOW...he bombs Syria within the first 100 days of taking office.

 

 

 

It baffles me how someone can reconcile all of this and think it's logical.

 

 

PS.....this is not aimed at Atbone. It's a general comment about political discussion on issues like this.

[zoogs]

1) I think we need to be doing more. If that is on our end to start figuring out how to do some vetting, then f'ing sh#t or get off the pot.

2) I think there is a lot of validity to the fear of bringing in people in the area if we're unsure of who they are. I am okay with holding the current administration's stance until we figure out #1. But dear God figure it out quickly, please.

Here's my only issue with this: have we not figured it out? Were they not undergoing an extensive vetting process already?

 

The people who propagate this "extreme vetting" line -- let's accept for a moment that this is not Trump's personal core belief, as I don't want to alienate you -- they do this as a lazy justification for punitive anti-Muslim policy, including to immigrants or travelers from these countries.

 

I know and you know that this is a humanitarian crisis and that these are people...real, suffering people, and America should be doing more to help them. Ergo, let's scrutinize closely the stuff that people who don't believe this at all like to promote as fact.

[teachercd]

I'm trying to figure out Al-Assad's motive to do this when he did.

 

Is it tied to Trump? Let me throw out a totally unsubstantiated theory.

 

What it Assad really doesn't want to be "friends" with the US due to people who support him don't like us? Trump comes out and says things that makes people think he wants to start cozying up to him like the Russians have. He needs to do something to turn Trump into an enemy and he knows the vast majority of Americans are not going to support troops in Syria.

 

So...let's do something that forces Trump's hand to openly condemn Assad.

 

Again...totally unsubstantiated and a wild ass guess.

 

One thing about this I do agree with is that at best Assad doesn't give a flying rip if the US supports him or not.

I almost think that is his motive...to show he doesn't give AF

[zoogs]

On the topic of Obama's "red line" in 2013 ... if I recall, he threatened to conduct airstrikes but this was averted when the multilateral deal was reached to disarm the chemical weapons stockpile. He maintained his posture towards Assad (i.e, removing him) and no further attacks like that occurred during his presidency.

 

He didn't actually remove Assad, either, and that came with a toll to Syrians who have every right to be bitter towards him. At the same time, Russia wants to keep Assad in power in this absurd proxy war playing out at Syrians' expense. This dynamic has not changed and it's still an unsolved problem. Further, if the U.S. succeeds in muscling out Russia and removing Assad, what happens next is a mystery, especially if the U.S. is not committed to maintaining an occupying presence. Such a presence may breed enmity more than it brings stability, if history is any guide.

 

Furthermore, Republican Congressmen who warned President Obama about the legality of conducting war without their consent were right on that score. This is even beyond the scope of the Unending Terror War. There are many fair questions to be asked here, a there would have been had Obama actually gone through with strikes.

 

To me it's not clear that striking at Assad in response to this event is the wrong move. It's also not clear that it is the right one. These are the hawkish instincts of both Trump and Clinton on full display and that's an area of each candidate about which I was pretty leery. And as others have noted, Trump's about face on the matter raises serious, serious questions about his approach.

[knapplc]

The Syrians can be bitter toward Obama that he didn't remove Assad, but that is not America's role in the world. We can't be the world's police force.

 

And speaking of hypocritical, when we do act as the world's police force, we're denounced as American imperialists.

 

Bottom line is, Syria is a humanitarian problem, not a United States problem.

[Danny Bateman]

It's gaslighting. Pure gaslighting.

 

Trump would probably lead you to believe he was never against intervention in 2013, or that Obama DIDN'T ask Congress to authorize military action. All the GOP pols would also probably like to play revisionist history as well and pretend they supported him in 2013.

 

Look no further than conservative stalwart Jason Chaffetz:

 

2013:

 

Now:

 

Again, it really seems like a whole lot of them view Trump's actions through a different filter than Obama's, and treated him accordingly.

[BigRedBuster]

The Syrians can be bitter toward Obama that he didn't remove Assad, but that is not America's role in the world. We can't be the world's police force.

 

And speaking of hypocritical, when we do act as the world's police force, we're denounced as American imperialists.

 

Bottom line is, Syria is a humanitarian problem, not a United States problem.

I completely 100% emphatically agree with this.

 

I am NOT in favor of the US going in and "Fixing" this.