Now what and where does it go from here?

Where are the positives in bombing Syria?

Sort of diminishes the story that Russia had hacked the election to ensure that Trump would win.

Kind of cuts the feet beneath the Democrats since they are the type of people who actually think a purposeless attack on somebody we don’t like can actually achieve something.

Maybe reduces the use of gas as an offensive weapon in a theatre of war against civilian populations.

Seems to have genuinely upset the Iranians so at least there is something that has been achieved. That there are others that have said good words I discount – such as Britain, Israel and for heaven’s sake, Australia. They are allies and therefore are unlikely to have said a word of criticism in public.

It may have been popular enough to have brought some redemption to Trump and may lead to some improvement in the polls for both him and the Republicans.

It puts everyone on notice that Trump will actually take action rather than let things lie.

Here are the negatives.

It reminds me how lacking in common sense the foreign policy of democratic nations have become. If the same people who support this kind of action are the same as those who put up “Refugees Welcome” signs then the ability to reason about consequences is severely impaired. We are dealing with national interests and protecting our borders and way of life. This is as stupid as “the war on terror” when it is, as Trump used to say, a war on radical Islamic terrorism. Now we are in the midst of a battle to remove chemical weapons from battles. That’s fine as a tenth level issue. There are plenty of ways to kill people, even children. To wallow in how awful it is to see people die this way rather than in some other way is ridiculous. The Allied bombing of Germany killed many many children. It is not a primary war aim, or even secondary, to start worrying about the particular way one side is attacking and killing the other. The aim should be to win or get out. What exactly was Trump trying to do? Completely lost on me.

It utterly clouds the battle lines of the Middle East. Who are we with? Who do we want to see win? They are all repulsive but if the aim is not to see the Islamists seen off as a first priority then I have no idea why we are involved at all. It had occurred to me that there might be some kind of rapprochement between the Russians and US on this particular issue. Russia is no longer an ideological enemy. We have conflicting interests, which mainly focus on European security. But in the Middle East, how are our interests and theirs in fundamental conflict? ISIS first and then we can worry about the rest.

It clouds my initial hope that Trump would become a man who saw the long view and could push back on his enemies. Instead, it makes me think he may be no better than the man (and woman) in the street who bases such momentous decisions on his “feelings”. Really, one can genuinely be sickened at the way the war is being conducted, but national leaders should not be led around by sentiments such as these:

Using a deadly nerve agent, Assad choked out the lives of helpless men, women and children. It was a slow and brutal death for so many. Even beautiful babies were cruelly murdered in this very barbaric attack. No child of God should ever suffer such horror. Tonight I ordered a targeted military strike on the airfield in Syria from where the chemical attack was launched.

If you want to do something about limiting chemical warfare, this is probably not the time and certainly not the place to do it. If this is what Trump is about, he will be not become anywhere near the president I was hoping for. Better than Hillary would ever have been, but not the president I was hoping he would be.

It was thus interesting to read Georgina Downer’s guest post which really is an example of emotionalism without any obvious sense of the broader policy outcome to be achieved. Really, how beyond serious sense is this:

So, struck by the tragic images of dead and dying children in Khan Sheikun in Syria, the next day an emotional Trump announced to the world that, as US President, he had a responsibility to respond to the attack that crossed “many, many lines, beyond a red line”.

The last thing in the world I am looking for is a president driven by sentimental nonsense. Did no one foresee any of this?

Kremlin tells U.S. it’s ‘one step from war’ as Trump warns he will hit Syria AGAIN after his attack on Russia’s ally Assad triggers fears of World War Three

Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev denounced Donald Trump

Vladimir Putin has now diverted warship the Admiral Grigorovich to protect the Syrian coast

And now what and where does it go from here?

A COUPLE OF FURTHER QUESTIONS: So let me put it like this: just exactly what are America’s war aims in Syria? And how will I be able to tell when those war aims have been achieved? Here the issue is stated in the way I think of it and the kind of questions that need to be answered before sending the military into conflict:

The outstanding politico-military lesson is an old one: that one clarify one’s aim before one embarks upon a military operation; ruthlessly and objectively dissect and analyse where it will lead, what is to be gained from it, and what one will be faced with when it is over.

This entry was posted in American politics, Ethics and morality, International. Bookmark the permalink.

116 Responses to Now what and where does it go from here?

  1. BorisG

    Russian independent press (of which there is not much left but still) is suggesting that Russians decided not to shot down any of the missiles, and failed to warn Assad of the coming attack suggests that behind the rhetoric there is a tacit cooperation between the US and Russiam with USA bombing ISIS and russia providing ground support. Perhaps without Asad.

  2. GD

    It puts everyone on notice that Trump will actually take action rather than let things lie.

    And that is a huge plus. Trump means business, no matter what the policy area. The days of being led by a milquetoast, apologetic ‘leader’ are over.

  3. Texas Jack

    Trump is attempting to resurrect the meaning of some long lost adjectives. Resolute. Decisive. Reliable. Adjectives Obama thoroughly debased.

    The US doesn’t have to be the worlds policeman. Sure. But the world is infinitely safer when it is, when it is projecting power effectively and signalling clear intent. By acting so quickly on the gas attack Trump lowered the probability of future potential military action in the Middle East and elsewhere somewhat. We can debate the degrees, but if the nation with by far the worlds biggest military arsenal presents a quivering mass the squandered loss in terms of weakening the projecting power of US force is too massive to keep repeating.

    Obama played the dumbest hand with US power, continually hoping he could keep the insatiable need for decisive force off the front pages of the NY Times. No boots on the ground. Oh no, that would be to repeat the mistakes of Bush. Tick. No Tomahawk attacks. That’d seem too similar to Clinton wagging the dog when his girlfriend is in court explaining cum-stains on dresses. Tick. How the Nobel Prize winner then quietly got away with killing more people via drone attacks than any human in history is worthy of a serious boost to your obsessions with media foul play and bias; a post for another day perhaps Steve? But he got away with it, and in the process demonstrated as clear as night follows day that when push came to shove the US would be as weak as piss. It’s hardly the stuff of great legacies. The cost is nigh incalculable.

  4. I am the Walras, Equilibrate, and Price-Take

    The last thing in the world I am looking for is a president driven by sentimental nonsense. Did no one foresee any of this?

    Availability cascade. A really dumb way to make policy. Recall Angela Merkel’s responding to pictures of a dead toddler on a beach by throwing open Europe’s borders and welfare systems to all comers. Now Trump responds to pictures of dead toddlers by illegally bombing Syrian airfields. ‘Too stupid to survive’ is the phrase that comes to mind.

    And now what and where does it go from here?

    That’s what terrifies me. Trump’s impulsiveness leaves him open to emotional manipulation of all kinds from all sources. ‘But look, Mr President, what a horrible picture! What horrible people! Let’s do something now!’

    Syria, Ukraine, the Baltic States, the Persian Gulf, North Korea, the South China Sea. Flashpoints abound.

    I walked into work stunned at the news of the missile attacks. We’re in a new and terrifying world now. And we’re only two months into his presidency.

  5. BorisG

    May people said it is a watershed moment, and I wonder if it also signals the end of the alt-right (or nationalists) romance with Trump. Trump has always been non-ideological, and his association with alt-right’s always looked largely incidental.

    Now both Le Pen and Faraj have condemned Trump’s bombings and so did the string of domestic ideologues. we shall see of estrangement of Bannon follows. It will show that common sense (and common people) prevail.

  6. BorisG

    correction: we shall see IF estrangement of Bannon follows.

  7. Howard Hill

    I always thought Trump was a used car salesman, after this I’m convinced. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

    The world is one fooked up place at present, from its leaders to the dumb shits that vote for them. Prepare accordingly, it’s not looking good!

  8. GD

    Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

    Not quite. This new boss may actually get the job done. In the Middle East, in the USA and across the world, as best his reach is. We should be thankful for Trump.

  9. The Vengeful Ghost of Fiona Watson's Moggie

    BorisG
    #2349441, posted on April 9, 2017 at 2:16 am
    Many people said it is a watershed moment

    Certainly was for me. ‘God help us’ is what I was thinking.

  10. Anyone else had enough of “tragic images”, “disturbing footage” and “shocking optics” courtesy of our garbage media? We need to know who, what, when, how and where.

    Really, it’s time to insist on hard proof, and the word of McCain’s White Helmet head-loppers, “our own people on the ground” and “intelligence” – all unspecified, of course – is not proof.

    Turkey, NATO, the Gulf States, Al Nusra, Al Qaeda, ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood and the garbage media have too much to gain from these “tragic images”…and Assad, not known for stupidity, has everything to lose. That doesn’t mean he didn’t do it. It just means we should be asking for hard proof.

    Are we kids, or what?

  11. MD

    Disturbingly, this looks like an attempt at distraction and at making his presidency look decisive. The problem is that it is also distracting attention from his domestic policy successes, such as clearing the way for Keystone, Dakota and offshore oil and gas exploration. Trump said during the campaign something along the lines of getting America out of stupid wars. He should do that and concentrate on making the US energy independent and then get on with solving America’s domestic problems, such as infrastructure, illegals, research etc. He needs to remember that he won the presidency on an ‘America first’ domestic policy agenda.

  12. Chester Draws

    “Getting the job done” — what job is that, pray tell?

    Just hitting out randomly is not his job. Being Israel and Turkey’s stooge (they stand to gain the most from Syria in ruins) isn’t his job, and that’s putting the best possible spin on it.

  13. Hadyn

    Is it not important that the US holds a country to account on agreements reached about the production, storage and use of chemical weapons? Is the US simply to be a spectator in these matters? Isn’t the world more prepared to listen to the US if it acts rather than nags?
    Where to from here?
    Let’s wait and see. But I can tell you this; Assad will not use chemical weapons while Trump is in the White House. And he now has the attention of a few others around the world.

  14. C. Paul Barreira

    Now we await the return of one of western media’s favorite terms: quagmire.

  15. Solitarius

    For some clues on Trump’s behaviour investigate the key influences that are moving beneath him.

    The Generals, Kushner and Ivanka are on the way up.

    Bannon and Priebus are on the way down.

    It’s a poorly kept secret Mr. and Mr’s Kushner are not the friend of Republicans. That is a fact! They are New York democrats.

    If there is disaster written all over this bombing intervention, it comes back to the underlying powerplay. It comes back to Trump not keeping a proper separation between work and family.

    As for Georgina, she makes an appearance in Kensington (near Stoke Lodge) from time to time. Outward appearances do not suggest intelligence and sophistication. Another case of family ties?

  16. classical_hero

    Let’s not forget that Assad is currently in charge of nothing and will be gone after all this is said and done. It’s not like they don’t have the technology to track what’s going on in Syria. Just because the White Helmets are scum, doesn’t prove this didn’t happen.

  17. Malcolm

    So when Trump promises not to get involved Steve Kates praises him. When he strikes Syria Kates praises Trump.

    Kates is Trump’s leading acolyte. It doesn’t matter what Trump does or says, Kates will always support him. That’s what I call loyalty, even if misplaced and irrational.

  18. RobK

    Trump’s action is a strong signal to the inept UN.

  19. Razor

    I think opposing all that Islam stands for in the political continium that it is does not mean that any action which detracts from the destruction of ISIS is morally incorrect – that is; bombing Syria.

    Steve, there are very distinct moral reasons to do what Trump ordered, assuming the evidence is conclusive regarding Assads chemical warfare. I think Trump does have the ability to assess the intel regarding this.
    I am not with you on this one. It willbe seen by the conservative doubters that this action strengthens his command of both the military and the Intell services = all good for democracy as well as sound morality.

  20. sfw

    I’m in two minds about it. If you really want to stop the ‘Refugees’ and many of the Syrians are, they need to be safe at home. Letting them settle in your country and at the same time allowing Assad to continue his war is just what Assad wants, he gets a win win, the people he doesn’t like go away and he gets to kill those who are left. If their country is safe, they will stay home. I don’t know that this is the right way to do that but there doesn’t seem to be many other options escept letting things go on as they were.

    There was a reason that there were so many ‘Strongmen’ in the mid east and other hell holes. They could control their mad populations and keep a semblance of peace. Saddam may have been mad and his sons evil but whatever they did to their people wasn’t as bad as has happened since he was deposed. The world was a better place when Dictators like Saddam and Gaddafi were sort of under control.

  21. candy

    For approval and better polling and to quash the Russian rumours. Notice the staged picture around the war table similar to obama’s when they watched the execution of obama, a momentous occasion. Let’s not look too deep for motives.

  22. cynical1

    A warning shot.

    China just noticed that Kim may be next.

    “I made an offer they couldn’t refuse”.

    The ME?

    Shia v Sunni

    Al Queda v Al Nusra v ISIS.

    Turkey V Syria V Kurds.

    SA V Iran

    Everyone V Israel.

    Meh. Never ending shitfight. Even God didn’t manage to keep the peace…

  23. RobK

    Sfw,
    I know what you mean and it shows how the ineptness of the UN has allowed the situation to deteriorate. The UN, largely sponsored by the US, makes all manor of treaties but fails to have an effective enforcement mechanism, consequently, those who flaunt the treaties are at an advantage to those hamstrung by them. This can have the effect of exacerbating the power of tyrany; a case of good intent doing harm.

  24. Combine Dave

    I’m in two minds about it. If you really want to stop the ‘Refugees’ and many of the Syrians are, they need to be safe at home. Letting them settle in your country and at the same time allowing Assad to continue his war is just what Assad wants, he gets a win win, the people he doesn’t like go away and he gets to kill those who are left. If their country is safe, they will stay home

    I don’t think you thought this through.

    Will allowing ISIS to reverse Assad’s win result in more or less refugees?

  25. Craig

    I am Walrus……

    “That’s what terrifies me.”

    Yea, I’m sure it does, it’s just soooooooo terrifying!! What a cock statement.

  26. RobK

    “Will allowing ISIS to reverse Assad’s win result in more or less refugees?”
    Open question.
    Will gas attacks recruit in ISIL favour?

  27. Eyrie

    Malcolm, if you think Kates is praising Trump’s Syrian attack, your reading comprehension is sadly lacking.

  28. JB5

    Apparently, and you can’t make his stuff up, it wasn’t Donald Trump’s feelings that led to the strike. It was Ivanka’s. And she convinced him to hit Assad because she was “heartbroken” by the images. Now that still makes him impulsive, and emotional, but it’s even worse than a one issue event. If his “princess” can talk him into this, she can talk him into anything. He apparently can’t deny her anything, and as you’ve seen her stocks, and her husbands, keep rising daily, for no good reason, while the stock of those who got him elected in the first place continue to lower. What does Conway do these days? And Bannon, well…

    Whoever said Ivanka and Kushner are New York Democrats is spot on.

    And just why the hell was Kushner in Iraq while all this was going down? “White House Office of American Innovation?” Actually does that mean he’s some sort of political hitman? Very Sovietesque.

    The technical aspects of the raid are simple enough, but the politics? It’s a dirty business, but we all know that, don’t we?

  29. Roger

    It may have been popular enough to have brought some redemption to Trump and may lead to some improvement in the polls for both him and the Republicans.

    It will be interesting to see what the polling tells us about Trump’s domestic approval. The only one I’ve seen thus far – RCP – has his disapproval rating up by 4 points after the attack. He needs to re-focus on domestic issues or his political capital is going to diminish rather quickly.

  30. RobK

    JB5,
    I’m not sure I’ll swallow the Ivanka bit but there’s no getting around the accuracy of your last sentence.

  31. Ray

    If you want to do something about limiting chemical warfare, this is probably not the time and certainly not the place to do it.

    I would suggest that the when and where of dealing with chemical warfare is exactly when and where they are used. This is an issue of deterrence and the only way we can effectively deter rogue states from the use of weapons of mass destruction then it is too demonstrate that you are prepared to strike hard when and where they are used.

    It is unlikely that Assad will use chemical weapons again and so Trump’s strike is exactly what was required.

  32. Barry

    So Steve, how many kids should die before you act ???

  33. Harald

    And now what and where does it go from here?

    Assad is still there, ISIS is still losing, there is no escalation and there won’t be any. Putin is not going to risk his own core interests to help a satellite puppet-regime to power – maybe. If the missiles had been aimed at targets in Russia, it may have been a different story, but that is not the case.

    The Syrian question is not even to Assad, or not to Assad? Given the likely alternative, it’s not really a question. It’s Assad. The question is more: how to make Assad an acceptable outcome? These sorts of strikes put a very high price tag on atrocities committed by Assad’s regime. He won’t be doing this again anytime soon.

    For a war to end, an outcome has to be achieved which is acceptable to the main players who were not defeated. This strike has made clear that the US is (willing to be) a main player. And it has pointed out what is not acceptable.

    In that sense it has brought some much needed clarity to a confusing situation where US assets are deployed, but not or hardly used. There was a perceived lack of willingness to use them and that weakness – like all weakness – provoked Russian military involvement in the first place.

    It was Obama’s weakness that escalated this conflict that first left ISIS unchecked and second provoked Russian involvement. It is this strike that will help de-escalate it over the coming months as the others in the conflict have to adjust to the changed circumstances and accept the new standard of what is an acceptable outcome the US have now set. (Or else do what?)

    And as far as Putin is concerned: Look, if he really wants a war (also on his own turf), so be it. In that case he knows what to do next.

  34. RobK

    Ray,
    My thoughts are along that line too.

  35. And as far as Putin is concerned: Look, if he really wants a war (also on his own turf), so be it. In that case he knows what to do next.

    If you listen to what Putin has been saying for a decade, neocons have painted him into a corner with advanced weaponry right on his door step. Putin has been expressing a lot of concern for a long time about warlike stance of the US in eastern Europe. Obama just added fuel to the fire with this close containment policy and incessant interference in Eastern European politics.

    Putin is not interested in starting a war, his personal fortune is at stake.

  36. jupes

    Calm down Steve. Trump is just doing what he does best – communicating.

    His main message is that he is not Obama. Leaders around the world will take him seriously, while as you say, it will now be a lot harder for the Democrats to continue with their stupid ‘Russia helped Trump win the election‘ bullshit.

    I don’t believe for a minute that Trump was emotional. I reckon he would care for dead Syrians as much as I do.

  37. RobK

    I suspect Trump acted on solid military advice, even Hilary has lamented that they should have taken action against airfields as a response to gas attacks.

  38. Marcus

    Instead, it makes me think he may be no better than the man (and woman) in the street who bases such momentous decisions on his “feelings”.

    I’ve got to be honest, I’m enjoying this. Trump ran his campaign as a “gut feel” kind of guy. While the serious, slightly nerdy policy wonks in the GOP put out their ten-point plans for dealing with Obamacare, ISIS, and everything else, Trump was the guy who was light on specifics, said to the American people “Trust me, I’m a doer” and even that he liked being unpredictable because it kept his enemies off balance. Remember that?

    And now remember how you dismissed anyone who raised objections to Trump on these grounds as being a “sunshine conservative,” or a closet Hilary lover?

    Shoe’s on the other foot now, isn’t it!

    Anyway, for what it’s worth I think he did the right thing here. Barack Obama announced, rightly or wrongly, that the use of chemical weapons was a “red line” that America would not let Assad cross – and then stood by and did nothing when Assad did just that. Trump isn’t Obama, but he’s still the President and he’s responsible for making good on America’s threats, even (or especially) when the previous one didn’t. Now, without putting boots on the ground or committing America to another war, he’s sent the message that America’s got teeth again, and good, because we’ve seen over the last eight years what the world looks like with a toothless America.

    And no, I was never a Hilary lover.

  39. Confused Old Misfit

    Good God Kates! What a lot of pearl clutching Nancy Boy nonsense.

  40. Baldrick

    In an ideal world the United Nations would have taken swift and decisive action against the gas attack on civilians.

    The fact they didn’t says more about them, than Trump.

  41. Leo G

    If you want to do something about limiting chemical warfare, this is probably not the time and certainly not the place to do it.

    I doubt that the US action was primarily intended to limit Syrian use of chemical warfare.
    My view is that US attack was prompted by what has recently been happening at Shayrat, and the Sarin attack on Shaykhun by Assad’s forces played into American hands.
    Zabadani, near the Lenanon border, is the logistical hub by which Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps supplies Hezbollah in Lebanon and is used by Iran-backed Iraqi militias. It also is the key base used against IS jihadists in Homs Province to the immediate north.
    The Shayrat Air Base provides air cover for those ops.
    There has recently been major construction at the Shayrat Air Base and the Russians have been basing Ka-52 Alligator and Mi-28N Night Hunter, Mi-24 and Mi-35 attack helicopters.
    Assad over-reached and Trump slapped him down.

  42. dweezy2176

    It is unlikely that Assad will use chemical weapons again and so Trump’s strike is exactly what was required.

    Assuming Assad is in control of all of his military is becoming a big IF. If he isn’t and rogue elements are running their own show then another incident seems highly likely just to push the envelope .. I’m a out & out “Donald” supporter but think he either should have waited for all the intel or release enough info, publically, to suggest there is no doubt it was done as an Assad directive ..

  43. dweezy2176

    In an ideal world the United Nations would have taken swift and decisive action against the gas attack on civilians.

    The UN’s chief purpose is creating an elite gravy train for its chosen few plus, of course, extolling the virtues of climate change getting involved in real world issues is soooooooooooooo 1950-ish!

  44. Joe

    In an ideal world the United Nations would have taken swift and decisive action against the gas attack on civilians.

    They did. The UN relies on member nations for enforcement and a member nation used force to enforce a UN treaty. The UN is working as designed.

  45. Baldrick

    They did. The UN relies on member nations for enforcement and a member nation used force to enforce a UN treaty. The UN is working as designed.

    Perhaps you can quote me the UN Resolution number, where they approved an attack, so I can look it up. Better still, post a link. Cheers in advance.

  46. RobK

    Dweezy,
    Even the rogue elements will understand the negative impact of using gas in the current environment.

  47. Joe

    Perhaps you can quote me the UN Resolution number,

    Members don’t need a resolution of the UN to uphold UN treaties.

  48. Fulcrum

    By confronting the Assad coalition, I think Trump has chosen to be a a Churchill rather than a Chamberlain.

    The stakes have changed since WW2, but the game of brinksmanship hasn’t.

    You can argue whether the Churchillian way would work today but, in truth, no one knows.

  49. RobK

    Leo G,
    If it is as you suggest (I have no other info) then Trump has taken sound military advice, captivated the media and taken care of many loose ends. Optimum use of resources, Steve can be reassured Trump’s still winning.

  50. Confused Old Misfit

    “Members don’t need a resolution of the UN to uphold UN treaties.” – Maybe they don’t need a resolution to *uphold* a treaty. But they sure as hell need a resolution to *enforce* one.

    Or has the International Anarchists Organization taken over in Turtle Bay?

  51. NewChum

    It puts everyone on notice that Trump will actually take action rather than let things lie.

    This is the only positive, reversing years of fingernail chewing by Obama.

    The rest is all negative, all the way. His supporters don’t want anything to do with Syria.

    Yes it is sad what is happening. Atrocities go down every single day all over the world. Why is Syria the big focus? Does anyone even remember why all this instability? It was Clinton and Obama. Go back through old Top Gear specials. They made one in Iraq and Syria and Israel. Syria was the peaceful one.

    The worst part of all this is it reignites the bleeding hearts of ‘we have to import all the Syrians ‘ talking.

    Just shut the border to them, leave them and the Russians at it and walk away. Not one drop of Australian or American blood should be spilled in that hellhole of the Middle East. Stop the spillin of blood on our shores by stopping all – and I mean all – travel between there and here. Bad luck if you want to live to Oz and you are Syrian or Iraqi or whatever. Stay home and rebuild your own country, fight for your own family and lands. Pressure the gulf states to take care of the refugees – they are the ones financing the wars after all. If Australia and Indonesia got into a fight, as if the Middle East would open their borders for refugees from either country,

  52. struth

    There’s a hell of a lot of pearl clutching going on here.

    Steve thinks we must chose a side……………..

    People can’t even remember what a strong west looks like.
    The US doesn’t have to pick sides.
    It is a fucking side.
    Relax, the USA just announced the end of the ” we’ll take it up the Obummer” position of the last eight years.

    Some of the panty wetting going on in the comments is shameful.

    What is it about understanding that force is all many arseholes in the world understand?

  53. Baldrick

    Members don’t need a resolution of the UN to uphold UN treaties.

    Bullshit Joe.
    Any United Nations military action requires a vote by the Security Council.
    Still waiting for your link.

  54. RobK

    If anything, the indication that Trump is taking advice from qualified professionals is reassuring and gives me some confidence that the bafoon qualities he displays are as I hoped a negotiating tool and not so much an aimless mental condition as posited by his detractors. That said, all power carries risk.

  55. Cynic of Ayr

    I think your problem with this is that you’re taking Trump literally.
    The yaketty-yak that goes on between nations is nothing more than yaketty-yak intended for the respective peoples, and means nothing like what it says.
    Diplomats fawn and grovel (with a couple of exceptions) and have dinner, and give speeces, all in the name of diplomacy, and meaning nothing.
    Bishop fawns and grovels to the Saudis, while outside, a mob of “police” deal with a woman accused, and therefor declared guilty by one man. While she screams her innocence, they wrestle her to the ground, then hack away at her head until it comes off. Meanwhile inside, Bishop is covering her head demurely, in case one of the Saudi Princes gets carried away with lust, and wants to chow down on one of her many visible bones. At home, she mouths platitudes and rubbish, the stupid, lying fucking bitch!
    In this case, I suspect Trump sees the uselessness of talk, talk, talk for years and years and years, with dinner after dinner after dinner. He was looking for a reason to move things along a bit, and this was it.
    Steve, it doesn’t really matter what the result of the missile strike is. By your wording, I see that you are quite prepared to go on, for years and years with talk after talk at dinner after dinner, for some sort of fake solution that the non-sufferers have worked out to their advantage.
    Consider:
    Why did the Germans surrender in WWII end? Not from talking at a dinner;
    Why did the Japanese surrender in WWII. Not from talking at a dinner;
    Why did the Italians surrender in WWII? Not from talking at a dinner;
    Why did the French surrender in WWII? Not from talking at a dinner;
    Why did the Americans – and us – surrender in Vietnam? Not from talking at a dinner;
    Why is the Falkland Islands still British? Not from talking at a dinner;
    Why did the Russians pull back from the arms race they were in? Not from talking at a dinner;
    Why did the Australians retreat from Gallipoli? Not from talking at a dinner;
    Why did the US retreat from Somalia and Cuba? Not from talking at a dinner;
    There is only one solution for a enemy of your country and way of life. And it’s the exact same solution they have for us. Kill them.
    The US has the money and the machines to do just that. The Japanese lost the war because the US had a machine, and they used it.

  56. struth

    The worst part of all this is it reignites the bleeding hearts of ‘we have to import all the Syrians ‘ talking.

    These people would call for the importation of the entire Syrian race if it were found that one of them had been bitten by a bull ant.

    We would do nothing if worrying about their calls.

    Just shut the border to them, leave them and the Russians at it and walk away. Not one drop of Australian or American blood should be spilled in that hellhole of the Middle East. Stop the spillin of blood on our shores by stopping all – and I mean all – travel between there and here. Bad luck if you want to live to Oz and you are Syrian or Iraqi or whatever. Stay home and rebuild your own country, fight for your own family and lands. Pressure the gulf states to take care of the refugees – they are the ones financing the wars after all. If Australia and Indonesia got into a fight, as if the Middle East would open their borders for refugees from either country,

    I get your point.
    Should England have stayed out of the war with Hitler until he came, even more powerful, crossing their borders?
    Evil cannot be given the chance to grow into any size.
    ISIS is pure evil.
    If the west does not fight them (I include Russia as well) they will be fighting a stronger enemy on home soil eventually.
    We are fighting them now on home soil, to a small degree.
    They are attacking the west on home soil and so there is every reason to fight them on theirs.

  57. GerardB

    Fortunately realpolitik doesn’t extend to terrorists who go about murdering innocent men, woman and children using chemical weapons.

    Trump was rightly appalled and and as disgusted as any other decent human being would be. He showed how by the measured action taken. Assad and his Russian and Iranian mates can now retreat to their cowardly hidey-holes from whence they try to govern the free world – no high moral ground for those bullying slobs.

    You write that emotion has no part in diplomacy – bullshit, there should be more of it. Roosevelt’s announcement of US entry into World War II was raw emotion against the cowardly attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese. Similarly, Churchill’s World War II leadership was based on sustained emotion of being on the right side against evil.

    The USA is founded on honouring those who have sacrificed their lives serving their country in armed conflict. Trump is ensuring that the US never forgets the bastardry that is exemplified by countries like China, Iran, North Korea, Russia and North Korea.

    The action by the US of A, via Trump, is timely – don’t you think?

  58. Jo Smyth

    The ‘what if’…..scenarios are well under way. Although Trump made the ultimate decision to bomb, before that happened he would have had the wise counsel and advice from the very experienced people surrounding him, especially Mattis. The consequences of the action would have been discussed and documented. The alternative would have been to stand behind the red line and whimper as Obama did. The threats from Russia, China and those who have become conditioned to appeasement, are now beginning. Trump made the right decision in the circumstances because he had the right people advising him. Just be thankful Hilary and Obama are not still in charge and have some foresight to imagine how the world would be in 5/10 years if their ilk were still there. I know who I prefer.

  59. NewChum

    They are attacking the west on home soil and so there is every reason to fight them on theirs.

    There are no parallel with ww2 here. These countries have no offensives armies, except for the wombs of their women who have no say in the matter. Whatever defensive technology they have is sold to them by countries from the west.

    Stopping the evil is as simple as stopping the people. We would have zero deaths from terrorism in the west if we had zero people from the ME here. Japan is the shining example.

    They don’t have the ability to build a plane or a missile. Their armies are legendary with their usleslessness, getting their arses kicked by the Israelis time and time again. All they can do is manipulate the bleeding hearts into opening their borders so they can out breed the natives and take the land in less than 100 years. This is very simple to prevent. Stop bringing them in, and start removing the ones who have no legal claim to be here, or have forfeited the right by involving themselves in terrorism. Do not kowtow to their emotional blackmail.

    As every strong dad who took a stray dog to the pound instead of caving into carrying it’s burden knows, all it takes is backbone and tough decisions made. Yes, it gets people in the feels. The world is a harsh place unless you carve out a piece of civilisation. And defend it harshly.

  60. Joe

    Members don’t need a resolution of the UN to uphold UN treaties.

    Bullshit Joe.
    Any United Nations military action requires a vote by the Security Council.
    Still waiting for your link.

    Sorry, I was trying to be ironic. NO ONE cares about the UN one way or another. If their treaties are being enforced, it is only by the will of the individual member states. Besides, the UN was setup as the international arm of the US not the other way around. The USSR agreed only if given the veto.

  61. Tel

    Relax, the USA just announced the end of the ” we’ll take it up the Obummer” position of the last eight years.

    But Libya has already been destroyed, so going back and destroying it a second time will look mighty lame.

    We definitely need a new position: find something Obama left intact and destroy that.

  62. Of the many regimes across Africa, Eurasia and Central Asia, just about all can be configured as brutal and ripe for “springs”, “colour revolutions” etc. When it’s convenient to make monsters of them, it won’t be hard. All their leaders, if strong enough on the day, will play with a very hard ball if made to play. (Most aren’t London-trained ophtalmologists who protect Christians and whose wives can wear slinky dresses at official functions.) So where does it end?

    Only a few countries have natural boundaries or historical consistency. One geopolitical theorist puts it at a mere three: Tunisia, Iran and Egypt. The rest are naturals for balkanisation. It’s just a matter of who wants to destablise and whether they have military and corporate media at their disposal so that more “heartbreaking vision” can move us to “action”.

    The Strait of Hormuz means that absolutist Oman will not be one of the monsters. Qatar, Kuwait etc have bought their non-monster status many times over. The Azeris, though Shiites, can’t be monsters while they fit the plans of Turkey and NATO. The Kurds are like non-embarassing Israelis and can’t possibly be monsters, though it’s a pity about any Christians or Yazidis who get in their way. The bloke standing in the way of Qatar’s corridor to Turkey is already a monster. The Red Sea means that any Shiites mucking up in South Yemen will definitely be monsters, as required.

    Having seen what happened to Milosevic, Gadaffi etc, none of our appointed monsters are likely to retire or relent. So expect fights to the finish.

    By the by, checked out population and birth rates of Yemen? The figures are surprisingly high, much higher than Syria’s for example. And there are already Yemenis heading to a border near you.

  63. struth

    Again, I get your point and totally agree with the no Islam immigration at all.
    Just close the borders to them.

    That doesn’t stop tourists.
    They don’t have to live in the country to get in and do damage.
    Unless you stop all incoming flights, ships etc and completely close yourself off, which can’t practically happen, they are still going to get in.
    But worse than that, is the converts already in the country that have yet to be converted by the propaganda on the internet.
    The scenes of winning and beheadings and the like on the internet.

    If you want to really stop the indoctrinations of those already here, and not even Muslim at the moment, they must be wiped from the surface of the earth.
    They must not be a force , they must not exist.
    Their ideology is hatred of the west, and killing westerners.
    That won’t stop until they are wiped from the earth.
    Not only that, they limit our movement around the world and cost western nations billions and limits our freedoms.
    Trump had it right when he said they must be wiped from the earth.
    There is no other way.

  64. The main plus is this warns everyone of Trump’s unpredictability.
    That places him in the driving seat for all types of foreign relations.

  65. Vicki

    Reactions to Trump’s decision are interesting. The Russians, who are heavily into Realpolitik, think that it was done to shore up domestic support for his administration. The Left think it was just a typically impulsive act of an unstable and unsuitable POTUS. And so it goes. Few read Trump well.

    Trump won the presidential elections against all pundit predictions because, strangely, he is representative of the fundamental thinking of the non-elites.

    Without evidence to the contrary, it appears that Assad authorised an attack that violates accepted rules of engagement. It is fundamentally abhorrent to all decent people. Although Steve argues that it is no different from the slaughter of innocents in other fields of war – that is never a cogent argument in the face of atrocities. Most god-fearing folks in the US would be appalled – & Trump reacts in the same way.

    But whereas Obama went into hang-wringing, Trump acts. It is the nature of the man. Whether that was a presidential act – it remains to be seen.

    On final point to watch. It was Medvedev who rebuked Trump, not Putin. That is of some significance in the way these diplomatic moves are played out.

  66. Dr Fred Lenin

    Everyone knows that Trump was put in power by Putin ,cheating hilarity who won the popular vote ,even though we got -thousands of dead voters out on election day ,the Russians bribed the electiral college to choose Trump. Putin and Trump then colluded ,the Russians did the gas attack then withdrew from the airfield ,Tump launched the missile attack , killing the few Syrians who might spill the beans about the plot . Trump gets all the glory ,and Putin establishes complete control of the US government . The democrat Resistance will oppose this evil plot to take power from the u.n. communists and stop our bastardisation of the western world through mass migration of welfare seekers ,humanity must obey the u.n. Unelcted commisars orders .
    A communique of the decromatik internationale .

  67. struth

    Russia’s reaction was very considered.

    More winning, please.
    Can some of this rub off on Hivizistan please.

  68. .

    sfw
    #2349491, posted on April 9, 2017 at 7:32 am
    I’m in two minds about it. If you really want to stop the ‘Refugees’ and many of the Syrians are, they need to be safe at home.

    Which is why Trump is right. This is only “helping ISIS” to anyone who hasn’t the capacity to understand not all anti Assad forces are allied to ISIS, the same affliction the left suffers when considering Trump a puppet of Putin.

  69. Razor

    I echo Vicki
    and add
    Trump’s behaviour reminds me much more of a successfull business man rather than a standard politician. Thus he responds appropriately and in the right timing to achieve goal orientated outcomes – not to protect his political arse.
    All the while this will result in obtaining support from some who currently oppose him down in the workings og Government.

  70. Fulcrum

    If the UN is working as designed, it’s designed to the advantage of ruthless dictators who will use any measures to supress the will of the oppressed.

    Perhaps, you have’t noticed that the number of ruthless dictators outnumber the of leaders from truely democratic states.

  71. Solitarius

    Following on from the previous post;

    If the bombing looks like it was driven by emotionalism, it was. The picture now emerging from the white house is a pitched battle between the nationalists and the globalists.

    The Globalists are in essence “emotionalist” Democrats. The globalists are represented by Cohn, Kushner and Mrs. Kushner (Ivanka).

    The Globalists want The Donald to be more collaborative and centrist. DOES THIS SOUND FAMILIAR TO ANYONE IN AUSTRALIA?

    Quite frankly if the president goes down this path it will be an absolute disaster. Expect a deep recession if this picture coalesces into policy (or lack thereof).

    The bombing of Syria is merely a symptom of an internecine White House powerplay that is playing out this weekend.

    It is a fatal political mistake for Trump to draw his daughter and son-in-law close to his leadership. He will deeply regret it if they are not kept at arm’s length.

  72. .

    Looks like the prosecution of Nazi war criminals was driven by emotionalism too.

    Nothing in what Trump did advanced the ISIS position in any way.

    Short of rational argument, you’ve made the same mistake you accuse Trump of.

  73. struth

    It is a fatal political mistake for Trump to draw his daughter and son-in-law close to his leadership. He will deeply regret it if they are not kept at arm’s length.

    Has he done this?

    Some people think that the one President who can speak without a teleprompter and can run a successful business, is going to start taking advice from his kids?

  74. struth

    Solitarius, are you prone to soap operas?

    Girlie gossip magazines?

    Maybe horrorscopes?

  75. danger mouse

    Leverage..

    So much for just one Syrian airbase. And the political optics don’t hurt either.

  76. 132andBush

    If Assad or someone under his command is so mentally retarded as to think using gas was a good idea then they deserve to be blown off the face of the earth. What sort of limpet thought that was going to work?
    Maybe the ordnance got mixed up? Maybe a conventional bomb touched off a rebel cache?
    Whatever.
    Trump got a chance to turn words into actions and took it.
    Good

  77. Solitarius

    “Struth” and “.”.

    https://www.axios.com/how-steve-bannon-lost-his-mojo-2350891180.html

    There are several similar reports emerging.

    The post is supported and reasonable.

  78. Yohan

    Fortunately realpolitik doesn’t extend to terrorists who go about murdering innocent men, woman and children using chemical weapons.

    Trump was rightly appalled and and as disgusted as any other decent human being would be. He showed how by the measured action taken. Assad and his Russian and Iranian mates can now retreat to their cowardly hidey-holes from whence they try to govern the free world – no high moral ground for those bullying slobs.

    You write that emotion has no part in diplomacy – bullshit, there should be more of it. Roosevelt’s announcement of US entry into World War II was raw emotion against the cowardly attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese. Similarly, Churchill’s World War II leadership was based on sustained emotion of being on the right side against evil.

    The USA is founded on honouring those who have sacrificed their lives serving their country in armed conflict. Trump is ensuring that the US never forgets the bastardry that is exemplified by countries like China, Iran, North Korea, Russia and North Korea.

    The action by the US of A, via Trump, is timely – don’t you think?

    This is my favorite comments here. Perfect example of the naive and gullible baby boomer, who gets their entire narrative of the world by watching tv news reports. You just have to show them who is the good and bad guys. And boom! no self reflection, or self doubt.

    Gerard do you actually know anything about the history of chemical weapons use in the Syrian civil war? That so far all confirmed cases of chemical weapons has been by the rebels, not the Syrian army? Do you know that? Has Sky News not told you that?

  79. .

    Trump is the President. Bannon is his employee. You can get with the programme or fuck off!

    See how that works?

  80. The good news is that Trump’s attack seems to have been, by design, an innocuous fireworks show which hasn’t even put the airstrip completely out of action. (More embarrassingly, less than half of the missiles hit, depending on whom you like to believe through the fog of propaganda. Better hope that Iskanders are as over-rated as Tomahawks.)

    Needless to say, there will be Russian and Syrian accusations of dead children etc, but they have to say all that. Xi is unlikely to be too impressed, but at least the world can see that Trump might unholster his gun quickly…and even the bimbos on CNN, MSNBC etc (you can tell them from Fox bimbos because they wear glasses and frown more) will be forced to take some of the pressure off Trump. At a time when you can be deemed a Russian agent if your second cousin once owned a samovar, that matters.

    All this is a hopeful interpretation of the events, not the only interpretation. The other possibility is that Trump is a business-as-usual prez heavily influenced by neocons and his Manhattan liberal family. I’ll hope.

    Because the actual fight against actual jihadism can’t go on by doing the bidding of the Muslim Brotherhood across the world while dismantling secular regimes and provoking Russia. Duh.

    And because you can’t keep a civilisation going if you park tens of millions of third world unemployables in high-rises on the fringes of all the West’s major cities. Duh.

  81. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    Maybe a conventional bomb touched off a rebel cache?

    It’s been a few years since I “did the course” but it’s my understanding that the components of sarin gas are kept separate , and mixed just before use. What I’m seeing, unless staged for the cameras – ripping the clothes off, and spraying with water, without gloves or “noddy” suits – is the aftermath of a chlorine attack, which is the only scenario that fits the “rebel warehouse bombed by mistake” theory.

  82. .

    mosomoso
    #2349779, posted on April 9, 2017 at 1:04 pm
    The good news is that Trump’s attack seems to have been, by design, an innocuous fireworks show which hasn’t even put the airstrip completely out of action.

    Where are you getting this lunatic conspiracy shizzle from? A 1000 lb warhead makes a hell of a crater.

  83. Perfect example of the naive and gullible baby boomer,

    You were going great guns up to there, Yohan.
    Gullibility is not defined by, nor confined to, particular age/social groups.
    I’m a baby boomer, by the way.

  84. stackja

    1950s déjà vu! Again!

  85. It’s been a few years since I “did the course” but it’s my understanding that the components of sarin gas are kept separate , and mixed just before use.

    True, Zulu, and blowing up the precursors doesn’t magically produce Sarin gas.
    One of the main precursors – propyl alcohol – is very splodey all by itself.

  86. Dr Fred Lenin

    What I would like to see Trump do next is.
    1)secure the consent of the South Koreans to base nuclear weapons on their land ,to encourage the North to negotiat the destruction of their nuclear programme or else . This will create
    a Cuba situation on China .encouraging them to behave in the South China Sea.
    2) establish a nuclear base on Diego Garcia to encourage Iran to dismantle its nuclear set up and behave , it will also be handy if Pakistan goes extremist ,ready to take out their nukes surgicaly.
    These actions would dampen a lot of the problems of this time
    He could also withdraw from the communist fascist u.n. and expel them from the USA confiscating all assete they had in the USA , leave the dictators club homeless,and broke ,
    Communism dies without other peoples money .( so does career politics )_

  87. Pingback: America’s war aims | Catallaxy Files

  88. jupes

    There is only one solution for a enemy of your country and way of life. And it’s the exact same solution they have for us. Kill them.

    Spot on.

  89. Perhaps I should specify that considerable damage was done to an airstrip and its infrastructure and there were a few deaths of personnel. This much was claimed by all sides so it may well be true. If anyone knows more (I mean, actually knows) pass it on.

    Now I’m going into my yard to photograph or video some old lamb bones on the ground so I can attribute various horrors to anyone who dares to disagree with my posts. You can’t argue with actual footage, can you?

  90. .

    This cuckoo-cloud land stuff. You’re accusing Trump of a fake missile strike against a Syrian base and accusing Putin of fake outrage, and the MSM…AND alternative media of going along with this fakery.

    Sorry mosomoso, the only parties likely to agree with you are the Iranian special forces in Syria funding and propping up the regime.

  91. L.B.Loveday

    Trump: “No child of God should ever suffer such horror”
    Great from the President of a nation that kills 700,000-1,000,000 children each year and has Planned Parenthood, a business who alone kills 300,000+ perfecting techniques to not damage organs during the killings so they can be flogged off to the highest bidder.

  92. Yohan

    You were going great guns up to there, Yohan.
    Gullibility is not defined by, nor confined to, particular age/social groups.
    I’m a baby boomer, by the way.

    Okay I take it back ;).

    I just find the generation most willing to accept TV clip propaganda at face value is the pre internet generation. i.e GenX and Baby Boomers. I am GenX myself.

    I do find the younger ones coming through now are more cynical about what they see. They understand how things can be framed and edited, probably due to using computers for this very process in high school.

  93. Great from the President of a nation that kills 700,000-1,000,000 children each year

    Hardly relevant or fair, Loveday. Trump has been very public about his opposition to abortion, and has already attempted to take steps to limit federal funding for it.

  94. Okay I take it back ;).

    Fair enough, you are forgiven. Perhaps the higher rate of perceived acceptance is due to the fact that we grew up in a time when what was in the “news”, was mostly actually “news”.

  95. jupes

    Gerard do you actually know anything about the history of chemical weapons use in the Syrian civil war? That so far all confirmed cases of chemical weapons has been by the rebels, not the Syrian army?

    It doesn’t matter where the chemical weapons came from. What matters is that the world believes Assad launched them. Trump reacted to that.

    Trump is a master communicator whether by tweet or tomahawk. Remember it is baddies verse baddies in Syria so if he attacked the wrong party – bad luck. He was sending a much broader message.

  96. Yohan

    Jupes I sure hope this was a strategic a rational move by Trump. Use this gas attack to project strength, frighten the North Koreans, destroy the Russian puppet narrative e.t.c
    If so, he is a master chess player.

    But so far it looks like he emotively reacted to this media imagery. Again, this could be part of his act, and we know Trump is a master manipulator.

    What happens next will tell us. If the US proceeds with military led regime change then it shows Trump was not in control.

  97. jupes

    If so, he is a master chess player.

    Yes.

    But so far it looks like he emotively reacted to this media imagery. Again, this could be part of his act, and we know Trump is a master manipulator.

    Yes he is.

    What happens next will tell us.

    No doubt. My advice is not to worry too much about it. Trump and Mad Dog have got this.

  98. RobK

    “Trump and Mad Dog have got this.”
    I expect you are right. It has the added benefit of raising troop morale to be deployed in a meaningful way rather than drifting about the Mediterranean armed to the teeth whilst playing cards. It adds some purpose to the US military expenditure and will ultimately reassure the folks back home to have confidence in their government.

  99. egg_

    Trump and Mad Dog have got this.

    Also allowing Assad to back down without losing face?

  100. struth

    Struth” and “.”.

    https://www.axios.com/how-steve-bannon-lost-his-mojo-2350891180.html

    There are several similar reports emerging.

    The post is supported and reasonable.

    Your link is unsubstantiated gossip.

    A “top source” is as good as a top sauce, personally I like smokey BBQ.

    Nice web page, looks professional.
    The content is gossip, regarding the white house players , there is no one mentioned as a “source”.

    I repeat, it’s just gossip.

  101. Paul

    Who do we want to see win?
    Ask one of the victims.

    ‘I didn’t see you raising your voice against President Obama’s inaction’: Syrian chemical attack victim hits out at CNN host Brooke Baldwin for trying to make him criticize Trump

    She says: ‘We cannot, in one breath, speak of protecting Syrian babies and in the next, close America’s doors to them’.
    Kassam Eid: ‘We don’t want to come to the United States. We want to stay in our country. With all due respect, this is hypocrisy, if you really care, help us stay in our country.

    ‘We don’t want to become refugees, help us establish safe zones. We want to stay in our country’.

    Eid then went on to fully thank President Donald Trump, and say that he supports the efforts that he is making in the Middle East. He also thanked all of Trump’s supporters and anyone who voted for him.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4393938/Syrian-chemical-attack-victim-hits-CNN-journalist.html

  102. Solitarius

    Stackja,

    Your comments (referenced below) add not much more than ad hominem attacks to the debate.

    The sources referenced may well be playing political games to a degree. The fact is Bannon is losing political influence and the Kushners/Cohn are gaining influence. This is borne out by hard facts whether you like it or not.

    “Solitarius, are you prone to soap operas?
    Girlie gossip magazines?
    Maybe horrorscopes?”

    “Your link is unsubstantiated gossip.
    A “top source” is as good as a top sauce, personally I like smokey BBQ.
    Nice web page, looks professional.
    The content is gossip, regarding the white house players , there is no one mentioned as a “source”.
    I repeat, it’s just gossip.”

  103. Solitarius

    Correction

    “Struth”

    Your comments (referenced below) add not much more than ad hominem attacks to the debate.

    The sources referenced may well be playing political games to a degree. The fact is Bannon is losing political influence and the Kushners/Cohn are gaining influence. This is borne out by hard facts whether you like it or not.

    “Solitarius, are you prone to soap operas?
    Girlie gossip magazines?
    Maybe horrorscopes?”

    “Your link is unsubstantiated gossip.
    A “top source” is as good as a top sauce, personally I like smokey BBQ.
    Nice web page, looks professional.
    The content is gossip, regarding the white house players , there is no one mentioned as a “source”.
    I repeat, it’s just gossip.”

  104. Yohan

    That Axios website is really, really gossipy. And its new, so there is no track record to confirm their claims of inside WH info is true.

  105. Yohan

    Well their political news pieces claiming inside sources are new. They did some good country level polling during the election.

  106. Solitarius

    Yohan,

    The story’s being run in the New York Times amongst other places. It might be implausible and/or fake news except for the fact;
    – Kushner was dispatched to Iraq last week on special business
    – Ivanka took a full time job at the white house
    – Bannon was removed from the NSC
    – Ivanka tweeted her reaction to the syrian gas attacks and DT’s position shifted from earlier reports
    – Reports are that Bannon is being held responsible for the Immigration exec order stuff up.
    – Cohn advanced his position within a couple of White House committees.

    Trump is a deal maker who relies on his team for ideas. He’s not the ideas guy. Bannon may well have outlived his usefulness, at least in his present role.

  107. Struth

    I don’t think Ivanka should have taken a job at the White house.
    Nepotism is not a good look although he would have very few he could trust.
    Ivanka tweets her disgust at the chemical attack and you think in anyway with all the professional military advice and consideration on the subject that Ivanka changed his mind?
    Really?
    Trying to put these together is ridiculous.
    People assuming Trump is an idiot easily manipulated must have not being paying attention in recent years.
    I made those statements as a short way of saying check what is actually fact and not conjecture.
    Even above you are trying to make two plus two equal five.
    I hope you get my point.

  108. .

    Less kind persons than myself would say that Axios are “cuckservatives” funded by MSNBC.

    Seriously. Check it for yourself.

  109. .

    People assuming Trump is an idiot easily manipulated must have not being paying attention in recent years.

    Hmmm yes like how he would be manipulated by Russia…sadly believed by some alt right cranks too until a few days ago.

  110. Yohan

    Solitarius I agree with everything you say, and I think the Kushner story is true, he is a snake who is trying to get Trump to drop all his populist policies. And the MSM know this will tear Trumps base apart, which is why they are so suddenly supportive of him breaking this election promise on Syria.

    But Axios specifically, is running a gigantic series of articles quoting inside WH sources. It remains to be seen if they really have sources or are just recycling twitter rumours.

  111. Snoopy

    “The Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (RBZ), through its Financial Intelligence Unit, has been positioning people at traders to find out cash sales of that day and how much was banked. We are going to intensify those efforts and it will not stop us from passing a law that any businessperson who does not bank money will have his licence withdrawn,” Chinamasa said.

  112. BorisG

    Will allowing ISIS to reverse Assad’s win result in more or less refugees?

    Only Assad’s cronies and idiots think Assad is the only alternative to ISIS. Assad is using this card successfully, and this is why he avoids confrontation with ISIS as much as possible. He knows the moment ISIS is defeated, he will no longer be needed.

  113. BorisG

    Because the actual fight against actual jihadism can’t go on by doing the bidding of the Muslim Brotherhood across the world while dismantling secular regimes and provoking Russia. Duh.

    Well it is Assad that made the biggest contribution to the dismantling of his own regime, by bombing peaceful protests, which in turn triggered the civil war.

    Trying to keep tyrants in power may prolong their life but not by much when population turns against them. Assad cannot win over control of the entire Syrian territory, even with Russian support. Need to think of an alternative.

  114. BorisG

    Kushner was dispatched to Iraq last week on special business
    – Ivanka took a full time job at the white house
    – Bannon was removed from the NSC
    – Reports are that Bannon is being held responsible for the Immigration exec order stuff up.

    Nice.

    The nicest thing about it is that Trumpoids will finally take their rose glasses off.

Comments are closed.