Sorry fellas but Trump's calling off the Iran strike may be his greatest moment
invite response
2019 Jun 21, 7:54am 6,152 views 51 comments
« First « Previous Comments 41 - 51 of 51 Search these comments
41
fdhfoiehfeoi
2019 Jun 22, 7:39am
fdhfoiehfeoi
2019 Jun 22, 7:39am
HonkpilledMaster says
Good to know you fully support us intervening in everyone else's business. Iraq, justified, Afganistan, justified, Syria, totally justified, Iran...
After they invaded China on bullshit pretexts, endangering our interests and dramatically altering the balance of power in the Pacific.
Good to know you fully support us intervening in everyone else's business. Iraq, justified, Afganistan, justified, Syria, totally justified, Iran...
42
rdm
2019 Jun 22, 7:58am
Rin says
Not sure what this has to do with the assertion Trump is playing three dimensional chess with the Military Industrial Complex by increasing the defense budget. But its not completely true. Base line was the South Vietnamese army was not a match for the battle hardened North without American troops and direct combat support. They fell like a house of cards, it was a disaster.
"A quick, easy check of an old newspaper database shows Laird's cutoff claim to be false. In the fiscal year running from July 1, 1974, to June 30, 1975, the congressional appropriation for military aid to South Vietnam was $700 million.
Nixon had requested $1.45 billion. Congress cut his aid request, but never cut off aid.
Nixon's successor, President Gerald R. Ford, requested an additional $300 million for Saigon. Democrats saw it as an exercise in political blame-shifting. "The administration knows that the $300 million won't really do anything to prevent ultimate collapse in Vietnam," said Senator and future Vice President Walter F. Mondale, D-Mn., "and it is just trying to shift responsibility of its policy to Congress and the Democrats." Congress didn't approve the supplemental appropriation.
The Times reported that with National Security Adviser and Secretary of State Henry "Kissinger's personal prestige tied to peace in Vietnam, his aides have said that he will try to pin the blame for failure there on Congress." He tried to do just that at a March 26, 1975 news conference in which he framed the question facing Congress as "whether it will deliberately destroy an ally by withholding aid from it in its moment of extremity." Three years earlier, in October 1972, the month in which Kissinger publicly proclaimed that "peace is at hand," he privately told the President that their own settlement terms would destroy South Vietnam.
Congressional aid cuts didn't determine the war's final outcome. Saigon's fate was sealed long before, when Nixon forced it accept his settlement terms in January 1973.
As for Laird's "cut off" of funds for Saigon, it just never happened. Even Nixon acknowledged the 1975 military appropriation for Saigon of $700 million..."
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/126150
The primary reason why Saigon fell in spring of '75 was that Congress stopped resupplying the South Vietnamese army once the entire US army was already out of there by '74.
Not sure what this has to do with the assertion Trump is playing three dimensional chess with the Military Industrial Complex by increasing the defense budget. But its not completely true. Base line was the South Vietnamese army was not a match for the battle hardened North without American troops and direct combat support. They fell like a house of cards, it was a disaster.
"A quick, easy check of an old newspaper database shows Laird's cutoff claim to be false. In the fiscal year running from July 1, 1974, to June 30, 1975, the congressional appropriation for military aid to South Vietnam was $700 million.
Nixon had requested $1.45 billion. Congress cut his aid request, but never cut off aid.
Nixon's successor, President Gerald R. Ford, requested an additional $300 million for Saigon. Democrats saw it as an exercise in political blame-shifting. "The administration knows that the $300 million won't really do anything to prevent ultimate collapse in Vietnam," said Senator and future Vice President Walter F. Mondale, D-Mn., "and it is just trying to shift responsibility of its policy to Congress and the Democrats." Congress didn't approve the supplemental appropriation.
The Times reported that with National Security Adviser and Secretary of State Henry "Kissinger's personal prestige tied to peace in Vietnam, his aides have said that he will try to pin the blame for failure there on Congress." He tried to do just that at a March 26, 1975 news conference in which he framed the question facing Congress as "whether it will deliberately destroy an ally by withholding aid from it in its moment of extremity." Three years earlier, in October 1972, the month in which Kissinger publicly proclaimed that "peace is at hand," he privately told the President that their own settlement terms would destroy South Vietnam.
Congressional aid cuts didn't determine the war's final outcome. Saigon's fate was sealed long before, when Nixon forced it accept his settlement terms in January 1973.
As for Laird's "cut off" of funds for Saigon, it just never happened. Even Nixon acknowledged the 1975 military appropriation for Saigon of $700 million..."
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/126150
43
rdm
2019 Jun 22, 7:58am
Rin says
Not sure what this has to do with the assertion Trump is playing three dimensional chess with the Military Industrial Complex by increasing the defense budget. But its not completely true. Base line was the South Vietnamese army was not a match for the battle hardened North without American troops and direct combat support. They fell like a house of cards, it was a disaster.
"A quick, easy check of an old newspaper database shows Laird's cutoff claim to be false. In the fiscal year running from July 1, 1974, to June 30, 1975, the congressional appropriation for military aid to South Vietnam was $700 million.
Nixon had requested $1.45 billion. Congress cut his aid request, but never cut off aid.
Nixon's successor, President Gerald R. Ford, requested an additional $300 million for Saigon. Democrats saw it as an exercise in political blame-shifting. "The administration knows that the $300 million won't really do anything to prevent ultimate collapse in Vietnam," said Senator and future Vice President Walter F. Mondale, D-Mn., "and it is just trying to shift responsibility of its policy to Congress and the Democrats." Congress didn't approve the supplemental appropriation.
The Times reported that with National Security Adviser and Secretary of State Henry "Kissinger's personal prestige tied to peace in Vietnam, his aides have said that he will try to pin the blame for failure there on Congress." He tried to do just that at a March 26, 1975 news conference in which he framed the question facing Congress as "whether it will deliberately destroy an ally by withholding aid from it in its moment of extremity." Three years earlier, in October 1972, the month in which Kissinger publicly proclaimed that "peace is at hand," he privately told the President that their own settlement terms would destroy South Vietnam.
Congressional aid cuts didn't determine the war's final outcome. Saigon's fate was sealed long before, when Nixon forced it accept his settlement terms in January 1973.
As for Laird's "cut off" of funds for Saigon, it just never happened. Even Nixon acknowledged the 1975 military appropriation for Saigon of $700 million..."
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/126150
The primary reason why Saigon fell in spring of '75 was that Congress stopped resupplying the South Vietnamese army once the entire US army was already out of there by '74.
Not sure what this has to do with the assertion Trump is playing three dimensional chess with the Military Industrial Complex by increasing the defense budget. But its not completely true. Base line was the South Vietnamese army was not a match for the battle hardened North without American troops and direct combat support. They fell like a house of cards, it was a disaster.
"A quick, easy check of an old newspaper database shows Laird's cutoff claim to be false. In the fiscal year running from July 1, 1974, to June 30, 1975, the congressional appropriation for military aid to South Vietnam was $700 million.
Nixon had requested $1.45 billion. Congress cut his aid request, but never cut off aid.
Nixon's successor, President Gerald R. Ford, requested an additional $300 million for Saigon. Democrats saw it as an exercise in political blame-shifting. "The administration knows that the $300 million won't really do anything to prevent ultimate collapse in Vietnam," said Senator and future Vice President Walter F. Mondale, D-Mn., "and it is just trying to shift responsibility of its policy to Congress and the Democrats." Congress didn't approve the supplemental appropriation.
The Times reported that with National Security Adviser and Secretary of State Henry "Kissinger's personal prestige tied to peace in Vietnam, his aides have said that he will try to pin the blame for failure there on Congress." He tried to do just that at a March 26, 1975 news conference in which he framed the question facing Congress as "whether it will deliberately destroy an ally by withholding aid from it in its moment of extremity." Three years earlier, in October 1972, the month in which Kissinger publicly proclaimed that "peace is at hand," he privately told the President that their own settlement terms would destroy South Vietnam.
Congressional aid cuts didn't determine the war's final outcome. Saigon's fate was sealed long before, when Nixon forced it accept his settlement terms in January 1973.
As for Laird's "cut off" of funds for Saigon, it just never happened. Even Nixon acknowledged the 1975 military appropriation for Saigon of $700 million..."
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/126150
44
rdm
2019 Jun 22, 7:58am
Rin says
Not sure what this has to do with the assertion Trump is playing three dimensional chess with the Military Industrial Complex by increasing the defense budget. But its not completely true. Base line was the South Vietnamese army was not a match for the battle hardened North without American troops and direct combat support. They fell like a house of cards, it was a disaster.
"A quick, easy check of an old newspaper database shows Laird's cutoff claim to be false. In the fiscal year running from July 1, 1974, to June 30, 1975, the congressional appropriation for military aid to South Vietnam was $700 million.
Nixon had requested $1.45 billion. Congress cut his aid request, but never cut off aid.
Nixon's successor, President Gerald R. Ford, requested an additional $300 million for Saigon. Democrats saw it as an exercise in political blame-shifting. "The administration knows that the $300 million won't really do anything to prevent ultimate collapse in Vietnam," said Senator and future Vice President Walter F. Mondale, D-Mn., "and it is just trying to shift responsibility of its policy to Congress and the Democrats." Congress didn't approve the supplemental appropriation.
The Times reported that with National Security Adviser and Secretary of State Henry "Kissinger's personal prestige tied to peace in Vietnam, his aides have said that he will try to pin the blame for failure there on Congress." He tried to do just that at a March 26, 1975 news conference in which he framed the question facing Congress as "whether it will deliberately destroy an ally by withholding aid from it in its moment of extremity." Three years earlier, in October 1972, the month in which Kissinger publicly proclaimed that "peace is at hand," he privately told the President that their own settlement terms would destroy South Vietnam.
Congressional aid cuts didn't determine the war's final outcome. Saigon's fate was sealed long before, when Nixon forced it accept his settlement terms in January 1973.
As for Laird's "cut off" of funds for Saigon, it just never happened. Even Nixon acknowledged the 1975 military appropriation for Saigon of $700 million..."
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/126150
The primary reason why Saigon fell in spring of '75 was that Congress stopped resupplying the South Vietnamese army once the entire US army was already out of there by '74.
Not sure what this has to do with the assertion Trump is playing three dimensional chess with the Military Industrial Complex by increasing the defense budget. But its not completely true. Base line was the South Vietnamese army was not a match for the battle hardened North without American troops and direct combat support. They fell like a house of cards, it was a disaster.
"A quick, easy check of an old newspaper database shows Laird's cutoff claim to be false. In the fiscal year running from July 1, 1974, to June 30, 1975, the congressional appropriation for military aid to South Vietnam was $700 million.
Nixon had requested $1.45 billion. Congress cut his aid request, but never cut off aid.
Nixon's successor, President Gerald R. Ford, requested an additional $300 million for Saigon. Democrats saw it as an exercise in political blame-shifting. "The administration knows that the $300 million won't really do anything to prevent ultimate collapse in Vietnam," said Senator and future Vice President Walter F. Mondale, D-Mn., "and it is just trying to shift responsibility of its policy to Congress and the Democrats." Congress didn't approve the supplemental appropriation.
The Times reported that with National Security Adviser and Secretary of State Henry "Kissinger's personal prestige tied to peace in Vietnam, his aides have said that he will try to pin the blame for failure there on Congress." He tried to do just that at a March 26, 1975 news conference in which he framed the question facing Congress as "whether it will deliberately destroy an ally by withholding aid from it in its moment of extremity." Three years earlier, in October 1972, the month in which Kissinger publicly proclaimed that "peace is at hand," he privately told the President that their own settlement terms would destroy South Vietnam.
Congressional aid cuts didn't determine the war's final outcome. Saigon's fate was sealed long before, when Nixon forced it accept his settlement terms in January 1973.
As for Laird's "cut off" of funds for Saigon, it just never happened. Even Nixon acknowledged the 1975 military appropriation for Saigon of $700 million..."
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/126150
45
Rin
2019 Jun 22, 9:48am
Rin
2019 Jun 22, 9:48am
I'm not sure, I knew a South Vietnamese officer who was among the lucky ones to get out before the '75 collapse and later settled down in the Boston area.
His experience was that by mid '74, the average soldier had up to 3 magazines per week vs the usual of 7-8 when the US army was still there prior to the closure of "Vietnamization".
In effect, he echoed let's call it the Republican spiel, that the South was reduced to a poor man's war whereas the North was armed to the teeth. And the North did take their time, throughout '74, testing the South incrementally, making sure that they didn't have enough counter firepower before the grand offensive in the spring.
So I'm sure when 'rationing' kicked in, the ones who already had the pre-existing armory, didn't share it and thus, the fact that funds were getting cut from above, did abet the collapse of the South's defenses.
His experience was that by mid '74, the average soldier had up to 3 magazines per week vs the usual of 7-8 when the US army was still there prior to the closure of "Vietnamization".
In effect, he echoed let's call it the Republican spiel, that the South was reduced to a poor man's war whereas the North was armed to the teeth. And the North did take their time, throughout '74, testing the South incrementally, making sure that they didn't have enough counter firepower before the grand offensive in the spring.
So I'm sure when 'rationing' kicked in, the ones who already had the pre-existing armory, didn't share it and thus, the fact that funds were getting cut from above, did abet the collapse of the South's defenses.
46
Onvacation
2019 Jun 22, 2:22pm
Onvacation
2019 Jun 22, 2:22pm
NuttBoxer says
Weren't those sanctions in response to Japan's militairy expansion in Asia?
I guess you aren't aware of the US led economic sanctions on Japan that directly preceded Pearl Harbor...
Weren't those sanctions in response to Japan's militairy expansion in Asia?
47
Heraclitusstudent
2019 Jun 24, 11:58am
Heraclitusstudent
2019 Jun 24, 11:58am
HonkpilledMaster says
Granted he can wrestle the media into the mud, but that's the only thing he's good at.
I wish the foreign policy of this country was not led solely for US media appearances.
You still believe he survives 365-24-7 x4 all out attacks by the World Media, the Deep State, etc. and simply is a Happy Amateur? No chance.
Granted he can wrestle the media into the mud, but that's the only thing he's good at.
I wish the foreign policy of this country was not led solely for US media appearances.
48
MisdemeanorRebel
2019 Jun 25, 3:15am
MisdemeanorRebel
2019 Jun 25, 3:15am
NuttBoxer says
Fallacy of the excluded Middle. We exported a ton of shit to China and had lots of Christian Missionary Work going on there. Pearl S Buck was the daughter of a famous missionary. The Japanese invaded that country on the bullshit pretext of the Marco Polo Bridge Incident, which nobody considers to be anything less than a False Flag by the IJA, and all we did was impose sanctions for their unjustified war of Aggression. Then the Japs strafed our gunboat that was escorting our legal, neutral shipping.
I'm not a hyper-interventionist, but I'm not a "let's sit on our ass when really bad shit happens."
US Sanctions on Japan for invading China with no causus belli was NOT a justification for the Japanese to invade US Territories of the Phillipenes, Guam, and bomb Hawaii (as well as invade British Malaysia, New Guinea, New Holland, Dutch Indonesia, etc.), as well as launch fire balloons into the West Coast of the USA.
We should have declared war on Imperial Germany years before the Lusitania, they were paying Mexican bandits to raid the US, poisoning our horses, blowing up our ports and ships, etc. when we were neutral. We busted dozens of saboteur and spy rings, intercepted plenty of communications, had plenty of insider turncoats with the documents, the evidence was incontrovertible. Wilson was a pussy.
Trump is doing fine dicking with Iran's computers in return for the drone downing. That's an equivalent response. Though yesterday Verizon had issues around 9AM EST for a minute or so.
The Middle East is rapidly improving. The big obstacle is the Muslim Brotherhood-Russo-Iranian-Palestinian-Hezbollah Axis which doesn't want a more fundamentally stable Middle East because it removes their leverage.
Good to know you fully support us intervening in everyone else's business. Iraq, justified, Afganistan, justified, Syria, totally justified, Iran...
Fallacy of the excluded Middle. We exported a ton of shit to China and had lots of Christian Missionary Work going on there. Pearl S Buck was the daughter of a famous missionary. The Japanese invaded that country on the bullshit pretext of the Marco Polo Bridge Incident, which nobody considers to be anything less than a False Flag by the IJA, and all we did was impose sanctions for their unjustified war of Aggression. Then the Japs strafed our gunboat that was escorting our legal, neutral shipping.
I'm not a hyper-interventionist, but I'm not a "let's sit on our ass when really bad shit happens."
US Sanctions on Japan for invading China with no causus belli was NOT a justification for the Japanese to invade US Territories of the Phillipenes, Guam, and bomb Hawaii (as well as invade British Malaysia, New Guinea, New Holland, Dutch Indonesia, etc.), as well as launch fire balloons into the West Coast of the USA.
We should have declared war on Imperial Germany years before the Lusitania, they were paying Mexican bandits to raid the US, poisoning our horses, blowing up our ports and ships, etc. when we were neutral. We busted dozens of saboteur and spy rings, intercepted plenty of communications, had plenty of insider turncoats with the documents, the evidence was incontrovertible. Wilson was a pussy.
Trump is doing fine dicking with Iran's computers in return for the drone downing. That's an equivalent response. Though yesterday Verizon had issues around 9AM EST for a minute or so.
The Middle East is rapidly improving. The big obstacle is the Muslim Brotherhood-Russo-Iranian-Palestinian-Hezbollah Axis which doesn't want a more fundamentally stable Middle East because it removes their leverage.
49
WookieMan
2019 Jun 25, 5:25am
WookieMan
2019 Jun 25, 5:25am
Some positions here seem like world peace is an actual possibility if we just tuck it between our legs. Human civilization has been in CONSTANT conflict the entire time. The USA will always be in conflict somewhere, as will many other countries.
We're not perfect, but if you don't like being top dog, move to Iran and give 'em a hand. We can sanction whoever we want and the world knows it. They can fucking sanction us too. This isn't a one way street. The fact remains that world population has increased massively and we're in one of the most peaceful times in recorded history. https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace
We've fought and done stupid stuff with regards to conflict for sure. But some of the naysayers need to wake up and realize things could look a lot different, not just for us, but everyone in the world if we hadn't done what we've done in the past. If you think we're a bully and don't like bullying, leave. Or if you think you're a geopolitical expert and can help lead to more peaceful times than now, get off Patnet and drain the Pentagon swamp if things are sooooo bad. Otherwise enjoy what is some of the most peaceful times this planet has seen.
We're not perfect, but if you don't like being top dog, move to Iran and give 'em a hand. We can sanction whoever we want and the world knows it. They can fucking sanction us too. This isn't a one way street. The fact remains that world population has increased massively and we're in one of the most peaceful times in recorded history. https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace
We've fought and done stupid stuff with regards to conflict for sure. But some of the naysayers need to wake up and realize things could look a lot different, not just for us, but everyone in the world if we hadn't done what we've done in the past. If you think we're a bully and don't like bullying, leave. Or if you think you're a geopolitical expert and can help lead to more peaceful times than now, get off Patnet and drain the Pentagon swamp if things are sooooo bad. Otherwise enjoy what is some of the most peaceful times this planet has seen.
50
Rin
2019 Jun 25, 8:05pm
Rin
2019 Jun 25, 8:05pm
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/syria-crisis-obama-foreign-policy-disaster
Hundreds are dead and thousands wounded after an intensive bombing campaign in Eastern Ghouta by Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. Images of bloodied children, carnage, and destroyed homes have made the rounds across major media outlets. Opinion pieces have slowly started to roll out questioning President Trump’s decision to remain removed from the conflict, with criticism coming most notably from two former Obama State Department appointees, Evelyn Farkas and Frederic Hof, writing in The Atlantic.
This is nothing more than an attempt to confuse the fact that Obama, not Trump, is responsible for the worsening bloodshed in Syria.
Syria has been in a state of civil war since March 2011. More than 500,000 have been killed and millions remain displaced in one of the worst humanitarian crises in the modern era. European governments have been destabilized from the millions of refugees who have fled, seeking safety. How did the United States let it get this bad? Because President Obama offered no leadership as Syria descended into chaos and the world is now forced to face the aftermath of that mistake.
Obama’s decision to remain clear of Syria was calculated. Looking for a major foreign-policy achievement, the president wanted to cement his legacy by signing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, also known as the Iran Nuclear Deal. Negotiators from Tehran issued a warning to Washington that no deal would happen if the United States became embroiled in the Syrian civil war. Presented with the opportunity to secure the nuclear deal, Obama and his team decided to “lead from behind” in Syria, leaving other nations to deal with the issue.
Unfortunately, the Iran Deal had the consequence of significantly accelerating strife in Syria. By freeing up hundreds of billions of dollars in sanctioned money, Tehran was able to prop up Assad and his murderous regime, to the generous tune of $6 to $35 billion a year, according to the U.N. special envoy to Iran, Staffan de Mistura. Oil, foot soldiers, and munitions followed. Worse, Iran was able to provide substantial funding to its proxy group, Hezbollah, whose radical Islamist fighters poured into Syria to support Assad.
Obama’s lack of leadership in Syria also left other actors to fill the gap. Seeing an opportunity to advance his goal of returning Russia to global-power status, Vladimir Putin sent soldiers and military support to the Syrian regime in 2015. Moscow continues to help train Assad’s forces and has partaken in airstrikes. Russia-Syrian joint forces have conducted hundreds of airstrikes in Eastern Ghouta alone.
Even as Russia stepped up its influence alongside Iran and Hezbollah, and the situation continued to deteriorate, President Obama kept America on the sidelines. Syrians faced the meat grinder of the Assad regime, and Washington apparently didn’t feel obligated to highlight the atrocities. The Obama administration remained silent on Iran and Hezbollah’s frequent attacks on civilian populations.
While images of ISIS beheading American captives splashed across television screens worldwide, the Obama administration remained mired in passivity.
Surprisingly, Washington even curtailed the use of military force against radical Islamist groups such as ISIS. While images of ISIS beheading American captives splashed across television screens worldwide, the Obama administration remained mired in passivity. Former CIA director Mike Morrell disclosed that fear of environmental harm, from the destruction of ISIS’s oil wells, kept the U.S. from waging a full-fledged campaign to destroy the terror group and its financing mechanisms. So we launched strikes on individual trucks rather than oil wells or infrastructure.
Unfortunately, Obama’s inaction on this front wasn’t the worst of his blunders. Previously, the president had set a “red line” warning the Syrian government that the United States would not accept the use of chemical weapons in the conflict. “We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized,” Obama noted in August 2012.
But the red line vanished. The world watched in shock as Assad slaughtered his own people using chemical weapons, testing the former president’s response. Obama condemned the attack and expressed “grave concerns” over the situation, but no tangible concessions from Assad or military response followed. He proved his own “red line” to be an empty threat, shattering American credibility.
With Obama’s missteps, one is right to ask what Trump has done since he’s taken office. To start, he has loosed the rules of engagement to allow our troops to be less constrained when combating radical Islamist terrorist groups. ISIS remains on the run in both Syria and Iraq and has lost more than 98 percent of its territory, mostly since Trump took office.
The authoritarian regimes in Iran and Russia have also been put on watch. In a recent major escalation, United States forces killed or wounded more than 300 Kremlin-backed guns for hire near the city of Deir al-Zor, in Syria. Assailants attempted to launch an assault on an American base and were obliterated in a clash more deadly than any single occasion during the cold war. Trump offered no apologies or condolences to Putin after it was revealed that dozens of fighters were Russian citizens, fighting under the guise of mercenaries.
Most significantly, the Trump administration has stood firm on its stance that the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable. Emboldened by Obama’s feeble response, Assad launched a chemical attack on the Syrian city of Khan Shaykhun in April 2017. More than 80 were killed, with hundreds injured including women and children.
The United States responded immediately, launching 59 Tomahawk missiles at Shayrat Airbase and wiping out approximately 20 percent of the Assad regime’s airpower. Thankfully, these actions made clear that the current administration will take decisive measures to ensure that chemical weapons are not normalized.
Despite these firm actions from the current administration, Trump can do only so much. President Obama ceded too much control to Iran and Russia, and further American involvement would probably initiate a major military confrontation. So when you see the humanitarian catastrophe blare across your television, remember that President Obama is the reason we cannot do more. America’s hands remain tied from past failures.
Blaming the current Syria situation on President Trump is both dishonest and unscrupulous. Obama’s handling of Syria was disastrous. Expecting Trump to fix the mess overnight is ridiculous. He and his team are now attempting to uphold international law and halt the worsening humanitarian crisis. But they have few good options, thanks to President Obama.
Hundreds are dead and thousands wounded after an intensive bombing campaign in Eastern Ghouta by Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. Images of bloodied children, carnage, and destroyed homes have made the rounds across major media outlets. Opinion pieces have slowly started to roll out questioning President Trump’s decision to remain removed from the conflict, with criticism coming most notably from two former Obama State Department appointees, Evelyn Farkas and Frederic Hof, writing in The Atlantic.
This is nothing more than an attempt to confuse the fact that Obama, not Trump, is responsible for the worsening bloodshed in Syria.
Syria has been in a state of civil war since March 2011. More than 500,000 have been killed and millions remain displaced in one of the worst humanitarian crises in the modern era. European governments have been destabilized from the millions of refugees who have fled, seeking safety. How did the United States let it get this bad? Because President Obama offered no leadership as Syria descended into chaos and the world is now forced to face the aftermath of that mistake.
Obama’s decision to remain clear of Syria was calculated. Looking for a major foreign-policy achievement, the president wanted to cement his legacy by signing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, also known as the Iran Nuclear Deal. Negotiators from Tehran issued a warning to Washington that no deal would happen if the United States became embroiled in the Syrian civil war. Presented with the opportunity to secure the nuclear deal, Obama and his team decided to “lead from behind” in Syria, leaving other nations to deal with the issue.
Unfortunately, the Iran Deal had the consequence of significantly accelerating strife in Syria. By freeing up hundreds of billions of dollars in sanctioned money, Tehran was able to prop up Assad and his murderous regime, to the generous tune of $6 to $35 billion a year, according to the U.N. special envoy to Iran, Staffan de Mistura. Oil, foot soldiers, and munitions followed. Worse, Iran was able to provide substantial funding to its proxy group, Hezbollah, whose radical Islamist fighters poured into Syria to support Assad.
Obama’s lack of leadership in Syria also left other actors to fill the gap. Seeing an opportunity to advance his goal of returning Russia to global-power status, Vladimir Putin sent soldiers and military support to the Syrian regime in 2015. Moscow continues to help train Assad’s forces and has partaken in airstrikes. Russia-Syrian joint forces have conducted hundreds of airstrikes in Eastern Ghouta alone.
Even as Russia stepped up its influence alongside Iran and Hezbollah, and the situation continued to deteriorate, President Obama kept America on the sidelines. Syrians faced the meat grinder of the Assad regime, and Washington apparently didn’t feel obligated to highlight the atrocities. The Obama administration remained silent on Iran and Hezbollah’s frequent attacks on civilian populations.
While images of ISIS beheading American captives splashed across television screens worldwide, the Obama administration remained mired in passivity.
Surprisingly, Washington even curtailed the use of military force against radical Islamist groups such as ISIS. While images of ISIS beheading American captives splashed across television screens worldwide, the Obama administration remained mired in passivity. Former CIA director Mike Morrell disclosed that fear of environmental harm, from the destruction of ISIS’s oil wells, kept the U.S. from waging a full-fledged campaign to destroy the terror group and its financing mechanisms. So we launched strikes on individual trucks rather than oil wells or infrastructure.
Unfortunately, Obama’s inaction on this front wasn’t the worst of his blunders. Previously, the president had set a “red line” warning the Syrian government that the United States would not accept the use of chemical weapons in the conflict. “We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized,” Obama noted in August 2012.
But the red line vanished. The world watched in shock as Assad slaughtered his own people using chemical weapons, testing the former president’s response. Obama condemned the attack and expressed “grave concerns” over the situation, but no tangible concessions from Assad or military response followed. He proved his own “red line” to be an empty threat, shattering American credibility.
With Obama’s missteps, one is right to ask what Trump has done since he’s taken office. To start, he has loosed the rules of engagement to allow our troops to be less constrained when combating radical Islamist terrorist groups. ISIS remains on the run in both Syria and Iraq and has lost more than 98 percent of its territory, mostly since Trump took office.
The authoritarian regimes in Iran and Russia have also been put on watch. In a recent major escalation, United States forces killed or wounded more than 300 Kremlin-backed guns for hire near the city of Deir al-Zor, in Syria. Assailants attempted to launch an assault on an American base and were obliterated in a clash more deadly than any single occasion during the cold war. Trump offered no apologies or condolences to Putin after it was revealed that dozens of fighters were Russian citizens, fighting under the guise of mercenaries.
Most significantly, the Trump administration has stood firm on its stance that the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable. Emboldened by Obama’s feeble response, Assad launched a chemical attack on the Syrian city of Khan Shaykhun in April 2017. More than 80 were killed, with hundreds injured including women and children.
The United States responded immediately, launching 59 Tomahawk missiles at Shayrat Airbase and wiping out approximately 20 percent of the Assad regime’s airpower. Thankfully, these actions made clear that the current administration will take decisive measures to ensure that chemical weapons are not normalized.
Despite these firm actions from the current administration, Trump can do only so much. President Obama ceded too much control to Iran and Russia, and further American involvement would probably initiate a major military confrontation. So when you see the humanitarian catastrophe blare across your television, remember that President Obama is the reason we cannot do more. America’s hands remain tied from past failures.
Blaming the current Syria situation on President Trump is both dishonest and unscrupulous. Obama’s handling of Syria was disastrous. Expecting Trump to fix the mess overnight is ridiculous. He and his team are now attempting to uphold international law and halt the worsening humanitarian crisis. But they have few good options, thanks to President Obama.
51
Rin
2019 Jun 25, 8:08pm
Rin
2019 Jun 25, 8:08pm
If anything, Trump appears to be a President who knows how to actually manage the Vietnam conflict, albeit in a George Marshall way, as oppose to a field marshall, but still, so far, he's doing it right.
In contrast, LBJ simply gave McNamara & Westmoreland carte blanche to do whatever they liked.
In contrast, LBJ simply gave McNamara & Westmoreland carte blanche to do whatever they liked.
« First « Previous Comments 41 - 51 of 51 Search these comments
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/iran-us-tensions-latest-intl/index.html
Excerpt: 'President Trump is tweeting about his decision to stop an operation to strike Iran last night.
"We were cocked & loaded to retaliate last night on 3 different sights when I asked, how many will die," he tweeted. "150 people, sir, was the answer from a General. 10 minutes before the strike I stopped it, not proportionate to shooting down an unmanned drone."
Here's his full thread:
....Death to America. I terminated deal, which was not even ratified by Congress, and imposed strong sanctions. They are a much weakened nation today than at the beginning of my Presidency, when they were causing major problems throughout the Middle East. Now they are Bust!....
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 21, 2019
....proportionate to shooting down an unmanned drone. I am in no hurry, our Military is rebuilt, new, and ready to go, by far the best in the world. Sanctions are biting & more added last night. Iran can NEVER have Nuclear Weapons, not against the USA, and not against the WORLD!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 21, 2019'
=================================
Ok, after two years in office, Trump is still not a war monger unlike all his predecessors, Republican or Democrat.
For a man who's a consummate trash talker, he's shown far more statesmanship than any President earlier. Some may even say that unlike the late John McCain, he actually learned from the Gulf of Tonkin incident & decided not to go ahead with something similar, under his watch, letting hawks like Bolton and others run the Pentagon.
Here's my alt-world, had Hillary won in 2016, my estimate is that today, there'd be an additional 1000+ dead American soldiers in the middle east due to a protracted land war in Syria, Iraq, and even Iran.
Sorry, but I can put up with a rude person. I can't put up with someone putting the boys in harm's way, just to pursue more nation building horseshit.