Trump: Prisoner of the War Party?

[dukkha]

Ten days ago, President Trump was saying 'the United States should withdraw from Syria.' We convinced him it was necessary to stay."

Thus boasted French President Emmanuel Macron Saturday, adding, "We convinced him it was necessary to stay for the long term."

Is the U.S. indeed in the Syrian civil war "for the long term"?

If so, who made that fateful decision for this republic?

U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley confirmed Sunday there would be no drawdown of the 2,000 U.S. troops in Syria, until three objectives were reached. We must fully defeat ISIS, ensure chemical weapons would not again be used by Bashar Assad and maintain the ability to watch Iran.

Translation: Whatever Trump says, America is not coming out of Syria. We are going deeper in. Trump's commitment to extricate us from these bankrupting and blood-soaked Middle East wars and to seek a new rapprochement with Russia is "inoperative."

The War Party that Trump routed in the primaries is capturing and crafting his foreign policy. Monday's Wall Street Journal editorial page fairly blossomed with war plans:

"The better U.S. strategy is to ... turn Syria into the Ayatollah's Vietnam. Only when Russia and Iran began to pay a larger price in Syria will they have any incentive to negotiate an end to the war or even contemplate a peace based on dividing the country into ethnic-based enclaves."

Apparently, we are to bleed Syria, Russia, Hezbollah and Iran until they cannot stand the pain and submit to subdividing Syria the way we want.

But suppose that, as in our Civil War of 1861-1865, the Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939, and the Chinese Civil War of 1945-1949, Assad and his Russian, Iranian and Shiite militia allies go all out to win and reunite the nation.

Suppose they choose to fight to consolidate the victory they have won after seven years of civil war. Where do we find the troops to take back the territory our rebels lost? Or do we just bomb mercilessly?

The British and French say they will back us in future attacks if chemical weapons are used, but they are not plunging into Syria.

Defense Secretary James Mattis called the U.S.-British-French attack a "one-shot" deal. British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson appears to agree: "The rest of the Syrian war must proceed as it will."

The Journal's op-ed page Monday was turned over to former U.S. ambassador to Syria Ryan Crocker and Brookings Institute senior fellow Michael O'Hanlon: "Next time the U.S. could up the ante, going after military command and control, political leadership, and perhaps even Assad himself. The U.S. could also pledge to take out much of his air force. Targets within Iran should not be off limits."

And when did Congress authorize U.S. acts of war against Syria, its air force or political leadership? When did Congress authorize the killing of the president of Syria whose country has not attacked us?

Can the U.S. also attack Iran and kill the ayatollah without consulting Congress?

Clearly, with the U.S. fighting in six countries, Commander in Chief Trump does not want any new wars, or to widen any existing wars in the Middle East. But he is being pushed into becoming a war president to advance the agenda of foreign policy elites who, almost to a man, opposed his election.

We have a reluctant president being pushed into a war he does not want to fight. This is a formula for a strategic disaster not unlike Vietnam or George W. Bush's war to strip Iraq of nonexistent WMD.

The assumption of the War Party seems to be that if we launch larger and more lethal strikes in Syria, inflicting casualties on Russians, Iranians, Hezbollah and the Syrian army, they will yield to our demands.

But where is the evidence for this?

What reason is there to believe these forces will surrender what they have paid in blood to win? And if they choose to fight and widen the war to the larger Middle East, are we prepared for that?

As for Trump's statement Friday, "No amount of American blood and treasure can produce lasting peace in the Middle East," the Washington Post Sunday dismissed this as "fatalistic" and "misguided."

We have a vital interest, says the Post, in preventing Iran from establishing a "land corridor" across Syria.

Yet consider how Iran acquired this "land corridor."

The Shiites in 1979 overthrew a shah our CIA installed in 1953.

The Shiites control Iraq because President Bush invaded and overthrew Saddam and his Sunni Baath Party, disbanded his Sunni-led army, and let the Shiite majority take control of the country.

The Shiites are dominant in Lebanon because they rose up and ran out the Israelis, who invaded in 1982 to run out the PLO.

How many American dead will it take to reverse this history?

How long will we have to stay in the Middle East to assure the permanent hegemony of Sunni over Shiite?
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...ty_136823.html

[dukkha]

Monday's Wall Street Journal editorial page fairly blossomed with war plans:

"The better U.S. strategy is to ... turn Syria into the Ayatollah's Vietnam. Only when Russia and Iran began to pay a larger price in Syria will they have any incentive to negotiate an end to the war or even contemplate a peace based on dividing the country into ethnic-based enclaves."

Apparently, we are to bleed Syria, Russia, Hezbollah and Iran until they cannot stand the pain and submit to subdividing Syria the way we want.

wardogs are salivating

[Cypress]

I do not know why you expected this morbidly obese orange clown to somehow be a peace loving hippie flower child.

This oversized pig just says whatever comes into his mind and sounds good at the time. Even though he was in favor of invading Iraq, he decided years later it would sound better if he had somehow allegedly been a passionate anti-Iraq war protestor.

The draft dodging hog fancies himself a wanna be alpha male, he clearly relishes the imagery of violence and militarism, the pomp and circumstance of being a Generalissimo of-sorts, he has been escalating most of our major armed conflicts, and the only part of the federal government he thinks needs vast expansion and support is the Pentagon and the military industrial complex. I have never seen him as anything other than perhaps the most militaristic president this nation has had in modern times.

[Cancel 2020.1]

I can't tell - is this thread trying to make pre-emptive excuses for Trump's military decisions?

[dukkha]

I can't tell - is this thread trying to make pre-emptive excuses for Trump's military decisions?

no. but it's clearly a warning. Trump wants out of Syria.The Wardogs wnat the US in for their various reasons.
Israel would want us in for Iran
Russiaphobes want us in for Russia
( degrade and bleed)

The regime changers want us to go after Assad.

Only when Russia and Iran began to pay a larger price in Syria will they have any incentive to negotiate an end to the war or even contemplate a peace based on dividing the country into ethnic-based enclaves."

Apparently, we are to bleed Syria, Russia, Hezbollah and Iran until they cannot stand the pain and submit to subdividing Syria the way we want.

Buchannan is the author. a long time anti-interventionist

[dukkha]

I do not know why you expected this morbidly obese orange clown to somehow be a peace loving hippie flower child.

This oversized pig just says whatever comes into his mind and sounds good at the time. Even though he was in favor of invading Iraq, he decided years later it would sound better if he had somehow allegedly been a passionate anti-Iraq war protestor.

The draft dodging hog fancies himself a wanna be alpha male, he clearly relishes the imagery of violence and militarism, the pomp and circumstance of being a Generalissimo of-sorts, he has been escalating most of our major armed conflicts, and the only part of the federal government he thinks needs vast expansion and support is the Pentagon and the military industrial complex. I have never seen him as anything other than perhaps the most militaristic president this nation has had in modern times.

same rant /different day. No he's not "escalating various conflicts" but he is giving into the all out over-whelming noise on Russia and selling JAVELIN the the Ukranian militias.

Afghan is not an escalation as much as you want it to be so.

Syria is really bad one way trap if he escalates

[Cancel 2020.1]

same rant /different day. No he's not "escalating various conflicts" but he is giving into the all out over-whelming noise on Russia and selling JAVELIN the the Ukranian militias.

Afghan is not an escalation as much as you want it to be so.

Syria is really bad one way trap if he escalates

Try to step back objectively and think how you would have reacted if Hillary was President and made the exact same decisions.

[dukkha]

Try to step back objectively and think how you would have reacted if Hillary was President and made the exact same decisions.

FFSake. Hillary would have us in Syria with her "humanitarian corridor" already. Need land forces for that.
Her regime change tendencies ..lord know where that would have taken us as well
"Assad must go"

[Darth Omar]

wardogs are salivating

Until Trump gets us in a war I’ll reserve judgement.

I didn’t like the action in Syria, but, it was measured and proportionate. He made sure Russian personnel were out of the way so we didn’t get into WWIII over sheer idiocy.

But absolutely, there is a tension between Trump and the perpetual war freaks. I’m pulling for Trump.

[dukkha]

Until Trump gets us in a war I’ll reserve judgement.

I didn’t like the action in Syria, but, it was measured and proportionate. He made sure Russian personnel were out of the way so we didn’t get into WWIII over sheer idiocy.

But absolutely, there is a tension between Trump and the perpetual war freaks. I’m pulling for Trump.

xactly..you got the idea of Buchannan's warnings. stay out of the sticky wickets.
I'm optimistic because Trump has said he's anti-interventionist -but Obama said the same about Iraq and then regime changed Libya.
But Trump doesn't go along with UN globalists, unlike Obama either. Haley is dangerous. The war dogs never rest.

[Getin the ring]

Trump was handed this shit sandwich from President do-nothing. just like with NK he is exercising US strength with diplomacy.

The difference with Trump is he knows that you have to back up your words with action in order for anyone to take you seriously, that's American might through diplomacy.

Syria is a humanitarian Geneva convention issue with him right now.
Short of it is the US is once again trying to lead. And world leaders are picking up on this. They saw American influence dwindle to nothing under Obama, and it was concerning to them.

Russia is getting served right now, that they too have rules to follow. Trump is not playing games.

[Cancel 2020.1]

FFSake. Hillary would have us in Syria with her "humanitarian corridor" already. Need land forces for that.
Her regime change tendencies ..lord know where that would have taken us as well
"Assad must go"

Didn't answer the question.

[Cancel 2020.1]

Trump was handed this shit sandwich from President do-nothing. just like with NK he is exercising US strength with diplomacy.

The difference with Trump is he knows that you have to back up your words with action in order for anyone to take you seriously, that's American might through diplomacy.

Syria is a humanitarian Geneva convention issue with him right now.
Short of it is the US is once again trying to lead. And world leaders are picking up on this. They saw American influence dwindle to nothing under Obama, and it was concerning to them.

Russia is getting served right now, that they too have rules to follow. Trump is not playing games.

He plays a lot of golf, though.

[cawacko]

There's a reason so many politicians say one thing on the campaign trail and do something different once in office, other than politicians will say anything to get elected, and that is the real world isn't as neat and easy as a campaign promise.

For starters we don't want to see the use of chemical weapons normalized and that's what's going to happen if we and others don't step up and respond.

[archives]

Now is the "war party" or "war dogs" another right wing conspiratorial entity like the "deep state" that is supposedly plotting against the President? Conservatives sure do like their scapegoats, even if they have to invent them

I agree with "cypress," the President has no Middle East strategy, what he does is react to whatever the current situation is and then tweet attempting to rationalize his response

Truth be told, the cabinet officials responsible for policy are calling the shots and for the most part they are just continuing the strategy they inherited from the last Administration