Donald Trump has employed military force on a Syrian airbase, the villain in using chemical warfare on civilians, including children and babies, in the midst of the Syrian Civil War, which has raged for six years now, with Russia being the major ally of Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad.
In so doing, Trump has done something considered appropriate, but the question is what effect it will have on the Syrian Civil War, on Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, as well as our other rivals in the world, including China, North Korea, and Iran.
The irony of Trump taking action as the Chinese President is visiting him in Palm Beach, Florida, is noticed, as Trump wants and expects Chinese help to deal with Kim Jong Un, North Korea’s ruthless dictator, who continues to lob missiles, and is seen as a growing nuclear threat.
One can expect rapid action by Trump on North Korea after the summit with China ends this weekend.
So we have another President who is able to use foreign policy and national security as an area that may be part of his legacy, and might also boost his horrific public opinion polling ratings.
But we have to wonder whether Trump will be measured in his response, as he seems to be at the moment on Syria, or will end up enmeshing us in massive troop commitments in the Middle East and in the Korean peninsula in endless wars with massive loss of life and treasure.
Ironically, this military action occurred precisely on the centennial anniversary of Congress declaring war on Germany, Austria Hungary, and the Ottoman Turks in the First World War, the beginning of America’s full engagement with the world. The past century has seen America engaged in seven major wars and innumerable military engagements short of full scale war.
So one has to wonder how the American people will react to new military adventures, that might even require the beginning of a military draft, for the first time since 1973.
Lawrence O’Donnell says this was possibly a Wag The Dog moment. Reports are that Russia was warned about strike, fueling speculation that military action was taken to distract from mounting domestic problems. Trump is a snake, so that wouldn’t surprise me one bit.
Smerconish on CNN had a guest on this morning saying it may have been done to impress the Chinese leader.
Right-wingers were commenting yesterday that Hillary said she would have done the same thing. The difference is she would have had a policy which included a long-term plan for a solution to the situation. The strikes would have been fully supported by a competent administration, not an impulsive bunch of lunatics who had a different policy the day prior to the strikes and will have yet a different policy tomorrow.
Also, she wouldn’t be banning refugees. That’s why we’re skeptical of Trump’s sudden concern for the beautiful babies that were killed.
One of our Democratic Senators, Mark Warner, expressed the concerns we have regarding the airstrike.
“Last night, the Director of National Intelligence briefed me on the Administration’s strikes in Syria. Assad’s use of chemical weapons to slaughter civilians was a heinous crime as well as a violation of international norms and Syria’s commitments to give up chemical weapons. It could not go unpunished. I am hopeful these strikes will convince the Assad regime that such actions should never be repeated.
“I have requested information from the Administration about their plans, including any additional action in response to the use of chemical weapons. President Trump has said repeatedly that his objective in Syria is to defeat ISIS. Last night’s strike was aimed at a different objective. ​President Trump needs to articulate a coherent strategy for dealing with this complex conflict, because the consequences of a misstep are grave.â€
Our other Democratic Senator, Tim Kaine’s, response to the airstrike.
“Assad is a brutal dictator who must be held accountable for his actions. But President Trump has launched a military strike against Syria without a vote of Congress. The Constitution says war must be declared by Congress. I voted for military action against Syria in 2013 when Donald Trump was advocating that America turn its back on Assad’s atrocities. Congress will work with the President, but his failure to seek Congressional approval is unlawful.â€
Damage reports are confirming that we were right. Trump did this just for show.
No sign of a Syria strikes polling “bounce” for Trump, at least not in Gallup.
http://bluevirginia.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/gallup040917.jpg
Rachel Maddow showed a Washington Post/ABC poll of support for the air strikes compared to when Obama was contemplating military action in 2013.
2013:
Democrats – 38%
Republicans – 22%
2017:
Democrats – 37%
Republicans – 86%