April 9, 2017

Trump in Transition (v15)


It's been awhile since I've done a Trump in Transition (TiT) post - mostly because he hasn't really shown any signs of 'transitioning' into anything.

He plays golf every weekend at his own courses; he tweets like a crazy man; he takes credit for things that he shouldn't when he's happy and parcels out blame that he shouldn't when he's unhappy, and he has his daughter officially at his side. No transition there, right?

But then, he went and launched cruise missiles, five dozen of them, at an airbase in Syria, telling us what he did after a nice dinner with members of his club, the President of China, and members of his administration and family (even some who aren't both).
Tonight, I ordered a targeted military strike on the airfield from where the chemical attack was launched, It is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons. There can be no dispute that Syria used banned chemical weapons, violated its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention and ignored the urging of the UN Security Council.
So, does this mean he's transitioning, pivoting, becoming more presidential? He certainly pivoted, no doubt about that.  America should not get involved in Syria, Trump famously warned President Obama  four years ago, the first time Assad did this.
We should stay the hell out of Syria, the "rebels" are just as bad as the current regime. WHAT WILL BE GET FOR OUR LIVES AND $ BILLIONS? ZERO
He clearly understood at the time the risk of taking any action:
What will we get for bombing Syria beside more debt and possible long-term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval.
And boy, did he understand how that swampy thing worked, or what?
The president must get Congressional approval before attacking Syria - big mistake if he does not! 
But, again, we don't always follow our own advice, do we?  

We're America. We lead, and often don't even worry whether others will follow, because we have the military power, we have the moral high ground, and because it we don't do it, no one will, right? And Assad used chemical weapons on his own people, again. It's important that he did it again, since the last time he did it, our friends in Russia helped ensure that he got rid of his stockpile of the damn stuff, so he couldn't use it again. That was the outcome when Congress didn't AUMF, or authorize the use of military force, when President Obama asked for it back in 2013.

Congress agreed with Trump then, that this was the wrong thing to do. Just ask lying sombitch Mitch McConnell:
A vital national security risk is clearly not at play, there are just too many unanswered questions about our long-term strategy in Syria, including this proposal is utterly detached from a wider strategy to end the civil war there... Either we will strike targets that threaten the stability of the regime - something the President says he does not intend to do - or we will execute a strike so narrow as to be a mere demonstration. 
Even Orrin Hatch, the songwriting senator from Utah, advised us then
What is clear is that launching a few missiles will do nothing to end Syria's civil war, and is neither a real strategy to stop the deployment of chemical weapons in Syria nor a guarantee that chemical weapons won't be used in the future by the Assad regime. That is not a plan for the region.
I am leery of America getting more involved in someone else's war, without having a clear plan and a defined reason for doing so. I'm particularly leery of this man, this administration, doing that. There is absolutely zero consistency, and I think, no core belief from this president; there is no 'Trump doctrine" that we can look to, because it changes with the weather.

He's told us over and over and over we are not the world's policeman, we will always be America first, we are no longer going to go it alone without our allies, we don't belong in someone else's war, we have nothing to gain....  and he's right about one thing. No one deserves what happened last week, but neither should America be dropping inconsequential bombs on another country in response to children dying (if that's even the reason why we did this), at the same time we refuse them safe passage because they guy who ordered the bombing thinks the children and other refugees deserve a wall or a dome or an underground shelter or something out of a bad movie.
They should build a safe zone. Take a big piece of land in Syria and they have plenty of land, believe me. Build a safe zone for all these people, because I have a heart, I mean these people, it's horrible to watch. But they shouldn't come over here. We should build a safe zone. 
We made a safe zone for the Russians by giving them a heads up so they could get their people and materiel out of the way. And of course, the Russians would have extended that notification to the Syrians. We made a safe zone for Bashar al-Assad by allowing the same airfield to be used within hours to launch missions against the same town hit in the chemical attacks.

What did we accomplish? What are we doing? Which America are we? What's the plan? Who is in the Oval Office with Trump helping make the decisions?

Bueller? Anyone?