Trump blasts Syria.

[Runnin]

He's not President any more, though. Using the old maxim of "follow a fat pope with a skinny pope," it seems like you've got your wish. A calculating and reticent cool-running thinker has been replaced with an impulsive, hypersensitive, hot-running doer. We'll see how that plays.

And a fat guy replaced the skinny guy.

That really makes politics a lot easier to understand.

[Hawk]

“Our administration never would have gotten this done in 48 hours,” one former senior official of the Obama administration told me. “It’s a complete indictment of Obama.”

“I feel like finally we have done the right thing,” Anne-Marie Slaughter, who served as Obama’s first-term chief of policy planning at the State Department and long publicly urged a more forceful response to Assad’s horrific attacks on civilians during the six years of war that have wracked Syria, told me. “The years of hypocrisy just hurt us all. It undermined the U.S., it undermined the world order.”

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...-theory-214999

[jpx7]

“Our administration never would have gotten this done in 48 hours,” one former senior official of the Obama administration told me. “It’s a complete indictment of Obama.”

“I feel like finally we have done the right thing,” Anne-Marie Slaughter, who served as Obama’s first-term chief of policy planning at the State Department and long publicly urged a more forceful response to Assad’s horrific attacks on civilians during the six years of war that have wracked Syria, told me. “The years of hypocrisy just hurt us all. It undermined the U.S., it undermined the world order.”

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...-theory-214999

It's only "a complete indictment" if you think aggressive military intervention is the right response. I'm in the boat of thinking Obama bombed too many people from the sky already.

[jpx7]

So what did obama do when Syria crossed his 'red line'?

Saying things like "this is my 'red line'" is poor statesmanship, as it is—even if you have a line.

Personally, I don't think avoiding military action in foreign nations makes one a namby-pamby, nor do I think aggressively advocatig for / pursuing a violent agenda makes you (or your country) a BigMan™.

[Krgrecw]

Saying things like "this is my 'red line'" is poor statesmanship, as it is—even if you have a line.

Personally, I don't think avoiding military action in foreign nations makes one a namby-pamby, not do I think aggressively advocatig for / pursuing a violent agenda makes you (or your country) a BigMan™.

In the real world, if you put your foot down and the other guy crosses it and then you duck and run away does that not make you look like a puss? Does everyone else watching the incident not lose respect for you and think you're a puss?

That's what happened with Obama. The whole world saw it. Assad knew that Obama wouldn't confront him. Putin knew that he could walk into Ukraine and take Crimeria. China knew that they could take islands in the Pacific. All the bad actors in the world knew that the leader of the free world was a push over.

[cajunrevenge]

Just like we knew we could invade and occupy Iraq without any other country stopping us?

[jpx7]

In the real world, if you put your foot down and the other guy crosses it and then you duck and run away does that not make you look like a puss? Does everyone else watching the incident not lose respect for you and think you're a puss?

That's what happened with Obama. The whole world saw it. Assad knew that Obama wouldn't confront him. Putin knew that he could walk into Ukraine and take Crimeria. China knew that they could take islands in the Pacific. All the bad actors in the world knew that the leader of the free world was a push over.

This is such a broken, simplistic way of viewing geopolitics.

[Runnin]

In the real world, if you put your foot down and the other guy crosses it and then you duck and run away does that not make you look like a puss? Does everyone else watching the incident not lose respect for you and think you're a puss?

That's what happened with Obama. The whole world saw it. Assad knew that Obama wouldn't confront him. Putin knew that he could walk into Ukraine and take Crimeria. China knew that they could take islands in the Pacific. All the bad actors in the world knew that the leader of the free world was a push over.

Never seen the layman's view articulated this well before. Congrats.

[Julio3000]

“Our administration never would have gotten this done in 48 hours,” one former senior official of the Obama administration told me. “It’s a complete indictment of Obama.”

“I feel like finally we have done the right thing,” Anne-Marie Slaughter, who served as Obama’s first-term chief of policy planning at the State Department and long publicly urged a more forceful response to Assad’s horrific attacks on civilians during the six years of war that have wracked Syria, told me. “The years of hypocrisy just hurt us all. It undermined the U.S., it undermined the world order.”

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...-theory-214999

Gosh, Hillary has really gotten in the mix this week.

[cajunrevenge]

Its easy to have a quick response when you knew the chemical attacks were coming ahead of time.

[Hawk]

It's only "a complete indictment" if you think aggressive military intervention is the right response.

An 'aggressive' (or even proportionate) response would have been much more along the lines of lex talionis.

Anyways, I think that comment has more to do with Obama's cripplingly slow, multi-tiered and insulated WH decision making apparatus than it does with the operation in Syria

I'm in the boat of thinking Obama bombed too many people from the sky already.

Indiscriminate bombing is a problem for everyone (whether they accept it or not). However, this particular scenario (be it Assad after sarin in 2013 or Assad after sarin in 2017) is perhaps the quintessential example of a Just War action that even a pacifist/strict non-interventionist should, at the very least, give some degree of consideration.

[Hawk]

Personally, I don't think avoiding military action in foreign nations makes one a namby-pamby, nor do I think aggressively advocatig for / pursuing a violent agenda makes you (or your country) a BigMan™.

I think most people would agree with this statement.

Though the issue here is not as simple as painstakingly avoiding military action vs. going full on Private Pyle.

This is the question of what the appropriate response is to the slaughtering of thousands of innocents (women and children - not participants in the theater of war) using an illegal chemical weapon.

[NinersSBChamps]

I think most people would agree with this statement.

Though the issue here is not as simple as painstakingly avoiding military action vs. going full on Private Pyle.

This is the question of what the appropriate response is to the slaughtering of thousands of innocents (women and children - not participants in the theater of war) using an illegal chemical weapon.

There is no correct/appropriate response in a situation such as this. I think what happened was justified by Assad's actions, but nobody can say our response was necessary. I think we needed to intervene although I am sick of being the world police when we have our own issues to deal with. I am not comparing America's problem with a civil war and a President murdering his own people.

My whole sense of this is that I don't really care one way or the other. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. There was no good outcome that was going to happen regardless of what the administration did or didn't do.

[Hawk]

He's not President any more, though. Using the old maxim of "follow a fat pope with a skinny pope," it seems like you've got your wish. A calculating and reticent cool-running thinker has been replaced with an impulsive, hypersensitive, hot-running doer. We'll see how that plays.

I prefer pendulum theory.

While Obama may not be the President, we're still very much living in the world that he crafted for us - especially as it relates to foreign affairs. And it should be undisputed that his particular policy on Syria led us to Thursday's missile strikes. By the same token (as you have been quick to remind) Obama's policy in the Middle East was largely forced by President Bush, who chose to go there, in part, due to mistakes that President Clinton made by ignoring a man that 41 made strong. And the thread continues to unravel much along these same lines across decades and administrations.

At the end of the day, though, you are going to be hard pressed to find a corner of the globe where Obama's 'reticent' foreign policy strongly positioned this country going forward. Put the blame for that at whoever's doorstep you'd like, but our foreign agenda is a mess.

North Korea = Stronger
China = Stronger
Russia = Stronger
ISIL = Stronger
Iran = Stronger
Threat of Terrorism = Higher

Now, you can get hung up on 'cool-thinking' vs. 'impulsiveness' and these kind of extraneous character judgments all you like, but I'm personally more interested in meaningful policy direction.

[The Chosen One]

There is no correct/appropriate response in a situation such as this. I think what happened was justified by Assad's actions, but nobody can say our response was necessary. I think we needed to intervene although I am sick of being the world police when we have our own issues to deal with. I am not comparing America's problem with a civil war and a President murdering his own people.

My whole sense of this is that I don't really care one way or the other. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. There was no good outcome that was going to happen regardless of what the administration did or didn't do.

This might be the most rational post you've had in our community in over a decade.

[cajunrevenge]

How many countries stood by and did nothing after the chemical attacks? All of them except us.

[Julio3000]

I prefer pendulum theory.

While Obama may not be the President, we're still very much living in the world that he crafted for us - especially as it relates to foreign affairs. And it should be undisputed that his particular policy on Syria led us to Thursday's missile strikes. By the same token (as you have been quick to remind) Obama's policy in the Middle East was largely forced by President Bush, who chose to go there, in part, due to mistakes that President Clinton made by ignoring a man that 41 made strong. And the thread continues to unravel much along these same lines across decades and administrations.

At the end of the day, though, you are going to be hard pressed to find a corner of the globe where Obama's 'reticent' foreign policy strongly positioned this country going forward. Put the blame for that at whoever's doorstep you'd like, but our foreign agenda is a mess.

North Korea = Stronger
China = Stronger
Russia = Stronger
ISIL = Stronger
Iran = Stronger
Threat of Terrorism = Higher

Now, you can get hung up on 'cool-thinking' vs. 'impulsiveness' and these kind of extraneous character judgments all you like, but I'm personally more interested in meaningful policy direction.

That's a pretty puffy sentiment from Mr. "namby-pamby."

Criminy, dude. I'm not asking you to critique my dissertation here. It was not meant to be an insightful foreign policy comment, just a quick contrast in personal style.

I'm not going to take those assertions point-by-point right now, or ask what you mean by "stronger," but I'd start with the fun exercise of comparing those same entities from 2000-2008. Same conclusions, right? Except for ISIS, of course, which owes its existence to a series of bad Bush policy decisions.

I am interested to know what, concretely, gives you any confidence that Donald Trump, Rex Tillerson, Jared Kushner, and Steve Bannon are likely to improve things.

[Hawk]

It was not meant to be an insightful foreign policy comment, just a quick contrast in personal style.

I realize that, but it doesn't mean that I can't backhand the Obama deification.

Why not "dawdler" or "indecisive" or "flat-footed" ?

But Trump's impulsive.

Maybe I'm just anal retentive about word choice.

I'm not going to take those assertions point-by-point right now, or ask what you mean by "stronger," but I'd start with the fun exercise of comparing those same entities from 2000-2008. Same conclusions, right? Except for ISIS, of course, which owes its existence to a series of bad Bush policy decisions.

2008:

North Korea = Weaker
China = Growing
Russia = Weaker
Iran = Weaker
Threat of Terrorism = High, but not as imminent as it is today

I am interested to know what, concretely, gives you any confidence that Donald Trump, Rex Tillerson, Jared Kushner, and Steve Bannon are likely to improve things.

I don't think I've ever touted Trump's team as more qualified or more likely to produce results.

It's early days, but their response to Assad on Thursday was a positive step.

[Oklahomahawk]

OK, I don't have the time, energy, or inclination to keep up with the whole Syria thing, hence my lack of posts about it. So maybe you guys can clear these things up for me.

1.) Are we sure that he just recently used gas against the rebels he's fighting? I know he's done it plenty of other times but did he REALLY do it this time, since our attack was supposedly based on this "fact"?
2.) What about all the "he man studs" who have for the past 3 or 4 years (or more) tweeted, written, etc., about what a really bad idea it would be for Obama to bomb Syria and why we should stay the eff out of that "clusterpfark" (Trump and Hannity just to name a couple) who now all of a sudden are saying how this bombing proves that Trump is "the man" for bombing Syria while it also proves Obama was a "puss" for not doing so. I realize that politics, maybe even more than religion, absolutely requires to use an ever changing system of what are facts and what is right and wrong and what is the best move to do at this time, but exactly what has changed since those tweets, statements, etc., other than who IS and who IS NOT president to make what was until recently a terrible idea into what is great idea and long overdue?
3.) For anyone who is surprised (for the better or worse) that this bombing took place I would have to ask "why"? Did he not say on numerous occasions he would "bomb the ****e out of (insert country here)"? Why is it surprising that he kept this promise?
4.) Part of the BIGGER PLAN ?

OK, you guys enlighten me, but don't neglect to check out #4 before you do.

[Julio3000]

I realize that, but it doesn't mean that I can't backhand the Obama deification.

Why not "dawdler" or "indecisive" or "flat-footed" ?

But Trump's impulsive.

Maybe I'm just anal retentive about word choice.



2008:

North Korea = Weaker
China = Growing
Russia = Weaker
Iran = Weaker
Threat of Terrorism = High, but not as imminent as it is today

OK. Now I really don't know what criteria you're using.