Things Trump Is Doing Right

[Bob Butler 54]

(04-08-2017, 11:15 PM)Galen Wrote:

(04-08-2017, 09:34 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Trump has sent some mixed signals.  He's not going to be the world's policeman.  He knows how to use the military more effectively that prior presidents.  Let's see if his next move is more effective than launching a bunch of half million dollar missiles in order to put an airfield out of commission for a day.  I didn't much care for the pictures of intact fighter jets sitting in hardened shelters that took some damage but did their jobs.

If you think back to the supposed chemical attack by Assad in 2013 and the call to invade Syria at the time then this current attack looks much like that earlier one.  There are two problems with the conclusion that Assad carried out this latest attack.  First, is that Syria gave up its stockpile of chemical weapons.  Second, with the help of Russia he was winning and no doubt remembers what the pretext for last attempt at regime change was.

Given how long the deep state has wanted Assad out of the way and now that Trump appears to be setting the stage for another call for regime change I can only conclude that he has made his deal with them.  It looks like the neocons get their war despite Hillary's loss.

The Bush 43 White House was full of oil company executives and military people.  The military guys thought the US superiority in high tech would make it cost effective to use the military more.  The oil people didn’t like Saddam making oil deals with Russia and France.  I still see Iraq War II as barely masked colonial imperialism.  This was the original neo-con movement.  Put troops near the oil.  Take economic control of the oil.

Yes, in a conventional war, high tech allowed US forces a quick victory.  No, it didn’t help near as much when it turned into an insurgent war.  The US needed more boots on the ground than we had with the military shrunk from its Cold War levels.  We had to over use our reserve forces in order to barely keep our heads above water.  While initially Bush 43 thought he could pay for his war with oil money, this turned out to be nowhere near true.  The Bush era neocons were pretty much considered a failure and a political liability.  The stress on the economy from trying to fight the war without increasing taxes contributed to a massive economic collapse.  While some of the original neocons are still hanging about the Beltway, they are maintaining a pretty low profile.

The Republican response to this utter neocon disaster is to start calling Democrats neocons.  I consider this doublespeak and Big Lie.  The two parties have different styles and goals.  The Democrats have never favored building huge bases and embassies near the oil.  They would rather stabilize failed states and prevent crimes against humanity.  They also respect Powell’s Questions more.  They are less apt to commit to war without a clean path to victory.

This doesn’t mean I think Obama was a great success militarily.  He didn’t pull out anywhere near as fast as I think he should have.  Bush 43 created a mess.  Obama tried to hang onto as much of any good Bush 43 did, too much so in my opinion.  He didn’t have clean answers to Powell’s Questions, thus he should have pushed to get more boys home sooner.  Perhaps he kept friendlier regimes going in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Perhaps it might possibly have been worth it.  I am dubious about that.

I see two sets of objectives, quite different, both of which have been called neocon.  The Bush 43 neocons wanted troops near the oil.  The Clinton (42) doctrine was to suppress failed states committing crimes against humanity.  Neither approach has worked particularly well.  We’ve had several administrations attempting to do one thing, the other, or a mix, with the net result being an ever larger mess.

It might be too soon to try to say which approach Trump is taking.  For one thing, he is an intuitive guy, not a creator or follower of doctrines.  The talk suggests he saw ugly pictures of children dying horribly, and his gut intuition said ‘not on my watch’.  My gut sympathizes with his gut.  The instinct to strike back is quite understandable.  I try not to let my gut rule my head, though.  I’ll keep asking Powell’s Questions.

Syria isn’t that big an oil producer.  I don’t see a colonial imperialist “put troops near the oil” motivation driving the recent missile strike.  I don’t see Trump marching in with lots of armor divisions, controlling territory, building huge bases and embassies, suppressing the local insurgents, and installing a puppet state.  I really don’t see Trump imitating the original Bush 43 style neocon approach.

His talk at least is about doing something when warlord controlled failed states commit crimes against humanity.  This is closer to the Democratic position.  Some conservatives who proclaim ‘America First’ and shun the US role as the world’s policeman are not happy with Trump’s recent actions.

Me, I just hope somebody keeps asking Powell’s Question.  It might feel good to start throwing explosives around.  Does it help?  If one hasn’t got the commitment and plans to achieve victory, does sending more munitions and people into a region help the region?  If we have a quagmire, and we do have a quagmire, do we want to escalate things into a more destructive quagmire, or is less violence better for those living in the region?

Anyway, I don’t see this as a well thought out conspiracy led by deep state neocons of either flavor.  It seems to be more about Trump’s gut feelings.  This isn’t to say the deep state folks with various motivations and doctrines won’t try to turn Trump’s gut to their advantage.  Still, I don’t see one conspiracy or agenda as being dominant.  Washington is in a mess.  I’m trying to decide whether the GOP has split into two incompatible factions, or three.