US now making Assad an enemy

[Elixir]

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump

AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA - IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!

Way to blame Obama for taking your advice, asshole.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

nm

 

[Elixir]

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump

AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA - IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!

Way to blame Obama for taking your advice, asshole.

So umm... what did the attack gain again?

Uh, probably nothing. Donnie will soon be quoting himself and saying "I told you so!" IOW "I told you I was an extremely foolish leader!"

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump

AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA - IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!

Way to blame Obama for taking your advice, asshole.

So umm... what did the attack gain again?

Uh, probably nothing. Donnie will soon be quoting himself and saying "I told you so!" IOW "I told you I was an extremely foolish leader!"

I completely misread that entire tweet.

 

[SimpleDon]

Rex, our new Secretary of State, signaled Assad that he could operate with a free hand because the US wouldn't be pursuing his ouster any longer. Days later we lob 70 missiles costing $750,000* each into an empty field in the general vicinity of one of his airfields.

I wonder how long it will be until Trump says, "who knew that international relations could be so complicated?"

We are learning, hopefully, the downside of electing a buffoon and serial lair to the presidency.


* okay, just a guess.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you guys won't actually end up learning anything at all from this.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Ya, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you guys won't actually end up learning anything at all from this.

Rand Paul wants Trump to ask congress for the right to use military force.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you guys won't actually end up learning anything at all from this.

Rand Paul wants Trump to ask congress for the right to use military force.

It says something about your country that sometimes Rand Paul is able to present himself as the voice of reason.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Rand Paul wants Trump to ask congress for the right to use military force.

It says something about your country that sometimes Rand Paul is able to present himself as the voice of reason.

I think it is safe to say that Congress consists of a large series of broken clocks.

 

[blastula]

That used to be Trump's "position."

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval.
11:14 AM - 29 Aug 2013

More here. Syria Missile Attack: What Donald Trump's Old Tweets Say | Time.com

My favorite:

Donald J. Trump‏@realDonaldTrump
@walaa_3ssaf No, dopey, I would not go into Syria, but if I did it would be by surprise and not blurted all over the media like fools.
5:09 AM - 29 Aug 2013

 

[Elixir]

It says something about your country that sometimes Rand Paul is able to present himself as the voice of reason.

I think it is safe to say that Congress consists of a large series of broken clocks.

Did you misspell "cocks"?

 

[blastula]

Here's another good one.

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Now that Obama’s poll numbers are in tailspin – watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate.
2:39 PM - 9 Oct 2012

 

[untermensche]

This attack that did nothing to weaken Syria was for US DOMESTIC consumption.

The jerk is incredibly low in the polls for such a new administration.

This is merely a show.

For US audiences.

It has no military value at all.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

This attack that did nothing to weaken Syria was for US DOMESTIC consumption.

The jerk is incredibly low in the polls for such a new administration.

This is merely a show.

For US audiences.

It has no military value at all.

No argument here. Helluva shame that this shit happens.

 

[bilby]

Fox News & Friends are blaming Obama for the whole thing, saying he never did anything about Assad's war crimes and Trump is a hero to stand up and take action.

Well of course they are. It probably escaped their notice that this marks the latest in a long line of US Presidents who have ordered airstrikes against or invasions of Middle Eastern countries going back several decades. In fact we've been lobbing Tomahawk missiles into the region for almost the entire time they (the missiles, not the countries) have been in existence.

It's in the nature of Tomahawk missiles that they will be used regardless of their effectiveness.

Back in the day, a king who went to war actually went to war - he was expected to lead his forces on the battlefield, and failure to do so would get him deposed by someone who could display the requisite testicular fortitude to be deserving of the throne.

As weapons systems and communications systems improved, a ruler could take less direct responsibility for the outcome of a battle - losing no longer meant the likely death or imprisonment (and subsequent execution) of the losing king, so going to war became an easier choice. Still, if a ruler got enough of his army killed in battle, he faced the risk of the dead soldier's families revolting, and throwing him out of office (and perhaps stringing him up from a lamppost).

But now we have sufficiently advanced weapons (and a sufficiently asymmetrical power balance) that ending a war is simply no longer necessary. Why bother to seek peace, when nobody on your side is dying? Tomahawk missiles certainly have their fanboys; But nobody is going to weep at their funerals, nor demand that the ruler makes peace so that no more brave missiles are forced to sacrifice themselves for their country.

Pilot-less missiles and aircraft are the ideal weapons of perpetual war - they can be used to prevent your enemies from developing similar means to strike back at you; and they can be used with effectively no risk at all to anyone on your side in the conflict (although the victims of 'friendly fire' incidents may have cause for posthumous disagreement with that assessment).

Seeking peace because it's the right thing to do has never been popular. Rulers seek peace because their citizens (whether military or civilian) are being hurt; Or because they themselves are at risk. But when you can kill your opponents from a distance with no risk to your own side, where's the motive to even win? Winning is a good way to end a war; But when ending the war is not a priority, why worry that your strategy is not effective at achieving that objective? It's not clear what 'winning' in the Middle East would even entail; But it is clear that the US isn't going to 'lose' - and that the risk to American lives (even those of active duty servicemen) is minimal, as long as the war is carried out at a distance.

Putting boots on the ground might increase the chances of winning; and it might shorten the war - but neither of these objectives is sufficiently imperative to justify the risk to soldiers' lives (and hence to the POTUS's popularity) that striving for either or both would entail.

The only recourse that the targets of these drones and missiles have are terrorism (which has basically failed to have any real impact on America; Despite the hype, American police kill more Americans than terrorists do); or enlisting the help of an ally with the ability to actually strike effectively at American targets (either in the Middle East or in the US homeland). The only nations that have sufficient military clout to do this are Russia and perhaps China. I very much hope that we are not about to find out what happens when a nation that has thought itself invulnerable for several decades, finally provokes a retaliation from a force that has the power to reach them.

America has a fundamental belief that she is, and more importantly should be, immune from the horrors of war; And like all fundamentalist beliefs, proof that it is flawed will often meet with a psychotic and disproportionately violent response.

 

[Jayjay]

Well of course they are. It probably escaped their notice that this marks the latest in a long line of US Presidents who have ordered airstrikes against or invasions of Middle Eastern countries going back several decades. In fact we've been lobbing Tomahawk missiles into the region for almost the entire time they (the missiles, not the countries) have been in existence.

It's in the nature of Tomahawk missiles that they will be used regardless of their effectiveness.

Back in the day, a king who went to war actually went to war - he was expected to lead his forces on the battlefield, and failure to do so would get him deposed by someone who could display the requisite testicular fortitude to be deserving of the throne.

As weapons systems and communications systems improved, a ruler could take less direct responsibility for the outcome of a battle - losing no longer meant the likely death or imprisonment (and subsequent execution) of the losing king, so going to war became an easier choice. Still, if a ruler got enough of his army killed in battle, he faced the risk of the dead soldier's families revolting, and throwing him out of office (and perhaps stringing him up from a lamppost).

But now we have sufficiently advanced weapons (and a sufficiently asymmetrical power balance) that ending a war is simply no longer necessary. Why bother to seek peace, when nobody on your side is dying? Tomahawk missiles certainly have their fanboys; But nobody is going to weep at their funerals, nor demand that the ruler makes peace so that no more brave missiles are forced to sacrifice themselves for their country.

Pilot-less missiles and aircraft are the ideal weapons of perpetual war - they can be used to prevent your enemies from developing similar means to strike back at you; and they can be used with effectively no risk at all to anyone on your side in the conflict (although the victims of 'friendly fire' incidents may have cause for posthumous disagreement with that assessment).

Seeking peace because it's the right thing to do has never been popular. Rulers seek peace because their citizens (whether military or civilian) are being hurt; Or because they themselves are at risk. But when you can kill your opponents from a distance with no risk to your own side, where's the motive to even win? Winning is a good way to end a war; But when ending the war is not a priority, why worry that your strategy is not effective at achieving that objective? It's not clear what 'winning' in the Middle East would even entail; But it is clear that the US isn't going to 'lose' - and that the risk to American lives (even those of active duty servicemen) is minimal, as long as the war is carried out at a distance.

Putting boots on the ground might increase the chances of winning; and it might shorten the war - but neither of these objectives is sufficiently imperative to justify the risk to soldiers' lives (and hence to the POTUS's popularity) that striving for either or both would entail.

The only recourse that the targets of these drones and missiles have are terrorism (which has basically failed to have any real impact on America; Despite the hype, American police kill more Americans than terrorists do); or enlisting the help of an ally with the ability to actually strike effectively at American targets (either in the Middle East or in the US homeland). The only nations that have sufficient military clout to do this are Russia and perhaps China. I very much hope that we are not about to find out what happens when a nation that has thought itself invulnerable for several decades, finally provokes a retaliation from a force that has the power to reach them.

America has a fundamental belief that she is, and more importantly should be, immune from the horrors of war; And like all fundamentalist beliefs, proof that it is flawed will often meet with a psychotic and disproportionately violent response.

Good post, but there are other ways to strike an enemy than just attacking them head on, such as hurting their economic interests. The US has very deep pockets though.