Jared Kushner is visiting war zones while wearing armor, but not a tie. We're not at war until he has both on.
I put this in the other thread but it belongs here.
Trump warned Russia in advance of his strike, and they warned the Syrians. Cruse missiles cost about 1.5 million each. So I think Trump got the cable news networks to talk about his seriousness and resolve by putting on a taxpayer funded $90 million fireworks display.
So far, I don't suppose Trump looks any worse than any other US president in this situation -- a low bar, to be sure. Hillary also called for a lethal fireworks show.
Nothing is going to happen. So basically, what 2 says.
Interesting that Trump warned Russia about the strikes in advance. He's going to catch obvious shit for that, but that's what a grownup would have done.
Yes. Because not warning Russia probably would have meant dead Russian "advisors" and "not starting a nuclear war" is a low bar, but an important one.
5. Who's going to give him shit for it? This playbook is old and predictable.
The United States being in a kind of Schroedinger's mobilisation where it's both at war and not at war until some other government clarifies its position is pretty much its normal approach to foreign policy in my lifetime. It "wasn't" at war in Vietnam until Tonkin; it "wasn't" at war with Iraq throughout the Clinton presidency; it "wasn't" at war with Libya; and it "wasn't" at war in Syria until yesterday. Whether it is now will depend on Assad, Erdogan and, god help us, Putin, but it won't make any difference one way or another to the poor bastards getting blown up.
I don't know if I'd count on nothing happening in the longer term. Trump is learning that he can get the love of elites by bombing things, and it seems like he has long craved their approval.
Who's going to give him shit for it?
Salon, for example. But yeah, sure, you're right that this is SOP, and you and roger are right about the risks here.
I read somewhere that Syria had threatened a retaliatory strike on Israel if we do this again. No idea whether that was fake news or real.
If Syria does such a strike on Israel, we should strike Iran to get back at Syria. Sharing is caring.
2nd 5 and 6. I think the significant things are how quickly Trump changed policy (meaning McMaster doesn't yet have a functioning interagency process) and votes or non-votes inCongress. Pelosi has requested the House be reconvened to debate a new AUMF. Congress has ducked that repeatedly, and Ryan will probably duck again; but if there is a debate it'll be a whole new shitshow.
I have a very remote professional connection here, so I'm going Presidential.
Here's my Russian "Wag the Dog" theory. I'm not saying its true, I'm saying its plausible.
The key, I think, is that the deal under which Syrian chemical weapons were turned over to the UN was Putin's deal. Obama was embarrassed by it at the time, and everyone on the American right started ooing and ahing about what a great leader Putin was. As Russia's client state, there is no way that Syria uses those weapons without Russian say-so, because to do so is to confirm that Russia allowed Syria to cheat on their agreement with the UN.
So, the chemical weapons attack wasn't just Assad attacking rebels - it was Putin poking Trump, expecting to get a reaction. And he got what he wanted.
And Trump also got what he wanted.
13: Yeah, Assad's use of chemical weapons is the thing that requires explanation. It's hard for me to imagine what he thought was in it for him. As best as I can reckon, chemical weapons in this context aren't military weapons, but tools of terror. And you could achieve that kind of terror with military weapons without the inevitable backlash.
14 is what I was thinking. I wonder if there isn't some Syrian-government faction that wants to make sure Assad can't end the war by selling them out.
Handing over (some, as it turns out) chems was the main concession he's ever had to make to the US, so you'd think it would be one of the first things you'd try to roll back when Trump/Dugin 2016 took over.
Right, but presumably he also wants to end the war in such a way that he rules Syria and has some kind of normal relations with the rest of the world. Using chemical weapons goes against a return to normal relations and it seemed like he was winning already.
It's almost as if the strategic aims of Trump and Putin are furthered by continuing the Syrian civil war and the European refugee crisis.
"Trump warned Russia in advance of his strike, and they warned the Syrians. Cruse missiles cost about 1.5 million each. So I think Trump got the cable news networks to talk about his seriousness and resolve by putting on a taxpayer funded $90 million fireworks display."
this seems good to me
It doesn't even need much Game Theory to support it. The Putin fascist axis has all but openly been encouraging the refugee crisis to destabilize NATO, encouraging a nationalist fascist response.
Putin knows Trump needs to show independence from Russia and a chance to use his new toys, so he gives Assad the green light to use chemical weapons.
The only question in my mind is what Assad thinks he gets out of it, but short-term thinking may dominate there.
I wonder if Assad would use less pointless aggression if he weren't born without a chin?
Do we know that Trump warned Russia about the strike? We do know that Russia new about it, but that could be just because the White House is crawling with Russian spies.
He looks sort of like a parody of De Gaulle.
23: warning would be the norm. There are pre-existing channels with Russia to deconflict the ongoing airstrikes against ISIS.
Feeling less and less interested in what's going to happen, more in what I can do right now. My feet are itching to march. Don't know who's organizing yet.
Sign ideas? Maybe "WAR WITHOUT END?"?
Debate in Congress sounds worth yelling for.
My feet are itching to march.
Miconazole.
17: The Rosetta stone here is the Syrian civil war of 1982, when old man Assad destroyed the city of Hama with extreme brutality.
The lesson for the Assads is that a) physically exterminating their enemies, and in the most spectacular, excessive, and therefore deterrent possible way*, brings security b) if they end up still in charge of Syria, everyone else will eventually compromise. After all, there were no consequences.
The lesson for their enemies is that the only acceptable solution is one without the Assads, because otherwise terrible revenge is coming for them individually sooner or later. So they fight on.
*remind you of a certain nearby regional power?
So maybe the scenario is something like this:
1. Several years ago, Assad uses chemical weapons, and wants to keep using them.
2. Russia restrains Assad.
3. Assad doesn't like it, but obeys.
4. Russia eases up on Assad, who, out of bureaucratic inertia, does what he's been wanting to do. And he forgets to game out the consequences in the current environment.
31
People including Clinton were saying we should bomb that airfield before the strike so an evacuation would make sense even without a warning
32 Maybe so. I can't think of a reason Putin wouldn't warn Assad, but that doesn't mean there isn't one.
Sanders came out against strikes
https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/850369776727838721
freaky silicon valley anti-aging technology is now cool and good
I thought I saw an official Pentagon statement saying they did everything prudent to minimize casualties on both sides. That could include an officially authorized - not sub rosa or sub Russia - call to Syria itself to let them know so they could get personnel out. Which seems not unreasonable military conduct if the goal is a strike that's as symbolic as possible.
Here we go: "Every precaution was taken to execute this strike with minimal risk to personnel at the airfield."
34: Even though each of the 59 missiles came from a single payer.
There are pre-existing channels with Russia to deconflict the ongoing airstrikes against ISIS.
Are these the same channels that Russia just closed in response to the airstrikes?
Probably. Fortunately, the red phone to Moscow doesn't have a keypad so Trump can tweet on it.
And he forgets to game out the consequences in the current environment.
That's the part I don't believe. Syrian chemical weapons exist because of Russia failed to honor its guarantee to ensure that they would be destroyed. Assad would know they can't be used without undermining Russia diplomatically. At this point Russia has almost finished winning the war for Assad, so he would not be inclined to undermine Russia in that way. So, why did he do it?
The explanation that makes sense to me is that Russia wanted it to happen, to provoke a reaction from Trump.
I don't know. I'm not convinced of the logic of 30 because of the reasons in 41. I'm not convinced by the logic in 29 because, if you believe the news, Assad is not long in any real danger of losing. Hama had a much larger death toll, but could be justified as part of a war that he would have lost if he didn't regain control of Hama.
Anyway, inferring preferences by working backward from actions is difficult.
Maybe it was just "Fuck it, we have some sarin."
Wikipedia says today is the birthday of the Ba'ath Party, so maybe he just wanted to celebrate.
Bolivia knows what is up:
https://twitter.com/calebmaupin/status/850375537168191489
39: Huh. That dramatically increases danger all round. Even under status quo ante both countries will still be doing stuff in Syria.
46 is good. There remains the possibility that the gas was a false flag operation. Does Turkey have an alibi?
Assad has been using terror as a weapon against his own people. poison gas is seen a terror weapon. The location he attacked is a last redoubt of a fairly radical faction of the rebels. Lesson to the people in that area - if you support these people shit gonna happen. Seems clear, if horrible, enough to me but it is hard to really know the thinking of somebody that evil.
In the meantime, I've seen any number of analyses of the options before the Trump administration. One of them was an attempt at diplomatic resolution, as in, trying to convene a group of discussants with skin in the game in Syria. Russia, Iran, Assad's people, Turkey perhaps, and so on.
I'm going to guess that, while something like this may yet happen, it certainly didn't now because Trump's State Department under Tillerson is essentially a shell, without appointees. Also Tillerson has no idea how to do something like that anyway. Sad.
50: To be fair, it's not like that approach worked very well when Obama tried it either. It seems to me like there really just any good options on Syria.
50 -- I'm sure I'll be stricken by lightning for even thinking it, but I'm kind of missing James Baker. Just a little.
50.2 - I wrote this somewhere else, but re-posting here:
Rex: Well, Mr. President, Republican tradition is to go on a diplomatic offensive to assemble an international coalition before blundering into a Middle Eastern war.
DT: Good plan. Call up that British woman. Tricia May. Tell her she can be my Tony Blair.
Rex: Well, I'm a little short on staff so...
DT: Fuck it. Send in the missiles.
Anyway, I'm also less than happy with the "Trump did something that pisses of Putin so now he's clearly acting like a president" coverage.
Putin didn't even complain about it personally. He sent out Medyedev.
Great, on my way to a Muslim country and we decide to fire some missiles at another. This happened to me once before, I was in Greece when Clinton started bombing Serbia, for whom the Greeks feel some affinity. The death to America signs were very creatively spray painted.
OTOH I'm in transit via Canada, and nominal prices are the same as in the US with the CAD at 0.75 USD so it's like I have a universal 25% off coupon for everything.
57 last: 2 years ago when I was shopping for a car, it seemed like the easiest thing in the world to just buy the same model in BC -- prices were nominal -- and drive it home. But no: all sorts of barriers. Thanks, Obama.
I should buy one of those "I'm Canadian!" maple leaf patches while I'm in the airport here.
55: Absolutely. For instance, this compilation of praise from all sorts including a number of ex-Obamaites.
Most egregious has been either Zakaria doing the "last night he became president" thing or Brian Williams quoting Leonard Cohen with "guided by the beauty of our weapons." Actually the latter deserves some kind of lifetime acheivment award.
Not wanting to shoot missiles is for the little people.
I was on the treadmill last night when the announcement and address came out. Brian Williams and Rachel Maddow were on together, both focusing on weird details, like exactly which of Trump's clauses were ad-libbed. Then I switched over to CNN and it was just a big long lineup of retired gendmirals talking nothing but military as if the decision to go in was completely out of scope, and Anderson Cooper just continuous nodding along.
What was the ostensible legal authorization for the strike? The AUMF that started out for Afghanistan? Or a more general "Fuck you, I'm the President of these fucking United fucking States, that's why!!" authority?
He can't be the only president not to violate the War Power Act and he might not last that long in office so he had to go now.
Yeah, I don't see how the AUMF extends to interfering in another countries civil war. You can make the case that it applies to ISIS, because terrorism, but Syria is a state actor, so that doesn't fly. There is nothing in the AUMF about enforcing the Chemical Weapons Convention.
My question is more factual: what did they claim as the legal justification? Not: is that justification bullshit?
No idea. I think all he needs to do to claim it was legal is write a note to Congress saying it was necessary within 48 hours.
Bonus points if the note is written in artificial tanning solution.
Fine, I looked it up. Any minute now, Trump is going to tweet his justification as a shrug emoji.
Yeah, all that inherent Article II stuff is transparent bullshit.
Whats the argument that waging an attack on Syria is legal under international law? Responsibility to Protect is a thing, right? Is this that?
There's no valid legal argument for it. Might makes right.
In fact Russia is pointing out how this shows that the US violates international law whenever it's convenient so who is the US to talk about Ukraine Chechnya etc.
The North Korea official news service had a pretty funny tweet along the lines of- dummy Trump is the slowest president in history to figure out that you can improve your polls by bombing someone.
74: I love DPRK_News on Twitter, but it's a parody account. The owners have almost given it up a couple of times when reality has threatened to overtake their humor.
Just looked at the side bar. Is it my imagination, or is unfogged attracting more bots than it used to?
Or the FPPs are doing stuff that makes them less able to react quickly. Maybe Barry or somebody in Europe should be given the keys, not to post but to clean house.
68: I think he needs to get to Mar-A-Lago within 24 hours, touch his 80-foot flagpole, and yell "Base!"
Or "ally ally oxen free!"
(Was thinking about this phrase when LB was talking about regional variations of childhood doggerel.)
With purchase of oxen of greater or equal value.
"...suffering superficial damage."
Not the way Oxenstierna played it.
The mangonel soon broke up in heavy seas.
I post the latter solely for its aesthetic perfection; but should you wish to read into it an oblique commentary on the substitution of technology for strategy, I could not stop you from doing so.
|| So, I have to head out in a minute, but here's a quick update on the maneuvering for our upcoming special election. As folks know, we're voting to replace Rep. (now Sec.) Zinke on May 25. County officials, concerned about the cost, got several Republican legislators to sponsor a bill to allow counties to run this as a mail-in election. This would save counties 100s of thousands, money the counties don't have because the fall 2016 election was so expensive. House Republican leadership, though, opposed the measure on the grounds that mail-in helps Democrats win. The bill passed the Senate easily, but stalled in the House, going down in committee on a party line vote.
An effort to 'blast' the bill out of committee failed, getting 51 votes, while 60 are required. And that was that.
Except our governor added the same provision to a different bill that had been passed, as an amendatory veto. Back to the House, where it can pass with 51 votes.
We'll see.
|>
"So far, I don't suppose Trump looks any worse than any other US president in this situation"
Actually I think the Syria strike has most of the hallmarks of the shitty Trump political brand to this point.
Offhand in execution, "leadership" theatre literally conducted from a golf course.
Bombastic in scale, using enough missiles on a relatively minor engagement to fund the EPA for a year.
Ineffectual in that the airfield he hit is in fact still in operation notwithstanding the bombast.
Mendacious / Self-contradictory in that there is no sign at all of any attempt at larger strategic planning, Congressional authorization or general policy coherence in sight from a guy who campaigned incessantly on all these themes (in particular the sudden solicitousness for innocent Muslim babies rings hollow from a guy still trying to promote Muslim bans). Of course how could he deliver on any of that since most of the Federal government is still unstaffed except for his "beach-head teams" of loyalist hacks.
All it's missing is weird / suspicious deference to Putin (a hint that it's meant to bury or draw attention from the Russia scandal). It does represent to some extent a genuine shift against the Bannonite Russia-deferential line, and I'm not one of those who think Russia's fury and Bannon's ouster from the NSC (and subsequent bot campaign against the almost equally objectionable Kushner) are mere theatre. But no, Trump does not remotely come across well in this situation; it's just a grudging nudge of the needle toward something a "normal" President might do.
91: Absolutely.
I am a harsh critic of the political media and pundits , but I will confess that even I am surprised by the richness of the horseshit they have responded to this with. For example Peter Baker in the Times with another ludicrously lame attempt at normalizing the lying grifter: The Emerging Trump Doctrine: Don't Follow Doctrine.
Right, we'll call it "flexibility" that's the ticket....
I also can't believe the knob slobbering that the media is giving this bombing. Will we ever reach a point where bombing the shit out of someone doesn't make the media cream its jeans for their daddy figure? I'd be pretty embarrassed to put my psychological issues on such wide display if I were them.
I'm surprised Russia is escalating their rhetoric. The US basically established that they didn't care what Assad did, as long as he didn't use chemical weapons.
I should say that my Syrian brothers at the mosque are pretty happy about this strike and pointed out that the planes that were destroyed won't be killing any more Syrians. I don't blame them but I'm still skeptical.
More mush from the wimp: http://mashable.com/2017/04/09/kindness-is-everything.amp
my Syrian brothers at the mosque are pretty happy about this strike
Happy families are all alike...
I should say that my Syrian brothers at the mosque are pretty happy about this strike and pointed out that the planes that were destroyed won't be killing any more Syrians.
Bad news about that. Most of the planes escaped before the strike https://warisboring.com/u-s-cruise-missiles-struck-syrian-base-with-impressive-precision/ - I'd speculate that the four Su-22s that were still on the ground might actually have been unflyable*, meaning that the strike had zero impact on combat effectiveness - and there are now missions flying out of the base again, just like before http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/04/syrian-air-base-donald-trump.
And in any case I have no doubt that the destroyed aircraft can be rapidly and quietly replaced. Russia's been giving MiG-29s; it's hardly going to hold back a few Su-22s.
If you want to harm air power in this sort of context, it's all about killing pilots, not killing airframes. Pilots take a long time to train up, and Syria has a big problem producing candidates who are of sufficient quality even to start pilot training - dropout rates are immense.
*Even the Russian air force in Syria was suffering from maintenance problems. Availability rates were below 65% which is pretty shocking. Safe to say that an Arab air force operating in the same conditions would have far lower availability rates. Out of nine aircraft, you might not expect to have more than five actually able to fly.
92: Politics against method, innit? http://fistfulofeuros.net/afoe/the-populist-papers-29-years-of-populism/
99: that said, the targets they chose were precisely the sort of thing you need to sustain the availability rate.
IIRC during Gulf War 1 (the Original and Best) RAF targeters chose to hit the taxiways because there was so. much. concrete. on Iraqi airbases it was actually very difficult to create enough craters that there wasn't some sort of usable surface somewhere. But if you could put a nice big crater right outside the hangar - or for that matter through the roof...
Her parents didn't name her "Let's not Slaughter" for a reason.
104 -- Never ever let Republicans control the executive. Not ever.
I suspect this is probably right: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/syria-chemical-attack-al-qaeda-played-donald-trump_us_58ea226fe4b058f0a02fca4d
106: wait, what? So now you reckon your "Syrian brothers at the mosque" are completely wrong, because you are pretty sure the Syrian government had nothing to do with the attack?
That link is moronic.
What, you think that a stored sarin weapon is just a big metal box full of sarin? Do you get all your knowledge of CW from Michael Bay films?
You can tell because "huffingtonpost" is in the URL.
Here's something slightly less asinine: a podcast from the Arms Control Wonk group http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/5/2/e/52e6a0ee91c9add7/33.mp3?c_id=14825871&destination_id=228079&expiration=1491919072&hwt=de8602ce7cda619d2cfe2f4344e2a8dd
Here's something even more asinine: You can't set out traps using poison gas in 1 of 50 states. Temporarily.
||
I discovered this morning that my General Practitioner is an old personal friend of Bashir al-Assad. My GP is pretty good and it would be a lot of hassle to switch, so I think I'm going to have to live with this.
|>
111: good grief, it's legal in the US for private citizens to set cyanide landmines?
My GP started going off on how Jews were responsible for the high cost of malpractice insurance in the US, which in turn is the primary reason that health care is so expensive there. I tried to wear my WTF face while still making clear that I would like to have some health care services please.
If cyanide landmines are outlawed, only outlaws will have cyanide landmines.
114: Because Jews are lawyers or because they're doctors. If the former, it's probably my brother's fault. If the latter, be sure to tell him to blame the Asian Americans.
Happy Passover.
Tetragrammaton, Tetragrammaton,
Made earth and heaven, weighs a fuckin' ton,
He's coming
He's coming
He'll kill children, but not the Jewish children
He'll kill children, but not the Jewish children
He'll kill children, but not the Jewish children
I realized the other day that my fundamental issue is that I don't trust Trump. I don't trust him to make good decisions; I don't trust him to have the interests of the American people at heart. Many conservatives did not trust Obama. I don't trust Trump.
I don't trust lots of political figures. But I don't trust Trump more.