My Early Trump Report Card

[Brad Austin]

until he gets the FBI under control and Sessions gets moving on investigations and prosecutions in order to root out enemies and corruption, he can't get anything accomplished.

I agree that should be a HUGE priority and it certainly hinders their efforts. They need to make an example out of someone and put a vicious bite behind the bark when it comes to the leaks.

From interviews I've seen with intel officials they agree the interior is pretty evenly split between party lines. Might consider offering a reward to anyone who gives information that leads to conviction of someone leaking classified info.

 

[Mr. Deez]

If you wish to classify Russian military involvement in Crimea as an invasion, fine. It was justified in my mind because A) it was in defense of civilians and B) it was needed to protect Russian interests. Call it invasion if what happened fits your definition.

You're free to defend it on the merits. Of course, that rationale could be used to support almost any foreign policy action. Almost every action defends some group of civilians and protects some interest.

The involvement/invasion of US personnel in Syria serves the interest of the US State Department and obviously the majority of the US government, but it isn't sanctioned by Congress, and by my estimate is illegal and does not serve the interests of the United States.

I'm not convinced that it serves the State Department's interests or the governments. I think it serves the interests of some very powerful special interest. My guess is that it is a Saudi interest. I think our government has conflicting goals. It may not "like" ISIS, but it detests Assad much more, and I think that's the real reason we elevate Assad's ouster over destroying ISIS. It's a bad move, and I don't think it serves our interests. Saudi Arabia may have oil, but we need it less and less. They need money more than we need their oil. There's no good reason why they should have us by the balls on this except for corruption.

Whether it's illegal depends on how long they've been there. The War Powers Act gives the President broad authority to send troops without approval for 60 days plus a 30-day withdraw period. If they're not on their way home after the 60 days, it's illegal.

 

[Musburger1]

You're free to defend it on the merits. Of course, that rationale could be used to support almost any foreign policy action. Almost every action defends some group of civilians and protects some interest.



I'm not convinced that it serves the State Department's interests or the governments. I think it serves the interests of some very powerful special interest. My guess is that it is a Saudi interest. I think our government has conflicting goals. It may not "like" ISIS, but it detests Assad much more, and I think that's the real reason we elevate Assad's ouster over destroying ISIS. It's a bad move, and I don't think it serves our interests. Saudi Arabia may have oil, but we need it less and less. They need money more than we need their oil. There's no good reason why they should have us by the balls on this except for corruption.

Whether it's illegal depends on how long they've been there. The War Powers Act gives the President broad authority to send troops without approval for 60 days plus a 30-day withdraw period. If they're not on their way home after the 60 days, it's illegal.

 

[Musburger1]

I'm with you on this analysis with the caveat the State Department is loaded with personnel who lobbied for more aggression against Syria. Do you recall (I think it was last summer) when some 52 "diplomats" signed a petition because they felt Obama was not acting aggressively enough against Assad? No wonder Trump wanted to cut funding some 37%.

If you are interested, Katehon put together an analysis on Erdogon and his objectives for the region. Just one more thing to consider.

http://katehon.com/article/global-blueprint-neo-ottomanism-soft-power-part-i

 

[Mr. Deez]

I'm with you on this analysis with the caveat the State Department is loaded with personnel who lobbied for more aggression against Syria. Do you recall (I think it was last summer) when some 52 "diplomats" signed a petition because they felt Obama was not acting aggressively enough against Assad? No wonder Trump wanted to cut funding some 37%.

If you are interested, Katehon put together an analysis on Erdogon and his objectives for the region. Just one more thing to consider.

http://katehon.com/article/global-blueprint-neo-ottomanism-soft-power-part-i

I'll have to check that out in the morning. It's late here. However, are our State personnel lobbying for more aggression against Syria because they think it's in our interests or because they're hand-puppets for the Saudis?

Like I've said before, I'm sure Assad isn't a Boy Scout, but I've never heard anybody make a fact-based case that he's uniquely bad among Middle Eastern leaders. I'm sure he has killed people who threaten his regime, but most of the Middle East has been run that way for millennia. That's not a reason to make ousting him a higher priority than destroying ISIS. They're seeking to murder Westerners in the US and Europe. Assad isn't. Regardless of what faults he may have, he's not the more imminent threat.

Here's the other thing. What is the alternative? If Assad falls, I don't see any reason to believe the alternative will be better. Our record in trying to make that happen in Iraq is terrible and not much better in Afghanistan. I think we'd be much better off playing ball with him, and I think he'd play ball with us.

 

[Musburger1]

I'll have to check that out in the morning. It's late here. However, are our State personnel lobbying for more aggression against Syria because they think it's in our interests or because they're hand-puppets for the Saudis?

Like I've said before, I'm sure Assad isn't a Boy Scout, but I've never heard anybody make a fact-based case that he's uniquely bad among Middle Eastern leaders. I'm sure he has killed people who threaten his regime, but most of the Middle East has been run that way for millennia. That's not a reason to make ousting him a higher priority than destroying ISIS. They're seeking to murder Westerners in the US and Europe. Assad isn't. Regardless of what faults he may have, he's not the more imminent threat.

Here's the other thing. What is the alternative? If Assad falls, I don't see any reason to believe the alternative will be better. Our record in trying to make that happen in Iraq is terrible and not much better in Afghanistan. I think we'd be much better off playing ball with him, and I think he'd play ball with us.

Yeah, I'm on the same page with you. When I initially said that overthrowing Assad was in the interests of the State Department, what I meant to convey was that State Department was dominated by personnel with that objective or as you aptly put it, puppets for the Saudis.

Here's a link to the petition I referenced (It was 51, not 52 diplomats).


The situation in Syria is extremely complex. You have the following players:

1. Syria - Assad government trying to hold on to what they have. This is about the only secular government left in the Middle East. Most of the country is Sunni. Assad is Alawite which is an offshoot Shia branch of Islam, but religion is not emphasized. Syria, like Iraq before Saddam's ousting, has been a religiously tolerant society where Christians, and different Muslim sects lived together.
2. Turkey - A Muslim country that is part of NATO. Erdogan is trying to gain influence in the region and has deep connections with the Muslim Brotherhood. He is currently playing both Russia and the US off of each other, while using refugees as a threat over Europe to gain leverage there.
3. Israel - Hopes to weaken Syria in order to gain leverage over Iran and Hezbollah (Lebanon) as well as more firmly control the Golan Heights. Israel is aligned with the Saudis for geopolitical reasons.
4. Jordan - An ally (puppet) of the US in the region, but now its stability threatened by the influx of Wahhabi fanatics fighting for ISIS and Al Qaeda branches into the region.
5. Iraq - Now governed by the Shia, Iraq has moved closer to Iran. Iraq is fighting ISIS. Right now the major battle is to extricate ISIS from Mosul, a major city.
6. Saudi Arabia and Qatar - Funding opposition groups including ISIS to outs Assad. The first goal is to obtain a right of way for a gas pipeline that would pass through Syria into Turkey, thus opening a European market. The second goal is to weaken the Iranian regime by replacing the Syrian government with a Sunni state, or failing that carve up the country into multiple states.
7. The United States - Basically the same goals as Saudi Arabia, but with a third goal of controlling the Middle East economically and not letting Russian or China tap into the region.
8. Russia - Syria is a key ally. If Syria falls the Gulf States cut into the European gas market, and the Americans have more power in the region.
9. Kurds - Wish to have their own country and siphon as much territory as possible from the war. Turkey is at war with the Kurds. The US is using the Kurds to fight ISIS. Both Turkey and ISIS want to grab territory (and the oil contained within). If a partition of Syria is attained, the US would want the Kurds to be in control because the US can more easily control and deal with them.

When this thing began several years ago, it was played up in the press (and also by the US State Department and Obama) as a civil war. Obviously, by the number of international players involved, this was never the overriding theme and just a diversion to get the public to go along. The US does not want to see sovereign governments in the region, nor does the US want to see Iran strengthened. The Gulf States want billions of dollars from a gas pipeline into Europe. Israel wants a piece of the action as well, as there is a large gas discovery offshore and they will want to extract and market the gas. Turkey wants to be the regions dominant Muslim force. And ISIS...they pretty much want a caliphate and hope to cut off the heads of anyone who thinks differently.