A word on the Syrian missile strikes is below. But first...
I have been very critical of Trump, but I have always said that we should all hope for his success because his success is our success. To that end, there are finally very encouraging signs. This week has been a very successful one for Trump, and I must say that I approve.
(1) Neil Gorsuch was confirmed as an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Trump made a very good choice in his nomination.
(2) Very little is yet known about Trump's meeting with China's dictator, Xi Jinping, or his plans for dealing with North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile programs. So far, however, I like what I'm hearing.
(3) Steve Bannon was removed from the National Security Council. This was an absolutely tremendous move.
(4) White House leaks suggest that Trump may soon completely remove from the White House both Bannon and Reince Priebus, both of which would be welcome news.
(5) Trump, who initially said he was dropping healthcare reform efforts and sticking with Obamacare, has backtracked and now appears to want to try again to reform our healthcare system. Again, this is a welcome change.
(6) The White House appears set to focus much more effort on tax and regulation reform, which may be among the best news of all.
(7) Nunes finally recused himself from the House's Russia-Trump campaign investigation, and the White House did not protest. That was wise.
(8) Finally, I may be skewered for saying this, but I must give Trump tremendous kudos for the biggest news of the week: his decision to authorize missile strikes against Syrian chemical weapons targets.
I want to quickly elaborate on that last point, first with a philosophical note: I do not understand this concept that exists in the political world that once one takes a position--even an incorrect one--he is never allowed to change his position.
Trump's foes and friends alike are calling him out for bombing Syria and are noting that he had previously urged us not to get involved. Well, previously he was wrong. He's now de facto admitting that. At one point when I was very young, I thought that the stars in the sky were other planets. Am I to be criticized for no longer thinking that way?
This idea that one cannot change his position even in light of new or better information is preposterous. Anyone who conducts himself that way is, frankly, an imbecile. Thus, anyone who criticizes another for changing a stance in light of new information is encouraging imbecility. Why be stupid when being smart is an option? Except in the case of those who worship mediocrity, who are insulted by intelligence, and who equate participating with winning, this is unfathomable. Criticizing a person for his position when he is wrong and then criticizing him for being inconsistent when he changes that position creates a poisonous, unwinnable atmosphere.
The United States has been very clear and steadfast in our opposition to the use of chemical weapons. Even so, Assad has gassed his own people multiple times while Vladimir Putin propped him up--and while the Russian air force itself bombed humanitarian convoys and other civilian targets in Syria. I don't know about you, but if I and my family were being gassed with nerve agents, I would accept assistance from anyone who would provide it.
Everyone should calm down and stop fatalistically proclaiming that the U.S. is embroiling itself in yet another Middle Eastern war. The U.S. fired 59 missiles from a distance at one chemical-weapons-related Syrian base. We've been dropping bombs in Syria for years; this is simply the first time we've hit a target like that. Furthermore, if this were the start of something more, we would have bombed many bases and certainly air defense sites. The bombing would still be taking place even now to facilitate the movement of American aircraft and ground forces. The 59 cruise missile strikes were intended not as a prelude to more action but as a warning to Syria's brutal dictator.
Also, lest everyone forget, Syria's civil war quagmire poses a threat to our national security. As we have seen, emigration flows from Syria have been exploited by ISIS to send operatives into Europe. Lesson: Syria's problems don't confine themselves to Syria. The U.S. and many of our allies have an interest in what happens there, unfortunately. It was time that adult supervision was introduced into Syria in order to delineate the parameters of that fight. For a time, it appeared that Russia was willing to do this by disposing of Syria's chemical weapons. We now know, however, as Rex Tillerson said, that Russia was either "complicit or incompetent" in that regard.
Besides, Americans are people of action and of values. We stand up for what we believe and for our principles. We do not content ourselves to talking. If I called the police because an intruder were trying to murder my family, I would expect more from them than a mere willingness to schedule a time to talk about possible causes of the looming murders. It would be hypocritical and credibility-shattering for us to sit by while these atrocities occur. Sometimes the rubber must meet the road. Sometimes the time for talking ends, and the time for action begins. After years of talking, the time for action came this week.
I applaud Trump for this bold decision. Do I want us invading another Middle Eastern country? Absolutely not. I, however, have no problem whatsoever with a few long-range missile lobs though. I think that, given the circumstances, that is entirely appropriate, and certainly it speaks to the prudence of decision making here. After all, we could have gone far further than that.
I want to end by congratulating my fellow Navy service members on USS Ross and USS Porter for executing these strikes so precisely, so skillfully, and so rapidly--and with no obvious collateral damage (e.g., loss of civilian life). These skills, capabilities, and values are what make America's military unique. I'm proud of this. These are the reasons that our enemies fear nothing more than they fear the sight of American forces arrayed near their shores--because when that happens, they have already lost. (Sometimes they just need need a little kinetic therapy in order to admit this defeat.)
Let this serve as a reminder to those who wish to perpetrate evil, especially in places where our interests are at stake: American military power is always "just over the horizon."
I have 3 questions, What was achieved by this bombing and which US interests are at stake in Syria? Is there something I don't know?
Future gas-pipe projects, also drawing a red-line because of Russia's encroachment in the Ukraine over the past years- remember that Russia has a port in Syria, just like it had one in Crimea -indeed I believe that the crimean port was the only port the Russian navy had access towards all-year around, including the winter where normally the seas around Russia would be frozen solid.
There is a lot at stake.
As someone whose earliest intelligible memories are actually of the bullshit surrounding the run-off to the Iraq invasion, I don't believe any of this.
Are you from Europe? Because nothing of what you say has anything to do with the USA, I asked about US interests, gas-pipe could interest Europe, Russia has had ports in Crimea and Syria for as long as I remember, I really see no sense in bombing Syria, there is absolutely nothing to gain, remember Trump said it was wrong to bomb Syria in 2013 when the same gas was used, why is it different now? Just as back then there s no definite proof it was Assad, probably it was him, but no proof, how do they know which field the plane with the gas lifted from and why didn't they down the plane if they knew?
And now the real question, do you think it's wise to kick out Assad and have the rebels take over? Syria is a mess, the US should not get involved, especially if they don't even have a plan.
'Because nothing of what you say has anything to do with the USA'
Are you familiar with 'The grand chessboard' (Zbiegniew Brezinski)'? The wider geo-political objects of the federal deep-state has been to destabilise the Eurasian landmass, and to ensure no single regional power can dominate, that has been the guiding policy for all administrations since the late 80's/early 90's.
Ok, I get what you are saying now, I don't know about the The grand chessboard but I do know about Brzezinski.
Nothing was achieved. President just needed to be seen doing 'something'.
I don't agree with point 8, the rest are good.
Thank you USA for spreading freedom around the world.