Quote:
Originally Posted by driveway
Credit where credit is due, I think Trump did the right thing and I think he did it in the right manner.
|
I agree that it was the right response.
What I'm most conflicted about (as others have mentioned and pointed out) is that where is the foreign policy guidelines supporting US involvement? It may not sound like a big deal but if anything goes wrong (US military loss of life, further terror attacks, etc.) everyone will point to the retaliation as being impulsive. And therein lies the biggest problem.
Trump isn't the right person to be involved in getting the US into another potential disastrous outcome in Syria. His statements are a window into how two-dimensional he views the issues.
He doesn't have the intellect, stamina or attention span to understand the baseline fundamentals of the geo-political and cultural fracturing that has resulted in modern day Syria. And Iraq. And Afghanistan. And Yemen. And Palestine.
Everything that I've read and seen to date leads me to believe that Trump is playing a game of chess but doesn't understand how the game is played. At an international level he is getting out maneuvered and baited. What if all along the plan was to get US involvement in Syria (by the Russians?). They knew what buttons to push on Trump and they baited him?
The red line that can't be crossed? Russia and Syria now know that a chemical attack on a civilian population results in a US Cruise Missile strike.
What has changed?
Next week when cluster bombs destroy residential neighborhoods or a hospital, will the US react? If Boko Haram kidnaps, tortures and maims school-aged girls in Nigeria, should we expect the same response?
This is why I'm conflicted. Because short-term, it appeases those who say we must do something. Long-term I can't see how it help.