Early Retirement Extreme Forums

jennypenny wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 06, 2017 9:32 pm

Now we know why Bannon was bounced from the NSC.

I'm beyond disappointed in tonight's actions. How can they even be sure of the facts yet to be sure they aren't being baited?

I'd say they were being tested, not necessarily baited.

I'm not sure how this reaction is a surprise. It's not like Trump is known for a thick skin and the chemical use brought out a lot of criticism from Congress that can sound very personal to a guy like Trump.

Plus, the guy is a ping pong ball. He jumps from one issue to another really fast, so it seems highly unlikely he does more than skim the surface or put in a lot of thought on any one issue.

The big question is the response to Assad if he does this again or expands the use of chemical weapons to multiple instances. If you make the decision for the first strike, you almost have to followup with continued strikes for new incidents. If you don't, the first strike could be viewed as weaker than not doing anything. This, of course, could have consequences with Russia and Iran.

I'm disappointed because this is always our reaction. It's not just Trump. Every president drops bombs on somebody. Obama wanted to execute this exact plan but congress wouldn't let him. I was hoping Trump's isolationist tendencies would win out. Judging by the positive bipartisan reaction in congress, I assume the administration will see this action through to the end, whatever that turns out to be.

Please don't get me wrong, I abhor what happened in Syria. It's just ... how many countries can we be at war with at once?

I'm not arguing against your suggestion that we need to give these actions more thought and should probably do less of them (including drone strikes). I'm just suggesting Trump isn't the guy who will reliably follow that course of action. Even if he does for a few months it's highly likely his personality won't be able to keep making the same decision consistently. He just seems to need chaos constantly and has no attention span, which makes him very unreliable.

The other problem with the action is I seriously doubt Trump considered all the chess move options. We've just lost coordination with Russian air strikes, China doesn't care (e.g. oh, I see you're busy elsewhere), EU nations dislike unilateral action, North Korea is on a completely different agenda so action in Syria isn't sending a message that will be received, and every muslim nation is going to see it as further proof of US bullying unless they're on Turkey's side in the Syria conflict.

A cruise missile strike on a military airfield is a proportional response and just about the smallest action one can take while still taking an action. Low cost attack on a low value target. Basically a slap on the wrist. I also see this as "testing". If this is chess, it would be the Queen's gambit. Doing nothing would have handed control over to Syria/Iran/Russia. This would not have been smart for an administration that is looking to increase its dependence/control of Middle East energy---unpossible to be(come) isolationist and still import so much oil.

George the original one wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 07, 2017 11:02 am

The other problem with the action is I seriously doubt Trump considered all the chess move options.

Judging from the immediate responses, it looks like Trump is getting good diplomatic advice.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/07/world/syr ... -reaction/

Yeah, he seems to have actually listened to the sane advisers for once. Including the warning to Russia, so they could remove their personnel.

My first reaction to hearing about the gas attack was, why would Assad do that? The stories we see seem to try to paint him as some crazy who just loves hurting people. For once I'm inclined to agree with Scott Adams' take:

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1592649810 ... persuasion

He wrote that before Trump's swift and scary looking response.

Right question. Wrong answer.

Both Putin and Trump needed to prove that Trump isn't Putin's poodle. How many days ago was it that Comey confirmed before congress that the FBI was investigating the claim that Putin installed Trump in the White House and how the Trump campaign was coordinated through Moscow? I predict a lot of choreographed saber rattling with many innocents caught in the middle for years to come. Swift and scary indeed.

Shouldn't have broken my new rule.

Yeah, our default should be to not intervene without a really obvious provable reason. The most glaring example is invading Afghanistan and Iraq. Afghanistan was provably supporting and housing the organization that performed 9/11. The evidence that Iraq had WMDs was shaky at best and much of it could be dispelled even outside of the intel communities before the war started.

The one thing I want to point out about the article is that the following statement isn't exactly correct:

American fears about Iraqi ABCs – atomic, biological, and chemical weapons – rang his message sweeter to Washington. Looking to their own careers, CIA officials funnelled intelligence reports they knew would be prefered by the High Command rather than those undermining the public narrative of state sponsorship of terrorism and WMDs.

For the most part, the CIA officials who did this were the political appointed officials, not the career CIA analysts. The statements wording kind of suggests the real CIA personnel fudged their analysis when they didn't. This is careless. (Not your fault)

Amid the Covid-19 distraction Turkey announced today that they will open the Syrian border and allow refugees to rush toward Europe. This is shaping up to be a very messy spring.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/turk ... lled-Idlib

What is Erdogan's goal?

@Ego

Erdogan's goal is to have other countries deal with the refugee problem. Turkey, being next to a destabilized region, is probably experiencing issues with such a large influx of refugees. Even if there are no cultural clashes, the economic cost of so many refugees has to be impacting the Turkish economy.

The more direct goal is to avoid EU sanctions due to Turkish military engagements by threatening to release refugees into Europe. It's a replay of 2015. This would allow Turkey to continue [the war efforts] and grow its influence in the region. After the US left/lost influence, there's a bit of a power vacuum being contested by Turkey, Russia, and the existing nations/borderlines (as favored by Europe).

Erdogan stated several Times that his end goal is to invade europe. He recently claimed a huge portion of the greek maritime territory. He is not the only one creating mess in the middle east and using it against Europe.

Right now Russia has a unique opportunity to engineer dramatic power shifts as we are otherwise distracted and their guy in the White House is still firmly in place and reluctant to respond.

Turkey is on the verge of open conflict with Russia after their 33 soldiers were killed in Syria by what many believe were Russian airstrikes. The Russians refused to allow the Turks heloevac of the wounded and forced a road retreat through hostile territory. The open border threat is a sign of just how desperate Turkey, or better yet Erdogan, is to get NATO's help.

The Turks are busing and boating refugees from Syria to Europe at this moment. Northern Syria has the potential to unleash four million refugees on Europe. This will not go well.

Between this and Turkey starting to get involved in Libya against Haftar, who is backed by Russia, really makes me scratch my head as to what they are trying to do. Because to me, it seems to be not working.

Erdogan stated several Times that his end goal is to invade europe. He recently claimed a huge portion of the greek maritime territory.

The Turkish/Greek border has been in flux for millennia. This conflict started at spearpoint, and won't be settled in our lifetimes. But it inspires some fun movies, like 300.