- WASHINGTON — Senior Defense Department officials are developing options for a military strike in response to the Syrian government’s chemical weapons attack that killed dozens of civilians on Tuesday, officials said on Thursday.
The top-level consultations about military options involve Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as military officers at the United States Central Command.
Mr. Mattis is traveling to Florida, where he is expected to discuss the crisis in Syria with President Trump. Officials said no decisions had been made.
Saber-rattling? I understand that to some extent "developing options" is in itself a form of proportional response. But the thought of Trump getting played into a confrontation in Syria with Russia... gives me heeby-fucking-jeebies. kleinbl00
August 2016 - US contractors in Syria March 2017 - 400 more troops US Troops to Syria October 2016 - What US Special Forces are doing in Syria Remember - (1) We've had troops in Syria for years (2) Tillerson didn't rule out a military response to North Korea, either. "We're weighing all options" is basically Rex's version of "no comment." Just as a gentle reminder, back when your dad and I were kids? The Soviets blew fuckin' airliners out of the sky. Had a rep from Georgia on it and everything. They did this because we - "allegedly" - had a bunch of spy gear on it (flight 007 indeed). Wasn't even the first time. Hell, the Turks blew a Sukhoi out of the sky not 18 months ago. You give the average angry man on the street an option right now and he'll say "we gotta do something!" Give that guy half an hour with Wikipedia first, on the other hand, and "something" becomes "uhmmmmumblemumblemumble" because there are no easy options in Syria. That's one reason it's such a pigfuck. Does Trump have half an hour's worth of attention span for Wikipedia? Prolly not. But there's a long list of people under him that know shit Wikipedia doesn't. Syria has every possibility of being the downer Iraq was only without that awesome "Mission Accomplished" photo op. Trump may not realize that but everyone else does. The successful playbook is to dump shit-tons of guns'n'money on the Kurds, bait the Russians into playing in Syria and let them send in troops. Doing something active with the uniformed military? No upside. None.
I hope there's a long list of people who know better. I read that piece about how much Jared Kushner gets assigned for merely being a loyal lieutenant. The White House is running a skeleton crew absolutely everywhere. I love the Kurds. I just wonder if Donald Trump even knows what Kurds are.Does Trump have half an hour's worth of attention span for Wikipedia? Prolly not. But there's a long list of people under him that know shit Wikipedia doesn't.
It's one thing that we all "knew" that Trump would make foreign policy decisions based on gut-level reaction. It's another to see it happen. I'm chilled. Edit to add: I'm not sure what the right response is, by the way. Assad is using banned chemical weapons, something Obama ostensibly thought was worth drawing a red line in the sand over. Did we presumably give him the OK to make good on that promise? The fact that Obama didn't is a separate matter, but military strikes in retaliation of chemical warfare was/is within the political mainstream. It's just that with Trump, I'm not sure if this a reasoned move on the part of the military apparatus, or because Trump was shown some pictures of gassed Syrian civilians and he made the call himself. Fuck.
When Obama wanted to bomb Syria, I was against it. I called my congresswoman. Because he seemed to gloss over the investigation phase, diplomacy phase, and move straight to the cruise missile phase. That really pissed me off. Then Russia came in and essentially stopped us from entering war with Syria through diplomacy and made Obama look really stupid. They showed that they could do something we couldn't do and get Syria to give up their chem weapons without military intervention. But Assad gassed civilians again. The Russian plan was a failure and they can't be trusted to police the Syrians again. I support this action in response. That being said, it should also be the end of our involvement in a civil war. This is only a 'fine' to me that discourages chemical weapons. 'Use a chem weapon, lose an airfield.'
This just in nytimes.com/2017/04/06/world/middleeast/us-said-to-weigh-military-responses-to-syrian-chemical-attack.html What makes me nervous is the part where Russia says they've decided to discontinue the air safety campaign that was intended to minimize incidents between Russian and American forces. That and literally everything else about this situation.
Hmm...how can I distract the American public from the Russia investigation, Supreme Court fiasco, and Healthcare debacle...wow, perfect timing for Syria to do something incredibly irresponsible.