Sensible article on Syria situation re Lindsay Graham

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gra...nch-with-trump

Graham is well known as one of the more hawkish, pro-active foreign policy Senators, closely aligned with McCain for decades on these issues.

He summarizes Trump's feelings well, as they were discussed on the other thread (which went off topic as these do, so starting this one).

Like I said, I was concerned, but waiting to see what he really did. Trump it sounds like is rightfully frustrated that we are still the world's policeman, we're paying all the bills, no one else is helping, and he's tired of it. I'm tired of it, we should all be tired of it.

We drain off trillions in US treasure and wealth to forward the interests of our nation, but it also benefits nations like NATO and others tremendously, and very few are paying to help carry the load. Damned few, and the few that are are generally poorer nations like Poland.

Trump is sick of it, thus the reaction in Syria, but it sounds like he's pursuing a path that is still workable and has listened to his advisors, including Graham. Graham is coming around to supporting the plan, which speaks volumes. he is far from a Trump stooge and has never gone with the party line on foreign policy if he disagrees, so it's a strong reassurance.

That's why I wanted to wait. Trump is 100% right to be frustrated, but we still have to not just pull up our tents and run. it's a tough, no win situation, but it looks like it is being done in a sensible way.

Which is why rushing to judgement in these situations isn't terribly wise. Esp. with Trump, his tweets and such are to start a debate, and to move the debate, doesn't mean that's the final policy that's implemented. And that's not all dumb, b/c he has moved the debate in many areas, and that's a key to getting progress in your direction.

The only thing worse than being the world's policeman is not being the world's policeman.

If you are playing the role of the hegemon then your national interests take a back seat to others.

The alliances we have in Europe and Asia particularly have limited all out war and certainly a third world war between the forces of democracy and totalitarianism.

Until the 1990s the US and our other allies were not all that eager for Japan and Germany to invest heavily in military strength. For good reason.

Fortress America and this nation's option to be isolationist ended when the Russians developed the A bomb.

But as far as rushing to judgment, we are all back seat drivers. The Secretary of Defense, however, sent a pretty powerful message with his resignation letter.

A lot of people, smart, good people, will oppose us moving away from being the world's policeman, but Trump is right to demand others start stepping up.

it's not fair or equitable to the people of America that we spend trillions to the benefit of other nations who then keep that money and do things like provide more health care and education to their citizens. They can do that b/c, as you said, we have prevented a lot of wars and conflict, and they owe their part of that cost.

As for Syria, it depends on how it's done. Obama pulled up stakes quick, and left a power vacuum. If we can find a way to keep the Kurds supplied, etc. then it may be doable. Either way there is a point where keeping our sons and daughters there simply b/c no one else will just isn't going to last.

Like you, I dont' really like either option, but financially we can only do so much. We've run our debt through the roof, and Germany and Japan don't have to re-militarize in order to help share the burden. Japan in fact is developing quite a navy, mostly in response to Chinese naval investment, but I agree that's a two edged sword.

But helping pay for the sheer costs of deploying that much man and machinery they could certainly do, and I'm good to pressure them more into doing so. They surely won't write a check unless we ask, and ask really firmly.

Trumps initial position of an immediate withdrawal from Syria, urged by the Turks, appears to have changed on the achieving certain markers of success.

After Trump proclaims victory in Syria, John Bolton lays out a plan as to the circumstances that would justify a US troop withdrawal.

This is good news. It cost the country Sec. Mattis.

Some who support Trump will say this was his lan all along. That would not be accurate.

The president announced a new US Mideast policy and then changed it in the face of strong opposition

The policy first announced by trump came after talking with the Turks and not his own advisors. That is a long term problem that could blow up in all our faces in the short term.

Had trump first internally talked with his advisors before proclaiming WhAt was reported in the press and interpreted by our allies to be a radical departure of US foreign policy, we would still have Mattis.

If trump changed his mind or was persuaded to see the dangers of just leaving, i am glad.

Leaving aside trump being a stooge/traitor or just pliable to sweet talking despots, publicly changing US policy and then reversing course is poor leadership. It displays his incompetence for all the world to see.

Leaders should be praised for being open to reversing course when necessary. But using the public space to start a conversation with your own advisors is just incompetence. Have that conversation in private. Don’t announce a troop withdrawal then cancel it.

Don’t tell troops they are pawns and sacrificing their lives as suckers while also lying that he gave them a 10,000 increase in pay. Ironically trumps cabinet secs were getting 10,000 pay aincreases. Maybe he got them confused.

America is not a real estate business. Can’t run it like one.

So, like I said, wait and see what actual policy develops.

Yes, he's erratic. That's not news. Yes he uses the public space to have those conversations. I don't like it either, but it's not new.

And in the end is any of it more harmful than maybe letting the Russians annex Crimea? Probably not. So it has to be put in the context of overall policy implications, and in the end for all of Trump's public drama he hasn't really done anything that would be considered deeply undermining of US positions. If anything he's overall made steps forward, and I can't say that for 8 years of Obama or 4 years of Carter, and arguably Bush II, so he's ahead overall.

As for "Costing us Mattis", color me not too torn up. The other angle to take on all of this cabal within the Administration is that Trump's agenda, you know, the one that was VOTED FOR by the PEOPLE, is being blocked at every turn by the Establishment of both sides of the aisle, who can't fathom not doing things the same way they have always done them.

So if you believe Woodward's book, which paints an ugly picture of turmoil within the Administration, then you should note it also paints a picture of paid employees who are openly and aggressively trying to stop the President from doing what the PResident promised he would do.

Trump ran clearly on "bring the troops home", and when Obama did it no one thought it was the "apocalypse", but when Trump does it it's going to be the end of the world.

Mattis did the right thing. The PResident deserves advisors who will implement his vision. Now it's OK to try to temper a Trump move, and smooth the edges, but in the end Trump ran on extracting the US from having troops everyhwere, and if the Sec. of Defense isn't on board with that direction, then yes we need a new one.

Same goes for Obama. I disagreed with almost every move he made, but he deserved the support of his staff in those moves. Goes with being President.

Trump is too erratic. I wish he wasn't, but it's not surprising given the election. I don't agree with everything he even promised to do, but I won't get bent over him then trying to do it.

The Establishment thinks anyone who doesn't do everything the way they have all decided it is to be done must be a lunatic. I get that a lot myself in my life. No, it just means we don't accept their premises and certainly don't think they are the only people qualified to make decisions.

Trump has been fought by both sides and the entire DC establishment since day one. To the extent he is sometimes too erratic I get why that feels good, but it has also proven that he and others of us who supported him were right: there is a DC establishment of power that really runs things, doesn't care about or understand most Americans, and doesn't want to not be in charge.

The end of democracy won't come from a guy like Trump who is so obvious, so likely to say exactly what he thinks. It's coming from the slow acceptance that a bunch of unelected people with the right connections should be in charge versus the duly elected representatives of The People.

Very well said. I mean that.

There is an establishment that opposes Trump. Many layers that are not really connected him but resisting in various ways.

It can’t be as strong or unified as I imagined. otherwise, Trump would not have been elected or survived up to this point.

I like the concept of the outsider giving the country back to the people. I really do.

His support of Putin at every turn personally and publicly gets me. His joking about how cool it is that China’s president is office for life.

If Trump was his own man, I could deal with it. I sincerely believe he is the Kremlins candidate intent on damaging. The Western alliance further polarizing the American People.

If you sincerely believe that the Russians own the president, helped him win the election, then this administration is illegitimate. And here I am daily reminded that my oath is to defend the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic.

If Trump was anti establishment but less erratic. If Trump wanted stronger borders but was better able to articulate improved border security that actually took into account the topography of the area, admit Mexico is not paying for the wall.

If he was antiestablishment but more honest, had a greater command of he issues and demonstrated courtesy I could support that type of president

In real life he is lying crook that evicted widows. Plenty of Bad peoples in power. He just happens to be really bad and really stupid. And in my view a traitor who will be proven to have conspired with the Russians to defraud the American People.