Tweet
What if Trump’s missile salvo wasn’t really about Syria?
American Thinker
by Brian C. Joondeph
4/14/2017
Excerpt:
More than a hundred years ago, President Theodore Roosevelt described his foreign policy as, “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” Which to him meant, "the exercise of intelligent forethought and of decisive action sufficiently far in advance of any likely crisis".
Fast forward to President Trump. Few will characterize Trump as “speaking softly,” whether verbally or on Twitter, but after sending 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles into Syria last week, there is little doubt about him carrying “a big stick.” Going further, did this move demonstrate “forethought?” Was it “decisive action” ahead of and hopefully preventing “any likely crisis?”
What if the Syrian bombing was not really about Syria, but meant for a different audience?
The missile salvo was surgical and precise, bombing a few buildings at a Syrian air force base. The Russians were warned ahead of time to get their soldiers off the base. Very likely they tipped off the Syrians. Casualties were minimal, if at all, as the missiles destroyed Syrian planes, hangars and a fuel depot.
Some argue that this is a prelude to war, another Middle Eastern foreign entanglement which candidate Trump criticized and promised not to repeat. Others argue that the attack wasn’t enough. The runways weren’t destroyed, Assad is still in power. Trump instead took the Goldilocks approach, threading the needle between the “too much” and “not enough” camps, finding a happy medium.
What if this middle ground wasn’t really meant for Syria or Assad, but perhaps for China, Russia, Iran and North Korea? And perhaps the U.S. Fake Stream Media?
Foreign policy, like financial markets, prefers predictability to chaos or impulsiveness. What better way to throw a wrench into relations with these “axis of evil” countries than for Trump to do a 180-degree pivot from his campaign promises to stay out of Syria?
Foreign powers could safely assume that Trump would focus on his primary campaign promise of making America great again, directing his attention to repealing Obamacare, cutting taxes and regulation, renegotiating trade deals, and building a border wall. He made clear his intention to avoid costly foreign entanglements, specifically the ill-conceived and executed wars of by his two presidential predecessors.
A limited missile strike is hardly a war. No “boots on the ground.” The cost of the missiles, at a million dollars apiece, is less than what the Obamas are getting for their upcoming book deal. But the big stick is getting attention. International attention.
.................................................. ......
View the complete article including links and comments at:
http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...out_syria.html
American Thinker
by Brian C. Joondeph
4/14/2017
Excerpt:
More than a hundred years ago, President Theodore Roosevelt described his foreign policy as, “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” Which to him meant, "the exercise of intelligent forethought and of decisive action sufficiently far in advance of any likely crisis".
Fast forward to President Trump. Few will characterize Trump as “speaking softly,” whether verbally or on Twitter, but after sending 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles into Syria last week, there is little doubt about him carrying “a big stick.” Going further, did this move demonstrate “forethought?” Was it “decisive action” ahead of and hopefully preventing “any likely crisis?”
What if the Syrian bombing was not really about Syria, but meant for a different audience?
The missile salvo was surgical and precise, bombing a few buildings at a Syrian air force base. The Russians were warned ahead of time to get their soldiers off the base. Very likely they tipped off the Syrians. Casualties were minimal, if at all, as the missiles destroyed Syrian planes, hangars and a fuel depot.
Some argue that this is a prelude to war, another Middle Eastern foreign entanglement which candidate Trump criticized and promised not to repeat. Others argue that the attack wasn’t enough. The runways weren’t destroyed, Assad is still in power. Trump instead took the Goldilocks approach, threading the needle between the “too much” and “not enough” camps, finding a happy medium.
What if this middle ground wasn’t really meant for Syria or Assad, but perhaps for China, Russia, Iran and North Korea? And perhaps the U.S. Fake Stream Media?
Foreign policy, like financial markets, prefers predictability to chaos or impulsiveness. What better way to throw a wrench into relations with these “axis of evil” countries than for Trump to do a 180-degree pivot from his campaign promises to stay out of Syria?
Foreign powers could safely assume that Trump would focus on his primary campaign promise of making America great again, directing his attention to repealing Obamacare, cutting taxes and regulation, renegotiating trade deals, and building a border wall. He made clear his intention to avoid costly foreign entanglements, specifically the ill-conceived and executed wars of by his two presidential predecessors.
A limited missile strike is hardly a war. No “boots on the ground.” The cost of the missiles, at a million dollars apiece, is less than what the Obamas are getting for their upcoming book deal. But the big stick is getting attention. International attention.
.................................................. ......
View the complete article including links and comments at:
http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...out_syria.html