President Trump’s Brilliant Move in Syria

President Donald Trump made a brilliant move when he ordered the U.S. military to make a missile attack on the Shayrat airfield in Syria’s Homs province.

First, in his explanation of his order, President Trump highlights Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad’s latest victims:

“Using a deadly nerve agent, Assad choked out the lives of helpless men, women and children. It was a slow and brutal death for so many. Even beautiful babies were cruelly murdered in this very barbaric attack. No child of god should ever suffer such horror.”

Second, in his explanation of his order, President Trump takes an indirect swipe at the Obama Administration:

“Years of previous attempts at changing Assad’s behavior have all failed and failed very dramatically.”

Third, President Trump ordered the attack right after Hillary Clinton stated that such an attack should be made.

Yahoo! News quotes Clinton as saying, “I really believe that we should have and still should take out his [Assad’s] air fields and prevent him from being able to use them to bomb innocent people.”

Now, if liberals and Democrats complain about the attack, then President Trump can reply, “I did just what Hillary Clinton said should be done.”

Fourth, by ordering the attack, President Trump demonstrated that he is not Vladimir Putin’s puppet.

From CBS News: “Russia, Syrian President Bashar Assad’s most important backer on the world stage, condemned early Friday a U.S. missile strike on a Syrian airbase as “an aggression against a sovereign state in violation of international law.” Russian President Vladimir Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov said in a statement that Putin believes President Trump ordered the strikes under a “far-fetched pretext.””

Fifth, by ordering the attack, President Trump sent a message to the government of North Korea: If North Korea attacks America or America’s allies, then Pyongyang will be turned into rubble.


No, not that rubble. Sheesh!

Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™
Dear Democrats: What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
  • yetanotherjohn

    Agreeing or disagreeing with all your reasoning aside, can you point to me the declaration of war by congress authorizing the attacks?

    • Jeffrey Ostermiller

      The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States. ***Although he must report… it doesn’t say he has to get permission first, and telegraph intent…***

      • yetanotherjohn

        Leaving aside the constitutionality of the war powers act, the purpose of the act was :”The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”
        So saying that the act is authorization (at least for a limited time), you still would have to meet condition 1, 2 or 3.

    • jim_m

      Technically, since we already have forces engaged in Syria is notification necessary? It would seem that this would fall under defensive action to support the forces already engaged in the region.

      • yetanotherjohn

        and those forces in Syria are there based on what deceleration of war by congress?

        • jim_m

          Sorry, not every deployment of troops requires a declaration of war. Don’t be a simpleton.

          • Idahoser

            I have not seen the amendment that changes Congress’ responsibility to declare war. Simpleton applies to somebody, but I don’t see yetanotherjohn as that somebody.

          • jim_m

            We already have troops on the ground in Syria. obama placed them under the auspices of the 2001 use of force authorization, since Congress has not contested this issue in the courts we can assume that until the authorization is formally rescinded it will continue to be the law that allows the President (whoever that is) to act militarily in the region.

            If you are saying that you and he are unaware of the current status of our position and the rationalization for why they are deployed then I accept your admission of ignorance.

          • Are you aware that the United States fought two un-declared wars after the adoption of the Constitution and within the lifetime of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention?

          • jim_m

            details…

          • Inconvenient details…

          • yetanotherjohn

            I’m trying to place the two wars.
            Mexican-American war started with Mexican troops invading Texas, attacking a patrol and laying siege to Fort Texas. War was declared by Congress in May of 1846.
            War of 1812 congress declared war in June of 1812.
            The only thing I can think of is Whiskey rebellion, Northwest Indian wars and the Seminole Indian war. All of these were wars fought inside US territory based on borders drawn by treaties approved by congress.
            I suspect you can see the difference between war fought within the US borders and an attack on Syria.
            The power to declare war is invested in Congress by the US constitution. Obama ignored the constitution and tried to rule by executive fiat. Maybe congress needs to give the president a broad declaration of war for anywhere terrorists exist.
            The AUMF was limited to those who were involved with 9/11.
            “That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”
            The question is not whether we should have attacked (I agree we should), but whether the constitution is the supreme law of the land or not.

          • The X Y Z affair and the Quasi War, both with La Belle Republique.

          • yetanotherjohn

            Thanks. I learned something new. From my limited reading, I’m not sure I would call those two wars, but was clearly US navy fighting without a deceleration of war (in quasi war). I’m going to have to think about this. It seems to me that John Adams deliberately avoided asking for a deceleration of war and paid for this by being the first president to not be elected to a second term. Text of constitution seems to very clearly limit the right of dec. of war to congress and oversight of troops to president, so this may be a gray area. Would still rather see congress issue a deceleration of war to give president authority to carry out these sorts of attacks rather than let president to decide unilaterally. I didn’t like it when Obama did it in Syria and Libya and don’t think things improved because president has an R after his name.

          • Will you conceeed that undeclared wars have precedence nearly as old as our Republic itself?

          • yetanotherjohn

            The quasi war certainly is that precedence. As I said, you have introduced new information to me and I need to think about it.

          • Idahoser

            yes.
            I am not aware, but I don’t dispute that you’re probably correct. Doesn’t make it right. I hate to ask but I don’t have time to look it up, what wars are we talking about that were not declared?

          • It does make it well established precedent.

        • Walter_Cronanty

          According to Huffpo:

          Obama has overseen bombings in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Iraq and Syria. In each country, the administration relied, in part, on legislation Congress passed in 2001 to authorize the use of force against those who plotted the Sept. 11 attacks [see, https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/pdf/PLAW-107publ40.pdf%5D. The wording of that authorization was vague ― it didn’t limit the war to a specific country or timeframe ― and the Obama administration’s lawyers have presented a complicated legal justification to defend its ongoing use in countries that Congress never even considered in 2001. That means a future president could continue to rely on the 15-year-old law to wage new wars in additional countries without asking Congress for approval.

  • pennywit

    I think it’s a bit early to say “brilliant.”

  • WHO’S THE BUSTER

    Good thing the Syrian gas attack was on television.

    Nonetheless, a good strategic move.

    • Retired military

      But but Syria doesnt have Sarin gas. Susan Rice and Obama said that they had made them give it all up.

  • Walter_Cronanty

    Well, for a Russian puppet, Donald has certainly pissed off his masters:

    Russia further warned America of “abetting international terrorism and making it stronger,” ominously warning “new WMD attacks can be expected.”

    One other note, if, as stated by the Russians, “Assad doesn’t have chemical weapons,” where will the WMDs in the threatened new attacks come from?

  • Paul Hooson

    Rather than being brilliant, we need to be mindful that Russia and Syria have a military and other standing treaties. Russia is sending one of their warships with high speed cruise missiles to the area where the American Navy ships fired the cruise missiles where Mr. Putin may believe that America will not risk or wage an all-out war if Russian ships are given the green light to fire on or sink American ships if they fire any more cruise missiles. Russia may be willing to elevate to this level to see if America won’t back down. Mr. Putin today suspended an agreement with the United States that provided some limited military cooperation and may allow for limited Russian attacks on American troops to see if the U.S. may wilt under that challenge and not wish to escalate to all-out war.

    Mr. Trump did little to bring in Russian cooperation to fight ISIS or to stop Syrian chemical weapons use. Now, Russia may dangerously allow a limited military response if further American military actions take place. Putin may want to assert his strength against Mr. Trump here. This is the huge danger in all of this.

    Mr. Putin might feel that his friendships with Syria and Iran and proving strength against the U.S. might be the preferred path here. I only hope that this is not the reality here, that Mr. Putin will eventually come to more reasonable terms over Syria. But, evidence suggests that a Russian drone first surveyed the area in preparation for the Syrian chemical weapon attack. Further, it was possibly a Russian aircraft that later attempted to bomb the hospital where gas victims were being treated to cover up evidence. All of the evidence is very damning here and the resulting worsening frictions with Russia very dangerous here as well.

    • jim_m

      Precisely what do you think that Russia warship is going to do? Attack ours? You really think that Putin will take this as a pretext to initiate a full blown war with the US? He’s not that dumb.

      This will be a show of strength by Russia and that is it. Word is that through diplomatic channels they have been relatively quiet. Tillerson is still going to Moscow next week, they have not cancelled the invitation to meet with him.

      You can go and change your pants.

      • Paul Hooson

        Russia will try to show strength in a test of wills, but will try to avoid escalation unless an accidental or actual further American event takes place. One Russian official sees the two countries on the “brink” of war. It is a big mistake not to view that Mr. Putin may not attempt to flex his muscles or sense of macho here and may act with less restraint and more Russian pride resolve than American officials anticipated. Russian military officials have believed for the last several years that they could win a war with the United States in a first strike nuclear war, so the prospects of Russia waging a war against the U.S. is not unthinkable to Russian war planners.

        • jim_m

          That statement was full of hyperbole. For that to be the case Russia would have to be intended an act of violent provocation such as attacking one of our ships. You really think they are going to do that? You are delusional.

        • Walter_Cronanty

          Mr. Trump could have allowed the UN to investigate this chemical weapons attack and to allow for a no-fly resolution or similar action to prevent any further chemical weapons attacks and UN supervised destruction of these weapons, but instead put military action on a fast track that is now putting the U.S. and Russia in a very dangerous confrontational stance.

          • Paul Hooson

            Sadly, most Republicans and Democrats are falling in support of this dangerous escalation of the problems in Syria and have only made the situation with possible war with Russia much worse. Russia should never have been trusted rid Syria of their chemical weapons as they are not an honest broker and appeared to assist the Syrian chemical attack with drone intelligence. In Afghanistan, Russian soldiers were sent into combat with poison packets to poison water supplies, so they have resorted to chemical warfare before themselves.

            I firmly believe both Trump and Clinton are wrong here.

          • jim_m

            OK genius. SO your solution is to ignore it and hope it will go away like obama did. That’s what got us to this place. It’s not a solution. If you are willing to countenance genocide like obama said he was then just say so.

          • Paul Hooson

            No. I think the rule of law in regards to better enforcement of the agreement to rid Syria of chemical weapons was violated by both Syria and her protector, Russia. Assad’s regime is obviously unable to clearly win the war over the rebels without both Russian help as well as chemical weapons use. That is a sign of weakness.

          • jim_m

            I see. SO your hope is to charge them in The Hague. Good luck with that. Dumbass.

          • Paul Hooson

            Look at the Syrian mess. Millions of refugees. Prodemocracy and Islamist rebels in control in some parts of the country. Hezbollah and Iranian control of other areas of the country. ISIS terrorist control that once extended over 75% of the country, Foreign soldiers from both Russia fighting for Assad but not against ISIS, and American involvement in support of some of the rebels and opposing Islamists, and opposing ISIS, where there seems to be no other answer but to bring all parties except ISIS to some table to work out some peace plan. Some problems simply can’t be just bombed into a solution when you have so many parties involved in such a fractured mess like this.

          • jim_m

            There would be less of a problem if obama had not been sending arms to ISIS initially. obama sat idly by while Assad destroyed the moderates and Christians. His policy is demonstrably pro-islamist as it was in Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood.

            Syria didn’t have to be a mess but you had a feckless idiot running the WH for the last 8 years. obama created a vacuum of leadership in the ME that Putin stepped into. The reason Syria is the way it is, is because obama created it through neglect. He stood up and declared that he didn’t care how many people were dying. He said that if the US pulled out and there was a genocide that it wasn’t his problem.

            The refugee problem is not solved by taking millions of anti-western muslims into the west. It is solved by ending the war in Syria. By any means necessary.

            If history has shown us anything it is that you can end a war by bombing. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are testimonials to that fact.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Well, the UN is worthless. What else you got up your sleeve? How do we rid Syria of WMDs without pissing off Russia, or do want to let Assad continue gassing his own people?

        • Retired military

          Oh wait. The UN could have sent a strongly worded letter to Assad about how it is very very naughty to use Sarin gas. I think Trump/s message was more to the point.

        • Olsoljer

          Yas, Yas diplomacy my good man. Quite! …….and after it worked so well these past 8 years. Why would we think Syria has WMDs/ chemical weapons when Russia says they don’t. The Russians didn’t give the weapons to SYRIA (plausible deniability) Russia gave them to IRAQ prior to Sadam’s demise, and those WMDs were trucked to Syria along with who knows what other weapons. You must remember, those WMDs that never existed, still don’t exist (well, maybe a little bit of Sarin) because obammer SAID Syria destroyed them all.

          So much for trust but verify for Syria, as well as the past US political regime.

  • Walter_Cronanty

    Okay – how long did Obama know that Syria was stockpiling sarin gas?

    McMaster [Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster], who noted the strike was targeted to avoid a storage unit that was stockpiling the nerve agent in order to protect civilians,…”
    Trump’s been President for less than 3 months, yet we can craft a 59 cruise missile attack on one airfield so as to not hit a sarin gas storage unit? Seems to me that’s one helluva intelligence coup in less than 3 months – or Obama knew he had been played by Putin and still did nothing about it.

    • jim_m

      It was a mistake to not target that stockpile. They should have hit it and allowed Assad’s people and the Russians to die from it. Let them then explain how it is that the weapons that don’t exist were there.

  • Retired military

    Susan Rice in January 2017 “We Were Able to Get Syrian Government to Voluntarily and Verifiably Give Up Chemical Weapons”
    So she is
    a. a liar
    b. Or incompetent
    or
    C. a fool
    or
    D. all 3.

    you decide.
    I choose option D.

    • All three for the win.

      • Retired military

        Rice and Obama lied. People died.

        Funny how you dont hear that from the MSM.

  • Brucehenry
    • jim_m

      Behold the new Rick. He post links without comment and then refuses to defend or otherwise explain the value of the content.

      • Brucehenry

        Behold the old Jim, who claims not to give a shit what I say but responds to anything I post within 45 seconds.

        The links speak for themselves, they are easy to understand. Any reader can decide for himself what value they possess.

        • jim_m

          The American Conservative is not really conservative but is really a crank conservative operation from Pat Buchannan. It offers up articles by noted conservatives like John Huntsman (obama’s Ambassador to China) and Jim Webb, a dem.

          • Brucehenry

            Yeah I don’t care what the American Conservative does, I just saw the article on social media and agreed with many of its points. And I know Pat Buchanan is a crank and a kook but he didn’t write this. Larison writes some pretty good stuff sometimes.

          • That you link it is ample reason in and of itself to ignore it.

          • Brucehenry

            Yeah you’ve said so, twice now, lol.

          • jim_m

            The article analyzes the action in a vacuum, assuming that it has only relevance to the future behavior of Syria. This is false. It sent a signal throughout the world as to the willingness of the US to finally re engage in foreign affairs. It sent a messae that was heard in every capital of the world. It has been supported throughout Europe and the ME. It was heard in Pyongyang and perhaps most importantly, across the dinner table last night in Mar a lago.

          • Brucehenry

            Well maybe but maybe it’ll be another example of the press and other “wise men” thinking that Trump had finally become “presidential,” like after he managed to get through his SOTU without stepping on his own dick. Within a few days he was back on the electric twitter machine and everyone could see he was still the same buffoon he was before.

            This, despite what you are telling yourself is being applauded “throughout Europe and the ME”, was just impulsive behavior, not a manifestation of a strategy. There is no strategy. Just a few days ago Spicer was telling reporters that Assad was the “political reality we must accept.”

            Ivanka saw some upsetting pictures and told Daddy he should “do something.” If May or Hollande or Merkel (or Putin or Xi) are mistaking this action as a sea change in US diplomacy they are as delusional as you are.

          • jim_m

            I agree that unless there is a strategy the action is pointless. However, unlike you I am not assuming that there is no strategy. Before last night the assumption was that there wasn’t even a plan to respond. My guess is that Mattis, Tillerson and others already have a strategy. I’m willing to wait and see.

            There s a change in US policy. It is no longer, America is wrong and the source of all evil in the world and we will not engage in a meaningful way overseas and will do everything we can to kiss the asses of our enemies in the hopes that we are devoured last. That is what obama’s policy was. That is what your policy is.

          • Brucehenry

            Well no matter what is being discussed you always find a way to get back to the important thing — that Obama sucks. Thanks for being so damn bori….er um I mean consistent.

          • jim_m

            It is relevant here because it is the clear departure from obama policy that makes Trump’s action so popular on both sides of the aisle at home and abroad.

          • Brucehenry

            And as I said, the reaction to Trump’s SOTU was at first very positive and regarded as a turning point. And then a few days passed and he was still the same clueless laughingstock as before.

            I don’t get how purportedly smart pundits and politicians can be fooled over and over but here we are.

          • Brucehenry

            Here’s a link. from a source often cited here, that I’ll also present without comment:

            http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/07/radical-islamists-cheer-trump-administrations-missile-strike/

          • jim_m

            Then being without any incentive to look at it, I won’t

          • Brucehenry

            Well I would be if I actually spouted all the nonsense your strawmen say I do. LMFAO.

            If I post articles without comment, it’s because I think the points they make are worthy of consideration by other readers, including you. Read them or don’t, I don’t give a shit.

            But it’s hilarious that I post an article *without comment* and you decide and proclaim that it “effectively” means that I, personally, am saying this or that fantastic paranoid nonsense you yourself project on me.

            Don’t ever change, you cartoon character version of an internet curmudgeon!

          • jim_m

            So you think that normalizing the use of chemical weapons is OK. Good to know.

          • Brucehenry

            With each reply you further prove you can’t fucking read. Keep it up, dildo.

          • jim_m

            I’m sorry. You have not posted any comment or critique of the article you linked so I am free to interpret that in any way I choose.

          • Brucehenry

            You certainly ARE free to interpret that any way that you choose. The “way you choose” to interpret that makes you a ridiculous dumbass, but you are certainly free to be one. Why change now after all these years?

          • Vagabond661

            No asprin factories were harmed in this response.

          • Brucehenry

            Funny you should bring that up. Seems to me this “attack” in which the Russians (and thus the Syrians) were warned in advance has a lot in common with the wingnut version of the 1993 cruise missile hit in Sudan.

          • Vagabond661

            You know why the Russians were notified. And Trump didn’t do this as a diversion of his affairs but in response to killing children with gas.

            A little more noble, n’est pas?

          • Brucehenry

            Yeah it would have been useless to kill bin Ladin in 1998 (not 93, my mistake).

            You’ve made a mistake of your own, Rodn….er um I mean Vagabond. Do you know what it is?

          • Vagabond661

            My French is a little rusty, WHOSTHEBUS….Bruce.

          • Brucehenry
          • Vagabond661

            Physcian, heal thyself.

          • jim_m

            Which quote was first attributed to Lincoln in 1931. Funny, since he died in 1865 and therefore almost certainly never said it. Thanks for offering us a perfect example of what you were trying to say. Thanks for playing, dumbass.

          • Brucehenry

            Doesn’t matter if Lincoln didn’t say it, it’s still good advice.

          • And were you heeding that advice we’d hear from you not at all.

          • jim_m

            N’est-ce pas

          • Go back to the village you have deprived of their idiot by your presence here. You shan’t be missed here.

          • Brucehenry

            I shan’t? Why nay, thou scurvy knave, but I shall!

            What a pretentious douchebag. “Shan’t.” Jesus.

          • jim_m

            typical leftist anti-intellectual mocking people who have an education and a vocabulary.

          • Brucehenry

            Sure Jim anti-intellectualism is a phenomenon of “the left” lol.

            https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-08-02/policy-expert-explains-how-anti-intellectualism-gave-rise-donald-trump

            I have great respect for education and vocabulary, but little patience for pretentious fops who lard their speech with (often misspelled or misused) Latinate phrases, antiquated contractions like “shan’t” and alternatively acronyms like “FOAD” and “ATFQ.” These people are what I like to call “douchebags.” They can often be spotted before they even open their pompous pieholes to speak — they’re wearing fedoras.

          • FO.

          • Anything you link is worth missing.

            What I tell you three times is true.

          • Three times actually.

            And what I tell you three times is true.

          • jim_m

            If you don’t care to characterize the contents of your links then STFU and let the rest of us do so for you. You have stated that you have no interest or desire to do so.

        • jim_m

          Then you will agree that they speak for themselves that they contain obvious lies, lies that you would promote had you the balls to actually write them yourself.

    • Links posted by a fool and poltroon. I’ll pass.

  • Paul Hooson

    The Syrian airbase is back open for business again today.

    • jim_m

      Idiot. Disabling the airstrip was not an objective so we did nothing to do that. Repairing the runway would have taken 24-48 hours so instead we took out over 20 aircraft, all their hardened hangers and their fuel depot. Those items cannot be so quickly replaced or repaired. The fuel is forever gone as are the aircraft. What lasts even longer is the object lesson that the US doesn’t give a shit about Syria or their big brother Putin and what they think. If you think that was so ineffective why do we hear all the whining from them?