Syria Chemical Attack False Flag


#21

The military chose the targets. (You didn’t think Trump did, did you?)

The buildings and runways were left intact because the strike was intended as a war-like act not an act-of-war. The military doesn’t want its war on ISIS disrupted. I’m coming to the conclusion that Trump wanted to act tough and the military tried to do that without actually making it tough on the targets.

I don’t think that the military pushed Trump to act because the results have emboldened Russia/Syria and weakened the fight against ISIS. Bannon is said to have counseled against it. Either Trump thought of it on his own, somebody on TV urged it, or the family is getting bloodthirsty.


#22

Here is a good explanation for it all… and quite possibly @dan might be on to something but it might be people who have been setting Trump up from the start… There is something to this ‘establisment’ meme… I just haven’t figured out the angles… but I feel its real… now give me back my damn hat !


#23

Agree that Assad’s motivations to launch a chemical attack now make no sense. Will not attribute it to Putin without evidence.

We have a deconfliction pact with the Russians which means that we agreed to give them advance notice so they can protect their people. Since we operate against ISIS in shared airspace (we have boots on the ground that need airstrikes), we had to craft whatever we did about the chemical attack around observing this agreement. Hence “a shot across the bow”, particularly if many Americans would not understand its limited nature. The Russians obviously understood its limited nature since we told them the exact square footage that we planned to hit. The Russians have said they will no longer observe the deconfliction agreement and we still need to send planes up, so the risk is higher.

Whether or not the entire strike was PR and diversion, the PR part of it was Trump as John Wayne. They staged a sit room photo with economic advisers, assuming, correctly that some Trumpites were not smart enough to notice who was in the photo. This copied Obama assembling capable people and working (successfully) to protect Americans, released, I believe, after success on the truly limited objective of OBL being dead. Characteristically, they could not resist photos, notwithstanding the consequences of the PR shot if their high risk action proves unsuccessful (Bush had the stunt on the aircraft carrier, and Trump has the Secretaries of Treasury and Commerce calling in cruise missile strikes).

Per Bacevich’s excellent book, our history in the Middle East, for 50 years, with very sad repetition, has the embedded assumption that we could swagger and fire some bow shots and leaders in the Middle East would convert into mini-Thomas Jeffersons. Sadly, history tells us that these leaders continue to pursue their larger aims, even if they do occasionally stop the thing that we fired the bow shot over. For example, does anyone remember what Reagan had our Marines doing in Lebanon when their barracks were bombed? They were riding around in jeeps looking American with the plan that the factions in Lebanon that were slaughtering people in refugee camps would desist.

Our strategic problem is that the American people understand that, while the Middle East’s threat to us is greater than zero, it is far too low to justify what a mega war, and permanent occupation, would cost. Mixed into this is the unfortunate twist that some Americans can be temporarily deluded by promises of rapid victory and then, in the fullness of time, demonstrate that they are unwilling to go the distance on a mega war, sometimes by replacing the party in power. I agree with Obama that one should avoid swagger and risk when Americans will not go the distance, especially since no one but us is confused about our distance-going. The utterly disgusting MSM coverage of the last 48 hours was “gee, swagger is appealing”.

My prediction is that Assad will not turn into a mini-Thomas Jefferson. This bow shot risks our ability to destroy ISIS and we have stepped up the risk of unintended consequences (there have been none in the first 48 hours, but life is long). Anyone who believed we would not go the distance has an unchanged opinion. Trump did “win” a news cycle (and may get away with appealing swagger and no consequences this time), but his fate will be a combo of what we learn about Russian collusion, how he does his job on the economy, and whether he starts a mega war in the Middle East.


#24


#25

Obama was no less egregious as every other president in his motive to either dominate another, indoctrinate another or homogenize with another… Either you want the US to force itself and its ‘values’ (whatever they have become) on others or force Americans to accept unconditionally the values of others … whether they want to or not… Some people either love America so much that they insist that the rest of the world should be like us or loath America so much that they want America to dissolve… Either way, the ever expanding definition of national or strategic interest and the continually evolving resolve of the Monroe doctrine take us farther away from our constitutional roots. I just read that Russia is now back in Nicaragua… While America should indeed tone down its swagger when it comes to projecting its imperialist ambition (Neocon) or its cramming American democracy down the throats of others (Democrats), carrying a big stick is no less important today as it was when the British were sent packing…


#26

The lack of damage to anything valuable tells me this was a made for media show.


#27

It probably was but I don’t think it was about Syria… but I am sure that N.Korea, Russia, Iran and China got the message…


#28

What we have, at some level, is a demonstration of force that arguably might help deter others from using chemical weapons, and arguably might deter Assad – but it’s about the lightest retaliation Assad could have expected from a military strike so, at that level, it would be a calculated risk. But yes, the strike was composed largely as a demonstration, and not as any sort of game changer.

Whatever scheming or plotting occurred before the decision to launch a gas attack, it is difficult to believe that Russians would not have been aware of Syrian actions. It’s difficult under the circumstances to believe that they wouldn’t have been informed in advance but, even if they were not, it’s difficult to believe that Russians at the air base would not have identified unusual activity leading up to the launch. Even if Assad was convinced that a gas attack launched without Russian approval would not affect Russia’s position in the overall conflict, it’s difficult for me to believe that he hasn’t noticed that a lot of people who cross Putin end up dead under questionable circumstances.

Russia may have seen this as an opportunity to take the measure of Trump as Commander in Chief. Would he stick to his old rhetoric, that no retaliatory bombing should occur? Would he launch a more significant action and, if so, would it be largely symbolic or something more aggressive? Would Trump reveal a larger plan for the region, or the lack of a plan for either the conflict or the region? Would the U.S. act while taking care to avoid harm to Russian forces? If Putin gave the green light for the gas attack in order to assess Trump, he got a lot of information about what he can expect from Trump. The cost? If there ever is a negotiated end to the conflict, Assad has to go… but is there any reason Russia would care about keeping Assad in power in such a circumstance? It seems to me that their long-term goals would be better advanced by replacing him with somebody who is less likely to make the same sort of mistakes that led his nation into this civil war.

Had Trump not acted, he would have been criticised as weak, even from within his own party. As it stands, even with the strike, he’s not exactly striking fear into the hearts of the world’s tyrants. The message to North Korea would seem to be that, despite the strong words and suggestion of possible military action, the U.S. is not likely to take any action that poses a significant risk to either U.S. forces or to civilians.

Meanwhile, the bombing gives Russia the opportunity to distance itself from U.S. efforts, which are primarily directed at ISIS, and likely thereby to help Syria target non-ISIS resistance forces. If they succeed in that hard-to-deny effort to eliminate any third parties from play, such that the outcome of the conflict turns on choosing between Assad (or his successor) or ISIS, he knows that the world is all-but-certain to (once again) identify ISIS as the less acceptable party.

It is likely that Trump will experience a short-term boost in the opinion polls, because that’s the way political opinion in this country rolls. Will it have a long-term effect, or help Trump with his legislative agenda? I very much doubt it. To the extent that Putin’s fingerprints are on Syria’s actions, I personally see no reason to believe that Putin wants to help Trump.


#29


#30

Well isn’t this interesting timing…


#31

I am thinking that the effort to find a plan, or a plot, behind the Syrian attack, is not going to yield anything. It was simply Trump reacting. Harder to be sure of is the gas attack itself. That part looks to me (and others) like April Glaspie not warning off Saddam about his idea to capture part of Kuwait, and Saddam running with it. In this case, Assad, eager to know if the friendly tone regarding Russia really extended to him, orders a nasty action.

And Assad and Putin learn that Trump is hopelessly impulsive and the exact opposite of a Machiavellian calculator. The confusion among his diplomatic staff about how to discuss it publicly suggests this. I do not think it was any kind of setup. Trump asked for options, the Pentagon showed him some strike packages, and he chose—“I choose No. 3!”


#32

Scott Ritter, as many but not all of you know, was a marine officer and the chief UN Weapons Inspector in the 90s who played an important role in making Saddam Hussein comply with requirements that he destroys his WMD at that time. Most importantly, he was one of the few who correctly argued that Saddam no longer had WMD in 2003.

Below is an article he wrote for the Huffington Post that should be read because it casts doubt on the Trump Administration’s rationale for attacking Assad’s military bases. It should be clear this is not a defense of Assad, but of the specific claim. He notes that one of the reasons Obama did not launch a similar attack in 2013 was that the strong case that Assad used chemical weapons that August turned out not to be so strong and he decided not to act. Trump, as far as anyone knows, made minimal, if any, similar fact-gathering efforts. Ritter has some baggage, as some of you know, but not in his area of expertise. Minimally, there should be a call for an independent review of the evidence as was done in 2013. The Ritter article is below:


#33

A point Ritter raises is that Obama was warned by James Clapper, on the 2013 event, that the conclusion was not solid as to the actors responsible. He feels the same view should be held now, that there were enough questions to have made choosing a response tricky.


#34

I was going to respond to this earlier but got sidetracked by life… While the option utilized was relatively impromptu, I am not so sure that the search for an ‘incident’ wasn’t talked about at length. The U.S. has had Russia, China, Iran and NKorean poking it for about the last year or so. I’m not so sure that Trump hasn’t been looking for one of those ‘Position of Strength’ moments and Syria gave it to him… and with Xi at the dinner table, at the most opportune time. I’m thinking it put an exclamation point on N Korea… Which, IMHO, after 60years, needs some resolution…

I have my doubts about the fact that the stated gas was Sarin. I read some time ago about the rate at which Sarin dissipates verses some other agent such as chlorine. Sarin is relatively slow and the puzzle for me is that the pictures of the aftermath showed first responders giving care to the injured without any protective gear… do you send your first responders into a gas attack without at least respirators and if this was Sarin… why weren’t they affected too… Just my less than professional observation.

You can google translate this yourself:

http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2017/04/10/2017041001086.html


#35

The controlled MSM has asked about regime change in Syria 78 times at the White House press briefing. It’s all they care about because it’s all about getting a government installed that will approve the pipeline from Qatar and install a Rothschild central bank.


#36

Trump has acted. Trump doesn’t make mistakes. If there eventually is evidence to the contrary, Trump will have to attack and attack again to prove his point that he is never wrong.

Or Trump fires his top level of defense management for misleading Trump. Whatever. All I can predict is that Trump will never, ever be wrong.


#37

You could swap “Trump” for “Obama” in you butthurt little rant and what you said might be more accurate.