By Bill Hormann, 13abc
The question about Donald Trump’s airstrike against Syria is whether it was prompted by an awakening of his love of humanity or a theatrical performance intended to sever the perceived link between him and Vladimir Putin. On Friday, April 7 Donald Trump reversed his earlier positions about how the US should handle Syria as he sent 59 Tomahawk missiles screaming into a Syrian airport, minimally disrupting it. Before running for President, he was strongly critical of President Obama for contemplating a response to Assad’s chemical attacks by bombing Syria. During Trump’s 2016 Presidential campaign he REPEATEDLY railed that Syria’s problems are Syria’s problems – not ours. In his first week in office, he worked to operationalize his isolationist views about Syria into his “Muslim ban”. Just days before the bombing, Trump’s Secretary of State explained that we would stay hands-off and let the Syrians determine the fate of their leader and country.
Trump tweet from 2013
Let’s first assume a non-cynical view of Commander-in-Chief Donald Trump missile barrage on the Syrian airfield from which the gas attack was launched. Trump postures that his love for humanity was awakened by the sight of suffering “beautiful little babies”. The images that TV-aholic Trump would have seen are more-than-horrifying. However, they are identical in nature to the images from earlier chemical attacks, so what some may call “heart” or Presidential conscience appears to be impulsiveness unless there is more to the story. We need to know how destroying 6-20 planes will keep the beautiful babies safe in the future. Hillary Clinton had warned voters that his impulsiveness was an important reason to vote against Trump. With Trump’s distorted and fragile ego, it is worrisome to think what actions he might take to other provocative imagery. A president should have a plan with goals and understanding of likely consequences before taking military actions.
It may be that Trump made the decision, fully intending to make a HUGE difference in the world. This naïve understanding is likely to become a joke in the future as the attack is seen as ineffective in meeting any goals. The criticism that Obama got for taking too little action after deliberation can be also aimed at Trump who will be seen to take too little action with no serious deliberation. President Trump may have acted through sincere intentions to appear strong or noble. He may be telling the truth as he see it because even he lies only 70% of the time. He must tell the truth sometimes. However, Trump may have been using the attack to divert attention from so many other bad stories about Trump and the Trump team.
A more likely explanation of Trump’s decision is that he may be using military action as theater. Trump is regularly described as a master manipulator and especially likes to play the media when he finds himself in trouble. As a diversion from attention to his many problems , Trump may have refocused the headline, seeking press who are once again seeing a “new Trump” and the real “day Trump became President”. Also, Trump may have used the strike as performance art to show that he is not in the Russian dictator’s pocket as payback from for help winning the election. The strike could then be used as an opening gambit in negotiations that might soon lead to lifting of the sanctions against Russia – one of Putin’s major objectives.
Within the first 100 days, Trump’s approval rating has been sinking. Trump’s attempt to fulfill the campaign promise to repeal ObamaCare showed a cruelty to his voters, a lack of understanding about the health system, and a novice approach to deal making. Trump’s team of rivals appeared to be unraveling as his campaign and transition evil guru, Steve Bannon was removed from the National Security Committee and seems to be fighting against the Trump nepotistic in-group.
Further, questions about Trump’s possible collusion with the Russians’ attack on the US Presidential election, about the future of healthcare policy grow in intensity. The investigations into the web of Trump associates and the Russian crime state have been intensified by the intelligence community, by Congress, and by journalists. Congressman Nunes botched his attempts to dismantle the House investigation and ended up recusing himself.
It may be that Trump made the decision, fully intending to make a HUGE difference in the world. This naïve understanding is likely to become a joke in the future as the attack is seen as ineffective in meeting any goals. The criticism that Obama got for taking too little action after deliberation can be also aimed at Trump who will be seen to take too little action with no serious deliberation. President Trump may have acted through sincere intentions to appear strong or noble. He may be telling the truth as he see it because even he lies only 70% of the time. He must tell the truth sometimes. However, Trump may have been using the attack to divert attention from so many other bad stories about Trump and the Trump team.
A more likely explanation of Trump’s decision is that he may be using military action as theater. Trump is regularly described as a master manipulator and especially likes to play the media when he finds himself in trouble. As a diversion from attention to his many problems , Trump may have refocused the headline, seeking press who are once again seeing a “new Trump” and the real “day Trump became President”. Also, Trump may have used the strike as performance art to show that he is not in the Russian dictator’s pocket as payback from for help winning the election. The strike could then be used as an opening gambit in negotiations that might soon lead to lifting of the sanctions against Russia – one of Putin’s major objectives.
Within the first 100 days, Trump’s approval rating has been sinking. Trump’s attempt to fulfill the campaign promise to repeal ObamaCare showed a cruelty to his voters, a lack of understanding about the health system, and a novice approach to deal making. Trump’s team of rivals appeared to be unraveling as his campaign and transition evil guru, Steve Bannon was removed from the National Security Committee and seems to be fighting against the Trump nepotistic in-group.
Further, questions about Trump’s possible collusion with the Russians’ attack on the US Presidential election, about the future of healthcare policy grow in intensity. The investigations into the web of Trump associates and the Russian crime state have been intensified by the intelligence community, by Congress, and by journalists. Congressman Nunes botched his attempts to dismantle the House investigation and ended up recusing himself.
Syria blatantly shrugged off the attack by flying out of the same airfield the next morning. Russian disapproval may also not be credible. The notion that the strike against the Syrian airfield was merely a pretext to accomplish other ends is buttressed by several facts. First, despite pundits’ claims that Putin was humiliated by the gas attack because he had agreed to stop Assad from using poison gas, the Russians had to know about the Syrians handling of sarin gas before its use. As a toxic chemical, all who handle it would need full body coverage, face mask and respirator. It would not be a secret to the Russian military. The Russian military was also notified about the impending attack before it was launched. Second, the attack did nothing to threaten Putin’s goals of weakening NATO, breaking up the European Union and in getting the US to drop sanctions with help from Trump. If Trump were trying to manipulate the press, there is no topic that he would be more eager to white wash than his affinity for Russia. The drama of an apparent rift in the Trump-Putin bromance may allow reluctant Republicans to temper their investigations and may even create a masquerade for new agreements that appear as remediation of the Syrian issue. By all estimations, no matter if Trump was using truth or trickery, it is very unlikely that any ill effect was felt by either the Syrian government or the Russians.
So, we don’t know if we should believe Trump and his intentions or not. Trump has forced that distrust in his blatant lying day after day.
So, we don’t know if we should believe Trump and his intentions or not. Trump has forced that distrust in his blatant lying day after day.