Media: "OMG, Trump's SecDef resigns, prez to pull U.S. troops out of Syria!!"
The last 48 hours have been nothing short of amazing.
First, every talking head and Dem politician who loudly professed to absolutely hate U.S. military involvement in far-away lands has suddenly reversed their previous position: Now they're absolutely horrified that Trump intends to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria!
"OMG, how DARE he pull out of Syria! Cuz we elites totally supported our Dear Leader's [Obama's] decision to order American troops into Syria!
"What? Of course we Democrats have always loudly opposed to U.S. military involvement in far-off lands! It's the core of our belief system. But this is different!"
Yes, citizens, it's different--because Trump is reversing yet another Obama decision. (For those who didn't know, Obama made the decision to send a small contingent of U.S. troops to Syria back in 2015. He then proceeded to deny that this amounted to "boots on the ground" there--something he'd promised he wouldn't do.
Even Rachel Maddow--who's shrieked that Trump's a warmonger--is bitching about Trump's decision to withdraw U.S. troops. So it looks as though the world is going to end sometime this month.
A great example of the media's schizophrenia on Syria is from the Trump-hating WaPo:
[If you didn't know U.S. troops were in Syria, don't feel bad: Most Americans didn't know. In fact one wag said that more Dem "elites" opposed the pullout than realized we had troops there.]
It's also interesting that when Obama and Hilliary ordered the U.S. military to bomb Libya--a country which had done nothing at all to offend the U.S.--the same Democrat-loving media was largely silent. Congress didn't authorize any military action, Libya hadn't attacked us, nor had any Libyans conducted terrorist attacks against U.S. interests. Obama and Hilliary just wanted to remove Gadaffi and replace him with...something--they were sure any replacement would be just peachy.
The media reported the strikes, but in a desultory, page-5 fashion, and didn't criticize the action. "War Powers Act? Never heard of it." So how'd that work out?
Don't ask.
Next: The announced resignation of Mattis. Your elite betters in the Mainstream Media are screaming that this is a sign of disaster in the Trump administration. Typical is this headline from Trump-hating CNN:
Wait, the mainstream media didn't say a critical word about those two resignations and one SecDef fired by Obama. After all, their Precious had already told the media that he knew more about "policy" than any of his advisors! If Trump said that the media would scream bloody murder, but coming from their Precious, the media loved it.
Mattis correctly recognized that even though 2,000 U.S. troops in Syria doesn't sensibly change any military balance of power, pulling those troops out of Syria would (and will) encourage ISIS to redouble their efforts to overthrow the Assad regime. So from Mattis's standpoint, pulling out is a mistake. Military men understandably don't want to give up ground, ever.
But Trump is also right in understanding that the U.S. has no national interest in Syria. In fact, when Obama committed the U.S. to supporting the overthrow of the Assad regime it put the U.S. in the bizarre position of being on the side of...wait for it...ISIS and Al Qaeda. Trump correctly understands that a far better strategy is to bail out and let the Russians continue to support their client, Assad, in fighting ISIS.
After the Soviet Union's defeat in Afghanistan 20 years ago, Putin is eager for a Russian win. And the Assad regime has been a Russian client for decades. The chances of the U.S. being able to peel Assad away from Russia were and are virtually nil. Hence Trump's decision is sound.
As a conventional war-fighting general Mattis couldn't support a pull-out. And from a purely military standpoint that's entirely logical and commendable. But a president has to consider larger strategic concerns. If Mattis disagreed, Trump needed to find someone who would support those broader strategies.
I predict that a few years from now you won't be able to find a single Democrat who will admit to opposing the withdrawal of US. troops from Syria.
First, every talking head and Dem politician who loudly professed to absolutely hate U.S. military involvement in far-away lands has suddenly reversed their previous position: Now they're absolutely horrified that Trump intends to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria!
"OMG, how DARE he pull out of Syria! Cuz we elites totally supported our Dear Leader's [Obama's] decision to order American troops into Syria!
"What? Of course we Democrats have always loudly opposed to U.S. military involvement in far-off lands! It's the core of our belief system. But this is different!"
Yes, citizens, it's different--because Trump is reversing yet another Obama decision. (For those who didn't know, Obama made the decision to send a small contingent of U.S. troops to Syria back in 2015. He then proceeded to deny that this amounted to "boots on the ground" there--something he'd promised he wouldn't do.
Even Rachel Maddow--who's shrieked that Trump's a warmonger--is bitching about Trump's decision to withdraw U.S. troops. So it looks as though the world is going to end sometime this month.
A great example of the media's schizophrenia on Syria is from the Trump-hating WaPo:
[If you didn't know U.S. troops were in Syria, don't feel bad: Most Americans didn't know. In fact one wag said that more Dem "elites" opposed the pullout than realized we had troops there.]
It's also interesting that when Obama and Hilliary ordered the U.S. military to bomb Libya--a country which had done nothing at all to offend the U.S.--the same Democrat-loving media was largely silent. Congress didn't authorize any military action, Libya hadn't attacked us, nor had any Libyans conducted terrorist attacks against U.S. interests. Obama and Hilliary just wanted to remove Gadaffi and replace him with...something--they were sure any replacement would be just peachy.
The media reported the strikes, but in a desultory, page-5 fashion, and didn't criticize the action. "War Powers Act? Never heard of it." So how'd that work out?
Don't ask.
Next: The announced resignation of Mattis. Your elite betters in the Mainstream Media are screaming that this is a sign of disaster in the Trump administration. Typical is this headline from Trump-hating CNN:
Mattis exit paves way for global chaos
His recognition that he could no longer work for an erratic commander in chief who decided to pull US troops out of Syria, apparently without consulting anyone, could lead to a new period of global uncertainty as Trump slips his remaining restraints.So if a SecDef leaves, it's disaster? In that case, no doubt the Lying Media reacted the same way when TWO of Obama's secretaries of defense quit, and he fired a third, right?
Wait, the mainstream media didn't say a critical word about those two resignations and one SecDef fired by Obama. After all, their Precious had already told the media that he knew more about "policy" than any of his advisors! If Trump said that the media would scream bloody murder, but coming from their Precious, the media loved it.
Mattis correctly recognized that even though 2,000 U.S. troops in Syria doesn't sensibly change any military balance of power, pulling those troops out of Syria would (and will) encourage ISIS to redouble their efforts to overthrow the Assad regime. So from Mattis's standpoint, pulling out is a mistake. Military men understandably don't want to give up ground, ever.
But Trump is also right in understanding that the U.S. has no national interest in Syria. In fact, when Obama committed the U.S. to supporting the overthrow of the Assad regime it put the U.S. in the bizarre position of being on the side of...wait for it...ISIS and Al Qaeda. Trump correctly understands that a far better strategy is to bail out and let the Russians continue to support their client, Assad, in fighting ISIS.
After the Soviet Union's defeat in Afghanistan 20 years ago, Putin is eager for a Russian win. And the Assad regime has been a Russian client for decades. The chances of the U.S. being able to peel Assad away from Russia were and are virtually nil. Hence Trump's decision is sound.
As a conventional war-fighting general Mattis couldn't support a pull-out. And from a purely military standpoint that's entirely logical and commendable. But a president has to consider larger strategic concerns. If Mattis disagreed, Trump needed to find someone who would support those broader strategies.
I predict that a few years from now you won't be able to find a single Democrat who will admit to opposing the withdrawal of US. troops from Syria.
posted by SF at
10:28 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home