April 6, 2017

War was green-lit before Trump took office, NOT a betrayal

Tonight sees the beginning of yet another pointless war in the Middle East -- a "limited strike" in a place with all sorts of foreign entanglements, which will provoke escalation, and which was followed by a call by the President on all civilized nations to join in the effort to stop the monster dictator who at any moment is bound to gas more babies.

There's good news and bad news for the Trump movement.

First, the good: it's obvious from Trump's history of shouting down military adventurists, specifically about Syria / Assad / false flag chemical attacks, that he did not undertake this action willingly.

If he could have done it his way, we'd be at least waiting for an investigation to figure out what the hell actually happened in the attack, and even if Assad were guilty, still weigh the utility of slapping him on the wrist against the risk that it could provoke nuclear WWIII. Small probabilities multiplied by enormously negative magnitudes of the outcome are too much to risk, especially when they're only counterbalanced by slapping a dictator on the wrist.

So, we cannot blame Trump for this. Some might call on him to stand up to the military-industrial complex, but Trump is only so powerful, no matter if he got elected by a populist revolt or not. He still has our nation's and our people's best interests at heart, but is constrained by certain political realities -- like an interest group that literally runs the armed forces.

We should not fundamentally alter our view of what Trump wants to accomplish -- only how able he will be to achieve the results, depending on who the enemy is.

Some enemies are weak, and we will make great progress -- those whose only power is money, for instance. They threw all the money in the world at us, and didn't put a dent in the Trump train. So expect all sorts of victories on economic matters -- trade deals (TPP killed within first week, to zero resistance), jobs and manufacturing returning to our country (all the companies he's been twisting the arms of before even taking office), and so on.

The open borders crowd has also proven weak, only able to obstruct with district court judges who will get overruled by the Supreme Court, or at worst can be ignored while Trump gives the go-ahead to the men with guns to get the foreigners out of here, and block others from entering. Expect major progress on immigration, including reductions in legal immigration.

The bad news: the one area where Trump cannot just tell the other side what to do is where his own authority lies, namely the monopoly on the legitimate use of force -- the armed forces. That's what lets him ignore lawless judges, if he so chose. That's who would enforce the border with guns, if he so assigned them.

The military has goals of its own, and given its hierarchical nature, the big pushes will come from the brass, who are more like corporate managers than battlefield leaders of the old days. Grabbing highly sought-after foreign territory is their mergers and acquisitions.

If they're going to go along with Trump being the leader of the nation, he's going to have to give them something they want as well. And considering that they could stage a coup against him, they have considerable leverage over him. He would have to rely on his popular support against the military's plans -- however, the military is the one institution that most Americans still trust. So a major showdown against the military, relying on popular revolt to back him up (the military will not wipe out the citizens), seems highly unlikely.

It seems clear that the military had planned the regime change and military intervention against Assad for awhile before Trump took office, given that it's been executed well within "the first 100 days" and is totally opposite of what Trump wanted to occur at any time in his term, let alone so early. They informed him that it would take place, and some pretext would be given, and he would have to go along with it, or else they would weaken or withdraw their support for him in his role as leader of the nation. And what is a President without the full backing of the military?

During any anti-war conversations or activities, it is crucial to emphasize that we are against the adventurists within the military brass who have been gunning for this for awhile, and not against our duly elected leader who has always expressed disgust for that kind of policy. Don't let the war machine's efforts succeed in pulling you away from your champion. Get angry instead at those who have driven a wedge between you and Trump. That would be anybody celebrating now -- warmongers, neocons, media, etc.

For some final perspective, consider our war in Yemen on behalf of the jihadists backed by the Arabians. That had been going on before we took office, and many of the maneuvers must have been planned back then as well. Trump could not just call them off without spending precious capital with the military. When the American soldier was killed in that raid in Yemen, you can tell Trump was disturbed by it, and didn't want him to be there for no greater purpose than advancing an Arabian jihad.

He tried to make it up to the soldier's wife, and to the American people, by building up the raid as crucial to collect information that would deter future attacks. Maybe, maybe not. The point was not a factual one, but a social-emotional one -- to help the American people not feel despair as yet another pointless Middle Eastern war wages on. We can expect him to do likewise with the new Syrian War, although perhaps also with some involuntary propaganda against the other side.

Let's be clear about the stakes here: it's been exactly one century since the last once-a-century war defined by pointlessness and disastrousness, WWI. The foreign entanglements throughout the Middle East, including two nuclear superpowers who are now on opposite sides of a hot conflict, make it possible that some kind of world war will ignite.

And again, it isn't the exact degree of probability that such a disaster occurs -- it is the probability multiplied by the magnitude of the outcome, that determines the expectation. A 1/1000 chance of 1 million people dying is, on expectation, a loss of 1000 people. Unlike the probability, though, the magnitude of the outcome is more or less unbounded -- it could be 1 million, 10 million, or 100 million dead if the nuclear shit hits the fan.

Those numbers make it impossible to support the war, and we need to make that clear to the rest of the American people, by protesting if necessary -- while reminding everyone that we're against the military-industrial complex, not against Trump himself or his broader agenda.

51 comments:

  1. It's the state department and CIA pushing for it, aka the usual deep state types.

    If the top brass wanted to "greenlight" something for more money they'd simply do some scheme involving defense contracts being unusually expensive.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's not the State Dept -- we fired them en masse with no resistance. We're taking on the CIA with good results so far, and Trump openly feuded with Brennan.

    It's not the industrial part of the MIC, but the actual armed forces brass themselves. They live for grabbing more territory, if the land is highly contested by their rivals. Like the child who reflexively goes after the toy that his sibling rival happens to be playing with, whether it's a shitty toy or not.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I've heard conflicting reports over whether Russians were warned or not to evacuate. It certainly looks bad, i feel pretty upset... but i'm going to wait to see all the details before i really panic. it could be trump is working something out with russia and/or doing some sort of power move to intimidate the koreans. or something else. who knows at this point. its all speculation.

    ReplyDelete
  4. There's basically no margin for error in trying to pull off a power move in that situation.

    Suppose Russia manages to restrain itself -- what about Iran? They're fighting alongside us against ISIS in Iraq, maybe now they don't have our backs on the battlefield for the near future / ever.

    What about emboldening the other nations on the jihadist side? Now maybe the Saudis and Qataris ramp up their support for ISIS and spread more radical mosques. Now maybe Israel feels like it can get away with taking more of Syria than just the Golan Heights.

    There's so many chain reactions this thing can set off, and the region is already such a powder keg.

    Trump knows this recklessness is suicidal, per all of his tweets in 2013.

    He simply cannot take on the military brass alone.

    We need to start forming an anti-war movement. If the war goes nowhere, great, crisis averted. But if it keeps going, we need to already be mobilizing to raise the social costs on the brass -- *not* on Trump himself.

    If the war becomes so unpopular and leading to such instability domestically, Trump can credibly stand up to the generals.

    "Fellas, you see what's going on in the streets -- we can't go on with this charade any longer. You want the war, you're going to have to fire on those millions of protesters yourselves."

    ReplyDelete
  5. For those concerned about their fellow Christians, the city next to the airbase, Homs, is about 1/3 Christian out of a population of nearly 1 million.

    Those people have been followers of Jesus for longer than most Europeans have been.

    They get no protection when the invaders are a mix of Jews, jihadists, and godless Americans.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Either way you slice it, Trump comes out badly. He was hated by everyone else before this, now he's betrayed his base. The neocons see an isolated man, easy prey. The news that he's pushing Bannon out in favor of Kushner implies he is at least in part doing this to himself. His speech tonight was inappropriately emotional. I hope he's not playing with fire based on media sensationalism.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Aside from the military brass having tremendous use of force, to resist Trump's policy goals, they also benefit from most people -- especially below the elite level -- not being interested in foreign affairs.

    Bringing back jobs and killing globalist trade deals? Yes. Kicking out illegals and keeping future foreigners out of their neighborhoods? Definitely.

    Keeping the alliances in the Middle East straight, and not inflaming the wrong-side-of-history side? It's not just out-of-sight and out-of-mind -- it's out of sight for the elites as well. Working-class and middle class people simply don't think it's their prerogative to manage the societies of other people on the other side of the world.

    That only appeals to sociopathically competitive managers.

    And on the other side, the anti-war side, that's mostly drawing from an elite concern with protecting the rest of the world's people from harm.

    Both are elite concerns, only differing on how should the elites manage other societies -- militaristically or benignly?

    Hopefully by emphasizing the zero-sum nature of spending on the Middle East vs. spending here, patrolling Syrian borders vs. patrolling American borders, we can get more of the white working class Trump supporters to get on the anti-war train.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Either way you slice it, Trump comes out badly."

    Agreed, but instead of just sulking about it, we need to think about how to respond and get what we want, not just passively spectating the Trump Show like it's still the GOP primaries.

    NO QUITTERS

    ReplyDelete
  9. The most likely Russian response is to make some empty concessions on a un process that will accomplish nothing and double down on their Syrian engagement in the background. The US has few options in Syria because the story that the rebels are moderate activists doesn't fly anymore. Doubtful that this store will accomplish anything at all.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Taking a much longer perspective -- assume the world doesn't blow itself up in the next couple of decades. When it's late Gen X-ers and Millennials and post-Millennials whose views shape things in the military, we aren't going to be on the Arabian side -- we remember them as the attackers behind 9/11 -- and we aren't going to have a kneejerk reaction against Iran -- what did they ever do to us, that we remember or even hear about?

    It's Silents and particularly the hyper-competitive Boomers who are dead-set against ever siding with Iran, b/c of the hostage crisis when they were becoming more politically attentive. Even if that aversion puts us on the side of the jihadists.

    ReplyDelete
  11. People who are blaming Trump think of him as invincible and omnipotent, rather than a human being subject to some set of constraints.

    So if he flips his long-stated policy, it must have been because he changed his mind -- was brainwashed, duped, infected contagiously by neocons' evil, etc.

    But if he's a human being who cannot do whatever he wants on whatever topic, even as President, then completely changing course means it's not a flip-flop but having his arm twisted by a group of enemies that is powerful enough to do so.

    Trump's most hardcore supporters *non*-ironically refer to him as the God Emperor, and hardcore leftists view any President as having carte blanche to wield whatever "fascist" power he wants.

    Naturally, they will be the ones most likely to see Trump's reversal as a change of mind and hence a betrayal.

    Those who view Trump less as a literal saint, angel, or god, are more likely to think he had his arm twisted by powerful enemies like the military brass, and do not hold it against him for being human and for his enemies being as strong as they are.

    We know you didn't want to do this, President Trump, and we won't hold it against you.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The consensus from the Boomers at Conservative Treehouse is that anything whatsoever is solid gold as long as it comes from the leader they chose.

    Conservatives can be too conformist and too loyal sometimes.

    If it were some random thing that we didn't know how to judge, then sure, take a leap of faith and a chill pill, assuming Trump has got this thing under control.

    But not when he's been railing against this policy for years, regarding the same country, same leader, same propaganda from the same enemies, and with the same lofty motives that would lead us into war.

    If Trump said he saw pictures of beautiful innocent babies being separated from their loving mothers because of deportations, and therefore he's decided to give all illegals amnesty -- well then, it certainly wasn't my first choice for policy, but I'm a patriot and I'm going to support the President I chose!

    Luckily the enemy has no leverage over him on immigration, so he won't have his arm twisted on that, and we won't have to see the older Trump supporters give Panglossian rationalizations of amnesty.

    It's gotten so bad that they're now reflexively talking about Assad gassing his own people, when we don't even know and there's every reason for him *not* to. No different from their response to claims of WMD in Iraq under W. Bush.

    It's not that "some people never learn," it's that conservatives extend too much of their conformity and loyalty to politicians and government, which is best kept around the family and the neighborhood.

    Again, not saying the Trump phenomenon is done for -- hardly. But in some areas, it's going to be hard for us to get our way, and we'll have to be pushing against the outward actions of our own President (in areas where our enemy has enough leverage to twist his arm).

    We can't let loyalty run away with our reason, or it'll be WMD 2.0 and Iraq 2.0 in no time. The neocons and jihadists will exploit that so fast it'll make ya head spin.

    ReplyDelete
  13. There are reports now that he's looking to fire Bannon and replace Priebus. Priebus was a squish but since the election he seems to have made peace with the movement and gotten on board to some extent. Bannon is irreplaceable. Replacing them with another couple of Goldman Sachs Jews is the final straw. There will be nothing left.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "only able to obstruct with district court judges who will get overruled by the Supreme Court"

    Maybe, but Trump would need to overall dissolve the legislative part of the courts, meaning, undo Brown v. Board of Education and the 1942 communist ruling Wickard v. Filburn (industry, growing your own wheat, is not really commerce).

    "Grabbing highly sought-after foreign territory is their mergers and acquisitions."

    With natural gas and space for oil pipelines, yeah. I think it's about taking Russia's fossil fuel revenues away, in a mercenary (economic) war. I consider ISIS mercenaries, and by the way, Turkey buys oil from them, so Turkey should leave NATO.

    "however, the military is the one institution that most Americans still trust"

    I disagree. There's no way to trust people who get suckered into bad wars, never ask for help to prevent such calamities, and remain unpleasantly arrogant, as if America remains a hegemon. They have too many medals, in other words,and could also do more charity work, like hospital ships. But the Marine Corps posted a video of them shooting pumpkins on Halloween, to joke that they can't do jack'o'lantern carving, which is badly self-deprecating. And they do Toys for Tots, which seems inappropriate for the armed forces. Overall, they do not have my trust because of their sexual misbehavior, debt problems (why are so many soldiers unable/unwilling to just follow a budget), and allowance of women in combat roles (soon, if not already, unless this is rescinded by Def. Sec. Mattis). And I considered attending a military academy while recruited in high school,so I'm not personally anti-military. Both of my grandfathers served, and I wanted to continue that legacy. But I can't do that without violating my conscience, the way military things stand now.


    "And what is a President without the full backing of the military?"

    No president since George Washington has had such full backing. Polk was supported, FDR too, but I think that's it. Any other presidents?


    "duly elected leader who has always expressed disgust for that kind of policy"

    I think few people care about his election being due or not. He needs to do a big coup, soon.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "For some final perspective, consider our war in Yemen on behalf of the jihadists backed by the Arabians."

    Not right, Agnostic, the Yemeni people/ anti-Saudi forces are not being drone-striked, not at all. The Arabian allies are, and Trump has escalated this to 70 strikes in the last month. So this is great news for us pacifists.


    "He tried to make it up to the soldier's wife, and to the American people, by building up the raid as crucial to collect information that would deter future attacks."

    I think Obama's administration set up the ambush, and watned all the SEALS to die. Trump likely realized this, but did it anyway, without committing the SEALS to stupid risks, to see what happens. I think Trump realized any assigned raids from President Hussein are not good to do, and quite dangerous, if only because Hussein is mostly a prolific golfer, not Commander-in-Chief.


    "Like the child who reflexively goes after the toy that his sibling rival happens to be playing with, whether it's a shitty toy or not."

    In his auto-biography, Trump says he stole his brother's building blocks, after agreeing to return them, and glued them together to preserve his play-construction. Idon't know if this actually happened, but the point is, he's openly selfish, at least in the "greed is good/ God" 80's.

    They get no protection when the invaders are a mix of Jews, jihadists, and godless Americans"

    Don't forget, the Iraq War included renaming Baghdad streets after Zionist heroes, and was almost... Israeli. Here's a link, with a boring beginning, but really good info: https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2009/06/22/the-key-to-understanding-us-behavior-in-iraq/


    "most people -- especially below the elite level -- not being interested in foreign affairs.

    Bringing back jobs and killing globalist trade deals? Yes. Kicking out illegals and keeping future foreigners out of their neighborhoods? Definitely."


    Um... the foreign | domestic divide is merged during striving times, I think, especially by immigration and wars. Keeping their American soldier friends out of wars is domestic policy, really, if their lives matter.


    "It's Silents and particularly the hyper-competitive Boomers who are dead-set against ever siding with Iran, b/c of the hostage crisis when they were becoming more politically attentive."

    It's that Iran ruined Jimmy Carter's presidency, and then endorsed Reagan by ending the crisis as a gift to him. Some believe Carter and co.deposed the shah, ruining Iran. Sounds realistic.


    "Taking a much longer perspective -- assume the world doesn't blow itself up in the next couple of decades. When it's late Gen X-ers and Millennials and post-Millennials whose views shape things in the military..."

    What about early Gen X-ers?

    ReplyDelete
  16. All of the skepticism and distrust of government that conservatives profess to have simply melts away in the context of war and foreign policy. When government bureaucrats roll out new programs or regulations, they are denounced by conservatives as attempts to fleece the hard-working, tax paying public (and many times, they are). But when it comes to bombing some foreigners half way around the globe? AMERICA, FUCK YEAH.

    Given that defense is one of the basic purposes of government, it makes sense to give the government a significant amount of deference on true defense issues (like screening refugees), but not when it comes to military adventurism planned by unelected officials.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. After the Iraq War WMD hoax and debacle, and after it has been made manifestly clear that Christians are being destroyed because of our MidEast adventurism, *if* conservatives are still reflexively pro-war, their final resting place should be in Hell.

      How comfortable, vain, and corrupted is somebody to be able to be that unreflective about what's going on in the world and the actions of one's country that has led to it? The blinkered Democratists from the West, there's no hope for them. But the others must be reached.

      I've always felt that the worst thing that has (not) happened is that there never has been a full reckoning on the Iraq War. We allowed the supporters to quietly preserve their dignity and just ignore it all like it didn't happened. We didn't need to humiliate them, but make them absolutely face this fact of the lies told. I know people who boarded the Trump Train eagerly in the primary who had been extremely outspoken on behalf of Bush and the Iraq War; they were very quiet and a bit unsettled to share Trump with the Ron Paul anti-war, paleocon movement. My guess? They'll jump right on board for all this.

      Even these guys can be reached. But they are, as Ag points out, Boomers. My suggestion would be to play up the Christian angle as much as humanly possible.

      Delete
  17. Certainly now would be a good time to reactivate the anti-war movement after years of slumber under Obama.

    ReplyDelete
  18. My suggestion would be to play up the Christian angle as much as humanly possible."

    Uh-huh. Which American bishops give a fuck? Or any other church leaders? Or mosques?

    My church donates to the IOCC, which is supposedly helping refugees, while Ukrainian-Americans tend to send supplies for their war effort, and I suspect most Syrians abroad oppose Assad. The tendency among people with connections to war-zones is to only stir up trouble.

    It's weird how you think Boomers will be persuaded by Christian arguments. Has that ever worked?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm talking about regular people and not Christian arguments per se, but that it is Christians being killed.

      As we all know, this extremely pertinent fact is washed from all coverage. The average person probably has no idea about the ancient Christian communities being destroyed. When the Christian Coptic church was bombed in Egypt recently, the media did not put it into the larger context of it being part of an ongoing pattern: we wipe out the secularist regime, thus empower the Islamists who proceed to go on a murderous campaign against seculars, moderates, and non-Islamic minorities.

      It was so bad that when a group of MidEast Christian leaders had a conference in DC, Ted Cruz got up and used it as a stage to burnish his pro-Semitic bonafides.

      So, why do I think this would work? Identity and to ping the conscience. You're assuming it's been done before, but didn't work, but the fact is, outside the paleocon/altright/populist-liberal echo chambers, your average church-going Christian truly does not know. About three years ago, I had an hour-long conversation with two such people and their mouths literally dropped.
      You will be literally informing people that what they think they know about the world, who's side we've really been on and who we're really against, is all wrong.

      Delete
  19. By the way, the first 12 minutes of this is very good and I agree with all Scott Adams has to say:
    https://www.pscp.tv/w/1OdKrgBVEmOGX

    Someone notes later that he doesn't seem happy and he responds how can one be happy about war.
    Following all this, it wouldn't surprised me if we in the paleocon altright end up as the foil: the scary people who "put limits" on him, the moderate. One thing is for sure, they've shown themselves to be principled, not doing the upper-middle class vanity protest thing (I'm going to look so cute in my merino and teeswater locks hat!!), so they'll make a great foil.

    ReplyDelete
  20. At Steve's, I commented that the CIA media organs, like the Washington Post, would start printing positive stories and oh my God! The New York Times out the gate with a winner!!
    "On Syria Attack, Trump's Heart Came First"

    https://twitter.com/alexcuadros/status/850362241727778818

    When Trump was a Dove, he was evil, but now that he's missiled a base, he's proven he has a heart.
    Demonic.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "When Trump was a Dove, he was evil, but now that he's missiled a base, he's proven he has a heart."

    It goes to show that we are no longer in a partisan polarized climate, vis-a-vis Trump / Trump movement. Otherwise the Dems would be in full anti-war mode right now.

    Ditto if Trump were to offer amnesty to illegals. They would not be changing their stance, or making fun of him for altering his stance. It would be a somber loving embrace "across the aisle" (to their own position).

    At least this attack has started to catalyze the bipartisan consensus on another topic -- neocons and neolibs ecstatic, Trump and Sanders supporters upset.

    Most of that effect is taking place in the minds of the Bernie people. We are not surprised by their anti-war stance, but they are a bit shocked to see how immediately and fervently a big chunk of Trump's hardcore base came out against the first step toward Iraq 2.0. That sets the stage for bipartisan action at the grassroots level.

    Nomiki Konst retweeted Ricky Vaughn -- strange days have found us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nomiki RT'd RV? That's a nice development.

      Delete
  22. Most people who do know that Christians are being killed are not doing anything about it. So informing normies, Christian or not, is questionable. I think you don't know that some Christians, but mostly anarchists, antifa types, have gone over to fight ISIS, and are allied with American troops there. Some have died, and this unmentioned news is bigger than Christians dying in general.

    -

    I like Adams, but periscope never loads for me. It might work in another browser, I'll try.


    "teeswater locks hat"

    LOL, what's that?


    Identity and the conscience worked when many Americans donated to save Armenians, especially children, after the WWI-era genocide. Since then, I think Western identity has declined, and the collective conscience has eroded, which is why people allowed, ignored, and forgot the Iraq War.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Teeswater locks refer to long, wavy, and $$$ locks of the Teeswater sheep. And you know, I was mocking them when I wrote that, but I looked it up to see if any of them did go that over the top...
      Yes, some gals did actually use these in their pu×÷y hats!
      I know these people too well.

      Delete
  23. "it makes sense to give the government a significant amount of deference on true defense issues (like screening refugees), but not when it comes to military adventurism planned by unelected officials."

    Grassroots Trump supporters can demand that our military defend the American border, not the Syrian border. That will add an America-first emphasis, whereas the left's anti-war demands come from not liking the military doing anything anywhere.

    Defending our borders against Salvadorean border-crossers and Syrians on civilian airplanes does not require $100 million of Tomahawk missiles -- just a group of soldiers with M-16s that they will not even have to fire, at most aim at the invaders.

    We can also work an America-first angle into destroying the phony humanitarian cries for intervention whenever children are killed.

    Something like, "America was not attacked, and there are too many savages around the world for us to police them all at such a dear cost to ourselves."

    ReplyDelete
  24. "At least this attack has started to catalyze the bipartisan consensus on another topic -- neocons and neolibs ecstatic, Trump and Sanders supporters upset.

    Most of that effect is taking place in the minds of the Bernie people. We are not surprised by their anti-war stance, but they are a bit shocked to see how immediately and fervently a big chunk of Trump's hardcore base came out against the first step toward Iraq 2.0. That sets the stage for bipartisan action at the grassroots level."



    I think they're ecstatic to not need to keep working against Trump, as if they broke his will and have enslaved him. I don't think they care about Syria itself, rather, about the whole Middle East, M'fossil fuels, and defeating Russia. Bernie people are more cultish about their dear leader, getting big tattoos of Bernie's face. Of course they are surprised when anyone holds leaders accountable, they're charismatic communists.

    This would be much worse than Iraq 2.0 if it were really happening, but hey, we haven't been nuked yet. Sanders supporters are upset that they were wrong about American and global politics, while considering themselves better informed and wiser. They don't care about saving American soldiers' and Syrian babies' lives. They're communists, and communists are not humanitarians or philanthropes.

    So I won't trust them, even if they are nominally anti-war, they have done nothing about the wars in Yemen, Afghanistan, Korea, Philippines, U.S. bases and troops in Africa, etc. They are blind to military affairs, making them dangerous.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "There are reports now that he's looking to fire Bannon and replace Priebus."

    I don't know how much stock to put in these palace intrigue stories, given that most of the leaks come from the various opposed factions and actors themselves.

    But any demotion of Bannon and rise of a corporate globalist would obviously be bad.

    Again, though, I wouldn't interpret that as Trump changing his mind -- not on something as fundamental as whose worldview is closest to his own. It would be because he has to make deals and compromises, e.g. with the GOP that supports him in Congress.

    One sign that he knows who is and is not similar to him, is that he constantly talks up those who were forced on him. How long are we going to hear, "Did we make a good choice with Mike Pence, huh?" "Let's give it up for Reince." And more to the point here, "I don't know if he wants me calling him Mad Dog, but General Mattis..."

    He never talks up Sessions or Bannon. They are naturally close to him, in ideology and loyalty. Pence, Priebus, Mattis -- they're more distant from him, and he feels the need to make a show of good faith and renewed commitment, since they are not organically committed to each other.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Grassroots Trump supporters can demand that our military defend the American border, not the Syrian border. That will add an America-first emphasis, whereas the left's anti-war demands come from not liking the military doing anything anywhere.
    Defending our borders against Salvadorean border-crossers and Syrians on civilian airplanes does not require $100 million of Tomahawk missiles -- just a group of soldiers with M-16s that they will not even have to fire, at most aim at the invaders.
    We can also work an America-first angle into destroying the phony humanitarian cries for intervention whenever children are killed.
    Something like, "America was not attacked, and there are too many savages around the world for us to police them all at such a dear cost to ourselves."


    I am sure the border guards will be firing far more than just rifles, in a war against the cartels who smuggle poor people to live as 1st-world slaves. Now, however, most Americans can't believe there can be an American border at all. The citizens could have already built their own wall, as the minutemen began to do in 2006. An interesting year that was, 2006.

    The left likes the military being under their control, which is increasingly the case, and would adore an armed force of black lesbians. But they're not really anti-war, they want "world peace" to come at the upper classes' expense, meaning they will finally succumb to the communist revolution when not protected by the military.

    Defending our borders requires a wall, and a new military force, not just soldiers. Border Guards are not ordinary soldiers in countries with normal borders.

    The cries for intervention should be answered with measured support for the alleged evils, in general. That's the morally safe position, unlike neutrality or being a humanitarian. And no, I don't think many people would mind Trump saying he wants to abandon foreign children,but most people are scared to openly support Trump. Cowardice causes problems.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Drudge poll shows big support for the strikes -- undoubtedly some of that is swamp bots like there were during the post-debate polls, but they can't be the only reason it's so high.

    Most of them, though, are loyalist Republicans -- not the ones who put Trump over the top in the Electoral College.

    GOP loyalists don't care what Trump does, they'll rally around him regardless.

    Those who expanded the Trump coalition beyond GOP loyalists, especially in Michigan, Wisconsin, etc. -- what's the polling on them?

    Something tells me a good chunk of them are turned off, and if this continues, some of those states will slip away in 2020, giving a much narrower margin for error.

    We've barely put this coalition together, and already the new crucial chunk is starting to drift back into apathy or non-participation in elections.

    We need to focus on what will keep the crucial voters, not what fires up the GOP loyalists -- literally anything will fire them up, as long as it comes from a Republican.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RIcky Vaughn, Mike Cernovich, et al., are doing good work trying to reach these supporters.

      Delete
  28. I don't know what's going on, Ag. The base that was struck was nearly "totally destroyed" except in the past 30 minutes or so, it is reported that it wasn't touched, and a bunch of the Syrian Air Force just flew out to bomb a...humanitarian place???

    This entire thing -the reporting- plus all the palace intrigue stuff, looks like a funhouse of mirrors.

    ReplyDelete
  29. "But any demotion of Bannon and rise of a corporate globalist would obviously be bad."

    With the kind of appointments Trump has made, namely stacking the cabinet with Jew bankers, the blatant nepotism, the free market fundamentalist concession on net neutrality, bringing in Kushner into such a prominent role and giving him so many high profile responsibilities, he is skating on very thin ice as far as I'm concerned. I hope he's not making the mistake of thinking his popularity was based on personality. His stance on the issues are what brought him into office, if he turns his back on those all these other things become major issues.

    ReplyDelete
  30. A theory:
    I suspect that the liberal Trump hating #Resistance may come in at the end on our side...
    Their #1 goal? Anything that hurts Trump.
    Their #2 goal? Getting credit for popular moves that hurt Trump... Which also redounds to goal #1.

    If, big *if*, they sense that Trump has been wounded by this move, they'll adopt an "anti-war" persona. Because they actually will have larger numbers than us, and we won't defend Trump...

    We don't need to lose heart on this: use our enemies. Stay silent if and when this happens.
    I'm already noticing a "wait and see" approach (all the while bashing Trump, of course) from the Hillary-voting, alpha male-hating contingency.

    We have history for this: they became vocal and hogged all the credit for shutting down RyanCare. Just like they're supposed to be for socialized healthcare, they're "supposed to" be doves. That one was easier for them to get in on from the get-go, but it can easily still happen here.

    ReplyDelete
  31. ...The base that was struck was nearly "totally destroyed" except in the past 30 minutes or so, it is reported that it wasn't touched, and a bunch of the Syrian Air Force just flew out to bomb a...humanitarian place???

    This is very reassuring news. On another blog, I have already predicted an Easter auto-coup, to use the greatest Christian holiday in a wise way. I did think earlier that Trump decided to strike an ISIS airport, where new soldiers were coming in, but maybe there are no such airfields. Now I just think this is a huge ruse, bluff,and troll, in preparation for ending the Syrian conflict and Russia collusion accusations at once. Many birds, downed with one stone. And rhetorical cuteness, in that Easter is considered peaceful and conciliatory, because semi-believers come to church for one of their two annual visits. Anyway, the other candidate time is July Fourth. I don't think it will take long, or is avoidable. There's no safe way for him to go on being president while suffering political assaults. So he won't be too patient.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Aaaaand...the ultimate CIA rag, the Washington Post, comes in for Trump:
    https://twitter.com/adamjohnsonNYC/status/850437452431069184

    Editorial: Trump right on morality, but could also yield practical benefits.

    This is absolutely the most positive thing about Trump to ever appear in the Washington Post. It only took an act of war...literally. Throughout the campaign and even afterward, it was common for anti-Trump stories to occupy all top 5 spots of "Most Read" stories.

    ReplyDelete
  33. http://www.unz.com/akarlin/this-fishy-smell-of-sarin-or-was-it-chlorine/#comment-1827796

    I've got a bad feeling... Ron appreciated this guy's expertise so much, he invited him to guest post in a reply to this comment. Just in case, it's #307.

    ReplyDelete
  34. http://www.unz.com/comments/all/?commenterfilter=SmoothieX12

    Another. Maybe it is political theater? I'm so nervous and upset that good news could come and I wouldn't see it. Cooler heads, please check out SmoothieX12 comments

    ReplyDelete
  35. That Unz stuff you linked to was mostly boring to read, Dahlia.

    This Unz commenter writes like a Russian, I can see that. He posted an interesting YT video of the airfield. He implicitly points out that this escalatory altercation improves Russia's position overall, by giving them cover for strengthening Syria even further. That's one reason to think the failed strike is theatric.

    But why be upset by ordinary ignorance of mysterious events? I don't see why you can't wait a while for good news. So just be patient overall, there's no rush to know what's going on and draw firm conclusions. Right now, what is there to do about foreign military affairs?

    ReplyDelete
  36. That commenter was a refreshing antidote to know-nothing Americans who think there's basically no risk to getting into a war with Russia, that they're so much more backward and less developed and prepared militarily, that their foreign policy people are as reckless and insane as our own, etc.

    The main thing he's pointing out is that, given how little damage it did, the strike was either theatrical or it was intended to do more damage but the Russian anti-air defenses stopped it, e.g. by messing with the missiles' GPS and dispersing them away from the target.

    That was the first time you heard those facts and possible explanation, aside from it being theatrical, so that's not boring or wasteful. You won't read that in any of the mainstream reporting.

    You figure if it was merely theatrical, the Sec of State and Pentagon would not be following up today with insinuations and even accusations that Russia itself was involved in the chemical attack -- claiming there's "intel" of a Russian drone around the hospital at the time of the chemical attack.

    Sounds like the temperature is slowly rising, not cooling off after a mere theatrical display. But it's too early to tell, and reading non-American sources like the one Dahlia linked to helps us figure out what's actually at stake, rather than trusting our military leaders not to royally fuck up another attack in the Middle East -- this time with a nuclear superpower on the other side.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Now reporting from the area says that missiles went astray into the surrounding village (villages?), killing several children and adults in their homes.

    Hard to reconcile that with the "smart limited" attack that would have left the airbase unscathed on purpose.

    Sounds more like the Russians deflected around half of the salvo, and some of those scattered into residential areas.

    Now watch the war machine blame the Russians for recklessly deflecting those missiles directed their way, "knowing full well the risk they took that the missiles could land in nearby homes and kill more beautiful tiny babies," etc.

    4D chess theories looking less and less likely in this case.

    ReplyDelete
  38. If you thought the Russia-Trump conspiracy theorists would hang it up after Trump looks tough against Putin, guess again:

    https://twitter.com/Lawrence/status/850420599428198400

    MSNBC anchor, not even 24 hours after the strike, saying how convenient of Trump to deflect the Russian connections by appearing to look tough.

    Commenters are discussing how little damage was done -- true, but they're taking that as paranoid proof that he is soft and cozy with Putin after all!

    If he *really* wanted to prove once and for all that he's not controlled by the Kremlin, he has to launch an all-in pre-emptive nuclear strike on Moscow!

    These people are paranoid, insane, and will never forgive Trump for anything.

    It's a typical witch hunt -- any proof that is offered that the suspect is not a witch, is all the more proof that they actually are! Why are they so desperate to offer proof of innocence? That level of anxiety proves a guilty conscience!

    ReplyDelete
  39. I don't want to see "shuts up and neutralizes Trump's critics" as an item in the "pro" column of any action whose net effect is in doubt.

    Our critics have been totally impotent from day 1 -- they ought to have stopped him from rising to the top of the polls pre-voting, stopped him from winning primaries, stopped him from receiving nomination at RNC, stopped him from flipping a blue state and winning Electoral College, stopped him from receiving majority of Electors' votes when they formally meet, stopped him from being inaugurated, etc etc etc.

    Let the paranoid media and their idiot audience rant about their Trump-Russia conspiracies until he leaves office -- won't affect our movement one bit!

    If anything it discredits them and marginalizes everyone on their side from normal people -- media figures, politicians, and their grassroots activists and voters. They are in the process of becoming the whackjob party like the GOP had been since the '90s, so why on Earth would we want to stop them from imploding?

    ReplyDelete
  40. "The main thing he's pointing out is that, given how little damage it did, the strike was either theatrical or it was intended to do more damage but the Russian anti-air defenses stopped it, e.g. by messing with the missiles' GPS and dispersing them away from the target.

    That was the first time you heard those facts and possible explanation, aside from it being theatrical, so that's not boring or wasteful. You won't read that in any of the mainstream reporting."


    I'm so dubious of media reports at this point, that I didn't even believe the strike happened at all, until pretty late today. So his facts were, to me, too technical. I don't read or watch any mainstream reporting, because it's even more boring.

    "...reading non-American sources like the one Dahlia linked to helps us figure out what's actually at stake..."

    Yeah, I can just read in Russian, but I'm too lazy for any formal media, most weeks. If someone asks me to check Russian media for differing info, I will oblige. Interested?

    ReplyDelete
  41. "Now reporting from the area says that missiles went astray into the surrounding village (villages?), killing several children and adults in their homes.
    ...
    4D chess theories looking less and less likely in this case."



    I'll anti-gullibly assume there were no stray missiles hitting villagers' homes. I'll assume this is theatrical because we have not been nuked yet. Also, a Russian warship is approaching, if not already near, the missile-firing American destroyers. That's exciting for the war buffs, but for me, kind of like Russia doing joint exercises in the Black Sea with Turkey this week. Ok guys, have fun with your toys. My only concern is that my Russian relatives will have trouble visiting the U.S. I'm very near-focused for a first-gen. Californian, ignoring foreign stuff even though I mostly understand it.


    "Commenters are discussing how little damage was done -- true, but they're taking that as paranoid proof that he is soft and cozy with Putin after all!"

    Yeah, I think that is evidence, not proof, the strike was theatrical. A real strike would have already caused much more escalation with Russia from both sides, not such puny targeting to a single airfield.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Here's a domestic (Ohio) elections proposal Agnostic:

    Volunteer for Ohio State Treasurer Josh Mandel, the likable, politically strong Ohio Senatorial candidate, and I'll donate to his campaign for every hour you work, with the contribution rate depending on your hours and results. If you agree, then hopefully others will join such crowdfunding, which could add up. You have much more to contribute politically than just blog posts. I think you would get a serious position in his campaign, not just making calls.

    The good senatorial news is that it Democrats will definitely (so far) not gain any seats in 2018, and may lose some. During filibusterous Congresses, with bad Senate rules which appall many congressional Representatives, I think every Senatorial seat counts even more. So I'll donate either way, and trust that Mandel will win, but it's more fun and meaningful with your local participation.

    If there's any reason not to like Mandel, let me know. I'm only internet-aware of him, which isn't much. He sounds better than the incumbent globalist cuck, not to mention CA's Senators.

    ReplyDelete
  43. If you're going to keep commenting here, stay somewhat on-topic and write briefer comments that are more thought-out and less musing-out-loud.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Ok. Everyone says I muse too much, so I'll use a comment length limit. But how much briefer?

    ReplyDelete
  45. How about taking a break from commenting for a few weeks.

    ReplyDelete

You MUST enter a nickname with the "Name/URL" option if you're not signed in. We can't follow who is saying what if everyone is "Anonymous."