Washington, DC. Americans surprised by President Trump’s attack on Syria were not half as surprised by the attack as American political analysts. They conclude that either Trump runs his Whitehouse and US policy, based only on emotion or the strikes are a sort of “false flag” operation designed to take American’s attention off Trump’s domestic failures to govern since taking office in January.

 

America-first isolationist Donald Trump has betrayed his outraged supporters and his ideology by launching airstrikes into Syria. In typical Trump fashion, the action was carried out at great expense and with much fanfare, but with little forethought and even less evidence.

 

The attack, levied against a single Syrian airfield, appears to have been largely ineffective, as Syrian planes were flying missions out of that same airfield shortly thereafter. Which raises the obvious question: why did Trump conduct the strikes at all? No one but those closest to the president know for sure, but there seem to be two possible explanations–neither of which reflect well on the Commander in Chief.

 

The narrative paints the portrait of a president who conducts erratic policy via cable news. If Trump were offended and concerned on behalf of defenseless Syrian children, he would first of all have opened the door to more Syrian refugee families. That’s not how the Commander in Chief should behave. Just imagine, for a moment, the rug chewing reactions from Republicans if a female Democratic president were to make decisions of war and peace based on emotional reactions to images on cable news.

 

It begins to look like the whole thing were a comedy show skit, designed to make it look like the Administration was getting tough with both Assad and Putin, but to actually achieve nothing at all except fawning praise from hawkish Republicans and the press. In that case, mission accomplished.

 

Americans need to ask if the president is a hothead who makes rash and foolish decisions based on cable news footage, or a cynical opportunist using the weapons of war to achieve domestic political purposes? Both alternatives are disturbing.

 

 

 

Tags: ; ; ; ; ; ; ;