US Politics: He's Trump, he's Trump, he's Trump, he's in my head

[The Anti-Targ]

Did Russia miscalculate in preferring President trump over President Clinton? Regardless of the extent to which Russia attempted to influence the election, or how effective any attempted influence was, it's pretty much undeniable that Russia wanted Trump to win.

So the question is, is Russia suffering from buyer's remorse, or is Russia getting more or less what it hoped for from trump in the foreign policy department?

Ironically, if Russia and / or Iran launch a retaliatory strike against a US navy ship if there is a further attack on Assad regime military assets, provided Syria asks for their help Russia and Iran are complying with international law. Whereas it is clear the US strike on the Syrian Airbase violated international law.

Quote

Russian and Iranian forces last night warned Donald Trump they would retaliate with military action if he launched more airstrikes on Syria.

In an ominous threat raising the prospect of war, they said the US President had crossed a 
"red line" with his surprise missile bombardment on Bashar al-Assad's forces.

"From now on we will respond with force to any breach of red lines and America knows our ability to respond well," the military chiefs said in a joint statement with Hezbollah.

Recognising that a Russia / Iran counterstrike would be lawful, I would still be strongly opposed to them doing it, since all it would do is escalate the situation to one of even greater danger, particularly for civilians. But I suspect Russia (and maybe Iran) talking about a military response to future US attacks in Syria is really just telling the USA that a ground offensive in Syria is a really bad idea because Russia and Iran are willing to provide material assistance in fighting off a regime change invasion.

Iraq and Syria really didn't have any friends, Syria clearly does, and while they are not the equal of the USA they are certaily strong enough to give the USA pause.

I hope if Syria did use chemical weapons that Russia and Iran has told them in no uncertain terms not to use any more.

If Syria used chemical weapons on US forces, would the US carry out a nuclear response?

[LongRider]

Scott Ritter, remember him?  Former intelligence office and weapons inspector, wrote a long piece in Huffington Post that is worth reading.  Here are a few paragraphs :

Quote

President Barack Obama, in a 2016 interview with The Atlantic, observed, “there’s a playbook in Washington that presidents are supposed to follow. It’s a playbook that comes out of the foreign-policy establishment. And the playbook prescribes responses to different events, and these responses tend to be militarized responses.” While the “Washington playbook,” Obama noted, could be useful during times of crisis, it could “also be a trap that can lead to bad decisions.”

His “red line” on chemical weapons usage, combined with heated rhetoric coming from his closest advisors, including Secretary of State John Kerry, hinting at a military response, was such a trap. Ultimately, President Obama opted to back off, observing that “dropping bombs on someone to prove that you’re willing to drop bombs on someone is just about the worst reason to use force.” The media, Republicans and even members of his own party excoriated Obama for this decision.

Quote

Like President Obama before him, President Trump asked for his national security team to prepare options for military action.  Unlike his predecessor, Donald Trump did not seek a pause in his decision making process to let his intelligence services investigate what had actually occurred in Khan Sheikhoun.

Quote

 

Quote

A critical piece of information that has largely escaped the reporting in the mainstream media is that Khan Sheikhoun is ground zero for the Islamic jihadists who have been at the center of the anti-Assad movement in Syria since 2011. ...................   The Russian Ministry of Defense has claimed that Liwa al-Aqsa was using facilities in and around Khan Sheikhoun to manufacture crude chemical shells and landmines intended for ISIS forces fighting in Iraq. According to the Russians the Khan Sheikhoun chemical weapons facility was mirrored on similar sites uncovered by Russian and Syrian forces following the reoccupation of rebel-controlled areas of Aleppo. ...................   If the Russians are correct, and the building bombed in Khan Sheikhoun on the morning of April 4, 2017 was producing and/or storing chemical weapons, the probability that viable agent and other toxic contaminants were dispersed into the surrounding neighborhood, and further disseminated by the prevailing wind, is high.

Quote

The counter-narrative offered by the Russians and Syrians, however, has been minimized, mocked and ignored by both the American media and the Trump administration. So, too, has the very illogic of the premise being put forward to answer the question of why President Assad would risk everything by using chemical weapons against a target of zero military value, at a time when the strategic balance of power had shifted strongly in his favor. Likewise, why would Russia, which had invested considerable political capital in the disarmament of Syria’s chemical weapons capability after 2013, stand by idly while the Syrian air force carried out such an attack, especially when their was such a heavy Russian military presence at the base in question at the time of the attack?

Quote

one doctor affiliated with Al Qaeda sent out images and commentary via social media that documented symptoms, such as dilated pupils, that he diagnosed as stemming from exposure to Sarin nerve agent. Sarin, however, is an odorless, colorless material, dispersed as either a liquid or vapor; eyewitnesses speak of a “pungent odor” and “blue-yellow” clouds, more indicative of chlorine gas.

And while American media outlets, such as CNN, have spoken of munitions “filled to the brim” with Sarin nerve agent being used at Khan Sheikhoun, there is simply no evidence cited by any source that can sustain such an account............................  The lack of viable protective clothing worn by the “White Helmet” personnel while handling victims is another indication that the chemical in question was not military grade Sarin; if it were, the rescuers would themselves have become victims (some accounts speak of just this phenomena, but this occurred at the site of the attack, where the rescuers were overcome by a “pungent smelling” chemical – again, Sarin is odorless.)

OK, enough, please read the article as I think it has some very good points.  I watched the news tonight and it was all about Assad gassing his own people, but is that true?  Or has become 'true' because that's what is reported by some and is what was given as the justification for the missile strikes?  Strikes which may cause more conflict not only with Syria, the ME and Russia?  

Ugh, rushing in with the missiles, not such a good idea methinks. 

[James Arryn]

It's absolutely true. The whole brinkmanship thing, if everyone follows the rules and acts out of a need to show willingness, you're pretty much guaranteed to escalate to massive conflict at some point. People rave about JFK handling the C.M?C., but honestly mankind owes a lot more to NK being willing to take a hit for the sake of sanity, as per Obama's point. If he had followed the 'playbook' we'd probably not be here...and for what?

[The Anti-Targ]

30 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

It's absolutely true. The whole brinkmanship thing, if everyone follows the rules and acts out of a need to show willingness, you're pretty much guaranteed to escalate to massive conflict at some point. People rave about JFK handling the C.M?C., but honestly mankind owes a lot more to NK being willing to take a hit for the sake of sanity, as per Obama's point. If he had followed the 'playbook' we'd probably not be here...and for what?

If the US followed the rules, it would not have dropped 59 tomahawks on Syria, and Russia and Iran would not be saying "if you do that again...".

[DMC]

The RFK-Dobrynin meeting is what resolved the Cuban Missile Crisis.  JFK and Khrushchev deserve equal credit for recognizing the other was in a very similar position, warding off the pressure for escalation and understanding what actions would make escalation impossible to avoid. 

[Horza]

Fun thing about the Korean peninsula crisis is all three countries have first strike as their preferred option.

NK has outright said (in its unique style) that its missiles and nukes are for destroying a potential invasion force in harbours and on the tarmac. Their last successful launch was a rocket drill, where they released a map with lines connecting the missile landing spots in the Sea of Japan to airbases and ports they could have hit.

Responding to these developments, US contingency plans have also shifted to decapitation and pre-emptive strikes, and South Korea, which has its own missile program, has said that decapitation is on the menu if they get the faintest suspicion that Kim's sausage fingers are making for the big red button.

This is the definition of an unstable situation. If this crisis accelerates in the days and weeks ahead - and it will: NK has a new bomb and possibly an ICBM in the works, and April 15 is Kim Il-Sung's birthday - all the actors will find themselves under increasing pressure to head off the possibility of being last to the button. The problem is one man's reasonable precautions to be ready in all contingencies are another man's preparation for a first strike.

[LongRider]

I heard this interview on the NPR radio program Fresh Air, The U.S. Has An 'Active Cyber War Underway' To Thwart The North Korean Nuclear Threat with David Sanger of the New York Times.  It was very informative about the ongoing cyber war the US has towards North Korea and about their regime and nuclear issues.   At the link are the transcripts and a link to hear the interview.

http://www.npr.org/2017/03/29/521909787/the-u-s-has-an-active-cyber-war-underway-to-thwart-the-north-korean-nuclear-thre

[Commodore]

if North Korea can be denuclearized, HR McMaster is as good a person as you could want to develop a strategy for doing so

Mattis has made it clear that any attack from North Korea would be met with an overwhelming response

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Commodore said:

if North Korea can be denuclearized, HR McMaster is as good a person as you could want to develop a strategy for doing so

Mattis has made it clear that any attack from North Korea would be met with an overwhelming response

Sure, but it doesn't matter. 

Any attack from North Korea can happen absurdly fast and is essentially not stoppable. The nukes are bad - but the conventional weapons are set up to basically wipe out South Korea entirely, and do so in a matter of an hour. 

So yeah, North Korea would be done, but not after it destroys about 10 million people and the entire industrial age of South Korea. 

[Commodore]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

Sure, but it doesn't matter. 

Any attack from North Korea can happen absurdly fast and is essentially not stoppable. The nukes are bad - but the conventional weapons are set up to basically wipe out South Korea entirely, and do so in a matter of an hour. 

So yeah, North Korea would be done, but not after it destroys about 10 million people and the entire industrial age of South Korea. 

I wonder if the carrier group sent to the Korean Peninsula has the capability to thwart such an attack before significant damage is done. I honestly don't know. 

[Kalbear]

Just now, Commodore said:

I wonder if the carrier group sent to the Korean Peninsula has the capability to thwart such an attack before significant damage is done. I honestly don't know. 

Nope. 

North Korea doesn't have to rely on missiles or tanks to cause massive harm; about 60% of their whole artillery forces are positioned in secured, camouflaged areas in range of Seoul. They are widespread enough that they cannot be taken out with one or even a few strikes, and NK has enough early warning tech that they can launch an attack that kills hundreds of thousands within minutes. As stated in the article, NK can fire 500,000 rounds of artillery on SK in one hour.

A carrier group can likely take out these positions in time, once they start firing and reveal themselves. But they can't stop the shells and don't know most of the locations, certainly not in time to stop the firing, and there are a LOT of them. 

The weirdest thing is that North Korea has an entirely sane policy here. They know that if they didn't hold SK in threat, they'd be invaded in an instant. They also know that if they weren't developing nukes, they'd continue to be pushed around. They've seen what the US does to countries without that first strike deterrence. 

The carrier group is nice, but it's mostly theater. It's a show of force that won't make a sizable difference in any conflict, especially not compared to the military forces of NK and SK that are on site and ready to go. In that, Trump is doing well - he's done two completely ineffective yet highly symbolic military parade routes in the last week. The difference is that North Korea won't take kindly to the US blowing the shit out of a shed and a cafe. 

[Commodore]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The weirdest thing is that North Korea has an entirely sane policy here. They know that if they didn't hold SK in threat, they'd be invaded in an instant. They also know that if they weren't developing nukes, they'd continue to be pushed around. They've seen what the US does to countries without that first strike deterrence. 

God forbid a totalitarian police state is pushed around.

The carrier group is not useless, it provides a deterrent. A weapon need not be used to be useful. 

[Kalbear]

And here's an even better military intel analysis on NK's capabilities.

Quote

Aside from constraints on range and volume of fire, North Korea has to decide what targets to hit in South Korea. There are two realistic options: a counterforce attack or a countervalue attack. In a counterforce attack, North Korea would target South Korean and possibly even U.S. military facilities near the demilitarized zone (DMZ) and north of Seoul. A countervalue attack, on the other hand, is intended to shock South Korea by causing significant civilian casualties and damage to economically critical infrastructure. If North Korea opted for a countervalue attack, the lack of focus on South Korean and U.S. military targets would reduce Pyongyang's ability to limit any response. (Typically, the easiest way to counteract enemy artillery is to destroy it in place.) Engaging civilian targets and infrastructure would not only limit the effectiveness and sustainability of the North Korean artillery volley itself, but it would also open up Pyongyang to more significant counteraction targeting. A mix of both counterforce and countervalue responses may mitigate this risk but would in turn lower the overall effectiveness of the mission compared to full commitment.

 

[Kalbear]

Just now, Commodore said:

God forbid a totalitarian police state is pushed around.

The carrier group is not useless, it provides a deterrent. A weapon need not be used to be useful. 

It doesn't though. That's the point. 

A carrier group provides no deterrent that military bases in Japan and SK don't already provide, and in greater numbers. It doesn't allow faster striking compared to SK, it doesn't allow more damaging attacks because the US already has the capabilities to strike back in place. They have to - because NK could in theory strike at almost any time. The US can't wait for a carrier to come around. And it's not like the US doesn't have sizeable air capabilities in SK and in Japan already. 

It's there to show force, but it doesn't actually provide much in the way of extra force.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

It doesn't though. That's the point. 

A carrier group provides no deterrent that military bases in Japan and SK don't already provide, and in greater numbers. It doesn't allow faster striking compared to SK, it doesn't allow more damaging attacks because the US already has the capabilities to strike back in place. They have to - because NK could in theory strike at almost any time. The US can't wait for a carrier to come around. And it's not like the US doesn't have sizeable air capabilities in SK and in Japan already. 

It's there to show force, but it doesn't actually provide much in the way of extra force.

It's actually kind of the opposite of a deterrent when you stop a take a hard look at NK's behavior over the years. They do a lot of saber rattling and such, but rarely edge into truly provocative action. This is a paranoid, totalitarian dictatorship. I think it's fairly safe to say that this sort of act is more likely to be taken as a provocation as opposed to a deterrent.   

[Free Northman Reborn]

It cannot be Trump's aim to go to war in Korea and Syria at the same time. And especially not if the Syria war involves targeting Russians, which means a friggin nuclear war and Armageddon.

His Syria strike has to be a one off thing, a kind of token act to show he means business. Putin is certainly not going to back down.  Trump gains nothing by ending the war in Syria but unleashing WW3 in the process.

So I am convinced that the way out of this mess is a deal being struck that brings peace to Syria while the country is then carved up between the Russian backed Alawites and the rest. And everyone ends up happy.

Then, when the "rebel" ruled areas end up being a haven and breeding ground for ISIS, well, then everyone will be on the same side in targeting them.

As for North Korea, well, that is a more unpredictable situation. At least there Trump doesn't risk nuclear war with Russia, but he nevertheless is gambling with the lives of the South Koreans and Japanese. Are those losses he is prepared to accept, just to end the North Korean threat?

A while ago I advocated the military option as at least a consideration in North Korea. Now I think it is too risky.  I guess it was Trumps strike in Syria that brought the risks home to me. We are very close to a war between Russia and the US, if such reckless actions continue. And no one wins from such a scenario. Syria is not worth it.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

It's actually kind of the opposite of a deterrent when you stop a take a hard look at NK's behavior over the years. They do a lot of saber rattling and such, but rarely edge into truly provocative action. This is a paranoid, totalitarian dictatorship. I think it's fairly safe to say that this sort of act is more likely to be taken as a provocation as opposed to a deterrent.   

Yep.

North Korea will be demonstrative but does so in order to try and not, ya know, get fucked with. 

If the US shows a major ability to build up weapons such that NK's ability to strike first is seriously questioned, they will attack before it gets to that point.  They will certainly state that diplomatically beforehand, and the US knows this already, but they'll do it more loudly; they will not tolerate a massive buildup of forces that could cost them any advantage they have.

Remember, NK's doctrine is first strike. They are not remotely working on an idea of mutual destruction; they are relying heavily on a strategy of causing so much damage first that it isn't worth it. If you try and take that away, they have few options.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Free Northman Reborn said:

It cannot be Trump's aim to go to war in Korea and Syria at the same time. And especially not if the Syria war involves targetting Russians, which means a friggin nuclear war and Armageddon.

You assume a rational actor. You assume an actual aim instead of reacting to stimuli.

Just now, Free Northman Reborn said:

His Syria strike has to be a one off thing, a kind of token act to show he means business. Putin is certainly not going to back down.  Trump gains nothing by ending the war in Syria but unleashing WW3 in the process.

What was his aim in releasing the Muslim ban the way he did? What was his aim in managing the AHCA rollout the way he did?

Just now, Free Northman Reborn said:

So I am convinced that the way out of this mess is a deal being struck that brings peace to Syria while the country is then carved up between the Russian backed Alawites and the rest. And everyone ends up happy.

Then, when the "rebel" ruled areas end up being a haven and breeding ground for ISIS, well, then everyone will be on the same side in targeting them.

That would make sense. That is also not indicated by the rhetoric and the actions so far taken. 

Just now, Free Northman Reborn said:

As for North Korea, well, that is a more unpredictable situation. At least there Trump doesn't risk nuclear war with Russia, but he nevertheless is gambling with the lives of the South Koreans and Japanese. Are those losses he is prepared to accept, just to end the North Korean threat?

This is a person who has failed, repeatedly, at bluffing (again, see his completely ineffective story on the AHCA and see how China interprets his missile launch) and has also surrounded himself with a whole bunch of idiots and inexperienced assholes. Now fortunately, a lot of those idiots and assholes are being drummed out (KT MacFarland was removed earlier, and Bannon got taken out of the NSC) and McMaster and Mattis are being more assertive - but Trump's stated doctrine was to stay out of shit - and within 100 days has gotten into majorly deep shit. 

Note also that a war with North Korea also risks a lot of conflict with China. China does not want a massive refugee crisis along their border. They don't want the US to occupy Pyongyang. They don't want the US to get even more military on their doorstep. They do not want to destroy their trade and economic relations with SK. A war with NK risks a lot more than that.

[Kalbear]

And hey, speaking of China and North Korea:

Quote

The benchmark averages have surrendered earlier gains on news that China has deployed 150,000 troops to the North Korean border, and the U.S. is considering further sanctions against Russia. The reports caused the S&P 500 to falter at trendline resistance at 2,370 and the Dow Jones Industrial Average to fall back to support at the 50-day moving average.

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

You assume a rational actor. You assume an actual aim instead of reacting to stimuli.

What was his aim in releasing the Muslim ban the way he did? What was his aim in managing the AHCA rollout the way he did?

That would make sense. That is also not indicated by the rhetoric and the actions so far taken. 

This is a person who has failed, repeatedly, at bluffing (again, see his completely ineffective story on the AHCA and see how China interprets his missile launch) and has also surrounded himself with a whole bunch of idiots and inexperienced assholes. Now fortunately, a lot of those idiots and assholes are being drummed out (KT MacFarland was removed earlier, and Bannon got taken out of the NSC) and McMaster and Mattis are being more assertive - but Trump's stated doctrine was to stay out of shit - and within 100 days has gotten into majorly deep shit. 

Note also that a war with North Korea also risks a lot of conflict with China. China does not want a massive refugee crisis along their border. They don't want the US to occupy Pyongyang. They don't want the US to get even more military on their doorstep. They do not want to destroy their trade and economic relations with SK. A war with NK risks a lot more than that.

Let's just clarify a few things here. There is a difference between criticizing Trump for whatever he does, and disagreeing with a specific course of action he takes. In the case of the anti-Trump camp, they would criticize him if he did nothing in Syria, saying that he is in Putin's pocket, and they would criticize him if he launched a strike in Syria, as you guys are now indeed doing.

So he is damned, whatever he does. Similarly in Korea, you would criticize him if he did nothing, and point to his hypocrisy in criticizing Obama for not being forceful enough, and you criticize him now, when he sends carriers to Korea to oppose Korean aggression.

So in short, your criticicism loses effect if it happens regardless of what he does. In my case, I disagree with his actions in Syria, because I feel he should make a deal with the Russians and carve Syria up immediately rather than painting Putin as the enemy as his domestic critics have begged him to do. Because I legitimately feel that taking an active side in the Syrian war is pointless and not worth it.

So maybe this is still the aim, with some token strongarm tactics intended to only set the table for negotiations. Then all ends well. I certainly hope that is the outcome.

As for Korea. I don't know what the hell the answer is there. Because it is a terrible situation, no matter what you do. But just lambasting Trump for the sake of it, well, that is getting kind of old.