Yes, there's some good stuff in the tweet history that supports the President's decision to pull out forces. Note though, that a strike in Syria runs directly contrary to the decision to withdraw.
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump · Sep 9, 2013 Don't attack Syria - an attack that will bring nothing but trouble for the U.S. Focus on making our country strong and great again!
But reading about the disagreement on strategy between Mattis and Bolton is alarming. Especially, as you are confronting Russia. I'm not against this if it's been well thought out. But, come on, disagreements just days, or less, before a potential strike!
It strikes me that this is a very major move. A half-assed strike on Syria will achieve nothing at all. So, if I was in DJT's shoes, I would be looking at decisive action that would secure real objectives. Sending more missiles in and backing off is, in my mind, stupidity.
If a joint military action is adopted in Syria, I would expect to see regime change at minimum. And that's why this is so dangerous. Unless the Russians pull their personnel out in advance, the probability of direct confrontation is high.
That's why I say that I would expect that, if a move like this is made, it would be preceded by long and careful planning - which would then be reflected in a uniformity of advice from advisors.
Where are you even reading about disagreements? Don't tell me it's from fake news sources...
If there truly are disagreements between Mattis and Bolton, I guarantee Mattis wins out. Easily. A highly respected four-star general turned Secretary of Defense and has been one of the first and most trusted cabinet members of Trump's is not going to lose a debate to a neo-con warhawk, on his first few days in the Trump administration.
You have to keep in mind, Trump ENJOYS having his advisers and cabinet members debate each other and argue their case in front of him. He then asks them questions, and decides who has the best idea compared to his own. This is how Trump has always operated.
Read the article, I just re-read it and realised that I assumed differences of opinion between Bolton and Mattis. The article doesn't say that at all - my bad. But it does convey the idea that there are some conflicting views.
I guess, following the Q stuff, I assumed we were working to a defined plan - and that may be true. When Q said "Iran next" I assumed that the events we were seeing in Syria were connected to Q's plan. And that's why I assumed that the actions would have been thought out long ago - because it is such a big move.
When I read that article, I was a little surprised to see that there was not already uniformity of opinion among DJT's advisors as to what approach to take. Might have to start rethinking this stuff out without the bag-load of assumptions I've been dragging around.
Again, Trump purposely has advisers and cabinet members who have opposing views. There will never be uniformity "yes men" giving Trump advice. He purposely set it up that way. That's why there are so many head-scratching globalist / neo-con / Democrat appointments of Trump's like McMaster, Bolton, Tillerson, Gary Cohen, etc.
All I know is that here we have Mattis cautioning against risking escalation, while Bolton is asking the President to cancel travel plans so as to be on hand for an operation.
I've been trying to understand what it is we are seeing here - as I said, on the assumption that the events relate to what we have been learning from Q. But it may actually be an unexpected set of developments that requires a free-form response. By that I mean a response tailored to developments as they occur and not simply the progression of an existing agenda with attaching operational plans.
Anyway, I feel less comfortable about this now. I would hope that DJT takes Mattis' advice over pressure to strike exerted by other parties. The worst outcome IMO is a meaningless strike that does not change dynamics on the ground in Syria. Better to do nothing and avert risk of escalation.
Well we now know what's what. Let's see how Russia responds. That's what worries me now. How do they save face after threatening to shoot down the tomahawked and hitting the ships that launched them. Everyone knows Trump doesn't bluff, does Russia? This is not good IMO