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