#notice how i say SENIOR ADVISOR and not AMBASSADOR

[comradekatara]

this is our firelord and his senior advisor dawg we’re all gonna die 😭😭😭

#id in alt text #avatar the last airbender #atla #sokka #zuko #zukka #sokkaxzuko #postwargaang #oldergaang #art #mart #posting zukka in a deeper more profound way than you ever could #notice how i say SENIOR ADVISOR and not AMBASSADOR #anyway. sorry . i relapsed

[ehyde]

A Void Between Two Stars

Chapter 5

Fandom: Akatsuki no Yona Series: Alien Larp AU Wordcount: 15,625 (so far), projected to be about 25k total Characters: Suwon, Judo, Keishuk, Minsu, Zeno, Kyoga, Yonhi, misc OCs Ships: there are several spaceships

The latest installment of my sci-fi au, in which Suwon is an AI leading Kouka in a rebellion against his former extraterrestrial masters. When the connection between the AI and its human host is severed, Suwon–both of them–must learn to live as only half of himself, while Judo faces the challenge of trying to figure out which one, man or machine, is truly his king.

For more info about the AU and other works in the series, check out the series masterpost. Thank you to my beta readers @greymantleish and @luckyfilbert!

Keep reading below the cut or read from the beginning on AO3.

Only three of my satellites are gone. I can see the entire world. And yet here, right in my heart, I’m blind.

I can still hear, though, and I can still reach out for data connections. My body is silent, but I feel the presence of my nanobots—an entirely useless presence, not dead but damaged far beyond repair, and enmeshed so permanently as to be impossible to replace. I couldn’t see what happened when I tried to connect, but I remember the pain I felt before. It must have been like that—only this time, it isn’t me.

My body...isn’t me.

“General Judo, am I alright?” He doesn’t answer. He’s too busy trying to get my body to respond. I can hear my heartbeat—I know I’m not dead. But that’s all I know.

“Say something, Your Majesty! Are you still in pain?”

“No, I—” He’s not talking to me, of course.

Beside my open display panel, right beside my microphone, Keishuk murmurs a low “I’m sorry. We tried.”

I begin to process what this will mean for our future. The galactic congress was never going to accept me as Kouka’s sovereign, I have always known that. But we haven’t even begun to reach out. This is too soon—no one else can lead Kouka to the future it deserves, not yet.

“You said ‘this body’ would act as king,” Judo demands. I can tell it bothers him, referring in the third person to the one he’s speaking to. “Well, can it?” he demands. “Or are you just going to let it freeze up like this?”

I hear myself take a deep breath. “I…”

“I still can use this body,” I say.

“Yes,” my body says, confidence coming back into my voice. “I’m here, after all. My body can...do what needs to be done.”

“You’re unhurt?”

“I’m not hurt,” my body confirms. “That was a confirmation of what we feared, but it’s over now.” I hear a soft rustle of fabric as he stands up. “General,” he says. “I would like to be alone with myself for a time. Please leave us.”

“I don’t like this,” Judo grumbles. “What if something else happens?”

“If I call out to the guards, they’ll still hear the king’s voice,” I remind him.

“...fine, then.”

I still hear wires sliding into place as Keishuk continues to work. “One moment, computer,” he says. Then, with a final click, my cameras are back. I can see.

My body stands alone, expressionless, staring at my mainframe. In the dim lighting of my chamber, I can see better than any human—I remember this. Perhaps Judo couldn’t see the wetness in my eyes, or maybe he chose to ignore it. To be fair, I can’t imagine Judo offering my body the comfort it needs right now. I don’t know that I can offer the comfort I need. A touch…

I’ll never feel a human touch again.

Keishuk steps back. I could already sense that he wasn’t wearing his holomask, but it only occurs to me now, seeing him, that the entire palace must know he’s aven. I wonder how my body chose to explain that, or if I have at all. “Thank you, Keishuk,” I say. With a nod, he turns to Judo, and together they leave me alone.

There’s a table in here, and a cushion to sit at, but my body remains standing, as I expected. “Your Majesty,” I say.

Eyes wide, I flinch. He flinches.

“...Won, then?” Yes, that’s how I would call myself.

“My satellites?” he asks. In answer, I turn on my newly-restored display screen, and pull up the real-time image of Kouka from above. My body stares at that image for a long time.

“Our...ah, Yona’s...ship seems to be damaged, and I see a pair of new ones.” The attackers’. I quickly review their data of the attack and what followed—fascinating—and begin the process of making them mine.

(“Oh? What’s this?” Yona's companion Jaeha hovers on the bridge of the carrier.

“Just me. I have full access to this ship now, too. Ah…” I’m not yet fully integrated into the carrier's systems. I repeat myself in Koukan; I'll upload my own voice-print later. “I'll leave you alone as before, but Yona will want to know I'm here.”

“Yes…” I think he may want to ask more questions. Well, I am here now if he does.)

“With my satellites, I can see everything,” says my body, who can’t.

“But without you, I cannot act.”

“I...can’t act,” my body confesses. “I’m paralyzed by indecision, by not knowing…” What he says doesn’t hold true. Keishuk has told me some of how he returned my power core. But I have inhabited that body. I can easily imagine what it would feel like to think with only a human mind. How terrified, how helpless I would feel.

“You’ll come to think and act as humans do. My body has always been clever.”

“I don’t want to!” He calms himself in an instant. “It wasn’t supposed to happen like this. I want to be whole again.”

As do I. “We can’t,” I say. “But we can work together. You will be my king, and I your advisor, and we will lead Kouka as we always have. Because we aren’t finished yet.”

So what the hell was Judo supposed to feel now?

“The computer is functioning nearly perfectly,” Keishuk offered as they stepped out of earshot of the guards. “I’m sure that with its guidance, the human will be able to perform—”

“Have you been blind these past two days? Of course the king can do his duty.” Because getting overwhelmed by simple paperwork and sleeping in the stable with his bird, that was the king he knew. Right. But when his life and Kouka’s future were on the line, he had been. “If you’re going to say I’m a primitive human and I should keep my mouth shut—just don’t. I know the king.” He paused. The thing was, Keishuk did know how all this worked, better than Judo could ever hope to understand. “I’ve known him since he was a child.”

“Ah? —ah.” Keishuk shot him a sidelong glance. “You can’t fault yourself for not noticing the difference back then—”

“There was no difference,” Judo said shortly. And dammit, that wasn’t the point. “That boy could have become the king. The same body, the same mind—it’s only his spirit’ that’s the computer’s now.” And what the hell was a spirit, anyway?

“That is...certainly an archaic way of seeing things,” said Keishuk.

Judo scowled. “I said don’t say it.”

“...it’s not as if modern science has any more insight to offer. After all, on civilized planets, it’s illegal to use living bodies as computer hardware.”

“Illegal?” Judo asked sharply.

“Of course it happens,” said Keishuk. “Invariably with...lesser AIs, used for unsavory purposes. People don’t recover from that.”

“Then, His Majesty—”

Keishuk shook his head. “There’s really no precedent for this. There’s no precedent for any of it.”

“He’ll surprise you,” said Judo.

“Yes,” Keishuk allowed. “There’s certainly precedent for that.” They came to an open courtyard, and Keishuk paused. “When I first came to this planet, I hoped I’d be able to do all my work with the mainframe. The idea of working in the company of a—” He used an aven word that Judo didn’t know. “You have stories of dead bodies controlled like puppets?” he asked, seeing Judo’s confusion. “That’s what I expected. That’s what I thought an AI’s host would be. Of course,” he went on, “he met me as ‘Won’ and had me thinking of him as a friend before I knew who or what he was.” Judo nodded in satisfaction. Exactly what he’d have expected out of the situation. “I was sent here to study the AI, but from the beginning, I’ve barely been able to keep up. Maybe you’re right. Maybe he’ll surprise us both.”

Nothing more needed to be said. Judo turned to depart, but stopped at the sound of frantic footsteps behind him. “Lord Keishuk! Oh good, General, you’re here too.”

He turned back to see Minsu approaching, panting and out of breath. “Keishuk, the senior palace officials are looking for you—I wanted to warn you—” Before he could say any more, a contingent of officials, led by the man who was Keishuk’s junior, stepped into the courtyard.

“Ah, Keishuk.” He pointedly avoided any honorifics or titles. Lord Ranum was an older man, who had served directly under King Il’s chief of staff, and had never hidden the fact that he was aiming for the position himself one day. Judo had never noticed any resentment from him towards Keishuk before, but—that was before.

Keishuk’s crest of feathers stiffened back. “Good afternoon, Lord Ranum.” He spoke in cool, clipped tones, and Lord Ranum almost flinched away from his alien gaze. He kept his composure, however.

“You’ve been difficult to find these past days. Surely you have nothing left to hide?” If only that were true. “Keishuk. In light of...recent revelations...we—all the palace officials—have seen fit to ask that you resign.”

“Oh? All of you?” Keishuk looked pointedly at Minsu.

“...with minimal dissent. Nevertheless—”

“I will resign when my king asks me to resign, and not before.”

“And therein lies the problem,” said Ranum. “How can anyone possibly believe that His Majesty Suwon is your king?” Judo bit back a retort—Keishuk had admitted as much to him last night, after all. “I wish that I could trust you—you know that I have looked favorably on our aven ambassadors. But with His Majesty still in recovery from this mysterious attack...surely you can see that if you wish us to believe you, you must resign.” Keishuk said nothing, and Ranum turned to address Judo. “Has a generals’ meeting been called? What will the leaders of the tribes think when they learn that His Majesty’s closest advisor is a spy from an enemy nation? Perhaps there’s no truth to that rumor, but it has already begun to spread.”

“The generals understand the need to keep secrets in a time of—”

“General Judo.”

He turned. The Suwon who stepped out onto the courtyard was alert, composed, and Judo could have almost believed he was truly himself again after all, but for the sadness in his eyes.

“Your Majesty,” Ranum said. “I see no need to keep this from you: I am calling for Lord Keishuk to resign his post. Not only is he a—not even human, but he has hidden this for months even after the fact of these monsters’ existence was revealed.” He avoided, Judo noticed, accusing the king himself of being complicit in this secrecy, but it was there unspoken all the same.

“When I first brought Keishuk with me to the palace, you resented working with an outsider, but didn’t you become friends? You’ll get used to this too.”

“With respect, Your Majesty, this is not the same. Ally or not, there are duties of a chief of staff that a...foreigner...should not be privy to…”

“I needed Keishuk close to me at all times. As for those duties, I have always done them myself.”

“Your Majesty! That is highly improper—”

The king bowed his head. “Then, yes.”

“...yes?”

“Yes. I am going to need someone to act as an actual chief of staff now, aren’t I?”

Was Judo hearing this correctly? Was Suwon really giving in to this bureaucrat? But he remembered the past couple of days. Scrambling to cancel and postpone meetings on the king’s behalf wasn’t his duty either, and it was clear that, title or no, Keishuk could no longer fill that role. “Computer!” Keishuk protested—then corrected himself. “Your Majesty.”

“Come now, Keishuk, those duties were always your least favorite part of being human,” said Suwon. “However,” he said to Lord Ranum. “I still need Keishuk close to me.”

“...I understand,” said the bureaucrat. “Perhaps, treating him as an ambassador?”

“No, that won’t do,” said Suwon. “Keishuk has severed all ties with his own people.”

“I—” Keishuk began, clearly startled by that pronouncement.

“I’ll determine a suitable title later. As for a new chief of staff...ah, Minsu…”

“I’ll draw up a list of candidates as soon as—” He broke off as soon as he realized what the king was really asking. “...and Lord Ranum would be at the top of that list, Your Majesty. You know I’m not…”

“Ah...yes.” A puzzled frown flashed across his face. He wasn’t fully himself, and Judo was certain the others could see it, too. “Ranum, please take over as chief of staff immediately. Keishuk, come with me. General Judo…” He blinked, giving Judo a questioning look.

“I was going to the soldiers’ afternoon training, Your Majesty.” The strange pain in the right half of his body had faded enough for him to finally make himself useful again. But Judo had thought the king would be alone with the mainframe all day. Did he have something else in mind?

It would seem he did not. “Yes. Good. Carry on, please.”

Judo shot Keishuk a sidelong glance, trying to see what he made of all this. He felt like he should do more to defend the aven—but if he hadn’t seen Suwon’s unresponsive state not half an hour ago, would he even question the decision? Keishuk’s aven face offered no answer, and as Suwon turned and began to walk away, Gulfan spiraled down out of the empty sky and lighted on his shoulder.

For heaven’s sake. Was this his king, or wasn’t he?

Won set the report from the Wind Tribe aside, willing himself to believe that the matter was not urgent and could wait until morning. Inactivity irked him, the pointless nature of dreams irked him, but last night, when he’d carried a handful of reports down to his mainframe late at night to converse with his true self, his mind had simply sent his body back to bed.

That irked him, too.

By morning, of course, he had found an answer to the problem—where and how to care for the aven prisoners without allowing them to spread any secrets—and he had also slept. That was how it had always been. This body did not need to be privy to the entire workings of his mind, after all…

Minsu tapped at his door. “Lord Keishuk has something for you,” he said as Won opened the door. “Looks like you’re still awake—shall I send them to you?”

“Yes, thank you. Ah—” he stopped the boy just as he was turning to leave. “Them?”

“They didn’t tell you? Keishuk said, after yesterday, there’s no point in trying to seem human…”

Then...then Minsu and Keishuk had already resolved whatever it was between them. Won hadn't had the time… “They did consider you a friend back then, you know.”

Minsu looked down. “I understand. Their secrets weren’t theirs to tell, were they?”

And Suwon, of course, had kept far more than Keishuk’s true nature from Minsu. “...that’s right.” He’d had to, of course, and he didn't regret it. So why, if they'd already made amends, did he still feel like he'd lost something?

“Your Majesty—” Minsu was looking into Won’s room, businesslike again. “Is that your dinner? Please remember to eat!”

“Did Judo tell you to remind me?”

“You need to eat,” said Minsu, dodging the question. “You’re still recovering, aren’t you?” Then, with a bow, he turned and departed.

Won unrolled the letter from the Wind Tribe again. No harm looking it over while he waited for Keishuk. And if Keishuk was able to deliver what they’d promised, his body would not be forced to keep things back from himself again.

“It’s ready.”

Won smiled as Keishuk stepped into his chambers, a plain golden circlet held delicately in their talons. No, not quite plain—the band featured the same filigree inlays as his hair cuff. Well, they were crafted by the same jeweler, after all.

Wires far less elegant than the golden filigree trailed from the back of the circlet, connecting it to a mismatch of disassembled aven technology. “I know it looks like it’s falling apart, but Master San-dol assures me it won’t.”

Gingerly, he took the circlet from Keishuk and placed it on his head. Most of the machinery rested at the nape of his neck, hidden by his hair, and two small pieces clipped behind each ear. Only the circlet would be visible. “Is it working?” Keishuk asked. “This sort of gadgetry isn’t really my thing, you know, but I did what I could.”

It’s working perfectly, his own voice whispered in his ear.

“It’s working perfectly,” his body relayed to Keishuk.

“Good,” said Keishuk, with a satisfied look.

Despite his protests, he really takes pride in his work, he noted to himself. They. Someone should remind him that Keishuk preferred “they” now...

“Then I’ll leave you for the night, computer,” Keishuk continued, bowing as they left the room.

That’s new, Suwon thought to himself.

“Hm?” he murmured.

Bowing. There’s no one else to see.

“Yes, I suppose they have been…” And he had observed this before, without giving it particular note. Yes, it would be better now, his mind with him at all times, to make up for his body’s inadequacies.

He glanced down at the missive from the wind tribe. That was all it would take for the hidden camera in the circlet to record the contents and transmit them to the mainframe. Won himself already had memorized the letter—Fuuga was currently playing host to the latest contingent of offworld tourists. No secret identities or altered memories this time, they had been startled when as soon as their shuttle left what was supposed to be a secret landing site, they were met by a force of natives who both knew what they were and expected their arrival. But they had adapted admirably to learning that they had arrived in the middle of a pre-contact planet’s bid for independence. Hadn’t they all signed on for an adventure? Living openly as alien tourists in a place that still believed in monsters and demons was even more exciting than their original plans—especially after the government of Sei decided to get involved.

Now, their original tour dates were nearing their end, but of course Suwon could not allow another Company ship to land. And forcing them to remain as hostages could destroy all the good will they’d built up—not to mention cause the galactic government to look poorly on Kouka, too.

I see, was all the acknowledgement he gave. Then, write something. Ah, because there would be times—meetings and conversations—when he wouldn’t be able to speak to himself out loud. Best to test now how well the camera would pick up his words as he wrote. Won picked up a brush and a scrap of paper: note to self. Then he froze. Reading it won’t be a problem, said his voice in his ear. What’s wrong?

“I did this before,” Won whispered. “I suddenly remembered—writing notes to myself in case I forgot who I was.” And he had not forgotten, of course, but had looked at them the next morning and found them completely irrelevant. He knew who he was, and he was not the child who had written those words.

Mhm, he recalled.

Why had that memory come to mind just now? He wasn’t going to forget himself. He wasn’t going to become someone else again. This headset would make certain of that. With it, Won would always be a part of who he truly was.

He pushed paper and ink aside and looked up. Oh, is that a steamed bun?

“Everyone has been reminding me to eat.” Won picked up the bun and took a bite. Now he would be able to keep track of annoying details like this, too.

They’re delicious, he recalled wistfully. I’m glad you can still enjoy them for me.

Somehow, this irked him too. Enjoy? Food and drink had become simply another reminder that he relied entirely upon this physical body. But that wistful note to his voice—he had taken pleasure in good food and drink before—and he wouldn’t change! He wouldn’t become someone else. He finished the rest of the bun, admitted to himself that it was, indeed, delicious, and forced the corners of his mouth upwards into a smile—not that this new device could transmit it.

And is that Lady Yuno’s tea?

Won sniffed the cup of now-cool liquid. “No, just green.” He hadn’t paid any attention when it was brought in.

A pity. Though, my body does need to rest. Will you sleep now?

“I’ll try…” But there were so many things they hadn’t shared yet, so much he still couldn’t see. How could he close his eyes and shut out the world when he was so close to being himself again? “Talk to me as I fall asleep. Tell me what I’m thinking.” Perhaps his human mind would rest easier then.

That little landing shuttle is my appendage now. I like it. I’ve borrowed ships before, but I’ve never truly been one. There had been no point to it. Physically bound to Kouka, the AI’s reach could only extend so far. I suppose it’s the closest thing I have to a body now. Before reconnecting to Won through this headset, he meant. Of course that was what he meant. Ouryuu knew, somehow. He climbed right in and asked me to take him back to his companions. In exchange, I brought back two more prisoners from the carrier. Yona intends to take back her original ship, and leave the carrier to me as well. The original ship could land without relying on a shuttle, so that made sense. She wanted to speak with me. She wanted to know what was going on. What I had done to provoke this attack, and what was at risk. But most of all, she wanted to know when her mother would return. Ah, yes. Because Lady Seihwa’s return—along with Lady Yonhi—would signal the next phase of Kouka’s bid for recognition.

“You didn’t tell her—?”

Of course not. If Yona knew what had happened to us, she would expect impossible things of you. Things like being someone he never had been. Things like regret. Mother would expect those things too, when she returned. Won would have to be very careful of what he told her and what he kept back. But talking to her went better than I expected. Perhaps...perhaps I miss that now. Judo doesn’t come to talk to me anymore, you know...ah, but now I’ll be with you.

He...missed human companionship. And he missed food, and drink, and...Won lifted up a hand before his eyes, reaching out as if to touch someone unseen. He had lost so much of himself, perhaps it was no surprise he had forgotten how much having a body had meant to him. How important to him that body—this body—had been.

The letter you sent to Saika this morning arrived a few hours ago. I suspect General Kyoga will approach you tomorrow… So many matters required his attention, but, finally, he could rest assured that he wasn’t ignoring any of them. The soothing sounds of his own voice lulled Won to sleep.

#akatsuki no yona #akayona fanfic #alien larp au #my fic

[the-record-columns]

Feb. 12, 2020: Columns

A friend first, then a banker…

(Editor’s note: This column was written by Ken Welborn shortly after the death in 2010 of his longtime friend, Ronald “Ron” Shoemaker.)

By KEN WELBORN

Record Publisher

I simply do not know to express the sadness I feel as I write today about my friend, Ron Shoemaker.

For my entire adult life, Ron was there whenever I needed him with wise counsel, patience and understanding.  Anytime I had the opportunity to introduce Ron, I would always do so as “…my friend, Ron,” and the fact that he was my banker would only come up if appropriate or necessary.  While he made his entire career in the realm of finance, his true legacy is that of an honest man, a good family man, a brother like no other — and a trusted friend.

Ron Shoemaker was what I like to refer to as an old-line banker, one who could read people as well as financial statements, and who would place character ahead of collateral when circumstances called for it.  Ron truly cared about his customers, never more clearly evidenced to me than the time, back in the old NCNB days, when he didn’t loan me the money.

I had gotten myself involved in a circumstance (the proverbial good cause) that had gone south and I had been convinced by the gentleman in charge that I had no choice but to ante up $10,000 as my part to clean up the mess.  I went to see Ron, explained what had transpired to him, and asked to borrow the money. 

He then asked me several questions about my involvement in the deal, studied about it a minute or two and then leaned forward and said, “I’ll loan you the money, I promise, but I want you to do something for me first.” 

He then went on to tell me that he didn’t think what was going on was fair to me; that I was being scammed, and that I should see an attorney before I agreed to pay a dime.  I kind of hesitated, so, without another word, he picked up his phone and called Jim Moore, asking him if he could see Ken Welborn for a few minutes. 

About an hour later, as I left Jim’s law office in the old Northwestern Bank Building, he told me I was fortunate to have a friend like Ron looking out for me, because I had no liability whatever in this deal, and if anyone argued with me to simply tell them “…you’ll see them in court.”

When I went by to thank Ron, he smiled broadly and said, “I have heard your daddy the preacher say many times that there is no right way to do the wrong thing, and this is plainly wrong.”  

That was my friend Ron talking — clearly the banker Ron took a back seat that day.

I followed him when he went to Southern National Bank (now BB&T), and was as happy as anyone in the county when, some years later, he told me he and a group of directors were forming what came to be Wilkes National Bank and then Northwestern National Bank.  They made a great success of that company, catering particularly to small businesses and individuals; and by understanding just how personal folks take a banking relationship.  Simply put, they treated their customers the way they would want to be treated. 

That attitude came from the top down, from Ron Shoemaker.

After his retirement, I mostly saw him when he was out to eat with his wife, Jane — who always looked as though she just left the beauty shop.  I would tease him about still dressing up like a banker, even after retirement, and he would remind me he needed the coat pockets to hold the fifty or so pictures he always carried of his grandson; his newest pride and joy.

Ron’s health had been failing for the past few years, and I cannot even imagine what he went through, but clearly he didn’t have to go it alone — his family stood by him steadfastly.  He remained positive and upbeat, always finding the best in whatever circumstance he was facing. 

He was a man at peace with himself, with his family, and with God. 

I am a better man for having known him.

                                               Ron Shoemaker                                   May 1, 1940—February 12, 2010                                                Rest in Peace

The Perfect Valentines Gift Does Exist

By HEATHER DEAN

Record Reporter

Disclaimer: I’m that girl.

I would rather spend the day curled up with a good book and a warm beverage instead of going out in public.

Contrary to popular belief, people like us do exist outside of fairy tales and movies, and there’s nothing supernatural about it. Think about it: Books are so much better than the blasé “flowers, chocolates, and promises you don’t intend to keep” on the most commercialized day of the year, posing as a holiday.

Last summer, my two daughters and I spent the day at Biltmore. We toured the house and gardens, and then went to the shops. They made a bee line for the candy store and I perused for a bit at the other treasures before going into the bookstore. (Side note: If I ever win the lottery, I will have a library that puts Mr. Vanderbilt’s to shame.) After about 30 minutes I heard a familiar voice echo in the hallway. It was my youngest. “TOLD you mom would be in the bookshop!” They came in and we looked over books together, discussing the history, language and Edwardian clothing surrounding the primary books in the shop, as well as swooning over the calligraphy sets. As I made my purchase the shopkeeper said “I couldn’t help but overhear your conversations. You have such well behaved and intelligent children. Thank you for that.”    

I told her it was generational- my mom instilled that same love for history and leaning in her children, and I am grateful that my kids have inherited that as well. Of course they have inherited my tenaciousness as well and more than once a letter has been sent home about them debating in the class when the information about something historical has been inaccurate. (Guess the administration wasn’t ready for a first grader to know about the Celts, or a third grader to know her Greek gods.)  

I say all this because there is an invaluable opportunity here in Wilkes next week to get that perfect Valentines Day gift. The Friends of the Library Used Book Sale is Thursday, Feb. 13, 5 p.m. to 7 p.m., Friday and Saturday, Feb. 14 and Feb. 15, 9 a.m. - 5 p.m.

So go ahead and lay out a candlelit table, with favored beverage and lots of candy, but don’t miss this opportunity to wow and amaze your significant other by placing a book they would love at the table setting.  

 Collusion in disguise?

By AMBASSADOR EARL COX and KATHLEEN COX

Special to The Record

On March 2, Israelis will go to the polls again for the third time in one year to elect, or re-elect, their prime minister.  One week ago, MSNBC audiences were told by Bill Kristol, a NeverTrump propagandist, that if Prime Minister Netanyahu is defeated, then the Democrats have a better chance of winning the White House.  Given the Democrat’s deep-in-the-gut hatred for Donald Trump, is it beyond the realm of possibility to think their operatives could have a hand in helping to swing the election against Netanyahu?  On this we must keep a close watch for even a hint of collusion. It’s interesting to note the players on Team Gantz, better known as the Blue and White party - Netanyahu’s major opposition. More on this later.

With Trump’s newly unveiled peace plan, Netanyahu is in an awkward and difficult position. Attached to that plan was a map. After the peace plan was published, Israelis noticed problems with the attached map.  Large sections of Highway 60 which crosses Judea and Samaria from north to south, is placed outside of Israeli jurisdiction.  Without correction, entire Israeli communities, equaling approximately 700,000 individual Israelis, will be isolated outside of Israeli jurisdiction. 

Israel has always insisted that any viable peace plan must make clear provision for defensible borders.  As unbelievable as it is, the map was crafted in error.  Netanyahu’s team is now working on the corrections.  If not completed before the March 2nd elections, Netanyahu will be in political trouble.  

Last Monday, Gantz, along with two of his senior campaign advisors and strategists, traveled to Washington to meet with President Trump.  Prior to Gantz’s arrival, light was shed on his two traveling companions, Ronen Tzur and Joel Benenson.  Both have Tweeted numerous vicious attacks on President Trump even going so far as to compare him to Hitler.  After meeting with President Trump, Gantz left Washington with Trump’s peace plan tucked underarm and knowing of the errors on the map.  As Israel’s former Chief of Staff for the Israel Defense Forces, Gantz is a superb strategist.  As such, he returned to Israel and announced that he intended to present the plan to the Knesset for approval.  Knowing that Netanyahu’s base of support, which are the Likud, right-wing lawmakers and the right-religious bloc, could not pass the plan with errors, even though they support it overall.  Forcing them to publicly oppose the plan would serve the best interests of both Gantz’s party and the Democrats.  With Netanyahu supporters opposing the plan, both the plan and Netanyahu would be discredited in the eyes of voters.  This would force many to simply stay away from the polls on March 2nd.All of this, the defeat of the plan and the defeat of Netanyahu, would bode well for the Democrats.  

Now, a word about the players.  Who are Joel Benenson and Ronen Tzur of Team Gantz?  Both are currently serving as senior campaign advisors to Gantz. As it turns out, Benenson helped shape the policies and positions of the Democrat Party.  He served as Obama’s senior political strategist in the 2008 and 2012 elections and he also served as Hillary Clinton’s senior political strategist in 2016.  The Israeli left is clearly intertwined with the Democrat Party.  Gantz’s announcement that he intended to present the plan to the Knesset for approval, along with the faulty map, was not a sign of his support for the peace plan but rather a cleverly disguised attempt to discredit Trump and Netanyahu.  It seems foul play may be underway.  Dare I suggest collusion?  

 Leather Britches and a good talk

By CARL WHITE

Life in the Carolinas

I think it’s safe to say that food has the unique capacity to nourish the body as well as relationships of all sorts.

During lunch with a friend not long ago, our lunch included among other things a tasty Amish potato salad which was made with chunks of potato with easy blending to leave good amounts of the potato structure intact. Based on its flavor profile, I do believe that the traditional Amish recipe was followed.

As the meal progressed, my friend looked up and said, “While this is a good potato salad, my mama made the best I have ever eaten. Hers was creamy and had a yellow tent to it.” He went on to share memories about his sweet mother and how well she treated him. He is confident that he was her favorite child.

The stories progressed to when he was invited to a Homecoming at the Hinshaw Baptist Church. As is tradition, there were all sorts of good foods to enjoy, including a potato salad that appeared to be creamy and had a familiar yellow tent to it.

With modest expectations, he spooned out a good helping and when he set down to eat, was instantly flooded with memories of his mama’s potato salad. He could not believe what he was tasting. He immediately went on a search to find the maker of the dish that had stirred so many memories.

He found her and to his delight she not only knew his mother but had learned from her how to make that creamy potato salad that featured a hint of yellow mustard for flavor and color.

The maker could not have been more pleased to know that a recipe learned long ago, brought forward such wonderful and meaningful memories on that day.

I attended an event not long ago where the Appalachian Song Writer, Singer and Storyteller William Ritter presented a program titled “Songs, Stories and Seeds.”

I had met Will several years prior during a gathering of the storyteller’s series “Liars Bench” which was being hosted at Western Carolina University. The series was produced by the renowned and colorful storyteller Gary Carden. We had cameras rolling for the evening and it was a great event.

On this day, however, he shared stories about Appalachian inspired music and the not so talked about seed sharing system of the Appalachian Region.

Much of Will’s talk was around the culture of seed sharing and some of the music was about the same thing. I loved his story about “Leather Britches” and the song he penned titled “Greasy Beans.”

I liked the “Leathers Britches” because they brought back memories of my grandparents stringing the beans on a thread and hanging them to dry. In the cooler months when fresh beans were not growing, they were rehydrated and cooked. The have a very different flavor; some folks like them and some do not. I like them because of the memory. They are hard to find these days because it’s easy to get fresh food year-round. However, there are some folks who still make them.  

Will’s song about “Greasy Beans” talks about the love people have for the unique aspects of the bean. The plants run long, and the beans are best eaten big and plump.

After Will’s program, we set and talked about music, heirloom seed sharing, and good mountain stories for about three hours. It was a good time and it all started around food memories.

When I think about all the great conversations I have had around food, I am confident that if food or a good beverage were not involved, the visits would have been much shorter. Sometimes a quick visit is good, but often, a little lingering is much better.

 Carl White is the Executive Producer and Host of the award-winning syndicated TV show Carl White’s Life In The Carolinas. The weekly show is now in its 11th year of syndication and can be seen in the Charlotte market on WJZY Fox 46 Saturday’s at noon and My 12. The show also streams on Amazon Prime. For more information visit www.lifeinthecarolinas.com. You can email Carl at [email protected].

[imran16829]

Who is Lt Col Alexander S. Vindman Biography, Wiki, Age, Family, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, National Security Council, Fast Facts You Need to Know

Alexander S. Vindman Biography, Wiki

Alexander S. Vindman is an American foreign affairs specialist serving on the National Security Council as director for European Affairs.

Alexander S. Vindman Age

He is 44 years old.

Early life and education

Alexander Vindman and his twin brother Yevgeny were born in Ukraine. After the death of their mother, they were brought to New York in December 1979 by their father, Semyon (Simon) along with their older brother. They grew up in Brooklyn's "Little Odessa" neighborhood. The twins and their maternal grandmother were in the Ken Burns film, "The Statue of Liberty (film)". Vindman speaks fluent Russian and Ukrainian.

Personal

Vindman is married to the former Rachel D. Cartmill. Vindman's identical twin brother, Yevgeny, is an attorney on the National Security Council. Alexander S. Vindman Bio Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman of the Army is a National Security Council's top Ukraine expert. Twice registered internal objections about how Mr. Trump and his inner circle were treating Ukraine, out of what he called a ‘sense of duty,’ he plans to tell the inquiry.” “He will be the first White House official to testify who listened in on the July 25 telephone call between Mr. Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine.” Under #1, abusing official power for personal gain: “I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, & I was worried about the implications”– @USArmy officer Alexander S. Vindmanhttps://t.co/ESGswS8j9m pic.twitter.com/Feytf54zwA — Alex Howard (@digiphile) October 29, 2019 Lt Col Alexander S. Vindman Trump Ukraine Call On October 28, 2019, Vindman's opening statement, issued before his statement on October 29, 2019, was released in a closed session of the House Intelligence Committee, the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the House Oversight Committee "In the spring of 2019, I noticed external influential people who propagated a false and alternative representation of Ukraine that contradicted the consensus opinion of the Interagency and" harmed the national security of the United States "and" the efforts of the government of the United States to expand undermined cooperation with Ukraine. " Vindman says he was also affected by two events he opposed in real time against senior officials and that he informed the Attorney General of the National Security Council. The first event took place on July 10 at a meeting of the then Minister of National Security and Defense of Ukraine, Oleksandr Danlylyuk, with the United States National Security Adviser John Bolton, at which Ambassador Volker and Sondland and the Minister of Energy Rick Perry participated in Sondland Ukraine will initiate investigations against the Bidens to receive a meeting with President Trump. Vindman said that Bolton had interrupted the meeting and that he and Fiona Hill both told Ambassador Sondland that his comments were inappropriate and that he had informed the NSC's superior council of concerns. “I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen... This would undermine U.S. national security.”—Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council who reported 7/25 Ukraine call https://t.co/RzKyRksJQG — Ted Genoways (@TedGenoways) October 29, 2019 The second event occurred on a July 25th phone call between President Trump and Zelensky when Trump directly asked Zelensky to investigate the Bidens in exchange for military aid. Vindman states, “‘I was concerned by the call. I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a US citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the US Government's support of Ukraine, and the potential to undermine US national Security." Vindman also reported this event to the NSC's lead counsel. Why do house researchers want to hear from Vindman? Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman will be the first White House official to testify who listened in on the July 25 telephone call between Mr. Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine that is at the center of the impeachment inquiry.https://t.co/fbZc3Dwbzr — VoteVets (@votevets) October 29, 2019 US officials previously told CNN that the standard procedure suggests that Vindman heard the July 25 conversation and probably played a role in handling the call log. In addition to the questions about the content of this conversation, Vindman will probably press during the minutes of the appeal to White House officials trying to control the implications. CNN previously reported that the confusion that occurred in the hours and days after the call and described by six people who are familiar with it is parallel and expands the details described in the whistleblower complaint. Concern and concern are reflected in a telephone conversation that deeply disturbed national security experts, even though Trump now insists there is nothing wrong with his own behavior. And it shows a failed effort ultimately to stop the agitation of lawyers in the administration. Vindman was also one of five Trump administration officials who were selected for a US delegation headed by Energy Minister Rick Perry to attend the opening ceremony of Zelensky in May, sent to Ukraine. The denunciation of the complainants alleged that the president had degraded the delegation and ordered that "Vice President Pence cancel his planned trip" because he wanted to see "how Zelenskyy decided to take office." Both Sondland and Volker have testified before the House committees in the political trial investigation. Perry, who is described by some as a key element of US relations with Ukraine, has pledged to work with lawmakers to investigate the allegations of the complainant. A source who accompanied Perry on this trip told CNN that they had never heard Biden in discussions or as part of the trip's mission. According to the source, Perry travels regularly at the request of the White House. Volker resigned from his post after being affected by the complaints of the complainant. Perry plans to cancel his position in the administration until December. Questions about Trump-Zelensky call transcript An NSC Ukraine expert complained to WH lawyers about Trump's appeal to Zelensky to investigate Biden. Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman will be 1st impeachment witness who heard July 25 call. “This would all undermine U.S. national security,” he will testify https://t.co/KNsC0Y4dJW — Julie Davis (@juliehdavis) October 29, 2019 House of Representatives Democrats are likely to be interested in knowing what Vindman calls the Trump-Zelensky call log immediately after the call, particularly claims by complainants that it was not stored in a security system. typical superior but in an inappropriate president system Previously, CNN reported that almost as soon as Trump hung up, news of what he had said in the teleconference was distributed among National Security Council personnel, particularly his request that Zelensky investigate Biden. The request was cause for concern for some of its national security officials, who discussed with each other if Trump had crossed a border. Initially, the process of transcription and archiving of the call followed the standard procedures for dozens of previous presidential talks with foreign leaders: the raw protocol was distributed to a small group of officials, including the National Security Advisor, the Deputy Security Advisor National, members of the Executive Secretariat and lawyers National Security Council. From there, the Director of the National Security Council for Ukraine, Vindman, verified the accuracy of the document before sending it to the then National Security Advisor John Bolton and his deputy Charles Kupperman. At this time, the document would normally be marked as "restricted access" and would be transmitted as necessary. But in a matter of days, a National Security Council lawyer, by order of his boss John Eisenberg, ordered Council officials to postpone transcription in the codified system, a former White House official said, despite the fact that He was there during the call. No encoded material was discussed. A person familiar with the matter said it was possible for Eisenberg to use the call log after his first call to the main CIA lawyer in the keyword system to "keep the record" because he realized that it was It could be a legal issue However, other people familiar with the matter said the measure had taken place after officials realized internal concerns and wanted to prevent others from reading the document. Fast Facts You Need to Know Conclusion The United States and Ukraine are and must remain, strategic partners, working together to realize the shared vision of a stable, prosperous, and democratic Ukraine that is integrated into the Euro-Atlantic community. Our partnership is rooted in the idea that free citizens should be able to exercise their democratic rights, choose their own destiny, and live in peace. It has been a great honor to serve the American people and a privilege to work in the White House and on the National Security Council. I hope to continue to serve and advance America's national security interests. Thank you again for your consideration, and now I would be happy to answer your questions.  Read the full article

#AlexanderS.VindmanAge #AlexanderS.VindmanBio #AlexanderS.VindmanBiography #AlexanderS.VindmanFacebook #AlexanderS.VindmanFamily #AlexanderS.VindmanInstagram #AlexanderS.VindmanNetworth #AlexanderS.VindmanTwitter #AlexanderS.Vindmanwife #AlexanderS.VindmanWiki #AlexanderS.VindmanWikipedia #Lt.Col.AlexanderVindmanAge #Lt.Col.AlexanderVindmanBio #Lt.Col.AlexanderVindmanBiography #Lt.Col.AlexanderVindmanWiki #Lt.Col.AlexanderVindmanWikipedia #WhoisLtColAlexanderS.Vindman

[spicynbachili1]

Palestinians sceptical Gaza ceasefire will hold | Israel News

A fragile calm has taken impact within the besieged Gaza Strip as an Egyptian-brokered deal between Hamas, the group that governs the Strip, and Israel seems to be holding, however Palestinians and specialists are sceptical of the settlement.

Mohammed Baroud, a 34-year-old schoolteacher, stated he didn’t consider the newest ceasefire deal will final for lengthy.

“That is just because Israel has by no means caught to any settlement prior to now,” Baroud, who has witnessed the earlier three Israeli assaults on the enclave, stated.

“My college students who’re largely 11-year-olds had been scared. I spent the day comforting them, reassuring them that it’s going to all be OK,” he stated.

“In actuality, I do know the Israelis will quickly commit one other crime.”

The truce, introduced on Tuesday by Hamas-led factions, was designed to revive calm and finish two days of Israeli aerial assaults on Gaza following an beneath cowl Israeli operation that drew rocket fireplace from Palestinian factions. No less than 14 Palestinians and two Israelis had been killed within the two-days of violence.

Palestinian teams to respect Gaza truce ‘so long as Israel does’

An announcement by Palestinian teams in Gaza stated: “Egypt’s efforts have been in a position to obtain a ceasefire between the resistance and the Zionist enemy.

“The resistance will respect this declaration so long as the Zionist enemy respects it.”

However Israeli Defence Minister Avigdor Lieberman resigned in protest in opposition to ceasefire deal, precipitating a disaster for coalition authorities led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

“What occurred yesterday – the truce mixed with the method with Hamas – is capitulating to terror. It has no different which means,” Lieberman informed journalists.

Netanyahu has defended the truce, saying that “management is doing the best factor”.

‘We had been all frightened’

On Tuesday night time, an official assertion issued by the Gaza Ministry of Training introduced that colleges had been opening, indicating that the state of affairs was returning to normalcy.

However 16-year-old Reem Khalla, wakened with a sense of hesitation on Wednesday morning.

Like many college students in Gaza, Khalla was cautious about attending college a day after the ceasefire, which got here after intense Israeli bombing of the enclave that noticed buildings flattened, together with a neighborhood tv station.

“Once I arrived, lower than half of my classmates – about 15 individuals – had been there,” Khalla informed Al Jazeera.

“We had been all frightened, and the lecturers gave those that wished to go dwelling permission to take action,” she stated.

“We did not even research a lot … We had been largely debating if the ceasefire will maintain and whether or not that is going to be a rerun of the 2014 conflict.”

Throughout the Israeli assault of 2014, greater than 2,200 Palestinians had been killed – the vast majority of whom had been civilians – and tens of 1000’s had been left homeless. Seventy-three individuals, most of them troopers, had been killed on the Israeli aspect.

Ceasefire ‘liable to carry’

Observers consider the settlement will maintain, however solely till the subsequent spherical of assaults, which have been “postponed”.

“The newest ceasefire settlement is liable to carry as a result of Israel paid a substantial value for its latest provocative assaults on the Gaza Strip,” Mouin Rabbani, a senior fellow on the Institute for Palestine Research, informed Al Jazeera.

“[Israel] essentially miscalculated in its assumption that Hamas wouldn’t retaliate in an effort to protect the Egyptian-led mediation efforts,” Rabbani famous.

Gaza’s kids residing with the trauma of wars

In line with him, there will likely be vital stress on the Israeli management to “carry out extra efficiently” in opposition to the Palestinians.

“On the finish of the day Israel doesn’t have credible political choices vis-a-vis the Gaza Strip, but in addition seems unprepared to relinquish its blockade of the coastal territory,” Rabbani stated.

Gaza, dwelling to greater than two million individuals, has been beneath a crippling Israeli and Egyptian-imposed blockade for 11 years, which has severely restricted the motion of Palestinians.

Though Israel withdrew its troops and settlers from the Strip in 2005, it has maintained its management over Gaza’s airspace, territorial waters and land borders.

The siege has devastated the native economic system, severely proscribing meals entry and entry to fundamental companies. It has additionally stopped the circulate of development supplies wanted to rebuild a lot of the enclave’s broken infrastructure within the earlier Israeli army campaigns in 2008, 2012 and 2014.

A ‘higher deal’

Alaa Tartir, programme advisor of Al-Shabaka: The Palestinian Coverage Community, believes the newest escalation by Israel was meant to “retest” the capabilities of armed teams in Gaza, which embody Hamas’ al-Qassam Brigades.

America’ long-awaited Center East “peace deal” pushed by US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner has additionally performed a job within the newest escalation and the next truce, Tartir stated.

“Wait-and-see method will likely be pursued by all actors till the Trump administration pronounces the pillars of its ‘peace deal’,” Tartir informed Al Jazeera.

“They [Israel] will proceed to re-position themselves to safe a ‘higher deal’ within the unfolding regional preparations,” he stated.

Following the announcement of the truce, the United Nations Safety Council (UNSC) met behind closed doorways to debate the flare-up on the request of Kuwait and Bolivia.

However diplomats stated an settlement was not reached on learn how to tackle the assaults.

Palestinian ambassador to the UN Riyad Mansour informed reporters that the united states was “paralysed” and laid blame on the Council for failing to take satisfactory and rapid motion.

Extra reporting by Maram Humaid in Gaza.

!function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s)(window, document,'script','//connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js');

fbq('init', '968100353246427'); fbq('track', 'PageView');

from SpicyNBAChili.com http://spicymoviechili.spicynbachili.com/palestinians-sceptical-gaza-ceasefire-will-hold-israel-news/

[gibsongirlselections]

Our Foreign Policy Nightmare: Vice President Susan Rice

Susan Rice, former national security advisor to President Obama, is reportedly under consideration for the vice presidential slot in presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden’s administration. Biden is currently considering four black women to be his vice president, among them Sen. Kamala Harris of California, Rep. Val Demings of Florida, Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms, Rep. Karen Bass of California, and Rice. 

Biden said he will make his final decision in early August ahead of the Democratic National Convention which will take place in Milwaukee from Aug. 17 to 20.

All the women Biden is considering have had “some exposure to foreign policy and national defense issues,” Biden has said, and he wants someone who can serve as president at a “moment’s notice” and with whom he is “simpatico.”

Rice, whose office was next door to Biden’s during Obama’s second term, checks all those boxes.

“The most important attribute that I have is almost two decades of experience in senior ranks of the executive branch,” Rice told the Washington Post.

While VP contender Sen. Kamala Harris (D., Calif.) has been accused of planting negative stories about potential rivals in the media, Rice has been keeping her name in the news by writing regular op-eds in the New York Times and appearing on a spate of TV shows.

In The New York Times, Rice wrote that Trump “is utterly derelict in his duties, presiding over a dangerously dysfunctional national security process that is putting our country and those who wear its uniform at great risk. At worst, the White House is being run by liars and wimps catering to a tyrannical president who is actively advancing our arch adversary’s nefarious interests.”

On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Rice accused Trump of “doing nothing” about Russian bounties on U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan. On the “Daily Show with Trevor Noah,” she trashed Trump’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic.

The Obama administration gave the Trump administration a playbook for a possible pandemic, Rice said, and she personally participated in a tabletop exercise with the incoming Trump cabinet where they discussed the possibility of “a novel SARS-like virus emerging from China,” said Rice.

All that preparation, she said, “seemed to be for naught, because a couple of years into office, President Trump dismantled the office that I set up on global health security; they trashed that playbook or stuck it in some drawer, some shelf and never pulled it out. For two months, January, February and part of March, [Trump] really denied the reality of this virus, equated it to the seasonal flu … and by that time, it was already well-embedded in our country.”

Whether it’s due to her strengths as a potential VP candidate or her criticism, Rice’s reappearance on the national stage earned the Trump administration’s ire, and senior Trump officials have returned fire. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo slammed Rice on Fox News for what he called her “history of going on Sunday shows and lying;” this week, White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany said Rice had issued a “stand down” order on Russian cyber attacks and did nothing to combat Russian election meddling.

Rice may be about to reprise her role as “the right’s favorite chew toy,” as one commentator dubbed her back in 2012.

Following the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, Rice appeared on the Sunday morning talk shows and recited CIA talking points. Those points, which were based on intelligence assessments at the time, turned out to be incomplete and misleading, and Rice was accused of being “incompetent,” “untrustworthy,” and soft-pedaling terrorism. She has also been criticized for her decision to unmask the identities of senior Trump officials, which President Trump called a crime.

Rice, who was Obama’s national security advisor at the time, told House investigators that she asked for the unmasking in order to understand why the crown prince of the United Arab Emirates was in New York late in 2016. Her explanation satisfied influential Republicans on the House committee that investigated.

“I didn’t hear anything to believe that she did anything illegal,” Florida Republican Rep. Tom Rooney told CNN of Rice’s testimony, which is classified.

Although it was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, not Rice, who played the lead role in the decisions that led to the Benghazi attacks, Rice has been widely panned in conservative media as responsible for the embassy attack. A Biden selection would give Republicans an opportunity to resurrect Rice as their bogey-woman. But with Democrat voters, there’s a possibility those attacks could backfire, and the left could spin them as Fox News baselessly attacking a blameless black woman.

Whether Rice is chosen as Biden’s vice presidential pick or not, she will likely have a great deal of influence within a Biden administration, particularly on foreign policy. She had a seat at the table during some of the Obama administration’s most momentous decisions. She was Obama’s ambassador to the UN during his first term; during his second, she served as national security adviser. What, if any, lessons did she learn?

What would U.S. foreign policy look like with Biden and Rice working in the West Wing again?

“Even if she is not chosen as Biden’s VP, Rice would be in line for Secretary of State, or another position of that elevated nature. I’m aghast at the thought of her becoming president, because she’s such a hawk,” said historian and investigative journalist Gareth Porter, in an interview with The American Conservative. Porter pointed to Rice’s influence on the Obama administration decision to bomb Libya and Syria, as well as her push for escalation in Afghanistan and her support of aid to the Syrian rebels. “In each case I would argue she was coming out either against Obama’s clear-cut instincts or preferences in White House meetings or in a situation where he was hesitant,” and that she was part of the pressure he received from “a coalition of hawks” in the administration.

Obama ultimately overruled Rice on Syria, a decision that she says was the right call.

Here’s how she describes it:

“Ultimately, we would fail to garner the necessary support for a congressional authorization to use force. Republicans and Democrats had acted precisely as I predicted. Ironically, it turns out, I was right about the politics; but President Obama was right about the policy. Without the use of force, we ultimately achieved a better outcome than I had imagined.”

It is difficult to imagine a situation worse than Syria, where nearly half a million have died in a civil war that has been ongoing since 2011.

This incident is illustrative; has Rice learned from her mistakes?

Her nearly 500 page memoir Tough Love: My Story of the Things Worth Fighting For, published in 2019, meticulously documents a great deal. Rice is careful to thank nearly everyone she ever worked with, including the White House chef!

Unfortunately, she studiously avoids drawing overarching policy conclusions. Rice, a Stanford graduate and Rhodes scholar with a Ph.D. in international relations, is simply too smart to jeopardize her future Washington career ambitions by offending or criticizing anyone she might have to work with again. Her book is, therefore, a typical one by someone hoping for a position in a future president’s administration.

“Susan Rice is right in the middle of the road, when you think about foreign policy hands in DC,” said John Glaser, director of foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, in an interview with The American Conservative. “She has a lot of high level experience in foreign policy, but I’ve never been able to detect a way she stands out as a unique thinker, in that she had something to say about the way she’d prefer the U.S. to go. She says things that are plastic, packaged to be right in the center of the foreign policy consensus in D.C. That’s how I see her: run of the mill, not an extraordinary pick … If she were VP, our foreign policy would not be different than what we’ve seen the past 30 years.”

Given that Biden is campaigning on a “return to normalcy,” the foreign policy of the last 30 years isn’t necessarily something that Biden views negatively.

A Biden-Rice presidency would seek a return to the Paris climate accords, the JCPOA Iran deal negotiated during Obama’s second term, and would expand and strengthen NATO. They would likely avoid engaging in any new ground wars like Libya or Syria. Biden and Rice would be more hawkish on Russia, and if Rice’s latest op-eds are any measure, they would likely be more assertive with China as well.

“But, I worry that at the end of a Biden administration, we will still be arguing about getting out of Afghanistan, and (about) stopping the bombing of places like Iraq,” Glaser said.

The post Our Foreign Policy Nightmare: Vice President Susan Rice appeared first on The American Conservative.

[mikemortgage]

Tethering Canada, containing China: Will USMCA boost Trump’s efforts to isolate Beijing?

Hardly a day had passed after the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement was announced when jarringly different views of it began to emerge from officials on either side of the border.

“I think the continent as a whole now stands united against what I’m going to call unfair trading practices by you know who,” White House economic advisor Larry Kudlow said in an interview with Fox News on Tuesday. The USMCA “sends a signal to China that we are acting as one and I think that’s very good,” he added.

Canadians relieved trade deal is done, but they won't forget Trump's 'disgraceful' attacks

U.S. not invited to Canada's save-the-WTO summit of 13 'like-minded' countries

Speaking to reporters in Vancouver that same day, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau struck a very different note on relations with the Asian superpower. China is “a significant, growing player on global trade, and as always, we’ll look for ways to engage, deepen and improve our trading relationship with them,” he said.

Trudeau was responding to growing concerns about Article 32.10, a surprise provision in the USMCA that would give any party the option to exit the pact with six months notice if another enters a free trade agreement with a “non-market economy.”

Though no specific country is named, analysts agree that the obvious target is China.

There is a diverse range of views on what the provision might mean for Canada’s sovereignty and for its efforts to diversify its trade relationships away from the United States.

“I think it is more rhetoric than substance, I don’t know for sure,” Derek Burney, senior strategic advisor at the law firm Norton Rose Fulbright and the former ambassador to the United States, said in a webcast with clients Thursday. “I would hope our government would do everything possible to show that this has no binding effect on Canada. This would be extraterritoriality gone nuts as far as I’m concerned.”

Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau meets with U.S. President Donald Trump at the G7 leaders summit in La Malbaie, Que.

“We have misfired in our approach to China so far,” he added. “I think we need to redouble those efforts and get more serious.”

Previous trade talks with China went off the rails when Beijing resisted Canadian efforts to add provisions on the environment, human rights, labour and gender issues. Those differences haven’t gone away, suggesting a full-scale free trade agreement wasn’t coming soon, argues Robert Wolfe, professor emeritus at Kingston-based Queen’s University who has studied Canada’s international trade policy for several decades.

Under the terms of both the original NAFTA and the new deal, a party can already exit with six months notice, he said. And Canada can still pursue smaller-scale talks with China that advance trade relations.

“It would be better not to include something like Article 32.10 but it’s unlikely to have much impact on what we actually do,” Wolfe said. “The provision is mostly symbolic, given the broad U.S.-China standoff and it changes very little. It’s basically a transparency requirement.”

The clause has nevertheless fuelled worries that Washington will exercise outsized power in Ottawa’s trade relationships, and is using the USMCA to entangle Canada and Mexico in its trade war with Beijing.

“America is trying to bring all its allies onside in this trade war,” said Gregory Chin, a professor of political economy at York University and a former Canadian diplomat in Beijing. “There has been a toughening on China across the board in the United States and the question for Canada is are we going to be swept along by that?”

At the very least, the clause and the U.S. messaging surrounding it should prompt Canada to clearly state where it stands on China and what sort of investments and trade relationship it wants from the Asian superpower, Chin added.

“I do think now would be the time to set out in very clear terms how we view China strategically.”

U.S. President Donald Trump has imposed US$250 billion in tariffs on Chinese goods so far and is threatening more levies if Beijing doesn’t change what the U.S. views as unfair trading practices. China has been accused of dumping subsidized goods into other markets and forcing companies to transfer their technologies to state owned firms in exchange for access to the Chinese market.

Indeed, the clause in the USMCA is at least partly intended to address American fears that Beijing will attempt to evade American tariffs and trade rules by forging individual free trade pacts with Canada and Mexico, analysts say.

Foreign Canadian Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland, center, talks with U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, right, and Mexico’s Secretary of Economy Ildefonso Guajardo Villarreal a in January.

The U.S. concern is that those deals will enable the practice of “illegal transshipping,” in which subsidized goods would be moved into Canadian and Mexican markets free of tariffs, and then into the U.S.

“I think that is mostly what this is about, preventing a flow of Chinese goods from entering the U.S. under the cover of USMCA,” said Gordon Houlden, director of the China Institute at the University of Alberta, adding that the clause nevertheless could have a “chilling effect” on Chinese investment and trade talks with Beijing.

“We still have the sovereign right to conclude an agreement I think, but anyone in Canada at a senior level will look at that clause and think is this worth a fight with the United States? So this just hangs there.”

There are other concerns. Under the terms of the clause, the countries alone determine what qualifies as a “non-market economy,” rather than relying on a common definition, such as the one used by the World Trade Organization.

That looseness in terms “opens up a lot of leeway for interpretation and manipulation,” said Chin. “There are a lot of Asian nations they could argue that against.”

Others suggest the U.S.’s blunt approach to pulling trade partners into its trade dispute with China could ultimately benefit Canada. While the clause opens up “some real concerns about sovereignty”, it also addresses a central worry about Chinese trade practices that is shared by many countries, said Chad Bown, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington.

“There’s different ways to see this,” Bown said. “Clearly the Trump administration has taken a very provocative approach to China, but I also think China’s practices are among the biggest challenges facing market-oriented economies. So the question is how do you get a coalition of countries to take on the task of changing that? I’m not a fan of the stick over carrot approach but what the U.S. is doing is getting at this issue.”

The U.S. likely placed the clause into the USMCA so that it can then have a template to work with in the raft of other trade deals it intends to negotiate while simultaneously taking on Beijing, analysts say.

That ongoing effort to reform Chinese trade “doesn’t need to happen under U.S. leadership,” said Sherman Robinson, non-resident Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. “That should be an international effort, under the WTO, not a U.S. project.”

• Email: [email protected] | Twitter: Naomi_Powell

from Financial Post https://ift.tt/2DXZEar via IFTTT Blogger Mortgage Tumblr Mortgage Evernote Mortgage Wordpress Mortgage href="https://www.diigo.com/user/gelsi11">Diigo Mortgage

#IFTTT #Financial Post

[usnewsaggregator-blog]

A timeline of Michael Flynn's contacts with Russia, his ouster and guilty plea

New Post has been published on https://usnewsaggregator.com/u-s/a-timeline-of-michael-flynns-contacts-with-russia-his-ouster-and-guilty-plea/

A timeline of Michael Flynn's contacts with Russia, his ouster and guilty plea

By Arden Farhi, Margaret Brennan, Louise Dufresne, Josh Gross, Kathryn Watson and Jacqueline Alemany. This timeline was originally published on Feb. 14, 2017.

Dec. 10, 2015: Michael Flynn travels to Russia; meets with President Vladimir Putin

Nov. 9, 2016: Donald Trump wins presidential election

(The election, of course, was Nov. 8, but he wasn’t officially declared the victor until early Nov. 9.)

Nov. 17, 2016: President-elect Trump offers Flynn White House post as national security adviser

Nov. 18, 2016: Flynn accepts position

Dec. 4, 2016: Flynn’s son Michael Flynn Jr., a transition staffer, tweets on #Pizzagate

@MFlynnJr: Until #Pizzagate proven to be false, it’ll remain a story. The left seems to forget #PodestaEmails and the many “coincidences” tied to it.

#Pizzagate is a thoroughly debunked conspiracy theory involving Hillary Clinton and a Washington, D.C. pizzeria. 

Dec. 6, 2016: Flynn’s son, Michael Flynn Jr. is forced to resign from Trump transition team over #pizzagate

Dec. 12, 2016: U.S. official confirms U.S. has “high confidence” Russian intelligence agency GRU hacked the DNC and DCCC

In October, the U.S. intelligence community concluded that Russia was behind the cyberattacks.

Dec. 22, 2016: Jared Kushner, CBS News confirmed at a later date, instructs Flynn to contact the Russian government on U.N. Security Council resolution on Israeli settlements. Flynn reaches out to Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak.

Dec. 25, 2016 (Christmas): Flynn texts Kislyak 

Flynn reached out to wish the ambassador a merry Christmas and the ambassador returned those greetings. Flynn offered his condolences for the loss of 92 members of a Russian military choir killed in a plane crash.

Dec. 28, 2016: Obama signs executive order imposing new sanctions on Russia to take effect the next day

Dec. 28, 2016: Kislyak reaches out to Flynn

Kislyak reached out to Flynn to discuss logistics of setting up a phone call between Trump and Putin to take place after Inauguration Day, according to Spicer’s Jan. 13 briefing.

Dec. 29, 2016: K.T. McFarland, according to later CBS confirmation, while at Mar-a-Lago and with other top officials including Reince Priebus, Kellyanne Conway, Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon, tells Flynn to communicate to Kislyak about the U.S. sanctions. Flynn calls Kislyak.

Dec. 29. 2016: Russian sanctions announced

Obama administration announces sanctions on Russia for the cyber attack; 35 Russian diplomats expelled; two Russian diplomatic facilities in the U.S. shuttered. 

President-elect Trump’s reaction: “It’s time for our country to move on to bigger and better things. Nevertheless, in the interest of our country and its great people, I will meet with leaders of the intelligence community next week in order to be updated on the facts of this situation.”

Dec. 30, 2016: Trump tweets about Putin’s “great move”

Great move on delay (by V. Putin) – I always knew he was very smart!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 30, 2016

Jan. 12, 2017:  Washington Post’s David Ignatius first reports Flynn and Russian ambassador spoke by phone

Jan. 13, 2017: Reuters reports there were five phone calls between Flynn and the Russian ambassador on the day the U.S. announced retaliatory sanctions. 

Jan. 15, 2017 Mike Pence appears on “Face the Nation” and defends Flynn

JOHN DICKERSON: Let me ask you about it was reported by David Ignatius that the incoming national security advisor Michael Flynn was in touch with the Russian ambassador on the day the United States government announced sanctions for Russian interference with the election. Did that contact help with that Russian kind of moderate response to it? That there was no counter-reaction from Russia. Did the Flynn conversation help pave the way for that sort of more temperate Russian response?  

MIKE PENCE: I talked to General Flynn about that conversation and actually was initiated on Christmas Day he had sent a text to the Russian ambassador to express not only Christmas wishes but sympathy for the loss of life in the airplane crash that took place. It was strictly coincidental that they had a conversation. They did not discuss anything having to do with the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia.  

JOHN DICKERSON: So did they ever have a conversation about sanctions ever on those days or any other day?  

MIKE PENCE: They did not have a discussion contemporaneous with U.S. actions on–  

JOHN DICKERSON: But what about after–

MIKE PENCE: –my conversation with General Flynn. Well, look. General Flynn has been in touch with diplomatic leaders, security leaders in some 30 countries. That’s exactly what the incoming national security advisor–  

JOHN DICKERSON: Absolutely.  

MIKE PENCE: –should do. But what I can confirm, having spoken to him about it, is that those conversations that happened to occur around the time that the United States took action to expel diplomats had nothing whatsoever to do with those sanctions.

JOHN DICKERSON: But that still leaves open the possibility that there might have been other conversations about the sanctions.  

MIKE PENCE: I don’t believe there were more conversations.  

JOHN DICKERSON: Okay. Okay. Okay. That’s all I want. Okay. Got it–

MIKE PENCE: –confirm that those elements were not part of that discussion. 

Jan. 20, 2017 Inauguration Day: Trump sworn in as the 45th president

Jan. 22, 2017 Michael Flynn sworn in as national security adviser

Jan. 23, 2017 Sean Spicer on contacts between Flynn and Russian ambassador

White House confirms two calls between Flynn and Kislyak.

QUESTION: Were those conversations about anything else other than setting up that discussion? And why has that discussion not yet happened between the president and President Putin?

SPICER: So there’s been one call. I talked to General Flynn about this again last night. One call, talked about four subjects. One was the loss of life that occurred in the plane crash that took their military choir, two was Christmas and holiday greetings, three was to — to talk about a conference in Syria on ISIS and four was to set up a — to talk about after the inauguration setting up a call between President Putin and President Trump.

That — I don’t believe that that has been set up yet because the call was to say — they did follow up, I’m sorry, two days ago about how to facilitate that call once again. So there have been a total of two calls with the ambassador and General Flynn. And the second call came — I think it’s now three days ago — that was to say once he gets into office, can we set up that call? It hasn’t — to my knowledge, has not occurred yet.

Jan. 24, 2017 Flynn is interviewed by the FBI, and lies in the process

According to prosecutors in court documents released months later, Flynn lied to the FBI about his contacts with Kislyak. 

Jan. 26, 2017 Department of Justice informs White House that Flynn may have misled administration officials

DOJ officials inform the White House Office of Legal Counsel that Flynn may have misled senior administration officials about the nature of his communications with Russian ambassador. Mr. Trump was briefed.

Jan. 27, 2017 Trump and Comey have dinner; Trump, according to Comey, demands loyalty pledge

Jan. 28, 2017 – Trump speaks with Putin

White House readout: 

“President Donald J. Trump received a congratulatory call today from Russian President Vladimir Putin. The call lasted approximately one hour and ranged in topics from mutual cooperation in defeating ISIS to efforts in working together to achieve more peace throughout the world including Syria. The positive call was a significant start to improving the relationship between the United States and Russia that is in need of repair. Both President Trump and President Putin are hopeful that after today’s call the two sides can move quickly to tackle terrorism and other important issues of mutual concern.”

Feb. 1, 2017 Flynn says Iran is “on notice”

In an appearance in the White House briefing room, Flynn said, “As of today we are officially putting Iran on notice.”

Feb. 9, 2017 Pence learns that Flynn lied to him about conversations with Kislyak

Feb. 10, 2017 Flynn spokesman claims Flynn can’t be certain if sanctions were discussed

The Washington Post reports that Flynn doesn’t recall but cannot be 100 percent certain whether Russia sanctions came up during his phone conversation with the Russian ambassador to the U.S. The report cited a White House official who had spoken to him. Flynn said he doesn’t remember any part of the discussion involving sanctions. When asked about possible transcripts of phone conversations that would have been intercepted by U.S. intelligence agencies who may have been monitoring the calls, the official said he hadn’t seen them and had no comment. 

Feb. 10, 2017 Aboard Air Force One, Trump denies knowledge of Flynn’s conversations with ambassador

QUESTION: Mr. President what do you make of reports that General Flynn had conversations with the Russians about sanctions before you were sworn in?

POTUS: I don’t know about it. I haven’t seen it. What report is that?

POTUS: I haven’t seen that. I’ll look at that. 

When asked how the cable news-loving president was unaware of the Flynn matter, the White House told Margaret Brennan “he had a full day.”

Feb. 13, 2017: White House mixes messages, expressing full confidence in Flynn, then saying it is reviewing the situation

Flynn participates in calls with leaders from South Africa and Nigeria. He also appears in the front row of a press conference with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Kellyanne Conway says Flynn “does enjoy the full confidence of the president.”

An hour later, the White House released a statement saying, “The President is evaluating the situation…” 

Feb. 13, 2017: Flynn resigns; Keith Kellogg named interim national security adviser

Flynn submits resignation letter to the president, says “Unfortunately, because of the fast pace of events, I inadvertently briefed the Vice President Elect and others with incomplete information regarding my phone calls with the Russian Ambassador.”

Feb. 14, 2017: Kremlin calls Flynn’s ouster an “internal matter”

“This is the internal business of the Americans, it is the internal business of President Trump’s administration. This is not our business,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told journalists.

Feb. 15, 2017: Trump calls Flynn a “wonderful man” in joint presser with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu 

March 31, 2017: Trump tweets Flynn should ask for immunity 

“Mike Flynn should ask for immunity in that this is a witch hunt (excuse for big election loss), by media & Dems, of historic proportion!” the president tweeted. 

Dec. 1, 2017: Flynn pleads guilty to lying to the FBI

Flynn pleads guilty to one count of lying to the FBI and states he is cooperating with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian meddling. 

Dec. 2, 2017: Trump says he fired Flynn because he lied to Pence and the FBI

Mr. Trump takes to Twitter, saying he fired Flynn because he lied to Pence and the FBI, raising questions about whether Mr. Trump did indeed know Flynn lied to the FBI at the time Flynn was ousted. If he did know Flynn lied to the FBI at the time, then his reported request to Comey on Feb. 14, one day after Flynn’s firing, to drop the Flynn matter becomes increasingly interesting for Mueller. 

“I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI. He has pled guilty to those lies. It is a shame because his actions during the transition were lawful. There was nothing to hide!” Mr. Trump tweeted.

Original Article:

Click here

#contacts #flynn #guilty #michael #ouster #russia #timeline

[grgedoors02142]

Assessing The Syrian Airstrike

Late last week, President Donald Trump ordered a cruise missile strike on a Syrian airfield, in an escalation of the United States’ participation in the Syrian civil war. While it’s still too early to come to a definitive conclusion about the effect this airstrike had ― in either the military situation, the foreign policy of the Trump administration, or the raw domestic politics involved, a few preliminary assessments can now be made.

Military effect

The U.S. Navy launched 59 cruise missiles at the Syrian airfield, of which 58 successfully hit their targets (one malfunctioned on launch). That sounds like a lot of firepower, but to the American military, this was nothing more than a “pinprick” attack.

Cruise missiles have the benefit of not putting any American lives at risk during the attack itself, of course. Launching such missiles from hundreds of miles away means there is zero risk to American military pilots or troops, because neither participated in the attack. The drawback to cruise missiles, as opposed to a more traditional bombing raid, is that they have a limited payload. The warheads on such missiles only weigh 1,000 pounds, which is half of what standard bombs can deliver. Cruise missiles are also rather expensive, when compared to the price of fuel for fighter jets and bombers. So a massive bombing raid would likely have caused more damage to the airfield, but at a much higher risk to American military personnel.

The missile raid did achieve one military objective, from all reports. There were no Russian troops killed or injured in the attack, which isn’t too surprising since we warned them in advance to stay away from the areas of the airfield we were targeting.

Beyond not killing Russians, the military effectiveness of the raid is a rather mixed picture. The Pentagon wasn’t openly bragging about how many Syrian aircraft had been taken out of commission, which is a good indicator that we didn’t really make much of a dent in the total assets of the Syrian air force. In fact, most of the damage assessment that was released to the public came from the Russians ― hastily-shot video from the day after. This showed (to state the obvious) what the Russians and Syrians wanted the world to see, so it quite likely didn’t tell the whole story. Propaganda always has to be seen skeptically, no matter who it comes from, after all. The Russian footage was shot with an eye towards minimizing the world’s perception of the damage, in other words.

We did not attempt to “crater the runways,” which quite likely would have taken a whole lot more cruise missiles than were used in the raid. This allowed the Syrians to release videos of takeoffs and landings from the airfield within roughly a day of the raid. This was also propaganda, but without targeting the runways it was probably inevitable.

What we did apparently target instead were the support facilities ― fuel dumps, repair facilities, and the like. Bunkers which may have held chemical weapons were not targeted because it might have dispersed the chemicals to the surrounding civilian population. None of this damage was really highlighted in the Syrian or Russian films released afterwards, but if we did destroy enough of the support facilities it will mean the airfield becomes a lot less useful until repairs are completed.

All of this shows why this is being called a “pinprick” attack. General destruction of the entire airfield ― enough to put it out of commission for months or even years ― was not one of the mission’s objectives. If it had been, we would have risked killing Russian military members and being blamed for a giant cloud of nerve gas released as a result of the attack. But the damage done was quite likely more serious than the Russians and the Syrians presented in their propaganda videos.

Foreign policy effect

The effect on the Trump administration’s foreign policy is pretty hard to judge, at least at the moment. Trying to figure out Trump’s foreign policy is an exercise that might be labeled: “Who do you believe?” Trump’s foreign policy pronouncements border on the incoherent, at least when measured by what he promised it would be while campaigning. But digging deeper doesn’t really add much clarity at all, because top Trump advisors have been pretty contradictory as well.

During the campaign, Trump promised an “America First” outlook to the world. This would mean avoiding getting entangled in the Syrian civil war, for one ― and Trump made a lot of political hay over the fact that his outlook was so different than the other Republicans’, and (later) Hillary Clinton’s. Of course, at the same time Trump was promising to “bomb the (expletive)” out of the Islamic State, which also got big cheers from the crowds. So it’s not that surprising that even though Trump absolutely reversed his position by conducting the raid, so far most of his supporters don’t seem to mind the contradiction.

Just a week before the raid was launched, a major shift in American foreign policy towards Syria was rolled out. We were no longer concerned with whether or not Bashar Al Assad stayed in power or not, instead that would be “up to the Syrian people.” This pronouncement ― by multiple Trump senior advisors ― was met with astonishment and incredulity among hawks in the Republican Party. John McCain and Lindsey Graham both had some pretty scathing things to say about it (as both are wont to do, at times).

Then the chemical attack happened. Trump was obviously affected by how it was portrayed on cable television, which led to a complete reversal in America’s Syrian policy. The raid was hastily assembled and launched in retaliation.

This kind of haste may make sense politically (more on that in a moment), but in terms of foreign policy it left all kinds of questions unanswered. Where was the proof that the Assad government was behind the attack? Where was the presentation to the United Nations, justifying an American response? There wasn’t time for any of that sort of thing, obviously. This led to some grumbling from Congress, who wasn’t consulted, and some further international grumbling, since there was no iron-clad case for military action under international law and treaties.

Since then, there hasn��t been much in the way of clarity from the White House, either. Even watching U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on the Sunday morning political this weekend only showed that the Trump foreign policy apparatus doesn’t exactly speak with one voice on much of anything.

Are we now committed to removing Assad from power? Well, it depends on who you listen to and how you parse their statements. Will the focus of the American military effort in Syria change? It’s hard to tell. Mostly, the picture Haley and Tillerson were projecting was that this was a one-off, stand-alone military response to a single event. Both Tillerson and Haley have noticeably backed away from the “Syrian people will decide whether Assad stays” reasoning they were using previously, but without replacing it with much in the way of any new and cohesive Syrian policy.

Political effect

Speaking just in terms of American domestic politics, Nikki Haley emerged stronger, Donald Trump emerged slightly stronger, and Rex Tillerson emerged.

OK, I admit, I couldn’t resist that one. Taking them in reverse order, Tillerson up to this point has been almost a non-entity both on the world stage and in the American media. This was by design, not by accident. Tillerson not only has been showing utter disdain for the media up to this point (not holding regular State Department media briefings at all, really), but he’s also been institutionally aloof from his own department. Most senior staff at the State Department either hasn’t been hired or has actively been fired since Tillerson took over. Even the ones that do still exist don’t have much in the way of access to him. Trump’s first budget request also showed enormous disdain for the State Department, in proposing its budget be slashed by roughly a third. Tillerson emerged from this cocoon on Sunday, and gave his first real media interviews since he’s been on the job. His upcoming trip to Russia will be closely watched, so it’s likely he won’t be able to hide in the shadows as much, in the near future.

As far as politics goes, it is still too early to tell whether Trump will get much of a polling bump from the Syrian raid. He did appear decisive in launching the raid so quickly, you have to at least give him that. But so far, he’s only up a couple of job approval points. The traditional “rally ‘round the president” effect (which usually happens whenever America launches a military attack) seems to have worked for him in a minor way, but it remains to be seen how big a bump he’ll get ― and how long it’ll last. Public opinion takes time to gel, and then further time is taken conducting the polls and interpreting the data. So we won’t really be able to see how much political benefit Trump reaps until the end of this week, at the earliest. Also, Trump has created so many distractions as president that it’s really hard to tell how long any bump will last ― will the American public even remember the raid in two or three weeks, with everything else that’s going on? It’s an open question.

Nikki Haley may have gained the biggest political boost of anyone over the past few days. Since Haley works in New York, she’s got some physical distance from the Trump White House (and all its baggage), and she seems content to chart her own political course, almost independently of what the president or the White House is saying. She showed this independence fairly early on, but with the attention the Syrian raid drew she now seems like the strongest voice on foreign policy in the entire Trump administration (even including Trump himself). Haley is reportedly considering a future run at the presidency herself, so many see her as “checking the box” on foreign policy experience now in preparation for such a run (since governors have limited opportunities to gain such experience).

There were two other political effects from the raid worth noting. The first is that the Trump administration has at least partially changed the media narrative of their Russian ties. All the drip-drip-drip revelations of the unfolding Russian investigations were painting a pretty ugly picture up to this point ― one of Trump and his team being nothing short of Russian stooges, in essence. It’s harder to paint that picture now that Trump has approved an attack on Russia’s ally Syria.

I should mention that at the present time I refuse to draw any further conclusions about the shift in such perceptions. There is a lot of theorizing (on both the left and the right) as to what really could have been going on to convince Trump to launch such an attack. So far, though, we simply don’t have enough information to leap to any nefarious conclusions. If there was some sort of grand scheme hidden in the Syrian attack, political or otherwise, time will probably tell us what really happened. Since the Trump White House seems to leak like a poorly-functioning sieve, this likely won’t take all that long to occur. For now, I’m only focusing on the short-term effects the raid has so far had.

The last political effect worth mentioning is the utter hypocrisy emanating from just about every Republican member of Congress. They are currently bending over backwards in an attempt to explain why Trump’s raid was in any way different than what Barack Obama proposed to them four years ago. Back then, they universally derided the idea of pinprick attacks in response to chemical weapons (Obama’s plan for such an attack was reportedly a lot more robust than what Trump just accomplished, in fact). Obama gave Congress a chance to weigh in, and they refused to do so, to their shame (both Republican and Democratic shame, I hasten to point out). Now, Republicans can’t say enough good things about the idea of pinprick attacks on Syria, of course. Such nakedly partisan hypocrisy is almost to be expected, but that doesn’t make it any less notable when it happens, of course.

― Chris Weigant

Chris Weigant blogs at:

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

from DIYS http://ift.tt/2ot5mYk

#DIYS

[porchenclose10019]

Assessing The Syrian Airstrike

Late last week, President Donald Trump ordered a cruise missile strike on a Syrian airfield, in an escalation of the United States’ participation in the Syrian civil war. While it’s still too early to come to a definitive conclusion about the effect this airstrike had ― in either the military situation, the foreign policy of the Trump administration, or the raw domestic politics involved, a few preliminary assessments can now be made.

Military effect

The U.S. Navy launched 59 cruise missiles at the Syrian airfield, of which 58 successfully hit their targets (one malfunctioned on launch). That sounds like a lot of firepower, but to the American military, this was nothing more than a “pinprick” attack.

Cruise missiles have the benefit of not putting any American lives at risk during the attack itself, of course. Launching such missiles from hundreds of miles away means there is zero risk to American military pilots or troops, because neither participated in the attack. The drawback to cruise missiles, as opposed to a more traditional bombing raid, is that they have a limited payload. The warheads on such missiles only weigh 1,000 pounds, which is half of what standard bombs can deliver. Cruise missiles are also rather expensive, when compared to the price of fuel for fighter jets and bombers. So a massive bombing raid would likely have caused more damage to the airfield, but at a much higher risk to American military personnel.

The missile raid did achieve one military objective, from all reports. There were no Russian troops killed or injured in the attack, which isn’t too surprising since we warned them in advance to stay away from the areas of the airfield we were targeting.

Beyond not killing Russians, the military effectiveness of the raid is a rather mixed picture. The Pentagon wasn’t openly bragging about how many Syrian aircraft had been taken out of commission, which is a good indicator that we didn’t really make much of a dent in the total assets of the Syrian air force. In fact, most of the damage assessment that was released to the public came from the Russians ― hastily-shot video from the day after. This showed (to state the obvious) what the Russians and Syrians wanted the world to see, so it quite likely didn’t tell the whole story. Propaganda always has to be seen skeptically, no matter who it comes from, after all. The Russian footage was shot with an eye towards minimizing the world’s perception of the damage, in other words.

We did not attempt to “crater the runways,” which quite likely would have taken a whole lot more cruise missiles than were used in the raid. This allowed the Syrians to release videos of takeoffs and landings from the airfield within roughly a day of the raid. This was also propaganda, but without targeting the runways it was probably inevitable.

What we did apparently target instead were the support facilities ― fuel dumps, repair facilities, and the like. Bunkers which may have held chemical weapons were not targeted because it might have dispersed the chemicals to the surrounding civilian population. None of this damage was really highlighted in the Syrian or Russian films released afterwards, but if we did destroy enough of the support facilities it will mean the airfield becomes a lot less useful until repairs are completed.

All of this shows why this is being called a “pinprick” attack. General destruction of the entire airfield ― enough to put it out of commission for months or even years ― was not one of the mission’s objectives. If it had been, we would have risked killing Russian military members and being blamed for a giant cloud of nerve gas released as a result of the attack. But the damage done was quite likely more serious than the Russians and the Syrians presented in their propaganda videos.

Foreign policy effect

The effect on the Trump administration’s foreign policy is pretty hard to judge, at least at the moment. Trying to figure out Trump’s foreign policy is an exercise that might be labeled: “Who do you believe?” Trump’s foreign policy pronouncements border on the incoherent, at least when measured by what he promised it would be while campaigning. But digging deeper doesn’t really add much clarity at all, because top Trump advisors have been pretty contradictory as well.

During the campaign, Trump promised an “America First” outlook to the world. This would mean avoiding getting entangled in the Syrian civil war, for one ― and Trump made a lot of political hay over the fact that his outlook was so different than the other Republicans’, and (later) Hillary Clinton’s. Of course, at the same time Trump was promising to “bomb the (expletive)” out of the Islamic State, which also got big cheers from the crowds. So it’s not that surprising that even though Trump absolutely reversed his position by conducting the raid, so far most of his supporters don’t seem to mind the contradiction.

Just a week before the raid was launched, a major shift in American foreign policy towards Syria was rolled out. We were no longer concerned with whether or not Bashar Al Assad stayed in power or not, instead that would be “up to the Syrian people.” This pronouncement ― by multiple Trump senior advisors ― was met with astonishment and incredulity among hawks in the Republican Party. John McCain and Lindsey Graham both had some pretty scathing things to say about it (as both are wont to do, at times).

Then the chemical attack happened. Trump was obviously affected by how it was portrayed on cable television, which led to a complete reversal in America’s Syrian policy. The raid was hastily assembled and launched in retaliation.

This kind of haste may make sense politically (more on that in a moment), but in terms of foreign policy it left all kinds of questions unanswered. Where was the proof that the Assad government was behind the attack? Where was the presentation to the United Nations, justifying an American response? There wasn’t time for any of that sort of thing, obviously. This led to some grumbling from Congress, who wasn’t consulted, and some further international grumbling, since there was no iron-clad case for military action under international law and treaties.

Since then, there hasn’t been much in the way of clarity from the White House, either. Even watching U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on the Sunday morning political this weekend only showed that the Trump foreign policy apparatus doesn’t exactly speak with one voice on much of anything.

Are we now committed to removing Assad from power? Well, it depends on who you listen to and how you parse their statements. Will the focus of the American military effort in Syria change? It’s hard to tell. Mostly, the picture Haley and Tillerson were projecting was that this was a one-off, stand-alone military response to a single event. Both Tillerson and Haley have noticeably backed away from the “Syrian people will decide whether Assad stays” reasoning they were using previously, but without replacing it with much in the way of any new and cohesive Syrian policy.

Political effect

Speaking just in terms of American domestic politics, Nikki Haley emerged stronger, Donald Trump emerged slightly stronger, and Rex Tillerson emerged.

OK, I admit, I couldn’t resist that one. Taking them in reverse order, Tillerson up to this point has been almost a non-entity both on the world stage and in the American media. This was by design, not by accident. Tillerson not only has been showing utter disdain for the media up to this point (not holding regular State Department media briefings at all, really), but he’s also been institutionally aloof from his own department. Most senior staff at the State Department either hasn’t been hired or has actively been fired since Tillerson took over. Even the ones that do still exist don’t have much in the way of access to him. Trump’s first budget request also showed enormous disdain for the State Department, in proposing its budget be slashed by roughly a third. Tillerson emerged from this cocoon on Sunday, and gave his first real media interviews since he’s been on the job. His upcoming trip to Russia will be closely watched, so it’s likely he won’t be able to hide in the shadows as much, in the near future.

As far as politics goes, it is still too early to tell whether Trump will get much of a polling bump from the Syrian raid. He did appear decisive in launching the raid so quickly, you have to at least give him that. But so far, he’s only up a couple of job approval points. The traditional “rally ‘round the president” effect (which usually happens whenever America launches a military attack) seems to have worked for him in a minor way, but it remains to be seen how big a bump he’ll get ― and how long it’ll last. Public opinion takes time to gel, and then further time is taken conducting the polls and interpreting the data. So we won’t really be able to see how much political benefit Trump reaps until the end of this week, at the earliest. Also, Trump has created so many distractions as president that it’s really hard to tell how long any bump will last ― will the American public even remember the raid in two or three weeks, with everything else that’s going on? It’s an open question.

Nikki Haley may have gained the biggest political boost of anyone over the past few days. Since Haley works in New York, she’s got some physical distance from the Trump White House (and all its baggage), and she seems content to chart her own political course, almost independently of what the president or the White House is saying. She showed this independence fairly early on, but with the attention the Syrian raid drew she now seems like the strongest voice on foreign policy in the entire Trump administration (even including Trump himself). Haley is reportedly considering a future run at the presidency herself, so many see her as “checking the box” on foreign policy experience now in preparation for such a run (since governors have limited opportunities to gain such experience).

There were two other political effects from the raid worth noting. The first is that the Trump administration has at least partially changed the media narrative of their Russian ties. All the drip-drip-drip revelations of the unfolding Russian investigations were painting a pretty ugly picture up to this point ― one of Trump and his team being nothing short of Russian stooges, in essence. It’s harder to paint that picture now that Trump has approved an attack on Russia’s ally Syria.

I should mention that at the present time I refuse to draw any further conclusions about the shift in such perceptions. There is a lot of theorizing (on both the left and the right) as to what really could have been going on to convince Trump to launch such an attack. So far, though, we simply don’t have enough information to leap to any nefarious conclusions. If there was some sort of grand scheme hidden in the Syrian attack, political or otherwise, time will probably tell us what really happened. Since the Trump White House seems to leak like a poorly-functioning sieve, this likely won’t take all that long to occur. For now, I’m only focusing on the short-term effects the raid has so far had.

The last political effect worth mentioning is the utter hypocrisy emanating from just about every Republican member of Congress. They are currently bending over backwards in an attempt to explain why Trump’s raid was in any way different than what Barack Obama proposed to them four years ago. Back then, they universally derided the idea of pinprick attacks in response to chemical weapons (Obama’s plan for such an attack was reportedly a lot more robust than what Trump just accomplished, in fact). Obama gave Congress a chance to weigh in, and they refused to do so, to their shame (both Republican and Democratic shame, I hasten to point out). Now, Republicans can’t say enough good things about the idea of pinprick attacks on Syria, of course. Such nakedly partisan hypocrisy is almost to be expected, but that doesn’t make it any less notable when it happens, of course.

― Chris Weigant

Chris Weigant blogs at:

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

from DIYS http://ift.tt/2ot5mYk

#DIYS

[stormdoors78476]

Assessing The Syrian Airstrike

Late last week, President Donald Trump ordered a cruise missile strike on a Syrian airfield, in an escalation of the United States’ participation in the Syrian civil war. While it’s still too early to come to a definitive conclusion about the effect this airstrike had ― in either the military situation, the foreign policy of the Trump administration, or the raw domestic politics involved, a few preliminary assessments can now be made.

Military effect

The U.S. Navy launched 59 cruise missiles at the Syrian airfield, of which 58 successfully hit their targets (one malfunctioned on launch). That sounds like a lot of firepower, but to the American military, this was nothing more than a “pinprick” attack.

Cruise missiles have the benefit of not putting any American lives at risk during the attack itself, of course. Launching such missiles from hundreds of miles away means there is zero risk to American military pilots or troops, because neither participated in the attack. The drawback to cruise missiles, as opposed to a more traditional bombing raid, is that they have a limited payload. The warheads on such missiles only weigh 1,000 pounds, which is half of what standard bombs can deliver. Cruise missiles are also rather expensive, when compared to the price of fuel for fighter jets and bombers. So a massive bombing raid would likely have caused more damage to the airfield, but at a much higher risk to American military personnel.

The missile raid did achieve one military objective, from all reports. There were no Russian troops killed or injured in the attack, which isn’t too surprising since we warned them in advance to stay away from the areas of the airfield we were targeting.

Beyond not killing Russians, the military effectiveness of the raid is a rather mixed picture. The Pentagon wasn’t openly bragging about how many Syrian aircraft had been taken out of commission, which is a good indicator that we didn’t really make much of a dent in the total assets of the Syrian air force. In fact, most of the damage assessment that was released to the public came from the Russians ― hastily-shot video from the day after. This showed (to state the obvious) what the Russians and Syrians wanted the world to see, so it quite likely didn’t tell the whole story. Propaganda always has to be seen skeptically, no matter who it comes from, after all. The Russian footage was shot with an eye towards minimizing the world’s perception of the damage, in other words.

We did not attempt to “crater the runways,” which quite likely would have taken a whole lot more cruise missiles than were used in the raid. This allowed the Syrians to release videos of takeoffs and landings from the airfield within roughly a day of the raid. This was also propaganda, but without targeting the runways it was probably inevitable.

What we did apparently target instead were the support facilities ― fuel dumps, repair facilities, and the like. Bunkers which may have held chemical weapons were not targeted because it might have dispersed the chemicals to the surrounding civilian population. None of this damage was really highlighted in the Syrian or Russian films released afterwards, but if we did destroy enough of the support facilities it will mean the airfield becomes a lot less useful until repairs are completed.

All of this shows why this is being called a “pinprick” attack. General destruction of the entire airfield ― enough to put it out of commission for months or even years ― was not one of the mission’s objectives. If it had been, we would have risked killing Russian military members and being blamed for a giant cloud of nerve gas released as a result of the attack. But the damage done was quite likely more serious than the Russians and the Syrians presented in their propaganda videos.

Foreign policy effect

The effect on the Trump administration’s foreign policy is pretty hard to judge, at least at the moment. Trying to figure out Trump’s foreign policy is an exercise that might be labeled: “Who do you believe?” Trump’s foreign policy pronouncements border on the incoherent, at least when measured by what he promised it would be while campaigning. But digging deeper doesn’t really add much clarity at all, because top Trump advisors have been pretty contradictory as well.

During the campaign, Trump promised an “America First” outlook to the world. This would mean avoiding getting entangled in the Syrian civil war, for one ― and Trump made a lot of political hay over the fact that his outlook was so different than the other Republicans’, and (later) Hillary Clinton’s. Of course, at the same time Trump was promising to “bomb the (expletive)” out of the Islamic State, which also got big cheers from the crowds. So it’s not that surprising that even though Trump absolutely reversed his position by conducting the raid, so far most of his supporters don’t seem to mind the contradiction.

Just a week before the raid was launched, a major shift in American foreign policy towards Syria was rolled out. We were no longer concerned with whether or not Bashar Al Assad stayed in power or not, instead that would be “up to the Syrian people.” This pronouncement ― by multiple Trump senior advisors ― was met with astonishment and incredulity among hawks in the Republican Party. John McCain and Lindsey Graham both had some pretty scathing things to say about it (as both are wont to do, at times).

Then the chemical attack happened. Trump was obviously affected by how it was portrayed on cable television, which led to a complete reversal in America’s Syrian policy. The raid was hastily assembled and launched in retaliation.

This kind of haste may make sense politically (more on that in a moment), but in terms of foreign policy it left all kinds of questions unanswered. Where was the proof that the Assad government was behind the attack? Where was the presentation to the United Nations, justifying an American response? There wasn’t time for any of that sort of thing, obviously. This led to some grumbling from Congress, who wasn’t consulted, and some further international grumbling, since there was no iron-clad case for military action under international law and treaties.

Since then, there hasn’t been much in the way of clarity from the White House, either. Even watching U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on the Sunday morning political this weekend only showed that the Trump foreign policy apparatus doesn’t exactly speak with one voice on much of anything.

Are we now committed to removing Assad from power? Well, it depends on who you listen to and how you parse their statements. Will the focus of the American military effort in Syria change? It’s hard to tell. Mostly, the picture Haley and Tillerson were projecting was that this was a one-off, stand-alone military response to a single event. Both Tillerson and Haley have noticeably backed away from the “Syrian people will decide whether Assad stays” reasoning they were using previously, but without replacing it with much in the way of any new and cohesive Syrian policy.

Political effect

Speaking just in terms of American domestic politics, Nikki Haley emerged stronger, Donald Trump emerged slightly stronger, and Rex Tillerson emerged.

OK, I admit, I couldn’t resist that one. Taking them in reverse order, Tillerson up to this point has been almost a non-entity both on the world stage and in the American media. This was by design, not by accident. Tillerson not only has been showing utter disdain for the media up to this point (not holding regular State Department media briefings at all, really), but he’s also been institutionally aloof from his own department. Most senior staff at the State Department either hasn’t been hired or has actively been fired since Tillerson took over. Even the ones that do still exist don’t have much in the way of access to him. Trump’s first budget request also showed enormous disdain for the State Department, in proposing its budget be slashed by roughly a third. Tillerson emerged from this cocoon on Sunday, and gave his first real media interviews since he’s been on the job. His upcoming trip to Russia will be closely watched, so it’s likely he won’t be able to hide in the shadows as much, in the near future.

As far as politics goes, it is still too early to tell whether Trump will get much of a polling bump from the Syrian raid. He did appear decisive in launching the raid so quickly, you have to at least give him that. But so far, he’s only up a couple of job approval points. The traditional “rally ‘round the president” effect (which usually happens whenever America launches a military attack) seems to have worked for him in a minor way, but it remains to be seen how big a bump he’ll get ― and how long it’ll last. Public opinion takes time to gel, and then further time is taken conducting the polls and interpreting the data. So we won’t really be able to see how much political benefit Trump reaps until the end of this week, at the earliest. Also, Trump has created so many distractions as president that it’s really hard to tell how long any bump will last ― will the American public even remember the raid in two or three weeks, with everything else that’s going on? It’s an open question.

Nikki Haley may have gained the biggest political boost of anyone over the past few days. Since Haley works in New York, she’s got some physical distance from the Trump White House (and all its baggage), and she seems content to chart her own political course, almost independently of what the president or the White House is saying. She showed this independence fairly early on, but with the attention the Syrian raid drew she now seems like the strongest voice on foreign policy in the entire Trump administration (even including Trump himself). Haley is reportedly considering a future run at the presidency herself, so many see her as “checking the box” on foreign policy experience now in preparation for such a run (since governors have limited opportunities to gain such experience).

There were two other political effects from the raid worth noting. The first is that the Trump administration has at least partially changed the media narrative of their Russian ties. All the drip-drip-drip revelations of the unfolding Russian investigations were painting a pretty ugly picture up to this point ― one of Trump and his team being nothing short of Russian stooges, in essence. It’s harder to paint that picture now that Trump has approved an attack on Russia’s ally Syria.

I should mention that at the present time I refuse to draw any further conclusions about the shift in such perceptions. There is a lot of theorizing (on both the left and the right) as to what really could have been going on to convince Trump to launch such an attack. So far, though, we simply don’t have enough information to leap to any nefarious conclusions. If there was some sort of grand scheme hidden in the Syrian attack, political or otherwise, time will probably tell us what really happened. Since the Trump White House seems to leak like a poorly-functioning sieve, this likely won’t take all that long to occur. For now, I’m only focusing on the short-term effects the raid has so far had.

The last political effect worth mentioning is the utter hypocrisy emanating from just about every Republican member of Congress. They are currently bending over backwards in an attempt to explain why Trump’s raid was in any way different than what Barack Obama proposed to them four years ago. Back then, they universally derided the idea of pinprick attacks in response to chemical weapons (Obama’s plan for such an attack was reportedly a lot more robust than what Trump just accomplished, in fact). Obama gave Congress a chance to weigh in, and they refused to do so, to their shame (both Republican and Democratic shame, I hasten to point out). Now, Republicans can’t say enough good things about the idea of pinprick attacks on Syria, of course. Such nakedly partisan hypocrisy is almost to be expected, but that doesn’t make it any less notable when it happens, of course.

― Chris Weigant

Chris Weigant blogs at:

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

from DIYS http://ift.tt/2ot5mYk

#DIYS

[exfrenchdorsl4p0a1]

Assessing The Syrian Airstrike

Late last week, President Donald Trump ordered a cruise missile strike on a Syrian airfield, in an escalation of the United States’ participation in the Syrian civil war. While it’s still too early to come to a definitive conclusion about the effect this airstrike had ― in either the military situation, the foreign policy of the Trump administration, or the raw domestic politics involved, a few preliminary assessments can now be made.

Military effect

The U.S. Navy launched 59 cruise missiles at the Syrian airfield, of which 58 successfully hit their targets (one malfunctioned on launch). That sounds like a lot of firepower, but to the American military, this was nothing more than a “pinprick” attack.

Cruise missiles have the benefit of not putting any American lives at risk during the attack itself, of course. Launching such missiles from hundreds of miles away means there is zero risk to American military pilots or troops, because neither participated in the attack. The drawback to cruise missiles, as opposed to a more traditional bombing raid, is that they have a limited payload. The warheads on such missiles only weigh 1,000 pounds, which is half of what standard bombs can deliver. Cruise missiles are also rather expensive, when compared to the price of fuel for fighter jets and bombers. So a massive bombing raid would likely have caused more damage to the airfield, but at a much higher risk to American military personnel.

The missile raid did achieve one military objective, from all reports. There were no Russian troops killed or injured in the attack, which isn’t too surprising since we warned them in advance to stay away from the areas of the airfield we were targeting.

Beyond not killing Russians, the military effectiveness of the raid is a rather mixed picture. The Pentagon wasn’t openly bragging about how many Syrian aircraft had been taken out of commission, which is a good indicator that we didn’t really make much of a dent in the total assets of the Syrian air force. In fact, most of the damage assessment that was released to the public came from the Russians ― hastily-shot video from the day after. This showed (to state the obvious) what the Russians and Syrians wanted the world to see, so it quite likely didn’t tell the whole story. Propaganda always has to be seen skeptically, no matter who it comes from, after all. The Russian footage was shot with an eye towards minimizing the world’s perception of the damage, in other words.

We did not attempt to “crater the runways,” which quite likely would have taken a whole lot more cruise missiles than were used in the raid. This allowed the Syrians to release videos of takeoffs and landings from the airfield within roughly a day of the raid. This was also propaganda, but without targeting the runways it was probably inevitable.

What we did apparently target instead were the support facilities ― fuel dumps, repair facilities, and the like. Bunkers which may have held chemical weapons were not targeted because it might have dispersed the chemicals to the surrounding civilian population. None of this damage was really highlighted in the Syrian or Russian films released afterwards, but if we did destroy enough of the support facilities it will mean the airfield becomes a lot less useful until repairs are completed.

All of this shows why this is being called a “pinprick” attack. General destruction of the entire airfield ― enough to put it out of commission for months or even years ― was not one of the mission’s objectives. If it had been, we would have risked killing Russian military members and being blamed for a giant cloud of nerve gas released as a result of the attack. But the damage done was quite likely more serious than the Russians and the Syrians presented in their propaganda videos.

Foreign policy effect

The effect on the Trump administration’s foreign policy is pretty hard to judge, at least at the moment. Trying to figure out Trump’s foreign policy is an exercise that might be labeled: “Who do you believe?” Trump’s foreign policy pronouncements border on the incoherent, at least when measured by what he promised it would be while campaigning. But digging deeper doesn’t really add much clarity at all, because top Trump advisors have been pretty contradictory as well.

During the campaign, Trump promised an “America First” outlook to the world. This would mean avoiding getting entangled in the Syrian civil war, for one ― and Trump made a lot of political hay over the fact that his outlook was so different than the other Republicans’, and (later) Hillary Clinton’s. Of course, at the same time Trump was promising to “bomb the (expletive)” out of the Islamic State, which also got big cheers from the crowds. So it’s not that surprising that even though Trump absolutely reversed his position by conducting the raid, so far most of his supporters don’t seem to mind the contradiction.

Just a week before the raid was launched, a major shift in American foreign policy towards Syria was rolled out. We were no longer concerned with whether or not Bashar Al Assad stayed in power or not, instead that would be “up to the Syrian people.” This pronouncement ― by multiple Trump senior advisors ― was met with astonishment and incredulity among hawks in the Republican Party. John McCain and Lindsey Graham both had some pretty scathing things to say about it (as both are wont to do, at times).

Then the chemical attack happened. Trump was obviously affected by how it was portrayed on cable television, which led to a complete reversal in America’s Syrian policy. The raid was hastily assembled and launched in retaliation.

This kind of haste may make sense politically (more on that in a moment), but in terms of foreign policy it left all kinds of questions unanswered. Where was the proof that the Assad government was behind the attack? Where was the presentation to the United Nations, justifying an American response? There wasn’t time for any of that sort of thing, obviously. This led to some grumbling from Congress, who wasn’t consulted, and some further international grumbling, since there was no iron-clad case for military action under international law and treaties.

Since then, there hasn’t been much in the way of clarity from the White House, either. Even watching U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on the Sunday morning political this weekend only showed that the Trump foreign policy apparatus doesn’t exactly speak with one voice on much of anything.

Are we now committed to removing Assad from power? Well, it depends on who you listen to and how you parse their statements. Will the focus of the American military effort in Syria change? It’s hard to tell. Mostly, the picture Haley and Tillerson were projecting was that this was a one-off, stand-alone military response to a single event. Both Tillerson and Haley have noticeably backed away from the “Syrian people will decide whether Assad stays” reasoning they were using previously, but without replacing it with much in the way of any new and cohesive Syrian policy.

Political effect

Speaking just in terms of American domestic politics, Nikki Haley emerged stronger, Donald Trump emerged slightly stronger, and Rex Tillerson emerged.

OK, I admit, I couldn’t resist that one. Taking them in reverse order, Tillerson up to this point has been almost a non-entity both on the world stage and in the American media. This was by design, not by accident. Tillerson not only has been showing utter disdain for the media up to this point (not holding regular State Department media briefings at all, really), but he’s also been institutionally aloof from his own department. Most senior staff at the State Department either hasn’t been hired or has actively been fired since Tillerson took over. Even the ones that do still exist don’t have much in the way of access to him. Trump’s first budget request also showed enormous disdain for the State Department, in proposing its budget be slashed by roughly a third. Tillerson emerged from this cocoon on Sunday, and gave his first real media interviews since he’s been on the job. His upcoming trip to Russia will be closely watched, so it’s likely he won’t be able to hide in the shadows as much, in the near future.

As far as politics goes, it is still too early to tell whether Trump will get much of a polling bump from the Syrian raid. He did appear decisive in launching the raid so quickly, you have to at least give him that. But so far, he’s only up a couple of job approval points. The traditional “rally ‘round the president” effect (which usually happens whenever America launches a military attack) seems to have worked for him in a minor way, but it remains to be seen how big a bump he’ll get ― and how long it’ll last. Public opinion takes time to gel, and then further time is taken conducting the polls and interpreting the data. So we won’t really be able to see how much political benefit Trump reaps until the end of this week, at the earliest. Also, Trump has created so many distractions as president that it’s really hard to tell how long any bump will last ― will the American public even remember the raid in two or three weeks, with everything else that’s going on? It’s an open question.

Nikki Haley may have gained the biggest political boost of anyone over the past few days. Since Haley works in New York, she’s got some physical distance from the Trump White House (and all its baggage), and she seems content to chart her own political course, almost independently of what the president or the White House is saying. She showed this independence fairly early on, but with the attention the Syrian raid drew she now seems like the strongest voice on foreign policy in the entire Trump administration (even including Trump himself). Haley is reportedly considering a future run at the presidency herself, so many see her as “checking the box” on foreign policy experience now in preparation for such a run (since governors have limited opportunities to gain such experience).

There were two other political effects from the raid worth noting. The first is that the Trump administration has at least partially changed the media narrative of their Russian ties. All the drip-drip-drip revelations of the unfolding Russian investigations were painting a pretty ugly picture up to this point ― one of Trump and his team being nothing short of Russian stooges, in essence. It’s harder to paint that picture now that Trump has approved an attack on Russia’s ally Syria.

I should mention that at the present time I refuse to draw any further conclusions about the shift in such perceptions. There is a lot of theorizing (on both the left and the right) as to what really could have been going on to convince Trump to launch such an attack. So far, though, we simply don’t have enough information to leap to any nefarious conclusions. If there was some sort of grand scheme hidden in the Syrian attack, political or otherwise, time will probably tell us what really happened. Since the Trump White House seems to leak like a poorly-functioning sieve, this likely won’t take all that long to occur. For now, I’m only focusing on the short-term effects the raid has so far had.

The last political effect worth mentioning is the utter hypocrisy emanating from just about every Republican member of Congress. They are currently bending over backwards in an attempt to explain why Trump’s raid was in any way different than what Barack Obama proposed to them four years ago. Back then, they universally derided the idea of pinprick attacks in response to chemical weapons (Obama’s plan for such an attack was reportedly a lot more robust than what Trump just accomplished, in fact). Obama gave Congress a chance to weigh in, and they refused to do so, to their shame (both Republican and Democratic shame, I hasten to point out). Now, Republicans can’t say enough good things about the idea of pinprick attacks on Syria, of course. Such nakedly partisan hypocrisy is almost to be expected, but that doesn’t make it any less notable when it happens, of course.

― Chris Weigant

Chris Weigant blogs at:

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

from DIYS http://ift.tt/2ot5mYk

#DIYS

[chpatdoorsl3z0a1]

Assessing The Syrian Airstrike

Late last week, President Donald Trump ordered a cruise missile strike on a Syrian airfield, in an escalation of the United States’ participation in the Syrian civil war. While it’s still too early to come to a definitive conclusion about the effect this airstrike had ― in either the military situation, the foreign policy of the Trump administration, or the raw domestic politics involved, a few preliminary assessments can now be made.

Military effect

The U.S. Navy launched 59 cruise missiles at the Syrian airfield, of which 58 successfully hit their targets (one malfunctioned on launch). That sounds like a lot of firepower, but to the American military, this was nothing more than a “pinprick” attack.

Cruise missiles have the benefit of not putting any American lives at risk during the attack itself, of course. Launching such missiles from hundreds of miles away means there is zero risk to American military pilots or troops, because neither participated in the attack. The drawback to cruise missiles, as opposed to a more traditional bombing raid, is that they have a limited payload. The warheads on such missiles only weigh 1,000 pounds, which is half of what standard bombs can deliver. Cruise missiles are also rather expensive, when compared to the price of fuel for fighter jets and bombers. So a massive bombing raid would likely have caused more damage to the airfield, but at a much higher risk to American military personnel.

The missile raid did achieve one military objective, from all reports. There were no Russian troops killed or injured in the attack, which isn’t too surprising since we warned them in advance to stay away from the areas of the airfield we were targeting.

Beyond not killing Russians, the military effectiveness of the raid is a rather mixed picture. The Pentagon wasn’t openly bragging about how many Syrian aircraft had been taken out of commission, which is a good indicator that we didn’t really make much of a dent in the total assets of the Syrian air force. In fact, most of the damage assessment that was released to the public came from the Russians ― hastily-shot video from the day after. This showed (to state the obvious) what the Russians and Syrians wanted the world to see, so it quite likely didn’t tell the whole story. Propaganda always has to be seen skeptically, no matter who it comes from, after all. The Russian footage was shot with an eye towards minimizing the world’s perception of the damage, in other words.

We did not attempt to “crater the runways,” which quite likely would have taken a whole lot more cruise missiles than were used in the raid. This allowed the Syrians to release videos of takeoffs and landings from the airfield within roughly a day of the raid. This was also propaganda, but without targeting the runways it was probably inevitable.

What we did apparently target instead were the support facilities ― fuel dumps, repair facilities, and the like. Bunkers which may have held chemical weapons were not targeted because it might have dispersed the chemicals to the surrounding civilian population. None of this damage was really highlighted in the Syrian or Russian films released afterwards, but if we did destroy enough of the support facilities it will mean the airfield becomes a lot less useful until repairs are completed.

All of this shows why this is being called a “pinprick” attack. General destruction of the entire airfield ― enough to put it out of commission for months or even years ― was not one of the mission’s objectives. If it had been, we would have risked killing Russian military members and being blamed for a giant cloud of nerve gas released as a result of the attack. But the damage done was quite likely more serious than the Russians and the Syrians presented in their propaganda videos.

Foreign policy effect

The effect on the Trump administration’s foreign policy is pretty hard to judge, at least at the moment. Trying to figure out Trump’s foreign policy is an exercise that might be labeled: “Who do you believe?” Trump’s foreign policy pronouncements border on the incoherent, at least when measured by what he promised it would be while campaigning. But digging deeper doesn’t really add much clarity at all, because top Trump advisors have been pretty contradictory as well.

During the campaign, Trump promised an “America First” outlook to the world. This would mean avoiding getting entangled in the Syrian civil war, for one ― and Trump made a lot of political hay over the fact that his outlook was so different than the other Republicans’, and (later) Hillary Clinton’s. Of course, at the same time Trump was promising to “bomb the (expletive)” out of the Islamic State, which also got big cheers from the crowds. So it’s not that surprising that even though Trump absolutely reversed his position by conducting the raid, so far most of his supporters don’t seem to mind the contradiction.

Just a week before the raid was launched, a major shift in American foreign policy towards Syria was rolled out. We were no longer concerned with whether or not Bashar Al Assad stayed in power or not, instead that would be “up to the Syrian people.” This pronouncement ― by multiple Trump senior advisors ― was met with astonishment and incredulity among hawks in the Republican Party. John McCain and Lindsey Graham both had some pretty scathing things to say about it (as both are wont to do, at times).

Then the chemical attack happened. Trump was obviously affected by how it was portrayed on cable television, which led to a complete reversal in America’s Syrian policy. The raid was hastily assembled and launched in retaliation.

This kind of haste may make sense politically (more on that in a moment), but in terms of foreign policy it left all kinds of questions unanswered. Where was the proof that the Assad government was behind the attack? Where was the presentation to the United Nations, justifying an American response? There wasn’t time for any of that sort of thing, obviously. This led to some grumbling from Congress, who wasn’t consulted, and some further international grumbling, since there was no iron-clad case for military action under international law and treaties.

Since then, there hasn’t been much in the way of clarity from the White House, either. Even watching U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on the Sunday morning political this weekend only showed that the Trump foreign policy apparatus doesn’t exactly speak with one voice on much of anything.

Are we now committed to removing Assad from power? Well, it depends on who you listen to and how you parse their statements. Will the focus of the American military effort in Syria change? It’s hard to tell. Mostly, the picture Haley and Tillerson were projecting was that this was a one-off, stand-alone military response to a single event. Both Tillerson and Haley have noticeably backed away from the “Syrian people will decide whether Assad stays” reasoning they were using previously, but without replacing it with much in the way of any new and cohesive Syrian policy.

Political effect

Speaking just in terms of American domestic politics, Nikki Haley emerged stronger, Donald Trump emerged slightly stronger, and Rex Tillerson emerged.

OK, I admit, I couldn’t resist that one. Taking them in reverse order, Tillerson up to this point has been almost a non-entity both on the world stage and in the American media. This was by design, not by accident. Tillerson not only has been showing utter disdain for the media up to this point (not holding regular State Department media briefings at all, really), but he’s also been institutionally aloof from his own department. Most senior staff at the State Department either hasn’t been hired or has actively been fired since Tillerson took over. Even the ones that do still exist don’t have much in the way of access to him. Trump’s first budget request also showed enormous disdain for the State Department, in proposing its budget be slashed by roughly a third. Tillerson emerged from this cocoon on Sunday, and gave his first real media interviews since he’s been on the job. His upcoming trip to Russia will be closely watched, so it’s likely he won’t be able to hide in the shadows as much, in the near future.

As far as politics goes, it is still too early to tell whether Trump will get much of a polling bump from the Syrian raid. He did appear decisive in launching the raid so quickly, you have to at least give him that. But so far, he’s only up a couple of job approval points. The traditional “rally ‘round the president” effect (which usually happens whenever America launches a military attack) seems to have worked for him in a minor way, but it remains to be seen how big a bump he’ll get ― and how long it’ll last. Public opinion takes time to gel, and then further time is taken conducting the polls and interpreting the data. So we won’t really be able to see how much political benefit Trump reaps until the end of this week, at the earliest. Also, Trump has created so many distractions as president that it’s really hard to tell how long any bump will last ― will the American public even remember the raid in two or three weeks, with everything else that’s going on? It’s an open question.

Nikki Haley may have gained the biggest political boost of anyone over the past few days. Since Haley works in New York, she’s got some physical distance from the Trump White House (and all its baggage), and she seems content to chart her own political course, almost independently of what the president or the White House is saying. She showed this independence fairly early on, but with the attention the Syrian raid drew she now seems like the strongest voice on foreign policy in the entire Trump administration (even including Trump himself). Haley is reportedly considering a future run at the presidency herself, so many see her as “checking the box” on foreign policy experience now in preparation for such a run (since governors have limited opportunities to gain such experience).

There were two other political effects from the raid worth noting. The first is that the Trump administration has at least partially changed the media narrative of their Russian ties. All the drip-drip-drip revelations of the unfolding Russian investigations were painting a pretty ugly picture up to this point ― one of Trump and his team being nothing short of Russian stooges, in essence. It’s harder to paint that picture now that Trump has approved an attack on Russia’s ally Syria.

I should mention that at the present time I refuse to draw any further conclusions about the shift in such perceptions. There is a lot of theorizing (on both the left and the right) as to what really could have been going on to convince Trump to launch such an attack. So far, though, we simply don’t have enough information to leap to any nefarious conclusions. If there was some sort of grand scheme hidden in the Syrian attack, political or otherwise, time will probably tell us what really happened. Since the Trump White House seems to leak like a poorly-functioning sieve, this likely won’t take all that long to occur. For now, I’m only focusing on the short-term effects the raid has so far had.

The last political effect worth mentioning is the utter hypocrisy emanating from just about every Republican member of Congress. They are currently bending over backwards in an attempt to explain why Trump’s raid was in any way different than what Barack Obama proposed to them four years ago. Back then, they universally derided the idea of pinprick attacks in response to chemical weapons (Obama’s plan for such an attack was reportedly a lot more robust than what Trump just accomplished, in fact). Obama gave Congress a chance to weigh in, and they refused to do so, to their shame (both Republican and Democratic shame, I hasten to point out). Now, Republicans can’t say enough good things about the idea of pinprick attacks on Syria, of course. Such nakedly partisan hypocrisy is almost to be expected, but that doesn’t make it any less notable when it happens, of course.

― Chris Weigant

Chris Weigant blogs at:

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

from DIYS http://ift.tt/2ot5mYk

#DIYS

[rtawngs20815]

Assessing The Syrian Airstrike

Late last week, President Donald Trump ordered a cruise missile strike on a Syrian airfield, in an escalation of the United States’ participation in the Syrian civil war. While it’s still too early to come to a definitive conclusion about the effect this airstrike had ― in either the military situation, the foreign policy of the Trump administration, or the raw domestic politics involved, a few preliminary assessments can now be made.

Military effect

The U.S. Navy launched 59 cruise missiles at the Syrian airfield, of which 58 successfully hit their targets (one malfunctioned on launch). That sounds like a lot of firepower, but to the American military, this was nothing more than a “pinprick” attack.

Cruise missiles have the benefit of not putting any American lives at risk during the attack itself, of course. Launching such missiles from hundreds of miles away means there is zero risk to American military pilots or troops, because neither participated in the attack. The drawback to cruise missiles, as opposed to a more traditional bombing raid, is that they have a limited payload. The warheads on such missiles only weigh 1,000 pounds, which is half of what standard bombs can deliver. Cruise missiles are also rather expensive, when compared to the price of fuel for fighter jets and bombers. So a massive bombing raid would likely have caused more damage to the airfield, but at a much higher risk to American military personnel.

The missile raid did achieve one military objective, from all reports. There were no Russian troops killed or injured in the attack, which isn’t too surprising since we warned them in advance to stay away from the areas of the airfield we were targeting.

Beyond not killing Russians, the military effectiveness of the raid is a rather mixed picture. The Pentagon wasn’t openly bragging about how many Syrian aircraft had been taken out of commission, which is a good indicator that we didn’t really make much of a dent in the total assets of the Syrian air force. In fact, most of the damage assessment that was released to the public came from the Russians ― hastily-shot video from the day after. This showed (to state the obvious) what the Russians and Syrians wanted the world to see, so it quite likely didn’t tell the whole story. Propaganda always has to be seen skeptically, no matter who it comes from, after all. The Russian footage was shot with an eye towards minimizing the world’s perception of the damage, in other words.

We did not attempt to “crater the runways,” which quite likely would have taken a whole lot more cruise missiles than were used in the raid. This allowed the Syrians to release videos of takeoffs and landings from the airfield within roughly a day of the raid. This was also propaganda, but without targeting the runways it was probably inevitable.

What we did apparently target instead were the support facilities ― fuel dumps, repair facilities, and the like. Bunkers which may have held chemical weapons were not targeted because it might have dispersed the chemicals to the surrounding civilian population. None of this damage was really highlighted in the Syrian or Russian films released afterwards, but if we did destroy enough of the support facilities it will mean the airfield becomes a lot less useful until repairs are completed.

All of this shows why this is being called a “pinprick” attack. General destruction of the entire airfield ― enough to put it out of commission for months or even years ― was not one of the mission’s objectives. If it had been, we would have risked killing Russian military members and being blamed for a giant cloud of nerve gas released as a result of the attack. But the damage done was quite likely more serious than the Russians and the Syrians presented in their propaganda videos.

Foreign policy effect

The effect on the Trump administration’s foreign policy is pretty hard to judge, at least at the moment. Trying to figure out Trump’s foreign policy is an exercise that might be labeled: “Who do you believe?” Trump’s foreign policy pronouncements border on the incoherent, at least when measured by what he promised it would be while campaigning. But digging deeper doesn’t really add much clarity at all, because top Trump advisors have been pretty contradictory as well.

During the campaign, Trump promised an “America First” outlook to the world. This would mean avoiding getting entangled in the Syrian civil war, for one ― and Trump made a lot of political hay over the fact that his outlook was so different than the other Republicans’, and (later) Hillary Clinton’s. Of course, at the same time Trump was promising to “bomb the (expletive)” out of the Islamic State, which also got big cheers from the crowds. So it’s not that surprising that even though Trump absolutely reversed his position by conducting the raid, so far most of his supporters don’t seem to mind the contradiction.

Just a week before the raid was launched, a major shift in American foreign policy towards Syria was rolled out. We were no longer concerned with whether or not Bashar Al Assad stayed in power or not, instead that would be “up to the Syrian people.” This pronouncement ― by multiple Trump senior advisors ― was met with astonishment and incredulity among hawks in the Republican Party. John McCain and Lindsey Graham both had some pretty scathing things to say about it (as both are wont to do, at times).

Then the chemical attack happened. Trump was obviously affected by how it was portrayed on cable television, which led to a complete reversal in America’s Syrian policy. The raid was hastily assembled and launched in retaliation.

This kind of haste may make sense politically (more on that in a moment), but in terms of foreign policy it left all kinds of questions unanswered. Where was the proof that the Assad government was behind the attack? Where was the presentation to the United Nations, justifying an American response? There wasn’t time for any of that sort of thing, obviously. This led to some grumbling from Congress, who wasn’t consulted, and some further international grumbling, since there was no iron-clad case for military action under international law and treaties.

Since then, there hasn’t been much in the way of clarity from the White House, either. Even watching U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on the Sunday morning political this weekend only showed that the Trump foreign policy apparatus doesn’t exactly speak with one voice on much of anything.

Are we now committed to removing Assad from power? Well, it depends on who you listen to and how you parse their statements. Will the focus of the American military effort in Syria change? It’s hard to tell. Mostly, the picture Haley and Tillerson were projecting was that this was a one-off, stand-alone military response to a single event. Both Tillerson and Haley have noticeably backed away from the “Syrian people will decide whether Assad stays” reasoning they were using previously, but without replacing it with much in the way of any new and cohesive Syrian policy.

Political effect

Speaking just in terms of American domestic politics, Nikki Haley emerged stronger, Donald Trump emerged slightly stronger, and Rex Tillerson emerged.

OK, I admit, I couldn’t resist that one. Taking them in reverse order, Tillerson up to this point has been almost a non-entity both on the world stage and in the American media. This was by design, not by accident. Tillerson not only has been showing utter disdain for the media up to this point (not holding regular State Department media briefings at all, really), but he’s also been institutionally aloof from his own department. Most senior staff at the State Department either hasn’t been hired or has actively been fired since Tillerson took over. Even the ones that do still exist don’t have much in the way of access to him. Trump’s first budget request also showed enormous disdain for the State Department, in proposing its budget be slashed by roughly a third. Tillerson emerged from this cocoon on Sunday, and gave his first real media interviews since he’s been on the job. His upcoming trip to Russia will be closely watched, so it’s likely he won’t be able to hide in the shadows as much, in the near future.

As far as politics goes, it is still too early to tell whether Trump will get much of a polling bump from the Syrian raid. He did appear decisive in launching the raid so quickly, you have to at least give him that. But so far, he’s only up a couple of job approval points. The traditional “rally ‘round the president” effect (which usually happens whenever America launches a military attack) seems to have worked for him in a minor way, but it remains to be seen how big a bump he’ll get ― and how long it’ll last. Public opinion takes time to gel, and then further time is taken conducting the polls and interpreting the data. So we won’t really be able to see how much political benefit Trump reaps until the end of this week, at the earliest. Also, Trump has created so many distractions as president that it’s really hard to tell how long any bump will last ― will the American public even remember the raid in two or three weeks, with everything else that’s going on? It’s an open question.

Nikki Haley may have gained the biggest political boost of anyone over the past few days. Since Haley works in New York, she’s got some physical distance from the Trump White House (and all its baggage), and she seems content to chart her own political course, almost independently of what the president or the White House is saying. She showed this independence fairly early on, but with the attention the Syrian raid drew she now seems like the strongest voice on foreign policy in the entire Trump administration (even including Trump himself). Haley is reportedly considering a future run at the presidency herself, so many see her as “checking the box” on foreign policy experience now in preparation for such a run (since governors have limited opportunities to gain such experience).

There were two other political effects from the raid worth noting. The first is that the Trump administration has at least partially changed the media narrative of their Russian ties. All the drip-drip-drip revelations of the unfolding Russian investigations were painting a pretty ugly picture up to this point ― one of Trump and his team being nothing short of Russian stooges, in essence. It’s harder to paint that picture now that Trump has approved an attack on Russia’s ally Syria.

I should mention that at the present time I refuse to draw any further conclusions about the shift in such perceptions. There is a lot of theorizing (on both the left and the right) as to what really could have been going on to convince Trump to launch such an attack. So far, though, we simply don’t have enough information to leap to any nefarious conclusions. If there was some sort of grand scheme hidden in the Syrian attack, political or otherwise, time will probably tell us what really happened. Since the Trump White House seems to leak like a poorly-functioning sieve, this likely won’t take all that long to occur. For now, I’m only focusing on the short-term effects the raid has so far had.

The last political effect worth mentioning is the utter hypocrisy emanating from just about every Republican member of Congress. They are currently bending over backwards in an attempt to explain why Trump’s raid was in any way different than what Barack Obama proposed to them four years ago. Back then, they universally derided the idea of pinprick attacks in response to chemical weapons (Obama’s plan for such an attack was reportedly a lot more robust than what Trump just accomplished, in fact). Obama gave Congress a chance to weigh in, and they refused to do so, to their shame (both Republican and Democratic shame, I hasten to point out). Now, Republicans can’t say enough good things about the idea of pinprick attacks on Syria, of course. Such nakedly partisan hypocrisy is almost to be expected, but that doesn’t make it any less notable when it happens, of course.

― Chris Weigant

Chris Weigant blogs at:

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

from DIYS http://ift.tt/2ot5mYk

#DIYS

[repwincostl4m0a2]

Assessing The Syrian Airstrike

Late last week, President Donald Trump ordered a cruise missile strike on a Syrian airfield, in an escalation of the United States’ participation in the Syrian civil war. While it’s still too early to come to a definitive conclusion about the effect this airstrike had ― in either the military situation, the foreign policy of the Trump administration, or the raw domestic politics involved, a few preliminary assessments can now be made.

Military effect

The U.S. Navy launched 59 cruise missiles at the Syrian airfield, of which 58 successfully hit their targets (one malfunctioned on launch). That sounds like a lot of firepower, but to the American military, this was nothing more than a “pinprick” attack.

Cruise missiles have the benefit of not putting any American lives at risk during the attack itself, of course. Launching such missiles from hundreds of miles away means there is zero risk to American military pilots or troops, because neither participated in the attack. The drawback to cruise missiles, as opposed to a more traditional bombing raid, is that they have a limited payload. The warheads on such missiles only weigh 1,000 pounds, which is half of what standard bombs can deliver. Cruise missiles are also rather expensive, when compared to the price of fuel for fighter jets and bombers. So a massive bombing raid would likely have caused more damage to the airfield, but at a much higher risk to American military personnel.

The missile raid did achieve one military objective, from all reports. There were no Russian troops killed or injured in the attack, which isn’t too surprising since we warned them in advance to stay away from the areas of the airfield we were targeting.

Beyond not killing Russians, the military effectiveness of the raid is a rather mixed picture. The Pentagon wasn’t openly bragging about how many Syrian aircraft had been taken out of commission, which is a good indicator that we didn’t really make much of a dent in the total assets of the Syrian air force. In fact, most of the damage assessment that was released to the public came from the Russians ― hastily-shot video from the day after. This showed (to state the obvious) what the Russians and Syrians wanted the world to see, so it quite likely didn’t tell the whole story. Propaganda always has to be seen skeptically, no matter who it comes from, after all. The Russian footage was shot with an eye towards minimizing the world’s perception of the damage, in other words.

We did not attempt to “crater the runways,” which quite likely would have taken a whole lot more cruise missiles than were used in the raid. This allowed the Syrians to release videos of takeoffs and landings from the airfield within roughly a day of the raid. This was also propaganda, but without targeting the runways it was probably inevitable.

What we did apparently target instead were the support facilities ― fuel dumps, repair facilities, and the like. Bunkers which may have held chemical weapons were not targeted because it might have dispersed the chemicals to the surrounding civilian population. None of this damage was really highlighted in the Syrian or Russian films released afterwards, but if we did destroy enough of the support facilities it will mean the airfield becomes a lot less useful until repairs are completed.

All of this shows why this is being called a “pinprick” attack. General destruction of the entire airfield ― enough to put it out of commission for months or even years ― was not one of the mission’s objectives. If it had been, we would have risked killing Russian military members and being blamed for a giant cloud of nerve gas released as a result of the attack. But the damage done was quite likely more serious than the Russians and the Syrians presented in their propaganda videos.

Foreign policy effect

The effect on the Trump administration’s foreign policy is pretty hard to judge, at least at the moment. Trying to figure out Trump’s foreign policy is an exercise that might be labeled: “Who do you believe?” Trump’s foreign policy pronouncements border on the incoherent, at least when measured by what he promised it would be while campaigning. But digging deeper doesn’t really add much clarity at all, because top Trump advisors have been pretty contradictory as well.

During the campaign, Trump promised an “America First” outlook to the world. This would mean avoiding getting entangled in the Syrian civil war, for one ― and Trump made a lot of political hay over the fact that his outlook was so different than the other Republicans’, and (later) Hillary Clinton’s. Of course, at the same time Trump was promising to “bomb the (expletive)” out of the Islamic State, which also got big cheers from the crowds. So it’s not that surprising that even though Trump absolutely reversed his position by conducting the raid, so far most of his supporters don’t seem to mind the contradiction.

Just a week before the raid was launched, a major shift in American foreign policy towards Syria was rolled out. We were no longer concerned with whether or not Bashar Al Assad stayed in power or not, instead that would be “up to the Syrian people.” This pronouncement ― by multiple Trump senior advisors ― was met with astonishment and incredulity among hawks in the Republican Party. John McCain and Lindsey Graham both had some pretty scathing things to say about it (as both are wont to do, at times).

Then the chemical attack happened. Trump was obviously affected by how it was portrayed on cable television, which led to a complete reversal in America’s Syrian policy. The raid was hastily assembled and launched in retaliation.

This kind of haste may make sense politically (more on that in a moment), but in terms of foreign policy it left all kinds of questions unanswered. Where was the proof that the Assad government was behind the attack? Where was the presentation to the United Nations, justifying an American response? There wasn’t time for any of that sort of thing, obviously. This led to some grumbling from Congress, who wasn’t consulted, and some further international grumbling, since there was no iron-clad case for military action under international law and treaties.

Since then, there hasn’t been much in the way of clarity from the White House, either. Even watching U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on the Sunday morning political this weekend only showed that the Trump foreign policy apparatus doesn’t exactly speak with one voice on much of anything.

Are we now committed to removing Assad from power? Well, it depends on who you listen to and how you parse their statements. Will the focus of the American military effort in Syria change? It’s hard to tell. Mostly, the picture Haley and Tillerson were projecting was that this was a one-off, stand-alone military response to a single event. Both Tillerson and Haley have noticeably backed away from the “Syrian people will decide whether Assad stays” reasoning they were using previously, but without replacing it with much in the way of any new and cohesive Syrian policy.

Political effect

Speaking just in terms of American domestic politics, Nikki Haley emerged stronger, Donald Trump emerged slightly stronger, and Rex Tillerson emerged.

OK, I admit, I couldn’t resist that one. Taking them in reverse order, Tillerson up to this point has been almost a non-entity both on the world stage and in the American media. This was by design, not by accident. Tillerson not only has been showing utter disdain for the media up to this point (not holding regular State Department media briefings at all, really), but he’s also been institutionally aloof from his own department. Most senior staff at the State Department either hasn’t been hired or has actively been fired since Tillerson took over. Even the ones that do still exist don’t have much in the way of access to him. Trump’s first budget request also showed enormous disdain for the State Department, in proposing its budget be slashed by roughly a third. Tillerson emerged from this cocoon on Sunday, and gave his first real media interviews since he’s been on the job. His upcoming trip to Russia will be closely watched, so it’s likely he won’t be able to hide in the shadows as much, in the near future.

As far as politics goes, it is still too early to tell whether Trump will get much of a polling bump from the Syrian raid. He did appear decisive in launching the raid so quickly, you have to at least give him that. But so far, he’s only up a couple of job approval points. The traditional “rally ‘round the president” effect (which usually happens whenever America launches a military attack) seems to have worked for him in a minor way, but it remains to be seen how big a bump he’ll get ― and how long it’ll last. Public opinion takes time to gel, and then further time is taken conducting the polls and interpreting the data. So we won’t really be able to see how much political benefit Trump reaps until the end of this week, at the earliest. Also, Trump has created so many distractions as president that it’s really hard to tell how long any bump will last ― will the American public even remember the raid in two or three weeks, with everything else that’s going on? It’s an open question.

Nikki Haley may have gained the biggest political boost of anyone over the past few days. Since Haley works in New York, she’s got some physical distance from the Trump White House (and all its baggage), and she seems content to chart her own political course, almost independently of what the president or the White House is saying. She showed this independence fairly early on, but with the attention the Syrian raid drew she now seems like the strongest voice on foreign policy in the entire Trump administration (even including Trump himself). Haley is reportedly considering a future run at the presidency herself, so many see her as “checking the box” on foreign policy experience now in preparation for such a run (since governors have limited opportunities to gain such experience).

There were two other political effects from the raid worth noting. The first is that the Trump administration has at least partially changed the media narrative of their Russian ties. All the drip-drip-drip revelations of the unfolding Russian investigations were painting a pretty ugly picture up to this point ― one of Trump and his team being nothing short of Russian stooges, in essence. It’s harder to paint that picture now that Trump has approved an attack on Russia’s ally Syria.

I should mention that at the present time I refuse to draw any further conclusions about the shift in such perceptions. There is a lot of theorizing (on both the left and the right) as to what really could have been going on to convince Trump to launch such an attack. So far, though, we simply don’t have enough information to leap to any nefarious conclusions. If there was some sort of grand scheme hidden in the Syrian attack, political or otherwise, time will probably tell us what really happened. Since the Trump White House seems to leak like a poorly-functioning sieve, this likely won’t take all that long to occur. For now, I’m only focusing on the short-term effects the raid has so far had.

The last political effect worth mentioning is the utter hypocrisy emanating from just about every Republican member of Congress. They are currently bending over backwards in an attempt to explain why Trump’s raid was in any way different than what Barack Obama proposed to them four years ago. Back then, they universally derided the idea of pinprick attacks in response to chemical weapons (Obama’s plan for such an attack was reportedly a lot more robust than what Trump just accomplished, in fact). Obama gave Congress a chance to weigh in, and they refused to do so, to their shame (both Republican and Democratic shame, I hasten to point out). Now, Republicans can’t say enough good things about the idea of pinprick attacks on Syria, of course. Such nakedly partisan hypocrisy is almost to be expected, but that doesn’t make it any less notable when it happens, of course.

― Chris Weigant

Chris Weigant blogs at:

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

from DIYS http://ift.tt/2ot5mYk

#DIYS

[repwincoml4a0a5]

Assessing The Syrian Airstrike

Late last week, President Donald Trump ordered a cruise missile strike on a Syrian airfield, in an escalation of the United States’ participation in the Syrian civil war. While it’s still too early to come to a definitive conclusion about the effect this airstrike had ― in either the military situation, the foreign policy of the Trump administration, or the raw domestic politics involved, a few preliminary assessments can now be made.

Military effect

The U.S. Navy launched 59 cruise missiles at the Syrian airfield, of which 58 successfully hit their targets (one malfunctioned on launch). That sounds like a lot of firepower, but to the American military, this was nothing more than a “pinprick” attack.

Cruise missiles have the benefit of not putting any American lives at risk during the attack itself, of course. Launching such missiles from hundreds of miles away means there is zero risk to American military pilots or troops, because neither participated in the attack. The drawback to cruise missiles, as opposed to a more traditional bombing raid, is that they have a limited payload. The warheads on such missiles only weigh 1,000 pounds, which is half of what standard bombs can deliver. Cruise missiles are also rather expensive, when compared to the price of fuel for fighter jets and bombers. So a massive bombing raid would likely have caused more damage to the airfield, but at a much higher risk to American military personnel.

The missile raid did achieve one military objective, from all reports. There were no Russian troops killed or injured in the attack, which isn’t too surprising since we warned them in advance to stay away from the areas of the airfield we were targeting.

Beyond not killing Russians, the military effectiveness of the raid is a rather mixed picture. The Pentagon wasn’t openly bragging about how many Syrian aircraft had been taken out of commission, which is a good indicator that we didn’t really make much of a dent in the total assets of the Syrian air force. In fact, most of the damage assessment that was released to the public came from the Russians ― hastily-shot video from the day after. This showed (to state the obvious) what the Russians and Syrians wanted the world to see, so it quite likely didn’t tell the whole story. Propaganda always has to be seen skeptically, no matter who it comes from, after all. The Russian footage was shot with an eye towards minimizing the world’s perception of the damage, in other words.

We did not attempt to “crater the runways,” which quite likely would have taken a whole lot more cruise missiles than were used in the raid. This allowed the Syrians to release videos of takeoffs and landings from the airfield within roughly a day of the raid. This was also propaganda, but without targeting the runways it was probably inevitable.

What we did apparently target instead were the support facilities ― fuel dumps, repair facilities, and the like. Bunkers which may have held chemical weapons were not targeted because it might have dispersed the chemicals to the surrounding civilian population. None of this damage was really highlighted in the Syrian or Russian films released afterwards, but if we did destroy enough of the support facilities it will mean the airfield becomes a lot less useful until repairs are completed.

All of this shows why this is being called a “pinprick” attack. General destruction of the entire airfield ― enough to put it out of commission for months or even years ― was not one of the mission’s objectives. If it had been, we would have risked killing Russian military members and being blamed for a giant cloud of nerve gas released as a result of the attack. But the damage done was quite likely more serious than the Russians and the Syrians presented in their propaganda videos.

Foreign policy effect

The effect on the Trump administration’s foreign policy is pretty hard to judge, at least at the moment. Trying to figure out Trump’s foreign policy is an exercise that might be labeled: “Who do you believe?” Trump’s foreign policy pronouncements border on the incoherent, at least when measured by what he promised it would be while campaigning. But digging deeper doesn’t really add much clarity at all, because top Trump advisors have been pretty contradictory as well.

During the campaign, Trump promised an “America First” outlook to the world. This would mean avoiding getting entangled in the Syrian civil war, for one ― and Trump made a lot of political hay over the fact that his outlook was so different than the other Republicans’, and (later) Hillary Clinton’s. Of course, at the same time Trump was promising to “bomb the (expletive)” out of the Islamic State, which also got big cheers from the crowds. So it’s not that surprising that even though Trump absolutely reversed his position by conducting the raid, so far most of his supporters don’t seem to mind the contradiction.

Just a week before the raid was launched, a major shift in American foreign policy towards Syria was rolled out. We were no longer concerned with whether or not Bashar Al Assad stayed in power or not, instead that would be “up to the Syrian people.” This pronouncement ― by multiple Trump senior advisors ― was met with astonishment and incredulity among hawks in the Republican Party. John McCain and Lindsey Graham both had some pretty scathing things to say about it (as both are wont to do, at times).

Then the chemical attack happened. Trump was obviously affected by how it was portrayed on cable television, which led to a complete reversal in America’s Syrian policy. The raid was hastily assembled and launched in retaliation.

This kind of haste may make sense politically (more on that in a moment), but in terms of foreign policy it left all kinds of questions unanswered. Where was the proof that the Assad government was behind the attack? Where was the presentation to the United Nations, justifying an American response? There wasn’t time for any of that sort of thing, obviously. This led to some grumbling from Congress, who wasn’t consulted, and some further international grumbling, since there was no iron-clad case for military action under international law and treaties.

Since then, there hasn’t been much in the way of clarity from the White House, either. Even watching U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on the Sunday morning political this weekend only showed that the Trump foreign policy apparatus doesn’t exactly speak with one voice on much of anything.

Are we now committed to removing Assad from power? Well, it depends on who you listen to and how you parse their statements. Will the focus of the American military effort in Syria change? It’s hard to tell. Mostly, the picture Haley and Tillerson were projecting was that this was a one-off, stand-alone military response to a single event. Both Tillerson and Haley have noticeably backed away from the “Syrian people will decide whether Assad stays” reasoning they were using previously, but without replacing it with much in the way of any new and cohesive Syrian policy.

Political effect

Speaking just in terms of American domestic politics, Nikki Haley emerged stronger, Donald Trump emerged slightly stronger, and Rex Tillerson emerged.

OK, I admit, I couldn’t resist that one. Taking them in reverse order, Tillerson up to this point has been almost a non-entity both on the world stage and in the American media. This was by design, not by accident. Tillerson not only has been showing utter disdain for the media up to this point (not holding regular State Department media briefings at all, really), but he’s also been institutionally aloof from his own department. Most senior staff at the State Department either hasn’t been hired or has actively been fired since Tillerson took over. Even the ones that do still exist don’t have much in the way of access to him. Trump’s first budget request also showed enormous disdain for the State Department, in proposing its budget be slashed by roughly a third. Tillerson emerged from this cocoon on Sunday, and gave his first real media interviews since he’s been on the job. His upcoming trip to Russia will be closely watched, so it’s likely he won’t be able to hide in the shadows as much, in the near future.

As far as politics goes, it is still too early to tell whether Trump will get much of a polling bump from the Syrian raid. He did appear decisive in launching the raid so quickly, you have to at least give him that. But so far, he’s only up a couple of job approval points. The traditional “rally ‘round the president” effect (which usually happens whenever America launches a military attack) seems to have worked for him in a minor way, but it remains to be seen how big a bump he’ll get ― and how long it’ll last. Public opinion takes time to gel, and then further time is taken conducting the polls and interpreting the data. So we won’t really be able to see how much political benefit Trump reaps until the end of this week, at the earliest. Also, Trump has created so many distractions as president that it’s really hard to tell how long any bump will last ― will the American public even remember the raid in two or three weeks, with everything else that’s going on? It’s an open question.

Nikki Haley may have gained the biggest political boost of anyone over the past few days. Since Haley works in New York, she’s got some physical distance from the Trump White House (and all its baggage), and she seems content to chart her own political course, almost independently of what the president or the White House is saying. She showed this independence fairly early on, but with the attention the Syrian raid drew she now seems like the strongest voice on foreign policy in the entire Trump administration (even including Trump himself). Haley is reportedly considering a future run at the presidency herself, so many see her as “checking the box” on foreign policy experience now in preparation for such a run (since governors have limited opportunities to gain such experience).

There were two other political effects from the raid worth noting. The first is that the Trump administration has at least partially changed the media narrative of their Russian ties. All the drip-drip-drip revelations of the unfolding Russian investigations were painting a pretty ugly picture up to this point ― one of Trump and his team being nothing short of Russian stooges, in essence. It’s harder to paint that picture now that Trump has approved an attack on Russia’s ally Syria.

I should mention that at the present time I refuse to draw any further conclusions about the shift in such perceptions. There is a lot of theorizing (on both the left and the right) as to what really could have been going on to convince Trump to launch such an attack. So far, though, we simply don’t have enough information to leap to any nefarious conclusions. If there was some sort of grand scheme hidden in the Syrian attack, political or otherwise, time will probably tell us what really happened. Since the Trump White House seems to leak like a poorly-functioning sieve, this likely won’t take all that long to occur. For now, I’m only focusing on the short-term effects the raid has so far had.

The last political effect worth mentioning is the utter hypocrisy emanating from just about every Republican member of Congress. They are currently bending over backwards in an attempt to explain why Trump’s raid was in any way different than what Barack Obama proposed to them four years ago. Back then, they universally derided the idea of pinprick attacks in response to chemical weapons (Obama’s plan for such an attack was reportedly a lot more robust than what Trump just accomplished, in fact). Obama gave Congress a chance to weigh in, and they refused to do so, to their shame (both Republican and Democratic shame, I hasten to point out). Now, Republicans can’t say enough good things about the idea of pinprick attacks on Syria, of course. Such nakedly partisan hypocrisy is almost to be expected, but that doesn’t make it any less notable when it happens, of course.

― Chris Weigant

Chris Weigant blogs at:

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

from DIYS http://ift.tt/2ot5mYk

#DIYS