So, Donald Trump sees images of children gassed by the Assad regime in Syria and decides to send a warning to Assad not to do that again by attacking a Syrian military base from which Assad launched the gas attack. Isn’t this the same Trump who several years ago urged then-President Obama not to get involved in Syria after previous gas attacks? Why the sudden change of heart, because Trump suddenly has grown one? Puhlease!
Not unexpectedly, Trump subsequently is widely praised by many in the U.S., many who previously had been critics of him and his administration, for being presidential and showing “spine.” Hmmm . . . do you think Trump calculated this would be the reaction to his Syrian attack?
It is common practice by world leaders, especially despots who are recipients of much condemnation for their domestic policies, to launch foreign adventures to deflect criticism and attention from their domestic policies. Is Trump any different?
Let’s examine the possibility. Before and since taking office, Trump has been under a constant barrage of criticism for his suspected ties to Russian president Vladimir Putin. His administration and his campaign is under investigation for collusion with the Russians to disrupt the American election. What better way to deflect that criticism and investigation than to launch an attack on Syria, a client-state of Russia? Wouldn’t that send a message that Trump is no puppet of Putin and is not and has not been working with the Russians? Judging by much positive media reaction to Trump’s attack on the Syrian airbase, it would appear Trump’s action has initially done just that.
What if, however, Trump’s attack was planned with the knowledge and collaboration of the Russians? The Trump administration has already admitted that it warned the Russians beforehand of the imminence of, if not the exact time, of the attack, which gave the Russians and the Syrians time to move men and materiel out of the line of fire. Why do that if the intent of the attack was to send a clear message to the Assad regime and the Russians, who obviously were aware of if not in collusion on the chemical attacks, not to conduct any further chemical attacks on the Syrian people? Wouldn’t a surprise attack, which Trump blustered about conducting during the election campaign, be much more effective in that regard?
Already since taking office, Trump has tried to deflect criticism away from his alleged Russian ties and subsequent investigations of the same by claiming with no foundation that he was the victim of wiretapping during the campaign and after by President Obama. It did not work, however. Obama adamantly denied it, and no one, neither the FBI nor anyone else has been able to find a shred of evidence to support the claim. So, Trump’s ties to Russia have remained under the microscope of investigation. Could this attack be another ploy to divert public attention away from his Russian connection?
Trump knows that the media operates on a “man bites dog premise,” which is to say it reports the unusual, the outrageous, but rarely the mundane, or if it does report the mundane it is within context of the unusual. Trump ran his whole campaign taking advantage of this premise and was successful in doing so. What would stop him now from continuing to operate the same way?
Did not the Trump administration only days before the Syrian gas attack make the statement that it was no longer focusing on regime change in Syria? Then, suddenly, Syria is emboldened and conducts its gas attack, and Trump is so shocked he does an about-face and attacks the Syrian regime. If anyone seriously believes Trump is acting altruistically I have a nice bridge you can buy. The atrocities, including chemical warfare in the Syrian civil war have been going on for years now. The images of dead and mutilated women and children are plentiful. If Trump is so concerned suddenly with the plight of the Syrian people why doesn’t he open the doors to the U.S. to Syrian refugees?
The truth is that Trump’s attack on the Syrian airbase just like the righteous indignation by the Assad regime and the Russians as a result was a charade. The Russians knew the attack was coming; so did the Syrians. Trump told them. Why the indignation, unless their reaction was planned in advance, just like Trump’s attack and one might hazard the gas attack? Could it be that the entire sequence of events was orchestrated among the three—Trump, the Russians, and the Assad regime—to help Trump against his domestic critics?
Trump has demonstrated himself to be a master manipulator of the press; his election victory is testament to this. This latest series of events involving Syria is just another example of how he operates. This is from a man who refuses to release his full tax returns, which would show any possible connections between him and the Russians, and perhaps many other things not flattering to him. If he has nothing to hide, then, why not divulge them?
He does not divulge them because they would show he is in deep with Putin and the Russians, and this forewarned attack on Syria is a ruse, nothing else, to make people believe he is not a client of Putin. Don’t be fooled by Trump’s feint and misdirection; they are tools of the con-man, which throughout his career Trump has so ably demonstrated himself to be.
The Moving Finger 
The view from abroad. I see a number of issues regarding the Syrian attack but the primary one for me is why? Why would Assad attack his own citizens with gas given the abhorrence of the international community to this form of warfare? Then there is the what. What military advantage did Assad gain by this heinous act? Who were the intended targets, presumably not innocent citizens?
Say what you like about Assad & Putin but stupid is not, I would humbly suggest, high on that list. In short this is a manufactured scenario and you could possibly be correct that Trump is using it as a diversion from his domestic woes. Trouble is Europe has not embraced it as he thought they would, apart from the British, of course, who still believe they have a “special relationship” with the U.S. I don’t want to go into that here, suffice to say it’s a one way street as far as I’m concerned.
I have always been of the opinion that vested interests with control of the politicos will cause more damage to the stability of the world as it’s the only way they can keep control of what really matters to them the MONEY!!
The situation in Syria is just another attempt to control the people at home. It’s your sons and daughters that will be sent over to fight not theirs. It’s our lives that will be affected, not theirs. Higher taxes to pay for their war while they share the profits between an elite few who direct the politicians on what to say and do, this elite does not include Trump he is a puppet for them and can’t see passed the end of his greedy pig like snout, because it’s buried that deep in the trough.
Many politicians enter public life with the best intentions of serving honestly, admittedly they are not as widespread these days, locally or especially nationally and internationally.
I digress, Syria could prove to be the catalyst for far worse if not on a global scale certainly in the middle East. The only reason the West want to get involved in these countries is down to one thing, OIL!
If we were concerned about despotic regimes then there are plenty more in the world we could be attacking. The prime example of that for me is Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, where people are persecuted and killed, but guess what? There’s no OIL there.
North Korea is another regime that fits the criteria for intervention by the international community. The problem there is the big neighbour who keeps an eye out for them frightens all the others.
The world is an unstable place at the best of times, but put in the mix a psychopath who finds himself in charge of the world’s greatest weaponry then God help us, or whatever other deity you follow.
LikeLike