Why Trump’s Syria 'Surge' Will Fail

[Origanalist]

written by ron paul
monday march 13, 2017

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/media/119308/rp-weekly-button.jpg?width=440px&height=181px


Last week President Trump significantly escalated the US military presence in Syria, sending some 400 Marines to the ISIS-controlled Raqqa, and several dozen Army Rangers to the contested area around Manbij. According to press reports he will also station some 2,500 more US troops in Kuwait to be used as he wishes in Iraq and Syria.

Not only is it illegal under international law to send troops into another country without permission, it is also against US law for President Trump to take the country to war without a declaration. But not only is Trump’s first big war illegal: it is doomed to failure because it makes no sense.

President Trump says the purpose of the escalation is to defeat ISIS in Raqqa, its headquarters in Syria. However the Syrian Army with its allies Russia and Iran are already close to defeating ISIS in Syria. Why must the US military be sent in when the Syrian army is already winning? Does Trump wish to occupy eastern Syria and put a Washington-backed rebel government in charge? Has anyone told President Trump what that would to cost in dollars and lives – including American lives? How would this US-backed rebel government respond to the approach of a Syrian army backed up by the Russian military?

Is Trump planning on handing eastern Syria over to the Kurds, who have been doing much of the fighting in the area? How does he think NATO-ally Turkey would take a de facto Kurdistan carved out of Syria with its eyes on Kurdish-inhabited southern Turkey?

And besides, by what rights would Washington carve up Syria or any other country?

Or is Trump going to give up on the US policy of “regime change” and hand conquered eastern Syria back to Assad? If that is the case, why waste American lives and money if the Syrians and their allies are already doing the job? Candidate Trump even said he was perfectly happy with Russia and Syria getting rid of ISIS. If US policy is shifting toward accepting an Assad victory, it could be achieved by ending arms supplies to the rebels and getting out of the way.

It does not appear that President Trump or his advisors have thought through what happens next if the US military takes possession of Raqqa, Syria. What is the endgame? Maybe the neocons told him it would be a “cakewalk” as they promised before the 2003 Iraq invasion.

Part of the problem is that President Trump’s advisors believe the myth that the US “surge” in Iraq and Afghanistan was a great success and repeating it would being the victory that eluded Obama with his reliance of drones and proxy military forces. A big show of US military force on the ground – like the 100,000 sent to Afghanistan by Obama in 2009 – is what is needed in Syria, these experts argue. Rarely is it asked that if the surge worked so well why are Afghanistan and Iraq still a disaster?

President Trump’s escalation in Syria is doomed to failure. He is being drawn into a quagmire by the neocons that will destroy scores of lives, cost us a fortune, and may well ruin his presidency. He must de-escalate immediately before it is too late.

Copyright © 2017 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2017/march/13/why-trump-s-syria-surge-will-fail/

[Ender]

That darn Ron Paul making sense again. :rolleyes:

[jmdrake]

Yeah. We're basically fvcked. We have been for some time. What really sucks is that Trump has effectively split the liberty movement. If this was Clinton or Rubio or Jeb this thread would already have 30 replies and people would be planning strategy on how to oppose this. Alex Jones would be in the fight too.

[Ender]

Yeah. We're basically fvcked. We have been for some time. What really sucks is that Trump has effectively split the liberty movement. If this was Clinton or Rubio or Jeb this thread would already have 30 replies and people would be planning strategy on how to oppose this. Alex Jones would be in the fight too.

ON. THE. NOSE.

[Origanalist]

Yeah. We're basically fvcked. We have been for some time. What really sucks is that Trump has effectively split the liberty movement. If this was Clinton or Rubio or Jeb this thread would already have 30 replies and people would be planning strategy on how to oppose this. Alex Jones would be in the fight too.


ON. THE. NOSE.

Yep.

[TheTexan]

Not only is it illegal under international law to send troops into another country without permission

ya ok sure .gif

[dannno]

Yeah. We're basically fvcked. We have been for some time. What really sucks is that Trump has effectively split the liberty movement. If this was Clinton or Rubio or Jeb this thread would already have 30 replies and people would be planning strategy on how to oppose this. Alex Jones would be in the fight too.

That's because Trump supporters already had a strong feeling about what was going to happen. It's just kinda funny to watch other people act all surprised.

We already knew there would be some military escalations soon after he got into office. He promised that during his campaign.

Whether or not these will be effective, I don't know. It doesn't really matter. If they are effective, then they will be over fairly soon. If they are not effective, then they will be over in a short time. Trump isn't going to continue to employ failed policies for too long, but he wants a chance to see if something is actually workable over there on real terms rather than on purely political terms.

I give him 6 -12 months max of his little war games, then I think we will see the most peaceful 7+ years of US foreign policy in decades, possibly in over a century.

What I do know, is that if Hillary had been elected is that we would see the same failed policies continued for all 8 years, with a much worse outcome.

[jmdrake]

That's because Trump supporters already had a strong feeling about what was going to happen. It's just kinda funny to watch other people act all surprised.

:rolleyes: You flatter yourself. The rest of us aren't acting "surprised." It's more of an "I told you so" reaction. Trump talks out of both sides of his mouth all the time. He was for the Iraq war before he was against it. Same with Libya.



We already knew there would be some military escalations soon after he got into office. He promised that during his campaign.


So did the rest of us.



Whether or not these will be effective, I don't know. It doesn't really matter. If they are effective, then they will be over fairly soon. If they are not effective, then they will be over in a short time. Trump isn't going to continue to employ failed policies for too long, but he wants a chance to see if something is actually workable over there on real terms rather than on purely political terms.

I give him 6 -12 months max of his little war games, then I think we will see the most peaceful 7+ years of US foreign policy in decades, possibly in over a century.


That's what Clinton told us about the Balkans. (We're still there). That's what Bush and his supporters told us about Iraq and Afghanistan. (We're still there.) We shall indeed see what happens with Trump.



What I do know, is that if Hillary had been elected is that we would see the same failed policies continued for all 8 years, with a much worse outcome.

Sure. And Obama was better than what John "bomb bomb bomb Iran" McCain was pushing. That didn't make Obama a good alternative either.

[Ender]

That's because Trump supporters already had a strong feeling about what was going to happen. It's just kinda funny to watch other people act all surprised.

We already knew there would be some military escalations soon after he got into office. He promised that during his campaign.

Whether or not these will be effective, I don't know. It doesn't really matter. If they are effective, then they will be over fairly soon. If they are not effective, then they will be over in a short time. Trump isn't going to continue to employ failed policies for too long, but he wants a chance to see if something is actually workable over there on real terms rather than on purely political terms.

I give him 6 -12 months max of his little war games, then I think we will see the most peaceful 7+ years of US foreign policy in decades, possibly in over a century.

What I do know, is that if Hillary had been elected is that we would see the same failed policies continued for all 8 years, with a much worse outcome.

Hmmmmm....... you said you were NOT a Trump supporter. ;)

Time to lay off the Hillary stuff- she is NOT president, Trump is. AND, Trump is doing exactly what all the Trumpers said he wouldn't do.

He is NOT de-escalating the war.
He is NOT going after ISIS.
He is NOT MAGA

He IS 2nd verse, same as the first.

[dannno]

Hmmmmm....... you said you were NOT a Trump supporter. ;)

I meant the royal "we", as in, Trump supporters and I ;)




Time to lay off the Hillary stuff- she is NOT president, Trump is. AND, Trump is doing exactly what all the Trumpers said he wouldn't do.

He is NOT de-escalating the war.
He is NOT going after ISIS.
He is NOT MAGA

He IS 2nd verse, same as the first.

He is doing a lot of what he said he would. I'm not saying it's going perfect, but it's going as well as reasonably expected.

[Brian4Liberty]

written by ron paul
monday march 13, 2017

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/media/119308/rp-weekly-button.jpg?width=440px&height=181px


Last week President Trump significantly escalated the US military presence in Syria, sending some 400 Marines to the ISIS-controlled Raqqa, and several dozen Army Rangers to the contested area around Manbij. According to press reports he will also station some 2,500 more US troops in Kuwait to be used as he wishes in Iraq and Syria.

Not only is it illegal under international law to send troops into another country without permission, it is also against US law for President Trump to take the country to war without a declaration. But not only is Trump’s first big war illegal: it is doomed to failure because it makes no sense.
...


Front page...

[Suzanimal]

It does not appear that President Trump or his advisors have thought through what happens next if the US military takes possession of Raqqa, Syria. What is the endgame? Maybe the neocons told him it would be a “cakewalk” as they promised before the 2003 Iraq invasion.

But Iraq has turned out so well./sarc

[CaptUSA]

That's because Trump supporters already had a strong feeling about what was going to happen. It's just kinda funny to watch other people act all surprised.

We already knew there would be some military escalations soon after he got into office. He promised that during his campaign.

Whether or not these will be effective, I don't know. It doesn't really matter. If they are effective, then they will be over fairly soon. If they are not effective, then they will be over in a short time. Trump isn't going to continue to employ failed policies for too long, but he wants a chance to see if something is actually workable over there on real terms rather than on purely political terms.

I give him 6 -12 months max of his little war games, then I think we will see the most peaceful 7+ years of US foreign policy in decades, possibly in over a century.

What I do know, is that if Hillary had been elected is that we would see the same failed policies continued for all 8 years, with a much worse outcome.

Well, that didn't take long... :rolleyes:

Don't worry, surely the trumpettes will be along soon enough, to do one or more of the following:
A) Argue about the meaning of words like "cut", "spending", "military", "entitlement", "increase", and "budget"
B) Tell us that their authoritarian idol really didn't mean what he said
C) Tell us that this is a brilliant move in a game of 3-D chess that only trumpettes are capable of understanding
D) Tell us that it's ok because obomba did it first
E) Tell us that it's ok because it would have been horrible if clinton had done the very same thing
F) Tell us that this is what Liberty and Freedom really mean
G) Call CPUd names

[Ender]

Well, that didn't take long... :rolleyes:
invisible is a blinkin' genius.

[dannno]

Well, that didn't take long... :rolleyes:

It's a valid argument.

I mean, if Ron Paul was elected and he worked with congress and lowered the income tax to 1%, there would still be some dickhead who would come in and be like, "OMG TAXATION IS THEFT BLARG RON PAUL IS A SUCH A STATIST SHILL!!"

And the thing is, they would be partly right. Technically it's still theft. Working toward a free society is always going to be a continual effort. But can we please fucking not bitch about the people who are moving us ahead, helping us defeat the establishment and are moving us in the right direction?

This is a big fucking ship we have to turn around. It's going to take a long time, a lot of space and a lot of effort.

Let's not torpedo our efforts and go back into the hands of the globalists.

[jmdrake]

It's a valid argument.

No it isn't. Again I'm glad Obama beat John "bomb bomb Iran" McCain. That doesn't mean everytime Obama did something awful I piped up with "Well at least he's not John McCain." That's what Obamabots did and do.

[dannno]

No it isn't. Again I'm glad Obama beat John "bomb bomb Iran" McCain. That doesn't mean everytime Obama did something awful I piped up with "Well at least he's not John McCain." That's what Obamabots did and do.


If you don't think it is a valid argument, then you agree with the dickhead in my post. Can you read my post and respond to the entirety rather than 2 words? I put the rest of the words there for a reason.

Comparing McCain and Obama to Trump and Hillary is a completely 180 degree world of difference, which I have explained literally dozens of times on this forum already, and no doubt you have read my explanations at least once.

[CaptUSA]

This is a big fucking ship we have to turn around. It's going to take a long time, a lot of space and a lot of effort.



Yep. Obviously the answer to turning this ship around is to keep the rudder straight and go full speed ahead!

[CPUd]

These actions were probably planned by Obama to make Trump look bad.

[dannno]

Yep. Obviously the answer to turning this ship around is to keep the rudder straight and go full speed ahead!

I don't think that is what his happening at all.

The thing is, you don't "get" Trump. It's ok. Some people do, some don't. If you don't know someone like him or don't understand how he ticks, then you won't understand how this is going to play out and that is ok.

Trump has too big of an ego to have these little wars with these little despots and extremist groups for a long time. It makes him look weak. He has the US military behind him. He will play Commanderncheef for a while, and either he will help out some of these countries with their terrorist problem or he won't. But like I said, it won't matter. Either way his ego and his intellect won't let this go on too long. Either it is working or it isn't. Either we win or we learn a lesson. But the outcome will not be the same as if Hillary was President and there is a completely different game going on where we pretend to fight terrorists, while arming terrorists and trying to install our own governments over there. I don't see that game being played yet, and I doubt it will.

[jmdrake]

If you don't think it is a valid argument, then you agree with the $#@! in my post. Can you read my post and respond to the entirety rather than 2 words? I put the rest of the words there for a reason.

Comparing McCain and Obama to Trump and Hillary is a completely 180 degree world of difference, which I have explained literally dozens of times on this forum already, and no doubt you have read my explanations at least once.

Okay. I will respond to the rest of your dumbass post. Here it goes.

Edit: As for the comparison of McCain and Obama to Trump and Hillary you are missing the point that I have explained more than once and I'm wondering if you are doing that on purpose?

One more time. I preferred Obama over McCain. I also preferred Trump over Hillary. You have some rose colored Pollyanna "I'm not a Trump supporter but I play one on the internet" view of Trump. I do not. So your "Well Trump isn't Hillary" argument means absolutely nothing to me.


I mean, if Ron Paul was elected and he worked with congress and lowered the income tax to 1%, there would still be some $#@! who would come in and be like, "OMG TAXATION IS THEFT BLARG RON PAUL IS A SUCH A STATIST SHILL!!"

Bullshyt! We aren't talking about reducing taxes here. We are talking about ACCELERATING war! If Ron Paul was elected and then INCREASED taxes that would be the proper analogy! So far Donald Trump has not reduced the war in Syria, he has increased it! Do you fvcking understand the difference between the words "decrease" and "increase"?



And the thing is, they would be partly right. Technically it's still theft. Working toward a free society is always going to be a continual effort. But can we please $#@!ing not bitch about the people who are moving us ahead, helping us defeat the establishment and are moving us in the right direction?

That's just it! This thread is about Donald Trump moving in the WRONG direction in the war in Syria! It's not about Trump not having moved fast enough towards peace. He moved towards war! As much as I dislike Obama, Obama at least drew down the number of troops in Iraq. Trump has increased the number of troops in Syria.



This is a big $#@!ing ship we have to turn around. It's going to take a long time, a lot of space and a lot of effort.


Except in this case Trump has sped the ship up in the WRONG direction!


Let's not torpedo our efforts and go back into the hands of the globalists.

Trump is doing a fine job of torpedoing our efforts on his own. We will not be able to move the liberty ball forward if every time Trump moves it in the wrong direction people like you make excuses for him.

[jmdrake]

I don't think....

Exactly.

[dannno]

One more time. I preferred Obama over McCain. I also preferred Trump over Hillary.

I wanted to prefer Obama over McCain, but I couldn't. Why? Because I knew Obama was an establishment controlled stooge. How did we know this? The media did not attack Obama. If you recall, the media made Obama out to be the second coming of Jesus f. Christ.

Trump on the other hand has been attacked by the media every day for almost two years. It is clear he is not one of them.

This is really a huge, crucial difference that you and others have completely failed to recognize. It means you either don't know how the media works, or it means you believe in a huge grand conspiracy which is way beyond what I believe is possible in the realm of conspiracy theories.

[CaptUSA]

Okay. I will respond to the rest of your dumbass post. Here it goes.

+ rep. Unfortunately, it will take Dannno and his buds way too long to figure it out. And then, he'll be like:

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/61/6102ba514f5b3c655c3bef51cc69e224ea134479f987ddf67c 3c50202a0acb7e.jpg

[jmdrake]

I wanted to prefer Obama over McCain, but I couldn't. Why? Because I knew Obama was an establishment controlled stooge. How did we know this? The media did not attack Obama. If you recall, the media made Obama out to be the second coming of Jesus f. Christ.

Wrong. Parts of the media attacked the hell out of Obama. Rush Limbaugh and others are part of "the media" whether they will admit that or not. Parts of the media have fawned over Trump. Hell, Trump was a freaking guest on Saturday Night Live while he was running for the GOP nomination!

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/donald-trump-hosts-saturday-night-live-amid-protests-n459341

And yes, now that they have sold us a Trump bill of goods, now the same media is attacking Trump 24/7. Trump is the butt of all of Saturday Night Live's political jokes [b]now[b]. It's too freaking late now. Trump was supposed to be the sacrificial lamb for the Hillary presidency but that backfired. I'm glad it did. But that doesn't mean I will put my brain in neutral and pretend that an escalation of war by Trump somehow equals massive tax cuts by a president Ron Paul. Seriously that was the most asinine analogy that I've ever seen. And rather than defend your indefensible position, you decide to retreat to "Well the media attacks Trump so he must be good" land. :rolleyes: Seriously Dannno, I'm disappointed.

[TheTexan]

Yep. Obviously the answer to turning this ship around is to keep the rudder straight and go full speed ahead!

That would actually work if the Earth was round

[undergroundrr]

Comparing McCain and Obama to Trump and Hillary is a completely 180 degree world of difference, which I have explained literally dozens of times on this forum already, and no doubt you have read my explanations at least once.

I don't think it's a stretch at all to say McCain, Obama, Hillary, Pence, pretty much anybody would likely be more restrained than the full on droning and deployment bonanza trump has embraced.

trump is letting the MIC have their way. He's not even trying to direct the show at this point. It's whatever the generals want to do. Now Tillerson has sent a recommendation to send more arms to Saudi Arabia so they we can have some more of this:

http://www.ccun.org/images/2015/September/14%20p/Yemeni%20child%20cries%20at%20a%20site%20of%20a%20 Saudi%20air%20strikes,%20Sept%202015%20mot.jpg

Cheap emotional lever-pulling I know. It was one of the mildest photos I could find of its sort. I'm sure if there was some way to connect a Podesta to it, you and your royal we trumpies would start to care. Disgusting.

Little Miss al-Awlaki? No tears necessary. It's still better than Hillary, right?

trump doesn't care in the least how much money his military actions cost either. $250M just for that Yemen raid. It's just stimulus spending. And this man who has hobnobbed with draft proponents like Charles Rangel for decades, won't bat an eye when it's time to bring up reinforcements the old-fashioned way. But people who don't have children may not care as much about that.

[phill4paul]

That's because Trump supporters already had a strong feeling about what was going to happen. It's just kinda funny to watch other people act all surprised.

We already knew there would be some military escalations soon after he got into office. He promised that during his campaign.

Whether or not these will be effective, I don't know. It doesn't really matter. If they are effective, then they will be over fairly soon. If they are not effective, then they will be over in a short time. Trump isn't going to continue to employ failed policies for too long, but he wants a chance to see if something is actually workable over there on real terms rather than on purely political terms.

I give him 6 -12 months max of his little war games, then I think we will see the most peaceful 7+ years of US foreign policy in decades, possibly in over a century.

What I do know, is that if Hillary had been elected is that we would see the same failed policies continued for all 8 years, with a much worse outcome.

The only surprise is that Ron Paul supporters actually voted for Trump, and continue to support him, after I, and many others, pointed out that he would do exactly as he has been doing.

Everything else on your part is strictly conjecture. At this point in time he is proving to be nothing more than another chicken hawk. Just like he promised during his campaign.

[undergroundrr]

Trump on the other hand has been attacked by the media every day for almost two years. It is clear he is not one of them.

826426103229272065

[jmdrake]

I don't think it's a stretch at all to say McCain, Obama, Hillary, Pence, pretty much anybody would likely be more restrained than the full on droning and deployment bonanza trump has embraced.

trump is letting the MIC have their way. He's not even trying to direct the show at this point. It's whatever the generals want to do. Now Tillerson has sent a recommendation to send more arms to Saudi Arabia so they we can have some more of this:

http://www.ccun.org/images/2015/September/14%20p/Yemeni%20child%20cries%20at%20a%20site%20of%20a%20 Saudi%20air%20strikes,%20Sept%202015%20mot.jpg

Cheap emotional lever-pulling I know. It was one of the mildest photos I could find of its sort. I'm sure if there was some way to connect a Podesta to it, you and your royal we trumpies would start to care. Disgusting.

Little Miss al-Awlaki? No tears necessary. It's still better than Hillary, right?

trump doesn't care in the least how much money his military actions cost either. $250M just for that Yemen raid. It's just stimulus spending. And this man who has hobnobbed with draft proponents like Charles Rangel for decades, won't bat an eye when it's time to bring up reinforcements the old-fashioned way. But people who don't have children may not care as much about that.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to undergroundrr again.

You know what's really depressing? The thought of having to hear sh^t from Obamabot friends and family once the scale of Trump's war escalation really settles in. Thankfully they're too wrapped up worrying about stupid stuff like transgender bathrooms or silly travel bans to pay attention.

[dannno]

Wrong. Parts of the media attacked the hell out of Obama. Rush Limbaugh and others are part of "the media" whether they will admit that or not. Parts of the media have fawned over Trump. Hell, Trump was a freaking guest on Saturday Night Live while he was running for the GOP nomination!

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/donald-trump-hosts-saturday-night-live-amid-protests-n459341

And yes, now that they have sold us a Trump bill of goods, now the same media is attacking Trump 24/7. Trump is the butt of all of Saturday Night Live's political jokes [b]now[b]. It's too freaking late now. Trump was supposed to be the sacrificial lamb for the Hillary presidency but that backfired. I'm glad it did. But that doesn't mean I will put my brain in neutral and pretend that an escalation of war by Trump somehow equals massive tax cuts by a president Ron Paul. Seriously that was the most asinine analogy that I've ever seen. And rather than defend your indefensible position, you decide to retreat to "Well the media attacks Trump so he must be good" land. :rolleyes: Seriously Dannno, I'm disappointed.

The problem is you are making the issue too black and white and you are comparing apples to oranges.

I don't think it is fair to say that Trump has escalated the violence.

Didn't Bushbama escalate the violence by radicalizing, arming and funding ISIS AND also by droning and bombing campaigns? You have to consider that all of the violence by ISIS, that is essentially OUR army killing people. All of our drones and bombing campaigns, that is our military fighting. If Trump isn't arming and funding ISIS (admittedly, maybe our funneling of arms to Saudi Arabia is going to ISIS?), then that is a lot less violence that is happening or would happen in the future. That is a de-escalation. He has escalated some bombing campaigns in the short term, if he is doing a good job at targeting the mess we created rather than innocent civilians, if he is blowing up the weapons we gave them, then ultimately this could lead to an entire de-escalation in the future.

I'm still in the time will tell camp, and I certainly don't think this is the best way to go about it, but it's much better than the course we were on.. fighting ISIS is better than arming and funding AND fighting ISIS. My hope is that when Trump realizes he made a mistake and that Bush's goal of completely eliminating Islamic Extremism is not possible, instead of coming to the American people and lying like they always have, maybe he will pull a Reagan and say something about how Middle Eastern politics are irrational and we shouldn't be involved and pull out.

The worst possible scenario is to give the reigns back to the globalists.

[Ender]

The problem is you are making the issue too black and white and you are comparing apples to oranges.

I don't think it is fair to say that Trump has escalated the violence.

Didn't Bushbama escalate the violence by radicalizing, arming and funding ISIS AND also by droning and bombing campaigns? You have to consider that all of the violence by ISIS, that is essentially OUR army killing people. All of our drones and bombing campaigns, that is our military fighting. If Trump isn't arming and funding ISIS (admittedly, maybe our funneling of arms to Saudi Arabia is going to ISIS?), then that is a lot less violence that is happening or would happen in the future. That is a de-escalation. He has escalated some bombing campaigns in the short term, if he is doing a good job at targeting the mess we created rather than innocent civilians, if he is blowing up the weapons we gave them, then ultimately this could lead to an entire de-escalation in the future.

I'm still in the time will tell camp, and I certainly don't think this is the best way to go about it, but it's much better than the course we were on.. fighting ISIS is better than arming and funding AND fighting ISIS. My hope is that when Trump realizes he made a mistake and that Bush's goal of completely eliminating Islamic Extremism is not possible, instead of coming to the American people and lying like they always have, maybe he will pull a Reagan and say something about how Middle Eastern politics are irrational and we shouldn't be involved and pull out.

The worst possible scenario is to give the reigns back to the globalists.

The problem is that ISIS is very weak to gone in Syria. We are arming two factions that are fighting each other and they are NOT ISIS.

[phill4paul]

The problem is you are making the issue too black and white and you are comparing apples to oranges.

I don't think it is fair to say that Trump has escalated the violence.

Didn't Bushbama escalate the violence by radicalizing, arming and funding ISIS AND also by droning and bombing campaigns? You have to consider that all of the violence by ISIS, that is essentially OUR army killing people. All of our drones and bombing campaigns, that is our military fighting. If Trump isn't arming and funding ISIS (admittedly, maybe our funneling of arms to Saudi Arabia is going to ISIS?), then that is a lot less violence that is happening or would happen in the future. That is a de-escalation. He has escalated some bombing campaigns in the short term, if he is doing a good job at targeting the mess we created rather than innocent civilians, if he is blowing up the weapons we gave them, then ultimately this could lead to an entire de-escalation in the future.

I'm still in the time will tell camp, and I certainly don't think this is the best way to go about it, but it's much better than the course we were on.. fighting ISIS is better than arming and funding AND fighting ISIS. My hope is that when Trump realizes he made a mistake and that Bush's goal of completely eliminating Islamic Extremism is not possible, instead of coming to the American people and lying like they always have, maybe he will pull a Reagan and say something about how Middle Eastern politics are irrational and we shouldn't be involved and pull out.

The worst possible scenario is to give the reigns back to the globalists.

He's given the reigns to the M.I.C. Pretty much the same thing. He should give the reigns back to Congress. But, he won't.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?508569-New-Rules-Of-Engagement-More-Authority-To-The-Generals

[undergroundrr]

The worst possible scenario is to give the reigns back to the globalists.

https://d30y9cdsu7xlg0.cloudfront.net/png/17484-200.png

[HVACTech]

That darn Ron Paul making sense again. :rolleyes:

"Not only is it illegal under international law to send troops into another country without permission, it is also against US law for President Trump to take the country to war without a declaration. But not only is Trump’s first big war illegal: it is doomed to failure because it makes no sense." Ron Paul.

Trump invaded Syria? without permission?

Gad! if it were MY first "Big War" I would not do it that way. :)

[merkelstan]

Dunno if Trump really could do a 180 degree turn on Syria policy. He's certainly not hired competent anti-imperialist advisers like Doug Bandow etc.

The Rulers want to 'let both sides hemmorage' in Syria, so I expect that will continue

[Brian4Liberty]

Where is the Declaration of War?

[Brian4Liberty]

That would actually work if the Earth was round

Well played.

No matter where you go, there you are.