Friday, April 7, 2017

Bombing, Not Even Three Months In

Back in December, when asked by my friend Frenchie, who (naturally) is Italian, if I thought that Trump would launch a nuke, I replied that I didn't think he would, but that he would attack Iran, a long-held Republican fantasy. While this hasn't come to pass, Trump's Tomahawk missile barrage on a Syrian airfield occurred not even three months into his presiduncey. This new policy on Syria contradicts Trump's old attitude toward President Obama's potential courses of action in Syria... I guess that the Kenyan Usurper's use of America's penis substitutes was beyond the Pale for Vulgarmort.

The idea that Trump was motivated by concern for the 'beautiful babies' is belied by his refusal to succor refugee children. Why actually rescue children when you can bomb the hell out of an airfield?

This attack on Assad's regime is a puzzler- the area is such a quagmire, is the U.S. really going to fight against two sides in a multi-pronged civil war? Is ISIS the number one enemy or is Assad's regime? This is a repeat of the muddled U.S. policy in Yemen, in which our military is fighting both the extremist Sunni group Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and the Shiite Houthi rebel group. Fighting against both sides in an armed struggle only makes sense if one is playing the two sides against each other for personal gain... and in a creepy sidenote, Raytheon is making a fistful of dollars since the Tomahawk strike, Syrian civilians and American taxpayers be damned.

In one odd turn of events, the alt-right Trump base has gone ballistic because of the strike, though, as a leftist, I would dispute their assertion that the attack appeals to 'leftists'. Chuck Schumer is a centrist, despite his support of fillibustering Gorsuch.

My primary concern at this point, being an observer of current events and a cynical bastard, is that Trump, citing Iran's support for Assad's regime, will pivot and launch an attack on Iran. I predicted such a move back in December, and I sure hope that I am wrong.

3 comments:

mikey said...

I think you are wrong. An attack on Iran will put all Americans on the ground in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon and even Egypt in immediate peril. The best way for Iran to retaliate will be to kill Americans and break their shit and they have very convenient access.

I actually believe this entire construct is false. The US has flown over 4000 combat sorties and dropped thousands of tons of ordnance on Syria over the last several years. The fact that ONE strike targeted a different faction in the fight for specific and clearly stated reasons really doesn't change much of the calculation. The one bad outcome might be that US aircraft will be targeted by the advanced Russian S300 SAM batteries. And that's why there will be no escalation - American doctrine calls for attriting the SAMs before launching the strike packages, and killing Russians would lead to escalation that nobody wants.

If Trump decides to actually start a NEW war, it will likely be against North Korea. If they can arrive at the conclusion that Kim won't use his nukes right out of the gate, they might decide to wreck the missile or nuclear testing facilities. China would be pissed, but they'd be concerned about NorKor retaliation and they'd have no direct method to retaliate against the US except with trade sanctions.

mikey said...

Oh, and don't forget that Iran can wreck the global economy by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz anytime they want....

Big Bad Bald Bastard said...

I think you are wrong. An attack on Iran will put all Americans on the ground in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon and even Egypt in immediate peril. The best way for Iran to retaliate will be to kill Americans and break their shit and they have very convenient access.

I think there are enough psychos who have fantasized about bringing down Iran that they would be crazy enough to try. We're not talking about rational people here.