As of now, I am in control here, in the White House

Mattis Talked Trump Out of More “Robust” Response to Assad

Like bombing Assad directly on his head, I guess.

Why is this guy called “mad dog”? He seems very restrained.

Anyway, I think Secretary of Defense Mattis’s advice was sound. Our goal is to prevent Syrian President Assad from using chemical weapons, not to defeat him. If Barack Obama had made up his “brilliant” mind seven years ago to either decisively defeat Assad or let him win, there would have been hundreds of thousands fewer deaths in Syria.

Instead, Obama polished his Nobel Peace Prize while untold numbers of people died.

Now, we have to back off except to eliminate remaining ISIS fighters and enforce the principle that bad people are not allowed to use chemical weapons, since they may eventually be turned on us.

From the Wall Street Journal:

President Donald Trump deferred to his Pentagon chief’s caution and tempered his preference for a more robust attack on Syria over allegations it used deadly gas on civilians.

After days of tense White House meetings, the president and his advisers agreed on one of the most restrained of the military-strike options crafted by the Pentagon.

Faced with a push from the president for a muscular response to the alleged chemical-weapons attack that killed at least 43 people, Mr. Mattis presented the White House with three military options, according to the people familiar with the decision-making.

The most conservative option would have hit a narrow set of targets related to Syria’s chemical-weapons capabilities.

The second option proposed strikes on a broader set of Syrian regime targets, including suspected chemical-weapons research facilities and military command centers.

The most expansive proposal, which might have included strikes on Russian air defenses in Syria, was designed to cripple the regime’s military capabilities without touching Mr. Assad’s political machinery.

The most ambitious of the proposals was three times the size of the one eventually carried out by U.S., British and French forces.

Mr. Trump approved a hybrid plan that saw more than 100 advanced missiles fired at the three Syrian targets early Saturday. That action reflected a melding the first two options: modest missile strikes, but ones the Trump administration said delivered a decisive blow to Mr. Assad’s chemical-weapons capabilities.

3 Responses to Mattis Talked Trump Out of More “Robust” Response to Assad

  1. Agree. Whatever the original plan might have been, forcing Assad out of his office would be the wrong thing to do.
    No one asked me, but whatever the unhinged radical Muslims want to do to each other is none of our business and it would be wise to get out of the way of our enemies killing each other.

    • Syria is one of only two nations in the Middle East that actually protects their Christian citizens. WHY are we so intent on turning that country over to the raghead swill?

      On a related note, the latest analysis shows that the poison used on Skripal was NOT of Russian origin. Quelle surprise!

  2. Why did it take 100 missiles to knock out three buildings? If you figure each missile cost $1 million that is pretty expensive way to go. The buildings did not cost that much to build.

    I am glad for the bombing. For one thing it showed the North Koreans that President Trump backs up his words. President Reagan got the Russian’s attention when he fired the air controllers.