Bigfoot.
Another week on foreign policy, mostly because it has been so heinous lately. The gas attack in Syria was particularly upsetting, in part because there was video footage of the aftermath (unlike in the case of the U.S.'s Al Ghayil raid in Yemen that killed a score of civilians, including nine children, or the bombing in Mosul last week). The Syrian regime, once again, is doing the one thing they do in response to a restive population: kill and torture. They literally know nothing else. That said, there seems to be a universal media consensus that the United States should fly its bombers in there and start blowing the place apart, as if that has ever made anything better over the past 50-60 years. (Spoiler alert: it hasn't. It has made things exponentially worse.)
Then there was the missile launch in North Korea. Deliberately provocative, yes, though again, our military rules on that peninsula - we're constantly running joint exercises with the South Korean military that can only be seen as provocations by Pyongyang. Trump is going to take this up with China this weekend in his cheesy Florida resort getaway, but that just marks a continuation of the same disastrous policy. North Korea wants to talk to us, not China. This only possible way to reduce this massive threat to human existence on the Korean peninsula is provide Pyongyang with some guarantees of non belligerence. That is simply not on the table.
How will the Trump administration react to all of this, aside from blaming everyone else (e.g. their predecessors, the Muslims, the Chinese, immigrants, etc.)? It's a little hard to say. Either one could blow up in our face on a moment's notice. It sounds to me like Trump is leaning toward differentiating himself from Obama on Syria - that is, taking a more interventionist stance. That appears to be supported by the jabbering classes, as I mentioned earlier. (I heard a congressman from the GOP hair-gel caucus on Thursday's Morning Joe urging a "no-fly zone" and suggesting that, if we hit Russian personnel or assets in the process, well, that would be "on them".) This is how world wars start, so one would hope that whatever money laundering Trump has done for Russian oligarchs over the years, it will give him enough reason to at least adequately de-conflict with the Russian military before going all Lindsay Graham on Damascus.
Korea may be just as problematic, since I don't think Trump owes a lot to Chinese fixers. They may be crazy enough to lob a bomb over there - we'll have to see. Scary times.
luv u,
jp
P.S. Spoke too soon. Trump is bombing Syria. This is getting really ugly. The TV commentators all have their "war faces" on, talking to admirals. Trump did a hostage-video style pre-taped announcement last night (strangely, from a podium, reading off of two teleprompters as if there were an audience - the sound quality was horrible). Everyone is beating their chests: American credibility has been restored. (Apparently no one in the world thought we would attack at random anymore, even though we've been doing it non-stop for 16 years.) Bigfoot is stomping around.
Then there was the missile launch in North Korea. Deliberately provocative, yes, though again, our military rules on that peninsula - we're constantly running joint exercises with the South Korean military that can only be seen as provocations by Pyongyang. Trump is going to take this up with China this weekend in his cheesy Florida resort getaway, but that just marks a continuation of the same disastrous policy. North Korea wants to talk to us, not China. This only possible way to reduce this massive threat to human existence on the Korean peninsula is provide Pyongyang with some guarantees of non belligerence. That is simply not on the table.
How will the Trump administration react to all of this, aside from blaming everyone else (e.g. their predecessors, the Muslims, the Chinese, immigrants, etc.)? It's a little hard to say. Either one could blow up in our face on a moment's notice. It sounds to me like Trump is leaning toward differentiating himself from Obama on Syria - that is, taking a more interventionist stance. That appears to be supported by the jabbering classes, as I mentioned earlier. (I heard a congressman from the GOP hair-gel caucus on Thursday's Morning Joe urging a "no-fly zone" and suggesting that, if we hit Russian personnel or assets in the process, well, that would be "on them".) This is how world wars start, so one would hope that whatever money laundering Trump has done for Russian oligarchs over the years, it will give him enough reason to at least adequately de-conflict with the Russian military before going all Lindsay Graham on Damascus.
Korea may be just as problematic, since I don't think Trump owes a lot to Chinese fixers. They may be crazy enough to lob a bomb over there - we'll have to see. Scary times.
luv u,
jp
P.S. Spoke too soon. Trump is bombing Syria. This is getting really ugly. The TV commentators all have their "war faces" on, talking to admirals. Trump did a hostage-video style pre-taped announcement last night (strangely, from a podium, reading off of two teleprompters as if there were an audience - the sound quality was horrible). Everyone is beating their chests: American credibility has been restored. (Apparently no one in the world thought we would attack at random anymore, even though we've been doing it non-stop for 16 years.) Bigfoot is stomping around.
Comments