The Delusional President

President Trump is known for thinking that he has exaggerated talents and abilities.  But in a recent tweet he has topped himself.  In responding to criticism of his decision to withdraw troops from Northern Syria and allow Turkey to conduct a military operation there to get rid of the Kurds, he said the following:

“As I have stated strongly before, and just to reiterate, if Turkey does anything that I, in my great and unmatched wisdom, consider to be off limits, I will totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey (I’ve done before!),”

“In my great and unmatched wisdom” is so over the top, it would be laughable if the speaker wasn’t the President of the United States.  It sounds like something the Wizard of Oz would say, or Mussolini.  Totally delusional.  This is certainly not an impeachable offense, but it does show why Trump is unfit for the office and should have been removed through the 25th Amendment procedure.

But there’s more delusion.  He will totally destroy and obliterate the Turkish economy?  And he’s done it before?  This is truly scary stuff.

But beyond the evidence of delusion, what’s disturbing about this episode is that it is being reported in the press, including The New York Times, as evidence that Trump pivoted on the issue after receiving a barrage of criticism from Republicans and Democrats in Congress.  

But he and his administration didn’t pivot.  His statement is just blather.  How can anyone take it for a substantive statement?  And all the Defense Department said was that they and the President made clear to Turkey that the U.S. does not endorse a Turkish operation in Northern Syria and will not support one or be involved in any such operation.  

Note, they did not say that they would stop any Turkish operation, against the Kurds or otherwise.  And now that the Turkish military operation is underway and openly aims at wiping out the Kurds, all Trump said was, “It’s a bad idea” and that we can’t have these endless wars; and the Defense Department just reiterated what they had said previously.  We have abandoned our allies.

We are in uncharted territory.  All one can do is pray, God preserve the United States.  Follow through with impeachment.  And if that fails, vote Trump out of office in November 2020.

Is The Use of Chemical Weapons Sufficient or Necessary to Justify Force?

President Obama’s plan to use military force against Syria’s government is a flawed policy decision.  The only way in which force is justified now is because chemical weapons have been introduced, which is to say that the use of chemical weapons automatically justifies the use of force.

I disagree.  In this particular instance, the Syrian government has for two years been waging a nasty war against both the rebels and the civilian population of the areas that support the rebels.  According to a UN report noted in the NY Times this past June, 92,901 civilian deaths have been documented, with the actual number likely being considerably higher.  Now about 100 have been killed in a chemical attack (apparently not the first one).  

If the use of military force was not justified before, it is not justified now.  Civil war is a nasty business no matter how you look at it.  Had the Syrian government not committed enough atrocities against civilians prior to the introduction of chemical weapons?  Haven’t countless other governments in civil wars committed atrocities against their people?

The question is where do you draw the line?   How do you make a decision to strike militarily?

We cannot be the world’s policeman.  We cannot strike militarily every time there is a civil war and the government uses brutal force against both the rebels and their civilian supporters.  There is no moral imperative to intervene nor is it in our national interest.

However, we should draw the line where a government is conducting ethnic cleansing or genocide, regardless of the technology used.  That does present a moral imperative.  That was the case in Bosnia, where we intervened.  That was the case in Rwanda, where we didn’t intervene.  That was the case in Dafur, where we also didn’t intervene.  And we should have in each of those cases, with or without the support of the international community or close allies.  That is not the case in Syria.

The White House talks about our credibility being at stake.  Our credibility in the world is certainly a very important commodity.  But if a policy we have is flawed and especially where it is not supported by the international community then to proceed in the face of such opposition is nothing but national ego.  It has nothing to do with credibility.

We should have a clear policy on military intervention in cases of civil strife and stick to it.  To my knowledge, we have no such policy.