What is the policy being followed by President Trump in Syria? If you're the average liberal pundit, your response would be either that Trump is naïve, craven or has no policy. They would tell us that the President has announced no policy with regard to Syria. That, however would be the result of these liberal pundits refusing to listen to what the President has said, indeed said repeatedly.
During the campaign, candidate Trump told us over and over what his plans for Syria are. These plans have a few parts.
1. The President wants to crush and destroy ISIS. He want most of the fighting done by regional Moslem forces, but he is willing to use American military power in order to win (that's right WIN) the fight against ISIS.
2. The President is willing to cooperate with other forces in the region in order to destroy ISIS. Those other forces include the Russian troops that re-entered the Middle East when president Obama dithered about doing anything regarding Syria. Those Russian troops remain in Syria today.
3. President Trump wants to establish safe zones for the people in Northern Syria. This was something Trump announced repeatedly during the campaign. The safe zone would include a "no fly" zone that would prevent the Assad air force or the Russian air force as well from attacking the civilians within the zone. The idea of the zones is that they would provide a safe place for the Sunni majority in Syria to ride out the civil war in relative safety. It would remove the need for millions to flee the country; it would end or at least diminish the refugee crisis hitting Europe and the USA, and it would basically partition Syria by establishing zones where the Assad regime could not go.
4. As for the rest of Syria, President Trump does not want to get the USA involved.
I outline this policy because I just finished reading an article by Tom Friedman of the New York Times who calls Trump naïve and then tries to "explain" to the President the best policy to follow in Syria. Friedman has always been a pompous know-it-all who never really seems to know anything. In this column, however, Friedman outdoes himself. After calling Trump naïve, Friedman basically recommends that the USA follow the policy that Trump outlined during the campaign. The way Friedman describes it, however, it is as if Trump has no idea what to do or how to do it. The truth is that Friedman never bothered to listen to what candidate Trump was saying during the campaign. I guess he was to interested in the latest tweet or character attack by Hillary to bother to consider the policies Trump outlined.
To be fair, since taking office, President Trump has not made a speech on the subject of Syria policy which would refocus what he had previously said during the campaign. After two terms of Obama during which no actions were taken but speeches were regularly given, Friedman seems conditioned not to recognize what get said absent some occasion in which a "policy" is announced together with a photo-op. Friedman has to realize that Trump actually told us what he would do and that Trump has been doing just what he promised during the campaign on many fronts. It's just too confusing to a liberal pundit like Friedman to expect that campaign promises might mean something.
During the campaign, candidate Trump told us over and over what his plans for Syria are. These plans have a few parts.
1. The President wants to crush and destroy ISIS. He want most of the fighting done by regional Moslem forces, but he is willing to use American military power in order to win (that's right WIN) the fight against ISIS.
2. The President is willing to cooperate with other forces in the region in order to destroy ISIS. Those other forces include the Russian troops that re-entered the Middle East when president Obama dithered about doing anything regarding Syria. Those Russian troops remain in Syria today.
3. President Trump wants to establish safe zones for the people in Northern Syria. This was something Trump announced repeatedly during the campaign. The safe zone would include a "no fly" zone that would prevent the Assad air force or the Russian air force as well from attacking the civilians within the zone. The idea of the zones is that they would provide a safe place for the Sunni majority in Syria to ride out the civil war in relative safety. It would remove the need for millions to flee the country; it would end or at least diminish the refugee crisis hitting Europe and the USA, and it would basically partition Syria by establishing zones where the Assad regime could not go.
4. As for the rest of Syria, President Trump does not want to get the USA involved.
I outline this policy because I just finished reading an article by Tom Friedman of the New York Times who calls Trump naïve and then tries to "explain" to the President the best policy to follow in Syria. Friedman has always been a pompous know-it-all who never really seems to know anything. In this column, however, Friedman outdoes himself. After calling Trump naïve, Friedman basically recommends that the USA follow the policy that Trump outlined during the campaign. The way Friedman describes it, however, it is as if Trump has no idea what to do or how to do it. The truth is that Friedman never bothered to listen to what candidate Trump was saying during the campaign. I guess he was to interested in the latest tweet or character attack by Hillary to bother to consider the policies Trump outlined.
To be fair, since taking office, President Trump has not made a speech on the subject of Syria policy which would refocus what he had previously said during the campaign. After two terms of Obama during which no actions were taken but speeches were regularly given, Friedman seems conditioned not to recognize what get said absent some occasion in which a "policy" is announced together with a photo-op. Friedman has to realize that Trump actually told us what he would do and that Trump has been doing just what he promised during the campaign on many fronts. It's just too confusing to a liberal pundit like Friedman to expect that campaign promises might mean something.
No comments:
Post a Comment