It’s 16 minutes long, but worth it IMHO. Includes commentary from Col. Douglas MacGregor (I need to research him more, as this is my first time noticing him), Jim Hanson, Executive Vice President of the Center for Security Policy, Sara Carter, journalist, and Sebastian Gorka. Gorka becomes furious over the comments made by MacGregor and Ingraham. He actually brings up our Framers and how by not striking Syria the meaning of America would be null and void. His commentary was really surprising to me. While all of them make some good points, this conversation reminds me of Iraq. My view of the situation is much more closely aligned with MacGregor, at least based on this commentary.
Here is an op-ed from Gorka from several days ago. Gives more of his thinking on this issue. I guess his assigned role is to attempt to calm the portion of Trump’s base that did not want this to happen.
Our fight in Syria is not the Iraq war
Some of the highlights of the panel discussion in print, for those who dislike videos:
On “The Ingraham Angle,” military analyst Col. Douglas MacGregor called the situation “perplexing” and appeared to suggest the chemical attack the U.S. and its allies concluded occurred last week was fake.
“We see sarin and chlorine gas used together. That’s never happened before. That’s a first in the history of chemical warfare. Doesn’t make any sense,” he said.
MacGregor added the strikes were a “cosmetic attack” which would change nothing on the ground.
Several minutes later, Gorka said MacGregor was being “obnoxiously obtuse.”
An article written by MacGregor on April 13th, 2018:
Trump Can’t Alter Syria’s Future
The advocates for military action include the usual suspects. Most are President Trump’s most severe critics, wrongly placing blame for events in Syria on Washington’s chronic failure to intervene in the Syrian Civil War. They reflect the prevailing bipartisan “globalist,” interventionist “wisdom” inside the Beltway: that bombing Syria will induce the warring parties to comply with American demands for polite restraint in a bloody civil war where all sides practice scorched-earth tactics.
President Trump’s instinct to leave Syria as soon as possible is sound. The Islamic State’s influence always depended on its ability to seize and hold territory. That territory is now gone.
Yet there is another reason for President Trump to avoid entanglement in Syria. The America First agenda must succeed—and for the agenda to succeed, the Trump presidency must succeed.
Gorka has a brand new piece out on Syria. I smell desperation in the air.
The strike on Syria had to be done
To those who voted for the iconoclastic outsider, Donald Trump, and are concerned about this commander-in-chief becoming embroiled in a scenario such as President Bush’s invasion of Iraq, I have the following to say: Donald Trump is not a neoconservative and never will be.
U.S. Army Colonel Douglas Macgregor says Ron Paul Has The Best Plan for National Defense! 1/27/12
The president is allowed to “introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities,” only “pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”
That is, absent a congressional authorization [see (1) or (2) above], the president is allowed to initiate combat only if we’re under attack [(3) above].
In Syria, we are clearly not under attack. Congress hasn’t declared war on anyone since December 1941. So, the question is whether President Trump can point to some “specific statutory authorization” to launch missiles at Syria’s military.
Our other troops in Syria were presumably there to fight al Qaeda and the Islamic State, pursuant to the post-9/11 congressional war authorizations. But this was an attack on Syria’s regime, against which Congress hasn’t authorized military strikes.
One reason why there was no escalation: the strikes had been flagged so far in advance that Syria and its allies had plenty of notice to evacuate the likely targets of civilians and assets, possibly also including key components of the chemical weapons program, leaving it unclear how much of an impact they would have.
So what, if anything changed, and what was the point of the airstrikes?
Some, observing that Russian air defenses did not engage, and that the US & Russia are now in full deconfliction mode, claimed that “the whole thing was just a charade.“
But the War Capital could not abide the thought, and this morning the Donald explained that he has now gotten his head “right”, after all.
Never said when an attack on Syria would take place. Could be very soon or not so soon at all! In any event, the United States, under my Administration, has done a great job of ridding the region of ISIS. Where is our “Thank you America?”
That wasn’t a statement about second thoughts on attacking Syria; it’s an expression of the rationale the Donald is preparing to use in order to camouflage his abject surrender to the War Party.
That is to say, the anti-ISIS mission is complete—so now on to saving the world from the Iranians and the Russians.
Needless to say, bombing now vacant Syrian military installations into smithereens will not possibly accomplish that objective and will only make the risk of WWIII that much more palpable.
In fact, the surest way to get ISIS back is to destroy the Syrian government and thereby open the gates of Hell, as did Dubya back in 2003.
Either way, it’s Mueller’s War and the evil of it is near at hand.
h/t Daniel Higdon