Is there an interventionist Uni-Party?

[Darth Omar]

Apparently there is.

The Russian smear was used against Tulsi Gabbard for coming out against what Trump calls ‘stupid wars’ as part of her campaign for president. Apart from the fact no democrat will be permitted to align themselves in any way shape or form with the Bad Orange Man—and hope to survive the primaries, there are vested interests in the foreign policy establishment that would use the same tactic against Gabbard but for different reasons.

That establishment cares little for the D or R designation. They care about stupid wars and they’ve never seen a war they didn’t like.

And it’s never been more obvious.

 

[dukkha]

damn straight.. "maintain a presence" "beef up NATO" "stay in AfPak to keep from destabilization/terorists"

I happened to get a glimpse of Trump being grilled ( Face the Nation) about leaving Syria.
It was the usual "but you Defense Intelligence wants you to stay in Syria to keep ISIS from being reconstituted"

Trump said :" we can always go back and bomb 'em" !!
I damn near fell on the floor!! damn right! same with AfPak.

That's a counter-insurgency strategy (Whack a mole) -and it works while not getting bogged down

 

[Darth Omar]

damn straight.. "maintain a presence" "beef up NATO" "stay in AfPak tomkeep from destabilization"

I happened to get a glimpse of Trmp being grilled ( Face the NAtion) about leaving Syria.
It was the usual "but you Defense Intelligence wants you to stay in Syria to keep ISIS from being reconstituted"

Trump said : we can always go back and bomb 'em" - I damn near fell on the floor!! damn right! same with AfPak.
That's a counter-insurgency strategy (Whack a mole) -and it works while not getting bogged down

Yup.

Whack a mole could have been used against ISIS by Obama—long before they set the caliphate up and wreaked havoc and misery in Iraq.

There’s no good justification for the ‘eternal presence’ in Syria or Afghanistan.

 

[dukkha]

Yup.

Whack a mole could have been used against ISIS by Obama—long before they set the caliphate up and wreaked havoc and misery in Iraq.

There’s no good justification for the ‘eternal presence’ in Syria or Afghanistan.

yes. that was a freaking turkey shoot. We could have wiped out a good portion of ISIS as they convoyed into Iraq.
and it wouldn't have meant going back in with boots

 

[anatta]

Trump Should Call Congress’s Bluff on Our Endless Wars
https://www.theamericanconservative...uld-call-congresss-bluff-on-our-endless-wars/
When Trump twice bombed Syria without congressional approval, the Beltway applauded. Veteran Washington reporter Bob Woodward’s book repeats the president’s probing questions about how long we must stay in Afghanistan with an air of disbelief better suited to “fake news” shared on Facebook. Trump’s call late last year to bring troops home from both war-torn countries elicited bipartisan criticism and the abrupt resignation of Pentagon chief James Mattis.
Advertisement

To make matters worse, only three Republican senators—Ted Cruz of Texas, John Kennedy of Louisiana, and Mike Lee of Utah—voted to stand with their president against these endless nation-building exercises. Kentucky’s Rand Paul, who was not present for the vote, would surely have been a fourth. Even Chuck Schumer, the third straight Senate Democratic leader to have voted for the Iraq war, opposed this anti-withdrawal amendment.

During the State of the Union address on Tuesday night, Trump should call Congress’s bluff. He should dare legislators to do their jobs and vote to authorize continuing these wars—or he will end them. Put the onus on the House and Senate to fulfill their constitutional duties.

Trump may find that he has unlikely allies in his would-be 2020 Democratic presidential foes. The one bright spot in the Senate vote was that Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Amy Klobuchar were all on the side of withdrawal. How many ambitious Democrats will vote to give a Republican president a blank check for war as an election year approaches?

 

[anatta]

yan Crocker, a U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan in the Obama administration, penned an op-ed in the Washington Post comparing the current U.S. talks with the Taliban with the 1972-1973 Paris peace talks ending the Vietnam War, a comparison meant to paint a picture of a disgraced and defeated United States capitulating to the insurgents.

Just as Washington withdrew in Vietnam, Crocker argues, Trump is in danger of making the United States look like a paper tiger now. It was a sentiment eagerly retweeted by Bill Kristol of the now defunct Weekly Standard and Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post—two interventionists who have a remarkable track-record of being breathtakingly wrong.

These failed pundits’ efforts are meant to shame President Trump into reversing his instinct to pull the United States out of Afghanistan. The editorials and tweets tapped into fear rather than facts; predict Armageddon to frighten U.S. policymakers into continuing the status-quo; and create an eruption and panic about how terrible it would be if America turned tail.

To Washington establishment, withdrawing from an unwinnable conflict is synonymous with losing, while staying on the endless merry-go-round that is the war in Afghanistan is an illustration of victory and resolve—even if the ride eventually breaks down and sends you to the hospital.
http://thefederalist.com/2019/01/31/no-amount-u-s-intervention-going-save-afghanistan-now-ever/