[Home-of-the-lazy-dog]

When you’re in command... COMMAND! If you’re a subordinate, you FOLLOW ORDERS!

Nate, you’re a reasonable guy, I’ve been following your posts for years, so this isn’t meant as a negative.

President Trump has to call it the way he sees it. The politics that resulted in our troops being there are so convoluted that no one person could ever truthfully explain why they’re there. Recent events revolving around the Congressional corruption that is being uncovered at every turn has to leave reasonable doubts in everyone’s mind concerning our representation.

Congress have sidestepped their constitutional responsibility for too many years; they need to re-engage. If they cannot “declare war”, then whatever operation they “concoct and condone” should include specific national security objectives, include all of the funding, and very importantly contain conditions for victory and “AN EXIT STRATEGY” all signed by Congress. Then, Congress should get out of the Commander-in-Chief’s way. Consult with him as necessary, but allow him to achieve the objectives as outlined.

The trouble is, the world has become a much more complicated mess post WW2 and Cold War. I didn’t make the mess, you didn’t make the mess... it’s just the way it has worked out over the decades.

The way I see it, we have a couple of options: Congress needs to re-engage and put some skin in the game, or end up in a never-ending string of failures... Korean War, Vietnam War, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and now Syria... Each of these involved some kind of treaty or coalition... too many opportunities for graft and corruption... sacrificing our best and brightest... and, unfortunately, for better or worse, blaming the President.

The President called it the way he sees it. Congress can fall back on their specific objectives, including all of the funding, and very importantly the conditions they established for victory and “THEIR EXIT STRATEGY”. Absent that, I’ll go with the President’s leadership in this one. I just can no longer afford to trust Congress.

Good seeing your posts, Nate. Keep up the good work.

[nathanbedford]

a never-ending string of failures... Korean War, Vietnam War, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and now Syria... Each of these involved some kind of treaty or coalition... too many opportunities for graft and corruption... sacrificing our best and brightest... and, unfortunately, for better or worse, blaming the President.

A good description of our postwar martial misadventures.

You are quite right, "I didn’t make the mess, you didn’t make the mess." I would add that President Trump certainly did not make the mess. As a matter of fact he campaigned and won reelection running against this mess. I wish he had your pen at his disposal and he would clearly outline to the country where we are, what we are doing, and why.

Churchill said it best in 1940 when he outlined British war aim:

“You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word. It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.”

He asked and answered the same question concerning his policy:

It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark and lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy.

Donald Trump inherited a dysfunctional nation, at least a nation politically dysfunctional. Our Congress is broken as you describe and our courts are running rogue. Trump recognizes the symptoms and his instincts concerning getting us out of these quagmire wars is fundamental to our national survival just as defending us against China is fundamental to our economic future and, ultimately, to our survival as the land of the free and the home of the brave.

As many on this thread have observed, Trump ran explicitly on these truths. But our electorate has a very short memory and our media can vaporize the truth in seconds.

It is the duty of the American president to fulfill many roles besides those explicitly outlined in the Constitution. Not only is he commander-in-chief, he is the nation's chief (unitary) executive, the nation's chief diplomat, but none of these things work if he does not fulfill a role not articulated in the Constitution: leader of his party-and leader of the nation. .

The president must first carry the party to carry the country or his policies are lost in a morass and sink into the swamp. Trump has succeeded overall in carrying his party, although his party members in Congress lesser so. But the polls do not show that he is actually carried the country. Recently, even a Fox poll shows 57% of the respondents wanted him impeached and 51% wanted him removed from office.

Can you actually say that Trump has so clearly and cogently articulated his policy in this instance concerning withdrawal from Syria in a way that carries both party and country? Can you say that he makes it is clear as Churchill did in 1940? Can you tell me what our policy is in individual applications? What is going on in Afghanistan, are we staying or going? What is going on in Syria, there is some question about actually staying, or threatening turkey, or waging air war by against turkey if necessary, or maybe only waging economic war? Can you honestly say you know what the policy is?

I am criticizing Trump for doing what no president should be asked to to do, to articulate a clear policy that has universal application while the country is in the thickets, or as you said, in a mess. Yet that is his job.

Congress is hopeless, we all agree about that. But that does not mean that the president does not have the responsibility to lead it, to make something of it as other Presidents have done in the clutch.

When he does just that all will fall into place, your injunction will be effortlessly obeyed:

When you’re in command... COMMAND! If you’re a subordinate, you FOLLOW ORDERS!

Thank you for the kind words.