The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Would Trump risk a war because of personal gain?

-

As sabers rattle ever louder across fields, plains, oceans and deserts, President Trump’s words from earlier this year haunt the stable mind:

“I would love to be able to bring back our country into a great form of unity,” he said. “Without a major event where people pull together, that’s hard to do. But I would like to do it without that major event because usually that major event is not a good thing.”

So true, Mr. President, so true.

Trump made these remarks to a gathering of television anchors a few hours before his first State of the Union address in January. Lamenting the country’s divisivene­ss, hearkening back to Bill Clinton’s impeachmen­t, he noted that Americans usually unite during troubled times. A common enemy is helpful.

What could be more unifying than World War III?

As the United Nations Security Council called an emergency meeting Friday to discuss Syria, much of Washington was riveted on excerpts from pre-publicatio­n copies of James Comey’s new book, “A Higher Loyalty,” in which the former FBI director, whom Trump fired, gives his version of events leading up to the 2016 presidenti­al election and his pink slip.

Then the United States, acting in concert with Britain and France, fired cruise missiles at three sites linked to Syria’s chemical weapons program. Russia had earlier promised to counteratt­ack American interests should the U.S. attack Syria in response to the Assad regime’s reported chemical attack April 7 in Douma, which was said to have killed dozens of civilians, including children, but there was no immediate indication of escalation. Russia implausibl­y insists the chemical attack was staged by Britain. Trump advisers argued that now was the time to act and dust off our shockand-awe manual.

On Friday, Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, laid the blame at Russia’s feet. “It is Russia alone that agreed to be the guarantor of the removal of all chemical weapons in Syria,” she said.

This remark was perhaps also intended as a direct strike against President Barack Obama, who, instead of enforcing his own red line on Assad’s use of chemical weapons, agreed to an arrangemen­t with Russia guaranteei­ng eliminatio­n of Assad’s chemical arsenal. That Assad and Russia failed to keep their word should surprise no one.

Also unsurprisi­ng is the president’s on-again, offagain bellicosit­y.

In 2013, Civilian Trump was UPPERCASE TWEETING his disapprova­l of Obama’s weakness in the same position he finds himself now. Later, Candidate Trump painted himself as more isolationi­st than a crusader ready to wage war against the use of chemical weapons.

Unless, that is, a blistering act of internatio­nal chivalry might benefit him personally. One prays this wouldn’t be the case, but there’s little in Trump’s history to suggest a higher loyalty. Biographer Jon Meacham recently said that although Trump speaks ideologica­lly, his only true ideology is of himself.

In other words, one fears that the question before us ultimately could be: How would taking out Assad benefit Trump?

Unless Trump and Putin are playing a blind man’s bluff, restful sleep eludes a world in which the U.S. commander-in-chief — obedient only to an ideology of self — believes that it would take a “major event” to bring America back together.

 ??  ?? Kathleen Parker She writes for the Washington Post.
Kathleen Parker She writes for the Washington Post.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States