President Trump should explain his policy shift
President Donald Trump’s foreign policy has gone from confusing to terrifying.
His handling of foreign affairs has gone from confusing to terrifying.
He’s escalating our conflicts abroad at an alarming rate and has been either unwilling or unable to articulate a clear strategy.
His interview on Wednesday morning with Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo didn’t inspire confidence, it stoked concern.
Trump said he’s sending an “armada” to North Korea, but refused to elaborate other than describing the capabilities of our submarines. Quickly things began escalating in the Pacific.
Trump said “we’re not going into Syria” but then he was adamant that President Bashar Assad has got to go. Trump said he was ready to use force, and not just if Assad uses chemical weapons again, but he left open questions about other provocation.
“When they drop barrel bombs and bombs of any kind right on top of a civilian population, that’s the worst thing — I’ve never seen anything like it,” he said.
So we’re not going into Syria, but neither are we going to tolerate the tactics Assad has been using for six years.
Where exactly is the “red line” in Syria?
The president’s spokesman, Sean Spicer, further muddied the waters, making similar statements about barrel bombs.
This kind of confusion doesn’t help American allies or even our foes like Syria, Russia and Iran who are trying to navigate this conflict.
Trump needs to take a page from the book of his cabinet members who have been talking with more clarity about Syria and Russia.
“I think it is clear to all of us that the reign of the Assad family is coming to an end, but the question of how that ends, and the transition itself, could be very important, in our view, to the durability, the stability inside of a unified Syria. … We are not presupposing how that occurs,” the more measured Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was quoted by The Washington Post as saying in Italy before he flew to Russia.
Spicer’s odd comments comparing Assad to Hitler and suggesting that Assad is worse, are the kind of distraction from a critical issue the administration can’t afford.
Consider how Trump described on Fox News his decision to launch weapons at Syria while having dinner with China’s President Xi Jinping.
“It’s so incredible. It’s brilliant. It’s genius. Our technology, our equipment is better than anybody by a factor of five. … So what happens is I said ‘we’ve just launched 59 missiles heading to Iraq(sic) and I wanted you to know this.’
“And he was eating his cake. And he was silent,” Trump said about telling Xi through an interpreter about the attack at dinner.
Trump quickly clarified to Bartiromo he had meant to say Syria.
The president would do well to remember, over his wonderful chocolate covered desserts at Mara-Lago, that his bombs have come with civilian casualties.
America is being criticized abroad for what is being called an increase in civilian casualties from Trump’s airstrikes in Iraq and Syria.
It’s the kind of bad press that our enemies will use against us, and Trump bragging about firing missiles over dessert is not constructive.
We have called for Trump to provide the American people with a goal and a plan for Syria.
But what we are getting from the White House is static, and not the kind of detailed analysis that would lead Congress, the American people and our allies to back further military action in Syria, something the president needs if he’s going to strike again.
It’s the kind of bad press that our enemies will use against us, and Trump bragging about firing missiles over dessert is not constructive.