Pirate's Cove

Washington Post writers Jenna Johnson and Gregg Jaffe pen a thinly veiled opinion piece in an almost Voxsplaining manner, meant to slam President Trump for approving and cheerleading the use of U.S. military power, while stating that Mr. Obama was completely different

Trump delights in watching the U.S. military display its strength

Amid the often jarring inconsistency of President Trump’s foreign policy, one thing has always been crystal clear: He loves a big show of American military force.

“You gotta knock the hell out of them — Boom! Boom! Boom!” Trump said of Islamic State terrorists at a January 2016 rally in Iowa, punctuating each “boom” with a punch of his fist.

That same impulse has been apparent over the past 10 days as Trump pummeled a Syrian air base with cruise missiles, threatened military action against North Korea over its nuclear weapons program and praised the U.S. military’s first-ever use of a massive 11-ton bomb, nicknamed the “mother of all bombs,” to kill Islamic State militants in Afghanistan.

“So incredible. It’s brilliant. It’s genius,” Trump said Tuesday of the missile strike in Syria. “Our technology, our equipment is better than anybody by a factor of five.”

As he searches for a coherent foreign policy during his first months in office, Trump has celebrated but often inflated the effect of military actions. The massive shows of strength, at times, have seemed to be a strategy unto themselves.

Can’t you just feel that this is a big, big problem or something?

Trump’s full-on embrace of military force offers a sharp contrast to Barack Obama, who promised to end America’s wars and who worried publicly about escalation and overreach, often to the point of paralysis. Trump has taken the polar opposite approach, and for the moment he seems to be benefiting. (snip)

For now, Trump seems to be embracing precisely the strategy that Obama came to reject. In meetings with his closest aides and in an interview in The Atlantic magazine, Obama often railed against the “Washington playbook,” which he said too often pushed presidents to use military force.

Really? How about

• Obama “surging” US forces into Afghanistan
• Starting an air bombing campaign in Libya
• Launched more drone strikes by the time he gathered up his Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 than George Bush launched in two terms
• Bombed Syria
• Bombed no fewer than 7 nations
• Had kill lists and actually picked out who would be targeted
• Had plenty of Special Operations groups in countries all over the Middle East and North Africa
• Sure took quite a few victory laps and ball spikings for the attack that killed Osama bin Laden
• Saw way more Americans killed in Afghanistan than during Bush’s time

Does that look like a President who didn’t fully embrace the use of military force and the “Washington playbook”? Not that there’s much wrong with O’s actions in going after Islamic jihadis (except that Libya action, which was a disaster, and his Afghanistan surge plans were incoherent and killed Americans). Those facts were forgotten by the two Washington Post writers as they attempt to paint Trump as a blood thirsty war-monger, as well as saying that he really doesn’t have a coherent foreign policy. They still don’t get Trump, don’t want to understand Trump, and are more than content in finding fault with Everything Trump.

Maybe I’m just an optimist, but I see the outlines of a “don’t start none, won’t be none, son” foreign policy.

— Jim Geraghty (@jimgeraghty) April 7, 2017

That followed the Syria strike, and sure seems to make sense. And you can bet we won’t be leading from behind.

Crossed at Right Wing News.