Pirate's Cove

In all fairness, some of their complaints are warranted, but, neither condemned nor slammed Obama’s fecklessness when it came to Syria and establishing red lines at the time, and it’s a little late to offer criticism now. Both were super excited to proclaim the diplomacy of Obama and Sec of State John Kerry awesome when they negotiated to have all of Syria’s chemical weapons taken from the country. How’d that work out? Looks like they were punked.

Regardless, both are simply complaining, with the WP being the worst

A few cruise missiles from Trump won’t stop Syria’s war crimes

HAVING DECLARED that Syria will pay a “big price” for its latest use of chemical weapons, President Trump will deal another blow to U.S. global leadership if he does not follow through. But a few cruise missiles won’t change anything in Syria. What’s really needed is a concerted strategy for protecting the vital American interests wrapped up in the multi-sided Syrian war — something Mr. Trump, despite the urging of many of his advisers, has failed to develop.

At the least, Mr. Trump should learn a lesson from this latest Syrian war crime. He declined to respond to seven previous, smaller chemical attacks this year. Then he loudly announced he intended to pull out U.S. forces and “let the other people take care of” Syria. He should not have been surprised that the ever-opportunistic regime of Bashar al-Assad responded by dumping toxic chemicals on the Damascus suburb of Douma. More than 500 people, most of them women and children, were treated for symptoms, and at least 48 died. Mr. Trump, who criticized President Barack Obama for allowing red lines in Syria to be crossed with impunity and for telegraphing military plans in advance, ought to recognize that the Assad regime and its Russian and Iranian allies are as happy to take advantage of his fecklessness as they were of Mr. Obama’s.

Remember when all the media folks, like the WPEB, were in the bag for Obama announcing his withdrawal from Iraq? Regardless, the WPEB ends the screed in the same manner

If Mr. Trump really intends to abandon Syria, he should be prepared not to flinch at chemical attacks and other war crimes. There’s little point in one-off punitive raids if there are to be no U.S. military or diplomatic initiatives behind them. Wars cannot be fought by impulse. They require something Mr. Trump has yet to embrace: a plan.

Where are the WP’s ideas? They were non-present. But, it does look like they are proposing putting boots on the ground in Syria, or at least more of them and an actual fighting force, rather than advisors and special operations units. And, then, if Trump did, then the WPEB would slam Trump for that.

Then you have the NY Times

In Syria, Trump Faces The Limits Of Bluster

But the president should know by now that tough talk without a coherent strategy or follow-through is dangerous.

What to do next in Syria is a crucial test for Mr. Trump, who has shirked America’s traditional leadership role. He has tried to seem like a macho leader who would aggressively use American power where President Barack Obama wouldn’t, while talking about pulling out of the Middle East and walking away from international commitments.

With such inconstancy, he will not be able to stop the violence in Syria, and with no clear, unified plan with the Western allies, he will only empower Mr. Assad.

Would this be the violence that has been going on since before Obama began his second term? The violence he did little to stop, and generally gave the directions over to Russia and Iran? None of the Western allies really wanted to Do Something then, and they really do not seem to want to Do Something now

Mr. Trump needs to work with the other major powers on a broad plan that could force Mr. Assad, Russia and Iran to end the carnage and be held accountable. The United Nations Security Council needs to recommit to the Chemical Weapons Convention’s ban on such weapons, authorize experts to verify who was responsible in Douma and create an independent investigation that could lead to prosecution in a tribunal like the International Criminal Court.

OK, what kind of broad plan, NYTEB? It didn’t work under Obama, you know, that guy with a Nobel Peace Prize and who was supposedly super awesome and loved on the world stage. Russia can block pretty much anything in the Security Council.

If the Syrian regime’s guilt is determined, the United States should impose tough new sanctions, like a freeze on financial assets, as well. If military action is considered, Congress — which has long avoided its constitutional war-making responsibilities — needs to approve it. If a Russian veto prevents Security Council action, then Mr. Trump needs to work with our allies, through NATO or otherwise.

And, again, the minute military action is taken, the NYTEB will slam Trump as a war mongerer. The danger here is coming into direct conflict with Russian and Iranian forces. This is the kind of problem that created nightmares during the 70’s and 80’s over starting World War III by accident.

Just to reiterate: To have any chance of success, any international retaliatory action must be part of a coherent diplomatic strategy for stabilizing Syria and putting a political settlement in place. Since 2011, more than 500,000 Syrians have been killed and millions of refugees have fled to neighboring countries and Europe. The conflict has allowed Russia, Iran, Turkey and the Islamic State, now degraded by an American-led coalition, to gain a foothold in Syria.

Huh. And even now, not one negative word for that guy who was president at the time. Nor did they have any at the time. This is what the NYTEB would have called an “inherited problem” in 2009 and 2010.

Mr. Obama forswore military action after that attack in favor of working with Russia to get Syria to destroy its chemical weapons. The resulting agreement deprived Mr. Assad of much of his arsenal, though not all, despite Moscow’s promises.

Even here, no real blaming of Obama. The Times was also telling us how super awesome Obama and Kerry were for taking away all the chemical weapons.

He further reinforced a sense of impunity every time he exempted Mr. Putin from direct criticism for Russia’s reprehensible behavior. So it was significant that Mr. Trump finally drew a line, saying in a tweet, “President Putin, Russia and Iran are responsible for backing Animal Assad.”

The question is what comes next.

Whatever comes next, you know the New York Times and Washington Post, both on the opinion pages and in the “straight news” sections, will be there to criticize, the opposite of what they did with Obama.