PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Lucifer on August 21, 2017, 01:46:58 PM
-
So tonight the President will speak directly to the American people on the Afghan War. This is good.
However, the MSM is busy writing their responses to the speech, even before it's given. It's going to be attack! attack! and lamenting on how bad the President's judgment is, and how could he be doing this? They'll even through out some Russian connection conspiracy for good measure. And don't forget, they'll even insinuate the only reason he's doing this now is to avoid the KKK and racism charges.
And the pundants will gather around the news anchors and tell us how this will fail and bring chaos to the country.
So those who want Trump to come out and speak to the American people, here we go. It will be a good speech, well prepared and well delivered. Then you can watch the circus with the MSM afterwards.
-
So do you have an alternative if you were to advise the president? These people succeeded in character assassination of probably the best human being to run for office (Mitt Romney - not my candidate, but I believe to be a good, kind person) and danced on his grave. What makes you think they would do ANYTHING differently to ANYONE who is running with an R after their name?
-
If he continues or even increases the armed forces in Afghanistan, then Trump's foreign policy would be indistinguishable from that of Hillary's. And deserving of any attacks sent his way since he specifically said U.S. forces should be pulled out prior to his being elected. If he announces force reduction or complete withdrawal he would get my praise.
-
Afghanistan is a shit sandwich no matter which way he goes. It's a fucked up mess and there is no good way out. It's been a "war for profit" from day 1 and many have made fortunes off of it.
-
Time to get out and be done with that shit hole.
-
Agreed as above. there is NOTHING we left, or want in Afghanistan. Grab everything we can, and just get out. There's nothing there to waste another good young US armed forces member. Let them stew in their 11th century dregs for as long as they want. Don't eve have oil, eff em.
-
Trump: New plan: same as the old plan.
-
It will be a good speech, well prepared and well delivered. Then you can watch the circus with the MSM afterwards.
Lol, Trump hasn't given a well-prepared/well-delivered speech in his life. Politics aside, the man has about zero ability to cleanly articulate an idea.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
-
Trump: New plan: same as the old plan.
Maybe, maybe not. Trump did what any good CEO or president should do: describe strategic goals but leave tactics to the generals on the ground. Predictably the MSM slammed the president for not giving any details. DUH! Imagine Roosevelt saying, "OK, so we're going to invade Normandy on or around June 6th and withdraw the majority of our troops a year later." Yeah, that's a good idea. No, we're going to go in and kick ass and we're not going to tell you how we're going to do it. But be assured that your ass is going to be kicked.
-
Lol, Trump hasn't given a well-prepared/well-delivered speech in his life. Politics aside, the man has about zero ability to cleanly articulate an idea.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
See you got your talking points early this morning.
Right on cue!
-
He's in a tough spot for sure. I do think the mid range goal is to pull out. Trump, just can't say that. Of course the generals, and their defense contractor buddies (all former generals, and admirals that lead these companies) want more of the same.
-
I'll be honest, I've been ignoring politics as much as possible lately. That being said, I watched the speech, and I thought it was excellent. He acknowledged and explained his change in position from pulling out to this new strategy (still waiting to see that from one other politician), and I sense the new strategy will save American lives by changing the ROE, and putting significant pressure on Pakistan and India to do some heavy lifting.
-
Bannon is pummeling him over at Brietbart.
-
Bannon is pummeling him over at Brietbart.
That bothers me as much as if it were coming from a bitter ex-wife.
The part that I liked about Trump's speech is that we are not telegraphing our intentions to the enemy, other than telling them what we want. Let them guess what we are going to do and when we are going to do it.
-
I watched the speech today and overall thought it was a pretty good speech. He said several things that I liked, including not announcing our plans. I liked that he's changing the rules of engagement and letting the Department of Defense and his generals do their job instead of trying to run it from the White House. I like that he put pressure on Pakistan to step up their efforts in the war on terror.
I also liked that he explained why he changed his opinion on the strategy from pulling out to increasing troops from when he was candidate Trump.
One thing I didn't like was his definition of "victory". I don't think it was clearly defined. He said we weren't going to nation build but he didn't define true metrics for what victory looks like. I think that's actually hard to define, but I think he could have done better than he did on that part.
He had some really good things to say in this speech. There are several articles out saying that it's supposedly a 4,000 troop increase, but I guess we'll see in the coming months what that looks like. If his generals ask for more, they may get them.
-
Afghanistan is a shit sandwich no matter which way he goes. It's a fucked up mess and there is no good way out. It's been a "war for profit" from day 1 and many have made fortunes off of it.
The bolded part is not true. We didn't go into Afghanistan in 2001 with a "war for profit" mentality. That did happen, but in the early days of the war it was all special forces, CIA and Afghan forces fighting.
-
The bolded part is not true. We didn't go into Afghanistan in 2001 with a "war for profit" mentality. That did happen, but in the early days of the war it was all special forces, CIA and Afghan forces fighting.
I don't believe that. It was an opportunity for the military industrial complex to cash in on very lucrative contracts.
At the beginning several high dollar contracts were let out in support of the effort of the military. Many of the big donor class were awarded those contracts.
War is big business, make no mistake about that.
-
I don't believe that. It was an opportunity for the military industrial complex to cash in on very lucrative contracts.
At the beginning several high dollar contracts were let out in support of the effort of the military. Many of the big donor class were awarded those contracts.
War is big business, make no mistake about that.
I'm not disputing whether or not war has become a big, profitable business. But not only do I disagree with your assertion that it was a war for profit from day one, but I believe it to be factually false. Prior to U.S. Forces even getting on ground, the CIA was working with both the Afghans and Pakistanis to first try and avoid the war altogether and then later on the best strategy once it was decided that troops were going in. Special forces and CIA folks were on the ground first and it took days to get them supplies at certain points.
Once this occurred I'm sure some people saw opportunity and began to work on building the military industrial complex. No doubt the big time defense companies were finding ways to get their products and services purchased from the federal government. I hope you aren't trying to say that a factor in deciding to launch the war was for profit.
-
I'm not disputing whether or not war has become a big, profitable business. But not only do I disagree with your assertion that it was a war for profit from day one, but I believe it to be factually false. Prior to U.S. Forces even getting on ground, the CIA was working with both the Afghans and Pakistanis to first try and avoid the war altogether and then later on the best strategy once it was decided that troops were going in. Special forces and CIA folks were on the ground first and it took days to get them supplies at certain points.
Once this occurred I'm sure some people saw opportunity and began to work on building the military industrial complex. No doubt the big time defense companies were finding ways to get their products and services purchased from the federal government. I hope you aren't trying to say that a factor in deciding to launch the war was for profit.
That's what I'm saying. It was a golden opportunity to crank up big government contracts. This is why we are still there 16 years later.
To believe anything less is naive at best.
-
That bothers me as much as if it were coming from a bitter ex-wife.
The part that I liked about Trump's speech is that we are not telegraphing our intentions to the enemy, other than telling them what we want. Let them guess what we are going to do and when we are going to do it.
Weren't you the one that posted about Bannon going to war for Trump? I thought it was interesting Bannon's reaction given that post.
-
The reason there is such a disconnect between the way people on the left perceived the speech given by the President and the way people on the right did is all about partisanship.
Democrats, liberals, progressives and the racist hate groups surrounding the democrat party these days couldn't see thru their haze of hate to even imagine listening.
Ordinary working conservatives actually listened to the words he said instead instead of using their pre-prepared 'I hate Donald Trump' blinders to do their thinking for them.
The people who elected Donald Trump heard a fine speech. The people who feel, felt, or think that a crime was committed because they failed to get their way would never listen to begin with.
-
Be honest with y'all, I forgot why we got involved in the shithole in the first place. The Russians struck out there, and we've struck out there. Maybe it was something to do with the opium/heroin trade, I don't know.
What I DO know, is that nothing is helping on the drug front, and we have good men and women in harms way for no reason which is suitable to the national defense. Unless someone wants to use the drug epidemic as the cliche 'clear and present danger to the nation'. Which I consider - equine feces, of the highest order.
-
Be honest with y'all, I forgot why we got involved in the shithole in the first place.
Surely you jest? Um..... 9/11?
The Russians struck out there, and we've struck out there. Maybe it was something to do with the opium/heroin trade, I don't know.
What I DO know, is that nothing is helping on the drug front, and we have good men and women in harms way for no reason which is suitable to the national defense. Unless someone wants to use the drug epidemic as the cliche 'clear and present danger to the nation'. Which I consider - equine feces, of the highest order.
Agree 1000 times over.
-
Surely you jest? Um..... 9/11?
9/11 was the excuse to go in there. However, if one remembers 9/11 the majority of the hijackers were Saudis.......Funny how we didn't go running into SA.
And yes I realize Al Qaeda was using Afghanistan as a training area and base of operations. But our bigger problem in the region is Pakistan, you know that shit hole country we continue to drop $$$billions of federal "aid" into while they laugh at us all while harboring fugitives and terrorist.
We should have never spooled up the Afghan war to what it has become. These people in that region are still living hundreds of years behind the rest of the world, and they like it, it's their way of life. No matter how much we spend, how many more lives we sacrifice in the end it will be the same old shit hole.
-
Here's your tax dollars at work in Afghanistan:
https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-12-18/behold-american-taxpayer-what-happened-nearly-half-billion-your-dollars
-
9/11 was the excuse to go in there. However, if one remembers 9/11 the majority of the hijackers were Saudis.......Funny how we didn't go running into SA.
And yes I realize Al Qaeda was using Afghanistan as a training area and base of operations. But our bigger problem in the region is Pakistan, you know that shit hole country we continue to drop $$$billions of federal "aid" into while they laugh at us all while harboring fugitives and terrorist.
We should have never spooled up the Afghan war to what it has become. These people in that region are still living hundreds of years behind the rest of the world, and they like it, it's their way of life. No matter how much we spend, how many more lives we sacrifice in the end it will be the same old shit hole.
The way I see it:
After 9/11 we should have concentrated on Afghanistan. Instead we took token action in Afghanistan but went hog wild in Iraq. That is on Bush.
Obama (remember, the guy that got the peace prize) thought that anything he could do to make Bush look bad would be good for him, so he ramped up Afghanistan, but put so many restrictions (ie, ROE) on the troops, it was a mess. Plus announcing his exit time table was just completely fucked up and gave the enemy the info they needed to lay low and make time work in their favor.
Now, we are engaged in a great civil war (not ours). We know we should not be there, but our choices are to turn tail and surrender, or change gears and try to win the damn thing.
I hope Trump decides to win the damn thing.
As for Russia getting whupped in Afghanistan, that has nothing to do with our ability to win there. The reason they got beat was 100% the result of our intervention (ie, arming the resistance fighters, who later became the Taliban, with Stingers so they could shoot down Russian helicopters).
-
Do some history reading on Afghanistan. It's called the "Graveyard of Empires" for a reason.
These people are still living in medieval times and that's the way they like it.
-
Do some history reading on Afghanistan. It's called the "Graveyard of Empires" for a reason.
These people are still living in medieval times and that's the way they like it.
So what you are saying is that it has always been that way, therefore it will always BE that way.
I don't buy that.
What I do buy is that if we don't have a clear mission in mind, and if we don't have the will to carry it out, then we will NEVER accomplish our mission.
I believe Trump and our military have the will and the ability to carry out the mission.
I just don't know if anyone knows what that mission is yet. I hope it is not to try to build Afghanistan into a democracy like ours. I believe that is where we have always gone wrong over there.
-
So what you are saying is that it has always been that way, therefore it will always BE that way.
I don't buy that.
What I do buy is that if we don't have a clear mission in mind, and if we don't have the will to carry it out, then we will NEVER accomplish our mission.
I believe Trump and our military have the will and the ability to carry out the mission.
I just don't know if anyone knows what that mission is yet. I hope it is not to try to build Afghanistan into a democracy like ours. I believe that is where we have always gone wrong over there.
What's the mission? Blow them to hell, then rebuild their country into a democracy and bring them into modern times?
Then when we finally leave guess what happens? Everything goes to shit and they return to goat herding and growing poppies. All of that time and money for............nothing.
Read this article to see what a cluster fuck that place is. https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-12-18/behold-american-taxpayer-what-happened-nearly-half-billion-your-dollars
If we really want to "win", we need to load up the bombers, load up the cruise missiles on the ships and subs then turn all that sand into glass and be done with it.
-
I hope Trump decides to win the damn thing.
"Win" being defined as ...?
Currently there are never more than about 12,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan at any given moment[1]. That's not much relative to the number that were committed in the past - consider this graphic showing the troop level over time, the casualties, and the current situation on the ground. Keep in mind its been 16 years of fighting. In a couple more years we'll be able to deploy soldiers to Afghanistan who were born after the war began!
(http://www.straitstimes.com/sites/default/files/articles/2017/06/15/st_20170615_xtroops_3210528.jpg)
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/u-s-has-thousands-more-troops-afghanistan-pentagon-admits-n795141 (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/u-s-has-thousands-more-troops-afghanistan-pentagon-admits-n795141)
-
What's the mission? Blow them to hell, then rebuild their country into a democracy and bring them into modern times?
That is exactly what I said I hope the mission is NOT.
Personally, I don't think turning Afghanistan into glass would solve anything. We would also have to do the same to Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan to have any sort of effect.
What we have over there is a cluster-fuck. Honestly, I don't know what the mission should be any more, but turning tail and running will only make it more attractive for other asshole countries to try to take advantage of us.
-
OK, so there are bad people in and around Afghanistan. And they go in and out of Pakistan too. So what? Is it worth my son? Your daughter? Our trillion tax dollars wasted?
Imagine what some of those killed in the mess over there could have accomplished. Imagine what the trillions we've spent wasting it over there could have been done for the US. I blame EVERYONE. Including now Trump. GET OUT. Let them fight each other, sell them all the guns they want, grow poppies, fuck goats, I DON"T CARE because it's not worth anything to the US to 'solve'.
-
OK, so there are bad people in and around Afghanistan. And they go in and out of Pakistan too. So what? Is it worth my son? Your daughter? Our trillion tax dollars wasted?
Imagine what some of those killed in the mess over there could have accomplished. Imagine what the trillions we've spent wasting it over there could have been done for the US. I blame EVERYONE. Including now Trump. GET OUT. Let them fight each other, sell them all the guns they want, grow poppies, fuck goats, I DON"T CARE because it's not worth anything to the US to 'solve'.
I don't disagree with that.
But do you remember those images of our people trying to get out of Vietnam? It was disgraceful, leaving under fire like that as if we were being chased out. I don't want to see that again.
If we do decide to leave, we should announce that if even one of our troops is hurt during the withdrawal, then the "glass" scenario will happen. And we should bring all of our hardware and weaponry back with us, unless someone wants to pay top dollar for it. We can waive "shipping and handling" charges since it is already there.
-
9/11 was the excuse to go in there. However, if one remembers 9/11 the majority of the hijackers were Saudis.......Funny how we didn't go running into SA.
And yes I realize Al Qaeda was using Afghanistan as a training area and base of operations. But our bigger problem in the region is Pakistan, you know that shit hole country we continue to drop $$$billions of federal "aid" into while they laugh at us all while harboring fugitives and terrorist.
We should have never spooled up the Afghan war to what it has become. These people in that region are still living hundreds of years behind the rest of the world, and they like it, it's their way of life. No matter how much we spend, how many more lives we sacrifice in the end it will be the same old shit hole.
We fell victim to one of the classic blunders - the most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia."
-
We would also have to do the same to Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan to have any sort of effect.
Yeah? And?
-
We fell victim to one of the classic blunders - the most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia."
At least we didn't fall victim to another classic blunder!
-
I don't disagree with that.
But do you remember those images of our people trying to get out of Vietnam? It was disgraceful, leaving under fire like that as if we were being chased out. I don't want to see that again.
If we do decide to leave, we should announce that if even one of our troops is hurt during the withdrawal, then the "glass" scenario will happen. And we should bring all of our hardware and weaponry back with us, unless someone wants to pay top dollar for it. We can waive "shipping and handling" charges since it is already there.
Well, I don't know you, but maybe I remember it better than you. My date of enlistment was 12/21/73. So, yeah - it's clear as yesterday to me. Alternative? Blow Kabul, etc to hell and gone. Use nukes, flatten the place, and have a big do-over. I - don't - give - a - wet - dribbly - SHIT. Just get our kids the hell out of there, and take everything bigger than a toothpick home. Either or, go big or go home. Why is the US mired in this waste of land? No oil, no industry, no commerce(except heroin) so no one can tell me what the end-game is? If we are staying so as not to be a repeat of Vietnam, then destroy the place. Whatever - just stop wasting time and money.
-
Why is the US mired in this waste of land?
Because it generates billions and billions of $$$ in contracts. The organizations that are awarded these contracts in turn have lobbyist. Our congressmen and senators get big campaign donations from these companies.
It's business, pure and simple.
-
Napalm the poppy fields, pull out and go home.
-
Because it generates billions and billions of $$$ in contracts. The organizations that are awarded these contracts in turn have lobbyist. Our congressmen and senators get big campaign donations from these companies.
It's business, pure and simple.
^^^^^This. I was a consultant to a very large defense contractor in the metro DC area. All ex Navy, Air Force, and Army guys. The leadership, all the execs, including the CEO were retired Admirals, and Generals. They were in bed with every branch, plus the NSA. Regularly, I'd be in an elevator with one, two, and three star Generals, and Admirals yucking it up with one of the senior execs. Guess what? They'd be next in line to go too one of these companies, and repeat the entire process of contract awards. It is a HUGE business, and we are paying for it.
The 12 richest counties in the USA surround Washington DC.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/12/12/the-d-c-suburbs-dominate-the-list-of-wealthiest-u-s-counties/?utm_term=.c8c8698b8fc6
-
The 12 richest counties in the USA surround Washington DC.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/12/12/the-d-c-suburbs-dominate-the-list-of-wealthiest-u-s-counties/?utm_term=.c8c8698b8fc6
Someone once asked Willie Sutton why he robs banks; the answer was, "Because that's where the money is."
-
"Win" being defined as ...?
Currently there are never more than about 12,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan at any given moment[1]. That's not much relative to the number that were committed in the past - consider this graphic showing the troop level over time, the casualties, and the current situation on the ground. Keep in mind its been 16 years of fighting. In a couple more years we'll be able to deploy soldiers to Afghanistan who were born after the war began!
(http://www.straitstimes.com/sites/default/files/articles/2017/06/15/st_20170615_xtroops_3210528.jpg)
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/u-s-has-thousands-more-troops-afghanistan-pentagon-admits-n795141 (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/u-s-has-thousands-more-troops-afghanistan-pentagon-admits-n795141)
So if I did my math correctly, the number of troop deaths are as follows:
Bush presidency: 630 (26%)
Obama presidency: 1,762 (73%)
Trump presidency: 7 (0.3%)
So obviously the narrative must be "Trump doesn't care about our troops!"
-
So what you are saying is that it has always been that way, therefore it will always BE that way.
I don't buy that.
That's the culture there and until the people who live there want it changed, it won't change no matter what we do. There's also nothing wrong with that, it's their land, people, and culture.
I believe Trump and our military have the will and the ability to carry out the mission.
I just don't know if anyone knows what that mission is yet. I hope it is not to try to build Afghanistan into a democracy like ours. I believe that is where we have always gone wrong over there.
Trump made it pretty clear in his speech the other night that we are going to kill terrorists.
-
Obama (remember, the guy that got the peace prize) thought that anything he could do to make Bush look bad would be good for him, so he ramped up Afghanistan, but put so many restrictions (ie, ROE) on the troops, it was a mess. Plus announcing his exit time table was just completely fucked up and gave the enemy the info they needed to lay low and make time work in their favor.
This is correct.
I hope Trump decides to win the damn thing.
This is the problem. There is no clear definition of what it means to "win" there. There have been no metrics for success described. Trump said we aren't going to nation build and that we're going to kill terrorists. That's fine, but there has to be some sort of criteria for us to define us "winning" and I have yet to see it.
As for Russia getting whupped in Afghanistan, that has nothing to do with our ability to win there. The reason they got beat was 100% the result of our intervention (ie, arming the resistance fighters, who later became the Taliban, with Stingers so they could shoot down Russian helicopters).
I think it's more complicated than that. Plus, our intention was never to invade, occupy and hold. It's still not. We tried to setup a functioning government (whether or not that has been successful can be a whole other thread) and keep the Taliban from returning to power along with killing terrorists. That appears to be shifting to strictly killing terrorists.
-
This is the problem. There is no clear definition of what it means to "win" there. There have been no metrics for success described. Trump said we aren't going to nation build and that we're going to kill terrorists. That's fine, but there has to be some sort of criteria for us to define us "winning" and I have yet to see it.
There never has been a definition on "winning" there. Reason? There has never been an impetuous to bring it to a close. One doesn't crank up a business and say "When we make $xxx then we shut it down and call it a "win".
Again, Afghanistan was a business proposition from day 1. And those around the beltway in DC have been nervous with Trump in the WH because he said he was cutting off their cash cow (during the campaign), hence why so many in the establishment despise him. Trump has been hitting to close to home with the establishment types who live off of government contracts, that's why they want and desire one of their own in the WH, an establishment R or D that will keep the money flowing.
I think it's more complicated than that. Plus, our intention was never to invade, occupy and hold. It's still not. We tried to setup a functioning government (whether or not that has been successful can be a whole other thread) and keep the Taliban from returning to power along with killing terrorists. That appears to be shifting to strictly killing terrorists.
And that philosophy has never worked in that region. The goat herders and poppy farmers are happy with their medieval form of government and quit frankly don't mind the taliban. And as soon as we pull out of there it will resort back to medieval times.
Make no mistake, the people in US government knew this well before the first troop was on the ground there. The government has no problem in sacrificing lives in order to enrich others. Vietnam was an excellent example of that.
-
What is winning? Killing terrorists? Well, let's bring back McNamara, and Westmoreland, and do body counts to measure "winning"! ::)
-
There never has been a definition on "winning" there. Reason? There has never been an impetuous to bring it to a close. One doesn't crank up a business and say "When we make $xxx then we shut it down and call it a "win".
I disagree. The definition of winning has evolved over time as different challenges and presidents have come about. We went into Afghanistan because of 9/11 to remove the Taliban and destroy the terrorist training camps and safe havens. The objectives after that have kept changing, even until this week.
Again, Afghanistan was a business proposition from day 1.
Says you. I don't buy that argument and don't believe it to be true, at all.
And that philosophy has never worked in that region. The goat herders and poppy farmers are happy with their medieval form of government and quit frankly don't mind the taliban. And as soon as we pull out of there it will resort back to medieval times.
You must've missed this part:
That's the culture there and until the people who live there want it changed, it won't change no matter what we do. There's also nothing wrong with that, it's their land, people, and culture.
The government has no problem in sacrificing lives in order to enrich others. Vietnam was an excellent example of that.
This is just silliness.
-
What is winning? Killing terrorists? Well, let's bring back McNamara, and Westmoreland, and do body counts to measure "winning"! ::)
Yep.
Trump is between a rock and a hardspot on this little fiasco. If he shuts it down, he loses. If he stays and keeps fighting, he loses. The people that set this up and pull the strings know that and are quit happy to keep it rolling along.
We were warned.
-
Trump is between a rock and a hardspot on this little fiasco. If he shuts it down, he loses. If he stays and keeps fighting, he loses.
This much we agree on.
-
This is just silliness.
Says you. Welcome to the real world.
-
Says you. Welcome to the real world.
Saying this doesn't make it true. Believe it or not, people have differing opinions, though you make statements like this as if they are fact and indisputable.
-
Saying this doesn't make it true. Believe it or not, people have differing opinions, though you make statements like this as if they are fact and indisputable.
Pot, meet kettle. ::)
-
Trump is between a rock and a hardspot on this little fiasco. If he shuts it down, he loses. If he stays and keeps fighting, he loses. The people that set this up and pull the strings know that and are quit happy to keep it rolling along.
Perhaps the best solution is to privatize the war. Turn it over to people who WANT to be there. They will be unsupported by the US, but they can extract whatever pay they need from the country and/or defeated enemy. Something like a modern-day land-based privateer. Turns this lose-lose into something where everyone wins!
-
Trump caved to the establishment. Yes, he is damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't. Not, and easy job, and I don't envy him, but he wanted it. He may have cut a deal with establishment Republicans to support his other agenda items, so we don't know what really happened. Maybe healthcare repeal/replace will get passed, or at least some kind of healthcare reform.
-
Trump caved to the establishment. Yes, he is damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't. Not, and easy job, and I don't envy him, but he wanted it. He may have cut a deal with establishment Republicans to support his other agenda items, so we don't know what really happened. Maybe healthcare repeal/replace will get passed, or at least some kind of healthcare reform.
I'm not sure I would term it "caved", more like playing politics. These establishment types want their sacred cows protected and are willing to screw the American public to accomplish that. It appears to me Trump is getting into a high stakes poker game with them in order to get some movement on his agenda. Unfortunately he's dealing with snakes who will resort to any low life tactic possible to keep their empire intact.
The Afghan war is a cash cow for the establishment and they want it to continue. Trump is being smart by letting the Generals call the shots, but rest assured those Generals are under a lot of pressure by the establishment not to do anything that will shut down their gold mine.
The swamp is out of control around the beltway and the American people fired the first shot with the election of 2016. Hopefully when 2018 rolls around they will start getting rid of the establishment types via the primaries.
But as discussed earlier, DC is filled with Deep State beauracrats that will take years to clear out. The legacy of BHO weaponizing the federal government is his biggest accomplishment.