Are you aware that the Washington Post was forced by the Trump administration to issue a retraction for the article you referenced because they mischaracterized a State Department official’s comments?
“Clarification: An earlier version of this article mischaracterized State Department official James Jeffrey’s comment regarding possible U.S. airstrikes in Syria as a response to a Syrian-Russian offensive in Idlib. The remark — “We have asked repeatedly for permission to operate” — referred to potential ways of attacking terrorist forces there interspersed with Syrian rebel fighters.”
Just two weeks ago, Washington Post reporter Josh Rogin published a report suggesting that Trump was setting up for failure the same State Department officials referenced in the article you linked to.
“Privately, officials [James Jeffrey and Joel Rayburn] say they are just trying to do their best given the lack of resources from the White House and their understanding that Trump really does want to cut and run. For now, they seem to have persuaded Trump to keep U.S. troops there, but Trump could change his mind at any time.”
How many times have we seen this dance. An official with the Trump administration issues a statement characterizing the administration’s position on Syria to include indefinite troop deployment and regime change followed by Trump’s repudiation of same through contradictory statements and tweets. You suggest it’s just “narrative” but the evidence says otherwise. Trump wants out of Syria and doesn’t want to pay a penny for its reconstruction.
In the Post article you linked to, I found this comment by State Department official James Jeffrey revealing:
Asked whether Trump had signed off on what he called “a more active approach,” Jeffrey said, “I am confident the president is on board with this.”
Confident? His answer suggests uncertainty. I’m afraid Mr Jeffrey will soon learn, just as former S.O.S. Tillerson did, that Trump has no interest in removing Assad from power or maintaining a U.S. military presence in the region.
Certainly there are members of Trump’s administration, the intelligence community and senior members of Congress that have a different agenda and are placing pressure on him to conform to their will. Nevertheless, with very few exceptions, President Trump has stayed on point. And when he does capitulate, he owns it. President Trump does not blame others for the decisions he makes because he views this as weakness and his insatiable ego will not allow it.
Your article summarized the State Department’s aggressive tone on Syria and the impending conflict in Idlib Province but what did President Trump have to say? For balance, which is important whenever evaluating the enigmatic foreign policy of the Trump administration, Trump’s tweet from Monday addressing the heightened tensions in Idlib is included below.
Is it your position that Trump crafted this humanitarian plea for restraint to mask his true intentions to rain bombs down on Assad’s regime? If so, then perhaps it is you who clings to a fallacious narrative.
