aside The Problem Of Americans Lacking Trust In The US President (Syrian Attack)

Related imageIt is sad when too many Americans don’t trust the republican President Donald Trump and the government he has created.

If he does something right, it is assumed that it was by accident or that someone was playing him or that he is up to no good. There has to be an ulterior motive, somewhere. And any or all of the above could be true.

In this case, I simply do not want to believe the “wag the dog” theories because I genuinely am convinced that our president took the right tact in ordering a swift and limited military response to the Syrian military’s recent sarin gas attack on its own citizenry. But unfortunately there are these nagging doubts which keep seeping into my consciousness.  I am truly conflicted over all of these events having to do with the past week’s events in Syria.

A child receives treatment Tuesday at an Idlib province hospital after a suspected chemical attack. I have been putting some thought to this whole situation and have shared my thinking in other blogs.

Here is what I know:

1.) President Trump is not one who I would think becomes emotional over pictures of children being hurt to where he does 180 degree adjustment in his thinking. Despite recent equally heart wrenching photos of Syrian refugee children, he has done everything in his power to prevent them from gaining entry into this country. I do not ascribe to him any noble intentions.

2.) President Bashar al-Assad of Syria is more than capable of gassing his own peoples to force them to move from regions under rebel control to areas under his authority. No one would ever refer to him as a good guy. Still, his timing was totally tone deaf  and counter-productive but then he knew he had the backing of Russia.

President Vladimir Putin, right, and President Bashar al-Assad (AP Photo/ Mikhail Klementiev, ITAR-TASS, Presidential Press Service )

3.) Russia has strong control over the Syrian territory area. Its President Vladimir Putin is someone who would not hesitate to resort to ugly tactics to assert his authoritative power.

4.) Around 4/5/17, early, several witnesses saw Syrian aircraft dropping chemical bombs from the air in Khan Sheikhoun, Syria where peoples ended up being victimized by sarin gas. US military can verify this via its advanced technology.

Image result for recent photos of donald trump at mie a lagoAs per a 4/6/17 CNN report by Angela Dewan, Khareem Khadder, and Holly Yan, “Syria denied it used chemical weapons. Russia asserted the deaths resulted from a gas released when a regime airstrike hit a “terrorist” chemical weapons factory on the ground. But survivors being treated in a hospital on the Turkish side of the border told a CNN team they saw chemical bombs dropped from the air.”

When the Turkish doctors did autopsies, there were UN observers present. The victims all presented themselves with symptoms typical of those gassed with sarin chemical weapon. I absolutely buy this scenario.

SyriaEKSo, as far as the attack is concerned, I am convinced that Syria is indeed guilty of this crime, and consequently, I have no problem with the President’s swift and limited military response.

What I am willing to buy into, is that US should have done more checking and planning for significant targets before acting so swiftly.

Iran is calling for a full investigation which I support.

So where do the “wag the dog” scenarios fit into the above set of facts?

Here is where new pieces of the puzzle are helpful.

1.) It turns out that post the Syrian gas attack on the same day, witnesses saw a RUSSIAN DRONE which was followed up with an airstrike on a medical facility where the sarin gas victims were being treated.

2.) Close up photos reviewed by military experts of the Shayrat airbase indicate that Russian planes are interspersed with Syrian aircraft. This means Russian military are working side by side with the Syrian soldiers to where it is hard to fathom how Russia could not have been aware of Syria’s plan to inflict a sarin gas attack on its own peoples from this very same airfield.

3.) This retaliatory US military action did minimal damage.

4.) US military brass is now looking into any Russian involvement in the sarin gas attack.

So, the following “wag the dog” scenario is plausible but not likely (my bias), if Russia orchestrated these events to help the U.S. president improve his standing with the American peoples to where he would be in a better position to help Russia in the future by the lifting sanctions against it. For Russia’ s effort to be worthwhile, it would have required President Trump’s tacit approval.

Russia and Syria’s future reaction and actions regarding President Trump’s US military retaliatory move will tell me more.

Image result for recent photos of donald trumpThen there is the other “wag the dog” theory where President Donald Trump took this step, however consequential to improve his popularity and as a distraction from other troublesome news surrounding him.

For more on this theory…

On 4/7/17, Frank Bruni of The New York Times penned the following editorial commentary, “The Riddle of Trump’s Syria Attack.”


“The agony of Donald Trump — well, one of the many agonies — is that there are times when he will actually do the right thing, or at least a defensible thing, and we’ll be left wondering, even more than we did with other presidents, about what his motivations were, whether they fit into any truly considered plan or whether his actions amount to the newest episode of a continuing reality show.”

“Such is the case with the strike against Syria, which is too big a risk in too complicated a place to be used for distraction, for diversion, for the pose he needs in the narrative du jour.”

Image result for images of us attack in syria“There’s justification for it, absolutely. President Obama had advisers who wished he’d done something similar.”

“But Trump’s military action makes little sense in the context of most of what he said in the years before he was elected and much of what he has done as president so far. Let me get this straight: Obama wasn’t supposed to draw or be drawn across a red line, not even when the Assad regime used chemical weapons, but when the regime did that on Trump’s watch, it crossed “many, many lines,” in his words, and compelled an American response?”

“That’s a “dizzying turnabout,” as Blake Hounshell wrote in Politico, under the headline “Trump’s Syria Whiplash.” And I can’t square Trump’s statements over the last two days that the United States can’t stand by idly in the face of such grotesque suffering with his determination to bar those who suffer from being accepted as refugees into America. The babies prompt outrage and heartache when they’re writhing in Syria, but God forbid they come here.”

“And so two questions, loud and urgent: Why did he do this now? And, beyond that, who exactly is he?”

Related image“The readiest answers unsettle me. It’s impossible to ignore the degree to which the military strike pushes a slew of unflattering stories about the Trump administration — its failed attempt to undo Obamacare, the feuding within its ranks and, above all, the probes into possible collusion between Trump’s associates and the Russian government — to the side of the page. Nothing drowns out scandal like the fire and fury of 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles.”

“The notion that military action salvages a president on the defensive, boldly underscoring his role as commander in chief, is nothing new. But there’s a fresh wrinkle in this case, because those bombs put Trump at particular odds with Russia at a moment when there’s enormous advantage in that.’

“Listen to the television commentators right now. Read the news. It focuses on present and looming tensions with Vladimir Putin, not the Putin-Trump kissy-face that’s been so appalling and fascinating to watch. It’s a whole new story.”

Image result for images of us attack in syria“What’s more, the quickness with which those missiles followed the Assad regime’s latest atrocity cast Trump in an emphatically decisive light. It’s precisely the look that he needs right now.”

“That brings me back to the second of the two questions I asked earlier: Who is this president? Is he guided by any fixed philosophies or is he moved by moods and operating on whim? It’s a concern that’s amplified in Trump’s presidency, because his background is so unusual: no government experience, no military service, a hodgepodge of political positions and associations over time. On top of which, his performance on the campaign trail, in debates and in the White House has made clear, time and again, how woefully uninformed he can be and how blissfully untroubled by that he is.”

“But another take is that Trump isn’t just uninformed but unformed. As the week went on, there were more and more reports of extreme acrimony and outright warfare between Steve Bannon and Jared Kushner in the White House. The intensity of that collision reflects competing ideologies but it also speaks to the stakes. The spoils (for the winner), it seems, are the opportunity to mold him utterly, because nearly 80 days into his administration, he remains a wet piece of clay.”

Related Article:

The war in Syria, explained – Vox 4/8/2017syria-trump-bomb-assad-


  1. One point that worried me about the speed with which he reacted in this latest affair is his lack of consultation with his allies some of whom may have had good intelligence from the ground. Unilateral action doesn’t sit well when a coordinated response may have been better, especially putting a united face on for Russia.
    It’s the speed that led me to believe that this action was orchestrated by the Russians ( who may have even dropped the gas cannisters themselves ) in an effort to deflect attention away from looking for more Trump-Putin connections.
    xxx Huge Hugs xxx

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dear David Prosser,

      It is a very real possibility that President Putin and Russia were complicit with Syria in the sarin gas attack. But if he did this to deflect from US investigations into any Trump/Putin connections, this was a counter productive move. He just lost this chess match. The US will be looking at Russia more than ever.

      Syria is in a no win situation. President Assad is Shia but now the population consists mostly of Sunnis.

      The Sunnis and Shia are like the Protestants and Catholics used to be in Northern Ireland. They hate each other. There is no way that a Sunni population is going to be accepting of a Shia leader which is why Assad feels as if he has to maintain tight controls. Russia has its military bases including a huge permanent base in Syria and he feels as if he needs the naval base for strategic reasons. So Russia is aligned with Iran (Shia) country with Hezbollah (Shia terrorist group) to keep Assad propped up. Plus the neighbor Saudi Arabia (Sunnis) with Turkey’s help have been arming Syrian rebel groups to fight against the regime of Assad. And this only gets more complicated because of the Turks hatred for the Kurds. The Turks hatred of the Kurds is so intense, that for a long time they were arming ISIS and lying to the US about this because the US was supposed to be fighting ISIS.

      While I was definitely in favor of the US military retaliatory action in Syria to make Assad pay a price for using sarin gas on his peoples, this is not an area where our participation at this point can lead to a viable resolution.

      Ciao, Gronda


  2. One thing that I always admire and respect about your posts, Gronda, is that you are willing to consider many differing theories and angles. We cannot know the whole story yet … perhaps we never will … but you have presented many tidbits of ‘food for thought’ with this post. Perhaps the most important statement is your first: “It is sad when too many Americans don’t trust the republican President Donald Trump and the government he has created.” DT has created an environment of distrust, or always feeling like any information coming from his regime needs to be ‘fact-checked’ for alternative facts, untruths. Yes, it is sad, but it is the world we have found ourselves in. Thank you for presenting so many viewpoints to consider in this single post! Hugs, my dear friend!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dear Jill,

      My distrust of DDT is such a problem,.I am worried that with all this positive publicity (the media has gone crazy) that DDT will be tempted to take further action in Syria which cannot possibly end well.

      Frankly the media is almost celebrating this which in my mind, is totally unwarranted.

      And thanks for the gracious feedback. It is appreciated.

      Hugs, Gronda

      Liked by 1 person

  3. While I do actually understand your position on this action, I must respectfully disagree. As I predicted a short time ago when King tRump was pushed into the corner that some how or some way we would be drawn into a crisis involving military action. Well here comes the mighty King tRump riding upon his white horse to save the day in Syria, what a surprise it is to some, right? This man is willing to sacrifice this nation to save his precious ego and here is his opportunity! I might suggest with all the capabilities to cause grievous and major damage to the infrastructure of Syria, King tRump orders our military to make a strike upon the airport inflicting minimum damages is a sign of a staged attack designed to save his own skin! To even suggest that King tRump has the least amount of sympathy for the Syrian people is absurd considering his prior history of hate shown toward them. I’m sorry, but IMO to consider this as anything other than a false flag attack to turn the opinions of his supporters back to adoration toward his is difficult if not impossible!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dear Crustyolemothman,

      This is a blog where it is safe zone for anyone to to present a different point of view. Actually, it is welcomed.

      There are many folks who agree with your thinking.

      Ciao, Gronda


    • Hi Gronda, I do appreciate your thorough analysis, trying to deduce the logic behind the syrian gas attack. Going by the preliminary evidence, I would have to agree with crusty, this seems like a classic false flag attack, carried out hastily as a show of force to gain popularity and poll ratings. I know it sounds insane that a president would risk getting mired in yet another war for ratings… and yet we know that DT is a media whore with his own reality show and hosts superficially silly beauty pageants… all for stoking his bloated ego.

      Here’s another post which summarizes why this is a coordinated false flag attack… who stands to benefit? Certainly not Assad or Syria:


        • In light of these fast changing news events, flip-flopping he said-she said narratives, you may very well be right!
          I’m just trying to keep an open mind, waiting for additional facts to drop.

          “There is also an internal dispute over the intelligence. On Thursday night, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said the U.S. intelligence community assessed with a “high degree of confidence” that the Syrian government had dropped a poison gas bomb on civilians in Idlib province.

          But a number of intelligence sources have made contradictory assessments, saying the preponderance of evidence suggests that Al Qaeda-affiliated rebels were at fault, either by orchestrating an intentional release of a chemical agent as a provocation or by possessing containers of poison gas that ruptured during a conventional bombing raid.”

          Trump’s ‘Wag the Dog’ Moment:


  4. Reblogged this on Filosofa's Word and commented:
    The chemical weapon attacks on the Province of Idlib on Tuesday, followed by the U.S. attacks on Shayrat air base in Syria on Thursday night, have stirred many theories, much controversy, and have sent those of us who demand answers scurrying to find answers to the many questions that are yet unanswered. My friend Gronda has positied her own thoughts, as well as others whose theories may be slightly different. What and why do we question? As Gronda says in her opening sentence, “It is sad when too many Americans don’t trust the republican President Donald Trump and the government he has created.” It is sad, indeed, but almost nobody other than his die-hard supporters believe what we are told by the Trump regime. Please read Gronda’s astute comments, thoughts, and reflections, and think about what this may mean for the future of U.S. foreign policy. Thank you, Gronda, for a very thought-provoking post!

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Another thought provoking post, with inspiring intelligent replies.
    Just looking back at the history of the Middle East in the 20th Century with the fall of the Ottoman Empire is to encounter a most complex interweaving of peoples, religions, social grouping and above all clans. To start from one particular point in history begs stepping back to another for a further explanation, which in turn requires another step back and at each step, branching out to important ‘other factors’. When there are periods of apparent peace these are of the uneasy sorts interspersed with low-key violence.

    Bearing in mind the less than professional construct of the current Administration, I could understand an emotional response*…. I think that was coupled with another emotional situation, the Admin wanted desperately to distance itself from Russia having suddenly woken up to the fact that the best relationship with Russia is one of firm but polite neighbourliness on both sides; you can’t be buddies. Thus having finally worked out that without Russia al-Assad is dust, and so Russia must have been complicit actively or tacitly, the Admin gets furious with both al-Assad and Russia and fires off a barrage of cruise missiles.
    Now of course it has a cross Russia and, has now learnt that Iran is actually supporting al-Assad too, which is another problem to deal with. In fact a level of hypocrisy since al-Assad is an Alawite Muslim, which by Iran’s Shi’a stance makes him an unspeakable heretic who if he was an Iranian would be having a very bad time. Gee, it’s tough at the top guys. What are you going to do next? (Actually it could be a lot worse, imagine a President Cruz dealing with this. He’s a professional….vicious professional).
    So I’m still going with the Woefully Inept Amateurs Who Didn’t Really Have Plans After Being Elected theory

    (*Hands up in guilt…I was all for bombing to hell the Serbian and Croatian armies during the break up of Yugoslavia and taking out any leader who relied on nationalism instead of the more effective policy of steady implied force, which the USA in the used most efficiently)

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dear Roger

      Now That you mention it, I think I will do a post on the history after 1918/ the break up of the Ottoman period with the characters of TE Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia, Gertrude Bell, Winston Churchill, Emir Abdullah, Sir Herbert Samuel and others.

      Many of the problems that we are dealing with today can be traced back to decisions made at that time regarding the creation of arbitrary new lines on a map.

      Thanks for your thoughts on this topic.

      Ciao, Gronda

      Liked by 1 person

      • Hello Gronda.
        That would be a very worthwhile post. We in the West have very sketchy ideas about the Middle East.
        I remember reading with surprise about the Sykes-Picot agreement (carve-up of Middle East) of 1916, all new to me, while the author explained it was common knowledge in even the most humble of villages across the region.
        ‘Arbitrary’ is the word indeed! Look at some of those straight lines- apparently a quote from at meeting in 1915 on examining a map of the Ottoman Empire…… Sykes had declared “I should like to draw a line from the e in Acre to the last k in Kirkuk.”
        (Comparative statement I should like to draw a line from the ‘n’ in London to the ‘e’ in Newcastle…..yeh good luck with that!)

        Liked by 1 person

        • Dear Roger,

          I did just post a cliff notes (very short history review) blog of that time period. We are still paying for those arbitrary lines where the various tribal groups with their various religions, traditions, culture etc. were given no consideration.

          There were Brits on the ground who knew better, but the governing body in London were not listening. Truly, there is nothing new under the sun.

          Ciao, Gronda

          Liked by 1 person

        • Hello Gronda.
          I will certainly be reading that today.
          As you say ‘Nothing new under the sun’…One of the rare times cool heads prevailed would have been the Fashoda Incident of 1898, when the French and British commanding officers in a face-off decided they would be ‘damned’ if they would fight over (my words) such a scrubby bit of land sent back a message to the upper echelons and had dinner together.
          Best wishes

          Liked by 1 person

  6. Look at some of those straight lines- apparently a quote from at meeting in 1915 on examining a map of the Ottoman Empire…… Sykes had declared “I should like to draw a line from the e in Acre to the last k in Kirkuk. .

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dear Techbook,


      That quote by Sykes would be consistent with the attitude of the Brits about the middle east area at that time. And the world is still paying for this cavalier thinking.

      Thanks for stopping by and ciao, Gronda


Comments are closed.