Trump Doctrine: America First – Officials Briefing on Syria, North Korea and China…

A background briefing transcript from yesterday might aid in larger understanding of White House policy and strategic objectives toward Syria, Russia, North Korea and China.

[Transcript] – SENIOR ADMINISTRATON OFFICIAL:  (In progress) — on the relationship between the leaders of the United States, our President and Premier Xi, and then applying that newly formed relationship to complex problem sets from the Middle East to Northeast Asia, and then a result in the United Nations, it helps advance our mutual interests and the interests of all civilized people.

So I think it’s difficult to portray this as anything but a really great week for our citizens and the United States.

♦  Q    Thanks so much.  Japanese media is reporting that the USS Carl Vinson is in operations with the Japanese naval forces.  As you know, they have a (inaudible.)  What happens if there is a confrontation this week between North Korean forces and Japanese and U.S. forces?  And how will you prevent this from spiraling into a broader military conflict?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATON OFFICIAL:  Well, as you heard from the President many times, we’re not in the business of trying to predict with a high degree of certainty precisely what our response is going to be.

I think what we demonstrated last week was the ability of the President’s national security team to come together, convened by the National Security Council, to look at events such as those that might occur on the Korean Peninsula, quickly analyze those events, place them in context with U.S. vital interests, establish objectives that protect American citizens and advance our interests, and then develop and present the President with options.

So we have a team that is, I think, particularly adept at doing that.  And if there were to be continued destabilizing and aggressive behavior by the North Korean regime, that’s how the national security team would respond.

♦  Q    Did the President personally ask President Xi and China to abstain from the U.N. resolution?  And I have a second question on Russia.  The President said relations are at an all-time low.  What will it take for them to improve relations there?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATON OFFICIAL:  On the conversation with President Xi, I don’t think the President would want me to go into the specifics of the conversation.  I would just say that it was a very warm conversation based on not only the two leaders meeting, but their spouses meeting, and President Xi’s ability to meet the President’s extended family, and especially his grandchildren, which had, I think, a big effect on the relationship.

I think what I can say about the conversation is that it was a very frank and open conversation about two very complicated problems — one in the Middle East involving Syria, and one in Northeast Asia involving the North Korean regime and its behavior and the unacceptable threat posed by a regime such as that that has nuclear weapons.

So it was a great conversation, and I think that President Xi’s decision speaks for itself in terms of his leadership and his determination to not obstruct the U.N.’s ability to sanction the Assad regime for its behavior.

And in terms of the exercises with Japan, I just think it is obviously prudent for us to maintain our high level of vigilance in Northeast Asia, and it’s also prudent for us to maintain the close relationships and high-level training that we have with our allies in the region.

♦  Q    And what about Russia — how to improve — what should they do to improve relations?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, I’ll defer to my colleague on that because he’s the one who just had the conversations.  But it sounds like, from the press conference that they did, that there is a way ahead.  And you mentioned the working groups and so forth.  You have probably as good a knowledge as I do on that right now based on the press conference.

♦  Q    A couple questions.  One, why do we hold Syria accountable for its use of chemical weapons but not Russia for its support of Syria using its chemical weapons?  What’s the policy thought behind that?

Two, is there any movement in terms of our Special Forces in Syria?  Are you taking any precautions to ensure that there isn’t any retaliation against them?  And lastly, how are we doing in Raqqa?  Has this operation impacted our resources in terms of our ability to go into Raqqa and recapture the city?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Okay, for the last one first, it has not impacted in any way the offensive in Raqqa.  I defer any specifics for you to follow back to the Defense Department.

I think it wasn’t just us, but I think it was the entire international community that is holding not only the Assad regime but its sponsors responsible for this reprehensible and inhumane behavior of the regime that involves the chemical attack but also involves indiscriminate mass murder attacks against its citizens and through a number of other means as well.

♦  Q    I have two questions for you.  You’ve cited the abstention by China in today’s U.N. Security Council vote as a positive step for our national security.  There has also been news today that the President is no longer labeling China a “currency manipulator.”

Circumstantially, it seems as perhaps those two events could be related.  Is that accurate?  Was there some sort of, perhaps, deal worked out at the summit or negotiations that the President undertook?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I’ll defer to my colleague on that.  But I will just say in general that both decisions were made on the merits of those decisions separately.  There was no explicit linkage that I’m aware of between the two of those.

♦  Q    And then my second question on Russia.  You said that there’s a tremendous opportunity available to the Kremlin to play a role here while, at the same time, obviously having very harsh language against the Assad regime.  What gives you personally — you’ve seen this — what gives you hope that Russia is just going to change its mind?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, I think that maybe with the very strong international condemnation of their support for the Assad regime that this could change.  And also I think what you have seen in the last week is a United States that is committed to leading in the region.  And that creates opportunities for all kinds of people — even Russia.  And so I think that it’s time for a recalculation of how they can best protect their interests there.

♦  Q    After the strike?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  And for us, you know, maybe it’s not as rational as it should be.  But based on what Russian interests are in Syria, there is no reason that we can see that they can’t pursue their interests in a way that would allow them to be more productive and helpful in ending that civil war and moving toward a sustainable political outcome.

There also, as you know, have been some very dedicated diplomats working on this from an international perspective for many years.  And even they who have been working on it for many years are encouraged — skeptically so, maybe — but encouraged by recent developments.  And we owe it to humanity, we owe it to the Syrian people to do everything we can to allow Russia an avenue to play a productive role.

So I was going to go to all the way in the back.

♦  Q    General McMaster, what is the difference between Syrian civilians getting killed by chlorine bombs versus by sarin gas?  Would the use of chlorine bombs, which the regime has used several times in the past, be a new red line for this administration?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, it wasn’t a new red line, the use of chemical weapons.  The weapons — the nerve agent in particular.  But the President, as you know, in every question he’s asked about this, doesn’t think it’s really helpful to speculate about what a reaction will be in a specific case.  What he’s determined to do is do what’s best for the American people in every one of these instances.

What we have been able to do across the national security team — and by that I mean all the departments and agencies and their heads coming together — is I think we’ve been able to impart a much higher degree of clarity to our policy by framing these problem sets.

Whether it’s the approach to China and that relationship, or the very serious problem associated with North Korea and the Korean regime and its nuclear capabilities; the very complicated and difficult situation in Syria and across into Iraq involving ISIS, but also the sectarian civil war and the civil war broadly, and the multi-party conflict in Syria; the role of Iran; the relationship with Russia and how to deter Russia’s destabilizing behavior, but also the ability to look for areas of cooperation.

So these are really strategic problems and opportunities.  And what we’ve been able to do in just a few short weeks is frame those problems and opportunities to understand the situations in each of these areas, to view those situations through the lens of our vital interests and the vital interests of the American people, the security of the American people and the nation’s interest, and then to establish objectives.

So what’s happening now is — when events happen, we are able then to understand better how to sort of torque that even or to regard that event in a way that allows us to respond to it and move toward an objective.  And so what this also allows for is a much higher degree of common understanding with our allies and partners and across our government as well.

So what you’re seeing is a team now I think that’s able to achieve a much higher degree of agility in the area of foreign relations and the area of national security.  And I think it’s going to continue to pay off in the weeks and months ahead as well.

 

♦  Q    Thank you.  You said we owe it to humanity to give Russia — to play a role.  Would the U.S. consider joining, getting involved somehow in the Astana talks already going on?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, I would ask Secretary Tillerson that question.  I know that we’re fully supportive of the Geneva process.  I know that, of course, the dynamics have changed now, and we’ll see how they’ve changed.

What we would like to do is to use this opportunity for a reevaluation for all the parties to understand better how to use this new situation to move more rapidly toward a sustainable, political outcome in Syria that resolves that civil war and results, obviously, in the defeat of ISIS, al Qaeda and related groups — denies them the ability to control population centers and territory in Syria and Iraq — and then allows the consolidation of those military gains politically such that reconstruction can begin, the return of refugees and the long-suffering Syrian people in particular can return.

So to answer your question indirectly, we know that there has to be a political process.  We’re very supportive of the Geneva process, and obviously I think the President will rely on Secretary Tillerson to determine whether or not there’s a role for Astana in the days and weeks ahead.

♦  Q    General?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yes.

♦  Q    General, thank you.  You used the words events.  It reminds us of Prime Minister — British Prime Minister Macmillan:  Events, events, events, needless to say.  When will events — this is a question of urgency — can events actually spiral out of control?  And might it be time for the two most powerful men in the world — President Trump and President Putin — to meet together for their own special summit to try to resolve all of these issues?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, obviously, that’s up to the President and President Putin.  I think what you see is an extremely positive and appropriate step taken already with Secretary Tillerson’s visit, during which he had extensive talks with Foreign Minister Lavrov and President Putin.  And so it really remains to be seen based on the work that Secretary Tillerson has done there what an appropriate path ahead is.

So again, as you know, from the President’s many interactions with you, he is not doctrinaire about very many things, and he will look at this opportunistically.  I think what you’ve seen with the President in the last couple — at least I have as a member of the team here — is someone who sees possibilities where many others would see only difficulties.

♦  Q    So you’re saying that that possibility is off the table, General?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  No, no, I’m not.  I didn’t say that.  Come on.  (Laughter.)

♦  Q    Thank you, General.

♦  Q    Thank you.  The President described relations possibly at an all-time low.  Secretary Tillerson echoed those comments as well.  Vladimir Putin said that they appear “deteriorated.”  Yet you just described today as a positive step, and you also said that there appears to be a way ahead.  So I’m trying to grasp both of those.  My first question to you I guess is, is today viewed as a good day?  It didn’t apparently seem that way.

Then my second question, if you don’t mind, on the call last night, can you say if currency manipulation was discussed with President Xi?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yes, I’m not going to talk about the content of those phone calls because I think having a privileged channel of communication between Premier Xi and the President is really important to have.  So I just want both leaders to be confident that the discussions they have can be held in confidence, and that’s really best for everybody.

In terms of the Russian threat, it really gets to the previous question on recognizing that there is always a risk, right?  That there could be unintended consequences of any action, and it is much better to talk than to not talk.

And when I was alluding to a way ahead I was really alluding to a way ahead procedurally that Secretary Tillerson had laid out in his press conference with Foreign Minister Lavrov.  Whether or not anything positive substantively happens, that remains to be seen obviously.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Okay, so I’ll do one more.

♦  Q    One option that the President himself has mentioned several times is safe zones.  Where is that option now?  Is that under active consideration?  And how exactly would that work?  Could Raqqa, for example, become a safe zone if it’s liberated?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, as you know, in the areas in the far south and some of the areas in the east and areas in the — I’m sorry, in the west — and the northeast, those areas where as these brutal, murderous criminals, terrorists are defeated become a safe zone.  And for those of you who have been in these areas, you know that it’s almost astonishing how quickly life can return to these areas and to people who have suffered almost unspeakable brutality.

So there already some safe zones, right?  And while really what is important is how can the security gains be translated into sustainable, political outcomes consistent with the kind of security that we’d like to see — enduring security for the Syrian people and a political settlement and a resolution that’s in our mutual interest, right?

And so that’s the work that has to be done.  And you know that there are some key people at the U.N. working on this, and we’re working in partnership with many others, and we hope maybe with even more partners in the future to be able to move to that political outcome.

Thanks a lot, everybody.

♦  Q    Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Just a reminder, we were on background, senior administration official.  Thanks.

♦ Q    No embargo, right?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  No, embargoed till it’s over, so now it’s over.

END – 5:40 P.M. EDT

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Big Government, Big Stupid Government, China, Decepticons, Deep State, Economy, Iran, Iraq, ISIS, Islam, Israel, Jihad, media bias, Military, President Trump, Professional Idiots, Russia, Secretary of State, Secretary Tillerson, Syria, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

121 Responses to Trump Doctrine: America First – Officials Briefing on Syria, North Korea and China…

  1. fedback says:

    Yes, it’s America First.
    If the US doesn’t lead, China or Russia will

    Liked by 7 people

  2. p'odwats says:

    The media is doing its best to portray the president as a dupe of globalists in his own camp. Unlike the last president he’s not telegraphing his every move in domestic and foreign policy. That’s what’s scary to our opponents internationally and domestically. They can’t make heads or tails of what this president will do. Good. Keep em guessing Mr. President. They won’t​ know what hit them.

    Liked by 17 people

  3. Publius2016 says:

    Senior Administration Official = General McMaster?

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Stringy Theory says:

    President Trump rules: meetings with Egypt’s president, Jordan’s king, Premier Xi of China, bombing Syria, MOABing ISIS in Afghanistant, T-Rex meeting with Putin, and so on. The press can’t even come close to following President Trump and his team as they play 4-d chess for all the marbles. Love it!

    Liked by 16 people

  5. David says:

    Hi friends. I am Israeli and I am so proud of Trump. The big bomb in Afganistan today is a good symbolic act. Just for entertainment I attached here a video from 2015 when an ISIS loser threatened Israel in Hebrew. Notice the IDF(Israel Defense Forces) response.

    Liked by 5 people

  6. Lburg says:

    Why would any senior official say “And for us, you know, maybe it’s not as rational as it should be” in answer to a question about Russia’s willingness to continue backing Assad (a.k.a. ‘recalculation)? What is the ‘it’ which maybe isn’t as rational as it should be?

    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, I think that maybe with the very strong international condemnation of their support for the Assad regime that this could change. And also I think what you have seen in the last week is a United States that is committed to leading in the region. And that creates opportunities for all kinds of people — even Russia. And so I think that it’s time for a recalculation of how they can best protect their interests there.

    ♦ Q After the strike?

    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: And for us, you know, maybe it’s not as rational as it should be. But based on what Russian interests are in Syria, there is no reason that we can see that they can’t pursue their interests in a way that would allow them to be more productive and helpful in ending that civil war and moving toward a sustainable political outcome.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I read that as a comment on Russia’s “rational self-interest”. The default expectation is that Russia, like all countries, is going to do what is best for themselves, and that whatever that is is determined rationally. The official is opining that Russia has perhaps not made that calculation re: their interests in Syria completely rationally. In between the lines is that Russia is partly acting on the basis of hubris or other emotions, rather than reason.

      Liked by 3 people

    • woohoowee says:

      ‘It’ = Russia backing Assad. (IOW Russia backing Assad is irrational.)

      Liked by 2 people

  7. David says:

    Duplicate comment….

    Liked by 3 people

  8. John Baker says:

    I wont be back, but it appears if we love Jesus this week and even hint at peace that sundance will block us all even if we are not controversial at all unless saving lives, hating killing and conservative values are not hate speech and accroding to this site they are.

    Like

    • Rudy Bowen says:

      You were ridiculous and questionable before and you still are.
      I don’t like the way you try to play a violin.

      Liked by 2 people

    • tinkerthinker2 says:

      I will pray for you.

      Like

    • Andy Smith says:

      I still like the site, so I am not leaving, but I concur. It has gone all warmongery. For those cheerleading all the interventions, remember that part of Trump’s big appeal to a significant number of us was his non-interventionism. Please try to be patient with those of us who otherwise support Trump, but are not about to get on board with regime change in Syria. To me McMaster = lying neocon = evil. It doesn’t help that blaming the Syrian chemical attack on Assad is a transparent lie.

      Liked by 3 people

      • screwauger says:

        What part of his campaign did you follow??

        Liked by 8 people

      • Stringy theory says:

        You mean like when Trump said during the primary he would bomb the hell out of ISIS and take care of the NORKS. Maybe your memory is faulty.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Trumppin says:

        You said: “remember that part of Trump’s big appeal to a significant number of us
        was his non-interventionism. ”

        “Peace through Strength” = one must not just have the bombs they must prove they are willing to strike in order to have that strength understood by all before there are “challenges” “tests” .
        “I will Bomb ISIS” = means he was going to be in the middle east dealing with this mess Obama created, part of that mess is Assad, Russia et al.
        It has also been stated by many (Trump,Trex,Spicer etc) he’s not going to be “nation building” in Syria, The approach will NOT BE militarily but diplomatically, that the Syrian People will decide Assads Future. To think he wasn’t going to be doing exactly what he is doing means you were not paying attention.

        Q. Did you think the Reason for all the Refugees was going to just magically get better at the wave of a wand? or that safe zones would just as magically appear? #RealityCheckIsleNine

        Liked by 8 people

      • SEJMON says:

        most of us would agree with you-no regime changes it is up to ppl in Syria,Iraq,etc..

        Like

      • yohio says:

        Bomb the sh*t out of someone signifies non interventionist? A lot of you heard what you wanted to hear! Then you believe the media propaganda & manipulation

        Like

      • yohio says:

        So again you want lots of rhetoric which leads to nothing, useless sanctions, and always crossed red lines. Eight yrs and Syria a mess, Iran Nukes, Russia backing the worse characters, China ignored everyone and an idiot in NK shooting off missiles

        Liked by 1 person

        • vincent cuomo says:

          The problem with some of these people is they think Trump should only focus on domestic issues; we voted for Trump to restore America’s greatness and image and that means tangling with and keeping in check the bad actors on the world stage; it is not warmongering; it is called protecting our interest; if we let Syria, Iran, Russia, North Korea walk all over America like we did the last 8 years then the world becomes a less safer place and all the jobs and industries will mean nothing if we have fires all around us; we tried that in 1914 and 1940 and it did not work out to well. We need to nip these problems in the bud before they become even more serious and we find ourselves actually fighting a WW#3.

          Like

      • R-C says:

        Your judgment is clearly skewed.

        You get no ‘peace’ without ‘strength’, and ‘strength’ does no good if the adversary doesn’t know you have it, and is dubious on your will to use it.

        And, President Trump was CRYSTAL CLEAR when he campaigned 1.5 years for the office he now holds. If you chose to engage in ‘selective hearing’, that’s a lick on you.

        I STAND WITH TRUMP!

        Liked by 8 people

      • El Torito says:

        I am offended by your use of the word “us.” The only transparent lie is your fake support of Trump.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jenny R. says:

        What would you have the U.S. do then?
        If we allow regimes like Syria and NK to continue with their actions (primarily, their continued work with Iran — and ALL this might entail vis a vis chemical and nuclear weapons…and I have already put up a link showing that Iran has more ties to IS and AQ than one might think, so there is that consideration), then we could be looking at greater bloodshed and war at a later date.
        I’m not saying that “yes, it will happen” because nobody knows the future, but it is a possibility. It would be nice if it wasn’t the case, but it is still a possibility.
        So…with this in mind, what should we do?

        Like

    • Stringy theory says:

      I’ll bet you drive a car with one of those “coexist” stickers on it.

      Liked by 5 people

    • Beryl Bomb says:

      Huh? Can’t believe anyone on this site would hold peace and loving Jesus against you.

      Liked by 1 person

    • P7rancher says:

      John how about judging what’s going on in a few months and see if you don’t feel better? There is a plan in motion even if you don’t see it. Be patient and trust in Trumps abilities.

      Liked by 1 person

    • xyzlatin says:

      John, Jesus actually was quite violent when he upended the money changers at the Temple so He set a good example for all of us. It caused quite a rumpus. Sometimes, we must do things against our nature and our policies to confront and DEFEAT evil. That means being 100% pacifist in every situation is actually not Christian. (This is why I have a strong beef with those Christian organisations helping to import muslims. They follow a religion which kills people just for not being muslim among other things).

      Like

    • Alexsandra says:

      I love Jesus but what you are saying except for that from beginning to end makes no sense.

      Like

      • Alexsandra says:

        My comment was aimed at John Baker’s, a skyscraper level above.

        Agree with you, Xyzlatin, that to be Christian does not mean pacifism. And even in the Old Testament, God promised a land filled with milk and honey to the Israelites yet they had much warfare to get there, and also warfare after they were there.

        As a matter of fact, in Revelation, God says, “In the cowardly and unbelieving My heart takes no delight.” Revelation fortells future warfare God is well aware of.

        Like

  9. Niagara Frontier says:

    The best part will be watching Congress play catch-up when they get back from their undeserved Spring break. They will have missed so much in two weeks that it will seem like a lifetime. Congress will not know where to begin, and their fecklessness will be apparent to everyone.

    Liked by 11 people

  10. TwoLaine says:

    “…he is not doctrinaire about very many things, and he will look at this opportunistically. I think what you’ve seen with the President in the last couple — at least I have as a member of the team here — is someone who sees possibilities where many others would see only difficulties.”

    BINGO!

    He makes lemonade out of lemons.

    Liked by 18 people

  11. free73735 says:

    For anyone who haven’t read SD and Wolfmoon”s articles, please take time to do so. 🙂 It will help us avoid, continually “coming unglued.” I suggest we take (the articles from Wolfmoon & SD) to heart & don’t let other reports, that are in opposition to MAGA (Trump), even supposedly “conservative ones”, throw us off balance.
    When we hear something (“take out Isis,” for instance) an expectation is developed, of what that will look like, and when it doesn’t happen the way we thought we get disappointed, and begin “flailing around.” Just to be clear,I am NOT suggesting we be puppets either, but learn to recognize “validity” better.

    Liked by 6 people

  12. fangdog says:

    The Spicer press briefings being an example of press people. It is a wonder they have enough sense to put their shoes on. They seem so stupid to me by their stupid idiotic questions. Expecting the press to keep up with the Trump administrations is like asking pigs to fly.

    Liked by 4 people

  13. John Baker says:

    This website is just like ISIS, if you post a positive message it will be taken down and you will be cut off on the head just like them. Do not be fool by the christian postings. If you talk about Jesus, you will be moderated and banned from this site. I have just for talking about Jesus and not wanted to be blood thirsty in the need to set our country straight.

    Shame, this used to be a great place, but it’s just an ISIS alternative. Different point of view, but same silencing of those that are not in agreement. I hear ppl here complain about NK, why complain? your voice in heard only if you agree here. it’s the same deal there. Agree and you are allowed to speak.,

    Like

  14. quintrillion says:

    I found this interesting about the Syrian chemical attack

    http://debka.com/newsupdatepopup/20349/US-intel-was-aware-of-chemical-attack-plan-but-failed-to-stop-it

    “Although Washington has the evidence, it will never reveal the source……Russia can repeatedly accuse… without evidence….US will not admit that American intelligence knew in advance about the attack and failed to prevent it.”

    Like

  15. freddiel says:

    I seriously feel better about the fact that our military leaders are using all of our allies (as well as making new ones) to fight the enemies that have been allowed to have their way for so many years. I believe that there has been a major shift and the reasonable governments of the world will no longer sit back. MAGA! MWGA! (Make World Great Again)

    Liked by 3 people

    • I’ve said it before, Trump has ushered in a second Gilded Age.

      Yes there is badness and hypocrisy but the firm leadership and optimism for the future has been absent since 1963! 1963!

      This is generational chance to change timelines to one where the world is safe, world wars are neither inevitable nor acceptable, and where the modern equivalent of the Great White Fleet is prowling around friendly ports and generally keeping it all tamped down.

      #MAGA

      Liked by 2 people

  16. burnett044 says:

    I hate war …it is the most horrible thing on earth…..as a combat vet I know what war is…as many other vets here on CTH….to think we like war want war is to be a damn fool…
    I lost body parts and saw teenage American boys blown apart …lives lost minds destroyed …spirits torn …
    yes it is indeed naour children dead sty as hell….but in this world today…there a millions of people that want you dead …they want your children dead…they are prepared to go to any means to get that done…
    if you think you can turn the other cheek …buy the world a Coke and have rainbows and Unicorn fly out ya arse to stop em …then you are living in a dream..
    to stop these evil people we have to get mad dog mean and take it to em before they harm the innocent….
    some come on here and call us evil mean lovers of war….what fools…hang tuff Treepers

    Liked by 22 people

  17. James W Crawford says:

    I suspect that Trump is taking action against North Korea because China might finally be willing to support such action rather than obstruct it. One possible explaination is offerred by China’s population pyramid, see here:

    http://www.indexmundi.com/china/age_structure.html

    China’s one child policy has resulted in below replacement level Total Fertility Rates. China’s population will soon begin to decline, just like Japan. More importantly, China’s working age population will soon be declining just as the number of retirees soars. This will devastate China’s export based economy. It will also eviscerate China’s military. Given this inevitable decline in Chinese economic and military power compared to the United States’, China might have realized that they need the US as a partner rather than an adversary. China also might have realized that it can no longer risk permitting a nutcase North Korea with a growing nuclear arsenal and a still growing population to exist on its NE border.

    Like

    • El Torito says:

      I think China has finally accepted that NK’s insane leader is bad for everyone, including China. And China could manage it in such a way that they don’t have millions of NK refugees flooding their border.

      Like

  18. danield49 says:

    Looks like Cernovich was right again. Bloomberg reporting McMaster wants 50K force in Syria. I stated that Trump is different but beware of the same ol’ warmongering neocons are in his staff.

    Liked by 1 person

    • danield49 says:

      Liked by 1 person

    • piper567 says:

      I’m confused again.
      Didn’t Mattis say last week that TRUMP said: We are not going into Syria. ???

      Like

      • danield49 says:

        Yes, true. Trump has old Bush era neocons in his staff. Believe it or not Gen. Petraeus still has influence in NSA and Susan Rice had glowing and supportive statement on McMaster. Red flag here!

        Liked by 1 person

      • danield49 says:

        Meant to say, yes, you are correct. Mattis said we’re not going into Syria but old neocon want to.

        Like

    • Jenny R. says:

      If you read any of McMaster’s writings, you will find that he has some rather large reservations with stand off strikes, raids, and most importantly using proxies…as he considers them to be some of the causes for “perpetual war” rather than a deterrent to the same.

      I’m not sure that makes him a neocon warmonger; I’m not so sure he isn’t right: many of our problems have stemmed from just this sort of thing: we are increasingly willing to engage in this sort of military action (since HW Bush) and look where it has gotten us. If that is the case (and I believe it is — having read McMaster), then you are shooting the messenger.

      I believe Trump is trying to extricate us out of this decades long mess, but he may not be able to do so using the tactics that helped to get us to where we are now. And that is something that everyone, including Trump, may have to reconcile themselves to — some things just are; you are given the task of cleaning up the messes that others have made, would that it were not so, but we don’t live in a perfect and fair world.

      I can remember having a discussion with some people years before Gulf II: of course they were hammering away about “war hawks! and Bush’s war, now Clinton must bring peace, no more war” (I didn’t say they were clear thinking people)…and I told them two things: 1) that we would be back in Iraq within `10 years because it was a fatal error to not finish it and the problem was now exacerbated by a lack of desire to finish it (of course, Clinton’s corruption and ineptitude helped with that); 2) when war comes to you (and sometimes it does no matter how much you try to avoid it) you either do or do not; finish it or let it continue; win or lose….you cannot equivocate no matter how much you don’t like the circumstances and wish it was different.
      They were surprised by this because well, how could I say it? Seeing as how my husband had to be in Iraq — did I want him killed? (and that, is a logical fallacy, by the way) — and I’ll give you my response (which perhaps you should consider concerning things now): “better to risk now, than to have our children be responsible and them taking the risk (as it turns out, they did…and are; my husband and I’s one regret is that they have to suffer the risk, rather than ourselves — that would have been far better).

      The past 30 odd years have been ones of massive equivocating imhao…we may not be able to avoid some things now.
      If we do, our children or grandchildren may have to clean up our messes; something to think about.

      Like

  19. graphiclucidity says:

    The WH obviously caught their outing of McMaster as the briefer, SD.
    They’ve removed all identifying references from the transcript since your original post.
    I’m glad you caught it so quick!

    Spicer and the communications staff are still working some kinks out of the process it seems.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s