peppy said:
Liar Loan said:
Republicans have historically been the party of peace. Democrats got us into almost all the wars: Mexican-American War, Civil War, WW1, WW2, Korean War, Vietnam War. It wasn't until the Neocons jumped ship and joined the Republicans in the 1960's that you had lots of questionable wars started under the Republican Party.
The interesting thing now is that Trump is the first Republican president to go against the Neocons. Hillary was also a Neocon and they would have naturally gravitated to her (George H.W. Bush even admitted he was voting Hillary), but since she was defeated, they don't have a home in either party at the moment. It will be interesting to see if they stay with the Republicans long term or revert back to being Democrats eventually.
Again going back 50+ years. What about the period that matters? Say last 20-30 years? For all practical matters Neocons have settled as Republicans and only to some degree with Democrats. Bernie caused some rift away from that.
Trump is going Heritage Foundation by the book so that's a bit different. What do they define themselves as? Is it Paleoconservatism?
Trump wanted tanks and military vehicles at his inauguration. He wants to dramatically increase the military industrial complex budget. He's itchin' to prove he's not soft like Obama.
The president is making it easier to order lethal drone strikes
Rules put in place under Barack Obama are being loosened
http://www.economist.com/news/unite...are-being-loosened-president-making-it-easier
THROUGH a mixture of leaks and semi-official confirmations, a picture is beginning to emerge of how the Trump administration will loosen the rules for counter-terrorism operations laid down by its predecessor. Some of the changes form part of the preliminary plan for accelerating the destruction of Islamic State (IS) that James Mattis, the defence secretary, was ordered by Mr Trump to conclude within 30 days. Mr Mattis has to tread a delicate path between the bombast of Mr Trump?s campaign promise to ?bomb the shit? out of ISIS and the operational constraints imposed by Barack Obama, which many military and intelligence officers thought unduly restrictive.
Among the changes that are in the pipeline (or are already being quietly implemented) is a loosening of the guidelines Mr Obama set for drone strikes and targeted killings in places that are not counted as war zones, such as Yemen, Somalia and Libya. Although Mr Obama authorised extensive use of drones to kill terrorists, particularly al-Qaeda groups in Pakistan?s North Waziristan, he became uncomfortable about the ease with which America could kill its enemies, wherever they were.
Mr Obama?s playbook for drone use had four main principles. The first was that strikes outside war zones could occur only if there was near-certainty that civilians would not be harmed. The second was that the target had been identified with near-certainty and represented a threat that could not be dealt with in any other way. The third was proper oversight and chain-of-command accountability?a reason for moving responsibility for drone strikes from the CIA to the Pentagon. The fourth was that any strikes had to advance broader American strategic interests?for example, they should not undermine intelligence-sharing with a host country or be a recruiting agent for new terrorists.
Sensible though these rules were, they reduced the speed and nimbleness that is sometimes required when a target is fleeting. Under the loosening of the rules now under way, avoiding civilian deaths will no longer be an overriding priority. A place that fails to qualify as a war zone may be designated ?an area of active hostilities? where rules of engagement can be eased.
Mr Obama used this label to authorise strikes against IS in its Libyan base, Sirte. Mr Trump has already agreed to a Pentagon request to apply the description to three provinces of Yemen, which have subsequently been heavily pounded. One attack on March 2nd against the Yemeni al-Qaeda affiliate comprised 25 strikes by manned and unmanned aircraft (nearly as many as in the whole of last year).
A further change is that the CIA will once again be allowed to carry out lethal strikes, as opposed to using its drones only to gather intelligence. Indeed, it has already done so, killing Abu al-Khayr al-Masri, a son-in-law of Osama bin Laden, in northern Syria in late February. Because the CIA operates under covert authorities, it is not subject to the same legal constraints and transparency as the Pentagon.
Meanwhile, without any previous announcement, a further 400 troops?from the Army Rangers and the Marine Corps?have turned up in northern Syria, both to help the Kurdish-Arab Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in their coming assault on the IS stronghold of Raqqa, and to deter Turkey, a NATO ally, from attacking the SDF. That brings American ground forces in Syria to 900. Another 2,500 troops will soon be on their way to Kuwait to join the fight.
One of Mr Trump?s aims appears to be to delegate much more of the decision-making to the Pentagon and the spooks. Asked about the deployment to Syria, his press secretary, Sean Spicer, said only that ?the president was made aware of that.? After the recent ill-fated special forces raid in Yemen that left a Navy SEAL and at least 25 civilians dead, Mr Trump tried to evade responsibility for what happened, saying it was just something the generals had wanted to do. The complaint those same generals made against Mr Obama was that he micro-managed. By contrast, under Mr Trump, it seems that if anything should go wrong, it will not be his fault.
