TURNS OUT Trump went with the LEAST robust military strike against Assad when it could have been 3X LARGER

A new report tells us this morning that instead of going with a massive attack on Syria, Trump took the advice of his defense secretary and went with the least robust option that could have included both Russia and Iranian targets:

WSJ – President Donald Trump deferred to his Pentagon chief’s caution and tempered his preference for a more robust attack on Syria over allegations it used deadly gas on civilians, the first hints at the direction of his revamped national-security team.

After days of tense White House meetings, the president and his advisers agreed on one of the most restrained of the military-strike options crafted by the Pentagon: a powerful missile attack aimed at three targets meant to hobble the Syrian regime’s ability to use chemical weapons and deter President Bashar al-Assad from using them again.

The outcome was a sign of the sizable influence Defense Secretary Jim Mattis still wields in the reorganized national-security team. Faced with a push from the president for a muscular response to the alleged chemical-weapons attack that killed at least 43 people, Mr. Mattis presented the White House with three military options, according to the people familiar with the decision-making.

The most conservative option would have hit a narrow set of targets related to Syria’s chemical-weapons capabilities.

The second option proposed strikes on a broader set of Syrian regime targets, including suspected chemical-weapons research facilities and military command centers.

The most expansive proposal, which might have included strikes on Russian air defenses in Syria, was designed to cripple the regime’s military capabilities without touching Mr. Assad’s political machinery.

The most ambitious of the proposals was three times the size of the one eventually carried out by U.S., British and French forces.

Mr. Trump approved a hybrid plan that saw more than 100 advanced missiles fired at the three Syrian targets early Saturday. That action reflected a melding the first two options: modest missile strikes, but ones the Trump administration said delivered a decisive blow to Mr. Assad’s chemical-weapons capabilities.

While Mr. Trump pressed his team to also consider strikes on Russian and Iranian targets in Syria if necessary to get at the Assad regime’s military equipment, Mr. Mattis pushed back, those familiar with the decision-making said.

United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley had joined Mr. Trump in calling for more forceful response, while Mr. Mattis warned about the risks that a more expansive strike could trigger a dangerous response from Moscow and Tehran, according to the people.

Officials at the White House, Defense Department and U.N. didn’t respond to questions about the decision-making process.

It’s good to see that Trump is listening to more cautious voices when it comes to using military force.

The WSJ also reports that in his first week on the job Bolton didn’t push for the most massive strike, but rather felt the one that was chosen by Trump was enough. They of course suggest that Bolton made this decision because he didn’t want to propel is unto a war on his first week on the job, especially given the perceptions about his image.

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

WARNING: Our comment section is being blocked by ad blockers. So if you can't see it, then please disable your ad blocker and it should appear.