Trumped up and Dumbed Down in the U.S.A.: America at Risk

By Dave Ferrari

He insulted immigrants, the disabled, women, prisoners of war, fellow politicians and their wives and fathers. He even threatened allies while embracing enemies.

Despite all that, Donald Trump is now the president of the United States of America.

Dave Ferrari, who served two terms as Wyomings state auditor and on the transition teams for three Wyoming governors, examines the 2016 presidential campaign and the consequences of the election.

He zeroes in on the Trump campaigns possible collusion with the Russians, the presidents personal and financial ties to the Kremlin and Russian oligarchs, and the role that the media plays in the election process, including the growing power of conservative radio and cable TV.

Whether its fake news, alternative facts, or the deliberate undermining of the free press, Ferrari offers a critical analysis of Trumps presidency, comparing it to previous administrations.

Join the author as he frankly assesses our commander-in-chief and the implications of his policies and demeanor on America and its people in TRUMPED Up and DUMBED Down in the U.S.A.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Archway Publishing
• Release date: Feb 12, 2018
• ISBN: 9781480857681

Dave Ferrari

Dave Ferrari, a former Republican statewide elected official, served two terms as Wyomings state auditor. In the 1994 election, he received more votes than any candidate who has ever run for state office in Wyoming historya record that stands today. He was Wyoming deputy state auditor for twelve years, served as the states top budget official, and was director of finance and accounting for the Wyoming Department of Education. He served on the transition teams for three Wyoming governors.

Book preview

Copyright © 2018 Dave Ferrari.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced by any means, graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping or by any information storage retrieval system without the written permission of the author except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

This book is a work of non-fiction. Unless otherwise noted, the author and the publisher make no explicit guarantees as to the accuracy of the information contained in this book and in some cases, names of people and places have been altered to protect their privacy.

Archway Publishing

1663 Liberty Drive

Bloomington, IN 47403

www.archwaypublishing.com

1 [phone]

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any web addresses or links contained in this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Thinkstock are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Thinkstock.

ISBN: 978-1-4808-5651-6 (sc)

ISBN: 978-1-4808-5768-1 (e)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018900094

Archway Publishing rev. date: 2/12/2018

Thank you to the great journalists who seek the truth and who have reported the truth during the 2016 presidential campaign and throughout the first year of the Trump presidency! The White House press corps deserve special recognition and America’s thanks for their strength and perseverance.

Contents

Prologue: What Just Happened?

CHAPTER 1: OUR REALITY TV STAR

Lock Her Up!; Jail That Bitch!

The Fact-Checkers

Pants-on-Fire

CHAPTER 2: TRUMP’S PROMISES FOR FIGHTING ISIS IN IRAQ AND SYRIA

Plan within 30 Days

Fifty-Nine Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles

Mother of All Bombs

Conspiracy Theory?

Bomb the Shit Out of ISIS

Waterboarding and a hell of a lot worse

President Trump: Does Torture Work? Yes, absolutely.

Executive Order – Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.

Opponents of the Ban

Radical Islamic Terrorists

CHAPTER 3: THE TRUMP-RUSSIA SCANDAL

Acting Attorney General Sally Yates

FBI Director James Comey

Special Counsel Robert Mueller

Cozying Up to Putin

Trump: Putin – Stronger Leader than Obama

Close Relationship with the Kremlin

Russian Hacking

U.S. Intelligence Report

Praise for Julian Assange

Apathy from Right-Wing Personalities

Russian Hacking of U.S. Military

What is Russia Up To?

Servility to Putin – or Death, by Bullet, Poison, or Trial

Ties to Russia

General Michael Flynn and Putin

General Michael Flynn, RT, and Russian Ambassador

General Michael Flynn and Brainwave

General Michael Flynn, the Foreign Agent

Flynn: Obama-Weak, Spineless, Ignorant, Incompetent

Flynn Request for Immunity from Prosecution

Paul Manafort, Campaign Manager

George Papadopoulos, Foreign Policy Advisor to the Trump Campaign

Roger Stone, GOP Consultant

Carter Page, Male-1

Jeff Sessions, Attorney General

Michael Cohen, Personal Counsel

Felix Sater and Bayrock Group

Erik Prince, Absolutely No Role

Rex Tillerson, U.S. Secretary of State

Wilbur Ross, U.S. Secretary of Commerce

Russian Money Funneled to Trump?

The Dossier

Experts Vouch for Christopher Steele

Dossier Gaining in Credibility

Rosneft–Who Bought the 19.5 Percent Stake?

M-KATE – TRUMP, Two Luxurious Jets; Two Billionaires

The Trump Children

What Did the President Know and When Did He Know It?

Russian Banks and Trump

CHAPTER 4: PROMISES FOR THE U.S. ECONOMY AND CREATING JOBS

Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

Strongest Economy in the World

Policies Questioned by the Experts

Promises Related to Creating Jobs

Twenty-Five Million Jobs

Previous Presidents and Job Creation

Jobs Created 2016 vs. 2017

Previous Presidents and Unemployment Rates

Previous Presidents and Unemployment Insurance Claims

Tariffs on Imported Goods

Tariff Rates of Trading Partners

Effect of Increased Tariff on Prices

Manufacturing and Jobs

Manufacturing Jobs and Technology

Bringing Back Coal Mining Jobs

Today’s Energy Jobs Are in Solar, Not Coal

The Carrier Deal

U.S. Trade Surpluses

U.S. Trade Deficits

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)

CHAPTER 5: SPENDING MORE ON INFRASTRUCTURE

Infrastructure Financing

Does Spending Create Jobs?

Bi-partisan Support

U.S. Presidents and the Debt

U.S. Presidents and Federal Government Current Expenditures

Costs of the Wars in the Middle East

Where is the Infrastructure Spending Plan?

CHAPTER 6: REFORMING TAX LAWS

Release of Tax Returns

The Clinton Global Initiative

The Donald J. Trump Foundation

How to Lose $916 Million

The Republican Tax Plans

Eliminating the Estate Tax

Critics of the Plan

CHAPTER 7: REPEALING OBAMACARE

Provisions of the Act

Did Obamacare Kill Jobs?

Did Obamacare Increase the Costs of Healthcare?

Did Obamacare Drive up Insurance Premiums?

Subsidies for Individuals

Federal Poverty Level

Enrollment and Subsidies

Implications of the Repeal

Budget Reconciliation Process in the Senate

The Kaiser Foundation – 2016 Employer Health Benefits Survey

Post-election Survey on Obamacare

Will Repeal Hurt Hospitals?

Will Repeal Hurt Insurance Companies?

Consequences of Repeal–The Urban Institute

The Council of Economic Advisors

Now You Guys Own It. It’s on Your Watch Now

Health Savings Accounts (HSA)

Collapsing on Its Own

Failure to Repeal the ACA

CHAPTER 8: FREEDOM OF THE PRESS AND DEMOCRACY

Megyn Kelly

Repeal of the Fairness Doctrine

Criticism of the Press

Threat to the Republic

U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights

Trust in Media at All-time Low

Political Talk Radio Weekly Listeners

Free Press in a Free Society

The Journalists’ Creed

Sue Them and Win Lots of Money

CHAPTER 9: DEPORTING ILLEGALS/BUILDING A WALL

Creation of the U.S. Border Patrol

Priorities in Apprehension and Removal of Illegal Aliens

Illegal Immigration Trends

Border Miles, Agents, and Sectors

Apprehensions, Removals, and Returns

Mexican Manufacturing

Building a Border Wall

Existing Fencing

Cost of the Beautiful Wall

Polls Show Little Support in Border Cities in Either Country

Mexico Says No Way!

Confiscating Remittances

Ending Child Tax Credit

Presidents George W. Bush and Obama

Deporting 11 Million Illegals

Cost of $12,500 For Each Deportee

Ten Year Cost to GDP is $5 Trillion

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)

Number of Deportations by President

Trump’s Actions So Far

The Future of Immigration in America

CHAPTER 10: OBAMA – HOW BAD WAS IT?

Benchmarks on Presidential Performance

Obama Compared to Reagan

Presidential Approval Ratings

Vacation Expenses – Trump vs. Obama

CHAPTER 11: FAKE NEWS AND OTHER LIARS

Trump’s Hyperbole - Innocent Exaggeration, or Bold-Faced Lies?

Trump: Media – Enemy of the American People

Saving American Democracy

Allegiance to Political Views, Regardless of Facts

Re-adopt Decency in Public Life

Trump: Fox Treats Me Very Nice

Fox–No Longer a Need to Appear Fair and Balanced

Lies and Liars

Trump–A New Level of Vitriol

Fox– The Agent That Poisons the Well

Delegitimization of Real News

Fox News False Narratives

Hannity – Bad for America

Hannity– Make Russia Great Again

Similarities to Fascists and Communists

Pathological or Compulsive Liar?

Seven Signs and Symptoms of Pathological Liars

Six Ways to Foil Fake News

Insist on the Truth

CHAPTER 12: THE INFLUENCE OF WEALTH

The New Cabinet in Washington

Russian Billionaires Gain $29 Billion Since Trump’s Election

President Obama’s Sanctions on Russia

The Economist’s Suspicion of Russian Manipulation

The Accumulation of Wealth and its Consequences on Public Policy

CHAPTER 13: CONCLUSIONS

Obamacare Repeal

Tax Reform

Infrastructure Spending

Immigration and Trump’s Wall

Trade War with Mexico, China and Jobs

American Election Integrity

Freedom of and Respect for the Press

Fact Checking the New President

Saving Our Democracy

The Russians Are Coming

Why We Need Journalists

Darkness Has Descended on Our Democracy

List Of Tables

Appendix 1: Previous Presidents And Job Creation 1921 – 2016

Appendix 2: U.S. Presidents And The Debt 1981 - 2016

Notes

PROLOGUE

WHAT JUST HAPPENED?

America has suffered through one of the most revolting, offensive, and reprehensible elections in modern history. Often, the disgusting and abhorrent behavior of the candidates was applauded and encouraged by their supporters. Audiences were both thrilled and fatigued. They were shocked and then sickened by the personal attacks and insults. They were entertained and then irritated. They were optimistic and then doubtful by the thought of who might prevail and by what the future might hold for them, their families, and their country.

In the early days, the vile and insulting charges leveled by the contestants were recognized by many as politically incorrect, yet refreshing, and of little consequence. Finally, it seemed, someone was telling it like it is. At last, someone was saying the things that many had themselves been thinking and feeling for far too long. Someone was finally expressing anger and resolve that had been concealed and contained for years and decades. Hardly anyone believed that someone who spoke his mind, with such disdain for the opponent, could be successful in the election.

But, one candidate did succeed. He behaved badly, disrespecting his opponents and large swaths of the populous. He challenged traditional values, abandoning his own in order to appeal to those whose banner he was now carrying. He insulted immigrants, Mexicans, Muslims, Chinese, the disabled, women, prisoners of war, fellow politicians and their wives and fathers. He threatened businesses, manufacturers, and traditional friends and allies around the world. He embraced America’s enemies while rejecting America’s friends and trading partners. He praised the Russians while criticizing the British and Germans. He set an example for our children to follow in calling out their peers and challenging their foes.

His was an untraditional approach to competing and winning. It lowered the bar for acceptable behavior but raised it for expected rewards for the victor and his supporters. He abandoned traditional rules against nepotism and engaged in it himself as he surrounded himself with aides and family. Unacceptable conflicts of interest were suddenly acceptable ethical indiscretions of no importance to his supporters and the ruling government class. Common financial disclosures, endured by his predecessors for decades were now unnecessary and insignificant. He was not to be held personally accountable to religious expectations because according to evangelicals, he was sent by God. He engaged in conspiracy theory, gossip, and innuendo, yet labeled the free press as fake news, and tagged journalists as scum, partisan and dishonest. He called our country beautiful, but called our government the swamp. He has been labeled unconventional and unprecedented. That is perhaps, the understatement of the decade.

Yes, it was an unprecedented exercise. The consequences are also unprecedented. And, risky. It was unimaginable that every aspect of American life, family relationships, personal friendships, and financial stabilities would be at risk. Parents didn’t worry that some of their children’s friends and classmates, or their own children, were at risk of being pulled from the classrooms and shipped back to their native lands. The elderly never imagined that their ability to pay for their healthcare and prescription drugs might be at risk of being diminished or eliminated. The working class, poor, and unemployed didn’t really believe that the health insurance coverage they only recently acquired might be at risk of disappearing. Few people thought that the national debt might be at risk of being pushed even further into the stratosphere. Most didn’t realize that the economy which had only recently recovered, was at risk of slowing and even reversing course. Many nearing retirement ages didn’t know their retirement funds were at risk due to uncertain or dangerous economic policies or executive actions.

Who knew of the risk that our country might get involved in a trade war with Mexico or China? Who imagined that the prices of the products they became accustomed to buying at Wal Mart, Target, and other places were at risk of increasing 35 to 45 percent? Who thought that the new car Americans had their eye on was at risk of costing several thousand dollars more after the election? Who worried that the gains made in climate change and the Paris Accord were at risk of being reversed?

No one worried about the risks to the national security. Few imagined that America’s participation in NATO was at risk of being halted. Who knew NATO allies were at risk of being abandoned by their American friends? Who thought that their new leader would risk a proliferation of nuclear weapons, after years of government diplomats discouraging such movement? Who believed that their free and fair elections were at risk of being influenced, even altered, by a long-standing adversary of the United States? And, who knew that the Iran Nuclear Agreement that took years to conclude would be at risk of being breached and disowned? And, who thought that the U.S. was on the verge of engaging in another war in the Middle East or in North Korea?

Turbulence, Turmoil, Trauma – And Risks. This is the current state of affairs in America. Yes, America is at risk. What follows is an examination of these risks and an assessment of the efforts made by previous presidents to avoid them. Perhaps an assessment would have been more helpful before November 8, 2016.

But, who knew?

CHAPTER 1

OUR REALITY TV STAR

Voters in the 2016 election acted more like reality TV audiences than thoughtful, concerned citizens casting their ballots for President of the most powerful country in the world. And their star celebrity wasn’t acting much like a candidate for that position.

The Trump rallies during the past couple of years, and victory tours following the election, are nothing short of unbelievable. They remind one of the Elvis Presley performances in the sixties and seventies and the Beatles during that same time frame. Usually, in those gigantic crowds, it was the girls who were screaming and screeching uncontrollably. It would probably be a bit foolish to expect them to make rational voting decisions during these emotional frenzies. But, perhaps Elvis would have been a great president who would have made our country great again. In those days, there were some older adults in the audiences, but they usually maintained some level of composure and dignity, unlike many attending Trump rallies during the recent campaign or since.

The candidate-cum-president often enters the stage applauding either himself or the audience. The people’s reaction is astonishing. The adoration and love they have for this former TV star borders on worship. It is nearly identical to the reaction of North Korean crowds to their leader, Kim Jong-un. Praise for President Trump from those in his base, like praise for Kim Jong-un from those in Pyongyang, is feverish and hysterical. And perhaps dangerous. In their eyes, he can do no wrong. Love overrides reason. Love is indeed blind.

Lock Her Up!; Jail That Bitch!

In politics, the closest thing that compares to a Trump campaign event was probably the Obama runs in both 2008 and 2012. His crowds were often even larger than those enjoyed by Trump, but the enthusiasm shown by Obama’s supporters, though no less feverish, seemed to be more restrained and less angry. They didn’t chant derogatory comments about Obama’s opponents: Hillary, John McCain, and later Mitt Romney in 2012. Lock her up! and Jail that bitch! are chants, T-shirt slogans, and even lyrics that wouldn’t have ever been imagined in the recent history of American politics. Often, the insulting cheer Lock her up! was led by the candidate himself and surprisingly even by his pick to serve as national security advisor, General Michael Flynn. Rudy Giuliani, the ex-mayor of New York City, seemed to enjoy the chanting himself when introducing the candidate. Shockingly, these chants continue in the gatherings attended by the President many months following the campaign. And, of course, prior to this election, you wouldn’t have heard a responsible candidate make accusations, such as low energy, Jeb, little Marco, lying Ted, and crooked Hillary. Perhaps political correctness isn’t such a bad thing after all.

Disagreeing with and insulting your opponents over differences of opinion on policy issues has always been considered fair game, but personal insults hurled at the other side have previously been off-limits. Criticizing someone’s face as not being attractive, mocking a person who suffers from some sort of physical disability, or criticizing a prisoner-of-war because he was captured would have been judgmental errors that in the past would have disqualified a person no matter what job he or she was vying for. Criticizing or belittling the parents of a fallen soldier who was killed fighting for our country is another act that, in elections past, would have been the death of any campaign, regardless of which party the candidate was representing. And falsely accusing your opponent’s father of being involved in the shooting of JFK would likely have been a deal killer as well. But such actions are apparently deemed acceptable if you’re a reality TV star. And sadly, the fact that over 62 million people voted for this candidate says more about the character and judgment of American citizens than it does about his. He actually may not know any better.

The Fact-Checkers

Any semblance of truth or honesty was completely absent in most of the information advanced in this campaign. Some argue that both candidates were having trouble with the truth, and according to the analysis, they are right. The professionals in our midst whose job it is to separate the wheat from the chaff have declared that most of what the President said during the campaign was simply untrue. Statements made by both candidates were rated on a five-point scale from more true to more false by fact-checkers who adhere to the Code of Principles developed by the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) at the Poynter Institute. This transparent and non-partisan approach to fact-checking is followed in order to provide the user with a high level of comfort that the analysis is conducted professionally and reliably. The code contains a commitment to five fundamental principles.¹

• non-partisanship and fairness

• transparency of sources

• transparency of funding and organization

• transparency of methodology

• open and honest corrections

According to the IFCN, adherence to these principles guarantees several assurances.

• the same standards are followed for every fact checked and the checker is not advocating for any policy or partisan position

• the findings are verifiable from the original source

• the organizations or people providing funding for the fact-checking effort have no influence over the findings and the key figures involved in the fact-checking organization along with the organization and the organizational structure, and the legal status are detailed

• the methodology used to select, research, write, edit, publish, and correct the fact-checks is explained in detail

• all corrections are published so that the readers are able to see the corrected information

Using these principles, the Washington Post analyzed ninety-two statements made by Donald Trump and forty-nine statements made by Hillary Clinton during the campaign. According to the analysis, of the ninety-two Trump statements, Trump lied to his audience and to the press 88 percent of the time. He was completely truthful on three occasions, was mostly truthful on another issue, was only half-truthful on seven issues, but was lying on eighty-one others. Candidate Clinton didn’t fare much better. The analysis shows that of the forty-nine statements examined in her case, she was telling the absolute or partial truth twenty-seven times but was dishonest in twenty-two statements – or 45 percent of the time.

Pants-on-Fire

Politifact is another fact-checker. This entity, associated with the Tampa Bay Times with offices in Washington, DC and St. Petersburg, Florida, has also examined statements made by the two candidates. A total of 437 statements made by Trump and 293 made by Clinton were rated according to the Politifact scorecard – referred to as the Truth-O-Meter. The scorecard has six ratings.

• True. The statement is correct with nothing important missing.

• Mostly true. The statement is correct but lacks clarification or needs additional information.

• Half true. The statement is somewhat correct but important details are missing or some things have been taken out of context.

• Mostly false. The statement has an element of truth but critical facts are missing which if included would give a different impression.

• False. The statement is not correct.

• Pants on fire. The statement is false and ridiculous.

Comparing the scorecards for the two candidates is shown in Table 1:²

Table 1

Politifact’s Scorecard on the Two Candidates

In other words, 301 of the 437 statements, or 69 percent, advanced by Trump were lies, or mostly lies, and another 14 percent were only half true. Clinton lied 26 percent of the time, according to this analysis, and told half-truths about 24 percent of the time. These results compare very closely to the findings of the Washington Post in its fact-checking study, and both studies were conducted independently of each other. Both point out quite clearly that we have elected a President who has a penchant for not telling the truth. Had we elected the other candidate, it looks like we could enjoy being lied to about half as often. Inasmuch as Hillary is not the President of the United States, and one lie or liar doesn’t justify another, it seems prudent now to focus on the veracity of the one who is the President.

The reality TV audience will argue that, no matter what, these fact-checkers are part of the main stream liberal media, are left-wingers, and are biased. Therefore, they are partisan and cannot be trusted. Trump fans accept the results in the few instances when their celebrity was found to be completely truthful, but they argue that the remaining findings are corrupt and useless. In other words, they would be in complete agreement with their candidate, who on numerous occasions labeled the press as being liars, crooked, unfair, dishonest, biased, and stupid.

This was recently expressed by one of the leading conservative publications that isn’t in the business of fact-checking. Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto opined on Twitter that most fact-checkers were simply liberal journalists gathering data to prove their preconceived arguments. He said these left-wingers cherry-pick the data to fact-check and then select only the comments that support their positions. He went on to argue that one can manipulate numbers and statistics, suggesting that, for example, studies conducted by the Heritage Foundation can repudiate Brookings Institute findings, depending on the methodology used. This, of course, is true, but Mr. Taranto is ignoring the fact that neither Brookings nor the Heritage Foundation embrace the principles of the IFCN cited previously. The fact is both Clinton and Trump were cited for lying. You don’t need to be liberal or main-stream media to call out a lie when you see one. And whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican, you ought to be seeking the truth, regardless of the issue. Responsible journalism recognizes this, as do responsible voters. Irresponsible politicians and their supportive pundits often do not.

It would be impossible to analyze every word uttered by a candidate in a national political campaign. But it is important to identify those statements or positions advocated by the individual which are the most consequential. Fact-checkers try to determine if the information is reliable and sincere and what impact his policies will have on the lives of Americans.

In the January 19, 2017, Rasmussen Tracking Poll, 35 percent of those polled said the United States is heading in the right direction. More recent polls show this number has dropped to around 32 percent, suggesting that poll respondents are not encouraged by the direction of our country since the Apprentice star won the election. There is obviously still a grave concern about where we are heading, in spite of the fact that we have elected a new leader who promised to make everything great in America again. The concern is likely due to the fact that, in the eyes of the majority of Americans, it is questionable whether there is truth in the promises that were made.

Another pollster, Gallup, identified major issues that were the most important to supporters of both Trump and Clinton. Not surprising, these issues included fighting ISIS, creating jobs, and plans for the U.S. economy. So, what has Trump said about these issues? There were numerous promises made by Donald Trump about these topics during the campaign. Several of his promises are shown in the following discussion to demonstrate how the candidate said he would handle these issues. We’ll start with the three that were on the minds of both his, as well as, Clinton’s supporters.

CHAPTER 2

TRUMP’S PROMISES FOR FIGHTING ISIS IN IRAQ AND SYRIA

Candidate Trump made dozens of statements and promises related to fighting ISIS and shortly after assuming office, he appeared to be trying to keep those promises. Not all were embraced by the American people and some were made impossible to keep due to their illegality or constitutional conflicts. Among the more significant promises were the following:³

• Work with Russia and Vladimir Putin to defeat ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

• Have his generals develop a plan, within thirty days, to defeat and destroy ISIS.

• Begin calling ISIS radical Islamic terrorism.

• Bomb the shit out of ISIS and bomb oil fields controlled by ISIS, confiscate and sell the oil and give the profits to military veterans who were wounded while fighting.

• Identify and kill relatives of suspected terrorists.

• Close down the internet so that terrorists can’t use it to recruit American children.

• Implement waterboarding and other techniques that are a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding.

• Temporarily ban Muslims from entering the United States, allowing a few exceptions for athletes, business people, dignitaries and others.

• Suspend immigration from some regions of the world that have a history of exporting terrorism.

• Create vetting procedures for all immigration applicants in order to keep radical Islamic terrorists the hell out of our country.

Plan within 30 Days

Trump promised that within 30 days of taking office he would ask his generals for a plan to defeat and destroy the Islamic State. President Trump received a plan from Defense Secretary Jim Mattis on February 27, 2017. It is said to be a preliminary plan and is described as mostly an updated version of the Obama administration’s strategy of depending on local fighters to take the fight to ISIS. Throughout the campaign, Trump promised an alternative to the strategy President Obama developed. He said it would be a secret plan that would ensure total victory. The only discernable difference, however, is, that under President Trump’s plan the military has more freedom to make decisions. There is little oversight under President Trump’s plan, according to Newsweek.⁴ The Daily Beast reported that defense officials were instructed to present the White House with clear distinctions between Trump’s plan and Obama’s plan. But, in the end, the changes were more tactical than strategic.⁵ Obama’s plan was thought to be working effectively, inasmuch as more ISIS leaders were killed during the last six months of Obama’s time in office than during the first six months of Trump’s.

The Pentagon described President Trump’s plan as a global plan that addresses not only ISIS but other terrorist groups as well. Navy Capt. Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman, said the plan was designed to defeat ISIS very quickly. The plan was described as a broad plan, and includes other trans-regional terrorist groups. It’s not just military. It is not just Iraq-Syria,⁶ Davis said. This is not just a military plan, he told reporters. It draws upon all elements of national power – diplomatic, financial, cyber, intelligence, and public diplomacy, and it’s been drafted in close coordination with our interagency partners.⁷

Americans and our allies have been anxious for the delivery of this plan but there is little expectation that details will be released to the public. Whether or not the plan includes a stepped-up bombing campaign, as Trump promised throughout the months leading up to his election, is not yet known. It isn’t clear, even to Congress, what is in the new plan. This prompted Congress to withhold $2.5 billion in defense funds in the legislation funding the government through the end of the fiscal year, September 30, pending the administration’s explanation of how it intends to deal with ISIS and Syrian President Bashar Assad.

On June 12, President Trump said he would have a press conference to discuss the ISIS fight. He said his administration has been extremely successful in fighting ISIS. He made those remarks to the media during a Cabinet meeting at the White House and promised to have a news conference in two weeks telling the press that the numbers are unbelievable. He said six months ago no one would have believed such a level of success against ISIS would have even been possible. To date no such press conference took place and no details of the plan to defeat ISIS have been explained by the new administration, leading some to believe that no new plan exists.

Fifty-Nine Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles

On April 6, 2017, the U.S. launched an air strike over Syria, consisting of fifty-nine Tomahawk Land Attack missiles. In a statement put out by the Pentagon, it was reported the missiles targeted aircraft, petroleum and logistical storage, ammunition supply bunkers, air defense systems and radars. The Pentagon stressed that ‘extraordinary measures’ were taken to avoid civilian causalities. Russian forces were notified in advance of the strike,⁸ the Pentagon said. The bombing exercise was in retaliation for a chemical attack in the town of Khan Sheikhoun on April 4, 2017, that killed eighty-nine people and affected another 500. The U.S., Turkey and other Western states said that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad dumped sarin gas on his own people. Russia, Syria’s strongest ally, denied any involvement of al-Assad, instead blaming terrorists for the gassing attack.

Pentagon spokesman Capt. Jeff Davis said, Russian forces were notified in advance of the strike using the established deconfliction line. U.S. military planners took precautions to minimize risk to Russian or Syrian personnel located at the airfield.⁹ Apparently, extreme care was taken to avoid hitting any Russian assets and damage to the airfield was apparently minimal inasmuch as the Syrian air force was flying missions out of that airbase the following day. There were few casualties reported, with some suggesting as few as four people were killed in the raid. According to NBC no people were targeted.¹⁰ President Trump said he authorized the bombing because it is in the vital, national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the use of deadly chemical weapons.¹¹

Mother of All Bombs

One week following the Tomahawk strike, a second spectacular bombing took place, this time in Afghanistan. The weapon, a 21,600-pound unit, is the most powerful non-nuclear bomb in the U.S. arsenal which has ever been used in combat. The GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb is also called the mother of all bombs (MOAB). The Pentagon said the bomb was dropped on an ISIS tunnel complex in Nangarhar Province. It was first tested in 2003, but was used for the first time in combat on April 13 [2017] in Afghanistan against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.¹²

According to U.S. Central Command, the thirty-foot long bomb was dropped in the Achin district, Nangarhar province and struck an ISIS-K tunnel complex¹³ where Islamic State (IS) fighters were using a 300m-long network of caves. The Afghan defense ministry reported the MOAB destroyed their base and killed thirty-six ISIS fighters, but that no civilians were affected by the explosion. Later reports suggested ninety-four militants were killed, including four major commanders. The US military said the bomb was used purely on tactical grounds, This is the right munition to reduce these obstacles and maintain the momentum of our offensive against ISIS-K,¹⁴ said General John W. Nicholson, Commander, U.S. Forces – Afghanistan.

These bombing raids inflicting little damage, resulted in only minor disruptions to the Syrian airfield, and killed as few as ninety-four ISIS fighters in Afghanistan. The cost of the fifty-nine Tomahawk missiles dropped in Syria is unknown but was probably close to $93 million. Some estimates suggest that each unit costs approximately $1.59 million to build.¹⁵ The MOAB was a lot less expensive – the U.S. Air Force reported its cost at only $173,000.¹⁶ In spite of the minimal damage resulting from these bombing raids, they did send a loud message to U.S. adversaries and perhaps were carried out because of the President’s rhetoric during the campaign.

Largely because there was little damage resulting from these bombing attacks and the costs certainly were not insignificant, some have written there may have been other motives. Several reporters wrote that the attack immediately changed news coverage of the Trump administration. Normal stories about Trump’s dysfunctional administration and the Russian scandal were being replaced with positive coverage of the President’s actions related to the missile attacks.

Conspiracy Theory?

The Syrian bombing triggered a question from host Bill Maher on Real Time, to Congressman Ted Lieu of California, as to how the strike on Syria fit into the … liberal idea that he [President Trump] was installed by Putin as a stooge to do whatever Putin wanted? This is not what Putin wanted.¹⁷ Lieu responded, If you’re facing possible collusion with Putin, you might want to distract people.¹⁸

MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell on The Last Word, advanced the theory that Putin might have masterminded the chemical attack so President Trump could look good by striking Syria and appear to be acting in direct opposition to what Putin wants. He said, If Vladimir Putin masterminded the last week in Syria, he has gotten everything he could have asked for.¹⁹ O’Donnell said that with every other President in American history this scenario would be impossible, but with President Trump it could not be ruled out. He said, Wouldn’t it be so nice if you couldn’t even in your wildest dreams imagine a scenario like that? I don’t know what it is. Is it a 25 percent chance? Is it a 50 percent chance? Is – I don’t know. But what – I don’t think it’s a 0 percent chance, and it used to be, with every other President prior to Donald Trump.²⁰ O’Donnell said Putin could have told his friend al-Assad to do a small chemical attack. And then, Donald Trump can fire some missiles at Syria, that’ll do no real damage, and then the American news media will change the subject from Russian influence in the Trump campaign and the Trump transition and the Trump White House. It’s perfect,²¹ he said.

This same theory was advanced by Bill Palmer of the palmerreport.com, a site that is not immune from criticism of being fake news, conspiracy theorists, and other equally unflattering labels. Here’s how Palmer described the scenario. "But Vladimir Putin knows full well that a gas attack like this was likely to prompt at least some kind U.S. military response against Assad. So, Putin wouldn’t have been behind this unless he wanted the U.S. to take military action in Syria. And the only logical reason for Putin to want that is if he was trying to set up a win for Donald Trump, which could boost his historically low approval rating. It would also allow President Trump to paint himself as being willing to go against Russian interests, as an argument against the most serious charges in the worsening Trump-Russia scandal.²²

The idea of President Trump and Putin colluding on the Syrian bombing attack is one advanced by more than a couple of American political commentators. A number of Russian reporters made the same argument. Andrey Klimov, a Russian writer for Izvestia, a broadsheet newspaper in Russia, is quoted in The Week, ²³ saying that President Trump wasn’t bombing Syria out of outrage over the gassed children. Such an attack would require planning and according to Klimov, there wasn’t any. There was no investigation and the images of children were likely provided by people affiliated with American intelligence, said the Russian writer.

Echo.msk.ru, ²⁴ another Russian propaganda source, said the point of the Syrian bombing was not to target Moscow or Damascus, but rather, to make President Trump look good. Following the attack, President Trump was praised by critics as well as his supporters, so the mission was successful, Echo.msk.ru declared.

This same sentiment was expressed by Mikhail