America Under a Supreme Leader

[Kasandra]

Ignoring the 20 Executive Orders Trump signed in his first 10 days, I think it's worthwhile to chronicle events taking place under Trump's Administration going forward that might escape the media's attention due to the smokescreens and distractions that he and his staff try to focus the public's attention on.

The first to mention is the disastrous Seal team raid he ordered into Yemen:

Just five days after taking office, over dinner with his newly installed secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, President Trump was presented with the first of what will be many life-or-death decisions: whether to approve a commando raid that risked the lives of American Special Operations forces and foreign civilians alike.

President Barack Obama’s national security aides had reviewed the plans for a risky attack on a small, heavily guarded brick home of a senior Qaeda collaborator in a mountainous village in a remote part of central Yemen. But Mr. Obama did not act because the Pentagon wanted to launch the attack on a moonless night and the next one would come after his term had ended.
...
As it turned out, almost everything that could go wrong did. And on Wednesday, Mr. Trump flew to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware to be present as the body of the American commando killed in the raid was returned home, the first military death on the new commander in chief’s watch.

Mr. Trump on Sunday hailed his first counterterrorism operation as a success...

A senior administration official said on Wednesday night that the Defense Department had conducted a legal review of the operation that Mr. Trump approved and that a Pentagon lawyer had signed off on it.

Mr. Trump’s new national security team, led by Mr. Flynn, the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency and a retired general with experience in counterterrorism raids, has said that it wants to speed the decision-making when it comes to such strikes, delegating more power to lower-level officials so that the military may respond more quickly. Indeed, the Pentagon is drafting such plans to accelerate activities against the Qaeda branch in Yemen.
...

The highlighted text indicates that Trump will delegate the life-and-death responsibility for military action to General Flynn who will then delegate it to operational military in the field.  What could go wrong?  We have a first example here.

[Pete at Home]

OK ... so Trump's a "supreme leader"/dictator type because he approves a mission recommended by the Pentagon which results in one American casualty?

[JoshCrow]

I wonder if the second casualty gets a gift basket, or something.

[D.W.]

I hadn't heard that Trump initiated this plan despite recommendations to wait for a moonless night.  I did hear about this in the news though.  They made note that this was something in the works before he took office however.  I thought it was sad to dump this at Trump's feet. 

...But if he messed with tactical considerations without good reason, that is cause for concern. 

[Kasandra]

OK ... so Trump's a "supreme leader"/dictator type because he approves a mission recommended by the Pentagon which results in one American casualty?

Thanks for that insightful and trenchant analysis.

[TheDeamon]

OK ... so Trump's a "supreme leader"/dictator type because he approves a mission recommended by the Pentagon which results in one American casualty?

One that Obama would have approved as well according to the same report, if the timing hadn't been off(with respect to the moon)

[cherrypoptart]

"The highlighted text indicates that Trump will delegate the life-and-death responsibility for military action to General Flynn who will then delegate it to operational military in the field.  What could go wrong?  We have a first example here."

Are you suggesting that Trump knows better than the military members who are carrying out the operation?

Sometimes you lose people in battle. It happens. I'd be more concerned about why it appears the enemy was waiting for the attack and was very well prepared. Maybe they were always on such high alert but there is also a possibility that they knew exactly when and where it was coming and were perfectly positioned in anticipation.

But going back to losing people in battle, should we act more like we did in Somalia and be ready to quit, cut and run when we our people start getting killed? If so, it's probably best not to even go in the first place. Or is that the point?

[TheDeamon]

I hadn't heard that Trump initiated this plan despite recommendations to wait for a moonless night.  I did hear about this in the news though.  They made note that this was something in the works before he took office however.  I thought it was sad to dump this at Trump's feet.

Operative part is moonless, rather than "New moon" as it were. January 28th was the new moon FYI.

Other factors can generate a "moonless night" scenario as well, although the new moon is more consistent.

[Pete at Home]

I hadn't heard that Trump initiated this plan despite recommendations to wait for a moonless night.  I did hear about this in the news though.  They made note that this was something in the works before he took office however.  I thought it was sad to dump this at Trump's feet. 

...But if he messed with tactical considerations without good reason, that is cause for concern.

He didn't mess with tactical considerations, as best I can tell.  That's just AL's insinuation, and it's not supported in his source.

[TheDeamon]

"The highlighted text indicates that Trump will delegate the life-and-death responsibility for military action to General Flynn who will then delegate it to operational military in the field.  What could go wrong?  We have a first example here."

Are you suggesting that Trump knows better than the military members who are carrying out the operation?

Vietnam never happened. Washington D.C. has never micromanaged a war before. It has never before been considered a bad thing for them to do so. But this time, since it's Donald Trump.....

[Kasandra]

I hadn't heard that Trump initiated this plan despite recommendations to wait for a moonless night.  I did hear about this in the news though.  They made note that this was something in the works before he took office however.  I thought it was sad to dump this at Trump's feet.

Operative part is moonless, rather than "New moon" as it were. January 28th was the new moon FYI.

Other factors can generate a "moonless night" scenario as well, although the new moon is more consistent.

I don't understand your quibble with the date.  January 28th was a moonless night.  The raid happened on February 1st.

The first military operation ordered by President Trump may have resulted in as many as 30 civilian deaths and the killing of an American commando, according to several reports questioning the intelligence behind the raid in Yemen.

U.S. military officials told Reuters that the operation was approved without sufficient intelligence, ground support or adequate backup operations.

Why is it suddenly the fashion that everything Trump does that goes wrong is Obama's fault?  Obama didn't greenlight the mission, but delayed his decision.  If the operational planning was inadequate, why didn't Trump's senior staff review the plans before signing off?  How is that failure Obama's fault?

This is the second action of Trump's that his fans say is really Obama's responsibility.  The first was the bogus claim that Obama had implemented the same Muslim ban in 2011, which is nothing like what he actually did. You won't cast any blame for the rise of ISIS on Bush, insisting that because that happened on Obama's watch it was entirely his fault.

Given how strongly Trump supporters back him up, why won't you let him take responsibility for what he does when it goes wrong?

[D.W.]

Well to be fair (if that's the right word), the idea that Trump would rush an action and take risks he either doesn't understand or cares little about, for an early (very early) "WIN" against terrorists...  That fits right in with a lot of fears from people on the left. 

Finding "proof" of this behavior is important for Trump's opposition.  Seems a bad tactic to take against the man unless you are damn sure you've got undeniable proof.  Far too much, "Well X did Y and you were all fine with it!", to overcome easily.

[Kasandra]

That's just AL's insinuation

Pete, stop it.  Last warning.

[Kasandra]

"The highlighted text indicates that Trump will delegate the life-and-death responsibility for military action to General Flynn who will then delegate it to operational military in the field.  What could go wrong?  We have a first example here."

Are you suggesting that Trump knows better than the military members who are carrying out the operation?

Vietnam never happened. Washington D.C. has never micromanaged a war before. It has never before been considered a bad thing for them to do so. But this time, since it's Donald Trump.....

Vietnam was a horrible mistake, second only to Bush's 2003 invasion of Iraq.  Are you suggesting that the Vietnam War could have been avoided if lower-level military field leaders had had the responsibility to conduct the operations?

[D.W.]

That's just AL's insinuation

Pete, stop it.  Last warning.

I'm not sure what's in the actual rules of the forum but... Stop what?  Pointing out silly forum games trying to distance yourself from past posts?  Maybe I misread a bit ago but didn't you yourself (Kasandra) confirm you were AI?

This is the second action of Trump's that his fans say is really Obama's responsibility. 

The catch here is not that it's Obama's responsibility.  It's that you (should if we are being reasonable) have to plausibly explain what Trump did that made the outcome predicatively worse than if Obama was in his place.  This isn't about laying blame at Obama's feet.  It's pointing out this is not a divination in policy.

High visibility risk.  Incomplete reconnaissance.  Support not in place. 
These are all good points to make. 

[Kasandra]

I hadn't heard that Trump initiated this plan despite recommendations to wait for a moonless night.  I did hear about this in the news though.  They made note that this was something in the works before he took office however.  I thought it was sad to dump this at Trump's feet.

Operative part is moonless, rather than "New moon" as it were. January 28th was the new moon FYI.

Other factors can generate a "moonless night" scenario as well, although the new moon is more consistent.

To be fair, moonset on January 31 in Yemen was a little after 9PM and moonrise on February 1 was about 9:40AM.  So it would have been moonless on that date.  It also would have been moonless in the "predawn hours" on several other dates both before and after the date chosen.  The darkest night would have been January 28.

[NobleHunter]

I really wish the media would call this a disaster because it of how many civilians died, including children. But that's okay, it doesn't count because they aren't Americ--. Oh wait, one of them was an American. She was 8-years-old.

It sucks that a SEAL team member died, but he volunteered and persevered to put his life on the line. Those kids didn't. I wish the media would stop burying the lede but heaven forbid we question the glorious War on Terror.

His name wasn't AL, it was AI (if I'm following the shenanigans correctly)

[Kasandra]

I'm not sure what's in the actual rules of the forum but... Stop what?  Pointing out silly forum games trying to distance yourself from past posts?  Maybe I misread a bit ago but didn't you yourself (Kasandra) confirm you were AI?

The torch was passed.  It's a simple courtesy to respect that and how a member wishes to be called.  Otherwise, silly or insulting nicknames could be substituted for anyone's.  In Pete's case, he likes to recall old arguments where objections were raised to his sometimes wanton posts even back then.  Reacting then or now with spite because he doesn't like my opinions is juvenile.  However, I'm not above turning the tables in my own way.  As I recall, other members both past and present have told Pete the same thing.

[Pete at Home]

"The highlighted text indicates that Trump will delegate the life-and-death responsibility for military action to General Flynn who will then delegate it to operational military in the field.  What could go wrong?  We have a first example here."

Are you suggesting that Trump knows better than the military members who are carrying out the operation?

Vietnam never happened. Washington D.C. has never micromanaged a war before. It has never before been considered a bad thing for them to do so. But this time, since it's Donald Trump.....

Vietnam was a horrible mistake, second only to Bush's 2003 invasion of Iraq.

I don't think Trump has authorized junior officers to start their own wars, Al.  He's just giving them authority to make field decisions.

[Pete at Home]

I'm not sure what's in the actual rules of the forum but... Stop what?  Pointing out silly forum games trying to distance yourself from past posts?  Maybe I misread a bit ago but didn't you yourself (Kasandra) confirm you were AI?

The torch was passed. 

The torch was passed to a new, more reasonable persona named Kasandra, and I went out on a limb defending your right to the new avatar and a fresh start.  But now you've returned, like a dog to his vomit, to the habits and tactics of Al Wessex.

[Kasandra]

I'm not sure what's in the actual rules of the forum but... Stop what?  Pointing out silly forum games trying to distance yourself from past posts?  Maybe I misread a bit ago but didn't you yourself (Kasandra) confirm you were AI?

The torch was passed. 

The torch was passed to a new, more reasonable persona named Kasandra, and I went out on a limb defending your right to the new avatar and a fresh start.  But now you've returned, like a dog to his vomit, to the habits and tactics of Al Wessex.

I have challenged you, but been respectful to the extent possible.  You respond to those challenges with condescension, but you have no superior position to condescend from.  I've witnessed you engage in this same kind of personal character attacks since the very beginning of my time observing Ornery 10 years ago.  You have driven away more people from Ornery than anyone in the history of the forum, not by winning arguments but by trying to humiliate those whose opinions or even questions you don't like.  Calling me or others morons, obtuse, stupid or accusing us of committing blood libels when we stand up to your sometimes insensitive, bigoted or even racist statements is all it takes for you go ballistic.  Even now, you make a disgusting analogy because I challenged you in a way that you don't like.

Stop acting like a child.  Find and stick with the middle ground between revenge and pomposity and you'll get the reaction from me that you think you're entitled to when you don't.

[Pete at Home]

I hadn't heard that Trump initiated this plan despite recommendations to wait for a moonless night.  I did hear about this in the news though.  They made note that this was something in the works before he took office however.  I thought it was sad to dump this at Trump's feet.

Operative part is moonless, rather than "New moon" as it were. January 28th was the new moon FYI.

Other factors can generate a "moonless night" scenario as well, although the new moon is more consistent.

I don't understand your quibble with the date.  January 28th was a moonless night.  The raid happened on February 1st.

The first military operation ordered by President Trump may have resulted in as many as 30 civilian deaths and the killing of an American commando, according to several reports questioning the intelligence behind the raid in Yemen.

U.S. military officials told Reuters that the operation was approved without sufficient intelligence, ground support or adequate backup operations.

Why is it suddenly the fashion that everything Trump does that goes wrong is Obama's fault?  Obama didn't greenlight the mission, but delayed his decision.  If the operational planning was inadequate, why didn't Trump's senior staff review the plans before signing off?  How is that failure Obama's fault?

This is the second action of Trump's that his fans say is really Obama's responsibility. 

I have no idea what Trump's "fans" say, but you're the one who started this thread under the thesis that Trump is doing stuff differently than it was done under Obama.  The fact that DW (clearly not a Trump Fan) is arguing with you stems from the obvious defect in your thesis.  This kind of disaster happened under Obama as well, happened under just about every president.  Of course, bitching about little things that went wrong and blaming them on the chief executive isn't limited to your side of the godforsaken fence.  Republicans did this crap to Carter when the helicopter went down in Iran in the 1970s. 

[D.W.]

it was A I not A lower case L...

And Pete, maybe if you weren't quite so obsessed with kicking dead horses in new threads and using pet names (not that you are alone here I suppose) this type of crap wouldn't be necessary in the first place.

Or at least we could institute a strait up ban on such actions without reservation.

And Kasandra, if you are going to post in the same mannerisms of the previous name and everyone knows it's still you... why bother?  Or is this more identity politics I'm too slow to comprehend?

[Kasandra]

The catch here is not that it's Obama's responsibility.  It's that you (should if we are being reasonable) have to plausibly explain what Trump did that made the outcome predicatively worse than if Obama was in his place.  This isn't about laying blame at Obama's feet.  It's pointing out this is not a divination in policy.

High visibility risk.  Incomplete reconnaissance.  Support not in place.
These are all good points to make. 

That *is* the point.  Obama probably had reviewed and considered many missions that never happened.  Do you think that if he had inherited a proposed mission from Bush's military staff that he would have just given it a cursory review and ok'd it?

I don't expect Trump to be a military expert any more than Obama would have been.  That's why they pick the most qualified and trustworthy people to give them the military's assessment of the planning and risks involved.  If that happened in this case, then the strategic responsibility still lies with Trump but the responsibility for the tactical shortcomings fall to Flynn.  But we also see in this reporting that Flynn wants to delegate the decision even further down the chain of command.

This is not the sign of a competent process in charge.  THAT'S the reason for the concern.  Imagine how fast the Republican House would launched between 1 and 5 investigations instantly if Obama had executed the mission with the same result.

[Pete at Home]

"Calling me or others morons, obtuse, stupid or accusing us of committing blood libels when we stand up to your sometimes insensitive, bigoted or even racist statements is all it takes for you go ballistic."

It's a bit funny that you equate me calling you by your last sig, the equivalent of calling you "moron," obtuse, "stupid" and committer of blood libel.  If *you* associate all those terms with being called Al Wessex, then perhaps you should have stuck with the kinder gentler Kasandra persona that you pioneered in mid-November 2016, with my support.

[Kasandra]

And Kasandra, if you are going to post in the same mannerisms of the previous name and everyone knows it's still you... why bother?  Or is this more identity politics I'm too slow to comprehend?

There's a bit of everywhere I go, there I am.  But my original intention of switching avatars was to focus on forward-facing problem detection and possible avoidance.  Pete's self-appointed judge and jury attitude brings out the worst in me.

[Kasandra]

DW, case in point:

It's a bit funny that you equate me calling you by your last sig, the equivalent of calling you "moron," obtuse, "stupid" and committer of blood libel.

Pete has in fact called my present avatar stupid and obtuse and uses reminders of his insults in past history to justify his continued insults.  I will grant that likening me to a dog returning to his vomit is a new one, even for him.

[Pete at Home]

it was A I not A lower case L...

And Pete, maybe if you weren't quite so obsessed with kicking dead horses in new threads

"Kasandra" is the one who has introduced old threads into this one, asserting his accumulated accusations of ten years against me, and rehashing his tired attempts from previous threads to brand me a "racist."  Even though this thread has nothing to do with race. 

[Pete at Home]

DW, case in point: it's "Kasandra" here who is dragging in arguments from other threads onto this one.

DW, case in point:

It's a bit funny that you equate me calling you by your last sig, the equivalent of calling you "moron," obtuse, "stupid" and committer of blood libel.

Pete has in fact called my present avatar stupid and obtuse

what "kasandra" says is a complete falsehood (pointing out that an argument is stupid isn't the same thing as calling a person stupid).  But if I reply to "kasandra"s falsehood, it's me that gets blamed for the Kasandra thread overflow, just as Kasandra is blaming Trump for carrying out Obama plans.

I am Pete.  I predict that Kasandra is going to get worse before he gets better.

[Kasandra]

"Kasandra" is the one who has introduced old threads into this one, asserting his accumulated accusations of ten years against me, and rehashing his tired attempts from previous threads to brand me a "racist."  Even though this thread has nothing to do with race. 

Ah yes, my doing that caused you to refer to me using an old avatar, right?  BTW, my name is not "Kasandra", it is Kasandra.

[Pete at Home]

  But my original intention of switching avatars was to focus on forward-facing problem detection and possible avoidance. 

It was a noble effort, and I defended you to djQuag on the effort, and took a hit for it.  You're actually a decent human being when you focus on forward-facing problem detection and possible avoidance.  I was disappointed when you abruptly quit and went back to Al Wessex's pattern of retaliation, smearing, and Christian-baiting.

[D.W.]

Maybe you should stop being such low hanging fruit for the baiting Pete. 

Also...

I am Pete.  I predict that Kasandra is going to get worse before he gets better.

Is it really a prediction when you are attempting to influence the result?  More like a campaign promise I think. 

[Pete at Home]

And Kasandra, if you are going to post in the same mannerisms of the previous name and everyone knows it's still you... why bother?  Or is this more identity politics I'm too slow to comprehend?

There's a bit of everywhere I go, there I am.

Well no.  You did really well for about five weeks until you backslid just before New Year.

[Pete at Home]

Maybe you should stop being such low hanging fruit for the baiting Pete. 

Also...

I am Pete.  I predict that Kasandra is going to get worse before he gets better.

Is it really a prediction when you are attempting to influence the result?  More like a campaign promise I think. 

Not at all.  Look back at his genuine Kasandra phase (post-election through about mid-december) and you'll see that I was encouraging and even protective of him.  I spend far more effort trying to give him positive feedback when he's not being obtuse, McCarthyistic and blood-libelous.  He's also more fun when he remembers his Shakespeare.  Contrary to his febrile rantings, I'm not trying to drive him off Ornery.

[Pete at Home]

"Kasandra" is the one who has introduced old threads into this one, asserting his accumulated accusations of ten years against me, and rehashing his tired attempts from previous threads to brand me a "racist."  Even though this thread has nothing to do with race. 

Ah yes, my doing that caused you to refer to me using an old avatar, right?  BTW, my name is not "Kasandra", it is Kasandra.

Kasandra is Kasandra.  What I see on this thread is Al Wessex posting under Kasandra's name.   Please reserve the Kasandra Avatar for the Kasandra persona.

[Seriati]

Lol, it's just a friggin handle, it's not a separate person and whatever "personality" you ascribe to it is a fiction in your own head.  I think it's unreasonable to expect real change when people are making arguments about their positions, from the adoption of a handle (and even more unrealistic when they did so to claim that they are acting as a true prophet with their predictions of doom).

On the actual substance here, I don't understand the complaint.  President Obama would have ordered the raid but for the predictability of the phase of the moon, the raid went forward as soon as the moon was ready.  Is there anything in that summary that remotely implies the military recommendation would have changed?  Is there a reason to believe that President Trump should have used a different set of risk judgments than President Obama would have?

[Kasandra]

On the actual substance here, I don't understand the complaint.  President Obama would have ordered the raid but for the predictability of the phase of the moon, the raid went forward as soon as the moon was ready.  Is there anything in that summary that remotely implies the military recommendation would have changed?  Is there a reason to believe that President Trump should have used a different set of risk judgments than President Obama would have?

IMO, yes.  With new leadership comes responsibility, not to assume that the people before you (who you demonized as incompetent) had done as good a job as you require.

[D.W.]

So the complaint is, Trump's administration/he isn't BETTER (per opposition opinion) than Obama?  That's the bar we're setting?

[JoshuaD]

This is the second action of Trump's that his fans say is really Obama's responsibility.  The first was the bogus claim that Obama had implemented the same Muslim ban in 2011, which is nothing like what he actually did. You won't cast any blame for the rise of ISIS on Bush, insisting that because that happened on Obama's watch it was entirely his fault.

Given how strongly Trump supporters back him up, why won't you let him take responsibility for what he does when it goes wrong?

Do you remember 2008 to 2011? Literally everything bad that happened Obama blamed on Bush. What's good for the goose...

[TheDrake]

As for the buried original premise, I don't see any reason to have some special criticism for Trump based on this military action. It simply isn't that unusual, someone advanced the plan for approval who should have known the risk far better than Trump, delegating authority is usually a good idea and when Trump is doing it - highly advantageous for everyone. We'd be better off if he delegated all his decisions.


Meta:

I'd like you to call me Loretta.

Why do you want us to call you Loretta, Stan?

If we ever get any new people to the board, I think it would be highly confusing to call someone by an old moniker.

[Pete at Home]

As for the buried original premise, I don't see any reason to have some special criticism for Trump based on this military action. It simply isn't that unusual, someone advanced the plan for approval who should have known the risk far better than Trump, delegating authority is usually a good idea and when Trump is doing it - highly advantageous for everyone. We'd be better off if he delegated all his decisions.


Meta:

I'd like you to call me Loretta.

Why do you want us to call you Loretta, Stan?

If we ever get any new people to the board, I think it would be highly confusing to call someone by an old moniker.

If we ever get any new people to this board, I'll know it since Ornery puts that information right up top.

[LetterRip]

This criticism seems out of line.  I'm sure Obama would have done the same thing.  To the people most informed on the topic it appeared to be the right thing to do; unfortunately missions go wrong sometimes.  There is plenty to criticise Trump for, this simply makes his critics sound petty and dilutes the power of the criticism of the numerous real flaws and actions that he has committed.

[Seriati]

On the actual substance here, I don't understand the complaint.  President Obama would have ordered the raid but for the predictability of the phase of the moon, the raid went forward as soon as the moon was ready.  Is there anything in that summary that remotely implies the military recommendation would have changed?  Is there a reason to believe that President Trump should have used a different set of risk judgments than President Obama would have?

IMO, yes.  With new leadership comes responsibility, not to assume that the people before you (who you demonized as incompetent) had done as good a job as you require.

I don't have an opinion on whether the action itself was correct.  As I pointed out, its very unlikely there was a material change in the military's advice during the period in question.  They told Obama, let's do it, but wait for the new moon.  They told Trump, let's do it, its a full moon.  I would fully expect that Trump - as a CEO of a large corporate group - is very experienced with relying  on subordinates to present both relevant information and the best plan of approach.

As to the meta-point about blaming the prior President it seems woefully misplaced here.  Neither one is responsible for the success of a military operation, and I haven't seen you even try to make an argument that the operation was a good or bad one, or a bad risk.  The only reason I point it out, is because it's super odd to me that you would complain about Trump here, when we all know that you wouldn't be complaining if Obama ordered it.  At least I'm consistent, I have no opinion either way (as of yet).

[TheDeamon]

And at least when I pointed out it appeared to be an operation Obama would have approved if the timing was different, it wasn't a "Blame Obama" moment.

It was a "And this is different from what the Obama would have done in what way?" moment.

Obama probably would have done the exact same thing, only timing worked out such that Trump did it instead. But suddently, Trump is a fascistic "supreme leader" for having done so, while Obama would have continued be a saint had he done the same?

[NobleHunter]

The only people who've been calling Obama a Saint are people casting aspersions on his supporters.

If Obama had gone ahead with the same result, most of the "Left" would have studiously avoided mentioning it beyond expressing regrets for the dead soldier. The part actually paying attention to foreign military adventures would have decried the civilian casualties while no one listened because we must not criticize the glorious War on Terror.

The "Right" of course would cite it as evidence that Obama was unfit to be Commander in Chief and then make up a story how he went to pray at a mosque instead of visiting the soldier's family. He may or may not spit on a disabled veteran on the way there.

[Kasandra]

TheDrake:

I'd like you to call me Loretta.

Well, ok I guess. Are you transgender or just making the big reveal?

[Kasandra]

So the complaint is, Trump's administration/he isn't BETTER (per opposition opinion) than Obama?  That's the bar we're setting?

No, that perhaps they didn't do their homework. One reason the mission may have failed is that Yemeni rebels were apparently tipped off they were coming. That may have been an intelligence failure of the operational planning at the last minute, not a flaw in the mission itself.

[Pete at Home]

Trump as of yet hasn't done anything as stupid or vicious as:

-Bomb a pharmaceutical plant, bomb Serbia, and let Osama Bin Laden slip from his hands like Bill Clinton
-invade Iraq like the Bushes.
-sign a continuation and expansion of the Patriot Act like Obama.

OTOH, it's only been 13 days.

[Kasandra]

Gosh golly, he's only been President for less than 2 weeks.  Give him time!

[Kasandra]

A different topic.  The violent protests at Berkeley yesterday were conducted by people who were not students.  According to Robert Reich, who is on the faculty there and was a witness at the protest, claims that not only were the violent protesters non-students, but were quite possibly paid right wing actors.