Unfortunately it's not up to "the U.S." to make such a decision; but to the current so-called administration.
Which, as we have seen in regard to just about every "decision" it has made thus far -- couldn't begin to care about rational cost-benefit analysis, as it is generally known.
> it's not up to "the U.S." to make such a decision; but to the current so-called administration.
There is nothing "so-called" about the administration; it is the legitimate executive branch of the U.S., like it or not.
The people of the U.S. democratically chose this president and are responsible for what happens. Just like any group or team, a person can't disclaim responsibility because they were outvoted. More importantly, democracy doesn't occur only on election day; it's not a king or dictator that is elected for 4 years. The American people are responsible for all that happens and if they think it's problematic, there is plenty they can do about it right now.
> There is nothing "so-called" about the administration
There is likewise nothing "so-called" about a Presidentially appointed and Senate confirmed Federal Judge.
Yet this President has no qualms about expressing his disapproval with a decision he dislikes by taking to Twitter and referring to the Judge as "so-called" in order to delegitimize him and his decision.
It is blindingly obvious that kafkaesq was sarcastically reflecting the President's own behavior
There is nothing "so-called" about the administration;
The moment when the "administration", via its spokesperson, Donald Trump (speaking for President Bannon) referred to Judge Robart as a "so-called judge" -- which I hope you understand was absolutely not meant as a joke -- is the precise moment when its constitutional legitimacy ended; and at which, it in effect, declared itself a dictatorship. Or that is to say, as "ridiculous, and [to be] overturned".
The American people are responsible for all that happens and if they think it's problematic, there is plenty they can do about it right now.
Like take to the streets -- and if necessary, physically block every immoral and unconstitutional act this regime intends to perpetrate -- until it collapses, and goes into exile. As people have been forced to do in Ukraine, Romania, the Philippines, the GDR, and countless other countries against kleptocratic dictatorships everywhere, in the modern era.
Apparently, all it took to convince Trump to OK the Yemen raid was his military advisors telling him Obama wouldn't have been brave enough to do it. I don't know if it's true, but nothing about Trump that i've observed makes it seem unlikely.
I mean, Benghazi was bad, but Trump maybe getting headfaked into killing 23 civilians and a Navy SEAL is just pathetic.
I would prefer that Trump's decision making process in this regard not be influenced by what appears to be an inferiority complex, or a desire to appear more aggressive than his predecessor.
From the information we have so far, it does not appear that his people "advised" him to order that raid; in fact, they gave him plenty of indications that it was actually a Very Bad Idea (for the reasons that have since come to light: inadequate intelligence, no backup plan, etc).
So if anything, he appears to have overridden the counsel of his experienced military advisors, himself.
>in fact, they gave him plenty of indications that it was actually a Very Bad Idea (for the reasons that have since come to light: inadequate intelligence, no backup plan, etc).
And then someone told him to nut up or shut up, and here we are.
