Billions of muslims around the world have nothing to do with it and know nothing about it. They are primitives.

The metaphor is strained. That doesn't mean you had to strain to invoke it. Apparently it comes easily.

His inconsistencies from one day to the next as changes his mind do not make it clear what he will do next or what his policies are. The country is supposed to know what it's own government's policies are.

The progressively increasing abusive surveillance against US and other innocent civilians by Federal agencies, including NSA, did not start with the Democrat's "Russia hoax" politicizing the FBI to corrupt an election and effect a coup. It goes back decades ago when they were trying to ban and obstruct private use of encryption.

Such abuse is not an argument against the military becoming defensively involved at all in the already existing cyber warfare internationally. It's imperative that they do. Neither are occasional breaches of security exposing it (or any other military operation) a reason not to do it. Another example was Obama's illegal leaking of strategy with Stuxnet against Iranian nuclear production years ago.

Military planning involving economic warfare isn't new, and since you have been involved in supporting military intelligence you know there is a lot of classified material you could not see and didn't know about (let alone discuss it here). In Economics and fiance Trump knows how to build things, the military knows how to disrupt them through sometimes non-obvious means involving a lot of planning and strategy. So called "sanctions" and other measures have been very successful in having at least some significant impact.

The military has a long history of being "clumsy" in many ways. The acronym 'snafu' came from, in the end with highly successful results, the American military in WWII. Fix it where it can be, but we can't stop fighting in the name of not being clumsy.

Having spent most of my professional life in the military and supporting military and intelligence agencies I would say they have a clumsy, often disastrous result when they stray outside traditional military or intelligence missions. Areas where they have improved are special operations, using highly skilled small teams against very well defined targets, with specific mission objectives, and cyber warfare. With respect to the latter, I know much of what has been achieved on the cyber front is, and will stay, well hidden. Cyber warfare involves planting digital "land mines" as a surprise attack that happens unexpectedly with devastating results. Unfortunately, leaks sometimes occur, like the recent exposure of our intrusion into Russia's power grid. It was a very effective probe that demonstrated we can be very good at implanting digital weapons where they can do the most damage, but the leak gave the Russians the opportunity to plug the gap (if they can find it). I suspect a cyber attack against Iran could yank the last pins from under their economy, but like the called off attack, could have results out of proportion to the needed response.

One caution with respect to the American intelligence cyber weapons is that unlike traditional weapons, they can be, and have been used against our own citizens, going unnoticed until someone of conscience exposes them. Hopefully the investigation into the Russia hoax will clean the Augean stables of our national intelligence system and put roadblocks against their weapons being used for political purposes.

There was no straining involved here. Unlike the straining I have required to "produce" in the past.

I got a clear message from trump’s decision. I1) an immediate air strike was planned without notice and can be done at any time
2). Trump is in control of the military
3). Next time there is injury or death caused by Iran, there will be an attack
4) in the meantime , there will be additional squeezing of their economy until it collapses

But by and large, Muslims sit idly by and condone terrorism

No, it isn't. It's a strained, vague, out of context metaphor attempting to excuse Trump's inconsistencies and incoherence in articulating his own policies from one day to the next.

I don't think Trump ever worried about influencing the media. He knew from the beginning what they are. But he has no intellectual alternative and what we need now is an intellectual battle at the deepest roots against the establishment. He can't even consistently articulate his own positions from one day to the next to his own supporters, preferring loutish school yard comments like trashing the size of someone's hands.

Why say that "technically" a "proper response to an attack... is to inflict the same level of economic pain on Iran's assets"? When someone attacks you why should a "proper" response be limited to the same thing and in equal amount rather than putting a stop to it in a way that is necessary so that it will not come back any time soon. Justice against brutality is not "equality".

There are many possibilities, and the modern military does study and analyze in depth the economics of foreign enemies, and plans different scenarios based on that. It isn't restricted to "blowing stuff up" and "killing as many as possible", which predominate in all out physical war. Different possibilities they are recommending and pursuing in cyber warfare and undermining economics we don't know, but we also don't know what the presidents' own policies and principles that we -- and he -- should know.

Good idea....

I don't think Trump is worried anymore about how the media paints him, because he realizes he never had any hope of winning their "hearts and minds," as they're at war with any President with the temerity to ignore them. Technically, the proper response to an attack that cost us a $100M asset is to inflict the same level of economic pain on Iran's assets. Trump would far rather find some way to hit them economically with some new sanction or financial block, because he understands those, probably better than any of his military commanders. The alternatives of shutting down one of their Gulf oil platforms, or blockading any shipments of oil out of the country to anyone have more political negatives, but not so much as running up a body count when you're not at war. Military are probably not the ones to advise him on what to do next, because they have two duties: blow stuff up; and kill as many of the enemy as possible.

They were more than tired of it. It was literally killing them. One of the many evils of that senseless, sacrificial war. The "command chain" was often the Taggart Tunnel mentality.

But we are not in a war with Iran, and short of that it's not appropriate go there killing everyone in sight, which remains a false alternative to the criterion of not being "mean and heartless" against thugs in a dictatorship. Whatever the appropriate military response is now can be figured out by military experts with the proper motives and standards, but not being "mean and heartless" is not the basis.

That's an old military saying from the Vietnam era, when all of the rules of engagement became so complex, frustrated soldiers used that expression to let superiors know they were tired of the mission of trying to sort out the hostiles from the innocents before engaging. Too many of our troops died waiting on the command chain to give the go ahead to return fire.

Whatever he meant by "all", this is not a religious war for a new Crusade against Muslims that some conservatives want. Iran is a particular totalitarian nation making particular threats and taking actions that most Muslims around the world know little about and have no capacity to repeat them.

Who is "all" and what does "God" have to do with it? That is a false alternative to what you initially wrote as the standard.

Yes, it didn't, but what is the policy this week in his changing pronouncements? At least he cancelled Obama's self-destructive and illegal "treaty" and reimposed sanctions.

Too many Muslims out there to do that...

It didn’t take trump long to go after Syria for chem weapons

So, should he just "kill 'em all, and let God sort 'em out?"

Not being "mean and heartless", which were your words, is not the standard of justice. That they are not innocent matters. They have had 40 years of appeasement to "think about" a "foreign leader who might be giving them the chance to survive". The appeasement has done nothing to curtail the religious fanaticism. Trumps latest contradiction of himself only illustrates that one never knows what he means or will do next. That is unprincipled, not genius.

To me, it's like Trump is taking a page from the notebooks of Lazarus Long, e.g. "Never appeal to a man's "better nature." He may not have
one. Invoking self-interest gives you more leverage."

He didn't choose not to kill them because they are innocent, merely to make them think about the difference between a religious fanatic who considers them expendable and a foreign leader who might be giving them the chance to survive. Not so much a change of heart, but to make them think about the possibility of living a bit longer if they make the right choice.

How long after 40 years of this does it take for "patience to run out"? It continues because of the appeasement.

They already know they could all be killed. Telling them they were spared because they are innocent only gives them the sanction of the victim. It does not lead them to change for the better. Justice is the opposite of showing he isn't "mean and heartless".

This is more of the Trump idolatry claiming he's mysteriously smarter than everyone else as he "plays three dimensional chess" every time he says something stupid.