He has a pretty mixed record. He's splitting his base. Anti-intervention folks are quite upset that they voted against Clinton's war record only to get that same type of war record under Trump. Is it successful? He's making Putin mad, and relations with Russia are much shakier now than they were under Obama. But he can put his foot down and hold a firm stance against Russia. If he can hold this path without a major escalation of conflict, then that will be quite impressive. Hopefully NATO can serve as a deterrent.

@TrPrado,
Except that Trump has done no such thing.

Done no what thing? Everything I said is either fact about what HAS happened, or speculation of what might happen from there.

@civwarbuff

a lot of his base is mad about the Tomahawk strikes, and then there's also the problems going on with him and the Freedom Caucus.

And if you meant the Russia relations being lower than under Obama, Trump's exact words were that the relations are "at an all time low."

Risking your health eating at Mar-a-Lago after more kitchen safety violations. Trump must be so proud he hasn't food poisoned a foreign leader or anyone famous.

http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/2017/04/13/mar-lago-restaurants-slapped-with-15-health-code-violations.html

I'm sure glad we didn't get Hillary as President. We'd still have Obamacare and be at war with Syria.

@TrPrado,

Hi,
I would certainly disagree with that. I do not think that the administration's actions in Syria have conflicted in any way with Trump's criticism over the course of the campaign of the invasion of Iraq. I do not think that you can conflate the two at all.

As for Trump's base, all of the evidence that I have seen seems to demonstrate that Trump remains very popular amongst his base and amongst his core supporters during the election campaign.

Those thousand ground troops he put in Syria don't conflict with Trump's campaign?

This intervention is interesting considering Trump's 'America First' ideology and the charge that Hillary was going to start WW3 by establishing a no-fly zone in Syria. Trump notified Russia in advance. It looks like a attempt to skew perceptions of his ties to Russia.

Trump also thinks the US should 'greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes'. Does he think that greatly expanding our nuclear capabilities will lead to an arms race? Does he think that this will be good for the survival of the human race? What does he expect, that other nations will disarm before we do?

@Randomizer,
Trump has not sent fround forces to Syria.

@Randomizer,
Trump has not sent ground forces to Syria.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/04/13/alt-righters-interventionist-in-chief-not-what-we-voted-for.html

I was going to try and find a source from before the presidency, but found that and decided it was better than going back that many pages.

Kim Jong-un and Trump! What a pair!!

Will they start up the third world war for us?

Then we do not need to freeze to death at least.

Scroll down to "Trump 2016 Talk on Syria"
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/06/politics/donald-trump-syria-options/
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/trump-administration-sending-troops-syria/

@TrPrado,
Trump has not sent ground forces to Syria and he has not violated his campaign positions. Sorry, but just saying it again does not make it true.

Intervention is inherently a violation of his promises. Whether or not we use ground forces.

@TrPrado,
I have to disagree with that.

Okay. I'm factually correct. There are people who voted for him specifically for that reason.

@TrPrado,
You are just wrong.

@TrPrado,
If you are referring specifically to his comments on Syria, you do realize that the situation has changed considerably since then, do you not? His objections are not pertinent anymore.

And that's a change. And there is a fair number of his original supporters who strongly object to that. Which makes me very NOT wrong.

@TrPrado,
That is not true. He never stated that he would not interfere in the conflict if the Russian government reneged on our agreements.

There were no "reneged" agreements. And Russia acted as everyone with a fit mind expected.

@civwarbuff

Trump may have talked about destroying ISIS, but long term he was MUCH more isolationist. him hitting Assad, and Haley talking about removing him and the like... he bashed Clinton for calling for things like that!

@TrPrado,
U.N. Security resolution 2118 was passed by the United Nations on September 27, 2013 which mandated that Syria, in cooperation with the United Nations, comply with U.N. chemical weapons protocol. The Russian Federation is a permanent member of the Security Council.

We know that prior to the chemical weapons incident on the 4th of April, the CIA had reported to the administration that military grade stockpiles were being housed at the Shayrat air base, an airbase in which Russian personnel are also stationed. After the incident on the 4th, the CIA reported to the administration that, in its opinion, the Syrian military was responsible for the attacks, which obviously both the Syrian and Russian governments denied to be the case.

The administration took the situation from there, ultimately reaching the point on the night of the 6th in which the Russian government was warned of an impending strike.

Denying Syrian involvement isn't reneging on an agreement.

In fact, it's exactly how people expect Russia to act.