TRUMP BETRAYS ALLY

[Seattle Husker]

but it’s amazing how selective the outrage with US action/policy

Selective on both sides, like those that support Trump now while criticizing Obama's drawdown in Iraq that gave rise to ISIS.

Then again, that selective outrage goes back to 2001. We should never have been on the ground in Iraq.

 

[ShAArk92]

No, SH, it’s not like that at all.

Let’s avoid making comparisons which are not relevant. The similarity is that we fought proxy wars in those two different places and two different times.

The Kurds had their conflict with Turkey before Hussein (Saddam) invaded Kuwait. We had an alliance to defeat a mutual enemy in ISIS. Once that was attended, it was time to go, but ... of course, we didn’t. Why those 50 were still on the border there is a mystery to me.

But now there are negotiations about to be held on this very conflict ... and no American lives were lost in the process.

 

[Seattle Husker]

No, SH, it’s not like that at all.

Let’s avoid making comparisons which are not relevant. The similarity is that we fought proxy wars in those two different places and two different times.

The Kurds had their conflict with Turkey before Hussein (Saddam) invaded Kuwait. We had an alliance to defeat a mutual enemy in ISIS. Once that was attended, it was time to go, but ... of course, we didn’t. Why those 50 were still on the border there is a mystery to me.

But now there are negotiations about to be held on this very conflict ... and no American lives were lost in the process.

It's exactly like that. We had a mutual enemy. The only difference is that we left the Mujahedeen after they were no longer under threat of the Soviets.

In this case the ISIS threat was minimized but our very minimal presence was keeping our allies safe from being massacred from admittedly a different threat. Like a bad Hollywood script, we chose to abandon our allies like lambs to the slaughterhouse.

Make no mistake, we knew exactly what was going to happen if we left. Turkey amassed on the border months ago in preparation for the slaughter. Erdogan's intentions were clear. He simply needed for the US to extricate ourselves from being embedded with the SDF.

Trump unilaterally decided to do this. The subsequent genocide is on him.

 

[ShAArk92]

Selective on both sides, like those that support Trump now while criticizing Obama's drawdown in Iraq that gave rise to ISIS.

Then again, that selective outrage goes back to 2001. We should never have been on the ground in Iraq.

aGAIN ... ANOTHER false comparison. Unless another muslim state grows out of moving (not even removing) 50 troops ... bark at another tree.

Iraq harbored AQ/other terrorist training camps in the mid-late 90s. I saw ‘em. I’ve wondered if any of those dirtbags I saw were any of the dirtbags who murdered my colleagues on 9/11.

So to beller about “shouldn’t a gone in” is a little bit hollow. The problem there was taking 6 months to do it. The WMD Hussein (Saddam) had was long gone ... in fact, he coulda ordered more from the WMD store, returned it ... too.

It’s a mess. I get it. What is the standard of reference level to be acceptable? That’s really the only point about which to argue/discuss. This thing spans more than a democrat/republican administration over the last 30 years.

 

[ShAArk92]

It's exactly like that.

No sir ...
the mutual enemy wasn't TURKEY. If it was ... THEN your comparison would have been more accurate.

 

[ShAArk92]

The subsequent genocide is on him.

The one where Erdogan responds to the directive about economic sanctions by calling POTUS ... and now Pence is dispatched to negotiate.

that genocide?

 

[Seattle Husker]

Iraq harbored AQ/other terrorist training camps in the mid-late 90s. I saw ‘em. I’ve wondered if any of those dirtbags I saw were any of the dirtbags who murdered my colleagues on 9/11.

Lets forget that there was no evidence, none, zero, nada, ziltch to support that claim. I'm sure you may have seen something you think was an AQ terrorist camp in Iraq but no public evidence exists to support the claim despite many follow-on investigations.

So to beller about “shouldn’t a gone in” is a little bit hollow.

Why? I didn't support the Iraq War II at the time. On this board I screamed that the Bush Administration was trumping up evidence to build a case for a predetermined objective. In hindsight I was vindicated by all available evidence. Just because the facts are inconvenient for those that were duped in the leadup to the Iraq War II does mean the argument is "hollow". In fact, I'd argue that's the exact inverse of hollow.

The problem there was taking 6 months to do it. The WMD Hussein (Saddam) had was long gone ... in fact, he coulda ordered more from the WMD store, returned it ... too.

The WMDs weren't there. I had a Special Forces team member buddy that spent those 6 months skulking around Iraq at night spotting for bombers while battling sand flees by day. Neither he or his team came close to any WMDs. Yes, Sadam may have had them at some time, specifically Chemical weapons, but our No Fly Zone was extremely effective at limiting Hussein's power.

It’s a mess. I get it. What is the standard of reference level to be acceptable? That’s really the only point about which to argue/discuss. This thing spans more than a democrat/republican administration over the last 30 years.

Agreed that it's been a mess for a long time. You could make a very good argument that Sadam, a secular leader, was good in taming the ME beast up until he went into Kuwait.

 

[Seattle Husker]

The one where Erdogan responds to the directive about economic sanctions by calling POTUS ... and now Pence is dispatched to negotiate.

that genocide?

Do you think the Turks and their associated Pro-Turk militia hit squads operating in Syria suddenly stopped fighting? Did you see the video of the militia executing that Kurdish female politician and her family? You'd have to have your head in the sand to ignore the attempted annihilation of the Kurds that is occurring while we type.

 

[Garmel]

I'll readily admit that I don't have the answers. What bugs me is that if we had left well enough alone, there wouldn't have been a question for which we need answers.

Yes, if you believe keeping soldiers there and hope that their presence keeps Turkey from rolling over the area. To me that's a terrible strategy that would have would have eventually led to a massacre of US troops. Turkey isn't stupid. They were going to wait for a democrat president where they know there will not be a military retaliation. Keeping a low amount of soldiers to be used as meat shields would have eventaully backfired.

 

[Seattle Husker]

To me that's a terrible strategy that would have would have eventually led to a massacre of US troops. Turkey isn't stupid.

The likelihood of that occurring is about equal to Sadam launching a WMD attack prior to Gulf War 2. Neither SH nor Erdogan are nihilistic.

 

[LongestHorn]

Yes, the US is conducting emergency destruction of US assets. A brave new world.

 

[Garmel]

The likelihood of that occurring is about equal to Sadam launching a WMD attack prior to Gulf War 2. Neither SH nor Erdogan are nihilistic.

If Liz Warren or Bernie as president there would be no military retaliation. Both would run to the UN for help and nothing would be done.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Yes, the US is conducting emergency destruction of US assets. A brave new world.

ISIS doesn't have a chance now!

Of course neither approaching army (Turkey or Syria) has cared about ISIS to date. We were on the ground because neither side cared enough to battle ISIS. Syria/Russia was more than willing to let the Rebels fight ISIS. Turkey only cared about the Kurds on the border.

This Trump action is ludicrous.

 

[Seattle Husker]

If Liz Warren or Bernie as president there would be no military retaliation. Both would run to the UN for help and nothing would be done.

Because every Democratic POTUS us a dove in your world? Clinton and Obama certainly couldn't call Rand Paul and other isolationists allies.

Of course, it either were dumb enough to pull out the troops from Syria in a haphazard way like we are doing I've little doubt you'd be joining me now in criticizing this action.

 

[Seattle Husker]

At this point, Trump is behaving as less than an amateur if that is possible. He's trying to reverse time and act like he didn't know that Erdogan planned to annihilate the Kurds the moment the US got out of the way.

This letter though. You think it was transcribed from Trump's crayon version?

 

[Garmel]

Because every Democratic POTUS us a dove in your world? Clinton and Obama certainly couldn't call Rand Paul and other isolationists allies.

Of course, it either were dumb enough to pull out the troops from Syria in a haphazard way like we are doing I've little doubt you'd be joining me now in criticizing this action.

Clinton and Obama would stand up. I think Biden would too but he really has no chance for the presidency. The current front-runners would not.

 

[OUBubba]

This is more bay of pigs. Except there's a whole culture that Turkey would like to knock out.

 

[LongestHorn]

 

[ShAArk92]

@Seattle Husker

you dismiss a first hand report which was validated at the time ...

mans accept hearsay from your buddy.

I savvy I am not your buddy but only a guy posting on an internet site ...

But your buddy’s “stuff” isn’t publicly available either.

IDK why but I can’t reply on the mobile. ... you have your mind made and that’s it.

Plenty of opportunity to sharp shoot ... leadership is a contact sport. Trump has demonstrated he’s not too concerned about getting hit.

 

[LongestHorn]

Another former CENTCOM general weighs in with displeasure over Trump’s Syria gambit

 

[Seattle Husker]

Another former CENTCOM general weighs in with displeasure over Trump’s Syria gambit

How dare that MSM bot question Trump! Afterall, Trump called his decision "strategically brilliant" today. /s

(Sorry, just channeling my inner @Garmel)

 

[LongestHorn]

Waiting for our resident Q cult to label the militarytimes as deep state fake news.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Let's be clear, the PKK which is a terrorist group advocating for a free an autonomous Kurdish region are bad hombres. There is no evidence that the current Syrian Defense Force who allied with us to take out ISIS is comprised entirely of PKK followers. Certainly, a subset that follow the PKK ideology are part of the SDF. Of course, until Monday they had the autonomous region they had been fighting decades for.

With that said, any claim the PKK is worse than ISIS is...crazy. So, I give you CRAZY! They weren't even on a Taliban level. They are more like IRA, still bad but ISIS? Come on. These are the soldiers that until Sunday were laying down their lives for US causes.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Yes, if you believe keeping soldiers there and hope that their presence keeps Turkey from rolling over the area. To me that's a terrible strategy that would have would have eventually led to a massacre of US troops. Turkey isn't stupid. They were going to wait for a democrat president where they know there will not be a military retaliation. Keeping a low amount of soldiers to be used as meat shields would have eventaully backfired.

OK, dude. If you think Erdogan was so committed to invading Syria that he was willing to risk certain defeat and almost certain death, then so be it. I don't buy that. Frankly, it's crazy to assume that. This isn't Muhammad Atta on a suicide mission. This is the president of Turkey seeking to expand his influence into Syria and stomp out some people who have been a nuisance. He'll do it if he can, but if it's going to cost him everything (which it would if we had any balls or commitment), then he wouldn't.

If they were willing to wait for a Democratic president, then let them do so. Let the Democrat make the stupid move. Their likely stupidity isn't justification for us to be stupid. However, I can't really single out the Democrats as ******* when it comes to foreign policy anymore. This is one of the most short-sighted, candy-*** moves I've ever seen. We're taking it in the shorts for damn near nothing, and we're risking a resurgent Islamic State and taking a crap on an ally that lost over 10,000 men doing our dirty work for us. It's sad. And next time we have a mess like ISIS to deal with (and it might even be ISIS again thanks to this dumbass move), those will be our 10,000 dead men, and that's what Trump can't think far enough ahead to see.

 

[Monahorns]

Of course neither approaching army (Turkey or Syria) has cared about ISIS to date. We were on the ground because neither side cared enough to battle ISIS. Syria/Russia was more than willing to let the Rebels fight ISIS. Turkey only cared about the Kurds on the border.

How do you get this wrong SH? Turkey yes. Not interested in ISIS. ISIS never attacked Turkey so they didn't care one way or another.

But Syria. Assad's forces fought ISIS. That was the whole war. The Kurds in the North East allied with the Kurds. The US was allied with both sides at different times.

But Syria was super interested because ISIS was coming for them.

 

[Monahorns]

Of course the DOD wants to be in Syria. Who do you think pushed for entering in to begin with? Why do you think they have been after Trump even during his campaign?

They will say anything to get the army back into Syria. I am not saying everything they say is a lie. But if you can't sense the editorializing of their statements, you have a cognitive problem.

 

[Monahorns]

Remember. The Kurds are now getting support from Syria. There is only so much room Erdogan has to manuever. Plus Russia will also support Syria's actions. So there won't be any genocide.

I agree with others here that Trump could have exited in a much better way. I don't think he backed up his claims of being a great deal making with the Syria situation. He supports and then attacks the same side. It is a nonsensical strategy.

But I think Trump's missteps highlights just how complicated of a mess this is. Trump is dealing with a NATO ally in Turkey. He is dealing with a secular dictator. The Kurds, who I agree with and would like for them to have their own nation, but they are not a State as of yet and so relations with them are problematic. The PKK are a known terrorist organization, guilty of killing civilians in Turkey. The YPG is a much more respectable group in Syria. They seem dedicated to pluralism. But they are Kurds and the line between them and the PKK is a bit blurry. Or at least in Erdogan's eyes.

This complication to me only highlights the need for the US to get out. It is a no-win situation no matter what the choice is. Someone will be really mad at us and there will be cause for criticism no matter what the choice is. Stay. Go. Go this way. Go that way.

One thing isn't so complicated. When the US is out, we don't spend $s or blood in someone else's centuries old feud which is taking place at the opposite end of the world. I am with Jefferson and Washington on this one.

 

[Seattle Husker]

How do you get this wrong SH? Turkey yes. Not interested in ISIS. ISIS never attacked Turkey so they didn't care one way or another.

But Syria. Assad's forces fought ISIS. That was the whole war. The Kurds in the North East allied with the Kurds. The US was allied with both sides at different times.

But Syria was super interested because ISIS was coming for them.

The factions in Syria were complicated to say the least. Syria with support of Russia spent little effort on ISIS, since they were primarily attacking rebel held areas. Syria preferred to fight a 1-front war as opposed to the rebels fighting on 2 fronts, ISIS and the Assad regime. With that said, there was a limited ISIS presence in Southern Syria which Assad was combating.

Does that mean that Assad never confronted ISIS, of course not. Of course ISIS primary rise to power came on the backs of knocking off or threatening rebels in Northeastern Syria as part of it's caliphate expansion. These were areas Assad had already relinquished in his bid to maintain control. Russia did reportedly run sorties against ISIS held positions but there is little data to prove definitively how much they fought against ISIS as opposed to significant Rebel held areas where ISIS wasn't present (e.g. Alleppo).

Look at this map from the BBC on ISIS held territory in 2015 vs 2017.

ISIS was competing directly with the Rebels. It was the SDF (with our air support) that pushed ISIS out of Raqqa and Deir al-Zour while Assad was seizing Aleppo, a town never held by ISIS.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Rep. Adam Kinziger is an active member of Air National Guard after reaching Lt. Colonel rank as active duty in the Air Force. Most recently he was deployed to the US-Mexico border in February of this year. Powerful stuff that hits home how Trump's impulsive decision has forced the US onto its back foot.

 

[Monahorns]

The factions in Syria were complicated to say the least. Syria with support of Russia spent little effort on ISIS, since they were primarily attacking rebel held areas. Syria preferred to fight a 1-front war as opposed to the rebels fighting on 2 fronts, ISIS and the Assad regime. With that said, there was a limited ISIS presence in Southern Syria which Assad was combating.

Who are these rebels you are talking about?

I notice you don't ever identify them. Probably because the DOD never explains who these mysterious rebels are. The reason is because it is just ISIS or affiliated Al Qaeda groups. There were only 2 sides to this fight. ISIS vs Assad. ISIS took over the whole Eastern part of the country and was pressing in on the more populated areas where Assad's power was the most in place. The Kurds did much of the heavy lifting of removing ISIS from Eastern Syria but it wasn't just them.

Listening to field reports a couple of years ago while this was happening. The description was that civilians were happy to live under Assad's rule once ISIS was removed. The YPG only controlled a limited amount of area up against the Turkish border in NE Syria.