Incursions into Syria

[Peter McLennan]

...  Now that ISIS is basically gone...

Experts keep telling us the same thing: "They'll be back, now."

[Rob C]

Experts keep telling us the same thing: "They'll be back, now."

According to one report it's ISIS that has taken over one of those towns and not any other militia brand or official army. These people are never defeated by arms; they are a state of mind and operate in no vacuum - they can appear and vanish exactly as they choose, which is their great strength; people keep their mouths shut and do whatever is required of them until the next wave of liberator washes in. Wasn't that the lesson of Vietnam? The other one was that being on the side of a foreign party is always going to get you hurt when he goes somewhere else, to leave you to your friends at home.
 
If you want a display of courage: in the current Barcelona riots the mob grabbed a female police member and threw her to the ground where they started to hit her: one of the protestors rushed in and saved her. That takes balls to do in such moments. The reporters in Hong Kong, on the other hand, crowded around the plainclothes cop, did nothing to save him when the crowd started up on him in the airport. Go figure where and who the good and the bad.

[James Clark]

Of the President's decision: "He doesn't understand the problem. He doesn't understand the repercussions of this."

This is basically the Trump presidency in a nutshell.  And while Trump supporters would have you believe that it's just because people hate him, or hate Republicans, or hilariously, are "playing checkers while Trump is playing 3d chess" (yeah - some people actually make the argument that Trump is operating at a level far above mere mortals), the plain and simple fact is that he a) doesn't have a damn clue what he's doing, and more critically, believes that he's so smart that he doesn't have to learn.

Hate him, love him.. whatever - I don't care.  He's unfit due to ignorance and arrogance, and whether he does the wrong thing or the right thing in any given situation, you're a complete fool if you trust him to make a solid decision based on underlying facts. 

[Alan Klein]

You've lost me. Who said that the US should help the Kurds nation-build? Is this just an assertion on your part?

The Kurds were promised a nation after WWI.  It never happened.  They have occupied a quarter of Syria since that country's civil war started taking territory from ISIS and others.  They want to have a homeland including that area and other territory they defend in Iraq, Iran and Turkey.  They are not a nation now.  The Kurds have been attacking Turkey putting us between them and Turkey.  If we stay there, we'd be helping them nation-build by protecting them and their terrorist actions against Turkey, our NATO ally. 

What I find interesting, is the very people who always complained about America's "nation building" adventures screwing things up wherever we go losing Americans and lots of other people along the way, are now complaining when Trump wants to stop nation building in Syria for the Kurds.  So it seems that those opposed before are now for it just because Trump is against it.  That's hypocritical.  YOu guys should make up your mind what you really believe in. 

Here are some article about Kurdish history and the current situation there.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/14/world/middleeast/the-kurds-facts-history.html

https://thekurdishproject.org/history-and-culture/kurdish-history/

[Alan Klein]

Since ISIS is more of a threat to Europe than the US, all those people above in those countries should encourage your leaders to send your armies to Syria to help keep ISIS in check.  WHo are you to ask Americans to die for you and your ideas? 

If you think the Kurds deserve a homeland, why did you screw them after WWI when you promised them one and then reneged?  If you now think they deserve a homeland, then you send your sons into harm's way there and defend the Kurds against the Turks, Syrians, and others.  You have no right to demand Americans to do the killing and dying for you.

[Alan Klein]

Frankly, you guys are all hypocrites.  You complain about America when we stick our nose into things where they don;t belong.  Then you complain when we try not to be involved and let the locals deal with things.  Meanwhile you sit on your big fat a**es and do nothing criticising from the comfort of your homes.

[kers]

Frankly, you guys are all hypocrites.  You complain about America when we stick our nose into things where they don;t belong.  Then you complain when we try not to be involved and let the locals deal with things.  Meanwhile you sit on your big fat a**es and do nothing criticising from the comfort of your homes.

Amen

[Chris Kern]

the man is a liability. He can't be trusted with a phone.

Well, he really can't be trusted, period, but maybe it wouldn't be a good idea to separate him from his telephone: his conversations with the presidents of at least two other countries have substantially advanced the effort to remove him from office:

• His conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, as memorialized by the synopsis released by the White House, implicated him in a violation of U.S. election law.  His appeal for foreign assistance to investigate a political opponent appears to have changed the political dynamic for impeachment among centrist Democrats and the general public beyond the instances of obstruction-of-justice documented by federal special counsel Robert Mueller.
• His conversation with Turkish President Recep Erdoğan—the substance of which hasn't yet been made public—somehow persuaded Trump to ignore the warnings of the military, civilian diplomats, and his own politically-appointed foreign policy advisors, and initiate a precipitate withdrawal from Syria that has appalled and infuriated members of the House of Representatives and the Senate from both parties.  Incompetence is not an impeachable offense,* but the Syrian debacle has probably reduced the resistance among Republicans to the idea of jettisoning Trump and finding a more plausible candidate to run for president in 2020.

And those are just the president-to-president conversations we know about.  I suspect more will be seeing the light of day now that Congress is back in session.

―――
*Although incompetence is not grounds for removal from office under the impeachment provisions of the U.S. Constitution, another clause provides for the removal of a president who "is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office."

[Alan Klein]

Well, he really can't be trusted, period, but maybe it wouldn't be a good idea to separate him from his telephone: his conversations with the presidents of at least two other countries have substantially advanced the effort to remove him from office:

• His conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, as memorialized by the synopsis released by the White House, implicated him in a violation of U.S. election law.  His appeal for foreign assistance to investigate a political opponent appears to have changed the political dynamic for impeachment among centrist Democrats and the general public beyond the instances of obstruction-of-justice documented by federal special counsel Robert Mueller.
• His conversation with Turkish President Recep Erdoğan—the substance of which hasn't yet been made public—somehow persuaded Trump to ignore the warnings of the military, civilian diplomats, and his own politically-appointed foreign policy advisors, and initiate a precipitate withdrawal from Syria that has appalled and infuriated members of the House of Representatives and the Senate from both parties.  Incompetence is not an impeachable offense,* but the Syrian debacle has probably reduced the resistance among Republicans to the idea of jettisoning Trump and finding a more plausible candidate to run for president in 2020.

And those are just the president-to-president conversations we know about.  I suspect more will be seeing the light of day now that Congress is back in session.

―――
*Although incompetence is not grounds for removal from office under the impeachment provisions of the U.S. Constitution, another clause provides for the removal of a president who "is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office."

Chris, Your post more belongs in the thread about impeachment, not Syria.  However, many Republicans who still believe in Pax Americana, have not gotten the word from their voters.  They're tired of all these wars in the Middle East.  Trump is just carrying out what his supporters want from him. Once things settle down there, it's going to look he made a smart move.  He'll say he saved American lives.   What are others going to say?  The Kurds still don;t have a homeland? That we should have left Americans ther to get killed.

Regarding the ability for a president to discharge his duties, it has to do with sickness and things like that.  I has nothing to do with policy decisions you don;t agree with.  That's what elections are for.  IF you disagree with a president, then you have a chance to vote him out of office. That's how a democracy is suppose to work.  You don't have a palace coup by impeaching him like they're trying to do now.  At least not in America.  They tried that against Clinton and it backfired. 

[Alan Klein]

I just did a little research into Pax Americana.  Here's a terrific 2012 opinion/article about it and its decline. I think it nails it to where we're going as a country and a world in the near future. 
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/04/the-end-of-pax-americana-how-western-decline-became-inevitable/256388/

[Robert Roaldi]

Frankly, you guys are all hypocrites.  You complain about America when we stick our nose into things where they don;t belong.  Then you complain when we try not to be involved and let the locals deal with things.  Meanwhile you sit on your big fat a**es and do nothing criticising from the comfort of your homes.

We're here for discussion so it's not clear to me why you think the rest don't have a right to speak our minds.
 

[Alan Klein]

We're here for discussion so it's not clear to me why you think the rest don't have a right to speak our minds.
 

Well, I'm speaking my mind too.

[James Clark]

I just did a little research into Pax Americana.  Here's a terrific 2012 opinion/article about it and its decline. I think it nails it to where we're going as a country and a world in the near future. 
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/04/the-end-of-pax-americana-how-western-decline-became-inevitable/256388/

Nothing in that article suggests that isolationism and nationalism are good things.

[Alan Klein]

Nothing in that article suggests that isolationism and nationalism are good things.

When did I say those things and where did I say the article said those things? 

[Robert Roaldi]

When did I say those things and where did I say the article said those things?

Odd response, I didn't think that's what he was implying.

But getting back to Trump and the desire to get out of other countries, why send troops to Saudi Arabia then. I doubt that Americans back home care any more about Saudi Arabia than they do about Syria or Iraq. How do you convince American troops that they are in Saudi Arabia to "fight for their country", when 9/11 was funded by Saudi money and perpetrated by Saudi actors. Why is this hardly ever mentioned by anyone? Is it forgotten?

Are you going to Oceania next month?

[Alan Klein]

Odd response, I didn't think that's what he was implying.

But getting back to Trump and the desire to get out of other countries, why send troops to Saudi Arabia then. I doubt that Americans back home care any more about Saudi Arabia than they do about Syria or Iraq. How do you convince American troops that they are in Saudi Arabia to "fight for their country", when 9/11 was funded by Saudi money and perpetrated by Saudi actors. Why is this hardly ever mentioned by anyone? Is it forgotten?

Are you going to Oceania next month?

I don;t know the point he was trying to make except I didn't say it.  He's welcome to clarify.

We have security and economic interests with the Saudis, as do Europe and the world.  There are none with the Kurds or Syria any longer now that ISIS had been decimated.  Kissinger called it realpolitik.

[jeremyrh]

I don;t know the point he was trying to make except I didn't say it.  He's welcome to clarify.

We have security and economic interests with the Saudis, as do Europe and the world.  There are none with the Kurds or Syria any longer now that ISIS had been decimated.  Kissinger called it realpolitik.

Wrong on all counts. ISIS are not decimated, as someone said, any more than the Taliban.  The US has a strategic interest in not allowing a Russian belt of influence from Iran to Lebanon. But hey ho - that's Trumppoliitik for you.

[JoeKitchen]

Wrong on all counts. ISIS are not decimated, as someone said, any more than the Taliban.  The US has a strategic interest in not allowing a Russian belt of influence from Iran to Lebanon. But hey ho - that's Trumppoliitik for you.

Why?  Are you sure it is the US's strategic interest and not the EU's strategic interest in having the US there? 

I have been far too busy to really pay attention to any of these recently, but this whole lets bash Trump just for the sake of bashing Trump is getting out of hand.  I ask, what was Trump suppose to do?  It is pretty clear Turkey was going in regardless if we stayed or left, so if we stayed were we to start a war with Turkey, with only 50 to 100 troops? 

That would have been a slaughter and rash, and then Trump would have been criticized for not evacuating the troops, especially if any were killed.  Not to mention, we would have been mired in another war, with a NATO ally. 

I am tired of war.  Let the Middle East sort out itself.  I realize that the Middle East is right below Europe and could cause a shit storm for the EU if it fell again into chaos, but that is your problem.  Please, feel free to send more of your men to help out the situation, but I feel fairly secure across the Atlantic. 

On top of that, we (the USA) cant forever protect the lands of others, especially those many 1000s of miles away.  They eventually need protect themselves and form closer alliances. 

It was stated a while ago that the best move forward for the Kurds was to form an alliance with Syria, but of course no one in politics could even mention this, because of, Bashar al-Assad.  And now look what is happening, they are forming an alliance.  Not to mention Russia is now engaged in, at least, a proxy war with Turkey, a country they were becoming chummy with up until now. 

The only two things that could happen that would warrant the USA returning is if ISIS started to regain it former power, and if Turkey followed through with its threats to confiscate and relocate our nuclear warheads located just within their country.

Warmongers, begone. 

[kers]

... I ask, what was Trump suppose to do?  It is pretty clear Turkey was going in regardless if we stayed or left, so if we stayed were we to start a war with Turkey, with only 50 to 100 troops? 

That would have been a slaughter and rash, and then Trump would have been criticized for not evacuating the troops, especially if any were killed.  Not to mention, we would have been mired in another war, with a NATO ally.

Those 100 Us soldiers were enough to stop Erdogan... He could not risk to kill any US soldier ... and enough to have a US presence there to have influence on the scheme of events.
It would have kept soldiers from Russia, Erdogan and Syrie away. Nobody wants to burn there fingers on killing US soldiers.

I am tired of war.  Let the Middle East sort out itself.  I realize that the Middle East is right below Europe and could cause a shit storm for the EU if it fell again into chaos, but that is your problem.  Please, feel free to send more of your men to help out the situation, but I feel fairly secure across the Atlantic. 
On top of that, we (the USA) cant forever protect the lands of others, especially those many 1000s of miles away.  They eventually need protect themselves and form closer alliances. 
It was stated a while ago that the best move forward for the Kurds was to form an alliance with Syria, but of course no one in politics could even mention this, because of, Bashar al-Assad.  And now look what is happening, they are forming an alliance.  Not to mention Russia is now engaged in, at least, a proxy war with Turkey, a country they were becoming chummy with up until now. 
The only two things that could happen that would warrant the USA returning is if ISIS started to regain it former power, and if Turkey followed through with its threats to confiscate and relocate our nuclear warheads located just within their country.
Warmongers, bgone.

If you are tired of war - so be it; The US is selling enormous amounts $$ of weapons to the Middle East; so is involved now, as it always have been. Saoudi Arabia's war with Jemen is done with US weapons.
They sold weapons to Saddam Hussein to later invade Irak leaving it in chaos with hunderds of thousand Iraki's killed... They helped starting the nuclear facilities in Iran when the Sjah was in power...
Apparently selling weapons is good for the US economy...
Israel is part of the middle east and i do not think the US will stop supporting them; They give Israel a blank cheque to do anything they like;  So the US is involved and will stay involved.

[faberryman]

It is pretty clear Turkey was going in regardless if we stayed or left, so if we stayed were we to start a war with Turkey, with only 50 to 100 troops?

The only thing keeping Turkey from invading Syria was that small contingent of troops. The US moved them back and three days later Turkey invaded.