Incursions into Syria

[Rob C]

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.



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.

Indeed they are involved and always will be involved. Oil, though available cheaply within the US today, may not last long enough to support an economy with a head that refuses to believe gas guzzling is doing him no favours. The more you use up the less is left.

Also, of course, the days when being an island was economically possible as objective have passed. That said, Trump has his mirror image in the UK at the moment. In both cases you have eventually little option but to realise that both speak and act from with power circles of wealthy men. That shit may rain upon the heads of others due to ego-tripping madness is neither a factor nor a problem. For them.

But US foreign policy has always seemed a bit of a mystery to other nations. There seemed to be a great opportunity to win the war for hearts and minds in Vietnam, but the action was stopped without flexing the true muscle available to the country that would have brought it a win. The weakened and then supposedly obsolete USSR was able to take over the Crimean Pen. and nobody said boo! Our collective "western" support for democracy across the globe does apoear to be more catechism than fact. But hey, as long as we can keep selling them all guns, aircraft, bullets and junk - well, what's not to like, right?

[jeremyrh]

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

Yes because this is about Russia not Kurdistan. Russia is getting wall to wall influence across Eurasia and Trump just let another domino fall with nothing more than a phone call. Putin is laughing  his socks off

[Alan Klein]

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.



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.

I'm very selective when I shoot pictures.  I don't aim my camera willy nilly and shoot every possible image.  Only the ones I think will count. Do you?

[Robert Roaldi]

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 have some sympathy for this. Paying attention to him is a little like feeding trolls, isn't it. But he's difficult to avoid too. The series of tweets re Turkey and the Kurds and the now "sanctions" just seem so outlandish, unhinged even. The most charitable thing I can say is that he should stop thinking out loud on Twitter. I detect no cunning or long-term objectives, even selfish ones. It's difficult to believe that there are adults in the room there with him. Those jobs must be cushy as hell if the fear of losing them means going along with the buffoonery.

As to your question about what else he could do. He could have done nothing, maintained the status quo. My understanding is that the demands on the US forces there were not onerous, much less than the troop movement into Saudi Arabia for instance, so what was the compelling reason to change anything.

I completely understand your sentiments in general regarding pointless wars and pseudo-wars, they certainly don't seem to accomplish much, but that's no reason to destabilize things for no apparent reason either. If Trump feels the need to withdraw from the world, there were lots of other places to start, but I haven't heard of any of those other bases around the world being closed. My first question when I heard about this was what Saudi Arabia stood to gain by it. It's easy to imagine the princes pulling some strings. Were I am American, I would approach this whole aspect in another way. Given that there is no military draft anymore and that the US military is now a professional organization, I'd start asking if the country's leaders weren't using the national military as a mercenary force, paid for by other counties, rather than existing for the benefit of all Americans. Since there is less risk of losing the votes of parents of draftees, it removes one aspect from political consideration. I wouldn't want my kids' lives dependent on Trump's leadership.

[Alan Klein]

Yes because this is about Russia not Kurdistan. Russia is getting wall to wall influence across Eurasia and Trump just let another domino fall with nothing more than a phone call. Putin is laughing  his socks off

So let Russia get bogged down in wars in the Middle East like we always seem too.  America spent trillions, lost thousands, and for what?  If others feel the ME is so important to get involved, let them step up to the plate.  Americans would be glad to let them take a swing at the ball.

[Alan Klein]

I have some sympathy for this. Paying attention to him is a little like feeding trolls, isn't it. But he's difficult to avoid too. The series of tweets re Turkey and the Kurds and the now "sanctions" just seem so outlandish, unhinged even. The most charitable thing I can say is that he should stop thinking out loud on Twitter. I detect no cunning or long-term objectives, even selfish ones. It's difficult to believe that there are adults in the room there with him. Those jobs must be cushy as hell if the fear of losing them means going along with the buffoonery.

As to your question about what else he could do. He could have done nothing, maintained the status quo. My understanding is that the demands on the US forces there were not onerous, much less than the troop movement into Saudi Arabia for instance, so what was the compelling reason to change anything.

I completely understand your sentiments in general regarding pointless wars and pseudo-wars, they certainly don't seem to accomplish much, but that's no reason to destabilize things for no apparent reason either. If Trump feels the need to withdraw from the world, there were lots of other places to start, but I haven't heard of any of those other bases around the world being closed. My first question when I heard about this was what Saudi Arabia stood to gain by it. It's easy to imagine the princes pulling some strings. Were I am American, I would approach this whole aspect in another way. Given that there is no military draft anymore and that the US military is now a professional organization, I'd start asking if the country's leaders weren't using the national military as a mercenary force, paid for by other counties, rather than existing for the benefit of all Americans. Since there is less risk of losing the votes of parents of draftees, it removes one aspect from political consideration. I wouldn't want my kids' lives dependent on Trump's leadership.

I suspect that Erdogan told Trump they are moving in to create that buffer zone between the Kurds in northern Syria and Turkey proper,  no matter what.  The terrorist arm of the Kurds has pushed Turkey where they can't wait any longer.  So Trump moved his troops out of Syria.  He may remember when Reagan moved troops out of Lebanon after the Marines got killed when their barracks were blown up.  He didn't want that to happen on his watch.  Not for Syria.  Not for the Kurds. Not for the Russians.


Regarding your comment about American leaders not having to worry about parents because their kids are volunteers, I think your position is very unfeeling.  Regardless of being a volunteer or not, these are Americans getting killed. The fact is they are patriotic and volunteered.  That should be appreciated and respected.  Some members have volunteered for multiple tours of duty in the Middle East risking their lives every time they went.  They should be protected because they are our sons and daughters.  I am sure you would want the same if they were your soldiers. 


Frankly, I'm opposed to an all-volunteer military.  I think having some members conscripted forces everyone to think more about war and its consequences.  Nothing focuses one's attention more than the hangman's noose.  Frankly, it was the draft mainly that put the death knell into our efforts in Vietnam.  Americans just said enough.  I think we're reaching that point, at least in the Middle East, after 18 years of war there since 9-11.  It may push as back in other areas as well.  We can't afford it any longer.  And we're tired.  We've been doing it since WWII.

[faberryman]

I suspect that Erdogan told Trump they are moving in to create that buffer zone between the Kurds in northern Syria and Turkey proper,  no matter what.

Unlikely. They have had years to do so and haven't. Yet the moment the US moves out of their way, in they go.

[jeremyrh]

So let Russia get bogged down in wars in the Middle East like we always seem too.  America spent trillions, lost thousands, and for what?  If others feel the ME is so important to get involved, let them step up to the plate.  Americans would be glad to let them take a swing at the ball.

You keep missing the point. Russia is not concerned with nation building or democracy or public relations. They care about global strategy. Chess not poker.

[Alan Klein]

As Trump just said at a news conference, "It's not our problem."

[James Clark]

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

My point is that the whole article talks about all the horrible things that happen in a power vacuum.  What you're advocating for is the formation of a massive power vacuum.  It's completely fair to say that in years past democrats have ben complaining about nation building, foreign wars etc., and I think those concerns still hold.  However, there's a difference between what we did in Iraq and what we were doing in Syria.  The former caused mass instability - the latter is a commitment of a few hundred troops to *maintain* stability and, coincidentally, avoid creating a power vacuum that countries that don't like us will be happy to try and fill.

I'm not super comfortable with doing nothing while regional conflicts break out all over the globe.  Like it or not, we *are* a global society, and these events *will* impact us, much as some of us might like to pretend that we can retreat to the CONUS and remain untouched.

[jeremyrh]

As Trump just said at a news conference, "It's not our problem."

Well if Trump says it, it must be true - after all, he's a very stable genius.  But I recommend looking at a map before deciding.

[Alan Klein]

You're welcome to make it your problem. 😀

[Robert Roaldi]

Regarding your comment about American leaders not having to worry about parents because their kids are volunteers, I think your position is very unfeeling.  Regardless of being a volunteer or not, these are Americans getting killed. The fact is they are patriotic and volunteered.  That should be appreciated and respected.  Some members have volunteered for multiple tours of duty in the Middle East risking their lives every time they went.  They should be protected because they are our sons and daughters.  I am sure you would want the same if they were your soldiers. 

I don't disagree with any of this, what I said was very cynical. But when it comes to rich selfish people in power, I don't believe it's possible to be cynical enough. We use terms like "leaders", "founding fathers", etc., but I think we would be better off if we thought of them as "employees". In the Vietnam era, it was not unknown for sons of gentry to miss the shooting, as I remember it, they're not like you and me.

A few times in these pages, some people have expressed thoughts along the lines of "he won the election, let's see what he does and we'll judge him at the next election". I disagree with this, not just with Trump, I'd say it with any of them. Like any employee, you have to watch them and judge their performance all the time. Except for a small number of CEOs, at Amazon, Apple, Google, who apparently can rule with the authority of feudal landlords (a mistake imo), all others report to someone somewhere. The President is not the CEO of the country, he's not your daddy, he's not your king, he's just the guy you hired to do a job and like all powerful employees, they need to be watched all the time. It's a shame nobody was watching harder at GM, the investment banks, Enron, AIG, etc., might have saved a lot of people some pointless suffering. Our responsibilities as citizens in a democracy do not end when we leave the voting booth.

[faberryman]

In a press conference today, Trump said that withdrawing US troops was a "strategically brilliant" plan, "the Kurds are safer now", and "there is plenty of sand for them to play in". He is looney tunes.

[Alan Klein]

I don't disagree with any of this, what I said was very cynical. But when it comes to rich selfish people in power, I don't believe it's possible to be cynical enough. We use terms like "leaders", "founding fathers", etc., but I think we would be better off if we thought of them as "employees". In the Vietnam era, it was not unknown for sons of gentry to miss the shooting, as I remember it, they're not like you and me.

A few times in these pages, some people have expressed thoughts along the lines of "he won the election, let's see what he does and we'll judge him at the next election". I disagree with this, not just with Trump, I'd say it with any of them. Like any employee, you have to watch them and judge their performance all the time. Except for a small number of CEOs, at Amazon, Apple, Google, who apparently can rule with the authority of feudal landlords (a mistake imo), all others report to someone somewhere. The President is not the CEO of the country, he's not your daddy, he's not your king, he's just the guy you hired to do a job and like all powerful employees, they need to be watched all the time. It's a shame nobody was watching harder at GM, the investment banks, Enron, AIG, etc., might have saved a lot of people some pointless suffering. Our responsibilities as citizens in a democracy do not end when we leave the voting booth.

I appreciate your honesty.  Thank you. 

Sure politicians are cynical and imperious and want power.  That's why they're in politics.  That's why our founders, who were experienced in being under the thumb of imperial power,  set up government to limit power.  There are enumerated powers listed where the government can rule only.  All other areas they cannot rule at all.  That's left for the States and people to decide.


Also, there are checks and balances in our constitution as well that limits power of government.  The president cannot declare war, Congress does, but the president can veto it.  The president can make deals with foreign countries, but treaties must be approved by the Senate.  The president nominates judges and justices, but it must be affirmed by the Senate.  Congress legislates laws, but the president has to approve it or its not law.  The Supreme Court reviews legislation and presidential executive orders through lawsuits and can declare them unconstitutional and invalid.  Supreme Court judges can be impeached and removed from office.  Regarding removal of presidents, it was defined very narrowly: high crimes and misdemeanors.  The Constitution reserved ending of presidential terms at election time.  They wanted to leave it to the electors of each of the states to decide.  It's why no president has ever been found guilty and removed from office.  They're not removed for policy decisions.  Parliamentary governments remove leaders midstream.  That's not an American tradition and our governmental process does not favor that approach. 

[Alan Klein]

In a press conference today, Trump said that withdrawing US troops was a "strategically brilliant" plan, "the Kurds are safer now", and "there is plenty of sand for them to play in". He is looney tunes.

I didn't hear his speech and you probably are cherry picking his words.  On the other hand, only a New Yorker like me would appreciate his sense of humor.  You got know how to laugh at yourself. 

[faberryman]

I didn't hear his speech and you probably are cherry picking his words.  On the other hand, only a New Yorker like me would appreciate his sense of humor.  You got know how to laugh at yourself.

Turkey's invasion of northern Syria to massacre the Kurds is not a laughing matter.

[Alan Klein]

OK I watched his statement.  You;re cherry picking.  He wasn't referring to the Kurds alone.  He was describing how Syrians, Turks, Kurds and others have been fighting for hundreds of years over their.  There's plenty of sand for them to play in (if they want).  What he was getting at, if they want to fight with each other like children fight in a sandbox, let them.  It's not our problem.  We don't have to be there. 

I agree.  Let them play without us.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNdqDu2IKSY

[Alan Klein]

Turkey's invasion of northern Syria to massacre the Kurds is not a laughing matter.

You're being hysterical and factually wrong.  You're playing politics.  You ought to read up on this thing from non-biased sources instead of watching the anti-Trump press.    Turkey invaded Syria to set up a 20 mile buffer zone to keep terrorist Kurds out of Turkey where Kurds had been killing Turks to make a homeland for themselves. If the same thing was happening to your country, you'd do the same thing.  Kurds have taken control of a quarter of Syrian territory that does not belong to them.  So now Syria is willing to "protect" the Kurds but the Kurds have to give up something, not sure what that is, maybe the oil they captured.  In the Middle East, things usually come down to money. 

[faberryman]

You ought to read up on this thing from non-biased sources instead of watching the anti-Trump press.

The "anti-Trump press" I watched was a press conference where the only one speaking was Trump. By the way, a bipartisan majority of the House of Representatives (354 to 60) voted today to condemn Trump's abandonment of the Kurds in Syria. A majority of Republicans joined the Democrats in the condemnation.