Syria

[ukpumacat]

So is everyone ok with what Trump did in Syria?

[CitizenBBN]

Nope.

I want us out of the region, and I agree with Trump that the "neo-con" era needs to end, where we are basically perpetually at war or peacekeeping.

But giving Erdogan free reign is as dangerous as giving it to Assad or Iran, maybe even more dangerous, and he will commit genocide on the Kurds. It's already started with targeting of civilian areas.

I imagine we now know why Bolton is gone, and some others. We need to leave the area if we can, but allowing Turkey's new dictator to go on a military expansion campaign is dangerous on multiple fronts.

Now that said, it will probably do the trick against ISIS etc. as well, as Turkey will go after them. But is that worth the price the Kurds will pay?

We need to leave, but we can't do it at the price of genocide, and Trump's threats to somehow hold Turkey off won't work. Without US forces there the Turks will do what they want, and if we respond now with economic sanctions etc. it actually worsens relations with Turkey while simultaneously hurting the Kurds.

I think this will be a big lose lose.

[Catonahottinroof]

Agreed. Erdogan is a self initiated dictator and plays the part to the Nth.
Nope.

I want us out of the region, and I agree with Trump that the "neo-con" era needs to end, where we are basically perpetually at war or peacekeeping.

But giving Erdogan free reign is as dangerous as giving it to Assad or Iran, maybe even more dangerous, and he will commit genocide on the Kurds. It's already started with targeting of civilian areas.

I imagine we now know why Bolton is gone, and some others. We need to leave the area if we can, but allowing Turkey's new dictator to go on a military expansion campaign is dangerous on multiple fronts.

Now that said, it will probably do the trick against ISIS etc. as well, as Turkey will go after them. But is that worth the price the Kurds will pay?

We need to leave, but we can't do it at the price of genocide, and Trump's threats to somehow hold Turkey off won't work. Without US forces there the Turks will do what they want, and if we respond now with economic sanctions etc. it actually worsens relations with Turkey while simultaneously hurting the Kurds.

I think this will be a big lose lose.

[CitizenBBN]

The only out, and there is one, is simply to send troops back to Kurdish areas if it goes far over the line. It invites a direct conflict with a NATO ally, but we've been dancing on that fence a while anyway. We could put advisers etc. back in place and let the Turks know locations in advance.

I imagine it may come to that. I'm hoping a deal is in place as to how far the Turks can go with the Kurds, and I hope they stick to it, but I really doubt they do.

[ukpumacat]

This is exactly the reason that Trump being cozy with Dictators in Russia, Iran and North Korea has worried so many people (Republicans as well). Its not the same as other Presidents (Obama being one) who tried negotiating with some of them (which also didn't work). Trump literally respects them. He says it. He tweets it. Its on record.

And now he does a move like this against every single advisor/General, etc and it begs the question, why?

I know his answer. But I don't believe it for one second. He is being played. And that scares the living hell out of me.

[CitizenBBN]

This is exactly the reason that Trump being cozy with Dictators in Russia, Iran and North Korea has worried so many people (Republicans as well). Its not the same as other Presidents (Obama being one) who tried negotiating with some of them (which also didn't work). Trump literally respects them. He says it. He tweets it. Its on record.

And now he does a move like this against every single advisor/General, etc and it begs the question, why?

I know his answer. But I don't believe it for one second. He is being played. And that scares the living hell out of me.

He's an isolationist. It's often a part of Populism. Rand Paul is cheering the move, and he's an isolationist too.

Generally generals are against pulling out of about anywhere, and so are the neo-cons or hawks or whatever term we want to use.

So I have no problem going against them, b/c we need to stop sending troops everywhere just b/c we can.

that being said I don't support his particular move as the amount of troops exposed was small and the risk is very high to us and the Kurds. the cost/benefit on this one was OK to stay.

As for the dictator thing, I get it, but he was also willing to meet with the Taliban. Trump will meet with anyone, and do business with anyone.

He ran on bringing the troops home. that's what he's doing. I don't read that as being either a pawn of dictators or necessarily naive per se, but we'll see how it goes.

The truth is Erdogan has hold of Turkey now, I seriously doubt that changes in the near future, and they have been making overtures to Russia b/c of our relatively cold level of support for the regime. That is also very very serious for us strategically.

So we can put all of this on Trump and that he's a fool, or loves dictators, etc. but I can tell you Henry Kissinger would be weighing the importance of keeping Turkey close versus the Kurds and I can tell you he'd do the same thing.

In some ways this is Real Politik, and the big thing we don't know is what our relations with Turkey were becoming behind the scenes and if this was able to bolster them. If we were about to have our 50 or so nuclear weapons kicked out of the country and the Russians invited in then maybe this doesn't look like nearly as stupid of a move.

That's the real question for me. What does this get us with Turkey?

[Catonahottinroof]

Part of me wonders if Trump is inviting Erdogan to do what is expected, and we mow him down like crabgrass.
Trump isn’t predictable in this case so who knows.

[CitizenBBN]

Also, re his love of dictators, There is also the example of Chairman Xi. Clearly right there in the group with others listed, Trump has been complimentary but has also been playing very hard ball with him.

so it's not like he's a pushover for people. He walked out on Kim at a summitt, so I wouldn't say he's just fawning over these guys. He talks nicely about them, but talk is just talk.

Again, judge people by their actions, not their words. So far Trump hasn't made one deal or done one substantive thing before this move that really played to the benefit of those guys in any real way. Kim got the media he wanted, but that didn't really do anything to move the chessboard.

And this may be a better move than we know. We'll have to see how it plays out a bit.

[ukpumacat]

Trump being an "isolationist" may be exactly why he is doing this. But I have my serious doubts. This is exactly why every US President has released their tax returns for the past several decades until Trump. They did so to be transparent about their business dealings so that their foreign policy would not be improperly benefitted.
Trump, of course, refuses to release his. And that raises serious questions about many of his foreign policy decisions but especially one like this when seemingly almost everyone disagrees with him.

Here is an article from Newsweek in 2016 that addresses this exact issue: https://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/donald-trump-foreign-business-deals-national-security-498081.html

The portion that is incredibly relevant today:

In other words, Trump would be in direct financial and political conflict with Turkey from the moment he was sworn into office. Once again, all his dealings with Turkey would be suspect: Would Trump act in the interests of the United States or his wallet? When faced with the prospect of losing the millions of dollars that flow into the Trump Organization each year from that Istanbul property, what position would President Trump take on the important issues involving Turkish-American relations, including that country's role in the fight against ISIS?

Another conundrum: Turkey is at war with the Kurds, America's allies in the fight against ISIS in Syria. Kurdish insurgent groups are in armed conflict with Turkey, demanding an independent Kurdistan. If Turkey cuts off the Trump Organization's cash flow from Istanbul, will Trump, who has shown many times how petty and impulsive he can be, allow that to influence how the U.S. juggles the interests of these two critical allies?

Parts of that article have some unbelievable foreshadowing to moves Trump would make in his time in office (and that was before his time in office). And those questions/predictions were not made because they knew Trump was an "isolationist". They were made because Trump is a businessman and has dealings with Russia, Turkey, Iran, etc. Its terribly worrisome.

[Doc]

On face I am not for it. I was against Obama getting out too. I find it funny though that those on the left are objecting. Goes to their core belief that anything Trump brings is bad. They were 100% for exiting the region under Obama as it was the right thing to do, but Trump doing, well then its a horrible decision.

So much depends on the behind the scenes factors...which is why presidential phone conversations should not be released to the public, but that is a different topic. I would hope that there are assurances and agreements with Turkey and the kurds that there will be no aggression. If so then we stap back in either militarly and/or economically.

[UKHistory]

Also, re his love of dictators, There is also the example of Chairman Xi. Clearly right there in the group with others listed, Trump has been complimentary but has also been playing very hard ball with him.

so it's not like he's a pushover for people. He walked out on Kim at a summitt, so I wouldn't say he's just fawning over these guys. He talks nicely about them, but talk is just talk.

Again, judge people by their actions, not their words. So far Trump hasn't made one deal or done one substantive thing before this move that really played to the benefit of those guys in any real way. Kim got the media he wanted, but that didn't really do anything to move the chessboard.

And this may be a better move than we know. We'll have to see how it plays out a bit.

The president’s words are actions.

[UKHistory]

Trump is an isolationist. We can agree to disagree on that issue. Playing on the world stage is in the worlds interests. The US has just played the short game instead of investing in long term good will

More than that trump is an autocrat. A fascist who admires strong men who find are above the laws of their own countries.

Invading Iraq was a bad move. Gulf War I has had disastrous consequences too. But leaving-especially leaving an ally- is bad policy.

Some of had said trump is s better than say lbj with Vietnam.

This man is weakening America’s position in the world daily. He is a bully and the worst thing about s bullies are cowards. Cowards encourage meaner bullies

[ukpumacat]

On face I am not for it. I was against Obama getting out too. I find it funny though that those on the left are objecting. Goes to their core belief that anything Trump brings is bad. They were 100% for exiting the region under Obama as it was the right thing to do, but Trump doing, well then its a horrible decision.


That's a fair point.
I can only speak for myself and no one else and say that we have positions like the one in Syria all over the world. There are 100 or so troops there. Obama left positions like that all over the world (but I still agree with your over-arching point which is that it wouldn't have mattered how many troops were there many on the left still would have had an issue simply because Trump did it).

This just reeks and smells of something else to me (as I posted above) and I don't like the stench. Clearly neither do most other Republican leaders.

Maybe even more than all of that is this question: Why now? Trump is very very politically savvy. Why, in the midst of a possible impeachment, would he do something that almost EVERYONE would be upset about? "Changing the narrative" from the impeachment doesn't make sense when everyone is upset.
I just don't get the political move here at all.
And no one will convince me that "its not political". He has been saying he was going to do this for a while. He chose now for a reason. I just have no clue what it is because politically it seems like a mistake.

Which leaves me with three possible options (I am sure there are more):

1. He didn't expect this - He didn't expect so many Reps to be against it. And/or he didn't expect anyone to notice. And/or he was completely played by the Turkish President and genuinely didn't think they would invade (which they had already announced they would).
2. He has a "Secret plan" - Chuck alluded to this earlier. He pulled out knowing Turkey would invade and now he will squash them like a bug. He has had a long standing beef with the Turkish President from his business dealings. (I don't buy this at all for numerous reasons but there it is)
3. He is doing it for business - I cannot imagine he things he is actually going to be impeached. Maybe because his tax returns might be released soon? So he wants to get this done while he still can?

NO matter his reason...I just don't get the political play. I have no doubt he has one. I just don't see it right now. Sometimes he does stuff and I am like, "That was weirdly really smart". And other times he does stuff that turns out to be a huge mistake politically. I think this is one. I suppose we need to let it play out to see.

[ukpumacat]

Speaking of the political ramifications:

A new Fox News Poll about his impeachment:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-record-support-for-trump-impeachment

I expect those numbers to continue to rise. Which makes this move make even less sense. And he absolutely cares about those numbers. He tweeted fake ones out yesterday. This story will be used over and over again in this next election. It won’t go away. It’s “a mover” as political strategists call it. And it’s not going to play well with Independents when every news station has every pundit saying how awful of a decision it was.
It just seems like the worst time for him to give credibility to the already majority who believe he should be removed from office.

[CitizenBBN]

Trump being an "isolationist" may be exactly why he is doing this. But I have my serious doubts. This is exactly why every US President has released their tax returns for the past several decades until Trump. They did so to be transparent about their business dealings so that their foreign policy would not be improperly benefitted.
Trump, of course, refuses to release his. And that raises serious questions about many of his foreign policy decisions but especially one like this when seemingly almost everyone disagrees with him.

Here is an article from Newsweek in 2016 that addresses this exact issue: https://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/donald-trump-foreign-business-deals-national-security-498081.html

The portion that is incredibly relevant today:

In other words, Trump would be in direct financial and political conflict with Turkey from the moment he was sworn into office. Once again, all his dealings with Turkey would be suspect: Would Trump act in the interests of the United States or his wallet? When faced with the prospect of losing the millions of dollars that flow into the Trump Organization each year from that Istanbul property, what position would President Trump take on the important issues involving Turkish-American relations, including that country's role in the fight against ISIS?

Another conundrum: Turkey is at war with the Kurds, America's allies in the fight against ISIS in Syria. Kurdish insurgent groups are in armed conflict with Turkey, demanding an independent Kurdistan. If Turkey cuts off the Trump Organization's cash flow from Istanbul, will Trump, who has shown many times how petty and impulsive he can be, allow that to influence how the U.S. juggles the interests of these two critical allies?

Parts of that article have some unbelievable foreshadowing to moves Trump would make in his time in office (and that was before his time in office). And those questions/predictions were not made because they knew Trump was an "isolationist". They were made because Trump is a businessman and has dealings with Russia, Turkey, Iran, etc. Its terribly worrisome.

To lay this on the money side of his businesses is a real stretch IMO.

First, if he really wanted to get in good with Turkey he'd have handed over Gulen.

second, what's likely to happen is economic sanctions now against Turkey b/c they will definitely overstep and attack the Kurds. So IMO we'll be in WORSE position than we are now, and so will Trump.

Twitter had to apologize b/c they had a trending term that was basically "Death to Trump" coming out of Turkey b/c of his economic threats.

Now, will the behind the scenes stuff work out to his favor? I dont' know, and it's worth watching, but honestly its a reach.

Occam's razor is the rule to follow with Trump IMO. I think he's incredibly simplistic in how he views the world and does analysis (and I think he is as a businessman as well), and it impetuous and a bully. His solution to business problems was to insist harder on his direction, not to step back and ask if it's the right one.

My guess is he thought this was a way to live up to a campaign promise but not allow ISIS back by letting Turkey take care of its own backyard. And, other than the fact that they want the Kurds exterminated as much as they want ISIS or Assad gone, it's a good idea.

But Turkey will cross the lines Trump was betting the wouldn't cross, again b/c he's very simplistic and doesn't get the history of the conflict and the Turkish penchant for genocide, and we'll end up worse off.

Unless we get something HUGE out of this geopolitically I'm very disappointed with how this was handled, and his base will be too. This will hurt him and he wont' see it coming, and he'll be mad at his base when it backfires.

Now that will then be the interesting political thing to watch. Will he turn and lash out at them like he does everyone else? If he gets on the wrong side of the "deplorables" fence he's toast.

[CitizenBBN]

Speaking of the political ramifications:

A new Fox News Poll about his impeachment:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-record-support-for-trump-impeachment

I expect those numbers to continue to rise. Which makes this move make even less sense. And he absolutely cares about those numbers. He tweeted fake ones out yesterday. This story will be used over and over again in this next election. It won’t go away. It’s “a mover” as political strategists call it. And it’s not going to play well with Independents when every news station has every pundit saying how awful of a decision it was.
It just seems like the worst time for him to give credibility to the already majority who believe he should be removed from office.

Oh politically I think it's a desperately bad move. If he does nothing then nothing in the Middle East hurts him politically. Only if this turns into rainbows and unicorns does it help him, and it' wont' do that.

It's a loser for him, and with his base as well as independents. There's a fox story with a Special Forces guy talking about being ashamed. It will hurt him.

The only question is how much it carries forward for a year, but I think some of it will. I wont' say it just cost him the election, but it just created big problems for him.

And that's why I don't think its about his pocketbook. He's just not sophisticated enough to see things that many moves ahead on the chessboard, or he'd have never have done this. He simply doesn't see the ramifications.

[CitizenBBN]

Trump being an "isolationist" may be exactly why he is doing this. But I have my serious doubts. This is exactly why every US President has released their tax returns for the past several decades until Trump. .

I have to make one more comment on this.

Releasing the tax returns is all but meaningless in uncovering corruption and financial influence among our politicians.

Biden didn't take money from a Ukranian oil company, so his returns are clean. his son's on the other hand....

The CLintons set up a multi-billion dollar foundation and money poured in from foreign nations and companies in the millions, tens of millions. then they lose influence and it all dried up. Haiti could still use the help, so why did they stop caring? lol.

The way this works in DC doesn't hit the returns of politicians. it hits the returns of friends, family, etc. and then when they retire they get parachuted to those sweet deals. Book deals, Directorships on boards of defense contractors, that's when it shows up.

So Trump releasing his returns doesn't help us a bit. surely he's savvy enough to hide getting paid off if he wants. Everyone else in DC is getting paid off and they all hide it just fine, surely he could figure it out.

IMO he doesn't release his returns b/c, just like every other attack on him calling for his impeachment before he took the oath of office, the opposition is going to go through and find every $10 anomaly and claim he should be in jail for tax evasion, or just shot outright.

Seriously, this has become so absurd, so over the top that now he's a traitor, a Russian Spy, the most "mentally deranged person in America", etc. it's asinine how much hyperbole is leveled at him, and I'm sure he sees his tax returns as just more ammunition for those attacks.

He's an asshat, he's impulsive and I'd probably not be able to work with him for 2 days, but it worst it will make him a bad President, not an evil one.

[ukpumacat]

All fair points Chuck. I tend to agree. I think saying its just money is too simplistic. He doesn't seem that obvious. I only brought up the tax returns because that is just a pesky thing that won't leave him alone.

If you want my worthless two cents on why he hasn't released them: I think he's embarrassed. The same reason he didn't release his medical record - it said he had medication for hair loss. The guy has a gigantic ego (I would too) and simply cares about things like that. I think his taxes would be embarrassing to him. I don't know what is in them that would. Maybe he didn't make as much money as he claims. Maybe he donated to something he is embarrassed about. Whatever it is that is my honest opinion. I do think he has people very smart working for him that could cover up any shady stuff (and I'm sure that is there too).

And yes, like you said, this was just a politically bad move.
It seems like from my options above you think it is #1. I agree. I really think he just didn't expect this. I think he got somewhat played and I think he is short sighted on what this means long term.

As you know, I am not a fan of his. But I don't think he is an idiot. I also don't think he is intentionally evil or trying to take America down as some seem to act like.
I think his greatest flaw is his inability to listen to others. In this case, he should have.

[Doc]

I vividly recall during the Obama years many on the right claiming he would bring "the end to democracy", that he was beholden to the Islamic faith more than America, he was a terrorist or closet Weather Undergrounder, that he would somehow fail to leave office, he was a dictator/autocrat who bypassed congress.....all similar to what the left spouts about trump. They called for birth certificate and college transcripts (both which failed to be fully provided), his staff would ignore congressional subpeonas, and he would use gov't agencies like the IRS and EPA to attack his political opponents. That his Attorney General was his lackey, etc

Yet none of the this brought about a "Constitutional Crisis" or the downright death of democracy, which the left forecast under Trump. None of this garnered impeachment. Yet somehow similar accusations toward Trump and actions by him are seen as some type of potential amagedon. The left would have more credibility if they had a similar concern and reaction to behaviors and actions when they held the White House....otherwise it is seen as pure 100% partisan hatered worthy of a coup because that is excatly what the democratic party is attempting by overthrowing a valid election.

Obama wanted and got out of the middle east. Liberals applauded the action. Was that because Hussain Obama was or is beholden to the Sheiks and Ayatollahs who lead the Muslin religeon? Was his funding to Iran not a clear and direct "impeachable" offense? Yet the left was fine with that. Now getting out of the middle east is suggestive of Trump being a Russian puppet. How bizzare!

[ukpumacat]

Obama wanted and got out of the middle east. Liberals applauded the action.

I am not going to get into a debate about the difference between Obama's Middle East Policies and Trump's because it is a rabbit hole we will likely never come out of. I will simply say that any similarity of the two is superficial at best. Why, how and when Obama withdrew troops is drastically different than Trump. And again, the minimal Troops that were in Syria were there because Obama knew the importance of leaving them there. But, I digress.

The key sentence is the one in bold above. Obama had the support of the majority of his party (and the majority of Americans at the time after the Iraq war).
Politically, what Trump is doing makes absolutely no sense (which again is the major focus of my posts). He doesn't have the support of almost anyone. Agree or disagree with his strategical move, I think this is a disaster politically.

[Catonahottinroof]

Obama drew a line in the sand....crossed repeatedly and nothing happened. Moot point to compare the two.
I am not going to get into a debate about the difference between Obama's Middle East Policies and Trump's because it is a rabbit hole we will likely never come out of. I will simply say that any similarity of the two is superficial at best. Why, how and when Obama withdrew troops is drastically different than Trump. And again, the minimal Troops that were in Syria were there because Obama knew the importance of leaving them there. But, I digress.

The key sentence is the one in bold above. Obama had the support of the majority of his party (and the majority of Americans at the time after the Iraq war).
Politically, what Trump is doing makes absolutely no sense (which again is the major focus of my posts). He doesn't have the support of almost anyone. Agree or disagree with his strategical move, I think this is a disaster politically.

[ukpumacat]

Mute point to compare the two.

Couldn't agree more.

[Doc]

Republicans NEVER vote to remove troops. Democrats vote to remove them unless it is a Trump initiative. Based on history, the left should applaud such a move but they won't. I suspect if Trump proposed medicare for all, including illegal aliens, a 100% gun ban and open borders the left would vote AGAINST it.

This is just one more example of Trump keeping his campaign promises. He stated he was going to do this and the people voted for him. Unlike the "swampsters" in congress who pledge on thing during the campaigns but do something else once elected, he is holding to his rhetoric. Likewise, he isn't beholden to the Republican party and blindly following lock step. As I stated earlier, I don't necessarily agree with the withdrawl but it is nice to see a politician that actually lives up to what they run on.

[dan_bgblue]

That is a messed up and very difficult part of the world to sort out. The Kurds that are USA allies are not the same Kurds that are terrorists (the PPK) that Turkey wants to obliterate, but the USA allies are not trying to wipe out the terro9rists that carry the same ethnic name. The USA allies were working to carve out a homeland in the northern part of Syria and they were doing it with USA help. It was a win win situation for the USA and the Kurds. It was time for the USA to leave and let the Kurds carve out their homeland. The USA can still supply them with arms and technical support from afar and keep-their NATO ally in the fold.

Just some thoughts on why it might be a good move for the USA to pull out.

[CitizenBBN]

Dan, it's a very bad situation. Turkey absolutely will go to war against a Kurdistan nation, hell the tried to wipe them from the map in the early 1900s completely, yet we would like to see that as they create hegemony against other more dangerous regional powers.

So we're in a bad place. The Turks have already reached out to Russia for weaponry, and here they're a NATO nation with NATO/US nuclear missiles. They hate our support of the Kurds.

So if we help the Kurds build a nation we all but lose Turkey from NATO IMO, so we're in a Mexican standoff.

Now I think maybe that's where we need to stay on this one, that it's the best option. Trump probably sees that as not moving forward and pulled the trigger now.

Politically I think it's a big mistake for him to use his capital on this one right now. But is it the right move? Hard to say. The Kurds will now reach out to Russia I presume, but that's a problem for them b/c of Iran. The Kurds are where they've been for a century, short of any big ally to back them b/c everyone else has already chosen teams.

[UKHistory]

Berlin Airlift, Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Bosnia, Somolia all show that Democrats are willing to put US troops in harm's way.

I certainly see the need to be cautious of sending to troops into combat. We should have considered those issues much carefully as we prosecuted Gulf War I and II.

That said pulling up our tent and going home at the expense of our allies is bad for our long term interests. The trip wire force we had with the Kurds was not enough to fight but it was enough to know that killing US troops would cause armed conflict with America. Turkey was not willing to do that.

By creating a vacuum of power in the Middle East or Asia we are opening space for China and Russia to exert greater influence.

That is just bad for business. Trump he seems to like autocrats far more than he does democratically elected leaders. That is a problem. I am sure all US presidents have found dictators to be easier to work with but Trump just seems to flaunt his infatuation with them. That is also a problem.

With the Kurds it seems like we had a good formula, we actually found a fighting force that had the will to fight whose interests were aligned with our own. It is much easier to have allies are committed to one's cause rather than just a pay check.


Republicans NEVER vote to remove troops. Democrats vote to remove them unless it is a Trump initiative. Based on history, the left should applaud such a move but they won't. I suspect if Trump proposed medicare for all, including illegal aliens, a 100% gun ban and open borders the left would vote AGAINST it.

This is just one more example of Trump keeping his campaign promises. He stated he was going to do this and the people voted for him. Unlike the "swampsters" in congress who pledge on thing during the campaigns but do something else once elected, he is holding to his rhetoric. Likewise, he isn't beholden to the Republican party and blindly following lock step. As I stated earlier, I don't necessarily agree with the withdrawl but it is nice to see a politician that actually lives up to what they run on.

[KeithKSR]

Also, re his love of dictators, There is also the example of Chairman Xi. Clearly right there in the group with others listed, Trump has been complimentary but has also been playing very hard ball with him.

so it's not like he's a pushover for people. He walked out on Kim at a summitt, so I wouldn't say he's just fawning over these guys. He talks nicely about them, but talk is just talk.


Isn’t that the way it works in the business world? Talk nice, make people feel at ease, but play hardball with negotiations.

I for one am tired of footing the bill to be the world peacekeepers.

[Doc]

Berlin Airlift, Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Bosnia, Somolia all show that Democrats are willing to put US troops in harm's way.

I certainly see the need to be cautious of sending to troops into combat. We should have considered those issues much carefully as we prosecuted Gulf War I and II.

That said pulling up our tent and going home at the expense of our allies is bad for our long term interests. The trip wire force we had with the Kurds was not enough to fight but it was enough to know that killing US troops would cause armed conflict with America. Turkey was not willing to do that.

By creating a vacuum of power in the Middle East or Asia we are opening space for China and Russia to exert greater influence.

That is just bad for business. Trump he seems to like autocrats far more than he does democratically elected leaders. That is a problem. I am sure all US presidents have found dictators to be easier to work with but Trump just seems to flaunt his infatuation with them. That is also a problem.

With the Kurds it seems like we had a good formula, we actually found a fighting force that had the will to fight whose interests were aligned with our own. It is much easier to have allies are committed to one's cause rather than just a pay check.

I didn't say they were not willing to put troops in harms way. I said they are for withdrawl (typically) whereas the republicans (typically) are for a long term military presence. But my point is the left flips because who the president is. They would vote against anything Trump proposes, and that is why both sides oppose. Its not because (IMO) the left wants to stay. Its because it is a Trump initiative. For me the argument that both sides oppose rings hallow, and is a worthless argument base solely on that.

And can we stop with the "autocrat"? I've yet to see him force major policy thru unilaterally like Obama did on the DACA and ACA. Guy legislated with the pen even though it is congress job to legislate. Almost every policy Trump has tried to implement is met with a court challenge in the 9th district.

[Doc]

That is a messed up and very difficult part of the world to sort out. The Kurds that are USA allies are not the same Kurds that are terrorists (the PPK) that Turkey wants to obliterate, but the USA allies are not trying to wipe out the terro9rists that carry the same ethnic name. The USA allies were working to carve out a homeland in the northern part of Syria and they were doing it with USA help. It was a win win situation for the USA and the Kurds. It was time for the USA to leave and let the Kurds carve out their homeland. The USA can still supply them with arms and technical support from afar and keep-their NATO ally in the fold.

Just some thoughts on why it might be a good move for the USA to pull out.

Good move or not...time will tell, but I believe 100% in the attempt to do it. We can do as we did in Iraq...go back if need be. Its not the preferred way but at some point we need to leave.

[ukpumacat]

I didn't say they were not willing to put troops in harms way. I said they are for withdrawl (typically) whereas the republicans (typically) are for a long term military presence. But my point is the left flips because who the president is. They would vote against anything Trump proposes, and that is why both sides oppose. Its not because (IMO) the left wants to stay. Its because it is a Trump initiative. For me the argument that both sides oppose rings hallow, and is a worthless argument base solely on that.

And can we stop with the "autocrat"? I've yet to see him force major policy thru unilaterally like Obama did on the DACA and ACA. Guy legislated with the pen even though it is congress job to legislate. Almost every policy Trump has tried to implement is met with a court challenge in the 9th district.

TBH, I am not seeing the "left" flip. I have seen a few come out and say things but its mostly the "right" flipping. I have never seen Fox News pundits quoted more in the last few days than they have been over this.
And I follow a bunch of "the left" on twitter. And most of them are just retweeting or commenting on Republicans negative comments.

But once again I come back to my original post....politically, this was just dumb to do right now. The last thing Trump needs or wants right now is to piss off the Republicans who are still backing him. He is about to be 20 Republican Senator votes away from being removed from office. I just don't get it.

[Doc]

Dan, it's a very bad situation. Turkey absolutely will go to war against a Kurdistan nation, hell the tried to wipe them from the map in the early 1900s completely, yet we would like to see that as they create hegemony against other more dangerous regional powers.

So we're in a bad place. The Turks have already reached out to Russia for weaponry, and here they're a NATO nation with NATO/US nuclear missiles. They hate our support of the Kurds.

So if we help the Kurds build a nation we all but lose Turkey from NATO IMO, so we're in a Mexican standoff.

Now I think maybe that's where we need to stay on this one, that it's the best option. Trump probably sees that as not moving forward and pulled the trigger now.

Politically I think it's a big mistake for him to use his capital on this one right now. But is it the right move? Hard to say. The Kurds will now reach out to Russia I presume, but that's a problem for them b/c of Iran. The Kurds are where they've been for a century, short of any big ally to back them b/c everyone else has already chosen teams.

I wouldn't shed a tear if we did. They are led by a ruthless dictator (actually a true autocrat!). Its much like when the USA supported the Shah of Iran. Time to quit supporting thugs around the world.


As for the Kurds, I don't think they reach out to Russia. I think they reach out to the USA. I think that deal has been struck.

[Doc]

TBH, I am not seeing the "left" flip. I have seen a few come out and say things but its mostly the "right" flipping. I have never seen Fox News pundits quoted more in the last few days than they have been over this.
And I follow a bunch of "the left" on twitter. And most of them are just retweeting or commenting on Republicans negative comments.

But once again I come back to my original post....politically, this was just dumb to do right now. The last thing Trump needs or wants right now is to piss off the Republicans who are still backing him. He is about to be 20 Republican Senator votes away from being removed from office. I just don't get it.

There isn't a flip on the right. The right is typically against withdrawl from the middle east, be it Iraq or Syria or wherever. Is no shock that the GOP would be AGAINST getting out. Its what they do.

I agree in that I think it is not the best move. However you give too much credit to the level of support. The decision to exit and the decision to impeach are two totally different things. To Republicans, the impeachment is about overturning an election that Hillary lost. Most who are anti-impeach are not doing so because Trump follows lock step with the party. He has not for the last 3 years. It is why he is seen as "anti-swamp".

[Doc]

Isn’t that the way it works in the business world? Talk nice, make people feel at ease, but play hardball with negotiations.

I for one am tired of footing the bill to be the world peacekeepers.

BINGO.....footing the bills in dollars and lives.

[ukpumacat]

There isn't a flip on the right. The right is typically against withdrawl from the middle east, be it Iraq or Syria or wherever. Is no shock that the GOP would be AGAINST getting out. Its what they do.

I agree in that I think it is not the best move. However you give too much credit to the level of support. The decision to exit and the decision to impeach are two totally different things. To Republicans, the impeachment is about overturning an election that Hillary lost. Most who are anti-impeach are not doing so because Trump follows lock step with the party. He has not for the last 3 years. It is why he is seen as "anti-swamp".

Sorry, I think we are using "flip" in two different ways. I mean it as "flip out".

And yes, I obviously know the impeachment and the withdrawal are different and that one can support one without supporting the other. However, we don't live in a vacuum. It makes no sense to piss off the very people who are vocally supporting you.

It would be like me being a QB and dating the coach's daughter. The weekend I throw 5 INT's and the coach defends me isn't the best weekend to dump his daughter. I would probably endure for a few more weeks.

[CitizenBBN]

Sorry, I think we are using "flip" in two different ways. I mean it as "flip out".

And yes, I obviously know the impeachment and the withdrawal are different and that one can support one without supporting the other. However, we don't live in a vacuum. It makes no sense to piss off the very people who are vocally supporting you.

It would be like me being a QB and dating the coach's daughter. The weekend I throw 5 INT's and the coach defends me isn't the best weekend to dump his daughter. I would probably endure for a few more weeks.

Which is why it's so hard to accuse Trump of being some Machiavellian double agent with these deep plans and ties.

Really? This guy is engaging in some year's long master plan, or somehow able to hide things so bad Russia controls him as a secret agent? Are we talking about the same Donald Trump?

The guy can't shut his mouth, or control his impulses, or otherwise make a calculated political move beyond trolling people. He's the single worst candidate for the stuff he's accused of in the history of the office.

[Doc]

Sorry, I think we are using "flip" in two different ways. I mean it as "flip out".

And yes, I obviously know the impeachment and the withdrawal are different and that one can support one without supporting the other. However, we don't live in a vacuum. It makes no sense to piss off the very people who are vocally supporting you.

It would be like me being a QB and dating the coach's daughter. The weekend I throw 5 INT's and the coach defends me isn't the best weekend to dump his daughter. I would probably endure for a few more weeks.

Maybe I am naive but the two are two different things. Disagreeing with the Presidents policy and decision does not mean you should abandon your principles. I think most REASONABLE people, which excludes half of congress, are able to disagree with something and not be vindictive. In fact Lindsey Graham recently touched on this very topic:

Earlier in the interview, Graham reiterated his strong opposition to the president's decision to withdraw U.S. forces from Syria, but added that he will not support impeachment over the disagreement.--link (https://www.foxnews.com/media/graham-trey-gowdy-trump-impeachment)

[kingcat]

8429

In a 2015 interview with the right-wing news outlet Breitbart, Trump responded to a question about Turkey’s reliability in the fight against ISIS by saying he had a “little conflict of interest,” speaking of the Trump Towers in Istanbul.

[CitizenBBN]

8429

In a 2015 interview with the right-wing news outlet Breitbart, Trump responded to a question about Turkey’s reliability in the fight against ISIS by saying he had a “little conflict of interest,” speaking of the Trump Towers in Istanbul.

lol. So now he's a puppet of both Putin and Erdogan. So do they get him on odd and even days?

Meanwhile, the tens and hundreds of millions flowing to every opponent of Trump, also from foreign sources, is just changing the subject. Studying the world without context is great for reducing the variables, but lousy for reaching the right conclusions.

[kingcat]

Has nothing to do with being a puppet.

We are talking about the Syrian situation and Trump.

And so it has to do with an extremely viable Trump business interest that Erdogan partially controls. A "little conflict of interest" kept the President from speaking his mind on a Erdogan matter posed to him.
Why is it a joke to question if it could also apply here?
I guess one could argue he just didn't understand the situation in Syria and made a mistake allowing an invasion of an ally. Or that he and good ole Erdogan are just good friends so he couldn't say no.

Otherwise, absent the puppet thing, this is a very understandable and likely reason for it.
Certainly not a laughable idea, although I dont really mind.

[CitizenBBN]

Trump continues to be corrupt, now he's going to punish Turkey's economy in response to their Syria invasion.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/money/donald-trump-turkey-sanctions-congress-syria

Just another example of him putting his personal financial interests ahead of the country.

Oh wait, this move would hurt his financial interests. Must be fake news.

This so far is playing out as expected, and not to anyone's favor. Not a good move.

[kingcat]

Trump continues to be corrupt, now he's going to punish Turkey's economy in response to their Syria invasion.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/money/donald-trump-turkey-sanctions-congress-syria

Just another example of him putting his personal financial interests ahead of the country.

Oh wait, this move would hurt his financial interests. Must be fake news.

This so far is playing out as expected, and not to anyone's favor. Not a good move.

Then why do you believe he made the choice to allow Erdogan to invade the Kurds?

[Catonahottinroof]

He made that a campaign promise. It’s the same mistake Obama made leaving the vacuum in Iraq. Now Trump is leaving one in Syria....

Then why do you believe he made the choice to allow Erdogan to invade the Kurds?

[CitizenBBN]

Then why do you believe he made the choice to allow Erdogan to invade the Kurds?

B/c he campaigned on and has made it completely clear he thinks us being involved in permanent wars is a mistake. He said he was going to pull us out of these conflicts.

or he's corrupt and on the take for a hotel in Istanbul he doesn't even own but only gets paid for his name use. Yeah, that must be it.

And as a guy on the take he's sure brilliant. They looked at taking his name off it when he started the "Muslim ban", and he's now threatening to sanction Turkey which has twitter tags of "death to trump" trending in Turkey. So boy is he sure lining his pockets with this move.

[kingcat]

So that explains why he approves of an attack against our former allies? And actually put some of our service men and women in harms way?

One Army officer who has deployed to northeastern Syria and has knowledge of the situation said multiple rounds of 155 mm fire were launched from Turkey’s side of the border and that they had a “bracketing effect” in which shells landed on both sides of the U.S. outpost. “That’s an area weapon,” the officer said, noting its explosive effects. “That’s not something we ever would have done to a partner force.” (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2019/10/12/us-forces-say-turkey-was-deliberately-bracketing-american-forces-with-artillery-fire-syria/)

And I thought he was currently sending troops to Saudi Arabia? 1800 I believe.

I accept that you may believe in your answer, but, and I am sorry, but I'd find that laughable it were Obama or anyone else.
The Middle East itself is a permanent military undertaking.

To me, this would serve well as the definition of blind faith.

[Doc]

So that explains why he approves of an attack against our former allies? And actually put some of our service men and women in harms way?

One Army officer who has deployed to northeastern Syria and has knowledge of the situation said multiple rounds of 155 mm fire were launched from Turkey’s side of the border and that they had a “bracketing effect” in which shells landed on both sides of the U.S. outpost. “That’s an area weapon,” the officer said, noting its explosive effects. “That’s not something we ever would have done to a partner force.” (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2019/10/12/us-forces-say-turkey-was-deliberately-bracketing-american-forces-with-artillery-fire-syria/)

And I thought he was currently sending troops to Saudi Arabia? 1800 I believe.

I accept that you may believe in your answer, but, and I am sorry, but I'd find that laughable it were Obama or anyone else.
The Middle East itself is a permanent military undertaking.

To me, this would serve well as the definition of blind faith.



Turkey is our allie as well. Are we to take up arms against them? The USA has supported and continues to support the Kurdish people

It is an interesting narrative the the Kurds came to the USA's assistance to fight ISIS. We came to their aid and while it was beneficial to both sides, our mission was defeating ISIS and not defense of the Kurds. Yes, the Kurds assisted us in the defeat of Saddam Hussein as well but again, that was as much if not more to their benefit considering Saddams feeling towards the Kurds!

Trump has pledged to assist thru negotiations between the turks and the kurds. I am sure military support in the form of weapons will continilue as well.

The main difference between Obama's exit and Trump's is the level of threat for re-emmergence of ISIS or the Taliban. Do I think our exit is the right move? More "no" than "yes" but I also believe that if not now, when?

And I get your point that were it Obama, most would be against. Interesting concept. Now you know how the right feels about pretty much every aspect of the left approach to Trump! However most on the right are against the withdrawl. Meanwhile the left has come to the withdrawl is bad POV because they were all for withdrawl under Obama. So Trump is doing exactly what the left wanted 5 years ago but are now against it because it is championed by Trump. It reminds me of the Wall concept, where the left was for it years ago but now it is immoral. Or the need for secure borders. Or the seperation of children from families at the border. I could go on because the list is long of stances the left supported in the past that Trump now supports and the left now rejects

[CitizenBBN]

So that explains why he approves of an attack against our former allies? And actually put some of our service men and women in harms way?

One Army officer who has deployed to northeastern Syria and has knowledge of the situation said multiple rounds of 155 mm fire were launched from Turkey’s side of the border and that they had a “bracketing effect” in which shells landed on both sides of the U.S. outpost. “That’s an area weapon,” the officer said, noting its explosive effects. “That’s not something we ever would have done to a partner force.” (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2019/10/12/us-forces-say-turkey-was-deliberately-bracketing-american-forces-with-artillery-fire-syria/)

And I thought he was currently sending troops to Saudi Arabia? 1800 I believe.

I accept that you may believe in your answer, but, and I am sorry, but I'd find that laughable it were Obama or anyone else.
The Middle East itself is a permanent military undertaking.

To me, this would serve well as the definition of blind faith.

Show me where he's approved of Turkey's attack please. He threatened simultaneously to sanction Turkey if they attacked the Kurds and has proceeded with that threat.

For you to be right Trump has to be a corrupt Machiavellian genius who is covertly manipulating the world, and frankly you think a lot more of his intelligence and maturity than I do.

And yes the Middle East is a permanent military undertaking, and Trump thinks we need to not undertake it at all. he's not alone. You can disagree with the policy, and in this case I do, but it's a valid policy alternative and not some lunatic notion and certainly doesn't require some nefarious deep covert financial or other justification.

These conspiracy theories going mainstream is tiring and disturbing. Occam's Razor people.

[kingcat]

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 6, 2019

Statement from the Press Secretary

Today, President Donald J. Trump spoke with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey by telephone. Turkey will soon be moving forward with its long-planned operation into Northern Syria. The United States Armed Forces will not support or be involved in the operation, and United States forces, having defeated the ISIS territorial “Caliphate,” will no longer be in the immediate area.

The United States Government has pressed France, Germany, and other European nations, from which many captured ISIS fighters came, to take them back, but they did not want them and refused. The United States will not hold them for what could be many years and great cost to the United States taxpayer. Turkey will now be responsible for all ISIS fighters in the area captured over the past two years in the wake of the defeat of the territorial “Caliphate” by the United States.

If that dont serve as an approval (or a Go right ahead) I don't know what does.

Yet, agreeing with the President is another matter entirely.

“They didn't help us in the Second World War, they didn't help us with Normandy as an example"
..Donald Trump on the Kurds

Trump tweeted Wednesday that the withdrawal involved roughly 50 service members. An administration official speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss details of U.S. involvement in the region described the number of soldiers involved to be between 50 and 100.
The president has repeatedly framed the decision as part of his broader goal of reducing U.S. military engagements oversees. But the same administration official rejected the idea that the soldiers involved are being withdrawn and instead said that the service members would be reassigned to other areas in Syria...USA Today (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/09/donald-trump-turkey-invasion-kurd-held-syria-bad-idea/3920404002/)

[CitizenBBN]

Would you prefer they be in the area when Turkey shells them? Your post above seemed to imply that was a bad thing.

So we tell Erdogan to not go in, and if he hits our troops we'll do what? Send more? Fight back and have armed conflict with a NATO ally?

What's your solution if Erdogan called PResident Kingcat and said he was going to invade?

So your theory is Trump removed the troops b/c of his financial ties with Turkey, ties he almost destroyed when he called for the ban on travel, and then he's going to impose sanctions with executive order on them for invading b/c somehow that's miraculously in his interests too?

what's his covert, brilliant end game for his own gain here? To piss off the people of Turkey so completely they send him cash or something?

[Doc]

what's his covert, brilliant end game for his own gain here? To piss off the people of Turkey so completely they send him cash or something?

Whatever his end game, it is an impeachable one

[CitizenBBN]

Whatever his end game, it is an impeachable one

He may come out smelling like a rose in this end game. Cease fire in place.

If he can pull this off it means he got US troops out as he promised, AND got a deal that stabilizes things (at least as much as American voters care it's stabilized) and maybe gets at least the same if not better relations with Turkey and the Kurds aren't wiped out.

We'll see if it works, the Kurds have yet to agree to pulling back, but if they do Trump could have the last laugh on this one.

In this case, for the sake of the Kurds and trying to somehow find a way to keep Turkey looking West versus East to Russia, I sure hope he gets this win.

[ukpumacat]

He may come out smelling like a rose in this end game. Cease fire in place.

If he can pull this off it means he got US troops out as he promised, AND got a deal that stabilizes things (at least as much as American voters care it's stabilized) and maybe gets at least the same if not better relations with Turkey and the Kurds aren't wiped out.

We'll see if it works, the Kurds have yet to agree to pulling back, but if they do Trump could have the last laugh on this one.

In this case, for the sake of the Kurds and trying to somehow find a way to keep Turkey looking West versus East to Russia, I sure hope he gets this win.

Oh, there is no doubt that’s what Trump and team is selling.
But, no.
Turkey already said today it’s not a “cease fire”. They are just on hold for 5 days.
On hold for what? For the Kurds to leave the area. ONLY THEN, they have said they will “cease fire” (which most don’t believe anyways).
What does it mean for the Kurds in the area? It means that for the thousands who live there, they have 5 days to pack up their homes and get out before being annihilated.
That’s not a cease fire. It’s a war ultimatum.

That’s why a Senior Military Official is “highly skeptical”:

https://www.foxnews.com/world/turkey-syria-cease-fire-senior-military-source-highly-skeptical

[CitizenBBN]

Oh, there is no doubt that’s what Trump and team is selling.
But, no.
Turkey already said today it’s not a “cease fire”. They are just on hold for 5 days.
On hold for what? For the Kurds to leave the area. ONLY THEN, they have said they will “cease fire” (which most don’t believe anyways).
What does it mean for the Kurds in the area? It means that for the thousands who live there, they have 5 days to pack up their homes and get out before being annihilated.
That’s not a cease fire. It’s a war ultimatum.

That’s why a Senior Military Official is “highly skeptical”:

https://www.foxnews.com/world/turkey-syria-cease-fire-senior-military-source-highly-skeptical

Im not naive. I get exactly what it is, and it's still a better deal than the Turks want to give b/c their last "war ultimatum" for the Kurds killed them by the basket full and many Turks still want to finish the job.

But their option to leave is on the table, and unless we go back it's their best option.

But the question is how it works politically in the US, and it just may work. If US soldiers aren't there and no one is getting massacred, it may sell. Refugees arent' as big an issue for voters, we've created millions of them the last 20 years in the Middle East and you never see it poll as an issue.

[UKHistory]

We keep our troops there and tell the Turks not to invade, the Kurds don’t have to move.

This move benefits Turkey, Iran and Russia

Yes Turkey is in NATO and Along with the United States it is the only country in the organization run by a man that sees himself as a dictator

Trump green lit the Turkey move, whether he knew it or not, when Mattis resigned and reaffirmed the ok with that call last week.

And while Turkey is in NATO, they don’t seem to share the same values we used to have.

Dark day for America. Dark day for the world.

[Doc]

He may come out smelling like a rose in this end game. Cease fire in place.



I am sure that too would be "impeachable" to some.

[CitizenBBN]

We keep our troops there and tell the Turks not to invade, the Kurds don’t have to move.

This move benefits Turkey, Iran and Russia

Yes Turkey is in NATO and Along with the United States it is the only country in the organization run by a man that sees himself as a dictator

Trump green lit the Turkey move, whether he knew it or not, when Mattis resigned and reaffirmed the ok with that call last week.

And while Turkey is in NATO, they don’t seem to share the same values we used to have.

Dark day for America. Dark day for the world.

I'm against the move, but in truth it was a complete stalemate and I imagine that as much as anything was behind Trump's thinking. Obama and every other administration has kicked this issue down the road, and honestly I would have too, but Trump doesn't think that way.

It benefits Turkey, I think it's a push at best for Iran b/c they don't want Turkey established in Syria either, and anything that keeps Turkey in the fold and NOT looking to Russia is a loss for Russia. The Turks have been teasing that move as leverage, and having them friendly with Russia is far more serious than having Iran friendly with them. Neither is good, one is worse.

[ukpumacat]

B/c he campaigned on and has made it completely clear he thinks us being involved in permanent wars is a mistake. He said he was going to pull us out of these conflicts.

or he's corrupt and on the take for a hotel in Istanbul he doesn't even own but only gets paid for his name use. Yeah, that must be it.


I just think he got played. And now its damage control.

[ukpumacat]

We keep our troops there and tell the Turks not to invade, the Kurds don’t have to move.

This move benefits Turkey, Iran and Russia

Yes Turkey is in NATO and Along with the United States it is the only country in the organization run by a man that sees himself as a dictator

Trump green lit the Turkey move, whether he knew it or not, when Mattis resigned and reaffirmed the ok with that call last week.

And while Turkey is in NATO, they don’t seem to share the same values we used to have.

Dark day for America. Dark day for the world.

Totally agree.

[CitizenBBN]

I just think he got played. And now its damage control.

I doubt he got played so much as he's hard headed and just doesn't listen to differing opinions. That's not good either, but I doubt Erdogan talked him into anything b/c he was rattling his economic saber right away.

[dan_bgblue]

One man's thoughts on potential outcomes of the situation in Iraq, Iran, Turkey, and Syria. (https://www.nysun.com/foreign/trump-big-move-on-turkey-may-gain-us-goals/90872/http://)

[ukpumacat]

“Cease Fire” didn’t last 24 hours.

https://twitter.com/afp/status/1185143021798592512?s=21

[UKHistory]

With regards to the Kurds, the paid the price in blood.

[UKHistory]

I doubt he got played so much as he's hard headed and just doesn't listen to differing opinions. That's not good either, but I doubt Erdogan talked him into anything b/c he was rattling his economic saber right away.

Turkey wanted this when Mattis resigned. Trump gave the order and we didn’t even pack.

Just a horribly disgraceful move. Chamberlain did better.

[CitizenBBN]

Turkey wanted this when Mattis resigned. Trump gave the order and we didn’t even pack.

Just a horribly disgraceful move. Chamberlain did better.

Chamberlain did better? Really? A pile of sand with no oil doesn't really compare to handing over the Sudatenland to Hitler. I do agree it's not wise to encourage Erdogan, but our problems with him are far more difficult than the Kurdish problem. Namely that he's threatened to build his own nukes if we withdraw ours.

I agree it was the wrong decision, said so the second it was announced, but The truth is the actual outcome for the US is pretty insignificant whether we stayed or left. It's a region with almost no strategic value even in the Middle East.

I'm sure Trump saw it in simple terms. We don't want to be there, The Turks will come in and yes will stabilize the area, and we go home. I don't agree that's where the thinking should stop, but I wouldn't read more into it than that.

And in fact, we were in a stalemate where we keep troops there forever in order to keep this from happening, or until a viable Syrian government could form, which seems unlikely for years to come.

For me the relatively small troop commitment may be worth it, but Trump isn't wrong on the broader point: why are US lives being used in these ways all over the globe when other people can't solve their own problems?

Trump is basically an isolationist, and there's a case to be made. We inherited the job of the world's policeman from the Brits when they quit, but it's not clear the job is worth it. The pay is lousy (see his rants against NATO et al for not paying their own way), it costs American lives, and in many cases we don't get anything back for it.

If we're protecting ports that create trade then maybe there's a "worth it", but ever since the Gulf War we've been stuck in the Syria/Iraq region and gotten no farther with it than the day we got there.

Its a big break in thinking with traditional DC world, but Trump isn't wrong.

"Horribly discraceful" is IMO over the top, and comparing him being worse than Chamberlain is definitely hyperbole. I get your point, but this is the kind of over the top hang wringing that seems to come out with Trump and IMO isn't helpful for really analyzing what is going on, domestic or foreign.

I think it's a mistake, but not the biggest mistake I've seen prior administrations make in foreign diplomacy, If anything at least it saves American lives overall versus risking them, and that does count as a big plus for me personally.

[dan_bgblue]

CBBN I do not disagree with you very often and I may not be disagreeing here either, but I honestly think he made the right move to pull out. Lots of folks are bemoaning the plight of the Kurds and trying to paint the US in a bad light for leaving them to fight their own battle. History says that the Brits and French pulled out on them right after WW1 and the treaty of Severs did not even consider them important enough to carve out a piece of Syria and Turkey to build them a homeland. We do not want to see the side of the Kurds that make up the PPK and the terrorist activities they undertake in Turkey.

As I said in an earlier post in this thread. the middle east is a screwed up part of the world. Shia and Sunni hate each other which leads one country to hate another. Iranis hate Iraqis, who hates the Turks, who hates the Syrians, who hates the Jordanians, who hates the Israelis, who hates everyone else in the ME. And we have not even mentioned the Egyptians, Saudis, those in the Emerites, the Yemenis, Omanis, the Afghanis, the Pakis, or the Russians. All this hate takes place in an area about the size of 4 Alaskas. The hate has been going on for thousands of years with wars fought over land, over religions, and probably water, wealth, women, camels, and food. Now they all hate each other because that is what their ancestors have done for thousands of years.

I am sure it makes sense for Trump to fix this, right?

[CitizenBBN]

Dan, I can't argue with your position.

There's no solution short of propping up a Kurdish state and losing Turkey from NATO, etc. The French and English made the same calculation we did: the Kurds aren't a valuable enough ally to lose others that hate their guts.

And I'm for generally getting out of the region and all the other regions. So I can't really argue with you.

I'd have left the Kurdish troops in place simply b/c their numbers are low, but then again I don't know what's going on behind the scenes in Turkey, and given the politics we don't see I may have made the same choice as Trump.

We don't really know what the Turks laid on the table with us. They've been buying weapons from the Russians, clearly an overture they want something from us, and maybe this was it.

So maybe I make the same choice even politically.

I do think the timing is poor for Trump at home, but it's funny how when other politicians do what they think is right regardless of politics they are lauded, and Trump is condemned. Give Trump his due, he does what he thinks should be done, damned the torpedoes.

And that's a big key to his support. Any other president would at least be criticized b/c of policy, Trump is questioned as to his motives.

[CitizenBBN]

And if the agreement holds, and Turkey takes its chunk of land and the Kurds stay behind the line, honestly that's about the best solution we've had since Iraq collapsed.

If Trump can make this stick it's not a bad solution, and one that requires fewer American lives.

[dan_bgblue]

Mitch thinks Trump's actions in Syria are a grave mistake (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mitch-mcconnell-trump-syria-withdrawal-mistake)

I feel much better about my opinion now. :happy0026:

[CitizenBBN]

Lindsay Graham is easing up some on the issue. Seems to like the idea of a deal.

I get your position and Trump's. We're endlessly putting troops here and there to not so much solve problems as forestall solutions we don't like either politically or morally. It has gotten old after taking on that job in 1945.

[dan_bgblue]

I hope that when logical thinking people get over the media supported idea that the USA ran off and left a bunch of innocent kids in the wilderness surrounded by rabid wolves, we will come to a reasonable conclusion one way or the other.

[Doc]

I hope that when logical thinking people get over the media supported idea that the USA ran off and left a bunch of innocent kids in the wilderness surrounded by rabid wolves, we will come to a reasonable conclusion one way or the other.

Agree. The narrative that the Kurds came to the USA's aid is incorrect. More like the USA went there and it was mutually beneficial...but clearly more beneficial to the Kurds. ISIS and Turkey were both their enemies and content on destroying them. Disn't happen thanks to America.