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/...ty-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...mp-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/...ty-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...mp-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.