Abandoning the Kurds

[doubleyous]

We all know you’re suggested course of action cannot and will not happen. Turkey will come straight down from the north and invade the Kurdish Autonomous Region. Turkey will free the ISIS prisoners and take them back to Turkey. Russia will help the Assad regime try to regain control of the Kurdish Autonomous Region. NATO is like a toothless dog. They will bark and whine but not do a damn thing.

On this issue, Trump has made a mistake. A potential humanitarian catastrophe. I don’t like it one bit, but do somewhat see why he wants to get our people out of that place and keep more Americans from being killed.

Just exactly how much credit does Trump deserve for recognizing that American Military Personnel has been and would continue to be, in harm's way in this conflict ??
NOTED !!!! Pres. Trump doesn't like American casualties !! Nor has ANY American President faced with combat decisions.
Also noted is your recognition of the unarguable mistake made. Credit given. Without reluctance.

 

[BuilderBob6]

We all know you’re suggested course of action cannot and will not happen. Turkey will come straight down from the north and invade the Kurdish Autonomous Region. Turkey will free the ISIS prisoners and take them back to Turkey. Russia will help the Assad regime try to regain control of the Kurdish Autonomous Region. NATO is like a toothless dog. They will bark and whine but not do a damn thing.

On this issue, Trump has made a mistake. A potential humanitarian catastrophe. I don’t like it one bit, but do somewhat see why he wants to get our people out of that place and keep more Americans from being killed.

I applaud your stance.

My biggest problem with your position, other than trusting Turkey to act in our best interest, would be that the tactics we are using in the area use small numbers of troops, mostly special forces, who are not involved in the fighting. Training, support, logistics, tactics.......it's the right way to support one side in a regional conflict without putting Americans in harms way.

The strategy has been working for years. Fulfilling a campaign promise doesn't seem like a good reason to walk away from an effective policy.

 

[indy35]

The biggest question is what did Erdogan offer to get Trump to change US policy away from Pentagon recommendations? Was it a benefit to the US or was it a benefit to Trump personally?

 

[Purdue97]

We all know you’re suggested course of action cannot and will not happen. Turkey will come straight down from the north and invade the Kurdish Autonomous Region. Turkey will free the ISIS prisoners and take them back to Turkey. Russia will help the Assad regime try to regain control of the Kurdish Autonomous Region. NATO is like a toothless dog. They will bark and whine but not do a damn thing.

On this issue, Trump has made a mistake. A potential humanitarian catastrophe. I don’t like it one bit, but do somewhat see why he wants to get our people out of that place and keep more Americans from being killed.

On this issue, Trump has made a mistake. A potential humanitarian catastrophe. I don’t like it one bit, but do somewhat see why he wants to get our people out of that place and keep more Americans from being killed.

I generally agree with this. It is sad, I have met many Kurds over the years and feel for them.

That all said, I have heard mainly on CNN that this was a mistake and that it has nothing to do with being world police. It has everything to do with being the world police. The question comes down to how long is US going to have that role and why only the USA? No NATO minus England, no Arab league, UN not around, etc

Over time, for me, the US international role should be if said country is promoting international terror(think Afghanistan w Taliban?Al Qaeda), then we go in. Other wise, the US should be more of a SF operation, train stable democracies, and concentrate on stabilizing the areas to the south of the US.

It is not that I do not have the confidence in the US Military to win or occupy anywhere. It has more to do with American lives at stake and lack of continuity between administrations. Also, do not think that part of the world is capable of democracy which the US always seems to want to install.

 

[doubleyous]

On this issue, Trump has made a mistake. A potential humanitarian catastrophe. I don’t like it one bit, but do somewhat see why he wants to get our people out of that place and keep more Americans from being killed.

I generally agree with this. It is sad, I have met many Kurds over the years and feel for them.

That all said, I have heard mainly on CNN that this was a mistake and that it has nothing to do with being world police. It has everything to do with being the world police. The question comes down to how long is US going to have that role and why only the USA? No NATO minus England, no Arab league, UN not around, etc

Over time, for me, the US international role should be if said country is promoting international terror(think Afghanistan w Taliban?Al Qaeda), then we go in. Other wise, the US should be more of a SF operation, train stable democracies, and concentrate on stabilizing the areas to the south of the US.

It is not that I do not have the confidence in the US Military to win or occupy anywhere. It has more to do with American lives at stake and lack of continuity between administrations. Also, do not think that part of the world is capable of democracy which the US always seems to want to install.

1) Your "general agreement" with the conclusion that 97 summarized as " a mistake " is welcomed.
What constitutes American Interests -the bottom line- in this situation is considerably complicated, and often conflicting.
2) NATO is now "minus England " ??
Hadn't heard !!!
Details please !!!

 

[Beeazlebub]

On this issue, Trump has made a mistake. A potential humanitarian catastrophe. I don’t like it one bit, but do somewhat see why he wants to get our people out of that place and keep more Americans from being killed.

I generally agree with this. It is sad, I have met many Kurds over the years and feel for them.

That all said, I have heard mainly on CNN that this was a mistake and that it has nothing to do with being world police. It has everything to do with being the world police. The question comes down to how long is US going to have that role and why only the USA? No NATO minus England, no Arab league, UN not around, etc

Over time, for me, the US international role should be if said country is promoting international terror(think Afghanistan w Taliban?Al Qaeda), then we go in. Other wise, the US should be more of a SF operation, train stable democracies, and concentrate on stabilizing the areas to the south of the US.

It is not that I do not have the confidence in the US Military to win or occupy anywhere. It has more to do with American lives at stake and lack of continuity between administrations. Also, do not think that part of the world is capable of democracy which the US always seems to want to install.

Might this all have been prevented if Trump not given the green light? No need to "police" an action that doesn't take place - the mere threat of ancillary US support of the Kurdish forces would be enough of a deterrent.

This whole situation is not only ethically repugnant, but wholly short-sited from a geopolitical lens.

John McCain is screaming from the grave.

 

[chiefboiler23]

The biggest issue I have with this whole situation is how Trump gave away the game early by having the SDF draw down their defenses along the border as a way to promote peace and a better relationship with Turkey. He cleared the path for this to happen as easily as possible.

I can get behind the idea of "this isn't our problem and we don't need to be there." But drawing down defenses and making a hasty decision to leave immediately is just thoughtless and disgusting.

 

[doubleyous]

Might this all have been prevented if Trump not given the green light? No need to "police" an action that doesn't take place - the mere threat of ancillary US support of the Kurdish forces would be enough of a deterrent.

This whole situation is not only ethically repugnant, but wholly short-sited from a geopolitical lens.

John McCain is screaming from the grave.

Screaming can also be heard from the gravesites of Reagan, H.W. and countless others.

 

[Purdue97]

It's amazing to me what you latch onto. A thread about Trump making a moronic military order that even Republicans think is dumb...yet this is what you post about?

The whole point is Republicans think something is the absolute wrong decision, yet many are scared to even say it out loud because of Trump. You're the same thing...you "seem" to not agree with him on certain things, but won't actually explicitly say it and will dance around it/try to change subject......and this post is a great example.

Realize the post I made was a response to a post in this thread that dealt with the topic. I would kindly suggest to follow the thread better. It was easier with thread view, because it would branch off. Now, one has to follow the quotes and responses in the same thread.

I agree and disagree with Trump on plenty. I am also able to see the other side in most discussions.

Sure, this is going to be a terrible situation and decision for the Kurds. That all said, for one that ran a campaign on ending endless deployments and wars he is keeping his promise.

And this geo/ political/religous situation is untenable. Russia supports Syria, who the US wants its leader removed. The Kurds are in Syria. All three components want ISIS removed. Turkey, a NATO member, will not tolerate the Kurds on their border, but Syria likes them there as a buffer. Turkey has a workable relationship with ISIS. Iran and Turkey, while friendly have the entire Shia/Sunni issue to navigate and now are mobilizing near Turkey.

That is it at the bare basics. So I admit there will be carnage that ensues. I also do not think the US should get/be involved. People think they have the answer for the ME and eastern Asia for decades. Yeah, not so much.

 

[Beeazlebub]

The biggest issue I have with this whole situation is how Trump gave away the game early by having the SDF draw down their defenses along the border as a way to promote peace and a better relationship with Turkey. He cleared the path for this to happen as easily as possible.

I can get behind the idea of "this isn't our problem and we don't need to be there." But drawing down defenses and making a hasty decision to leave immediately is just thoughtless and disgusting.

But it is our problem and we do need to be there.

If we stand by our allies and still believe in promoting and protecting democratic values around the world, this is a no-brainer. If we still believe in supporting those who help us with our geopolitical goals, this is a no-brainer. If we want to prevent a massacre from a humanitarian perspective, this is a no brainer.

If we don't GAF about any of those things, and "America First" equates to isolationism, then we're greasing the slide into global irrelevance.

 

[Beeazlebub]

Screaming can also be heard from the gravesites of Reagan, H.W. and countless others.

Yes, you could say our primary values in foreign policy since WWII, which happens to be the most peaceful period of modern human history, has been turned on its head.

Utterly disgraceful

 

[Purdue97]

The biggest issue I have with this whole situation is how Trump gave away the game early by having the SDF draw down their defenses along the border as a way to promote peace and a better relationship with Turkey. He cleared the path for this to happen as easily as possible.

I can get behind the idea of "this isn't our problem and we don't need to be there." But drawing down defenses and making a hasty decision to leave immediately is just thoughtless and disgusting.

That was not good. Also, just heard on radio sitting at airport that Trump has denounced Turkey's bombardment. Which it should be denounced, but then he knew it would happen as well.

 

[chiefboiler23]

That was not good. Also, just heard on radio sitting at airport that Trump has denounced Turkey's bombardment. Which it should be denounced, but then he knew it would happen as well.

It is such a bizarre and frustrating position he is taking. One day he claims he will bury Turkey's economy if they do anything, but today it is "oh my, that is not good." He is looking incredibly ignorant and weak on the global stage, and removing any benefit of the doubt into why he made this decision.

 

[Purdue97]

But it is our problem and we do need to be there.

If we stand by our allies and still believe in promoting and protecting democratic values around the world, this is a no-brainer. If we still believe in supporting those who help us with our geopolitical goals, this is a no-brainer. If we want to prevent a massacre from a humanitarian perspective, this is a no brainer.

If we don't GAF about any of those things, and "America First" equates to isolationism, then we're greasing the slide into global irrelevance.

-If that is what you truly and consistently believe, kudos to you. I was once the same way but my position has shifted over the last two decades.

Mainly because the whim of the American public will determine the next politician cycle and strategy. There is just no clear long term strategy. Mainly, when to many Americans die, or when the US has been somewhere to long, or many of the same people complaining about Syrian withdraw complain about cost of war/deployment/policing/peacekeeping, the policy changes so re-election occurs.

And this is not news breaking, but for a part of the world that now needs the USA, they seem to really dislike the US and generally want the US out, except for money of course. Sure, this did not apply to Kurds.

-Keep in mind, Turkey is supposedly an ally. You know, all that preaching that has been going on here about NATO and all. Suddenly many of those same posters have done a 180 for some reason.

-Not to change the subject completely, but if one has spent a significant amount of time in the ME, I am not sure how one thinks democracy is achievable there. I believe some countries and parts of the world need a strong man/dictator.

-The geopolitical goal argument is really up for debate. Look at history in that part of world. Who the US helps one decade is often an enemy the next. Or an enemy develops from that intervention. What is smart or dumb now often is either a dumb or smart move a decade from now. It just does not end.

I agree in terms of preventing a human catastrophe and perhaps becoming a bit more irrelevant. Trump could/should have made his no more policing statement in another region. The issue with becoming irrelevant is it means someone needs to step up. I do not see that happening on any consistent basis.

 

[Purdue97]

1) Your "general agreement" with the conclusion that 97 summarized as " a mistake " is welcomed.
What constitutes American Interests -the bottom line- in this situation is considerably complicated, and often conflicting.
2) NATO is now "minus England " ??
Hadn't heard !!!
Details please !!!

I meant no NATO minus England as meaning, NATO is not there, except that does not apply to England. They are usually at the forefront with the US. Whether it be Afghanistan or Iraq(the mistake that really got the ball rolling here), and I do not know details of all their involvement in Syria but will say I ran into them constantly when there.

 

[70boiler]

As I understand it, but certainly may be mistaken, we essentially had only about 1000 service personnel in the area, primarily as advisers and special operators and very limited as primary combatants, but very important in acting as a buffer to Turk or Russian incursions. Their removal, either actual as is impending or from being actively involved with its concurrent threat of additional American involvement removed that buffer. Had our forces merely remained on their virtual "stand by" status, the buffer would have remained.
Whether we should have originally been there or not isn't the issue. We were. The Kurds assisted us and had 11,000 losses. We shouldn't have just abandoned via one phone call less than a week ago.

 

[Purdue97]

lol. You asked where did you say it, I gave you three examples. Not all about the argument, just proving that phrase is one you often use to defend a Trump action. I don't recall if you said "No big deal"........is that really the point? By saying things have been happening for decades you are saying they are meaningless.

Earlier this year, he did then he did not pull all the troops out of Syria, remember? Who is arguing he has the right to do it? Not me. The point is he got the same backlash the first time as he is now.........from his own party.

It was his platform........and it's always been a stupid promise to make, throughout history. Obama made the same mistake and was roundly criticized by.......guess who.....Trump.

You know the circumstances on the ground should dictate military policy and strategy, not political promises. Can freakin believe you sit there and defend this move because it was a campaign promise. FFS.

With regard to the the farmers being a pawn in Trump's trade war, you said the farmers being played by the two parties has been going on for decades. Look it up.

So you're defending Trump on his public statements because.........he was open and up front about breaking campaign finance laws? I guess that's a new take, don't think that absolves him in any way.

Why don't you provide a link to what Ukraine did to help Hillary instead of vague references? I've seen the politico story from 2017. I've seen the conspiracy theories about crowdstrike and the servers.

Why did Trump stop Sondland from testifying today? Did you see the reports that Sondland was in communication with Trump after the Taylor text.......and replied 4 hours later? Just to add some question to his loyalties......FOX news style......Soundland got the job after giving a million dollars to the Trump inauguration campaign.
The QPQ will be proven but it doesn't even matter. Trump broke the law and his oath on national TV.

lol. You asked where did you say it, I gave you three examples. Not all about the argument, just proving that phrase is one you often use to defend a Trump action. I don't recall if you said "No big deal"........is that really the point? By saying things have been happening for decades you are saying they are meaningless.

Again, quote and link please. Yeah, so now you are claiming I said something to make your point(well try to), and now after getting called on it, one cannot recall, but now is that even the point. Are you serious?

And the decades part-What I am curious is about is why do people care about it now when it has been going on for decades? Were new laws written? Never said it was or was not a a big deal. It is disingenuous/hypocritical on the part of many to suddenly care.

Earlier this year, he did then he did not pull all the troops out of Syria, remember? Who is arguing he has the right to do it? Not me. The point is he got the same backlash the first time as he is now.........from his own party.

Sure. My question was the part of being overridden which was your statement. Being overriden and facing backlash are not the same thing. If a military command the President gave for overseas deployment is overridden by JCOS or intel officials, this impeachment issue is the least of America's issues.

It was his platform........and it's always been a stupid promise to make, throughout history. Obama made the same mistake and was roundly criticized by.......guess who.....Trump.

You know the circumstances on the ground should dictate military policy and strategy, not political promises. Can freakin believe you sit there and defend this move because it was a campaign promise. FFS.

That is what he ran on, that is what he is doing. If people do not like it they can vote him out. Do I wish he would make this statement elsewhere in the world? Sure. At the end of the day, if the USA deploys there, troops get killed, and it cost a lot of money, many of the same poeple/posters here will rip on a President for that as well. He/she gets voted out. A new policy is directed. I just see it as largely a waste anymore.

Why did Trump stop Sondland from testifying today? Did you see the reports that Sondland was in communication with Trump after the Taylor text.......and replied 4 hours later? Just to add some question to his loyalties......FOX news style......Soundland got the job after giving a million dollars to the Trump inauguration campaign.
The QPQ will be proven but it doesn't even matter. Trump broke the law and his oath on national TV.[

Ask Trump why he did. My guess it has to do with the letter WH Counsel sent to the Pelosi and Committe leaders. Again, I would suggest one look at how ambassadorships are often filled. Not surprised that it is an issue with you now though. Sondland was pretty clear in stating Trump said no qpq.

So you're defending Trump on his public statements because.........he was open and up front about breaking campaign finance laws? I guess that's a new take, don't think that absolves him in any way.

What campaign finance laws and what specifically are you speaking of? Trump talks a lot. Not a defense. It is just the reality of Trump.

Why don't you provide a link to what Ukraine did to help Hillary instead of vague references? I've seen the politico story from 2017. I've seen the conspiracy theories about crowdstrike and the servers.

I have linked them in the past. I do not consider quotes from people under oath or direct from politicians mouth rumor and innuendo as you put it. Anyway, in regard to Ukraine, I am not sure why so many are against an investigation. There is plenty there from Biden quotes, to prosecutor and politican quotes, to money coming back to Clinton Foundation. Could be shown to be innocent, could be guilty, Ukraine could have interfered or not. Like I have said in past, I think Ukraine will be in bed with whoever the current Admin is and whoever they think will win the future election. Why? They just want armament and money.

 

[Fansince72]

Man , your all over the place. All the time. I appreciate your input, but really man, your posts make my head hurt. Am i alone with this?

 

[70boiler]

 

[BuilderBob6]

"they didn't help us with Normandy"

WTAF.

This is the president of the United States

 

[BuilderBob6]

Man , your all over the place. All the time. I appreciate your input, but really man, your posts make my head hurt. Am i alone with this?

It's exhausting.

 

[doubleyous]

I meant no NATO minus England as meaning, NATO is not there, except that does not apply to England. They are usually at the forefront with the US. Whether it be Afghanistan or Iraq(the mistake that really got the ball rolling here), and I do not know details of all their involvement in Syria but will say I ran into them constantly when there.

Thx for clarification, re: Great Britain.
Would suspect NATO's lack of engagement , here, can be attributed to the fact that our Middle East allies, the Kurds, are not a state - much less one with NATO membership.
Let me know, folks, if I'm off-base, here.

 

[BuilderBob6]

 

[SDBoiler1]

Yes, you could say our primary values in foreign policy since WWII, which happens to be the most peaceful period of modern human history, has been turned on its head.

Utterly disgraceful

You guys sound like neo-con “Chicken Hawks”. When is the right time to disengage from untenable situations? Is it once you’re in, you can never leave?

 

[SDBoiler1]

It's exhausting.

You have too much emotional energy pent up in hating Trump. I’m telling you, it’s not healthy.

 

[doubleyous]

"they didn't help us with Normandy"

WTAF.

This is the president of the United States

Yes he is, and an historical scholar of the first magnitude that has long brought tears of pride to the American populace.

Well,.........I'm right about the tears part......

 

[doubleyous]

You have too much emotional energy pent up in hating Trump. I’m telling you, it’s not healthy.

And we're telling YOU what's " not healthy" is the stress endured by the US population in contemplation of this fool's next screw-loose move......

 

[doubleyous]

Man , your all over the place. All the time. I appreciate your input, but really man, your posts make my head hurt. Am i alone with this?

Hardly.
To 97's everlasting credit, he puts in a substantial amount of effort on this board.
We all might wish, as I do, that there was a 10ft. x 7ft. computer screen available that could accommodate a giant chart from which we could all follow along more easily.

 

[doubleyous]

You guys sound like neo-con “Chicken Hawks”. When is the right time to disengage from untenable situations? Is it once you’re in, you can never leave?

No, that's only at the Hotel California.
For every OTHER place in the world, a broad, solid knowledge of geo-political & military matters will allow the Commander-in-Chief to chart the proper decision-making course.....
In other words, when the NEXT President is sworn in..........

 

[PurdueFan1]

You guys sound like neo-con “Chicken Hawks”. When is the right time to disengage from untenable situations? Is it once you’re in, you can never leave?

No, that's only at the Hotel California.
For every OTHER place in the world, a broad, solid knowledge of geo-political & military matters will allow the Commander-in-Chief to chart the proper decision-making course.....
In other words, when the NEXT President is sworn in..........

I would bet all of the money Trump paid Stormy that if Obama had made this same decision, SD would have unloaded in his diapers instantly about it. Always at the ready with an excuse too. “ I don’t like it, BUT.....(and then some random nonsensical defense because Trump).

This could have been one of Trumps greatest triumphs if he had done it the right way. But this may go down as one of the biggest stains on a presidency with barely an inch of clean tablecloth left.

 

[70boiler]

You guys sound like neo-con “Chicken Hawks”. When is the right time to disengage from untenable situations? Is it once you’re in, you can never leave?

As I now understand it, there were apparently only about 50 American personnel in that specific area that were removed, with the American total presence in the general area being about 1000 special operators, advisers, air traffic controllers and related people. It was hardly a situation requiring an urgent and near immediate withdrawal with virtually no warning. As I suggested above, they were the buffer to the totally unwarranted Turk takeover of the area. I have also seen several reports indicating that Arab Syrian civilians are being mobilized for entry into the area as new residents. If true, that seems to be something that we should have been protecting our Kurdish allies from rather than being in concert with setting in motion.
EDIT - I also found it troubling to have seen reports that mere days prior to the announcement of immediate withdrawal we had convinced the Kurds to remove a significant amount of weapons and armaments from the area.

 

[Beeazlebub]

 

[indy35]

View embedded media

Unless someone from Fox News says it, this won’t matter one bit to the Trump cult. Sad times that we’re living in.

 

[SDBoiler1]

No, that's only at the Hotel California.
For every OTHER place in the world, a broad, solid knowledge of geo-political & military matters will allow the Commander-in-Chief to chart the proper decision-making course.....
In other words, when the NEXT President is sworn in..........

You mean President Pence?

 

[Fansince72]

You mean President Pence?

Yea, the sooner the better.

 

[doubleyous]

You mean President Pence?

It would mean someone who is a solid 180 degrees removed from the abject ignorance abundantly displayed by the current occupant @ 1600 Pa. Ave.....
And yes, given my parameter, that would include Pence.
Election odds aside, of course.

 

[indy35]

Looks like someone knew back in 2016 that Trump would put his personal business profits over national security.

 

[kescwi]

...I have also seen several reports indicating that Arab Syrian civilians are being mobilized for entry into the area as new residents...

It's called, at best, ethnic cleansing, been going on in the modern era since the Turks did it to the Armenians in WWI. Its just the US has never been this close in allowing it, but we were all lead to believe, in our safe middle class upbringings, that we were better then every other nation because we were the protectors.

 

[lbodel]

We all know you’re suggested course of action cannot and will not happen. Turkey will come straight down from the north and invade the Kurdish Autonomous Region. Turkey will free the ISIS prisoners and take them back to Turkey. Russia will help the Assad regime try to regain control of the Kurdish Autonomous Region. NATO is like a toothless dog. They will bark and whine but not do a damn thing.

On this issue, Trump has made a mistake. A potential humanitarian catastrophe. I don’t like it one bit, but do somewhat see why he wants to get our people out of that place and keep more Americans from being killed.

I appreciate your willingness to look at this from a neutral perspective. I'd probably call "a potential humanitarian catastrophe" a bit more than just a mistake, but woe is me.

Trump has been told multiple times not to do this but he won't ever admit a mistake or change - this whole "keep Americans from being killed" reasoning doesn't seem to make sense when we are actually ramping up operations in Afghanistan. It's nothing more than politics, someone else will have to clean up the disaster.

 

[70boiler]

You guys sound like neo-con “Chicken Hawks”. When is the right time to disengage from untenable situations? Is it once you’re in, you can never leave?

The Atlantic has an opinion piece by Joseph Votel, former commander of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) from March 2016 to March 2019 explaining why it is not good policy to have abandoned the Kurds.
Included in it is support for my comments on the relative minimal threat to our personnel, particularly vis a vis the losses that Kurds suffered, when he notes -
"Over four years, the SDF freed tens of thousands of square miles and millions of people from the grip of ISIS. Throughout the fight, it sustained nearly 11,000 casualties. By comparison, six U.S. service members, as well as two civilians, have been killed in the anti-ISIS campaign."