Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Hawkmoon on October 15, 2019, 08:12:55 PM
-
I keep trying to cut the orange man some slack because of his court appointment record, but I'm not happy about his abandonment of the Kurds in Syria.
https://www.newser.com/article/015483669899488aa25531c3b3aa8785/fearing-us-abandonment-kurds-kept-back-channels-wide-open.html
-
Historically, we do have a tendency to leave our supposed allies holding the bag in the end.
We've got at least 50 tactical nukes at Incirlik AFB. I don't trust Erdogan at all not to use them for leverage of some kind if Trump decides to implement economic sanctions against Turkey.
And I suspect Turkey's membership in NATO is likely coming to an end at some point.
-
Turkey has not be an ally in spirit for a long time. During the invasion of iraq in 2003 the 10th Combat Combat Support Hospital was denied transit through Turkey to Northern Iraq to establish operations. They floated around the Med for a while before permission was given.
bob
-
While I'm all for getting us out of Middle Eastern problems, I have a hard time with hanging allies out to dry, especially after we made promises. I think this was a big problem Mattis had with Trump. Honor our commitments, then get out.
-
What were our commitments? Who made them? Did we make commitments to all the Kurds or just some of them. Were all Kurdish people fighting with us? I have heard that before, but never full info on it.
Also, ISIS was threatening to overrun a lot of this territory a few years ago in Syria and Iraq. Didn't we help them already? We at least helped correct the issue which the last administration helped create.
I have heard there are several different tribes of Kurds and the main one they are attacking has been doing terror attacks in Turkey. I have no idea if those were the same people fighting with us or not. I heard those were different Kurdish tribes.
I have heard lots of stuff and few answers so I stick with my general idea of pulling out if there isn't any real US interest.
-
I don't know the answer. I am generally in favor of getting out of the Middle East so that is where I start.
The other part is I get nervous when the Republican Warhawks and the Democrats are in agreement. Makes me think some really powerful special interests want us to stay in Syria.
-
I have to disagree with the OP. A number of very smart people I know who are knowledgeable about the situation have pointed out the following:
The Kurds don't have a state. They are scattered across Iran, Iraq, Turkey, and Syria. Where should we help them and what lines should we draw?
The Kurds themselves are not monolithic. Much of the problem in Syria is the PKK or Kurdistan Workers Party. They are a Communist militant group listed as a terrorist group by a number of countries, including the US.
The PKK is different from the mostly moderate Kurds in northern Iraq (aka Kurdistan) that many of us are most familiar with.
Turkey is a NATO ally, technically. They aren't great people but it's a fact.
Do we attack an ally to defend a terrorist group? And what is our desired end goal? Even if we wanted to suddenly push to support the establishment of an official Kurdish state, something NONE of the countries in the area support, how do we make that happen? We have to leave eventually. Will leaving now versus later make any difference in the long run?
As my old boss, a recently retired Colonel who is very smart on the area, pointed out, this is the problem with an alliance of convenience with a stateless people. At some point we have to leave.
Domestically, I agree with MechAg94. The same people that had us in Iraq for almost a decade and have had us in Afghanistan for almost two decades with no result are insisting that this time absolutely need to stay just a little longer. And it looks like Turkey's much feared attack when the US left is already bogging down. Great. Not our problem. Let them sort it out.
-
Historically, we do have a tendency to leave our supposed allies holding the bag in the end.
We've got at least 50 tactical nukes at Incirlik AFB. I don't trust Erdogan at all not to use them for leverage of some kind if Trump decides to implement economic sanctions against Turkey.
And I suspect Turkey's membership in NATO is likely coming to an end at some point.
As for the nukes at Incirlik, unless they are properly armed they wont make mushrooms. if Erdogan got too frisky, get our people out and carpet bomb the depot with incendiarys. He'd have nasty mess but no bombs.
-
We've got at least 50 tactical nukes at Incirlik AFB. I don't trust Erdogan at all not to use them for leverage of some kind if Trump decides to implement economic sanctions against Turkey.
And I suspect Turkey's membership in NATO is likely coming to an end at some point.
I've seen at least one headline to the effect the Erdogan is holding our nukes hostage. Erdogan is dangerous -- I don't understand why we didn't bail out of Turkey and move our NATO forces to Greece two or three or four years ago.
-
The analogy I like to use is:
The local narcs used a MS-13 gang to harass, kill, and drive out the local Crips gang, and now the media is making a big stink about ICE rounding up our MS-13 ‘allies.’
The YPG/PKK arent necessarily good folk, let alone good fighters, just somewhat less bad than isis.
They are hard core commies, like FARC.
-
The story here is the media trying to make a war. Give them some artillery and I have no doubt they would smoke a refugee camp just for an orange man bad headline.
-
It's a mess.
There probably wasn't a "right" decision, but there's a pretty decent little genocide kicking off in northeast Syria right now that wouldn't be if we had done some things differently. Also our stated goal of defeating ISIS in Syria and Iraq has been pretty severely setback by this. Remember too, that the Turks are planning on dropping several million refugees in the middle of the fighting zone here soon so they can quit feeding them.
I have a hard time commenting on this because I've worked pretty closely with Iraqi kurds (different group from the SDF) that I really liked. On top of that there's so much bad info or flat out lies floating around the internet and news sphere's that it's hard to have a real conversation on the subject.
The analogy I like to use is:
The local narcs used a MS-13 gang to harass, kill, and drive out the local Crips gang, and now the media is making a big stink about ICE rounding up our MS-13 ‘allies.’
That's a pretty bad analogy.
-
or perhaps wait a day and see how the negotiations turn out … [popcorn]
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/10/trumps_syria_plan_reveals_a_master_strategist_in_the_white_house.html
Not so fast, fellas. The actual result hasn't been quite what everyone expected. Erdoğan suddenly understood the box he was in when Trump authorized Treasury secretary Mnuchin to prepare sanctions against Turkey. By themselves, sanctions haven't succeeded much in that part of the world. But in concert with the departure of the U.S., they became a scary signal that Turkey was all by her lonesome. Having steadfastly refused to negotiate, Erdoğan now nervously rang up Trump and asked for an emergency conference. Trump sent Vice President Pence and national security adviser O'Brien to mediate negotiations with the Kurds.
-
Most everyone agrees that the middle east is an unwinnable mess and forever wars are bad. However, disengagement can be done poorly as we saw with Obama.
Just before we abandoned those Kurds, we had them believing they would have a safe zone and they were removing fortifications.
BEIRUT — A U.S.-backed mostly Kurdish force in Syria on Tuesday carried out a patrol along with the U.S.-led coalition near a border town with Turkey to select fortifications to be removed as part of an agreement to set up a safe zone along the country’s northwest border, a spokesman for the group said.
Mustafa Bali of the Syrian Democratic Forces tweeted that the patrol occurred near the town Tal Abyad on the border with Turkey, which seeks to set up a buffer zone along its southern border.
The SDF announced last week that it has begun withdrawing its fighters from the border towns of Tal Abyad and Ras al-Ayn as part of a deal for the so-called safe zone in northeast Syria involving the U.S. and Turkey.
It also doesn't seem to be a big step in ending the forever wars - our troops were relocated within Syria and we apparently sent almost 2000 more troops to Saudi Arabia.
-
or perhaps wait a day and see how the negotiations turn out … [popcorn]
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/10/trumps_syria_plan_reveals_a_master_strategist_in_the_white_house.html
It's a bold strategy Cotton, let's see how that turns out for him. He only had to sacrifice hundreds of civilians killed in their homes or pulled out of their cars and shot on the side of the M10 highway.
I am once again struck by just how astoundingly inaccurate media reports are if you know what is actually going on. I hate to think that people actually make decisions based on the nonsense being pushed by news stations.
-
https://www.foxnews.com/world/kurdish-forces-announce-deal-with-damascus-after-us-pullout
I saw this today. It is a couple days old though.
-
Trump says he is pulling troops out of the middle east and refusing to participate in endless wars.
Unfortunately, for whatever reason(s) we still have thousands of troops over there and no doubt we're still killing folks and blowing *expletive deleted*it up directly or indirectly.
We are not inside the "need to know" loop so all we get are stories, lies and half truths.
Getting out of the middle east isn't going much better than stemming the flow of illegal migration into our country.
-
Can't disagree with you.
Dana Loesch had a foreign policy guy on her show yesterday. He sort of cleared up some of it to me. He sort of said what Trump is doing may actually be good in the long run, but no one likes it in the short term. We will see. He also talked about the Kurds and why most of our guys on the ground there side with them. I would likely do a terrible job trying to repeat anymore, but found what he said better than most of what I heard elsewhere.
-
President Trump Delivers Remarks on Turkey-Syria-Kurds Ceasefire and Agreement … Vice-President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo gave President Erdogan the only way out that would avoid him being crushed militarily and economically; and simultaneously positioned the deal such that Erdogan could save face domestically and declare a win. The Kurdish forces will pull back allowing a 20 mile buffer region.
[popcorn]
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/10/17/president-trump-delivers-remarks-on-turkey-syria-kurds-ceasefire-and-agreement-great-day-for-civilization/#more-173957
-
Trump did the right thing. "The Kurds are our friends" nonsense is nonsense. Besides, the US never went into Syria to protect the Kurds to begin with. All "the poor Kurds" narrative ever was is a smokescreen to get involved in other people's borders. Foreign entanglements are poison to the Republic. Get a clue already.
-
Trump did the right thing. "The Kurds are our friends" nonsense is nonsense. Besides, the US never went into Syria to protect the Kurds to begin with. All "the poor Kurds" narrative ever was is a smokescreen to get involved in other people's borders. Foreign entanglements are poison to the Republic. Get a clue already.
My feelings exactly.
-
I just hate the implication that we are supposed to stay over there indefinitely. There has to be an endgame or we aren't doing something right.
I heard that the end result of all this is the Syrian Kurds are now allying with Assad in Syria against Turkey. Turkey, who was getting more friendly with the Russians may end up moving away from them as Assad is their man. I just heard it could end up with a better strategic balance that we can pull away from. Then again, who knows, that is just something I heard that sounded smarter than others. There are so much crap out there on this and much of it seems to be based on "Orange Man Bad".
Now I also heard that the Kurds in general have a different culture and if you are with them, they will welcome you and stick by you regardless of your religion. As opposed to many other groups over there who will stab you in the back. I heard that is part of the reason that everyone in the armed forces and intelligence communities who has worked over there likes the Kurds. But unless we are willing to go all out for a Kurdish country, there is a limit to what we can do as a nation. That would likely stir up a worse hornets nest than Obama managed to do.
-
I just hate the implication that we are supposed to stay over there indefinitely. There has to be an endgame or we aren't doing something right.
I don't want to speak for everyone who is on 'my side" of the issue here at APS, but I don't believe any of us want the US to stay there indefinitely, or even a few years longer. Or even think we should have been there at all. The issue is inefficiently pulling out, practically on a whim. A binary response like that is better before you get involved: Get involved in Syria? Yes or No? No? Boom - problem solved.
Again, as Dogmush said, there is a lot of misinformation out there, so we are all just guessing based on what we see/hear/read. My issue (based on what I have seen/heard/read) is pulling out at the snap of a finger and leaving allies hanging, or ducks in a barrel to be killed. Or ill-prepared to handle an ISIS resurgence.
Had Trump said (best behind closed doors to not disseminate intelligence to our adversaries) "I want us out of their ASAP - come up with an efficient withdrawal plan of no longer than six months for complete troop and asset withdrawal" I would have zero issues. That gets us out relatively quickly, but gives the strategic experts a window for efficient withdrawal and a window to prep our Kurd allies to transition in. He could easily have done that behind closed doors, then made a public announcement that "we're out tomorrow" at the end of the transition window.
-
I don't want to speak for everyone who is on 'my side" of the issue here at APS, but I don't believe any of us want the US to stay there indefinitely, or even a few years longer. Or even think we should have been there at all. The issue is inefficiently pulling out, practically on a whim. A binary response like that is better before you get involved: Get involved in Syria? Yes or No? No? Boom - problem solved.
Again, as Dogmush said, there is a lot of misinformation out there, so we are all just guessing based on what we see/hear/read. My issue (based on what I have seen/heard/read) is pulling out at the snap of a finger and leaving allies hanging, or ducks in a barrel to be killed. Or ill-prepared to handle an ISIS resurgence.
Had Trump said (best behind closed doors to not disseminate intelligence to our adversaries) "I want us out of their ASAP - come up with an efficient withdrawal plan of no longer than six months for complete troop and asset withdrawal" I would have zero issues. That gets us out relatively quickly, but gives the strategic experts a window for efficient withdrawal and a window to prep our Kurd allies to transition in. He could easily have done that behind closed doors, then made a public announcement that "we're out tomorrow" at the end of the transition window.
I'm pretty sure that was what Trump demanded, a plan to get out.
Mattis even said as much as he was leaving.
So it could very well be that this was the plan.
-
https://m.facebook.com/#!/story.php?story_fbid=10220193138123634&id=1382260304
-
Ben, I very much agree about the lack of good information. All we can really do is be patient and see how it ends up.
-
Had Trump said (best behind closed doors to not disseminate intelligence to our adversaries) "I want us out of their ASAP - come up with an efficient withdrawal plan of no longer than six months for complete troop and asset withdrawal" I would have zero issues. That gets us out relatively quickly, but gives the strategic experts a window for efficient withdrawal and a window to prep our Kurd allies to transition in. He could easily have done that behind closed doors, then made a public announcement that "we're out tomorrow" at the end of the transition window.
Date Line 1/1/19 ... President Trump Gives Four Month Timeline For U.S. Troop Withdrawal from Syria…
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/01/01/president-trump-gives-four-month-timeline-for-u-s-troop-withdrawal-from-syria/
-
Caucus or primary for you favorite Democrat, stick a fork in him, he's done.
-
Here's where we're at because of this:
*Syrian Kurds, who as was pointed out, already lean Marxist are making overtures to Russia for the influence we previously provided. Russia seems interested.
*Pro [Syrian] Regime Forces are pushing forward, after having been relatively stalled, and with the help of Russia, are regaining ground.
*Turkey has pushed approx. 30 miles over the border, killed several thousand civilians (along with some actual terrorists), and is preparing to dump several million refugees in that buffer zone with no logistical support.
*ISIS has freed a large number of fighters, and supporters, from prison camps and they have disappeared into the countryside of NE Syria and NW Iraq to regroup and restart offensives from last year, with the help of Iranian backed forces in Iraq.
*The US has effectively lost the ability to influence the outcome of the Syrian Civil war, or the Anti ISIS/ISIL campaign in any meaningful fashion.
From this we have gained...….?
Let me know if anyone can find a news report of soldiers redeploying from CENTCOM.
-
Caucus or primary for you favorite Democrat, stick a fork in him, he's done.
And where exactly did Democrats get us with Syria and where would they get us in the future? Voting for the party not in power is a poor strategy when one party is abjectly evil. I realize my plan of voting for the party of abjectly incompetent also has some Iraqi size navy leaks, but no. There is no favorite Democrat, not now, not ever unless the party is burnt and rebuilt. Which is why I like Trump. He destroyed both major parties, just one keeps tossing gas on their own fire. Impeach him, his work is done.
Another Syria anecdote, I grew up just outside a US map for named Syria. I remember, and it was probably 1978 and I was three, asking if we were going to be safe because the TV showed tanks on the move in Syria. It was a problem long before then, it will continue to be a problem for a long time, but by all means blame trump.
-
Caucus or primary for you favorite Democrat, stick a fork in him, he's done.
Trump? I don't see how. Anything anyone (including me) can complain about regarding Trump, what dem has a chance in hell? Most all the contenders (Gabbard is an exception that doesn't have a chance) have gone so far crazy left that they're even turning off some of the crazy left.
As I've said elsewhere, no matter what negatives I see in Trump, his behind the scenes work on federal judges gets him my vote in 2020. Not to mention how bad it would be for the country if any of the current knuckleheads that have a lead on the dem side got in. Otherwise, the only way the left is going to rally at this point is if the do the "Michele Obama is running!" thing.
-
Here's where we're at because of this:
*Syrian Kurds, who as was pointed out, already lean Marxist are making overtures to Russia for the influence we previously provided. Russia seems interested.
*Pro [Syrian] Regime Forces are pushing forward, after having been relatively stalled, and with the help of Russia, are regaining ground.
*Turkey has pushed approx. 30 miles over the border, killed several thousand civilians (along with some actual terrorists), and is preparing to dump several million refugees in that buffer zone with no logistical support.
*ISIS has freed a large number of fighters, and supporters, from prison camps and they have disappeared into the countryside of NE Syria and NW Iraq to regroup and restart offensives from last year, with the help of Iranian backed forces in Iraq.
*The US has effectively lost the ability to influence the outcome of the Syrian Civil war, or the Anti ISIS/ISIL campaign in any meaningful fashion.
From this we have gained...….?
Let me know if anyone can find a news report of soldiers redeploying from CENTCOM.
What do we gain by fomenting and supporting regime change?
What do we gain by guaranteeing the security of the fractious Kurds who everyone over there seem to hate and who share zero political or cultural commonalities with the USA?
What do we gain by setting up a potential military conflict with a NATO member who is trying to secure its border? (I'm no fan of the Turks).
What do we gain by ignoring the clear mandate of the voters that they want the USA out of the middle east militarily?
Putin now gets the tar baby of Assad, the Kurds, the Turks, Isis and all the other related benefits of the region.
-
What do we gain by fomenting and supporting regime change?
If it works, influence in the region, and help in furthering US goals. True, it doesn't often work.
What do we gain by guaranteeing the security of the fractious Kurds who share zero political or cultural commonalities with the USA?
Proxies that are willing to fight effectively against our enemies, namely ISIS, and Iranian backed Shia Militia Groups. Keeping the young men that want to be terrorists fighting in the Mideast instead of Europe and North America has been moderately successful.
What do we gain by setting up a potential military conflict with a NATO member who is trying to secure its border? (I'm no fan of the Turks).
That's not what the Turks are doing. We were actually successfully helping the Turks do that (secure their border) before this flusterlcuck.
What do we gain by ignoring the clear mandate if the voters that they want the USA out of the middle east militarily?
Again, has this move reduced US Military boots on ground in CENTCOM by a single soldier? I haven't found any news reports of folks redeploying early. My understanding is US forces are increasing in the mid east.
I'm not a huge fan of the Forever War either, and would be thrilled if we were getting out of the Mideast, if only so I could spend three consecutive years with my wife (which I haven't managed since 2013). But that's not what this move did.
I suspect it actually made it harder to disengage from the Mideast by the time all the chips fall, and it certainly constrained our options in the region, and helped Iran and Russia become more powerful in the region. Which will very likely translate to a more belligerent Iran in regards to both shipping and nuclear fuel enrichment.
-
What do we gain by fomenting and supporting regime change?
What do we gain by guaranteeing the security of the fractious Kurds who everyone over there seem to hate and who share zero political or cultural commonalities with the USA?
What do we gain by setting up a potential military conflict with a NATO member who is trying to secure its border? (I'm no fan of the Turks).
What do we gain by ignoring the clear mandate of the voters that they want the USA out of the middle east militarily?
Putin now gets the tar baby of Assad, the Kurds, the Turks, Isis and all the other related benefits of the region.
But but but, we can’t give up on the obama/Clinton/Kerry/McCain/<insert neocon> Middle East policy!!!!
-
Caucus or primary for you favorite Democrat, stick a fork in him, he's done.
:rofl: :rofl:
No.
-
I'm not a huge fan of the Forever War either, and would be thrilled if we were getting out of the Mideast, if only so I could spend three consecutive years with my wife (which I haven't managed since 2013). But that's not what this move did.
I suspect it actually made it harder to disengage from the Mideast by the time all the chips fall, and it certainly constrained our options in the region, and helped Iran and Russia become more powerful in the region. Which will very likely translate to a more belligerent Iran in regards to both shipping and nuclear fuel enrichment.
Unfortunately you are correct, there has been no troop drawdowns in the region as a whole.
I'm not enthusiastic about the "fight them there" neoconservative military adventurism any longer.
When I still had strands of trust in our government it seemed logical.
Now I'm adhearing to a more fundemental principle of defensive action only. Long forbearance of provocations with the use of overwhelming force if push comes to shove.
I'm not signing on to behind the scenes elites using our military to open up new markets or whatever the hell is their plan/goal.
-
Trump? I don't see how. Anything anyone (including me) can complain about regarding Trump, what dem has a chance in hell? Most all the contenders (Gabbard is an exception that doesn't have a chance) have gone so far crazy left that they're even turning off some of the crazy left.
As I've said elsewhere, no matter what negatives I see in Trump, his behind the scenes work on federal judges gets him my vote in 2020. Not to mention how bad it would be for the country if any of the current knuckleheads that have a lead on the dem side got in. Otherwise, the only way the left is going to rally at this point is if the do the "Michele Obama is running!" thing.
Nope, i think there has been a tipping point where the negative news on Trump isn't going to work in his favor of his any news is good news mantra. I also think the House will eventually Impeach him, probably about the start of the Caucasus and Primary season. Trump didn't win in a landslide in 2016 and I think enough fickle voters are not going to vote for him. The reason I said caucas or primary for you favorite Democrat is to hope the least communist one gets the party's nomination.
-
The reason I said caucas or primary for you favorite Democrat is to hope the least communist one gets the party's nomination.
"Least communist" isn't saying much for any of the front runners. =(
-
Nope, i think there has been a tipping point where the negative news on Trump isn't going to work in his favor of his any news is good news mantra. I also think the House will eventually Impeach him, probably about the start of the Caucasus and Primary season. Trump didn't win in a landslide in 2016 and I think enough fickle voters are not going to vote for him. The reason I said caucas or primary for you favorite Democrat is to hope the least communist one gets the party's nomination.
Lol. Tipping point? You mean where dems are extremely concerned with the Turkey/Syria border, but not our own borders?
-
Lol. Tipping point? You mean where dems are extremely concerned with the Turkey/Syria border, but not our own borders?
No just all the negative Trump news, just seems to keep building and building. Dem candidates will start dropping and the field will narrow, they'll rally behind what is left and through all the support behind the chosen one. I have a feeling Nov 2020 will be the biggest election turnout in years.
-
I have a felling Nov 2020 will be the biggest election turnout in years.
Which way the election goes seems hard to predict at the moment, but record turnout sounds like a safe bet to me.
-
Arab Muslims appear to be incapable of forming free, non-corrupt governments at this point in time. Nor does it appear that they want them. Let us acknowledge that fact and quit trying to make them behave.
-
Nope, i think there has been a tipping point where the negative news on Trump isn't going to work in his favor of his any news is good news mantra. I also think the House will eventually Impeach him, probably about the start of the Caucasus and Primary season. Trump didn't win in a landslide in 2016 and I think enough fickle voters are not going to vote for him. The reason I said caucas or primary for you favorite Democrat is to hope the least communist one gets the party's nomination.
I think your glass has holes in it. It will always be half empty.
-
Which way the election goes seems hard to predict at the moment, but record turnout sounds like a safe bet to me.
Yes, a record turnout of dead, convicted felon and illegal immigrant voters.
-
Yes, a record turnout of dead, convicted felon and illegal immigrant voters.
Ding ding ding.
I personally think this is why the Clinton camp didn't bother with endless lawsuits for recounts, they wouldn't have held up under scrutiny.
-
The Syria withdrawal was supposed to be Trump’s Vietnam, his ISIS nightmare, a genocidal bloodbath. But then a peace deal was announced on Tuesday.
:O
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/10/president-trump-cheers-news-of-peace-deal-with-safe-zone-negotiated-on-syrian-border-with-turkey/
-
:O
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/10/president-trump-cheers-news-of-peace-deal-with-safe-zone-negotiated-on-syrian-border-with-turkey/
I hope it lasts. Having external forces (like us) continually preventing a fight is not always healthy in the long run.
-
I can't read that site on this computer. I need to get back to my laptop with a VPN, but if it says anything other than "Uneasy ceasefire while all 3 sides dig in and the Turks try and hide the bodies of the civilians they killed last week" it's a *expletive deleted*ing fantasy.
ETA: So I got to another laptop. That guy is heralding an agreement between two sides of a four sided conflict. Also, it's the two sides that were closest to agreeing before Operation Peace Spring. So yea, I guess? The turks are still planning to dump 1 million or so refugees in northern Syria with no logistical support, they are still killing civilians suspected of being or aiding the SDF. Russia has solidified it's influence in the region, while we have undermined ours, resulting in it being much harder to leave on our terms. No US soldier has actually gone home, and it's now more dangerous for us in the entire region.
Not to mention the benefits to ISIS of decimating the forces that were fighting them and keeping them in prison.
-
I can't read that site on this computer. I need to get back to my laptop with a VPN, but if it says anything other than "Uneasy ceasefire while all 3 sides dig in and the Turks try and hide the bodies of the civilians they killed last week" it's a *expletive deleted*ing fantasy.
ETA: So I got to another laptop. That guy is heralding an agreement between two sides of a four sided conflict. Also, it's the two sides that were closest to agreeing before Operation Peace Spring. So yea, I guess? The turks are still planning to dump 1 million or so refugees in northern Syria with no logistical support, they are still killing civilians suspected of being or aiding the SDF. Russia has solidified it's influence in the region, while we have undermined ours, resulting in it being much harder to leave on our terms. No US soldier has actually gone home, and it's now more dangerous for us in the entire region.
Not to mention the benefits to ISIS of decimating the forces that were fighting them and keeping them in prison.
So what are the actual known downsides to getting out of Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan?
What is the guaranteed downside?
Not the maybe, not the experts think, not the consensus but the guaranteed.
The guaranteed to happen downside of keeping troops in hostile ME countries is dead American troops.
-
So what are the actual known downsides to getting out of Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan?
That is a much longer conversation, that really merits it's own thread. It's also not what we are talking about here.
As I said earlier, find me a new article about any soldier redeploying from CENTCOM early as a result of the Syria thing. No one went home.
What this Syria plan did is make US Force's jobs in the ME harder and more dangerous, and walk back a lot of the gains we HAD made in getting out without leaving a burning crater behind us. So no one went home, It's more dangerous on ground where the troops are, we are farther from our stated goals, and it's made it harder for us to actually leave the area on the terms we have said we want.
-
That is a much longer conversation, that really merits it's own thread. It's also not what we are talking about here.
As I said earlier, find me a new article about any soldier redeploying from CENTCOM early as a result of the Syria thing. No one went home.
What this Syria plan did is make US Force's jobs in the ME harder and more dangerous, and walk back a lot of the gains we HAD made in getting out without leaving a burning crater behind us. So no one went home, It's more dangerous on ground where the troops are, we are farther from our stated goals, and it's made it harder for us to actually leave the area on the terms we have said we want.
(1) How is it more dangerous?
(2) Exactly what are our stated goals?
(3) What are the terms we have said we want?
These are honest questions. I honestly have no idea why we are still in Syria at this point, so I'd love to know what we are supposed to be doing there, now that ISIS is no longer a viable threat. (And even that one was without congressional approval, so we were doing that illegally- 2001 AUMF is stretched beyond breaking at this point.)
-
That is one thing I believe I saw Rand Paul say. He told Congressmen that if they want Trump to stay and fight in Syria, they could pass a Declaration of War.
-
Some perspective on troop levels and engagement
We have roughly a thousand troops in Syria, about the same as in Cuba. It’s true that there is active combat in Syria, but it hasn’t much involved Americans. In the entire eight-year Syrian civil war, there have been a total of eight American service deaths. While even one death is tragic, more U.S. troops are killed in training accidents every year than in our entire time in Syria. This low level of U.S. participation doesn’t seem to fit the “endless war” thesis any more than our presence in Cuba does.
ISIS is no longer a viable threat.
Is that an established fact at this point?
-
So we can stage military operations and coordinate coups in any nation we feel needs to be saved.
The old "we had to burn and flatten the village to save them" on a national level.
-
On the comment about troops in Syria, I wonder if that counts troops that deploy there for specific missions but are based in neighboring countries. It also probably doesn't count the air strikes/support that comes in from other countries.
-
That is one thing I believe I saw Rand Paul say. He told Congressmen that if they want Trump to stay and fight in Syria, they could pass a Declaration of War.
YES!
This would never happen... because Congress would actually have to take responsibility for a war.
-
Our last "war" was WW2.
Korea was not a "war." Vietnam was not a "war." Greneda was not a "war." Desert Storm? Nope. Desert [fill in the blank]? Nope. Afghanistan? Nope. Syria? Nope.
Congress doesn't have the fortitude to pass a declaration of war. It's much safer (politically) to let the prez make the call, then Congress can share the credit if things work out, and pin the blame on the man in the White House if it all goes to hell in a hand basket.
-
And I can't say that is much new. I heard we sent marines into places in South America quite regularly to enforce "diplomacy" back prior to WWII. I don't know if they stayed very long though.
I just question whether there are better ways to handle the Middle East than quartering troops there or giving them large sums of foreign aide.
-
(1) How is it more dangerous?
The local forces that were helping us fight ISIS, feeding us intel , and guarding prison camps are no longer doing so. ISIS fighters have, with increased freedom of movement, escaped into Northern Iraq where they have space to re-equip and train, nation state actors that will help them, and more US forces to attack.
(2) Exactly what are our stated goals?
In conjunction with partner forces Combined Joint Task Force - Operation Inherent Resolve (CJTF-OIR) defeats ISIS in designated areas of Iraq and Syria and sets conditions for follow-on operations to increase regional stability. That's a link if you'd like to learn more.
(https://www.inherentresolve.mil/About-CJTF-OIR/)
(3) What are the terms we have said we want?
Roughly, because we only have roughly stated CENTCOM goals at this point, we'd like to end leave the ME with reasonably stable partner governments that have aligned with the US interests of preventing the spread of Iranian influence and aggression in the region, restricting the spread of religious extremist violence, and committing to open and free flow of trade through the region (especially at sea), and it would be nice if they didn't publicly commit too many human rights violations.
These are honest questions. I honestly have no idea why we are still in Syria at this point, so I'd love to know what we are supposed to be doing there, now that ISIS is no longer a viable threat. (And even that one was without congressional approval, so we were doing that illegally- 2001 AUMF is stretched beyond breaking at this point.)
The bolded part was only true when we were enabling the Kurds to contain ISIS. That was our strategy.
Some perspective on troop levels and engagement
Quote from: https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/what-is-an-endless-war/
We have roughly a thousand troops in Syria, about the same as in Cuba. It’s true that there is active combat in Syria, but it hasn’t much involved Americans. In the entire eight-year Syrian civil war, there have been a total of eight American service deaths. While even one death is tragic, more U.S. troops are killed in training accidents every year than in our entire time in Syria. This low level of U.S. participation doesn’t seem to fit the “endless war” thesis any more than our presence in Cuba does.
I keep seeing wildly varying numbers for how many troops are in Syria, which I think comes from people wanting to count "troops" and "in" differently. It certainly doesn't include aircraft and crews flying in and out. I provided a couple pages ago the CJTF-OIR wiki page which puts the number of permanently assigned coalition troops at 6,350, and some rough breakdowns of US forces and forward forces. Add into that TSC and ARCENT forces that might be doing stuff, CJSOTF forces (those green berets everyone was talking about last week. No one really knows where they are), Air Force support folks on ground in the two active (https://theaviationist.com/2019/10/23/interesting-images-of-c-17s-loading-materiel-at-kobani-landing-zone-during-u-s-withdrawal-from-syria-released/) US arifields (https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/30190/u-s-blindsides-syrian-kurds-with-approval-for-turkish-invasion-opens-door-to-larger-conflict) in Syria, and random other base support folks (THe second airfield link has a resonably recent map of coalition bases in Syria) and I bet you come up with more folks then people would expect, given the press coverage.
-
Is that an established fact at this point?
Alright, I'm willing to be proven wrong. From my perspective, and from news reports I have seen, it appears ISIS is no longer a viable threat.
Is my perception mistaken?
-
The bolded part was only true when we were enabling the Kurds to contain ISIS. That was our strategy.
I keep seeing wildly varying numbers for how many troops are in Syria, which I think comes from people wanting to count "troops" and "in" differently. It certainly doesn't include aircraft and crews flying in and out. I provided a couple pages ago the CJTF-OIR wiki page which puts the number of permanently assigned coalition troops at 6,350, and some rough breakdowns of US forces and forward forces. Add into that TSC and ARCENT forces that might be doing stuff, CJSOTF forces (those green berets everyone was talking about last week. No one really knows where they are), Air Force support folks on ground in the two active (https://theaviationist.com/2019/10/23/interesting-images-of-c-17s-loading-materiel-at-kobani-landing-zone-during-u-s-withdrawal-from-syria-released/) US arifields (https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/30190/u-s-blindsides-syrian-kurds-with-approval-for-turkish-invasion-opens-door-to-larger-conflict) in Syria, and random other base support folks (THe second airfield link has a resonably recent map of coalition bases in Syria) and I bet you come up with more folks then people would expect, given the press coverage.
Ok, I followed your link and it says:
The Coalition mission is to defeat ISIS as a military force on the battlefield in Iraq and Syria. We will disrupt their ability to command and control their fighters, remove their safe havens, interrupt their revenue streams that fund their operations, destroy their equipment, and kill their fighters. We will eliminate their effectiveness as an organized force on the battlefield.
... we haven't done that? I'm asking, as I did in the previous comment, because my impression is that we have.
-
Alright, I'm willing to be proven wrong. From my perspective, and from news reports I have seen, it appears ISIS is no longer a viable threat.
Is my perception mistaken?
ISIS was not much of a threat when they were being contained in prisons, activly hunted, and succefully kept from training and outfitting new cells and fighters by the SDF. The SDF were recently distracted from that mission, allowing ISIS time and room to disengage and regroup. Exactly how effective they were at that will take a little time to find out. If *expletive deleted*it starts blowing up in Erbil, Mosul, and Kirkuk we'll know.
-
Ok, I followed your link and it says:
... we haven't done that? I'm asking, as I did in the previous comment, because my impression is that we have.
We had. Or close enough. We were on to the "Set conditions for follow on operations":
- “…sets conditions for follow-on operations …” The Coalition is responsible for military operations against
ISIS, but military action is not the only action the governments of the Global Coalition are taking now. The
Coalition’s military operations against ISIS weaken the terror group and enable the nations of the Global
Coalition to bring the full might of their national power – including diplomatic, informational, economic, law
enforcement, and other aspects of national power – to bear against the group. The Global Coalition realizes that
not only must we defeat the military power of ISIS, but we must defeat the ideology of ISIS as well in order to
stem the global flow of foreign fighters and radicalized jihadists in all of our nations.
We have now moved backwards because we (the coalition) are allowing ISIS to reinstitute safe havens, reconstitute command and control, and get new equipment. How well they do that is still an open question.
-
https://www.newsweek.com/exclusive-us-has-plan-send-tanks-troops-secure-syria-oil-fields-amid-withdrawal-1467350
And now we may have to go back and try and stop more Arab stupidity. Remember the good old days when the Kurds would provide combat power in Syria?
ETA: I feel for the sake of honesty, since I've been bitching about the accuracy of the news stories this whole thread, that I should mention the story I linked shares that same accuracy. Which is to say, there ARE oil fields in Syria, and we ARE concerned what will become of them since the SDF has been pulled away. Everything else in that story ranges from wild conjecture to objectively wrong.
-
Is it still our goal to make sure Assad is deposed?
Why are we guarding "his" oil fields or why are we keeping him from guarding those oil fields?
-
Is it still our goal to make sure Assad is deposed?
Why are we guarding "his" oil fields or why are we keeping him from guarding those oil fields?
I think that was the Obama Administration's goal. I don't think that is Trump's goal. And I don't know why we care about the oil fields except to know who is making money from them.
-
We had. Or close enough. We were on to the "Set conditions for follow on operations":
We have now moved backwards because we (the coalition) are allowing ISIS to reinstitute safe havens, reconstitute command and control, and get new equipment. How well they do that is still an open question.
Didn't the Obama Administration help ISIS get started in Syria? I thought I heard that was part of what was happening in Benghazi. Obama had the CIA shipping arms in to the rebels in Syria which were pretty much ISIS. Then they captured stuff we left behind to the Iraqis later.
-
https://saraacarter.com/president-trump-expected-to-announce-death-or-capture-of-top-isis-leader/
-
I guess we'll have to wait to hear what Newsweek and National Review think about this so we can know if it's a good thing or a bad thing … [popcorn]
-
I guess we'll have to wait to hear what Newsweek and National Review think about this so we can know if it's a good thing or a bad thing … [popcorn]
I'd like to think most folks can see that killing a terrorist leader is always a good thing, but you're probably right, some folks will need confirmation on what to think.
-
A bit off topic, but the Washington Post's headline(s) on the kill, in chronological order as they tried to get just the right PC tone:
Abu Bkr Al-Baghdadi, Islamic State's "Terrorist in Chief"
Abu Bkr Al-Baghdadi, Austere religious scholar at head of Islamic State
Abu Bkr Al-Baghdadi, Extremist leader of Islamic State
https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2019/10/27/dafuq-wapo-changes-headline-for-terrorist-in-chief-al-baghdadis-obituary-to-shameful-pc-version/
-
It doesn't matter a whit how many ISIS leaders we kill. They're like cockroaches in that they will grow more very quickly.
-
It doesn't matter a whit how many ISIS leaders we kill. They're like cockroaches in that they will grow the CIA will recruit more very quickly.
Fixed it for you.
-
And Newsweek is already reporting on the new leader of ISIS. Didn't take long at all.
-
Meanwhile, Russia is saying the operation didn't happen.
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/isis-leader-abu-bakr-al-20738636
-
And Newsweek is already reporting on the new leader of ISIS. Didn't take long at all.
Every quality organization needs an organizational chart and a line of succession.
-
Using the military to install compliant leaders/governments in middle east countries is a fools errand.
Time to get out of the region.
If we want to maintain a base in the region what's wrong with making Israel our logistical hub?
-
Using the military to install compliant leaders/governments in middle east countries is a fools errand.
Time to get out of the region.
If we want to maintain a base in the region what's wrong with making Israel our logistical hub?
It really complicates moving stuff around the region. Lots of stuff needs to flow in and out of a logistical hub, and short of "*expletive deleted*ck you , we're invading" you can't easily cross those borders. Israel is a really bad basing strategy if you are trying to draw down the region.
-
It really complicates moving stuff around the region. Lots of stuff needs to flow in and out of a logistical hub, and short of "*expletive deleted*ck you , we're invading" you can't easily cross those borders. Israel is a really bad basing strategy if you are trying to draw down the region.
I only say them because all the others are on various levels of instability and craziness domestically.
Im not nor have I ever been in the military. As a joe blow member of the public I've just really lost all respect for the leadership who think our involvement in the region is necessary.
Im not a believer in the "mission" whatever the hell it is purportedly.
-
Just so I'm being clear, I'm not commenting on the mission with that post.
As a guy that has done Logistics in that AO a lot, and am doing it now, there's real, practical issues with using Israel as a LOGBASE. It's a very challenging area to move stuff around in. In a lot of ways it was easier when the war was really on, and we could just roll trucks with stuff. Yeah, they might get blown up, but we got them moving in reasonable timeframes. Crossing borders in the mid east is an exercise in planning, frustration, and planning to be frustrated.
-
If we want to maintain a base in the region what's wrong with making Israel our logistical hub?
We do store a lot of military equipment in Isreal; here's an old article about it:
https://www.haaretz.com/1.5083976
-
If true, this is some God level 5D chess for you....
https://twitter.com/40_head/status/1188754960130854914?s=21
-
If true, this is some God level 5D chess for you....
https://twitter.com/40_head/status/1188754960130854914?s=21
If that's even half true, I LUV it!
-
If true, this is some God level 5D chess for you....
https://twitter.com/40_head/status/1188754960130854914?s=21
So, Pelosi was working for ISIS?
That doesn't sound likely... at all...
-
So, Pelosi was working for ISIS?
That doesn't sound likely... at all...
I can see where they are coming from, but no logic is going to carry that one without some proof.
-
That twitter source is probably friends with this one so you never know who your sources are.
https://babylonbee.com/news/cnn-uncovers-evidence-hero-dog-sniffed-butts
CNN Uncovers Evidence Hero Dog Sniffed Dozens Of Butts Back In College
U.S.—Everyone praised the classified "Hero Dog" for taking down ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
"Oh yeah, good old [redacted]? He was nuts!" said one German Shepherd who attended Old Yaler Obedience School with the hero dog, according to a CNN report. "He was always sniffing any butt he could find. Cats, dogs, humans, you name it. He didn't have a preference. He identified as pansniffual."
Democrats immediately called for the dog to be court-martialed and for the death of Baghdadi to be overturned.
-
I'll just leave this here: https://babylonbee.com/news/washington-post-now-running-all-headlines-by-isis-marketing-team
:exit stage left: