Trump ignores advise of allies & Pentagon - Stabbing the Kurds in the back

Somehow it is not surprising that Trump again ignores everyone, who understands the multi-faceted issues much better than he does.  And, in the process abandons a minority, who has supported the US goals (proving once again, that he has no sympathy for anyone not named Trump).

My first thought was, how might a nation impose a responsibility check on the position of the President?

Then, if there was an answer to this, what would prevent the opposition party from using it simply to be obstructionist? 



Anyone who believes that Trump is a friend of Israel is delusional. The Kurds will suffer, on one hand the Turks, the other Iran, and Putin grinning from ear to ear.

Trump might be Damien from The Omen...


Trump just denies reality and can't keep his story straight. 

"....Russia, Iran, Syria & many others are not happy about the U.S. leaving, despite what the Fake News says, because now they will have to fight ISIS and others, who they hate, without us. I am building by far the most powerful military in the world. ISIS hits us they are doomed!"

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1075726666574544896?s=21

Russia, Iran and Syria are very happy. And if "ISIS is defeated", why is he saying that "they will have to fight ISIS"?  And if he has to threaten ISIS, that doesn't sound like they've been defeated. 



I thought we agreed not getting into or remaining in foreign adventures is desirable. But it seems when its Trump getting us out of an adventure then its not.

The Kurds were not aligned with us because they love us, to benefit us. They did not join us for that reason. They joined us to use our military to support their fighters.

Are we supposed to continue joining militarily with every foreign group that we "align" with? To never end? Because ending would be a stab in the back?


I have to admit that I'm a bit confused about this. The whole Syria issue is a big mish mosh to me, since there are so many players, and we're apparently aligning with people that we'd normally be enemies with.

But, notwithstanding the effed up way this was announced - I think we should get out. Hopefully Afghanistan is next on the agenda.

Enough is enough.


BG9 said:
I thought we agreed not getting into or remaining in foreign adventures is desirable. But it seems when its Trump getting us out of an adventure then its not.
The Kurds were not aligned with us because they love us, to benefit us. They did not join us for that reason. They joined us to use our military to support their fighters.
Are we supposed to continue joining militarily with every foreign group that we "align" with? To never end? Because ending would be a stab in the back?

My point is:  The US is infamous for encouraging minorities to take up arms and help in some cause, only to abandon them later.  Same as happened to the mountain tribes in Vietnam and the delta population in Iraq.

While I agree that getting into these 'adventures' is not desirable, once you are in, it is virtually impossible to get out (unless you are willing to sacrifice some of your friends/proxies).



My first thought was, how might a nation impose a responsibility check on the position of the President?

Happened to be reading this month's Atlantic while this current turmoil (as opposed to the lower level 2-year turmoil) is in the news.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/presidential-emergency-powers/576418/


The guy could send troops into any U.S. city (as Eisenhower did in Little Rock); he could kill or censor the internet; freeze assets and banking; etc. So, while the guy may be a joke or an aberration to some, he's a threat to us all, especially as he tries to get back on the good side of Coulter and Limbaugh et. al.


The moment the president declares a “national emergency”—a decision that is entirely within his discretion—he is able to set aside many of the legal limits on his authority.

 


Just saw a newsflash that Mattis is retiring.  Was this the event that took him to the breaking point?


drummerboy said:
I have to admit that I'm a bit confused about this. The whole Syria issue is a big mish mosh to me, since there are so many players, and we're apparently aligning with people that we'd normally be enemies with.
But, notwithstanding the effed up way this was announced - I think we should get out. Hopefully Afghanistan is next on the agenda.
Enough is enough.

 Thank you!


tomcat said:
Just saw a newsflash that Mattis is retiring.  Was this the event that took him to the breaking point?

 I wondered that, then I wondered if the continual unpredictability is what prompted Mattis to resign with dignity while he still could? 


Just read the letter.  What a rebuke of the CIC!



Trump sucks, but getting out of Syria is a good plan, so why don't we hear that on the news?



nan said:
Trump sucks, but getting out of Syria is a good plan, so why don't we hear that on the news?



 Except there's no plan.


tomcat said:
Just read the letter.  What a rebuke of the CIC!


 

 A couple of things on this.  

First, Mattis is a smart guy.  But, he's still a military guy.  He is clearly interested in maintaining military dominance in the region.  NATO was a military treaty enacted to contain the Soviet Union.  The Soviet Union fell almost 30 years ago.  Instead of dissolving this treaty we expanded it right up to Russia's border.  More recently, we have hit Russia with sanctions, precipitated a coup on their doorstep, and regularly run military exercises right on their border.   

We have invaded and overthrown regimes across the middle east(Iran, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, etc).  We attempted to overthrow Syria and funded the Al Nusra Front which is essentially Al Queda.   ISIS was running around with our weapons in vacuums that we created under the Bush and Obama administrations.  We are currently overseeing a massacre in Yemen.

I'm not sure if I can take a letter seriously that attempts to paint Russia as the aggressor that needs to be contained.  I don't think that squares with objective reality. 

Secondly, the president is a civilian making a policy change that he thinks is in the best interest of the country.  I think that is how it's supposed to work.  There is no declaration of war here that he is violating.  This is his decision in our screwed up modern framework.  

One can only hope he follows this up by pulling support for the Saudi regime in Yemen, and pulling out of Afghanistan.  


We are entering uncharted waters.  I predict with confidence that gravediggers will benefit from Trump's precipitous actions.  Who else benefits remains to be seen.


tjohn said:
We are entering uncharted waters.  I predict with confidence that gravediggers will benefit from Trump's precipitous actions.  Who else benefits remains to be seen.

Ah Yes. At times like this it's important to look back on the good ole days. 




terp said:

Secondly, the president is a civilian making a policy change that he thinks is in the best interest of the country.  I think that is how it's supposed to work.  There is no declaration of war here that he is violating.  This is his decision in our screwed up modern framework.  
One can only hope he follows this up by pulling support for the Saudi regime in Yemen, and pulling out of Afghanistan.  

Civilian leadership making military policy changes based on what they believe are in the best interest of the country is in fact how it's supposed to work. Trump might very well do this by accident, but I think Jared Kushner will solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict before Trump ever consciously makes a decision based on anyone's interests besides his own.

On Afghanistan, current reports say Trump want out there, too. On Yemen, the Senate vote to withdraw support was in direct conflict with Trump's wishes, and has been widely reported as a rebuke to Trump. Which just goes to my prior point, really -- the Saudi's have been paying Trump. The Afghans either haven't, or maybe just not enough. And the Syrians? Apparently Putin is very happy with the decision.

Again, maybe some of these decisions will accidentally be the right ones, but they're definitely not being made with an eye to any interests larger beyond Trump's.


Of course, the overthrow of Assad is well within the interests of the Saudi Royal Family.   It's funny how people are all over Trump about the Saudis.  Every single American president since and including Carter has done their bidding.  They killed thousands of Americans and we still did their bidding.  

The evidence that people have that Trump is "being paid by the Saudis" can be summed up as follows: The people that make this claim really don't like Trump.   


terp said:

The evidence that people have that Trump is "being paid by the Saudis" can be summed up as follows: The people that make this claim really don't like Trump.   

Well, there are reports such as this one from a few days ago:

"The New York Times reported that prosecutors are examining whether people from Qatar, Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries made illegal payments to the committee and a pro-Trump super political action committee in a bid to influence American policy. " 

If you're the sort who would dismiss a federal criminal probe as just another example of people making claims who really don't like Trump, you'll likely find these threads to your liking.


PVW said:


terp said:

The evidence that people have that Trump is "being paid by the Saudis" can be summed up as follows: The people that make this claim really don't like Trump.   
Well, there are reports such as this one from a few days ago:

"The New York Times reported that prosecutors are examining whether people from Qatar, Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries made illegal payments to the committee and a pro-Trump super political action committee in a bid to influence American policy. " 
If you're the sort who would dismiss a federal criminal probe as just another example of people making claims who really don't like Trump, you'll likely find these threads to your liking.

There seem to be people there who think the existence of a federal probe not only means guilt but also that their narrative is the right one.  


Let's say the contributions were made.  What policy changes did Trump make as part of this quid pro quo?  I'd like to understand the claim better. 


terp said:There seem to be people there who think the existence of a federal probe not only means guilt but also that their narrative is the right one.  

 

Well, you said that "the evidence that people have that Trump is "being paid by the Saudis" can be summed up as follows: The people that make this claim really don't like Trump."

Now, I don't know how this particular probe will end. It might result in findings of wrongdoing. It might not. Yet at the very least, given that there was sufficient evidence to launch a probe in the first place, that would seem to undermine your dismissiveness regarding allegations against Trump. 


terp said:
Let's say the contributions were made.  What policy changes did Trump make as part of this quid pro quo?  I'd like to understand the claim better. 

 I'd like to understand it better myself -- here's hoping all these lawsuits and investigations end up bringing facts to light and not getting buried under claims of executive privilege or other legal obfuscations.


Until then, I merely offer the observation of the coincidence that Trump is hostile toward many countries, but the ones he seems warm to also seem to be ones where there are plausible allegations of business or personal benefit to him.


South_Mountaineer said:


nan said:
Trump sucks, but getting out of Syria is a good plan, so why don't we hear that on the news?



 Except there's no plan.

 The video demonstrates how the knee-jerk media just spews partisan crap.  The liberal mainstream media is only showing one pro-war side of the story. They are doing this because the announcement was made by Trump and they oppose anything he says.  The right-wing media, on the other hand, are now supporting Trump, even if they previously supported intervention because that's what they do.  No lessons from Iraq have been learned.

Trump not having a plan is irrelevant to the reporting of the mainstream media.


You seemed to claim by his actions that he is on the take. 

On Afghanistan, current reports say Trump want out there, too. On Yemen, the Senate vote to withdraw support was in direct conflict with Trump's wishes, and has been widely reported as a rebuke to Trump. Which just goes to my prior point, really -- the Saudi's have been paying Trump. The Afghans either haven't, or maybe just not enough. And the Syrians? Apparently Putin is very happy with the decision.

There is no evidence of this whatsoever.  Alas, money is part of politics.  I would be shocked if any major campaign didn't have some questionable activity in that regard.   

What bothers me is that everybody accepts this behavior, except when its Trump.  When it's Trump its part of some big Russian/Saudi conspiracy.   

It strikes me as pretty silly considering we've been kissing up to the Saudis for over 40 years now.  Their people mastermind and execute an attack on our civilians, what do we do?  Invade Iraq.  Shiites get too much regional power?  Suddenly Assad has to go(and we armed and funded Al Quedagroups to de-stabilize the country).   

The whole Putin thing is hilarious considering our Russian policy during the Trump regime can be best described as bellicose.  


nan said:


South_Mountaineer said:

nan said:
Trump sucks, but getting out of Syria is a good plan, so why don't we hear that on the news?



 Except there's no plan.
 The video demonstrates how the knee-jerk media just spews partisan crap.  The liberal mainstream media is only showing one pro-war side of the story. They are doing this because the announcement was made by Trump and they oppose anything he says.  The right-wing media, on the other hand, are now supporting Trump, even if they previously supported intervention because that's what they do.  No lessons from Iraq have been learned.
Trump not having a plan is irrelevant to the reporting of the mainstream media.

 


This non-mainstream media article discusses Trump's probably plan and finds it will probably not lead to complete withdrawal and continue influence in the area.  Also, unlikely to lead to a cut in military spending. 


Don’t Hold Your Breath on US Troop Withdrawal from Syria

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/12/19/dont-hold-your-breath-on-us-troop-withdrawal-from-syria/


terp said:


tjohn said:
We are entering uncharted waters.  I predict with confidence that gravediggers will benefit from Trump's precipitous actions.  Who else benefits remains to be seen.
Ah Yes. At times like this it's important to look back on the good ole days. 





That's not really what I mean Terp.  I argued from early 2002 that invading Iraq would be a mistake.  What is different is the spectacle of a great power cutting and running.  I'm hard-pressed to find parallels in history and that is why we are in uncharted waters.


nan said:


South_Mountaineer said:

nan said:
Trump sucks, but getting out of Syria is a good plan, so why don't we hear that on the news?



 Except there's no plan.
 The video demonstrates how the knee-jerk media just spews partisan crap.  The liberal mainstream media is only showing one pro-war side of the story. They are doing this because the announcement was made by Trump and they oppose anything he says.  The right-wing media, on the other hand, are now supporting Trump, even if they previously supported intervention because that's what they do.  No lessons from Iraq have been learned.
Trump not having a plan is irrelevant to the reporting of the mainstream media.

Okay, but there's still no plan.  I don't think that's irrelevant.  Doing something with the military without a plan just gets people killed.  Some idiotic rant about "knee-jerk media" is beside the point.


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.

Sponsored Business

Find Business

Advertise here!