Trump ignores advise of allies & Pentagon - Stabbing the Kurds in the back
I guess I'll type it again - there is no plan. Trump didn't ask for a plan from the professionals. Just dropping everything and "ghosting" people who we used to fight ISIS fighters isn't a plan.
And the responses are just more rants about the media, as if that petty sniping is more important.
paulsurovell said:
nan said:Matt Taibbi:
South_Mountaineer said:When the "liberal" mainstream news unites as pro-war it's not an "idiotic rant" to call them out.
nan said: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.
South_Mountaineer said: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.
nan said:Except there's no plan.
Trump sucks, but getting out of Syria is a good plan, so why don't we hear that on the news?
Trump not having a plan is irrelevant to the reporting of the mainstream media.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-syria-withdrawal-772177/
So we’re withdrawing troops from the Middle East.GOOD!What’s the War on Terror death count by now, a half-million? How much have we spent, $5 trillion? Five-and-a-half?For that cost, we’ve destabilized the region to the point of abject chaos, inspired millions of Muslims to hate us, and torn up the Geneva Convention and half the Constitution in pursuit of policies like torture, kidnapping, assassination-by-robot and warrantless detention.It will be difficult for each of us to even begin to part with our share of honor in those achievements. This must be why all those talking heads on TV are going crazy.Unless Donald Trump decides to reverse his decision to begin withdrawals from Syria and Afghanistan, cable news for the next few weeks is going to be one long Scanners marathon of exploding heads.[ . . . ]Trump’s decisions on Syria and Afghanistan will lay bare the real distinctions in American politics. Political power in this country is not divided between right and left, and not even between rich and poor.The real line is between a war party, and everyone else.
terp said:
The best laid plans...
That's your response? That's some conspiracy-nutter YouTube that describes itself like this: "This recording dispels the myth of a so-called Syrian revolution and equally the myth that the West is fighting Daesh." Right, Assad's a great guy, there couldn't possibly be an actual civil war against him. Those Kurdish fighters weren't actually fighting ISIS, they're just "takers" or whatever the word is that you'd pick.
Whatever anybody told you, son, just because it's on the internet and confirms your prejudices doesn't make it true.
My comment was about being responsible with the lives of American troops and of people that our country persuaded to be allies. For some reason, that's not important to some people.
terp said:
Trump needs to learn not to make hasty decisions. You need a comprehensive exit plan. Everyone knows that these things take time.
These things do take time. As your post shows, it was a two-year plan, as imperfect as it was.
The thinking behind this move seems to be:
- Oh wow -- there is a *lot* of money going to this war!
- If I just stop sending money to the war, I can take that money and use it to build the wall!
Then Mattis resigned.
Assad is the answer, according to Steven Simon, former Clinton and Obama administration official:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/21/opinion/syria-troops-kurds-trump.html
Same view from Syria expert Joshua landis:
https://twitter.com/joshua_landis/status/1076543377104142338
https://twitter.com/joshua_landis/status/1076543377104142338
And CSIS expert Maxwell Markusen:
http://www.kurdistan24.net/en/news/c1f8eb27-7f2f-4586-8148-c477eec62c95
paulsurovell said:
Assad is the answer, according to Steven Simon, former Clinton and Obama administration official:
Realpolitik.
terp said:
I'd kill for a president that was correct twice a day. Haven't had one in my lifetime
Vote for Broken Clock in 2020!
Are you drunk?
paulsurovell said:
Assad is the answer, according to Steven Simon, former Clinton and Obama administration official:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/21/opinion/syria-troops-kurds-trump.html
Same view from Syria expert Joshua landis:
https://twitter.com/joshua_landis/status/1076543377104142338
https://twitter.com/joshua_landis/status/1076543377104142338
And CSIS expert Maxwell Markusen:
http://www.kurdistan24.net/en/news/c1f8eb27-7f2f-4586-8148-c477eec62c95
Love is the answer!
See
The outcome in Syria was settled the day Russia, the only foreign power with a legal basis for being Syria, committed military forces to the fight. All that remained from that point was to see how many more people had to die before the West accepted that outcome. So, yes, Assad is the answer. If we had supported opposition forces resolutely in the beginning, the outcome might have been different although I imagine that Syria would have ended up as a broken state occupied in part by Turkey, Jordan and Iraq.
So, I find my self agreeing with Trump's direction on Syria although not his process.
Finally, it is worth noting - W.T. Sherman may of observed this - that the most humane thing you can do in a war is end it as quickly as possible using maximum force (violence). Unfortunately, in America we seem to like trying to calibrate our wars which leads to long wars that increase overall suffering.
dave23 said:
terp said:These things do take time. As your post shows, it was a two-year plan, as imperfect as it was.
Trump needs to learn not to make hasty decisions. You need a comprehensive exit plan. Everyone knows that these things take time.
Yeah, they take like forever.
If Trump didn't cut we'd be there in 10 years working on the latest exit plan. There always are reasons found on why we can't leave, why we need to extend with "revised" exit plans.
When we invaded in 2003, anyone saying then we'd still be there in 15 years would have been labeled as delusional.
paulsurovell said:
Assad is the answer, according to Steven Simon, former Clinton and Obama administration official:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/21/opinion/syria-troops-kurds-trump.html
Same view from Syria expert Joshua landis:
https://twitter.com/joshua_landis/status/1076543377104142338
https://twitter.com/joshua_landis/status/1076543377104142338
And CSIS expert Maxwell Markusen:
http://www.kurdistan24.net/en/news/c1f8eb27-7f2f-4586-8148-c477eec62c95
As I keep writing, with Trump there is no plan. The NY Times article cite you describes a possible plan, but also concludes: “This would require deft diplomacy. Unfortunately, at the moment the United States appears incapable of that. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo seems more focused on bluster, and the administration’s special representative for Syria engagement appears to have little clue regarding White House policy. But if the administration fails to step up, it will have left the Syrian people far worse off than they already are.”
There's a NY Times article today on the special representative for Syria who is leaving his job immediately. It also shows that there's no plan, and in fact there was no planning before Trump made his announcement.
Brett McGurk, the special presidential envoy to the coalition fighting the Islamic State, has accelerated his resignation, telling colleagues this weekend that he could not in good conscience carry out President Trump’s newly declared policy of withdrawing American troops from Syria.
…
“The recent decision by the president came as a shock and was a complete reversal of policy that was articulated to us,” Mr. McGurk said in the email to his colleagues. “It left our coalition partners confused and our fighting partners bewildered,” he added.
…
With more than a decade of experience in Iraq spanning three administrations, Mr. McGurk helped stitch together the 79-member coalition led by the United States, which oversaw the battle to take back cities from the terrorist group. He became special envoy in late 2015, during the Obama administration.
In a shift from the way the insurgency had been fought during the Bush administration, one of the Obama administration’s core doctrines was that America’s allies in the region needed to take the lead in recapturing territory, with American forces providing only air support and limited logistical assistance.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/22/world/brett-mcgurk-isis-resign.html
Of course, Trump with his usual ignorance (apparently shared by those who defend his actions) tweets: “Brett McGurk, who I do not know, was appointed by President Obama in 2015. Was supposed to leave in February but he just resigned prior to leaving. Grandstander? The Fake News is making such a big deal about this nothing event!”
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1076655729820471296
Seriously, it’s stupid to applaud stupidity by Trump.
tjohn said:
The outcome in Syria was settled the day Russia, the only foreign power with a legal basis for being Syria, committed military forces to the fight. All that remained from that point was to see how many more people had to die before the West accepted that outcome. So, yes, Assad is the answer. If we had supported opposition forces resolutely in the beginning, the outcome might have been different although I imagine that Syria would have ended up as a broken state occupied in part by Turkey, Jordan and Iraq.
So, I find my self agreeing with Trump's direction on Syria although not his process.
Finally, it is worth noting - W.T. Sherman may of observed this - that the most humane thing you can do in a war is end it as quickly as possible using maximum force (violence). Unfortunately, in America we seem to like trying to calibrate our wars which leads to long wars that increase overall suffering.
Why do you say Russia is the only foreign power with a legal basis for being in Syria? Is that because you think Assad is the legal ruler of Syria and he asked the Russians to come and help him?
Assad is the legal ruler of Syria and he invited Russian forces into his country. Period. End of story. There are no alternative definitions.
tjohn said:
Assad is the legal ruler of Syria and he invited Russian forces into his country. Period. End of story. There are no alternative definitions.
Just out of curiosity, what would be the law that makes Assad the ruler of Syria? The law of the AK-47? The law of the poison gas canister? The law of the barrel bomb?
There's a term for people like Assad and it is "WAR CRIMINAL". There's nothing legal about that.
Klinker said:
tjohn said:Just out of curiosity, what would be the law that makes Assad the ruler of Syria? The law of the AK-47? The law of the poison gas canister? The law of the barrel bomb?
Assad is the legal ruler of Syria and he invited Russian forces into his country. Period. End of story. There are no alternative definitions.
There's a term for people like Assad and it is "WAR CRIMINAL". There's nothing legal about that.
That may well be, but I have noticed that 100% of wars we have fought on the claim that the ruler of the other country is a monster have not turned out well. In any case, being a nasty person seems not be be a disqualifying factor in most countries
tjohn said:
Klinker said:That may well be
tjohn said:Just out of curiosity, what would be the law that makes Assad the ruler of Syria? The law of the AK-47? The law of the poison gas canister? The law of the barrel bomb?
Assad is the legal ruler of Syria and he invited Russian forces into his country. Period. End of story. There are no alternative definitions.
There's a term for people like Assad and it is "WAR CRIMINAL". There's nothing legal about that.
Indeed it actually is so we can dispense with this nonsense about "legal rulers".
Klinker said:
tjohn said:Just out of curiosity, what would be the law that makes Assad the ruler of Syria? The law of the AK-47? The law of the poison gas canister? The law of the barrel bomb?
Assad is the legal ruler of Syria and he invited Russian forces into his country. Period. End of story. There are no alternative definitions.
There's a term for people like Assad and it is "WAR CRIMINAL". There's nothing legal about that.
Is it possible for a war criminal to be the legal ruler of a country?
Since World War II, every US President, except perhaps Gerald Ford, has committed war crimes:
Eisenhower in Iran and Guatemala, Kennedy in Vietnam, Johnson in Vietnam; Nixon in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Chile; Carter in Afghanistan; Reagan in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Grenada; Bush-1 in Iraq, Panama; Clinton in Serbia, Iraq, Sudan; Bush-2 in Iraq, Afghanistan; Obama in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen; and Trump in Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria
However, during all of these years, despite their war crimes, the US President has been the legal ruler of the US (obviously subject to checks and balances).
As easy example to understand is that King Salman is the legal ruler of Saudi Arabia, despite his war crimes in Yemen.
And yes, Assad has committed war crimes in Syria*, but as President of the Syrian Arab Republic, which is a member state of the United Nations, he is the legal ruler there. Which is why the Kurds are now negotiating with him.
https://twitter.com/joshua_landis/status/1076543377104142338
https://twitter.com/joshua_landis/status/1075545895175942145
_______________________________
*Some allegations of war crimes against Assad, like the use of poison gas, are disputed by journalists and experts such as Scott Ritter, Theodore Postol, Seymour Hersh, Hans Blix and Robert Fisk. These matters have been discussed on the thread https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/tulsi-on-9-11-trump-is-protecting-al-qaeda?page=next&limit=30#discussion-replies-3421562
In particular, I recommend the discussion of opposition group Syrian Observatory for Human Rights data on Syrian fatalities in the civil war which break down to approximately 1/3 rebels, 1/3 Syrian Army and 1/3 civilians, numbers that corporate media won't report.
South_Mountaineer said:
terp said:
The best laid plans...
That's your response? That's some conspiracy-nutter YouTube that describes itself like this: "This recording dispels the myth of a so-called Syrian revolution and equally the myth that the West is fighting Daesh." Right, Assad's a great guy, there couldn't possibly be an actual civil war against him. Those Kurdish fighters weren't actually fighting ISIS, they're just "takers" or whatever the word is that you'd pick.
Whatever anybody told you, son, just because it's on the internet and confirms your prejudices doesn't make it true.
My comment was about being responsible with the lives of American troops and of people that our country persuaded to be allies. For some reason, that's not important to some people.
I'm not sure what you are talking about. That is a recording of our former secretary of state speaking with members of the Syrian opposition. In this video you can hear John Kerry talk about weapons being dumped into Syria by the US and its allies, about how Daesh was marching towards Demascus and how the US thought we could manage the situation, but Assad asked Russia for help.
Regarding, the lives of American Troops...I always though the bar should be that we put our troops in harm's way only when absolutely necessary. It seems as though Syria is the latest war that falls far short of this bar.
Regarding lives in general: America is simply the largest perpetrator of violence in the world. We overthrew the Baathist regime in Iraq and Shiites took power. Iran gained influence in the region. Then Bush/Cheney came up with the policy of Redirection as reported by Seymour Hersh. As part of this policy Assad was to be undermined. The Bush and Obama administrations then spent billions funding Jihadists in Syria and Libya. When we pulled out of Iraq these Jihadist took over a big chunk of western Iraq and were running around imposing Sharia law armed with American weapons.
To give you an idea of how much chaos the US has caused in the region, we had the CIA backed Al Nusra front fighting with the DoD backed YPG(the group we're so concerned about at the moment)
But, yeah the problem is that Trump pulled 2000 troops from Syria.
paulsurovell said:
Klinker said:Is it possible for a war criminal to be the legal ruler of a country?
tjohn said:Just out of curiosity, what would be the law that makes Assad the ruler of Syria? The law of the AK-47? The law of the poison gas canister? The law of the barrel bomb?
Assad is the legal ruler of Syria and he invited Russian forces into his country. Period. End of story. There are no alternative definitions.
There's a term for people like Assad and it is "WAR CRIMINAL". There's nothing legal about that.
Since World War II, every US President, except perhaps Gerald Ford, has committed war crimes:
Eisenhower in Iran and Guatemala, Kennedy in Vietnam, Johnson in Vietnam; Nixon in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Chile; Carter in Afghanistan; Reagan in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Grenada; Bush-1 in Iraq, Panama; Clinton in Serbia, Iraq, Sudan; Bush-2 in Iraq, Afghanistan; Obama in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen; and Trump in Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria
However, during all of these years, despite their war crimes, the US President has been the legal ruler of the US (obviously subject to checks and balances).
As easy example to understand is that King Salman is the legal ruler of Saudi Arabia, despite his war crimes in Yemen.
And yes, Assad has committed war crimes in Syria*, but as President of the Syrian Arab Republic, which is a member state of the United Nations, he is the legal ruler there. Which is why the Kurds are now negotiating with him.
https://twitter.com/joshua_landis/status/1076543377104142338
https://twitter.com/joshua_landis/status/1075545895175942145
_______________________________
*Some allegations of war crimes against Assad, like the use of poison gas, are disputed by journalists and experts such as Scott Ritter, Theodore Postol, Seymour Hersh, Hans Blix and Robert Fisk. These matters have been discussed on the thread https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/tulsi-on-9-11-trump-is-protecting-al-qaeda?page=next&limit=30#discussion-replies-3421562
In particular, I recommend the discussion of opposition group Syrian Observatory for Human Rights data on Syrian fatalities in the civil war which break down to approximately 1/3 rebels, 1/3 Syrian Army and 1/3 civilians, numbers that corporate media won't report.
I believe Noam Chomsky has said that every US President since WWII has committed crimes against humanity according to the Nuremberg standard.
Klinker,
Can you stop already. You've driven me into complete agreement with Terp and others on this subject and that may through the universe out of kilter. Or perhaps in your mind, we're a better country because we mostly kill people in other countries as opposed to our own where as Assad keeps is killing at home.
end all the wars! People who want to keep our military service members (an all volunteer force as opposed to having a draft) are encouraged to send their own children to serve in Syria or Afghanistan before opining! Hard to believe so many people who consider themselves progressive want to continue wars because they intensely dislike the president. Sad!
Lovesagoodsale said:
end all the wars! People who want to keep our military service members (an all volunteer force as opposed to having a draft) are encouraged to send their own children to serve in Syria or Afghanistan before opining! Hard to believe so many people who consider themselves progressive want to continue wars because they intensely dislike the president. Sad!
The war will continue whether we are part of it or not. The only question is whether our allies, people who we have made commitments to, will be slaughtered along with their families.
Of course, those people are far away and you don't know them so their deaths are no skin off of your back. Merry Christmas!
tjohn said:
Assad is the legal ruler of Syria and he invited Russian forces into his country. Period. End of story. There are no alternative definitions.
I just want to point out that under your definition of legal rulers and who is allowed in certain countries:
- Viktor Yanukovych, when he was President of Ukraine, asked Putin to come over and help with his struggles, which makes Putin the legal ruler of Crimea and probably of all of Ukraine
- Hitler was the legal ruler of Germany during WW2, and therefore the allied forces had no right to go into Germany
- Native Americans were legal rulers (may not be the right term) of North America, so colonists and settlers had no right going there and taking land, so our current Government structure is not legal
The U.S., by virtue of its outsized power, is "stuck" with a conscience about what goes on in the world. Yup, we've overstepped quite a few times; perhaps too many. But I don't think that justifies isolationism and America First. We're all humans stuck on one planet.
basil said:
tjohn said:I just want to point out that under your definition of legal rulers and who is allowed in certain countries:
Assad is the legal ruler of Syria and he invited Russian forces into his country. Period. End of story. There are no alternative definitions.
- Viktor Yanukovych, when he was President of Ukraine, asked Putin to come over and help with his struggles, which makes Putin the legal ruler of Crimea and probably of all of Ukraine
- Hitler was the legal ruler of Germany during WW2, and therefore the allied forces had no right to go into Germany
- Native Americans were legal rulers (may not be the right term) of North America, so colonists and settlers had no right going there and taking land, so our current Government structure is not legal
I don't think @tjohn defined legal rulers, he merely stated the fact that Assad is the legal ruler of Syria. The best evidence of that is that Assad's government is a member state of the United Nations.
Russia is a member state of the United Nations, but the annexation of Crimea is not recognized by the UN. But Putin is still the legal ruler of Russia.
With regard to Hitler, the concept of wars of self-defense against legal rulers existed before it was enshrined by the United Nations Charter, after the defeat of Nazi Germany.
The US Government, like all governments, was created and exists by the use of force or threatened use of force. It's an unfortunate reality of human relations.
GL2 said:
The U.S., by virtue of its outsized power, is "stuck" with a conscience about what goes on in the world. Yup, we've overstepped quite a few times; perhaps too many. But I don't think that justifies isolationism and America First. We're all humans stuck on one planet.
I don't believe our government has entered into any of its current military engagements as a result of conscience. I do believe however that the propaganda employed to drum up support is based on convincing a mostly credulous public that these wars are fought for humanitarian reasons.
GL2 said:
The U.S., by virtue of its outsized power, is "stuck" with a conscience about what goes on in the world. Yup, we've overstepped quite a few times; perhaps too many. But I don't think that justifies isolationism and America First. We're all humans stuck on one planet.
It's possible to have a conscience and be involved in the world without engaging in illegal military action. That's illegal from both the standpoint of the US Constitution as well as international law under the UN Charter, which as a ratified treaty, is also a Supreme Law of the Land.
"Entered," no. I agree. But now we're in.
"possible to have a conscience and be involved in the world without engaging in illegal military action." Not sure how, except diplomacy while kids' flesh burns off.
But, given that we can't go back, how do we view wholesale slaughter (soon, by Turkey, of Kurds) and atrocities like gassing civilians?
Serious questions; not rebuttal.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
I'd kill for a president that was correct twice a day. Haven't had one in my lifetime
Vote for Broken Clock in 2020!