Trump ignores advise of allies & Pentagon - Stabbing the Kurds in the back
paulsurovell said:
Is it possible for a war criminal to be the legal ruler of a country?
It's a prerequisite. It seems to me that in order to be guilty of War Crimes one must be the leader of a country or a high official. Can an ordinary citizen actually be a War Criminal.
And on what basis do we decide that a ruler of another country is not the "legal" ruler? Putin is the heir of those who overthrew the "lawful" government by violence. As is Trump.
In fact twice for Trump. The Country was created by the Kings and Parliaments of great Britain. Were they not the lawful government?
The Articles of Confederation required unanimous consent for Amendment. So G. Washington. "Father of the Country" led a violent revolution and then presided over a rump meeting .
"All political power comes from the barrel of a gun"
Mao Zedong, leading 20th Century illegal ruler.
GL2 said:
How do we engage in dire situations? UN is basically impotent. Diplomacy (if possible) takes time.
Would love to have left it to Sunnis, Shia/Allowites, and Kurds to hash things out. But those days are gone.
Why?
I think we might agree that we made quite a mess there. Destabilized brutal regimes. Just pull out? Or is there another option?
Leave the Kurds to Erdogan and the Syrians to the Iranians/Russians?
Syria?
I guess Trump could have told Erdogan "we'll pull out if you promise hands off the Kurds".
But Trump doesn't give a **** about Kurds or anyone else.
But, back to the question of intervention, where does that leave us vis à vis the current situation(s)?
Yes, we fcuked up royally in the whole area, and yes, Trump doesn't really care about anyone. But hindsight doesn't fix anything. Nor does regret.
And if Israel feels too threatened and jumps in even more forcefully than at present?
ml1 said:
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.
I'm not dismissing your assertion off hand but I do wonder what Kosovo was about, in your view.
GL2 said:
"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.
As I've occasionally noted, I find the question of when it is appropriate to use military force to be a difficult one. The invasion of Iraq was an easy call -- that was clearly a stupid idea from the beginning, with little chance of working under the best of circumstances, and almost no chance given the actual circumstances. But even here, notice, I dodge, sidestepping the moral question and focusing on the competency one....
Syria, otoh, I find to be a much harder question, in large part because it's never been entirely clear precisely what the question is.
- Overthrow Assad? Seems like a bad idea given the dearth of serious discussion of who, exactly, would be succeeding him, and what the road to establishing a post-Assad regime would look like. And while I take it Paul and other critics of Syria take it as a matter of fact that this was the goal, the actual investment of money, troops, and other resources by the US suggest that overthrowing Assad was a tangential goal, at best.
- Militarily defeat ISIS? This seems like the more central goal, though given not the only goal, and the lack of focus here seems like it undermines its effectiveness
- Prevent the slaughter of civilians? While I get the easy appeal of cynicism, I find I can't entirely dismiss this as being at least somewhat of a motivation at least some of the time. As with the "overthrow Assad" goal, though, actual commitment of focus and resources seems far less than you'd expect if this were a central goal.
Counter Iran? Maintain a strategic presence in the region? Etc... The list is long, and easy to make longer. Which in the end comes to the fact that I'm unconvinced we had a clearly defined goal, or even set of goals, going in, and things just became less defined and more muddled as time went on.
One thing that I think is very clear, on the other hand, is regardless of whatever is happening on the ground in Syria, one unequivocally positive step we could be taking is accepting more refugees from the region. Whether the US presence in Syria is making things better or worse, the one thing we certainly can do is provide a refuge for those making the difficult, gut wrenching decision to leave their homes in search of safety for themselves and their families.
Klinker said:
ml1 said:I'm not dismissing your assertion off hand but I do wonder what Kosovo was about, in your view.
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.
Kosovo was not a US intervention. It was a UN led effort
ml1 said:
Klinker said:Kosovo was not a US intervention. It was a UN led effort
ml1 said:I'm not dismissing your assertion off hand but I do wonder what Kosovo was about, in your view.
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.
Oh. You said "military engagement" and "wars" you didn't specify "intervention".
I guess it is the label that makes the difference?
Klinker said:
ml1 said:Oh. You said "military engagement" and "wars" you didn't specify "intervention".
Klinker said:Kosovo was not a US intervention. It was a UN led effort
ml1 said:I'm not dismissing your assertion off hand but I do wonder what Kosovo was about, in your view.
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.
I guess it is the label that makes the difference?
No. The fact that it was a UN effort and not a unilateral US action. I was referring to our country’s wars in my previous post.
I think the difference is not the semantics. The difference is between unilateral US action and UN action, which is international and seen as legal and therefore legitimate.
ml1 said:No. The fact that it was a UN effort and not a unilateral US action. I was referring to our country’s wars in my previous post.
That's what I thought.
terp said:
Matt Taibbi nails this in Rolling Stone
He also nailed it when last month he said Trump was fully on-board with the Pentagon/Military Industrial complex, and even increasing their budgets big time, at the expense of entitlement money. Which is more or less the opposite of what he is writing this month.
And yet the President and First Lady suddenly turn up in Iraq, with no notice, and confirm that nothing's being wound down there...Great predictability upon which to work with, in terms of your national security and for your allies.
There are so many subtexts to this visit, I can't even begin to write them. I just don't know why people aren't angrier about such an erratic leader.
Meanwhile, Israel is in the game also in Syria. What could possibly go wrong?
Russia has branded as "provocative" an alleged Israeli air strike on Syria late on Tuesday.
Reports from Syria said an arms depot in Qatifah, about 40km (25 miles) north-east of Damascus, was hit, injuring three soldiers.
Israel has not commented, but after the reported strikes it said it had fired at a Syrian anti-aircraft missile. It did not report any damage or injuries.
Israel has carried out dozens of strikes on Syria in recent years.
It says it is acting to thwart advanced weapons transfers from Iran to the Lebanese pro-Iranian Hezbollah movement and the strengthening of Iran's military presence in Syria.
Israel considers Iran and Hezbollah to pose a particularly dangerous threat.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-46682666
For Israel, outcomes in Syria rise to the level of existential. For all other foreign powers, it's just a game.
Trump's story today, ISIS may not be gone after all.
Trump described how he gave “the generals” multiple six month “extensions” got get out of Syria. Trump said: “They said again, recently, can we have more time? I said, ‘Nope.’ You can’t have any more time. You’ve had enough time. We’ve knocked them out. We’ve knocked them silly. I will tell you that I’ve had some very good talks with President Erdogan who wants to knock them out also and he’ll do it. And others will do it to. Because we are in their region. They should be sharing the burden of costs and they’re not.
...
“In Syria, Erdogan said he wants to knock out ISIS, whatever’s left, the remnants of ISIS. And Saudi Arabia just came out and said they are going to pay for some economic development. Which is great, that means we don’t have to pay.”
https://publicpool.kinja.com/subject-pool-report-1-trump-in-iraq-1831325199
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-kurds-idUSKCN1OQ18E
Officials from northern Syria, who went to Moscow last week, will soon make another trip, hoping Russia will push Damascus to “fulfill its sovereign duty”, top Kurdish politician Aldar Xelil told Reuters.
“Our contacts with Russia, and the regime, are to look for clear mechanisms to protect the northern border,” said Xelil, an architect of autonomy plans in northern Syria. “We want Russia to play an important role to achieve stability.”
Former US ambassador to Syria Robert Ford: Trump's decision to withdraw was the right thing to do. Assad and Russia are the answer to protecting the Kurds and reaching agreement with Turkey.
@paulsurovell's solution is for "Assad govt to assert its sovereignty over northern Syria. The best outcome for the Kurds and all Syrians."
https://twitter.com/paulsurovell/status/1079079128400388096?s=21
So that's one vote for Assad.
South_Mountaineer said:
@paulsurovell's solution is for "Assad govt to assert its sovereignty over northern Syria. The best outcome for the Kurds and all Syrians."
https://twitter.com/paulsurovell/status/1079079128400388096?s=21
So that's one vote for Assad.
Lotta votes coming in from the Kurds who apparently they don't matter in @South_Mountaineer's world.
Here's my full Tweet and the context:
But you're happy about it, while they're desperate because of Trump.
The civil war was decided when Russian forces were invited into Syria by Assad. As with so many wars, however, the killing continued long after the winner was decided. The sooner all of Syria is again under Assad's control, the better for all the civilians in Syria.
South_Mountaineer said:
But you're happy about it, while they're desperate because of Trump.
What solution do you support?
paulsurovell said:
South_Mountaineer said:What solution do you support?
But you're happy about it, while they're desperate because of Trump.
Not one in which people who were protecting themselves from a murderous dictator are forced to invite him in and pray for kind treatment from him.
In other words, the opposite of what you support.
South_Mountaineer said:
paulsurovell said:Not one in which people who were protecting themselves from a murderous dictator are forced to invite him in and pray for kind treatment from him.
South_Mountaineer said:What solution do you support?
But you're happy about it, while they're desperate because of Trump.
In other words, the opposite of what you support.
Does that mean you are opposed to what the Kurds are doing?
All I have to say that it's probably come as a stupendous surprise to 99.999999999% of the American population that our involvement in Syria has anything to do with the Kurds.
Seems like a pretty convenient excuse for the military complex to justify our presence.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
How do we engage in dire situations? UN is basically impotent. Diplomacy (if possible) takes time.
Would love to have left it to Sunnis, Shia/Allowites, and Kurds to hash things out. But those days are gone.