View Full Version : US to withdraw from Syria
I didn't see a thread on it. I doubt Trump woke one day and decided it's time to leave Syria. I suspect he had discussions with SECDEF et al as to the viability of that move, and decided to make that move. I was never convinced we should have been in that mess - thanx in large part to HC and Obama* - in the first place, but it is what it is. As expected, media outlets making it sound like he conferred with no one, yada yada. Obviously, stay or go, his admin would be criticized.
* = Sure, let's arm the "moderate" rebels, what could possibly go wrong? But I digress:
Trump’s decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria startles aides and allies
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trumps-decision-to-withdraw-us-troops-from-syria-startles-aides-and-allies/2018/12/19/80dd8ab2-03b2-11e9-b5df-5d3874f1ac36_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.5f05cb62c191
Coal Dragger
12-20-18, 13:22
We are the worlds largest oil producer. Let that sink in.
Our interests in playing policeman in the Middle East should be over. Our national interest in Middle Eastern stability, peace, or prosperity are at this point limited to non existent now. Why waste resources on such foolishness if we don’t have to? Ten years ago we needed to, now thanks to our ingenuity in the petroleum industry we don’t. Situations change, sorry Arab states we don’t care anymore.
Just continue giving Israel military aid so they can defend themselves and leave the Arabs to their own devices. Iran is going to dominate the region, just as they did historically, either them or the Turks.
Dr. Bullseye
12-20-18, 13:37
Great news!
1. Let them all stew in their own juices. If ISIS returns, a nuke on a cruise missile will work.
2. Put those troops on the border with Mexico.
Doc Safari
12-20-18, 13:44
2. Put those troops on the border with Mexico.
First thing I thought of. That would be a rainbow-farting unicorn's wet dream.
He needs to happily state that he is withdrawing us from Obamas messes.
Averageman
12-20-18, 14:50
Great news!
1. Let them all stew in their own juices. If ISIS returns, a nuke on a cruise missile will work.
2. Put those troops on the border with Mexico.
We seem to be willing to protect the sovereignty and Borders of other Nations all over the world, why not our own?
And
He needs to happily state that he is withdrawing us from Obamas messes.
A whole lot of the above.
We are the worlds largest oil producer. Let that sink in.
Our interests in playing policeman in the Middle East should be over. Our national interest in Middle Eastern stability, peace, or prosperity are at this point limited to non existent now. Why waste resources on such foolishness if we don’t have to? Ten years ago we needed to, now thanks to our ingenuity in the petroleum industry we don’t. Situations change, sorry Arab states we don’t care anymore.
Just continue giving Israel military aid so they can defend themselves and leave the Arabs to their own devices. Iran is going to dominate the region, just as they did historically, either them or the Turks.
And we're still finding untapped reserves. Alaska is full of untapped oil and now they've found a huge deposit in New Mexico/Texas. We are now a net exporter of oil. There are days that I'd love to endorse some sort of isolationist stance, but I know it really wouldn't work.
Bring our men and women home, let the whole region burn. Support Israel militarily and give them free reign in the region. Let them control the Arabs.
If we aren't going to win, might as well bring everyone home.
Kind of a shame, how many times did we lose people fighting in places like Mosul? And of course our enemies will declare a win, which will embolden them and their followers and that will have consequences.
But lack of resolve and willingness to do what is necessary to make your enemies understand they have been defeated always will have consequences.
Bring our men and women home, let the whole region burn. Support Israel militarily and give them free reign in the region. Let them control the Arabs.
That would be winning. Bigly....
We never should've been there in the first place.
Now it looks like Mattie is retiring in February. Wonder if the two are related?
Coal Dragger
12-20-18, 16:36
If we aren't going to win, might as well bring everyone home.
Kind of a shame, how many times did we lose people fighting in places like Mosul? And of course our enemies will declare a win, which will embolden them and their followers and that will have consequences.
But lack of resolve and willingness to do what is necessary to make your enemies understand they have been defeated always will have consequences.
We don’t have the will to do what it takes to “win” in the Middle East. That’s not necessarily a bad thing either, when one considers what it would take to “win”.
In order to win the enemy has to surrender, for that to happen they have to understand that they are beaten and to not surrender will mean certain doom. In order to put our opponents in that position we have to be able and willing to utterly destroy them, and exterminate large swaths of their population in addition to taking a holding territory.
There is no nation in the Middle East that I would consider constitutes a clear and present danger or mortal threat to the United States. With that in mind I could not in good conscience advocate doing what is needed to win a conflict in the Middle East; I say that as a person who genuinely despises their culture, their leaders, and most of their people. So if we’re not in it to win it, and have no need to be in it to win it, then we’re just wasting lives and resources.
We have a military that needs to be rebuilt, soldiers, and Marines (mostly those two groups) who need to have their operations tempo given a break so they can rebuild their capabilities for more pressing threats. Overall I think we need to get back to focusing on real adversaries that represent a near peer, or peer level threat.
Playing policeman in shit hole 3rd world countries doesn’t accomplish that goal. We’d be better off making sure the shit heel “leaders” of those places are our bought and paid for shit heels. It works for China and Russia, it would work for us too I think.
We don’t have the will to do what it takes to “win” in the Middle East. That’s not necessarily a bad thing either, when one considers what it would take to “win”.
In order to win the enemy has to surrender, for that to happen they have to understand that they are beaten and to not surrender will mean certain doom. In order to put our opponents in that position we have to be able and willing to utterly destroy them, and exterminate large swaths of their population in addition to taking a holding territory.
There is no nation in the Middle East that I would consider constitutes a clear and present danger or mortal threat to the United States. With that in mind I could not in good conscience advocate doing what is needed to win a conflict in the Middle East; I say that as a person who genuinely despises their culture, their leaders, and most of their people. So if we’re not in it to win it, and have no need to be in it to win it, then we’re just wasting lives and resources.
We have a military that needs to be rebuilt, soldiers, and Marines (mostly those two groups) who need to have their operations tempo given a break so they can rebuild their capabilities for more pressing threats. Overall I think we need to get back to focusing on real adversaries that represent a near peer, or peer level threat.
Playing policeman in shit hole 3rd world countries doesn’t accomplish that goal. We’d be better off making sure the shit heel “leaders” of those places are our bought and paid for shit heels. It works for China and Russia, it would work for us too I think.
Both China and Russia have problems with Islamic terrorism, though not as much as us.
I just wish it would have been done right in the first place or not at all. It could have been a team building exercise where we invited the Russians to participate in Afghanistan rather than resuming a cold war posture with them in Syria.
We should have gotten together with Putin on September 12, negotiated "spheres of influence" and simply gotten it done. We would have probably killed fewer people and we'd have fewer casualties. We really can't win hearts and minds while destroying the leadership of our enemies as most of the population supports those leaders unless their is a Sunni / Shia conflict at work. Otherwise most agree we are the "great satan" no matter what we do and our alliance with Israel will forever mark us as the enemy.
So unless we decide to completely abandon Israel, we will never have a true alliance with any Islamic state. The closest we ever came was Iraq under Saddam and Bush (41) screwed that pooch by looking the other way when Kuwait tapped Iraqi oil reserves.
Averageman
12-20-18, 17:10
And General Mattis submits his resignation effective Feb 2019.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-announces-mattis-will-leave-as-defense-secretary-at-the-end-of-february/2018/12/20/e1a846ee-e147-11e8-ab2c-b31dcd53ca6b_story.html
President Trump announced Thursday that Defense Secretary Jim Mattis would leave his position in February, marking the departure of an influential figure who has steered the Trump administration toward foreign policy continuity and restraint.
Mattis’s departure could add new uncertainty to which course the administration takes on its global challenges, including Iran and North Korea, amid questions about the pending withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria and a possible drawdown in Afghanistan.
“General Jim Mattis will be retiring, with distinction, at the end of February, after having served my Administration as Secretary of Defense for the past two years,” Trump said in a tweet.
Resignation Letter;
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/politics/jim-mattis-resignation-letter/3366/
It's obvious Mattis and Trump were not of the same page. The question is, which is the right page?
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-20-18, 17:42
We'll be back.
It's obvious Mattis and Trump were not of the same page. The question is, which is the right page?
I'm sure many folks well think 'well sure Mattis wanted to stay, he is a former General, after all.'
In this case based on Mattis's reputation and performance as SECDEF, I'd side with Mattis.
I believe his counsel would be on what is in the best interest of the United States, both near and long term, versus making a move for some other reason.
HardToHandle
12-21-18, 22:18
I'm sure many folks well think 'well sure Mattis wanted to stay, he is a former General, after all.'
In this case based on Mattis's reputation and performance as SECDEF, I'd side with Mattis.
I believe his counsel would be on what is in the best interest of the United States, both near and long term, versus making a move for some other reason.
Preach on. Mattis gave his entire life to this country. He exemplified Duty, Honor, Country.
When he chooses to punch out, that is the strongest indictment of the policy course.
This thread is going to be short on facts, but remember where the U.S. has been camping in Syria is also where the North Koreans built an enrichment facility to develop a nuclear weapon. It also has been a tremendously effective way to manage Sunni extremism globally, by digging out the main pit of vipers. No good will come of this, except allowing Putin to claim victory.
It's obvious Mattis and Trump were not of the same page. The question is, which is the right page?
Considering your background and experience, I'm surprised by that Q. Who do you think is on the right page?
We'll be back.
Yeah we will!
I have mixed feeling about Syria. First of all, the US has and continues to buy loyalty from our allies. The US pays more into NATO than any other nation, which could be a good thing if it buys us influence and authority but is a bad thing because we only get help from those we assist financially. Im not talking about every NATO country but quite a few only get involved in the US is backing it.
The conflict in Syria is a highly complex proxy war. There are too many people involved and none have the same goal. I believe Obama dropped the ball big time on Syria. I think he believed it would be like Egypt during the Arab Spring and last a few weeks and it would be over. The problem is now ISIS, Hamas, Iran, Turkey, Syria, Russia, Al Qaeda, Kurds and local rebels are now waging a war against each other and the US supports one group, Russia/Iran support another, Turkey supports the people we support but hate the Kurds, Saudi Arabia supports the people we support but hates Israel and a lot of people keep switching sides.
Russia says they are fighting ISIS but backs Assad, yet the US launched a cruise missile attack against a shared Russia/Syria airbase. We don't like Assad but he also doesn't like ISIS, Iran doesn't support Assad but supports Russia? Its to complex.
Trump is withdrawing our troops from Syria but I doubt he will totally withdraw from the region. I would bet money that we will still have a carrier strike group and a TF in the area as well as Predators and Global Hawks and SF on stand by. I have a theory that Trump demanding that the US "withdraw troops" is some kind of counter intelligence or some type of trick to identify whos on whos side. Or just a chance to observe Russia military capabilities . I don't know- its just a theory. But to say ISIS has been defeated is a little pre mature. I don't see them cutting of heads of people wearing orange jump suits anymore but that doesn't mean they are defeated. And even if ISIS really is defeated, who used the chemical weapons? Russia? Iran? Assad? Rebels? Hamas? I know everyone blames Assad but all the people involved buy there military hardware from Russia.
Im following this closely to see what happens if anything. Im wanting to hear remarks from congress, especially the liberals to hear what they have to say. But I haven't heard any high ranking military commanders say much. So this could all just me nothing more than smoke and mirrors.
In this case based on Mattis's reputation and performance as SECDEF, I'd side with Mattis.
What is the end game?
How can we keep a lasting alliance with a group that has no country, and no real path to their own country?
How many Generals were in favor of invading Iraq, and how many had a plan of what to do after we invaded?
Why doesn't Congress declare war if there is such a clear national interest there?
Considering your background and experience, I'm surprised by that Q. Who do you think is on the right page?
I attend the annual meeting of the Night Stalker Association, as well as my latter CAV unit. Every time Operation Gothic Serpent comes up and we discuss what went wrong, and our feelings now. The images of how the Skinnies were armed I still visualize, but in that group were many armed women and children, wielding their weapon as good as the men. I saw no good in that population. Many of us think we should have just carpet bombed the place with B-52's and left it a flattened rubble. Unrealistic in modern geopolitical terms, but practical from a soldier's point of view. Every time I look at "the big picture" in current geopolitical activities, I still look at it from the view of a senior Captain or Major.
Consider my involvement nearly a decade earlier in Central America. That ended up being a waste of time, money and manpower. What seemed a good cause at the time turned out to have no lasting benefit. Who do I think is on the right page between Trump and Mattis? There's elements of value in both. Trump seems to be less of a Globalist than many anticipated. He seems to be more of an old style Democrat, but with Nationalistic tendencies, but has some weird ideas as to whom we can trust.
Mattis is a guy who understands power projection, global alliances and big picture military operations world wide. He's not a cannon fodder type of leader and doesn't want his troops to be wasted, but understands that US Forces in strategic areas maintains a balance in the world. He certainly understands that the Russian-Iranian-Syrian alliance is bad for the area, plus the wildcard of Turkey and their aggression. Mattis knows the Kurds and Yazidis will be exterminated once we leave.
My opinion is that Trump has made a mistake by not listening to Mattis more. I don't know who is whispering in Trump's ear as to the decisions he is making? Certainly Trump isn't coming up with his foreign policy on his own. On domestic issues, Trump hasn't done too bad. His foreign policy has me confused.
I attend the annual meeting of the Night Stalker Association, as well as my latter CAV unit. Every time Operation Gothic Serpent comes up and we discuss what went wrong, and our feelings now. The images of how the Skinnies were armed I still visualize, but in that group were many armed women and children, wielding their weapon as good as the men. I saw no good in that population. Many of us think we should have just carpet bombed the place with B-52's and left it a flattened rubble. Unrealistic in modern geopolitical terms, but practical from a soldier's point of view. Every time I look at "the big picture" in current geopolitical activities, I still look at it from the view of a senior Captain or Major.
Consider my involvement nearly a decade earlier in Central America. That ended up being a waste of time, money and manpower. What seemed a good cause at the time turned out to have no lasting benefit. Who do I think is on the right page between Trump and Mattis? There's elements of value in both. Trump seems to be less of a Globalist than many anticipated. He seems to be more of an old style Democrat, but with Nationalistic tendencies, but has some weird ideas as to whom we can trust.
Mattis is a guy who understands power projection, global alliances and big picture military operations world wide. He's not a cannon fodder type of leader and doesn't want his troops to be wasted, but understands that US Forces in strategic areas maintains a balance in the world. He certainly understands that the Russian-Iranian-Syrian alliance is bad for the area, plus the wildcard of Turkey and their aggression. Mattis knows the Kurds and Yazidis will be exterminated once we leave.
My opinion is that Trump has made a mistake by not listening to Mattis more. I don't know who is whispering in Trump's ear as to the decisions he is making? Certainly Trump isn't coming up with his foreign policy on his own. On domestic issues, Trump hasn't done too bad. His foreign policy has me confused.
Do you think the geopolitical policy advice Trump is getting right now, is as bad as when Cheney and Rumsfeld held sway over GWB? There’s plenty of fodder to wonder if all the Fertile Crescent terrorist groups in play today, would even be in existence if we hadn’t invaded Iraq. :(
Do you think the geopolitical policy advice Trump is getting right now, is as bad as when Cheney and Rumsfeld controlled GWB like he had a remote control up his arse? There’s plenty of fodder to wonder if all the Fertile Crescent terrorist groups in play today, would even be in existence if we hadn’t invaded Iraq. :(
Fixed it for ya :cool:
Do you think the geopolitical policy advice Trump is getting right now, is as bad as when Cheney and Rumsfeld held sway over GWB? There’s plenty of fodder to wonder if all the Fertile Crescent terrorist groups in play today, would even be in existence if we hadn’t invaded Iraq. :(
I have never been a nation building believer. You can't instill Jeffersonian Democracy in these 3rd World shit holes - suddenly taking an 8th century mentality into the 21st century. It doesn't work. Rumsfeld and Cheney were Nation Builders. I participated in Desert Storm but was retired when Iraqi Freedom came along. I was a believer in Desert Storm, but that was also a breakdown in our handling initially of Saddam Hussein. I have always felt we could buy-off a lot of these dictators and keep them in-line with money. Arm them up, pay them off and keep them in money, with the threat we'd kill him if he got out of line. It's a brutal way to operate, but works in the 3rd World. The Russians know how to do it, and they do it well. The People's Republic of China is also showing growing pains and wants to expand into other areas, and they've looked at the Russian model. We will see Chinese client States in places around the world you'd never expect.
I think power projection has value, as long as we don't get involved in regional civil wars. If we are involved, don't put a lot of ground assets into the area. During Iran-Contra, I was a young 1LT operating out of Honduras. I was pilot and worked in the S-2 section, working the another 1LT Plans Officer in S-3. We all did double duty when we were operating clandestine jobs. At the time, I never had the big picture; I just knew were were arming tribal groups to fight against a Communist government. That's all I needed to know. As I said before, once all of it was over and I look back 33 years, it was a total waste of time.
Regarding modern terror groups, I really think the Arab Spring was an Obama inspired vacuum which allowed the existing players and open field of play. They knew the US was retracting as a player and this was their opportunity to make a move over a large area. Obama didn't create them; they were already waiting for that right moment.
I attend the annual meeting of the Night Stalker Association, as well as my latter CAV unit. Every time Operation Gothic Serpent comes up and we discuss what went wrong, and our feelings now. The images of how the Skinnies were armed I still visualize, but in that group were many armed women and children, wielding their weapon as good as the men. I saw no good in that population. Many of us think we should have just carpet bombed the place with B-52's and left it a flattened rubble. Unrealistic in modern geopolitical terms, but practical from a soldier's point of view. Every time I look at "the big picture" in current geopolitical activities, I still look at it from the view of a senior Captain or Major.
Consider my involvement nearly a decade earlier in Central America. That ended up being a waste of time, money and manpower. What seemed a good cause at the time turned out to have no lasting benefit. Who do I think is on the right page between Trump and Mattis? There's elements of value in both. Trump seems to be less of a Globalist than many anticipated. He seems to be more of an old style Democrat, but with Nationalistic tendencies, but has some weird ideas as to whom we can trust.
Mattis is a guy who understands power projection, global alliances and big picture military operations world wide. He's not a cannon fodder type of leader and doesn't want his troops to be wasted, but understands that US Forces in strategic areas maintains a balance in the world. He certainly understands that the Russian-Iranian-Syrian alliance is bad for the area, plus the wildcard of Turkey and their aggression. Mattis knows the Kurds and Yazidis will be exterminated once we leave.
My opinion is that Trump has made a mistake by not listening to Mattis more. I don't know who is whispering in Trump's ear as to the decisions he is making? Certainly Trump isn't coming up with his foreign policy on his own. On domestic issues, Trump hasn't done too bad. His foreign policy has me confused.
Thanx. A good manager surrounds themselves with people that are smarter and or more knowledgeable then they are, and listens. A poor manager is convinced they know more than everyone around them and sees others as impediments. Terrible managers intentionally ignore or fire those who who clearly know more as it challenges and threatens their ego. Unfortunately, Trump strikes me as the latter manager of people. Such people can accomplish amazing things to be sure, but at some point, usually end up their own worst enemy and can't get out of their own way. When it goes bad, it goes bad in an epic way.
I will add this concept by a former general I met on several occasions - Colin Powell. I am not a fan of his current politics, but he was brilliant when it came to getting involved in 3rd World countries: "If you break it - you own it".
These places are so fragile with their dictatorial governments that it's easy to destabilize the place. You get involved too deeply that it ends up creating a problem you never wanted, and that's humanitarian issues. The US as a Nation always takes that into consideration, whereas countries like Russia never let enter the equation. We play by a different set of rules than the other Super Powers, and morally that is good, but it places us at a disadvantage as well.
Here is one thing to consider. Why is Russia, Iran, North Korea and the Peoples Republic of China focused on little Syria? What's the attraction? They don't have enough oil to interest Russia, Iran or China. Could it be the location of Syria on the coast of the eastern Med is part of some plan for controlling access to that part of the world? In the absence of land in the China Sea, they are creating land. Is all of this part of global plans to control access to resources, markets and trade routes? Perhaps Mattis realized our geopolitical enemies are playing 4D Chess, and Trump wasn't improving his game?
The 2000 US Troops in Syria are half the size of an infantry brigade of the Vermont National Guard - Vermont is a tiny State. Maybe Mattis knew the Turkey's Erdogan has his own Islamist plans with the Kurds and Yazidis, and wanted our troops there to continue killing ISIS and provide a block to the Turks?
I see exactly zero chance of us "winning" Syria. There is just no way that at some point in the future Assad is out, Russia is out, Iran is out, and we installed a peaceful pro western democracy, and all because Trump didn't pull out troops in late 2018...
So somebody define what the win will look like. Because if we can't define what winning is how can we not loose?
I see exactly zero chance of us "winning" Syria. There is just no way that at some point in the future Assad is out, Russia is out, Iran is out, and we installed a peaceful pro western democracy, and all because Trump didn't pull out troops in late 2018...
So somebody define what the win will look like. Because if we can't define what winning is how can we not loose?
You forgot that North Korea is there, the Peoples Republic of China and Erdogan of Turkey, in addition to Russia and Iran. Everybody has some action going on in Syria, and we are getting out. I still think it's about geopolitical control of land for access to resources, markets and trade.
What is the end game?
Avoid genocide with the Kurds. They been screwed by all sides.
We fvcked over a lot of folks when we pulled out of VN.
Maybe I'm simple, but regardless of whether we were correct in being there, the fact is we were there. As Colin Powell was quoted by OH58D, you break it you own it.
No we don't own it, yet. Syria has been broken for a lot longer than we have been there, by your logic we own Somalia as well. Here is where I agree with Trump on this, Syria was already broken and we have little chance of fixing it. We go in, we kill ISIS, we get out before we own it. We did break Iraq and we do own much of ISIS.
Doc Safari
12-23-18, 10:17
Maybe Trump knows that the feces is about to hit the electric wind generator and he wants to keep us from getting sucked into world war 3.
No we don't own it, yet. Syria has been broken for a lot longer than we have been there, by your logic we own Somalia as well. Here is where I agree with Trump on this, Syria was already broken and we have little chance of fixing it. We go in, we kill ISIS, we get out before we own it. We did break Iraq and we do own much of ISIS.
Somalia was already broken when I arrived there in 1993. Places like Libya and Syria were pretty well intact until Obama's Arab Spring. The 2000 troops we've had in Syria doesn't represent enough of a force to make a difference there strategically, except for protecting the Kurds and Yazidis, killing remaining ISIS, and giving us some eyes and ears at our semi-secret operating bases for Special Operation just inside the southern Syrian border with Jordan.
You have to look at Syria from a geopolitical view like the Russians and Red Chinese, as well as North Korea and Iran. All of these players see value there for their own reasons. What doesn't Trump understand about this? If all of your geopolitical adversaries are focused on a place, why shouldn't we? Mattis seemed to understand this.
Just because there is value doesn't mean we have a goal that is realistically achievable. Russia needs the port. Iran needs a land bridge to Hezbollah. NK needs money. Turkey wants a stable border.
What is in it for us? An alliance with a people that have no country? The Kurds were helping themselves more than us, they would have fought without our help. And it's not like they are much better than anyone else in that region except for their apparent disinterest in world domination. The Kurds were involved in multiple genocides against the Armenian/Christian/Assyrian's going back to the late 1800's.
Just because there is value doesn't mean we have a goal that is realistically achievable. Russia needs the port. Iran needs a land bridge to Hezbollah. NK needs money. Turkey wants a stable border.
What is in it for us? An alliance with a people that have no country? The Kurds were helping themselves more than us, they would have fought without our help. And it's not like they are much better than anyone else in that region except for their apparent disinterest in world domination. The Kurds were involved in multiple genocides against the Armenian/Christian/Assyrian's going back to the late 1800's.
Our interest is to place a check against the Russians and Iranians, plus support our ally Israel. I understand the concern about being involved in places where our interests were questionable. I participated - I was one tiny part of the spear of power projection. It is clear we are and have been in a Cold War with Russia, and to an extent Red China, and I personally think the latter are a growing threat much worse than Russia. In order to counter their expansion, we have to be a player globally, and still project power. If we retract, someday our enemies will be at our borders and it will be game over.
I am still a Trump supporter, but I have doubts and questions about the direction of his foreign policy. It's like he's playing Chutes & Ladders - everyone else is playing Chess.
Coal Dragger
12-23-18, 15:12
Trump is becoming less and less competent every day it seems.
He served his purpose: he kept Hillary out. Now the sooner he moves on the better off we’ll be I think.
Maybe Trump knows that the feces is about to hit the electric wind generator and he wants to keep us from getting sucked into world war 3.
So in typical Donald Trump fashion, he declares bankruptcy (in this case substitute victory in place of bankruptcy) and leaves the folks who were helping him holding the bag-o-shit.
So in typical Donald Trump fashion, he declares bankruptcy (in this case substitute victory in place of bankruptcy) and leaves the folks who were helping him holding the bag-o-shit.
Reference Lindsey Graham on the issue.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181224/8865cefd9c613016b7b35775f155d33a.jpg
If nothing else the guy ran on pulling us out of never ending conflicts so there is that I suppose.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Just because there is value doesn't mean we have a goal that is realistically achievable. Russia needs the port. Iran needs a land bridge to Hezbollah. NK needs money. Turkey wants a stable border.
What is in it for us? An alliance with a people that have no country? The Kurds were helping themselves more than us, they would have fought without our help. And it's not like they are much better than anyone else in that region except for their apparent disinterest in world domination. The Kurds were involved in multiple genocides against the Armenian/Christian/Assyrian's going back to the late 1800's.
Agreed. I can't think of anything meaningful we can do for the Kurds but sticking around and helping them fight a war that won't end isn't going to do much for them either.
If I had to pick my team, it would obviously be the Kurds given all the other options. As far as geopolitical strategy, we could return at any time should it become necessary. Sadly Obama started this mess and we gain nothing by being in an adversarial posture with Russia. Soon as we leave Russians can start killing ISIS and that is what will happen.
Digital_Damage
12-24-18, 09:55
Agreed. I can't think of anything meaningful we can do for the Kurds but sticking around and helping them fight a war that won't end isn't going to do much for them either.
If I had to pick my team, it would obviously be the Kurds given all the other options. As far as geopolitical strategy, we could return at any time should it become necessary. Sadly Obama started this mess and we gain nothing by being in an adversarial posture with Russia. Soon as we leave Russians can start killing ISIS and that is what will happen.
That is not what they are doing there. They are stomping out anyone that threatens the status Que of their pipelines.
Russia supports Assad. Both ISIS and the various rebel groups threaten Assad. Thus Russia is against ISIS and the rebels.
Also don't forget ISIS is on the opposite side of Islam from Iran, so far they have tried to stay out of each others way, but there is no real alliance there.
I copied this post from a thread on another site - the guy making the post is a SME with current experience in the AO, obviously SF:
The purpose of the operation, as taken from the OIR mission statement is:
"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." http://www.inherentresolve.mil...017-07-17-093803-770
So first and foremost the minimum standard should be the defeat of the remainder of the physical caliphate, which has definitively NOT happened. That moment would be close, IF, we continued with offensive operations to destroy the enemy that remains in a conventional fight with the SDF.
Why does the remnant of the Caliphate matter? Foreign fighters among the fighting population, the ones who want to come home and kill us.
What is Syria worth? First and foremost it is important terrain because the caliphate was located there. You must destroy your enemy where you find them. Second, the eastern side of the country controls the oil resources and is therefore valuable to the regime and by extension, our partner force when they reach the negotiating table.
For the United States, the Syrian Kurds should be considered allies because of their ethnic identity that overrides their religious one as Sunnis, enabling them to aggressively counter takfiri ideology. They also hate Iran. Maintaining a relationship with the Syrian Kurds gives us leverage to negotiate conditions to the end of the civil war in Syria.
Controlling the tri-border area at the confluence of Iraq, Syria, and Jordan, along with the Euphrates at the Iraq-Syria border, is what prevents the Iranians from being able to drive from Iran to Damascus. You need to control both to prevent a land bridge.
Justify why the decision to withdraw now has value over waiting until we can defeat the physical caliphate? ****ing your partner force before you've cleared through the objective isn't something I learned in Robin Sage.
You wanted to see a public strategy document that gives guidance here, its the National Defense Strategy, published under the direction of Mattis and signed by Trump. http://nssarchive.us/wp-conten...Strategy-Summary.pdf
Some key excerpts....
"We will strengthen and evolve our alliances and partnerships into an extended network capable of focus on threedeterring or decisively acting to meet the shared challenges of our time. We will focus on three elements for achieving a capable alliance and partnership network:
Uphold a foundation of mutual respect, responsibility, priorities, and accountability. Our alliances and coalitions are built on free will and shared responsibilities. While we will unapologetically represent America’s values and belief in democracy, we will not seek to impose our way of life by force. We will uphold our commitments and we expect allies and partners to contribute an equitable share to our mutually beneficial collective security, including effective investment in modernizing their defense capabilities. We have shared responsibilities for resisting authoritarian trends, contesting radical ideologies, and serving as bulwarks against instability
• Form enduring coalitions in the Middle East.
We will foster a stable and secure Middle East that denies safe havens for terrorists, is not dominated by any power hostile to the United States, and that contributes to stable global energy markets and secure trade routes. We will develop enduring coalitions to consolidate gains we have made in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere, to support the lasting defeat of terrorists as we sever their sources of strength and counterbalance Iran.
As this gentleman posits, the job isn't done.
morbidbattlecry
12-24-18, 14:45
Russia supports Assad. Both ISIS and the various rebel groups threaten Assad. Thus Russia is against ISIS and the rebels.
Also don't forget ISIS is on the opposite side of Islam from Iran, so far they have tried to stay out of each others way, but there is no real alliance there.
Be that as it may, we are still expanding the influence of Russia while decreasing our own and making the next generation of terrorists in the Kurds. The US shouldn't be abandoning allies, and frankly we are.
In what reality do we have some long term alliance with people who have no country?
How does that work in the real world?
How close to shooting Russians have we gotten? How many times?
How much shooting ISIS are we still doing?
How realistically is the hammer aware that they are a hammer and see every problem as a nail?
Digital_Damage
12-24-18, 15:38
'We Will Curse Them As Traitors': Syrian Kurds React To U.S. Troop Withdrawal Plan
welp, Trump might have just started a whole new terrorist group...
https://www.npr.org/2018/12/24/679813573/we-will-curse-them-as-traitors-syrian-kurds-react-to-u-s-troop-withdrawal-plan
Coal Dragger
12-24-18, 18:23
Nah, they’ll all be dead within 3 years between Al Assad and the Russians. Plus the Turks will be busy playing genocide games real soon against the Kurds they can reach.
What a disgrace leaving people who fought with us hanging like that.
Nah, they’ll all be dead within 3 years between Al Assad and the Russians. Plus the Turks will be busy playing genocide games real soon against the Kurds they can reach.
What a disgrace leaving people who fought with us hanging like that.
It's a moral thing, isn't it? What other Super Power in existence now actually will think about the morality of their actions? Maybe morality is a factor which places us at a disadvantage in the world. Kind of hard to keep morality in the back of your mind when you're killing anyone, any age, any gender that runs around with an AK or suicide vest trying to kill you.
Just to make my stance clear, I really think we have the capacity to protect the Kurds and the Yazidi people whom we have interacted with, fought with against our common enemy. 2000 troops in the large scheme of things there is nothing. A tiny State like Vermont has 4200 troops in their National Guard. Those 2000 troops keep Russia, Iran and Turkey in restraint, free to kill ISIS in their own kill box sections, but allows us to maintain a buffer to protect our allies and buy time to see what transpires over time.
Do I want us to be there? No. But doing the right thing isn't always pleasant or easy. The side benefit of us being there is ground level and theater intel on Russia's latest tactics and employment of weapons. M.I. people like that sort of thing.
That is not what they are doing there. They are stomping out anyone that threatens the status Que of their pipelines.
Which includes ISIS. They support Assad. ISIS does not support Assad.
Be that as it may, we are still expanding the influence of Russia while decreasing our own and making the next generation of terrorists in the Kurds. The US shouldn't be abandoning allies, and frankly we are.
So what should we do that would guarantee the Kurds won't be destroyed? Because after ISIS there are three other countries that want to see them gone. Turkey doesn't want them, Syria doesn't want them and Iraq doesn't want them.
Which country are we going to land grab from to allow the creation of Kurdistan? Why don't we think that won't cause the biggest epic shitstorm since the creation of Israel?
What is the realistic end game that everyone imagines? The Kurds will never be able to take on their three enemies and win independence and carve out a sovereign nation on their own, why are we obligated to help them try? More importantly, given the way we fight wars, even if that was our objective, it's extremely unlikely we'd be willing to do what it takes to actually make it happen.
But a solution exists, we could stop with the "Assad is a bad man" horseshit and partner up with Russia to stabilize Syria and Iraq and in a coordinated effort destroy ISIS which could only exist in an unstable region. Then as a condition of that partnership Syria and Iraq could maybe set aside land (like a reservation) for the Kurds or at least respect a ceasefire in that region.
Sadly we probably won't do that because the moment we try and do anything intelligent or meaningful with Russia it will be 6 months of "Russia HACKED election to get US to help with land grab in Syria."
So what should we do that would guarantee the Kurds won't be destroyed? Because after ISIS there are three other countries that want to see them gone. Turkey doesn't want them, Syria doesn't want them and Iraq doesn't want them.
Which country are we going to land grab from to allow the creation of Kurdistan? Why don't we think that won't cause the biggest epic shitstorm since the creation of Israel?
Well, this time we'd know what we are getting into. :rolleyes:
I'm going to open another tab right now to see what Israel thinks about the sudden withdrawal. I can't imagine that it gives them the warm fuzzies.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu put up a confident front Wednesday telling local reporters that Israel was prepared to defend itself despite the United States decision.
“The American administration told me that the intention of the president is to take their troops out of Syria,” he said. “They made clear that they have other ways to make their influence felt in the area.”
But those in contact with the Israeli government say there is no doubt that Israel and Israeli troops are in greater danger without a United States presence in Syria. Iranian-backed militias and Hezbollah routinely attack northern Israel from their base in southern Syria. And without the U.S. troops, Iran is expected to gain a stronger foothold in Syria, increasing the threat to Israel.
“Mattis believed that a great American influence in the Middle East served as a buffer to Iran and other hostile elements,” Michael Oren, a deputy in the prime minister’s office and former Israeli ambassador to the United States, tweeted in Hebrew. “Today as in the past, Israel will have to defend itself with its own forces to deal with the great threats in the north.”
The concern for Israel is that the departure of U.S. troops would create an opportunity for Iranian forces to bring military personnel and weapons into areas of Syria that were once occupied by the United States. U.S. officials say it also leaves the door wide open for Russia to exert its influence, giving greater power to the Syrian regime and its backers in Russia and Iran.......
The official said Trump’s decision to withdraw from Syria is a big blow to Israel considering how much the United States has leaned on their intelligence capabilities to better understand the situation on the ground.
“They probably took a lot of risks with their intelligence-sharing and intelligence-gathering capabilities and operations to be responsive to us,” the official said..........
Netanyuhu has had to be careful not to criticize Trump personally. The relationship is too important and Trump’s ego is too fragile to risk any public disagreement, Shapiro said, but noted that Netanyahu raised his concerns and that they’ll need to find a way to work with the United States.
The former U.S. official said protecting allies like Israel was just one of the many things that Mattis did that has left top officials questioning whether they should remain in the administration.
https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/national-security/article223431805.html#storylink=cpy
Trump’s Syria Withdrawal and Mattis’ Resignation Startle Israel – and Undercut Netanyahu
The shock waves may be reverberating loudest in Israel, which has staked its entire national security policy on Trump’s friendship and is one of a handful of countries in which the U.S. president was widely admired. The upheaval in Washington threatens to undermine the Israeli public’s trust in the American leader and, by extension, to undercut political support for Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump’s foremost advocate and defender......
Private briefings to journalists have exposed a sharp split, however, between the political and defense establishments: The former (political) have tried to diminish the impact of the U.S. withdrawal on Israeli security, while the latter (defense) have described it as an unmitigated disaster.......
Mattis’ resignation, amplified by his unusually frank and critical letter of resignation, is likely to further exacerbate the apprehensions of Israeli generals and security officials. As in much of the Western world, the former commander of NATO and U.S. Central Command was seen as the last responsible adult in Trump’s inner circle and as someone who spoke the same pragmatic lingua franca as most Israeli officers. Senior officials dismayed by Netanyahu’s unchecked embrace of the U.S. president were consoled by the presence of old and trusted hands such as Mattis, outgoing Chief of Staff John Kelly and even former National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster in Trump’s inner circle. With Mattis’ departure, all three are gone.
And while the Israeli public has hitherto ignored Trump’s questionable handling of relations with NATO, Russia and North Korea – never mind his legal entanglements and nationalistic incitement - the withdrawal of troops from Syria hits far closer to home. Netanyahu’s description of Trump as the best friend that Israel has ever had in the White House does not square with his unilateral retreat from Syria, which is widely seen as abandoning Israel to fend for itself against Russia and Iran. It raises suspicions, hitherto brushed off as well, that Trump is, as his critics have alleged, a stooge of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The Syrian disappointment may not have much of an impact on right wing ideologues and religious-Zionist messianics, whose only concern is the perpetuation of Israeli control of Judea and Samaria and the concurrent sidelining of the Palestinians. But for a large and rational chunk of Israeli public opinion, convinced by Netanyahu that Trump has Israel’s back, the U.S. withdrawal from Syria and Afghanistan, along with Mattis’ resignation, provides a nasty wake up call. With friends like Trump, some may wonder, who needs Barack Obama?
https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-trump-s-syria-withdrawal-and-mattis-resignation-startle-israel-undercut-netanyahu-1.6766824
Interesting perspective from frontpagemag.com:
"WITHDRAWING FROM SYRIA IMPLEMENTS THE TRUMP DOCTRINE"
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272337/withdrawing-syria-implements-trump-doctrine-daniel-greenfield
Just a big mess now. They need to make it right with the Kurds somehow before the US forces leave.
Just a big mess now. They need to make it right with the Kurds somehow before the US forces leave.
They can always hang out with the Montagnards.
ramairthree
12-26-18, 00:31
There is no way to make it right with anybody.
Total war works. Think WWII and Germany, to include Dresden. Think WWII and Japan, to include Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
We can also Ash/boomstick the ignorant screwheads/primates and lord over them.
Or we can stay forever and assist.
We don’t do total war and beat the resistance out of and submission into anyone anymore.
We are not big on the colony thing.
And we don’t want to stay forever. Especially since we either don’t end up where there are valuable enough resources to stay, or we lack the ferocity to take and lay claim to those resources when we do- which sort of ties into the first two points.
And we never quite tie it all together. When we did do total war what did we gain from it? We kind of have territories from past actions that suck. But we don’t have Germany and Japan slaving away to produce high end goods and cars for us, or even paying us significant tribute on them.
If we did total war Iraq, would we get the oil wells?
If we made a colony of Venezuela, would we get the oil?
For all the money and effort we have poured into Colombia and Afghanistan, what did we get? Neither an end to nor profits from cocaine and heroin.
What examples of supported conflict have we emerged victorious from? How many years did it take? How long did it last after we left? What was our loss to gain ratio?
There is no way to make it right with anybody.
Total war works. Think WWII and Germany, to include Dresden. Think WWII and Japan, to include Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
We can also Ash/boomstick the ignorant screwheads/primates and lord over them.
Or we can stay forever and assist.
We don’t do total war and beat the resistance out of and submission into anyone anymore.
We are not big on the colony thing.
And we don’t want to stay forever. Especially since we either don’t end up where there are valuable enough resources to stay, or we lack the ferocity to take and lay claim to those resources when we do- which sort of ties into the first two points.
And we never quite tie it all together. When we did do total war what did we gain from it? We kind of have territories from past actions that suck. But we don’t have Germany and Japan slaving away to produce high end goods and cars for us, or even paying us significant tribute on them.
If we did total war Iraq, would we get the oil wells?
If we made a colony of Venezuela, would we get the oil?
For all the money and effort we have poured into Colombia and Afghanistan, what did we get? Neither an end to nor profits from cocaine and heroin.
What examples of supported conflict have we emerged victorious from? How many years did it take? How long did it last after we left? What was our loss to gain ratio?
We also need to be mindful of unintended consequences and our total war ending up being WWIII. The assassination of one archduke by a Serb radical plunged more than 20 countries into war. If you remember Saddams efforts to drag Israel into the first Persian Gulf War, it probably wouldn't take too much effort to pull all the Sunni and Shia players into a global conflict with the big players backing opposing teams with a nuclear option at the ready.
We also need to be mindful of unintended consequences and our total war ending up being WWIII. The assassination of one archduke by a Serb radical plunged more than 20 countries into war. If you remember Saddams efforts to drag Israel into the first Persian Gulf War, it probably wouldn't take too much effort to pull all the Sunni and Shia players into a global conflict with the big players backing opposing teams with a nuclear option at the ready.
I seriously doubt the Russians would wage nuclear war with is over any Islamic country. They’ve had their troubles with Afghanistan and the terrorist groups in the caucuses. They’ll play dik dik games all day long over resources and buffer zones, but they won’t go all in over religion.
Likewise China might get froggy over the South China Sea, but not Islam or anything thousands of miles away from their protectorate.
About the only certainty is that in the event of a hot conflict, the U.N. would be utterly useless as usual.
I seriously doubt the Russians would wage nuclear war with is over any Islamic country. They’ve had their troubles with Afghanistan and the terrorist groups in the caucuses. They’ll play dik dik games all day long over resources and buffer zones, but they won’t go all in over religion.
Likewise China might get froggy over the South China Sea, but not Islam or anything thousands of miles away from their protectorate.
About the only certainty is that in the event of a hot conflict, the U.N. would be utterly useless as usual.
Pakistan would, and as soon as Pakistan hits a close personal friend of China or Russia, it could get bad very quickly. Let Russia and China get into a seriously contested piece of real estate and those two could conceivably go at it. Who would have thought Obama would put us back on a Cold War posture with Russia over Syria of all damn places? But it happened. And if somebody gets careless and shoots down the wrong guys plane over the wrong airspace that kind of event gets out of hand pretty quickly.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.