quote:

Originally posted by slabsides45:
Not in favor of abandoning an ally (Kurds, in this context), but if they really have even daydreams of forming their own nation, their fight for that hasn't even begun. "Kurdistan" will take all the juju the Kurds have, and we are under no obligation to be there to supply them supplies nor our sons. Let them sort it out, we gave them a head start and a tank of gas.

I don't care about their bigger ambitions. I'm a man of my word and if we said we'd protect them, then we as a country should live up to our promise, doubly so since they were fighting alongside of us. Keeping the 1000 soldiers there for another year in a non-fighting role would be my happy middle. Keep Erdoğan at Bay for a little while and give them a chance to shore up whatever it is they need to fend for themselves, then leave and say we've done all we promised to do you're on your own now, good luck.

I don't trust Erdoğan, he ruined that country, it previously was the most Western country in the region, now it's a shithole ran by crazy religious zealots. I don't want to hand security of isis prisoners to him, he'll just let them go, and we are back to square one.

I perfectly fine with pulling out, but surprise pullout at midnight by tweet is not ideal. Much rather give them time to prepare for their eventual annihilation and sell them a shit ton of small arms. We can't protect them forever, but they deserve more than a short notice pullout.

Who is this damn "we" business? Administrations change. Policies don't remain static. Trump is not bound by Bush's or Obama's policies.

Maybe we are assuming it was on short notice. Maybe it just wasn't leaked to the public. Maybe Congress didn't know. Maybe they did and decided to keep their mouths shut until they could reap the most political benefit from it.

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:
The Kurds really want to carve out chunks of Turkey, Syria and Iraq, plus maybe Iran, to make a "Kurdistan" out of, which none of those countries are going to stand for. Do they really love us, or are they in it to this end and just see us as a means to it?

I see it this way, too.

Are the Kurds just looking to us to help them with their own regional adventure?

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:

...At the height of hostility in Iraq, the Kurdish regions were far more stable. Irbil was a safe area, whereas not far away Mosul was the wild west, along with Kirkuk...

VERY safe. I spent a few days in the area in the summer of 2005, we had a small base without the massive security common to the rest of the country. Heck, we walked around downtown and even ate at a local restaurant! We vsited construction projects all over the region in an unarmored pickup with one armed Peshmerga, not the armored vehicles we used elsewhere.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
Who is this damn "we" business? Administrations change. Policies don't remain static. Trump is not bound by Bush's or Obama's policies.

Exactly. Like that annoying harpy Meghan McCain said yesterday or this morning with her fat stupid mouth damning Trump and any Republican supporting this move, "yeah, Trump ran on pulling our troops out, but that's another matter." As if it's ridiculous that a President would actually keep his campaign promises. That's not what politicians do! They should be more like my dad! Shut up, stupid. Talk to your representative.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
Policies don't remain static. Trump is not bound by Bush's or Obama's policies.

True, but you would hope that each new Administration learns from the mistakes of the prior administration(s). This clearly is not the case.

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:
I'm a man of my word and if we said we'd protect them, then we as a country should live up to our promise, doubly so since they were fighting alongside of us.

Can't fault your thoughts and sense of honor.

But, whatever we do, it's problematic.

How long before the Kurds find a permanent settlement with other countries? How many generations more do we need to be there?

We said we would help them but does that mean with 50 guys as a buffer?

Maybe the best help is telling them to get off the pot and make their own regional solution.

The president said the Turks agreed to create a Syrian "safe zone" with us holding an economic card to deter bad acts.

Isn't that a form of coercion that's as good as 50 soldiers?

Maybe. Maybe not.

What else could we do indefinitely? Help them declare a homeland? That didn't seem to settle the issue in Israel.

President Trump has been telegraphing the pull out of Syria for years. I would not characterize it as if the Kurds were not forewarned.

Tucker Carlson interview w/ Col. Douglas Macgregor on the subject....The Retired Colonel seems to make an awful lot of sense here!

Southflorida-law,

You seem to have a strong opinion in this and other threads about Kurdish policy.

So, would you allow us to bask in your wisdom as to what we, The United States, should do about the Kurds?

You seem to want to be a policymaker, so, please tell us the specific policy you think is so vastly superior to what President Trump has chosen.

One hitch, try to formulate one that doesn't have a downside to criticize.

See. Criticism is easy but policy-making is hard.

Critics Aghast As Trump Keeps Word About No More Wars

Donald Trump came into office promising to not start any new wars and to get us out of the old ones our feckless elite had dragged us into, and now that he’s doing it in Syria the usual suspects are outraged. How dare he actually deliver on his promise not to have anymore of our precious warriors shipped home in boxes after getting killed on battlefields we can’t even pronounce, while refereeing conflicts that began long before America was a thing, in campaigns without any kind of coherent objective?

Conservatives like me still think of ourselves as hawks, but after hard experience we have learned to be hawkish only where America’s interests are directly at stake. We’re not doves. We’re just not going to spill our troops’ blood when we do not absolutely have to. The elite may not like our attitude, but then it’s generally not the elite that ends up having to bury its sons, daughters, husbands and wives. We do.

I generally like the Kurds. I generally dislike the Turks. But they’ve been killing each other for a long time and no one has yet offered a sufficient reason why America should stick its troops in the crossfire between them. We hear words like “betrayal” tossed around, often by people whose track record re: honor is (charitably) lacking, but that assumes America had a say in this latest round ramping up. If the Turks are intent on invading, a firm “No” from the Oval office is not going to stop a battalion of Leopard tanks. If you want to stop them, you have to be prepared to stop them. That means war, and the president – along with millions of us – say “No thanks.”

Some solid conservatives who I respect disagree with the president’s take. They point out that the Kurds have fought with us and that they’ve had a raw deal. They also point to the Turks’ sordid history of genocide, like with the Armenians. These are good points – I spent 16 months away from my family deployed helping Muslims avoid a genocide in Kosovo – but they are not good enough to justify us doing the only thing that can stop the Turks if they are committed to their threatened aggression, i.e., being willing to have American troops fight them.

Let’s have some real talk, because the Orange Man Bad side of the debate – the side that suddenly is all hopped up on war juice – offers nothing but hack clichés to support its amorphous position. The Kurds helped destroy ISIS, true. It’s also true that the Kurds would have fought ISIS anyway, since the psycho caliphate was right next door. Let’s be honest – the Kurds didn’t show up for us at Normandy or Inchon or Khe Sanh or Kandahar. The Syrian Kurds allied with us in their homeland because we shared a common interest in wiping out the head-lopping freak show that was ISIS. Moreover, all Kurds are not equal. The PKK – the Kurdistan Workers' Party – are a bunch of commie terrorists who have been fighting the Turks for a long time. Those reds are no friends of ours, and it’s their antics that seem to be inspiring the Turkish campaign. I have little use for the Turks, but they aren’t just picking this fight for Schiffs and giggles. The fact that it’s all so confusing is a really, really good reason for us to stay the hell out of it.

Moreover, we keep hearing about our “obligation” to the Kurds, but who is the genius who promised the Kurds that if Turkey attacked the United States would go to war? Would that promise be binding on us if it were? After all, I don’t recall my senators voting on a treaty – after debate and with accountability to us voters – agreeing to put American lives on the line to protect the sovereignty of hypothetical Kurdistan. This idea that some sort of obligation for America to defend another people can arise outside the treaty ratification process is as bizarre as it is unconstitutional. Now we’re supposed to shed our blood because our elites feel we owe it to foreign strangers?

I do note that there is one treaty, duly signed and ratified by the Senate, at play here. That’s the NATO treaty under which we agreed to go to war to defend Turkey if attacked. If Erdogan, that thug, were more cunning he would assert Article 5 and demand NATO forces come to Turkey’s defense against the cross-border attacks by the PKK.

None of this is to justify what Turkey is doing. I hope the tough and brave non-communist Kurds bloody these bullies’ noses. But I cannot think of any way to adequately explain to the mom and dad of a 20-year-old 82nd Airborne 11 Bravo paratrooper from Rancho Cucamonga why their son got his head blown off in Northern Syria fighting the Kurd’s war for them.

In the Army War College, they drilled into us the necessity of a clearly defined objective as the foundation of every successful military operation. If you do not know exactly what you wish to achieve, you cannot plan and execute effectively. Okay critics, what’s our proposed objective in Northern Syria? Stop with the clichés about “betrayals” and “abandoning allies” and tell me – exactly – what we would seek to achieve. And then tell me – again, exactly – how many dead Americans we should sacrifice to achieve it.

We have our own national interests to protect. The threat to America is not Turks imposing a security zone a few miles inside Syria. It’s China pumping out a couple warships a month and deploying new carrier-killing missiles using tech they steal from us under the noses of our politically preoccupied FBI and CIA. If the president’s critics in Congress really want to be tough guys, let them pass a declaration of war and let them sign their names to the butcher’s bill instead of trying to get Trump to walk out to the end of the branch so they can saw it off.

Let’s be clear – and I need to be crystal clear because the gung ho gang’s MO is to mischaracterize its opponents’ views to distract from the strategic bankruptcy of its own – that fighting for the Kurds would not be immoral. It’s a good cause, but we can’t intervene every time there’s a good cause. Iraq was a good cause, and a disaster. I’d come back on active duty, if the Army was that desperate, and serve there proudly. Our troops will do everything we ask of them and more. They will lay down their lives for this cause if we send them. And that’s the point.

We owe our men and women in uniform the moral courage to make the hard decision not to fight, even when we see a grievous wrong unfolding, where there is no compelling national interest and no clear objective. We can’t garrison Syria forever. We can’t right every wrong around the globe.

How many dead Americans is it worth to stop the Turks and Kurds from brawling? I, and our president, say, “Exactly none.” Those who disagree owe us all an exact number of their own.

What happens if the liberals achieve their dream of an America they rule over? Check out my action-packed yet hilarious novels of America torn apart by the kind of liberal fascism the Democrats promise, People's Republic, Indian Country and Wildfire (plus Book Number IV comes out this November)! They are guaranteed to annoy and offend both liberals and the cruise-shilling hacks of Conservative, Inc.! Ahoy!

Link

Schlicter nails it again, as usual.

quote:

Originally posted by Tubetone:
Southflorida-law,

You seem to have a strong opinion in this and other threads about Kurdish policy.

So, would you allow us to bask in your wisdom as to what we, The United States, should do about the Kurds?

You seem to want to be a policymaker, so, please tell us the specific policy you think is so vastly superior to what President Trump has chosen.

One hitch, try to formulate one that doesn't have a downside to criticize.

See. Criticism is easy but policy-making is hard.

You're wasting your time, Tubetone. You couldn't cut through this guy's smugness with a chainsaw. He'll have an answer for you, as he does, always, but it will be more of the same I'm-so-clever horse shit.

we owe the Kurds nothing! I am happy that we aren't getting involved. He promised to stop being the world's police force and that is what he is doing!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Southflorida-law:

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
Policies don't remain static. Trump is not bound by Bush's or Obama's policies.

True, but you would hope that each new Administration learns from the mistakes of the prior administration(s). This clearly is not the case.

Bullshit. Then why is he doing everything differently? Open they eyes and see.

If there's one thing the Kurds screwed up on, it's the various factions within, that have prevented them from actually focusing on their ultimate goal, which is state hood. Between the PPK, the YPG/YPJ, the PYD and whomever else, they didn't do themselves any favors by splitting into political lines....all prior & during their multi-decades fight against the Iraqis, the Syrians and the Turks. They're surrounded by countries/cultures that don't like them and when one issues was dealt with, another would crop up, and on, and on. It's a shitty situation, it can be debated if there was a easier way however, everything I've read was, the US had to set a date to end its involvement.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by Tubetone:
Southflorida-law,

You seem to have a strong opinion in this and other threads about Kurdish policy.

So, would you allow us to bask in your wisdom as to what we, The United States, should do about the Kurds?

You seem to want to be a policymaker, so, please tell us the specific policy you think is so vastly superior to what President Trump has chosen.

One hitch, try to formulate one that doesn't have a downside to criticize.

See. Criticism is easy but policy-making is hard.

You're wasting your time, Tubetone. You couldn't cut through this guy's smugness with a chainsaw. He'll have an answer for you, as he does, always, but it will be more of the same I'm-so-clever horse shit.

I know zip about this member, but when you look at the totality here, you cannot help but hear leftist, anti-Trump undertones. Trump is delivering YET AGAIN on a campaign promise and the only people up in arms about it consistently are those on the left.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by Tubetone:
Southflorida-law,

You seem to have a strong opinion in this and other threads about Kurdish policy.

So, would you allow us to bask in your wisdom as to what we, The United States, should do about the Kurds?

You seem to want to be a policymaker, so, please tell us the specific policy you think is so vastly superior to what President Trump has chosen.

One hitch, try to formulate one that doesn't have a downside to criticize.

See. Criticism is easy but policy-making is hard.

You're wasting your time, Tubetone. You couldn't cut through this guy's smugness with a chainsaw. He'll have an answer for you, as he does, always, but it will be more of the same I'm-so-clever horse shit.

Actually, I don't think he can answer that question.

I would be in awe if he formulates a policy that's above criticism.

So, Southflorida-law, please grace us from your bounty.

Yeah, there's a clue in his forum username which says he'll come up with something.