So America moves 100 soldiers and Syria Unravels, Collapses? Really?

The troops there were just targets. Now we can respond as needed without added risk.

https://www.americanthinker.co...the_white_house.html

If one wants to delve further, check out the article linked above.

OMG, you mean Trump actually had a PLAN for this whole thing?????

Wow, he continues to dump people very very easily.

Subtle. Today the White House has released a letter sent by President Trump to President Erdogan of Turkey dated October 9th. The letter was sent two days after President Trump made the decision to pull 28 members of the U.S. military out of harms way; two days before President Trump outlined the sanctions against Turkey; and five days before President Trump initiated those sanctions through Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin.

Why did 130 House Republicans vote with the democrats condemning the Syria pullback?

quote:

Originally posted by midwest guy:
Why did 130 House Republicans vote with the democrats condemning the Syria pullback?

BILL TITLE: Opposing the decision to end certain United States efforts to prevent Turkish military operations against Syrian Kurdish forces in Northeast Syria

WTF? Speaker Pelosi brings a resolution to the floor to denounce President Trump for removing 28 U.S. troops from Syria. Where was the resolution denouncing Turkish President Erdogan for invading Syria? Where was the authorization to use force against Turkey?


Ooh, so they condemned a pullback from what? What were we doing there? When was the House vote to send troops into Syria? Oh, there wasn’t - it was choice of Obama. Pulling back is choice of Trump. Tough shit.

Better question is why did none of them have the testicular fortitude to vote for a resolution of war? Cause they can’t name who, why, and what would equal success?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: feersum dreadnaught,

Trump is right there is no end game and we shouldn't sacrifice our troops in that quagmire. Add Afghanistan to that as well.
Funny how the anti military anti war dems are so supportive of us being there, isn't it?

quote:

Originally posted by feersum dreadnaught:

quote:

Originally posted by midwest guy:
Why did 130 House Republicans vote with the democrats condemning the Syria pullback?

BILL TITLE: Opposing the decision to end certain United States efforts to prevent Turkish military operations against Syrian Kurdish forces in Northeast Syria

...

Better question is why did none of them have the testicular fortitude to vote for a resolution of war? Cause they can’t name who, why, and what would equal success?

Freaking cowards. So easy to rebuke a decision that none of them would even have the balls to vote on. Pathetic.

After the President / Congress meeting yesterday, I had a thought that part of this may be a strategy by Trump to get them to call an impeachment vote, get them all on record.

In the context of the objectives Trump set out in his campaign, he made the right decision. I’m retired military.

Most of the military guys on the forum will recognize the term “mission creep” and there has been a significant amount in both Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East. Remember that re Afghanistan the objective was to get Osama Bin LadIn. We achieved that objective. Re Iraq the objective was to keep Hussein in box. We had him there. Google General Zinni’s views The neo-cons expanded the mission. Nation building drained us of blood and treasure that could have been applied to military modernization and domestic needs.

Most countries act in their national interest and there are many competing ones that are cultural, religious, tribal, political etc. in the Middle East. There are times when we have to make hard choices regarding our strategic national interests. In this instance that’s what Trump had to do. I think he is also trying to bring Erdogan back to better relations with the US and perhaps reversing Obama's Decision on defense missile system sales. He’s also put Erdogan in a position where Turkey will ownn the ISIS problem. That remains to be seen. NATO is probably his higher priority.

My two cents.

quote:

Originally posted by midwest guy:
Why did 130 House Republicans vote with the democrats condemning the Syria pullback?

To send a message to Erdogan that essentially supported Trump if it affirmed sanctions against Turkey?

My bad I see it was just a vote of condemnation. They were short sighted.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Strider41,

quote:

Originally posted by midwest guy:
Why did 130 House Republicans vote with the democrats condemning the Syria pullback?

They are more allied to a foreign nation that wants Syria to fall.

Suck it democrats!

Rand Paul stops Senate from bringing the House resolution condemning the President's decision to withdraw from Syria to a vote:




Link to original video: https://youtu.be/4UO-wbVQcR0

What an absolute unit.

quote:

Originally posted by Voshterkoff:

quote:

Originally posted by midwest guy:
Why did 130 House Republicans vote with the democrats condemning the Syria pullback?

They are more allied to a foreign nation that wants Syria to fall.

I wish you were right, that would be a more noble reason.
I think it's more likely they are unwilling to accept that their previous position in voting, and in some cases their alignment with defense contractors in their district, was wrong.

The U.S. has invested blood, resources, and money in a strategic region of the world, strategic not just to us, but to our enemies or potential enemies. Our combat successes in this part of the world are largely due to both the quality of troops serving as well as their training and equipment and tech...but also, in part, due to the friendships and relationships we establish with allies. The intel and organization developed at the local level by boots in theater are crucial to our successes and can't be duplicated remotely with an "eye-in-the-sky" big screen TV picture of the region...I believe it's possible to maintain a local presence with troops in theater without having an "occupying force" sized contingent.

When the U.S. reaches an agreement with foreign governments and arranges for their forces to act as surrogate fighters I believe we owe them a debt of gratitude and a pledge to stand by them. If we aren't willing to do that then we should scrap any use of proxy fighters and go it alone. Abandoning allies sets a terrible precedent for any future conflicts in which allies might be needed and welcomed.

I believe it would be a mistake to withdraw completely from the region. My 2 cents as a civilian without military service.

I spent over five years working in the Middle East. Abandoning Kurdish allies in Syria is disheartening- Opinion piece

Updated: October 16, 2019 - 5:20 AM

Alexander Emmert

“Never abandon your shipmate.” Those four simple words formed the first and most important lesson I learned during my grueling first year at the U.S. Naval Academy. I was a plebe then, and my classmates and I relied on each other for support against the upperclassmen who sought to discipline us at every available opportunity. There was safety in numbers, and we knew that leaving a fellow plebe alone to the wolves would be a supreme act of betrayal. This ethos to stand by those who served with me formed the foundation of my ethical code. For this reason, I find the U.S. abandonment of our Kurdish allies in Syria so deeply disheartening.

I deployed to the Middle East as a mission planner for a special forces unit between 2014 and 2015, when ISIS was rampaging through Iraq and Syria. The Iraqi Army that the U.S. spent a fortune training had retreated, and there was little keeping Iraq from collapsing under the terrorist onslaught. However, I saw the Kurds step up to the plate and fight intensely against ISIS while other nations in the region sat by and watched. The Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG), along with Kurdish Peshmerga fighters, were instrumental in defeating ISIS during the siege of Kobani, a six-month battle that turned the tide of the conflict. Furthermore, the anti-ISIS coalition utilized Erbil, the capital city of Iraqi Kurdistan, as a critical base in its victorious offensive against the terrorist group, which cost approximately 11,000 Kurdish lives.

Not only were the Kurds our most stalwart allies, but if it were not for them, ISIS would still be rampaging through the Middle East. How have we repaid them? We have left the Kurds who fought beside us in Syria to the mercy of Turkey, placing the lives of those that fought beside us in grave danger. In effect, we have left them to the wolves.

Beyond the ethical concerns of abandoning our allies, we must ask ourselves how this action will impact our credibility. Who will stand and fight with us if ISIS rises again? I spent over five years serving and working in the Middle East, where people privately expressed their belief that the U.S. was an unreliable, self-serving partner. This attitude forms the basis for much of the anti-American resentment in the region. Now, the U.S. can change this perception by standing up for what is right.

Some 100 years ago, at the end of World War I, the Allies promised the Kurds an independent state as a reward for their support in the war against the Central Powers. However, this promise was revoked three years later in the Treaty of Lausanne, which set the boundaries of the modern Middle East. It made no provision for Kurdistan and left the Kurds as ethnic minorities in Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Turkey. The ensuing years witnessed their oppression and genocide at the hands of numerous regimes. Now, the U.S. can right this historic wrong by protecting our Kurdish allies from aggression, and by demanding that they receive the independent state that they have earned.

The U.S. and its Kurdish allies played the most instrumental role in the defeat of ISIS, something for which all Middle Eastern nations should be grateful. Now, the U.S. must exercise the moral authority it gained from this victory by demanding that the Kurds receive their just due: protection from oppression and a state of their own.

Alexander Emmert is a graduate associate at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perry World House and an MBA candidate at the Wharton School, where he is the co-president of the Veterans Club and editor-in-chief of the Wharton Journal. He is a former nuclear submarine officer and special forces mission planner in the U.S. Navy. He also worked as a defense and economic consultant in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for several years before entering Wharton.

It seems that everyone including the media forget that if someone had enforced their threat in the beginning we may have not been placed in this situation. Just my opinion of course. God Bless !!!

Why Obama reportedly declined to enforce red line in Syria

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:
I have first hand experience with the Kurds, that region, and that location. I will say this: we've made a massive mistake in withdrawing, and in allowing turkey to take action. The effects will ripple for some time, and may well end up costing a lot more US lives.

Yup...the Turks have been itching to go after the Kurds in Northern Iraq since 2003; and have been asking for more "support" from the US since then--even stuff they aren't supposed to have (by law/treaty). Unfortunately, we keep putting the wrong people in Ankara who want to play nice with the Turks.

Kurds fought against Saddam in 1991, with our support. Then we left--Saddam gassed them with chemical weapons. Then we got upset how he gassed "his own people"--they weren't.

Then the Kurds kept Iraqi forces occupied in the North while we rolled in from the South in 2003. Then we pretended they didn't exist when we "re-built" Iraq...

Pretty much everyone hates the Kurds (Turks, Syrians, Iranians)...and apparently us, until we need their help against whichever regime we don't like--oh, and they are sitting on oil-rich land none of the three countries control very well.

This is a shitshow--but I have no problem this being a SOF/RPA/High-Alt Air Support show--provided there is a stated end state...just shouldn't deploy 10s of 1000s US Servicemembers on a lark.

Either we are stacking bodies or headed home.

I was just sent this, I think it gives a good realpolitik assessment of Trump’s new Syria policy.

quote:

Why Trump Is Absolutely Right To Get U.S. Troops Out Of Syria
Moving American troops from Syria would be perhaps the most far-sighted thing Trump does as president, and would benefit the United States in the years to come.

Link: The Federalist

quote:

Originally posted by downtownv:
Trump is right there is no end game and we shouldn't sacrifice our troops in that quagmire. Add Afghanistan to that as well.
Funny how the anti military anti war dems are so supportive of us being there, isn't it?

If it weren't for double standards they wouldn't have any standards at all.