I think we have to accept that the idea of "Nation Building", especially in that part of the world, is a discredited concept. Just like the Domino theory. This isn't postwar Europe or even Japan. Even then, that approach requires complete defeat of the enemy first and that was never possible in these situations, in that part of the world.

Maybe in the next century.

We'll be back. Next time stay at 30,000 ft...

Be honest- Lots of places in the Middle East need a Brutal Dictator to maintain control over the radical population. Less people died in Iraq, Libya and Syria while under the brutal dictatorships of Saddam Huesien, Moamar Q'Daffy and Bashir Assad than they have since the Arab Spring.

Not everyone understands or even wants democracy and freedom.

What was the final outcome of the Arab Spring? 2 million dead?

quote:

Originally posted by Elk Hunter:

quote:

If the Turks decide to kill a bunch of people, let the UN deal with it.

You are kidding, right?

Elk Hunter: I apologize if I upset you with this comment. Had I thought about it, I would have taken the time to phrase it better.

My point was it is not our responsibility alone. When we go it alone, we alone bear the costs. The costs are much more than money and worn down equipment. There are costs in terms of broken families, broken lives, service people who come home and are left scarred physically and mentally.

I cannot begin to understand the costs, but you do.

quote:

Originally posted by Lt CHEG:
I'm pretty cool with the withdrawal. Until we are willing to put the Hell back into war, then I would prefer to limit our time in these engagements. Afghanistan may well have some good people there, but there are also a shit ton of subhuman savages who place no value on life, or on our way of life. Until we are willing to destroy everyone who lives under the enemy flag then we are wasting money, and blood. I prefer limited engagements where we reduce the ability of the enemy to hurt us (reduce, not completely eliminate) and then get the hell out. Limiting our targets the way that our military has been doing is bullshit and counterproductive. We are never going to win over the hearts and minds of these folks, so trying to appear "nice" by not cleaning house of everyone is stupid. We could save the lives of one Afghani who might have been hurt or killed by the Taliban, and that Afghani would still prefer our death to that of the Taliban. Let them all keep fighting amongst themselves, and when they rattle the saber we do some carpet bombings where we wipe out everything and then go back to normal. We are never going to fix things over there so let's just keep reducing their ability to hurt us when needed.

Can't say as I disagree with anything here, with regard to Afghanistan. It is the armpit of the world. Always has been...always will be. IMO, what we should do there is leave some teams of Special Forces, with their needed support, to take out those that need taking out. Everyone else should come home. No person, no nation, no invader, no "liberator", has ever been able to accomplish any goal in Afghanistan and they never will. It is ungovernable. Always has been always will be. And, beyond being concerned about 9/11 2.0, there really is nothing that we need be too concerned about with regard to Afghanistan aside from perhaps opium (and each and every one of the poppy fields should have been Roundupped on day one if you ask me).

Syria, on the other hand, is a much more complex issue in need of our involvement. The article in the OP spells it out quite clearly. Is it a mess? You bet it is. You've got no less than eight nations involved there, each having their own reasons for being involved. Some nefarious (Iran, Russia, Lebanon, Turkey), some altruistic (us, perhaps Jordan), and some defensive (Iraq and Israel). There are so many different paths that that area could end up going down and very few of them are good for us...or Israel. We MUST stay involved there. Again, how we accomplish that is open for discussion, but we MUST. To just simply pull out and say, "fuck it, you're on your own", is incredibly naive and dangerous.

And as far as Turkey goes, Erdogan needs to be sniped...yesterday.

Looks like things are developing there rapidly.
Some of our "allies" in the area are stepping in to do what they should have been doing all along. As long as we were doing it for them, why would they?
I'm sure we will still be around, just more in the background.
Hopefully this will happen elsewhere too.

https://legalinsurrection.com/...help-kurds-in-syria/

quote:

'm sure we will still be around, just more in the background.

I hope so. Israel has been a great ally in the region, and I wish we'd develop the same relationship with an independent Kurdistan.

quote:

Originally posted by braillediver:
Be honest- Lots of places in the Middle East need a Brutal Dictator to maintain control over the radical population. Less people died in Iraq, Libya and Syria while under the brutal dictatorships of Saddam Huesien, Moamar Q'Daffy and Bashir Assad than they have since the Arab Spring.

Not everyone understands or even wants democracy and freedom.

What was the final outcome of the Arab Spring? 2 million dead?

This the ME is not the west, it will never be. I would rather Assad being in charge than the alternative....a vacuum filled with Iran or ISIS, Obama fucked up the ME with his "spring" BS.



And we cannot continue to engage in "country building", it has not worked out since WW2 and it only worked then due to the shared values between Europe and the US. The ME shares very little in the way of values with the west.

I am not sure this was the right move but it could be, god knows being in ASHITSTAIN for 17 years has not moved them one step closer to be good world community members.

If only we could undo Sykes-Picot, that would be a good start.

Churchill, who was personally responsible for carving up the “Near East”, said that his worst mistake was not giving the Kurds their own country.

Link

A little something from Rand Paul, which I agree with:

Expanding on the Rand Paul quote above, see discussion below on Face the Nation. On this, I totally agree with Rand Paul. And if the Saudis and others are heading into Syria, and the Saudis are hosting talks on Afghanistan, good for them, and about frigging time...


December 23, 2018
"How about you just admit you hate the President, love war and have been wrong for the last twenty years on every part of foreign policy?"

Rand Paul put in a strong performance on "Face the Nation" this morning. Here's the full transcript. Excerpt:

MARGARET BRENNAN: You've been on a tweet storm this morning saying, President's decision to pull out of Syria and cut our troop presence in Afghanistan in half, you said "the entire foreign policy establishment of Washington, DC, who two years ago were swearing Trump was going to start multiple nuclear wars. Now they're mad because he is stopping two wars. How about you just admit you hate the President, love war and have been wrong for the last twenty years on every part of foreign policy?" Who are you referring to because the defense secretary and the top diplomat handling ISIS both resigned over these decisions?

SENATOR RAND PAUL: You know, I think that we should look at some of the statements of the people who are advocating that we stay in Afghanistan forever and that we also stay now in Syria with no sort of determined end. General Mattis, even General Mattis said that there's no military solution to Syria, and he's also said there's no military solution to Afghanistan. How do you think our young soldiers feel? I have members of my family that are going over there soon, how do you think they feel being sent to Afghanistan when your generals are saying there's no military solution? So I think the burden is really on Mattis and others who want perpetual war to explain why if there is no military solution we're sending more troops....
We've been there seventeen years. We think now we are going to take one more village and we'll get a better negotiated deal?... That was the strategy of Vietnam for years after year after year in Vietnam was to take one more village and we'll get a better negotiated deal. No, they waited us out and the Taliban are going to wait us out. They know we will eventually leave and leave we must. I mean I don't think we have enough money to be paying to build and rebuild and build and rebuild Afghanistan. The President is right and I think the people agree with him. Let's rebuild America. Let's spend that money here at home....

We took ninety-nine percent of the land [from ISIS], they're on the run, can the people who live there not do anything? We spent trillions of dollars arming the entire Middle East, arming Afghan army, can they not do anything? Do we have to do everything? We defeated ISIS. But now you have the-- the hawks in the administration and throughout Congress saying, "Oh, now we have to wait until Russia and Iran leave Syria." Well, that was never our goal and it's never going to happen. So those people are advocating for perpetual war....

That's what you call mission creep. The mission has now changed, that we're going to wait till Iran leaves and Russia leaves. Well, the President told them that's not his mission and that was never the mission. The mission was to wipe out ISIS and we did succeed. And the thing is it's incredibly bold to win a war and come home. That's what the people want. If you poll the American people, it's sixty to seventy percent of people ready to get out of Afghanistan. And I'll bet you the same of Syria if you ask the people. It's only the people in Washington, the armchair generals, that want to keep us at war forever and people, Americans, are tired of it. We want that money here at home and we want to create jobs, roads, bridges here at home not in Afghanistan.

MARGARET BRENNAN: The concern raised by people like Brett McGurk who-- who was the President's diplomat handling the anti-ISIS coalition is that if you move out too quickly, if you agree we're going to draw down, at least have a plan on how to do it. At least, do it in a way that doesn't abandon allies. And, in fact, he warned in his resignation letter that this could create a vacuum that would allow terrorist groups like the Islamic State to re-emerge and in other-- other words, we'll have to go back in a few years.

SENATOR RAND PAUL: That will always be true....That statement will be true in fifteen years. The place is a mess. I mean, they've been fighting each other for a thousand years. Sunni and Shia have been fighting each other since Battle of Karbala in 832 AD.... They're going to fight each other until the end of time. It's all of them. It's-- it's an inter-complicated mess that has to do with Sunni extremism versus Shia extremism, and also some other various battles in between. But if we wait until there's... no potential for anybody fighting each other when we leave, we will be there forever. But here is what we need to do. And here is the real problem, we have so politicized the relationship with Russia that there isn't a Democrat in the land that is for any kind of negotiation with Russian ally because they know it's an anti-Trump position to be heaping on Russia. Russia is a big player. If we don't talk to Russia about Syria, we will never come to a resolution. Iran is a player. We actually have to talk to Iran about... Syria, as well. Assad is a player. We... can't just say Assad is going to go. He won the war. These people have their head in the sand and they just want to send two thousand troops there. They become a trip wire to a possibility of a much-expanded war involving Russia and Iran. And that would be a huge mistake... I don't think the American people want another big war in the Middle East.

MARGARET BRENNAN: The Pentagon and State Department say there are tens of thousands of ISIS fighters still in Syria. How can you credibly say mission accomplished? Do you think ISIS has been defeated?

SENATOR RAND PAUL: Right. I think the numbers are wildly inflated and nobody knows. I think there are maybe ten thousand so-called radicals. And these are radicals. They are in Idlib and they are surrounded by Turks, Syrians, Kurds others. And I don't think they're going anywhere. And right now there's not a lot of heated battles going on. But my question is why do American young men and women always have to lay our lives down? To the people of Iraq, are they incapable of doing anything? And here's the thing. Muslims need to ultimately police Muslim lands. When Americans are there and we kill someone who lives there, they see it as a religious affront and they see it as the Pagans have come to take their land and for everyone we kill, we create ten to a one hundred more. So it isn't working. We have-- have supplied them all with money we've given them uniforms we've given them weapons. They need to step up and they need to eradicate these violent people from their midst.

https://althouse.blogspot.com/...-admit-you-hate.html

I'd be willing to support troop deployments anywhere IF and ONCE the POTUS articulates exactly why we're there, how it benefits US interests, what is the most likely outcome and how it will continue to benefit US interests.

Can anyone say that about being in Syria? There are no positive outcomes there.

1) Assad remains in power - bad things continue to happen.
2) Assad is deposed, creating a huge power vacuum - bad things continue to happen.

Does anyone see either of these ever working out well for the US?

Put me down as in favor of pulling out. We’ve done enough, our part has to end sometime. While at it, let’s do Afghanistan and Iraq too.

I'm for trying the Rand Paul approach. We've been trying the State Department approach for decades and it isn't working so well.
I don't know why anyone is listening to Brett McGurk. This policy change has made him surplus to needs, his job is over. Sure he doesn't like this.

When your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
These state department, CIA & military people are too close to the problem and can't seem to get the big picture.

I am Ok with pulling out of Syria as long as 1) Kurds remain whole and have ability to defend themselves and destroy those that intend harm on them and 2) Iran stays the hell out.

Looks like Trump is looking to take care of #1. Trump arming Kurds, finally I say arm the Kurds to the teeth, let them be the badass in the neighborhood. Kurds can crush ISIS hang ons and defend agains Turkey and Iraq/Iran influence. I would also keep our SF involved on the ground with the Kurds.

Israel will take care of Iran in Syria and said as much and as been doing so.

Past time to get out. president Trump promised us he would pull out & he has kept another promise. No more American lives lost to countries that don't appreciate our efforts & bloodshed.

The rest of the Free World wants the USA to be the World's policeman, however when we do the policing and YES sometimes it needs to be done, the Free World complains. If the Free World don't like the way we do the policing, then the Free World needs to step up and contribute or do it themselves !!! God Bless