I may be wrong, but I look at it this way.

Either we stay there forever, or we come home at some point, and we're surely not considering staying there forever. Whenever we leave, there will be a power vacuum of some size proportional to the clout we had, and withdrew from play. So power vacuum is a constant and is not an argument against withdrawal, only an argument for appropriate timing of same.

The Middle East has been a misery-inducing hellhole since Turkey misguidedly joined the Central Powers, which lost WWI and so starting after the Versailles Treaty France and Britain got to add the area to their colonial empires, meaning that Turkey, with their centuries of experience running the Mideast under the Ottoman Empire) no longer kept their boots on the throats of the locals to keep them in line.

/sarc on
And the French and British did such a good job, why, the locals still love them and, by extension, all their friends in the West, like the US.
/sarc off
In actual fact, once WWII started, as fast as they could learn German the locals were allying themselves with Hitler and Rommel and only El Alamein (and some unheralded UK anti-insurgency campaigns in Mesopotamia, in parallel with fighting the Afrika Corps in North Africa) stopped that.

So, I'm fine with getting our folks the hell out of there. I'd not stop with Syria and Afghanistan, either. If we can get the NorKs to demilitarize, I'd be fine with getting us out of South Korea, too.

Bottom line: not everyone can have the worlds best armed forces, be located on a calm continent, or be separated from the craziness by two huge oceans. It's nice to have all three!

I think much of the angst about America becoming isolationist is envy from countries who have done their best to irritate their neighbors, and don't have the option to sit back and let chips fall where they may. Sucks to be them. As has been said many times, countries don't have permanent allies, they have permanent interests.

I have no problem with us leaving

in several instances, we shouldn't have been there in the first place

BUT if we're going to go to a war zone, the least we should be allowed to do is fight with everything we have, and do everything we can to win

but since we tried to help the locals get to the point that they can help themselves, but they continue to step up to the plate, its time to leave and let them reap the rewards

The biggest thing I got from it was IF those 2000 get the chit kicked outta them we'd be forced to get more involved than we're wanting to be.
We're also giving support to ppl that have huge budgets ....and they don't want to play ball the way we want ...screw them all then.

I don’t understand the Middle East but I hear the next great battle will be for Kurdistan, which doesn’t officially exist.

“Kurdistan covers around 190,000 km² in Turkey, 125,000 km² in Iran, 65,000 km² in Iraq, and 12,000 km² in Syria, with a total area of approximately 392,000 km².”

It should be interesting.

ETA: which is to say, Syria don’t mean squat in the big scheme of things.

Working from memory here, but as I recall, Afghanistan will never get peaceful from border to border.

They are a huge collection of smaller villages, many/most of which are run by minor dictators who hate many/all of the neighboring villages. Each village chief is a minor king and will die rather than giving that up.

So what is the best approach/strategy for fighting terrorism?

(Also: Shouldn’t we have good HUMINT again and not lose it like Bubba C?)

quote:

Saudi Arabia and UAE sending troops to help Kurds in Syria
Posted by Leslie Eastman Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 12:00pm

There have been some intriguing developments related to Syria that are now being reported in the wake of President Trump’s announcement of the withdrawal of U.S. troops.


To begin with, it appears that the Kurds will be getting support from America’s regional allies.

Saudi Arabia and the UAE have sent military forces to areas controlled by the Kurdish YPG group in north-east Syria, Turkey’s Yenisafak newspaper reported.

The paper said the forces will be stationed with US-led coalition troops and will support its tasks with huge military enforcements as well as heavy and light weapons.

Quoting the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, the newspaper reported that a convoy of troops belonging to an Arab Gulf state recently arrived in the contact area between the Kurdish PKK/YPG and Daesh in the Deir Ez-Zor countryside.

This comes at a time when Ankara is preparing to launch an expanded military operation with the Free Syrian Army against the Kurdish PKK group in the northeast of Syria.

Furthermore, a Jordanian official reports that Russian forces currently in Syria will take action to restrain Hezbollah and Iranian activity there, according to understandings reached by the U.S., Israel, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The understandings are the product of behind-the-scenes diplomatic talks that were underway prior to U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision this week to withdraw American forces from Syria.

According to the terms of the understanding, Russia will continue to give Israel the freedom to strike Hezbollah and Iranian targets and weaponry that threaten the “balance of power” in Syria. According to the Jordanian official, it was these understandings between Trump and Putin that paved the way for the U.S. decision to pull its forces from Syria.

Other high-ranking Jordanian officials have confirmed that Jordan, Israel and Saudi Arabia are working together to contain the threat posed by Iran and Hezbollah’s presence in Syria. Several of them emphasized that U.S. officials had made it clear that U.S. intelligence agencies would increase cooperation with Israel, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, particularly on sharing intelligence, in a joint attempt to counter Iran’s attempt to create a contiguous Shi’ite corridor from Tehran to Beirut.

Finally, Saudi Arabia is hosting Afghan peace talks, which are slated to take place next month.

US special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad on Wednesday arrived in Kabul from three days of meetings in Abu Dhabi, including the fourth round of a quadrilateral meeting among the US, Afghanistan, the UAE and Saudi Arabia.

The meetings were part of efforts by the US and international partners to promote an intra-Afghan dialogue aimed at ending the conflict in the landlocked country.

Meanwhile, reliable sources said decisions in the UAE centered on an amicable Afghan settlement and the next meeting would take place on January 15, 2019 in Saudi Arabia.

Perhaps we will see if this regional-power approach is a better match for long-term success in 2019.

Link

quote:

In announcing the departure of U.S. forces, Trump essentially told the Kurds that they are on their own. Unless the U.S. agrees to arm and supply YPG forces, and unless the U.S. intends to use other means to deter Erdogan from attacking them, Syria’s Kurds will face the unenviable choice between facing the Turks alone or throwing their hats in with the Russians and Iranians in the hopes of receiving some sort of protection from the Turks.

This right here is my biggest problem. We regularly fuck over the Kurds.

We got the Kurds to fight against Saddam during and after Gulf War 1, and then we fucked them, stopped the support and they got gassed by Saddam.

We got the Kurds to help us against Saddam again in Iraqi Freedom, and again they did TONS of heavy lifting against ISIS in Iraq.

Well, now we are gonna fuck them again.

This is why people don't trust us, and if we keep it up, probably shouldn't.

quote:

Originally posted by sjtill:
Saudi Arabia and UAE sending troops to help Kurds in Syria
...

The understandings are the product of behind-the-scenes diplomatic talks that were underway prior to U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision this week to withdraw American forces from Syria.

Hmm, President Trump seems to be much better at this geo-political stuff than his predecessors.

The Russians were invited in by the legitimate government of Syria. We simply went to war there without any declaration by Congress.

ISIS is pretty much gone but will continue to re-emerge in different skins for as long as there is Islam. The billions we pay to play "Whack a Moslem" isn't worth it. Maybe they will train all their hate on the Russkies now?

Braack the Peaceful started a lot of wars, no need for us to continue that expensive and wasteful path. Afghanistan has proven to be true to its historic norm, stay the hell out of it. Should have left when the Taliban did. Could have bombed them in the passes as they returned.

quote:

The Russians were invited in by the legitimate government of Syria.

Isn't that rather begging the question?

quote:

Originally posted by SIGnified:
(Also: Shouldn’t we have good HUMINT again and not lose it like Bubba C?)

Bubba is guilty of going soft on the ChiCom Chinese and their own efforts against us. US HUMINT capabilities was stunted by the Church/Pike Committees along with Adm. Stansfield Turner & GHW Bush's re-shaping of the CIA. In many ways the CIA screwed themselves by going over board with their assassination plots around the world and ham-fisted insurgencies from the 50's-70's, however they were very capable in their HUMINT collection. Fast forward into the 70's and the advent of satellites gave way to new collection of bureaucrats & administrators rising to leadership positions. This change was exposed in the early 80's in Lebanon and the repeated black-eye's we suffered there...which ultimately led to us tucking tail and getting out.

Fighting terrorism requires a multi-pronged effort that is largely HUMINT and diplomatic, with kinetic solutions (which we're unmatched at) being the final verdict. State Dept hasn't done shit either in the actual confrontation of things or, shaping their overseas offices to deal with the realities of semi-permission areas. Treasury and Justice Dept have done more than State the last 20-30 years. There's many who romantically and, fondly look back on the 'good old days of the Cold War', when clandestine officers weren't armed, slipping behind the iron curtain and meeting in dark bars in Marseille. These anachronistic tenants need to be purged, as the threat is both a religious/ideological one in the Islamists and a player offering competing economic opportunities to sway fence-sitting countries in China. With all the Chinese students that started pouring through our universities in the 90's, one would've hoped that the CIA/FBI have recruited assets from amongst such a group.

quote:

Originally posted by KevinCW:We regularly fuck over the Kurds.

.

This is my biggest issue with leaving. Until W invaded Iraq the Kurds were continually victims of genocide. That stopped with Gulf 2 and they have been consistently one of the most stable regions in that whole area. Syria and Turkey (and a good chunk of Iraq and Iran) want us to leave the Kurds high and dry. I dont want to see Trump fucking over the Kurds, as we have done in the past and playing into those that want us to leave.

Issue #2, this "war" on terrorism will never end. You want to pull out and leave that region, then just be prepared to be back there again in 20 years.

Policing and fighting terrorism in the middle East is a fools errand. It always has been, it always will be. That area of the world should be quarantined like the toxic waste dump that it is. We shouldn't go there and we should never, ever let them come here.

It use to be that only congress could start a war. Somehow that critical point gets missed in all the excitement. I'm glad we are out, something like that can blow up in seconds, and there is no strategic reason we were in there.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
So my question again. Who do you prefer to take our place? (This question is in response to PowerSurge's post.)

Maybe it's not the question at all.

Maybe the superpower approach is not the best. Maybe local brutality should stabilize the brutality. Maybe the thuggery of centuries past is as stable as it will get.

Maybe warring/subjugating cultures given the religion of the region will never find true peace but only times of rest.

Assad is a tyrant, tamping the unrest at home but never ending it. Saddam was a tyrant, holding warring factions at bay in his country until he was removed.

Then, the warring cultures of neighboring countries driven by sectarian ideology from their view of god has something to do with why things never settle down no matter how much a country like ours tries to set good "conditions" for freedom and democracy.

Placing democratic control into the hands of a culture overrun by those who hate requires, maybe, not fancy weapons of war but weapons of the mind and heart.

Failing that, it may require a somewhat heavy local hand as we see in Egypt and elsewhere to force a lid onto the worst actions.

Maybe the better choice would be supporting the best of the lot indigenous leader who's taking a given country on a better course without our footprint on the ground.

Excuse the philosophical ideas if you can but living like many do there would suck. Maybe leaving people to chose between human nature in wanting water, food and finer things and what their own culture provides the masses would settle things toward a better direction.

Iranians seemed to do that under the Shah.

I agree with braillediver who wrote, "Try to figure out what Trump is doing Not what he just did ."

There just may be a strategy to the tactic.

My humble opinion is Mattis wasn't as fabulous as he thought he was. Closet liberal with visions of being Patton.

"Maybe the thuggery of centuries past is as stable as it will get."

....this is what the evidence seems to suggest...

Graham says 'I feel pretty good' about Syria after lunch with Trump



Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told reporters Sunday that "I feel pretty good about where we're headed" in Syria after suggesting that President Trump is "reconsidering" the planned pullout which had drawn bipartisan criticism and forced the resignation of Defense Secretary James Mattis.

Graham emerged from the White House after a two-hour lunch with Trump and said the president "told me some things I didn't know that make me feel a lot better about where we're headed in Syria."

"He promised to destroy ISIS. He's going to keep that promise," Graham said of Trump. "We're not there yet. But as I said today, we're inside the 10-yard line and the president understands the need to finish the job."

Earlier Sunday, Graham called on Trump to reverse his decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria in a wide-ranging interview broadcast on CNN's "State of the Union."

"If we leave now, the Kurds are going to get slaughtered," Graham told host Dana Bash, adding that Trump had discussed the matter with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford and was "reconsidering how we do this."

"He's frustrated. I get it. People should pay more. They should fight more," Graham said. "But we're not the policemen of the world here. We're fighting a war against ISIS. They're still not defeated in Syria. I'm asking the president to make sure that we have troops there to protect us. Don't outsource our national security to some foreign power. If we leave now, the Kurds are going to get into a fight with Turkey, they could get slaughtered."

Graham echoed that theme outside the White House, telling reporters that the Kurds "stepped up when nobody else would" to fight ISIS.


"The last thing in the world we want is a war for Turkey and the Kurds," Graham said. "That takes pressure off ISIS. The last thing we want in addition to that is Iran to be the big winner here. So I think the president's going to finish the job when it comes to ISIS. I share his goal to withdraw our forces from Syria. I just want to do it in a smart way to make sure that Iran’s not the big winner."

In his interview with CNN, Graham also characterized former President Barack Obama's justification for pulling troops out of Iraq in 2011 -- a move widely credited with allowing the rapid rise of the terrorist group ISIS there -- as a "bunch of bullsh--, pardon my French."

Graham rejected the idea that the 2008 U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement, signed by President George W. Bush, had forced Obama's hand. The agreement called for all U.S. forces to leave the country by the end of 2011.

“That’s a complete and absolute lie," Graham said. "I was there, talking to the prime minister of Iraq -- Obama wanted to get to zero. He got to zero. October 21, 2011, I said I hope the president is right, but I fear this decision will come back to haunt us. ISIS came about as a result of our withdrawal from Iraq."

Everything we're dealing with today falls on Obama's watch," Graham added. "He's the one that withdrew from Iraq."


After lunch with the president, Graham said that he thought Trump's post-Christmas visit to Iraq was "eye-opening."

"The commanders there told him that ISIS was in a world of hurt," the senator said. "Not completely destroyed but well on their way. I think operations to completely destroy and decimate ISIS are going to be ongoing and are going to be accelerated.

"So the president assured me that he's going to make sure he gets the job done and I assured him that nobody has done more to defeat ISIS than he has," Graham added.

Graham later tweeted: "I learned a lot from President @realDonaldTrump about our efforts in Syria that was reassuring. The President will make sure any withdrawal from Syria will be done in a fashion to ensure: 1) ISIS is permanently destroyed. 2) Iran doesn’t fill in the back end, and 3) our Kurdish allies are protected.

"President @realDonaldTrump is talking with our commanders and working with our allies to make sure these three objectives are met as we implement the withdrawal," Graham concluded.

In a video shot outside the White House and posted to his Twitter account earlier this month, Trump explained his sudden decision to pull troops out of Syria hours earlier in unusually personal terms, saying he has found it increasingly difficult to inform soldiers' loved ones that their kin had died in combat.

"We've been fighting for a long time in Syria," Trump said. "I've been president for almost two years, and we've really stepped it up. And we've won against ISIS. We've been them, and we've beaten them badly. And now it's time for our troops to come back home."


Mattis, who signed orders to pull all American troops out of Syria in the coming weeks, gave his resignation letter to President Trump earlier this month, in which he acknowledged that a strong nation relies on a "comprehensive" network of alliances, and must be "resolute and unambiguous" in approaching countries with strategic differences, citing China and Russia.

"Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down from my position," Mattis wrote.

A senior U.S. defense official told Fox News that Mattis was leaving "in protest over the president's national security policies.”



https://www.foxnews.com/politi...ter-lunch-with-trump