Trump decision to pull U.S. troops back from Syrian-Turkish border

[rightleft22]

Not sure what I think about this.

On the one hand pull the bandage off, its over, retreat. 
On the other hand the west has betrayed the Kurds in the past... but if we need their help again...

[Fenring]

I don't really have enough information on the history of Kurdish-U.S. relations to comment on what should be done. But I've seen enough to know that there's a way to spin literally any move in that area. Go in there to help the Kurds? That can be spun either as humanitarian aid, or as making threatening moves to a G20 member. Pulling out of the area? Could be called peaceful foreign policy and getting the troops back home, or it could be called betraying some people who need U.S. help. There's no way to win there, just as there isn't in Yemen or in any case where a quagmire has been caused by powerful nations mucking about and then leaving the rubble to sort itself out (such as after WWI). The media can basically spin something like this to mean anything. I've already seen articles and posts about how Trump is betraying the kurds, even though during Obama's Presidency he seemed to make a big deal about no boots on the ground. So which is it?

[D.W.]

Outsourcing a job comes with its own costs.  By this point, in that region, we've got a pretty good idea of what the cost is.  At least we can't claim surprise when/if the bill comes due this time.

[rightleft22]

very much a lose lose, which is why I lean towards Trump making the right, inevitable decision. Walk away

Then having served in Desert Storm and the sense of responsibility knowing what happened to them after the pull out I feel the west is once again screwing the Kurds.
With friends like US they don't need enemy's.

[rightleft22]

"As I have stated strongly before, and just to reiterate, if Turkey does anything that I, in my great and unmatched wisdom, consider to be off limits, I will totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey (I’ve done before!)."  - Trump

A line in the sand that's isn't a line but what the great wizard of oz will determine after the fact?? -  How could that go wrong.

[Crunch]

"As I have stated strongly before, and just to reiterate, if Turkey does anything that I, in my great and unmatched wisdom, consider to be off limits, I will totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey (I’ve done before!)."  - Trump

A line in the sand that's isn't a line but what the great wizard of oz will determine after the fact?? -  How could that go wrong.

That was one weird tweet.

[DJQuag]

People play up supporting Israel as the only democracy in the ME, but the Kurds are the only Muslim group out there currently who have anything resembling Western values.

Edit - By out there, I mean in the Middle East. And I'll admit Lebanon is pretty borderline.

To abandon them, *again*, is pretty damned shameful.

[Wayward Son]

Of course, there is way the Kurds could get back some support... 

[DJQuag]

I get the joke, Wayward, but fact is the Kurds had women fighting on the front line against ISIS. All they want is their own country protected against Iraq and Turkey.

It would be immensely shameful if we were to abandon them yet again, like Bush the First did.

I know we've got some decent conservatives on the board, can any of them please give me the other side's perspective on this?

[ScottF]

From what I've read, we're talking about 50-100 soldiers. I could definitely be not seeing the big picture, but that doesn't seem like any kind of momentum-changing volume of people to help defend or not.

[NobleHunter]

The difference is now the Turks don't need to worry about accidentally shooting Americans.

[Wayward Son]

Especially since, per this article, Trump is basically giving Turkey permission to come into Syria and take over Kurdish territory.

[cherrypoptart]

The AUMF doesn't provide the justification to keep our troops in the sovereign nation of Syria for the purpose of protecting the Kurds from Turkey. With ISIS destroyed it doesn't seem to provide the justification to keep troops in Syria at all. What is our legal justification in accordance with American law to keep troops in Syria indefinitely? Yes, I like the Kurds so hopefully the UN can do something to help them and we should push in that direction and also exert direct pressure on Turkey as a member of NATO.

[Wayward Son]

And, in addition, maybe Trump should push Congress to authorize our continued presence in Kurdish territory in order to help protect our allies who did so much of the fighting against ISIS for us?

[DJQuag]

From what I've read, we're talking about 50-100 soldiers. I could definitely be not seeing the big picture, but that doesn't seem like any kind of momentum-changing volume of people to help defend or not.

It could be one.

The number doesn't matter. The fact that there is a Muslim nationality in the Middle East willing to set aside stuff like burkas, to that extent, that's what matters.

We're all supposed to up and support Israel for having decent human values. Yet we're going to abandon these people? Again?

Because I kind of feel the need to remind people of how the Kurds were assured of protection after Iraq War 1 and got betrayed.

Conservatives so often talk about how they'd accept Muslims if they'd only accept human rights, and now they're abandoning the very ones who do so.

Edit - What, you think women make a large part of the US or UK armed forces? The fact they're even allowed to is the point here.

[yossarian22c]

https://www.npr.org/2019/10/09/768490136/turkish-forces-launch-military-operation-against-kurds-at-syrian-border

The Turkish military is working with the Syrian National Army, Erdogan said, adding that they area targeting Kurdish groups as well as ISIS extremists.

I feel a little ashamed to be an American right now. I feel a little sick about the American forces who had been fighting with and helping the Kurds now standing and watching the people they worked with and who died to help us eliminate IS get attacked by our "allies."

[yossarian22c]

https://www.npr.org/2019/10/08/768257239/former-trump-envoy-syria-withdrawal-is-haphazard-and-almost-unprecedented

"Presidents do a lot of things, but the most consequential are decisions of war and peace like this, and you can't make decisions on a haphazard basis after a single call with a foreign leader," McGurk says on NPR's Morning Edition on Tuesday. "This is almost unprecedented."

But I'm sure someone who served through the Bush/Obama and into the Trump administration is just another deep state operative out to get Trump  .

[Crunch]

It’s amazing to see the evolution of the left. From 2001-2008 it was rabidly anti-war. Think pink, body count projects, rants about being the world police, etc. War was immoral and to be avoided at all costs back then.

In 2008, the left decided to not care about wars. Continuing them, even starting new ones, total apathy. They mostly ignored it and pretended wars were not happening.

Now, 2019,  the left is a war hawk. Suddenly, they love the idea of other Americans kids dying in “meaningless wars”.

LOL, incredible to see this shift.

[yossarian22c]

Now, 2019,  the left is a war hawk. Suddenly, they love the idea of other Americans kids dying in “meaningless wars”.

I'm not "the left."

You go in and ally yourselves with someone then there is an obligation to see it through. We literally went in and asked them to die fighting IS for us and after they largely succeeded walked away to let them be attacked from two sides by Turkey and Syria. The presence of US troops there wasn't to fight but to keep Turkey, Syria, Russia, and Iran from attacking those areas.

Trump has no honor, no loyalty, and don't be surprised when countries and groups quit helping us. Fight and die for us, then we'll walk away and let you be bombed and attacked from two sides. By the way be sure to keep guarding those IS prisoners while your being slaughtered we really wouldn't want them to get free.

[rightleft22]

Suddenly, they love the idea of other Americans kids dying in “meaningless war

Spin it as per Trump loyalist talking points advise but I suspect your wondering if your wrong side of this one.

[D.W.]

Suddenly, they love the idea of other Americans kids dying in “meaningless war

Spin it as per Trump loyalist talking points advise but I suspect your wondering if your wrong side of this one.

No he isn't.  Neither are the others.  While some of them are nutters, most have just decided that the ends justify the means.  Things are getting done.  I dislike most of them, but I understand why many want those changes.  Right or wrong is not factoring in  on it.  Trump the person, Trump the criminal, Trump the bane of democracy and the constitution, doesn't matter.  Agenda is all.  And things are getting done.  (like them or not)

[Wayward Son]

And as somebody wrote in a very, very powerful article today, they didn't help us in the second World War, they didn't help us with Normandy as an example.

They didn't fight with us against the British in the Revolutionary War, either. 

[Seriati]

The history of the Kurds in the region is complicated.  Ideally, I'd hold to the principal of the UN that every people is entitled to self determination.  That means four countries in the area would almost certainly lose a part of their land to a new independent Kurdish state.  So why hasn't that happened?

US airstrikes against ISIS were followed up largely by Kurdish separatists to create a controlled terroritory.  Are they really terrorists as Turkey would assert?  I doubt it, but I haven't found a way to get objective information. 

Optics on what Trump did are horrible.  Pull out Americans and Turkey commences with Air Strikes.  But the alternatives are what?  Do we establish the Kurdish state?  If that was an acceptable possibility it would have already happened (and I don't fully know why the west has never supported it).  Do we declare a perpetual American presence?  That would allow the Kurds to create a state ultimately and most likely through violence and most likely through border conflicts that cross the line into terrorism.  Do we declare it a no fly?  Sure that stops the optics of the fighters, but does nothing to stop the well funded Turkish army moving on the ground.  And both the later options are a "soft" commitment to Kurdish independence that actually increases the chance of harm.  Do we pull out?  The almost certain result of which is to suppress Kurdish independence and cause the regional powers to assert themselves over the Kurds.

I guess - to me - the right answer is based upon a simple question.  Are the Kurds getting their own state?  If yes, then it should be declared and the World should back it.  If no, then it's hard to understand the intermediate processes of protecting the Kurds while they try to create it through force.

So you tell me, is it really just a simple question of not abandoning your allies?  If it is then I think you have to support forming a Kurdish state, which included part of an ally's (Turkey's) territory and how are you going to deal with that.

Maybe I'm missing something, that should persuade me there's a clear answer - I definitely lean towards allowing new states to form.

[rightleft22]

No he isn't.  Neither are the others.

To be clear I was responding to the hyperbole and over generalization of 'The left' but thinks their is merit in your assessment.

I believe that the end is always in the beginning, so how you do things matter.
I'm wary of those that believe the ends justifies the means, once you undermine the ground you walk on its hard to remain standing.

[yossarian22c]

I guess - to me - the right answer is based upon a simple question.  Are the Kurds getting their own state?  If yes, then it should be declared and the World should back it.  If no, then it's hard to understand the intermediate processes of protecting the Kurds while they try to create it through force.

So you tell me, is it really just a simple question of not abandoning your allies?  If it is then I think you have to support forming a Kurdish state, which included part of an ally's (Turkey's) territory and how are you going to deal with that.

You're right in that there are complexities at play. I also agree with you that the Kurd's should get their own state. Turkey is regressing towards a dictatorship, Syria is basically a failed state, and Iraq isn't much better. If putting 1,000 boots on the ground allows the Kurds to create a region they control in Syria and if the Iraqi Kurds want to join them then so be it. Keeping lines on a map isn't worth perpetual conflict and potential genocide.

Basically I don't view Turkey under Erdogan as a good ally. I get Turkey is strategically located and that provides a boost to NATO capabilities but if the cost of being their ally is to stand aside while they perpetuate what could easily escalate into something approaching genocide then that is way too high a cost to pay. Based on some of their recent actions I'm not sure we could count on them if Russia decided to try something in the Balkins, I could see Erdogan cutting a non-aggression pact with Putin and turning his back on NATO if the price was right. So in the end, not pissing off Turkey isn't high enough on my priority list to screw the Kurds over.

I also think the cost to America's reputation over this is going to be higher than Trump and his supporters realize. I am extremely worried about the special forces troops who frequently go into dangerous regions and sometimes need to work with locals. If they can't provide any assurance we won't leave them to die at the hands of "our allies" then they are going to be much more vulnerable wherever they go.

[Crunch]

Suddenly, they love the idea of other Americans kids dying in “meaningless war

Spin it as per Trump loyalist talking points advise but I suspect your wondering if your wrong side of this one.

What side am I on? I posted on this thread twice - once to note the weirdness of Trump’s tweet and once to marvel at the  conversion of the left to war hawks. So which “side” are you imagining I took?

[Crunch]

I’m not sure I have sufficient context for this.

We know Turkey notified the UN that it intended to invade Syria and the UN reworked international law for this case so it would be “legal”. So the UN approves the invasion. NATO has also essentially signed off on it and given a green light. France and the UK, every bit as allied with the Kurds as we are, express concerns but are not willing to get involved.

So why do the major word governing bodies approve this to the point they’d rewrite laws? Why is it only the US that should stand against Turkey and the UN to protect the Kurds?

I feel like I’m missing some things relevant to this story.

[D.W.]

I'm largely guessing here as I'm ignorant on a lot of of what's going on there, but...

NATO is cool with Turkey going into Syria, and probably sympathetic to the "buffer zone" objective.  They would LIKE Turkey to ignore / work around the Kurds though.  However Turkey feels the Kurds are the largest threat to their security at present. 

While we had supporting troops in place Turkey could not attack the Kurds.  With the US out of the way though, they can hit the Kurds as they've wanted all along.

NATO is not willing to go so far as to say the Kurds deserve their own state carved out of this area.  That would jeopardize/ruin their relationship with Turkey.  Fortunately the US was in there with them so they could ignore this snag.

What that doesn't answer, is why didn't NATO step in to take the place of the US troops as it was announced by Trump they were on the way out?  If they gave a *censored* about the Kurds, even short of sponsoring statehood, why aren't they there to form the same protective umbrella? 

[rightleft22]

Crunch I was commenting on the statement of "conversion of the left to war hawks"
I may not have read the statement closely enough

Like you I'm not sure I have sufficient context for this
Feels like a lose lose for the US. 

[NobleHunter]

If no other reason because NATO found out about at the same time of the rest of the world. There hasn't been enough time for anyone to redeploy to take the place of the US trip line. Not to mention I'd be hesitant to send people into what might be harm's way if I couldn't be sure the US would live up to its agreements. I doubt China or Russia would let Turkey be sanctioned either.

[D.W.]

But Trump didn't "tweet" them off the field.  Unless that is he had issued the order before letting the world known on twitter, dismissing the prevailing story that he "surprised" everyone?

Why wasn't someone from NATO on the horn immediately going, "Hey, hold up, those guys are important, at least give us a shot at swapping in our troops for yours!" 

The answer is (I assume) they don't give a *censored*.  It was (largely) OUR reputation on the line, not NATO's if/when we left the Kurds hang out to dry.   

The world, and that region are ruthless.  As are everyone who is involved there.  SOME of them/us posture that we care about human rights / the people, but few act as if that's the case in the long term. 

Trump decided it was no longer in our strategic interest to support the Kurds.  That's all that mattered.  I'm "turned warhawk" not because it's unfair to the Kurds (though it is) but because I think history (recent history) proves he's wrong.

[Wayward Son]

We know Turkey notified the UN that it intended to invade Syria and the UN reworked international law for this case so it would be “legal”.

Do you have a link to this story?  This is an aspect I've never heard of.

[rightleft22]

But Trump didn't "tweet" them off the field

It dons't look like Trump consulted with anyone though, at least not the with those you might have thought he should.
Its also not clear he had a flushed out plan in the matter.

My limited understanding is that he caught NATO off guard along with most everyone else?

[Crunch]

We know Turkey notified the UN that it intended to invade Syria and the UN reworked international law for this case so it would be “legal”.

Do you have a link to this story?  This is an aspect I've never heard of.

Sorry, I don’t have the link handy but it was in the Jerusalem Post, written by Seth J Frantzman, posted today.

[Seriati]

Trump decided it was no longer in our strategic interest to support the Kurds.  That's all that mattered.

I'm not sure it's accurate to say we were supporting the Kurds.  That makes it sound like our policy was to advocate for their independence.  I think, rather, we were attacking ISIS and were supporting anyone in that fight.  Turkey refused to provide the troops and the Kurds were interested - hence we were allied.  I also think the Kurds are sympathetic and as I said above I wouldn't have a problem if we did choose to support them, but I've never seen anything that suggests we were there to support the Kurds.

I think if Trump had chosen to support the Kurds after ISIS is defeated he'd be exceeding his authority (if the Kurd's had a country they could invite him, which is a nasty consequence of this, but without a country he's literally on the ground of countries that are hostile to the US staying).

[NobleHunter]

Yet he left at Turkey's request, not Syria's nor Congress's. He left to enable an invasion rather than respect Syria's sovereignty.

[D.W.]

I'm not sure it's accurate to say we were supporting the Kurds.  That makes it sound like our policy was to advocate for their independence.  I think, rather, we were attacking ISIS and were supporting anyone in that fight. 

Accurate.  I would hope, for the sake of our national image abroad, that we were clear in that regard.  That there was no, "you help us, we'll help you." implied or explicitly stated.

My limited understanding is that he caught NATO off guard along with most everyone else?

Indeed.  But it takes time to move troops.  Unless they were in motion BEFORE the world heard about it from the tweet (no indication they were) then NATO could have attempted to step in.  Or at least make public their intention to do just that.

They did not.  (to the best of my knowledge)  That silence says a lot.

[Crunch]

Yeah, that. ^

If it was us aligning with them to defeat ISIS, which has now essentially been accomplished, what do we owe the Kurds? Are we really obligated to defend them in perpetuity now? Are we supposed to help them establish their own country?

I’m not sure what we’ve agreed to on this.

[D.W.]

The disconnect is that a lot of us eat up our own propaganda.  We SHOULD be on the side of the Kurds.  They seem like a solid ally in the region and are willing to risk their blood in military objectives we share.  That we can just use them and leave them to die once we get what we want is repellent to us.  Because we tell ourselves we stand for the exact opposite when it comes to how we approach foreign affairs.

Granted that's all BS, but having it thrown in our face is psychologically harmful.  Not to mention what it does to the citizens of other countries and how that may influence their policies as they relate to us.

How we frame our actions/goals/objectives matter.  That's something Trump doesn't get, or doesn't care about.  Optics mean nothing to him.  That doesn't mean they don't matter however.

[Crunch]

What military objectives do we currently share with them? I don’t think there are any left. I’m pretty sure we did not agree to be permanently allied and would defend them from all enemies now until the end of time.

We can argue if Trump cares about optics or not, probably not and that’s why a lot of people vote for him. It’s obvious that Trump does care about keeping campaign promises though and getting out of pointless ME wars was one of his promises that he is apparently willing to deliver on as he has so many others. He was in large part elected to do this very thing, the surprise for everyone is that he was serious about it.

[rightleft22]

Indeed.  But it takes time to move troops.

Having served in the military moving a 50 - 100 personal should be able to be done in hours
Brigades when deployed should be able to move in hours, not days.

[D.W.]

I just hope we can get out of this one without generating more threats to our national security.

[D.W.]

Thanks RL, though I'm not sure what the lag time is from tweet to orders coming down...   
And if someone DID put in a call asking for the opportunity to step in and replace those troops with someone else, if they could delay long enough for an equal number of highly swift and mobile troops to move in?

[Wayward Son]

We know Turkey notified the UN that it intended to invade Syria and the UN reworked international law for this case so it would be “legal”.

Do you have a link to this story?  This is an aspect I've never heard of.

Sorry, I don’t have the link handy but it was in the Jerusalem Post, written by Seth J Frantzman, posted today.

Thanks, Crunch.

This seems to be the article, THEY FOUGHT ALONGSIDE THE U.S. FOR FIVE YEARS TO BE BOMBED BY U.S. NATO ALLY.  Unfortunately, it is scant on details.  I can find only one paragraph which states:

Turkey informed the UN General Assembly of its plans in September. Although the military invasion of a foreign country, settling of people and confiscation of the lands of the indigenous inhabitants is usually illegal under international law, a new set of global rules have been created for Turkey’s operation.

There are other articles where Turkey is "telling" the U.N. that their actions are justified under Article 51, but I haven't seen anything where the U.N. officially agrees with them.

[Crunch]

Watching this go down, it seems Congress has a pretty consistent position on this that crosses party lines. Seems like they could do more than go on talk shows and complain. They could exercise their authority under the war powers clause, if they’re serious about this.

[Crunch]

Ok. There’s a cease fire. I didn’t get to read too deeply into it but looks like it will be permanent and we’ll help the Kurds relocate.

Good plan?

[NobleHunter]

Because being even more complicit in ethnic cleansing is a win for sure.

On the other hand, both the US and the Turks have practice at it.

[Crunch]

Are they saving their lives?

What do you prefer, we declare war on Turkey? Should we force the creation of a new nation? Set up a permanent military presence and defend them in perpetuity?

Obama handed us this *censored* sandwich, how do you want to eat it?

[NobleHunter]

Gee, if only the President was surrounded by a lot of very smart people who could figure out solutions to intractable problems. You might even think a big part of his job was listening to those people.

Though I can't wait to blame Trump for the *censored* sandwich his successor will inherent in Syria.

[Wayward Son]

Ok. There’s a cease fire. I didn’t get to read too deeply into it but looks like it will be permanent and we’ll help the Kurds relocate.

Good plan?

No.

First off, it isn't permanent.  It's only for five days.

Second, third, fourth...

On Wednesday, Vice President Mike Pence was dispatched to Turkey (along with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo) to work out a deal on Syria with Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. And on Thursday, less than 24 hours after getting on a plane, Pence reported back with big news: a temporary ceasefire has been reached!

If you are surprised that a deal was worked out so very quickly, especially since the flight from Washington to Ankara takes about 13 hours, well, you're right to be skeptical. To start, the Turkish government quickly said that they had not signed off, and that, in any case, the deal is not a ceasefire. Meanwhile, the leadership of Syrian Kurdish forces said they had not been consulted at all, and that they rejected the agreement in toto. That means we have a bipartisan agreement that is, at best, monopartisan, and is, at worst, nullpartisan. And yes, we did just make up that word, because nonpartisan is already in use for a different concept.

More significantly, the details of the "deal," such as it is, have a decided slant. Note that the U.S. government had been negotiating with the Turkish government over this matter for many weeks before the recent blow-up. What Turkey wanted, during the course of negotiations, was a 20-mile-wide zone of control in northern Syria. They also demanded an end to the autonomous Kurdish political unit of Rojava.

Pence and Pompeo, who had additional leverage given the sanctions that were just imposed on Turkey, managed to negotiate the following deal: The sanctions will be ended, and Turkey will be given a 20-mile-wide zone of control in Northern Syria. Further, before Pence and Pompeo already arrived, the Kurds had already cut deals with Syria and Russia, de facto bringing Rojava to an end.

You may notice that Turkey appears to have gotten everything it wanted, while the United States and the Kurds got...nothing. That is certainly how it looks to folks who have followed this matter closely. Consider these headlines from Thursday:

Slate: Trump Gives Turkey Exactly What It Wants, Claims Victory
CNN: Pence announces Syria ceasefire that appears to give Turkey everything it wants
Commentary Magazine: The 'Ceasefire' That Wasn't. Some Deal
MSNBC: In 'final betrayal,' U.S. brokered Syria ceasefire is effectively a Kurdish surrender
Washington Examiner: Trump's Syria peace plan: Get the Kurds to surrender to Turkey
PoliticusUSA: Trump Thanks His "Friend" Erdoğan For Allowing The US To Surrender In Disgrace
MediaMatters: Mainstream media are portraying Trump's Syria deal as a cease-fire, while Fox News praises it as a win, but experts say it's neither...

Obviously, many other folks in Washington were not nearly as impressed with Team Trump as Trump was. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement describing the agreement as a "sham" and opining that "President Erdoğan has given up nothing, and President Trump has given him everything." And Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT), who really might be preparing himself to lead anti-Trump Republicans in the Senate, blasted the accord as "a bloodstain on the annals of American history" and said that Trump backed down in the face of a bully.

Indeed, this whole drama follows the same pattern we've seen several times before, most obviously with North Korea:

1. A crisis (sometimes created by Trump, sometimes not) emerges
2. Trump rages on Twitter while his counterpart does a little saber-rattling
3. Trump wilts and gives up concessions in exchange for an empty "deal" that he can tout as a victory
4. Trump takes many victory laps, kisses his counterpart's rear end, and starts talking about how it's high time that he be given a Nobel Peace Prize.