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

[Crunch]

CNN, MSNBC, MediaMatters, et al think it’s terrible. Consequently, you think it’s terrible. This is my shocked face.

So you want to establish a new nation for the Kurds and defend it forever from all their enemies. Do you remember when you were anti-war? It’s amazing how Trump turned you guys into the pro war crowd.

[rightleft22]

Do you remember when you were anti-war? It’s amazing how Trump turned you guys into the pro war crowd

I believe the situation is a lose lose for the US. It was just a matter of time that Turkey would go after the Kurd's and we would standby and watch.
That said Trump didn't appear to have planned the withdraw or have a strategy that went deeper then get out which should trouble everyone.

Not that this is relevant however as a former soldier having a posting were your were part of a 50 to 100 person team that protected thousands was the best. It felt like you were making a difference where as the first gulf war in hindsight felt like being used as we stood by and watched thousands of Kurds be gassed and killed.

Having limited troops on the ground for strategic reasons that does not put them directly in harms way is not pro war. Its smart. Such deployments are more often peace keeping then war making.

[TheDrake]

It's fun to watch people defend Hong Kong separatists and then condemn Kurd separatists.

[D.W.]

It IS terrible.  Nobody should have to tell you this. 
What is important is the follow up.  "So what SHOULD he have done?"  And IMO there are no good answers.

I think a simple, "we are pulling out by X date.  We are concerned for the safety of our allies in the region but we cannot stay here indefinitely.  We would ask the other NATO members to assist Turkey in reaching a peaceful end to hostilities in our absence." 

Just giving a window and NATO time to react would not obligate us to be the forever shield of the Kurds or obligating us to assist in setting up a Kurdish state.   

This is a terrible situation, but I'm not convinced it was ours to "fix", though at least making a genuine effort to stop Turkey from doing something outrageous... would have been nice.  Although Trump did show some masterful statecraft in his letter, apparently that didn't cut it. 

[Wayward Son]

CNN, MSNBC, MediaMatters, et al think it’s terrible. Consequently, you think it’s terrible. This is my shocked face.

So you want to establish a new nation for the Kurds and defend it forever from all their enemies. Do you remember when you were anti-war? It’s amazing how Trump turned you guys into the pro war crowd.

Wow.  After quoting four or five reasons why it's a bad idea, all you can come back with is "CNN, MSNBC, MediaMatters, et al think it’s terrible."  Don't you think for yourself?  Or do you just look to Trump and his Conservative Media and hate whoever they tell you to? 

And if you hadn't noticed, the invasion didn't start until after Trump said he was withdrawing our troops.  Our troops were keeping the peace.  So don't give my that "pro war" BS.

Another perfect example of TSS. 

[TheDrake]

Personally, I'm glad to extract troops at all times because I'm an isolationist. I don't think we should get involved unless it is an existential threat. There is a mechanism for peacekeeping troops, it is called the United Nations.

[rightleft22]

There is a mechanism for peacekeeping troops, it is called the United Nations.

Could have worked in this situation. To bad their wasn't a plan past where getting out of here

[Crunch]

It's fun to watch people defend Hong Kong separatists and then condemn Kurd separatists.

So you want to send troops to Hong Kong now?

[Crunch]

CNN, MSNBC, MediaMatters, et al think it’s terrible. Consequently, you think it’s terrible. This is my shocked face.

So you want to establish a new nation for the Kurds and defend it forever from all their enemies. Do you remember when you were anti-war? It’s amazing how Trump turned you guys into the pro war crowd.

Wow.  After quoting four or five reasons why it's a bad idea, all you can come back with is "CNN, MSNBC, MediaMatters, et al think it’s terrible."  Don't you think for yourself?  Or do you just look to Trump and his Conservative Media and hate whoever they tell you to? 

And if you hadn't noticed, the invasion didn't start until after Trump said he was withdrawing our troops.  Our troops were keeping the peace.  So don't give my that "pro war" BS.

Another perfect example of TSS. 

You’re the one parroting talking points. Not much deep thinking there.

You are literally taking the “eternal war for eternal peace” position. How many wars do you think we need before peace is achieved?

[TheDrake]

It's fun to watch people defend Hong Kong separatists and then condemn Kurd separatists.

So you want to send troops to Hong Kong now?

Nope, if you were paying attention I already made it clear I don't want troops in Syria. I don't think we should get involved in other countries internal rebellions.

[ScottF]

So apparently Turkey informed that "they would be stopping combat and their offensive in Syria and making the ceasefire permanent”

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1187035171620560897

[Pete at Home]

It's fun to watch people defend Hong Kong separatists and then condemn Kurd separatists.

I wouldn't, but doing so would not require moral inconsistency.   There are similarities yes, but also numerous dissimilarities.  I sympathize more with the Kurds because they were targets of genocide, whereas Hong Kong is a target of significant loss of moral liberties. 
 
I wish that I could believe that more of those who speak for the Kurds now, would have cared if Obama had done the same.  Or had spoken when Obama DID the same.  Do you remember why ISIS gained ground in the first place?  Because the Kurds fracking ran out of bullets.  That's how badly Obama reamed the Kurds.  Took away the bullets we were giving them, in the face of ISIS.  Smoothe move, that.

Is Trump still arming the Kurds?

[TheDeamon]

Is Trump still arming the Kurds?

The ones in Iraq at least, to my understanding. It is only the ones in Syria that are being left hanging in the breeze.

[Fenring]

Slightly unrelated to the Kurds specifically, but in other news regarding Trump's attitude towards foreign policy in quagmires:

https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/dm385k/who_gives_a_st_about_afghanistan_trump_stunned/

I linked the Reddit thread instead of just the article itself because my comment is about the Reddit comments, not the article. Trump saying this kind of stuff is old news to us, but what struck me as amazing are the top comments. I would have assumed that most would be anti-Trump or at least mocking him playfully, but the majority aren't even about him at all! Most of the comments take the opportunity instead to make mention of war for profit, how the U.S. has no business being in Afghanistan in the first place, and one user even mentioned the poppy fields and the CIA's interest in them. How inspiring! This has been a little breath of fresh air. leftright, check it out, there is hope for America 

[cherrypoptart]

It looks like Trump is making it right. Hopefully the Kurds can have peace without our troops having to be the meat shields providing it. As it should be.

[rightleft22]

Macron told the Economist in an article published Thursday that Europe can no longer rely on the United States to defend NATO allies.

His blunt comments come after the Trump Administration pulled US forces out of northern Syria last month, in a move that dismayed European NATO members.
The abrupt withdrawal -- seemingly without warning to Paris -- left US allies, the Syrian Kurds, open to a Turkish offensive in the region.
Macron has been a vocal supporter of the Kurds, and the sudden US policy shift complicated relations with fellow NATO member Turkey.

"You have partners together in the same part of the world, and you have no coordination whatsoever of strategic decision-making between the United States and its NATO allies," said Macron.

Its seems clear that Turkey and Russia had a Plan but not the US... unless that was the plan?

[Crunch]

Yeah, that sounds exactly like a french politician.

[Seriati]

If it was so important to Macron, where were the French troops?  Oh yeah, that's exactly Trump's point.

[rightleft22]

France has been one of the main allies in the U.S.-led coalition fighting Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, with its warplanes used to strike militant targets and its special forces on the ground coordinating with Kurdish and Arab fighters

Crunch does your curt statement of contempt about All French politicians your way of saying that the US does not have to consult with it allies who are working along side them? If this is the new american policy Macron, even though he is french, the US can't be trusted.

If it was so important to Macron, where were the French troops?  Oh yeah, that's exactly Trump's point.

If Trump planed the withdraw is it possible France, as it is trying to do now, might have been prepared to take a stronger role?

Pirating the party.... disappointed

[D.W.]

It's possible, and should have been tried, but that's only part of the issue.  As we talked about before, establishing a Kurdish state was never on the table AFAIK, so who was acting as a human shield may be relevant, but how to resolve the issue so that one isn't needed was always going to be a mess. 

I would have preferred some more feet dragging, as it is obvious that shield was needed...

[rightleft22]

I agree with the leaving, just not the how, or the leaving troops behind to protect the oil wells.

The apparent lack of planning and coordination with allies feels suspicious to me (likely my basic starting point of distrust of the Administration)

[TheDeamon]

I agree with the leaving, just not the how, or the leaving troops behind to protect the oil wells.

The apparent lack of planning and coordination with allies feels suspicious to me (likely my basic starting point of distrust of the Administration)

They did coordinate with a NATO ally, the one in the immediate geographical vicinity: Turkey.

France is literally a continent away from there, they can complain all they want. =P

[rightleft22]

France is literally a continent away from there, they can complain all they want. =P

My understanding is that France had/has troops in Syria at the time of the withdraw (partial withdraw must protect that oil)

As the consensuses is that France deserves getting the finger, Macron read on the situation is validated. France and Europe should not trust the US and were good with that.

[Seriati]

If it was so important to Macron, where were the French troops?  Oh yeah, that's exactly Trump's point.

If Trump planed the withdraw is it possible France, as it is trying to do now, might have been prepared to take a stronger role?

If it was important to France they should have already been there.  Trump's been crystal clear that NATO and the EU are not doing their share on security situations.  The most difficult part, politically, in all circumstances for a Western country is boots on the ground.  It is 100% a sign of the problem that there are no French boots on the ground today.  The fact is, if this is important to the EU the unilateral withdrawal of the US would be irrelevant because there would still be EU troops there.

Ask yourself why their aren't.  Citing to a lack of coordination on the withdrawal, because they "might have been willing to do more" just highlights to me the absurd lack of their current presence and belief that America should bear the political consequences for the policies the EU claims to support.

[Fenring]

If it was important to France they should have already been there.  Trump's been crystal clear that NATO and the EU are not doing their share on security situations.  The most difficult part, politically, in all circumstances for a Western country is boots on the ground.  It is 100% a sign of the problem that there are no French boots on the ground today.  The fact is, if this is important to the EU the unilateral withdrawal of the US would be irrelevant because there would still be EU troops there.

To be fair this issue goes beyond doing their share, and IMO is related to the general manner of U.S. involvement probably since the Marshall Plan went into effect and U.S. presence in Europe was made permanent. At the end of the day it just is more efficient to have a single large military infrastructure doing all kinds of coordinated stuff, than to have a patchwork of smaller countries each contributing a bit and hoping their officers can work together under some allied commander. Take the U.S. army and navy, divide them up amongs each EU country, and you'd have a far less coordinated military if I'm guessing. So it 'works' to have a massive army controlled through a single economic structure, and therefore to have that same army do most legwork around the globe. The way that should work is that members who make use of that army's services pay into the fund, essentially. Maybe that's what NATO is supposed to be doing anyhow but functionally I can see why countries like France would be hesitant to get too much into the 'sending troops around the world' game. The way it's been working since Bretton Woods has been something in the vein of a global government vis a vis how the U.S. military has access and positioning around the world. This may all have been bad, or good, but the de facto system basically was "military interventions are done by the U.S.", and maybe with some allied assistance. But really that assistance has always seemed to me to be more out of solidariy than necessity.

Plus let's not forget that all of these military adventures have become part of the earmarked fiscal plan, where the budgets are the way they are due to overzealous adventuring, and where curtailing the adventuring in favor of allies 'doing their share' would cut into profits and/or lower earmarked budgets, both of which are unacceptable to certain parties that tend to get their way. So it's not just as simple as 'let them do their share', although I agree with you about the sentiment.

[rightleft22]

Ask yourself why their aren't.

I did and again my understanding is that the French along with other NATO were and are involved in Syira. But ok They weren't so justification.

You haven't responded to the idea that the US can't be trusted and by your arguments I assess you agree the US can't be trusted.
That's fine. It opens up a lot of questions and I understand why no one wants to look at those questions as it might lead to question of the Administration policies and we know we can't have that.

NATO isn't pulling its weight all is justified frack them all.

[DonaldD]

It is 100% a sign of the problem that there are no French boots on the ground today.

It's "100% a sign" but it is not 100% true: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/09/uk-and-france-to-send-further-forces-to-syria-in-aid-of-us-withdrawal

Britain has agreed to deploy additional special forces in Syria alongside France to allow the US to withdraw its ground troops from the ongoing fight against the remaining Isis forces in the country.

US officials briefed on Tuesday that Britain and France would contribute 10% to 15% more elite soldiers, although the exact numbers involved remain secret.

[Seriati]

You haven't responded to the idea that the US can't be trusted and by your arguments I assess you agree the US can't be trusted.

Sorry, didn't realize my position on trusting the US was unclear.  The US, as a world power, literally potentially flips it's entire foreign policy every four years.  Anytime that an incoming administration can undermine the successes of a prior and make it look like the original policy was flawed they do it.  No one should ever rely on the US for a long term commitment.

It is 100% a sign of the problem that there are no French boots on the ground today.

It's "100% a sign" but it is not 100% true: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/09/uk-and-france-to-send-further-forces-to-syria-in-aid-of-us-withdrawal

Britain has agreed to deploy additional special forces in Syria alongside France to allow the US to withdraw its ground troops from the ongoing fight against the remaining Isis forces in the country.

You are correct, I overstated the case.  The roles are different though, which is why the withdrawal of the US troops allowed Turkey to expand its operations, notwithstanding that there are French soldiers (of an indeterminate amount) in other roles, generally, but not exclusively, elsewhere in Syria.  There are still US troops in Syria as well.  The pull out was of a region.

[TheDeamon]

You haven't responded to the idea that the US can't be trusted and by your arguments I assess you agree the US can't be trusted.

That ship sailed for me in 2009 when Obama abandoned a number of Iraqis and Afghanis who had aided us previously, and was cemented in place when Obama failed to honor the agreement with Ukraine.

So cry me a river when Democrats start whining about how "Trump just proved the US can't be trusted." At this point, I'd rather see the US avoid perpetuating agreements we have no intention of honoring in the long term.

[TheDrake]

You haven't responded to the idea that the US can't be trusted and by your arguments I assess you agree the US can't be trusted.

That ship sailed for me in 2009 when Obama abandoned a number of Iraqis and Afghanis who had aided us previously, and was cemented in place when Obama failed to honor the agreement with Ukraine.

So cry me a river when Democrats start whining about how "Trump just proved the US can't be trusted." At this point, I'd rather see the US avoid perpetuating agreements we have no intention of honoring in the long term.

I think the only difference is gradual distancing and abandonment versus dropping somebody cold. We usually ghost our former allies of convenience rather than crushing them more directly. That's not much of a difference, and I suspect the Kurds always knew they were cannon fodder.

1974-75 : Kurds get lured into war with Hussein's Iraq, the Shah's Iran and the US laugh it up. Hundreds of Kurds were executed. Kissinger: ‘Covert action should not be confused with missionary work’.

1988: Kurds get gassed. America who? Never heard of em.

1990-91: Kurds rise up against Hussein again. We give them some air cover, but sent arms that led to some sweet Kurd-on-Kurd attacks.

So we got Ford, Reagan, and Bush at a minimum screwing them over. It wouldn't be hard to add Obama in there as well, most likely. And now Trump.

It's about the only Presidential tradition Trump seems to want to keep. The Screwing of the Kurds is about as Presidential as it gets. It's about as funny as Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown, only in this version Charlie cracks his skull open.

[NobleHunter]

That ship sailed for me in 2009 when Obama abandoned a number of Iraqis and Afghanis who had aided us previously, and was cemented in place when Obama failed to honor the agreement with Ukraine.

What agreement with Ukraine? The only obligation the US had should Ukraine's borders be violated was to complain to the UN Security Council. Guess how much effect that had.

[LetterRip]

What agreement with Ukraine? The only obligation the US had should Ukraine's borders be violated was to complain to the UN Security Council. Guess how much effect that had.

I think he is referring to the security assurance that the Ukraine recieved in exchange for relinquishing its nuclear missles.

https://www.rferl.org/a/the-destruction-of-ukraines-nuclear-arsenal/29699706.html

1994 Trilateral Statement

The Massandra Accords set the stage for the ultimately successful trilateral talks. As the U.S. mediated between Russia and Ukraine, the three countries signed the January 14, 1994 Trilateral Statement. Ukraine committed to full disarmament, including strategic weapons, in exchange for economic support and security assurances from the United States and Russia. Ukraine agreed to transfer its nuclear warheads to Russia and accepted U.S. assistance in dismantling missiles, bombers, and nuclear infrastructure. Ukraine’s warheads would be dismantled in Russia, and Ukraine would receive compensation for the commercial value of the highly enriched uranium. Ukraine ratified the START treaty in February 1994, repealing its earlier preconditions, but it would not accede to the NPT without further security assurances.

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Ukraine-Nuclear-Weapons

deal between US, Russia, and the UK in compensation for the Ukraine relinquishing its nuclear missles, there were "Security Assurances".

https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/s_1994_1399.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances

As you say, the only obligation was to bring the issue before the security council,

Seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine, "if Belarus/Kazakhstan/Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".

It offers justification for action, but not an obligation,

According to Stephen MacFarlane, a professor of international relations "It gives signatories justification if they take action, but it does not force anyone to act in Ukraine."

[TheDeamon]

That ship sailed for me in 2009 when Obama abandoned a number of Iraqis and Afghanis who had aided us previously, and was cemented in place when Obama failed to honor the agreement with Ukraine.

What agreement with Ukraine? The only obligation the US had should Ukraine's borders be violated was to complain to the UN Security Council. Guess how much effect that had.

Likewise, what agreement did we have with the Kurds to protect them from the Turks?

If you have no problem with the Obama Admin's response to Ukraine, why are you feigning outrage over the handling of the Kurds now?