Trump foreign policy

[Foxx]

4 hours ago, Tiberius said:

 

nothing new. we have been protecting our oil in the Middle East since the 50's.

[Foxx]

https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1185262355086753793

 

[ALF]

Former top Navy SEAL who oversaw the Osama bin Laden raid says the US is 'under attack from the president'

 

The retired US Navy Adm. William McRaven, a Navy SEAL who oversaw the raid that took out al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden in 2011, gave a bleak assessment of President Donald Trump and alleged the commander in chief was gutting the country of the "nation's principles."

 

"They have seen our leaders stand beside despots and strongmen, preferring their government narrative to our own," McRaven wrote. "They have seen us abandon our allies and have heard the shouts of betrayal from the battlefield. As I stood on the parade field at Fort Bragg, one retired four-star general, grabbed my arm, shook me and shouted, 'I don't like the Democrats, but Trump is destroying the Republic!'"

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/william-mcraven-navy-seal-us-is-under-attack-from-trump-2019-10

[GG]

7 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

There is a plan, but it's not a secret or a "master plan". It's what he ran on and has spent nearly every day in office executing: drawing the US down from endless wars which were being waged not to protect this country or for global stability, but to enrich the neocon/neoliberal/MiC establishment. The same establishment who's been engaging in a full on information warfare campaign against the western population. 

 

* The first step in that plan was to realign KSA with the west rather than the MiC/USIC, because KSA is the key to the GCC's ability to secure the region without requiring long term US support or boots on the ground. This happened in 2017, almost immediately after the US elections. The timing wasn't coincidental. 

* The second step was to push the US/GCC partnership to new heights of efficiency as they took it to Hezbollah and Hamas (and other Iranian proxies) in several theaters throughout 2018-2019 (including Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and others -- covered while they were happening in the DS thread).

* While step two was happening, the US withdrew from the Iran deal and proceeded to defang Iran through economic warfare while the GCC/Israel/US forces took out their proxies supply lines and financing hubs. Combined, these two steps limited Iran's ability to continue its expansion in the region which had been ongoing for 8 years under 44.

* And while all that was going on, the US/GCC/Israel were all working together to tackle ISIS, AQ, and other sunni/shia proxies. 

 

Now we're in the latter stages of the plan. The Mullahs are going to go next -- and once they're gone, it'll create a small window for actual peace and stability in the region. But that window requires a strong presence in the region, like the GCC/Israel to do the job we assigned ourselves to do for the past 17 years. Will it work? Time will tell.

 

You can certainly argue against the messaging and Trump's own bloviation/inability to articulate the policy clearly -- that's fair and understandable -- but the results have been incredibly successful both on the ground and for the long term stability in the region. But because the media is not honest and answers to the MiC/USIC above all else, none of this has been accurately covered or reported on.  

 

Sometimes it's ok to admit that Trump doesn't know what the hell is going on.  This is one of those cases.

 

If there was a coherent plan to draw down the US troop presence in MidEast, he wouldn't be adding 3,000 troops to Saudi Arabia and withdrawing 150 from Syria.  It also appears that the withdrawal caught everyone but Turkey by surprise.  If he's counting on the allies in the region to pick up the slack, it surely seems that they were also among the last to fund out and surely don't seem too happy about the abrupt move.

 

If this came from the great strategic mind, he wouldn't need to send Pence and Pompeo to Turkey within a week!  And nobody brought up the embarrassing point that it wasn't Erdogan who was summoned to DC to face the music, but the Veep and the Senior Foreign Statesman from the ***** USA had to grovel in to Turkey, while Erdogan had the nerve to initially reject the overture.  

 

Who's the lackey in this exchange again?

[Deranged Rhino]

13 minutes ago, GG said:

 

Sometimes it's ok to admit that Trump doesn't know what the hell is going on.  This is one of those cases.

 

If there was a coherent plan to draw down the US troop presence in MidEast, he wouldn't be adding 3,000 troops to Saudi Arabia and withdrawing 150 from Syria.  It also appears that the withdrawal caught everyone but Turkey by surprise.  If he's counting on the allies in the region to pick up the slack, it surely seems that they were also among the last to fund out and surely don't seem too happy about the abrupt move.

 

If this came from the great strategic mind, he wouldn't need to send Pence and Pompeo to Turkey within a week!  And nobody brought up the embarrassing point that it wasn't Erdogan who was summoned to DC to face the music, but the Veep and the Senior Foreign Statesman from the ***** USA had to grovel in to Turkey, while Erdogan had the nerve to initially reject the overture.  

 

Who's the lackey in this exchange again?

 

I hear you and fully agree it's okay to admit 45 doesn't know what he's doing when it's justified.

 

I just don't think it is on this one because he's been incredibly consistent from the jump, backed up by people in active duty sharing their experiences with me for going on 3 years now. And I'm under no delusion (nor I imagine are you) that Trump is the one calling the shots on the minutia of the re-deployments or troop movements. He's not, it's his leadership in theater who are doing that, based on the mission he gives them.  

 

The decision to leave the border region wasn't done in a vacuum, or solely on Trump's whim. It took months of planning, and kinetic (mostly covert) action to assure it was done as safely as possible for US forces and civilians. This move had been in the works for months -- with full knowledge of the allies (GCC/Turkey/NATO/Israel). The narrative that they were left in the dark is fiction being pushed by the same cut-outs and sycophants of the MiC/UISC who have gotten every single call on foreign policy in the region wrong for going on two decades.

 

Did some allies ignore Trump's plan or hope he would change his mind (or have it forced)? Maybe. But they definitely knew it was coming, and knew for several months. I know that to be true because I heard this was coming back in May from Teams guys. I was even given a "leave by" date in June which turned out to be off by about week (it happened a week earlier than they reported to me). 

 

That's anecdotal, I concede, but think back to a year and a half ago when Trump last tried to leave Syria. What happened?

 

Within hours of making that announcement, a "chemical attack" (or the appearance of one) was launched by "Assad" forces, which put enormous pressure on Trump to call it off. And he did -- right or wrong (I think wrong), he responded to the new information and delayed his move. To me that kind of reaction to new events demonstrates leadership rather than bumbling. Trump's leadership on the ground has shown a willingness to adapt to new information/situations when the enemy makes counter moves (which they're doing constantly), even at great political cost to his administration. 

 

We just saw the same thing play out this past week with two examples -- they had a plan to leave, executed that plan, and when Turkey and the Kurds (and Russia/Syria) made their counter moves, the US adapted and responded in kind. There was the show of force to protect the troops first, which drew outrage and cries of hypocrisy (wrongly, imo). Then there was the unleashing of economic threats and frenetic diplomacy to try and quickly put the kibosh on Erdogan's use of literal wet work teams dressed in Kurdish uniforms slaughtering civilians behind Kurdish lines.

 

That move by Erdogan risked escalating a skirmish into legit war crime territory -- Trump had to respond. And he did. 

 

Did Trump and his leadership expect Erdogan to go that route so fast? I'm sure it was considered a possibility, just low on the list. They expected they could avoid that with a letter and diplomacy pre-move. But they were proven wrong almost immediately. That put them in a pickle, they could either react and take the political hits of seemingly reversing course -- or they could do nothing and take political hits right up there with "red lines in the sand". They decided to act and took door number three, responding with the threat of crippling sanctions and last ditch diplomacy/pressure.

 

Would it have looked better for them to wait for Erdogan to come to DC? Sure. But how long would Erdogan have dragged his feet before agreeing to that meeting?

How many thousands would be slaughtered by his kill squads during that foot dragging process?

 

You imply that it shows weakness to send Pompeo and Pence there rather than force Erdogan to come kiss the ring, but I disagree. They knew the clock was ticking and took direct action instead of waiting -- even if it risked making them look weak or dithering. To me that's a continuation of what we've seen all along from Trump and his team in the region. Namely, they have a bold idea (at least in DC parlance ending regime change wars is a bold idea) and are trying to deliver upon it -- but what he/they are not willing to do is stick to a rigid plan, come hell or high water.

 

And I think that's laudable rather than something that shows weakness. 

 

Re the KSA deployment: The bulking up of troops inside the KSA (many of which aren't combat troops, but airmen/crew/logistical support/spec operators) is about the next step (Iran) more than a reaction to a move they knew Turkey was about to make. It looks connected, but isn't, at least more than a step three comes after step two kind of way.

[GG]

2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I hear you and fully agree it's okay to admit 45 doesn't know what he's doing when it's justified.

 

I just don't think it is on this one because he's been incredibly consistent from the jump, backed up by people in active duty sharing their experiences with me for going on 3 years now. And I'm under no delusion (nor I imagine are you) that Trump is the one calling the shots on the minutia of the re-deployments or troop movements. He's not, it's his leadership in theater who are doing that, based on the mission he gives them.  

 

The decision to leave the border region wasn't done in a vacuum, or solely on Trump's whim. It took months of planning, and kinetic (mostly covert) action to assure it was done as safely as possible for US forces and civilians. This move had been in the works for months -- with full knowledge of the allies (GCC/Turkey/NATO/Israel). The narrative that they were left in the dark is fiction being pushed by the same cut-outs and sycophants of the MiC/UISC who have gotten every single call on foreign policy in the region wrong for going on two decades.

 

Did some allies ignore Trump's plan or hope he would change his mind (or have it forced)? Maybe. But they definitely knew it was coming, and knew for several months. I know that to be true because I heard this was coming back in May from Teams guys. I was even given a "leave by" date in June which turned out to be off by about week (it happened a week earlier than they reported to me). 

 

That's anecdotal, I concede, but think back to a year and a half ago when Trump last tried to leave Syria. What happened?

 

Within hours of making that announcement, a "chemical attack" (or the appearance of one) was launched by "Assad" forces, which put enormous pressure on Trump to call it off. And he did -- right or wrong (I think wrong), he responded to the new information and delayed his move. To me that kind of reaction to new events demonstrates leadership rather than bumbling. Trump's leadership on the ground has shown a willingness to adapt to new information/situations when the enemy makes counter moves (which they're doing constantly), even at great political cost to his administration. 

 

We just saw the same thing play out this past week with two examples -- they had a plan to leave, executed that plan, and when Turkey and the Kurds (and Russia/Syria) made their counter moves, the US adapted and responded in kind. There was the show of force to protect the troops first, which drew outrage and cries of hypocrisy (wrongly, imo). Then there was the unleashing of economic threats and frenetic diplomacy to try and quickly put the kibosh on Erdogan's use of literal wet work teams dressed in Kurdish uniforms slaughtering civilians behind Kurdish lines.

 

That move by Erdogan risked escalating a skirmish into legit war crime territory -- Trump had to respond. And he did. 

 

Did Trump and his leadership expect Erdogan to go that route so fast? I'm sure it was considered a possibility, just low on the list. They expected they could avoid that with a letter and diplomacy pre-move. But they were proven wrong almost immediately. That put them in a pickle, they could either react and take the political hits of seemingly reversing course -- or they could do nothing and take political hits right up there with "red lines in the sand". They decided to act and took door number three, responding with the threat of crippling sanctions and last ditch diplomacy/pressure.

 

Would it have looked better for them to wait for Erdogan to come to DC? Sure. But how long would Erdogan have dragged his feet before agreeing to that meeting?

How many thousands would be slaughtered by his kill squads during that foot dragging process?

 

You imply that it shows weakness to send Pompeo and Pence there rather than force Erdogan to come kiss the ring, but I disagree. They knew the clock was ticking and took direct action instead of waiting -- even if it risked making them look weak or dithering. To me that's a continuation of what we've seen all along from Trump and his team in the region. Namely, they have a bold idea (at least in DC parlance ending regime change wars is a bold idea) and are trying to deliver upon it -- but what he/they are not willing to do is stick to a rigid plan, come hell or high water.

 

And I think that's laudable rather than something that shows weakness. 

 

Re the KSA deployment: The bulking up of troops inside the KSA (many of which aren't combat troops, but airmen/crew/logistical support/spec operators) is about the next step (Iran) more than a reaction to a move they knew Turkey was about to make. It looks connected, but isn't, at least more than a step three comes after step two kind of way.

 

The flip side of the argument is that Erdogan also knew that the US was leaving at a certain time and decided to call Trump’s bluff.  As you insist, an invasion like this isn’t spontaneous and US certainly knew that this could be the outcome, yet Trump proceeded anyway, despite likely warnings from people on the ground.

 

Trump’s initial gambit was a strongly worded letter, written by an 11-year old.  Then Erdogan laughed at the letter and put US troops in danger.   While you think that Trump responded properly by showing what the US is capable of, the main point is that it should never have come to that.  

 

So the question is whether the bad guys will be emboldened by Erdogan’s gambit, or will Trump have to escalate his response because Erdogan just emasculated him on the world stage?

[Deranged Rhino]

50 minutes ago, GG said:

 

The flip side of the argument is that Erdogan also knew that the US was leaving at a certain time and decided to call Trump’s bluff.  As you insist, an invasion like this isn’t spontaneous and US certainly knew that this could be the outcome, yet Trump proceeded anyway, despite likely warnings from people on the ground.

 

Trump’s initial gambit was a strongly worded letter, written by an 11-year old.  Then Erdogan laughed at the letter and put US troops in danger.   While you think that Trump responded properly by showing what the US is capable of, the main point is that it should never have come to that.  

 

So the question is whether the bad guys will be emboldened by Erdogan’s gambit, or will Trump have to escalate his response because Erdogan just emasculated him on the world stage?

 

I don't disagree with your first paragraph -- though the alternative was to leave 28 US troops there as hostages for an indeterminate amount of time. Turkey was going in with or without us there (because we'd been planning with them more than likely), so where did that really leave us if we're unwilling to exchange fire with a fellow NATO member? Best case scenario I can see is you leave troops there and Turkey doesn't risk it... but there's no end date for that plan. There's no exit. 

 

I also agree the letter was not enough, but I don't think US troops were put in danger by it. Like you said, the Turks were coming one way or the other. Leaving the troops there would have put them in more danger than pulling them out in that scenario.  

 

The last paragraph goes back to what we've actually been doing along with the GCC for the past two years, hardly any of which was properly reported on. Or reported on at all. We both agree the hostilities and tensions in the region have existed for some time, and will likely continue to exist well into the future. The US alone cannot be responsible for stopping centuries old tribal wars indefinitely. We're not built for that kind of mission as it would require centuries worth of occupation. It's untenable and antithetical to our entire political system as voters get tired/bored/angry about unending wars (and paying for them in both blood and treasure). 

 

At some point we have to leave (even if that "leaving" means maintaining a few bases), and there's two ways to go about it. Either a fast and quick retreat where we leave the place to the wolves, or what we have been doing for the past two years -- which is to lay waste to as many of the alpha wolves as we can (financially and kinetically) while training/arming/supporting the local shepherds to better tend to their own flocks with less overt support from our fighting forces.

 

Is that trying to have their cake and eat it too? Probably. And that's the other thing I think we both agree on, there is no easy answer to any of this.

 

All the solutions, from remaining there forever to leaving right away, have their drawbacks and consequences. There's no clean way to get and plenty of ways to get pulled into something worse if the exit is bungled. I have no illusions there, it's just for once we have a policy in place that's putting the interests of the men and women with their asses on the line first rather than serving an agenda which feeds the MiC/USIC beast. That's progress in my book.  

[Deranged Rhino]

6 hours ago, ALF said:

Former top Navy SEAL who oversaw the Osama bin Laden raid says the US is 'under attack from the president'

 

The retired US Navy Adm. William McRaven, a Navy SEAL who oversaw the raid that took out al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden in 2011, gave a bleak assessment of President Donald Trump and alleged the commander in chief was gutting the country of the "nation's principles."

 

"They have seen our leaders stand beside despots and strongmen, preferring their government narrative to our own," McRaven wrote. "They have seen us abandon our allies and have heard the shouts of betrayal from the battlefield. As I stood on the parade field at Fort Bragg, one retired four-star general, grabbed my arm, shook me and shouted, 'I don't like the Democrats, but Trump is destroying the Republic!'"

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/william-mcraven-navy-seal-us-is-under-attack-from-trump-2019-10

 

Just leaving this here... 

 

This guy isn't a Trump guy either. But ...

 

 

(not directed at you, ALF, just linking your post for the context of the tweet)

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[3rdnlng]

22 hours ago, Jauronimo said:

A master stroke of diplomacy, no doubt.  This letter will go down in the anals of history and be studied by scholars until the end of time. 

Why bring up all those asswholes? Some of them probably can't even read. Unless you're telling people to stick it up their ass or put it where the sun don't shine your comments make no sense. Sometimes simple, straight talk is the best. Besides there's less chance of using the wrong word that way.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

22 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Shut up you dumb Trump supporter 

 

 

 

...calm down Hillary.....you're old and need to protect your heart for Bill.....

[DC Tom]

16 hours ago, GG said:

 

Sometimes it's ok to admit that Trump doesn't know what the hell is going on.  This is one of those cases.

 

If there was a coherent plan to draw down the US troop presence in MidEast, he wouldn't be adding 3,000 troops to Saudi Arabia and withdrawing 150 from Syria. 

 

Even a coherent plan is subject to alteration in the face of changed situations.  The deployment of AD troops to Saudi Arabia isn't in indication of a lack of a coherent plan, but an indication of the new threat represented by Iran's willingness and ability to bomb Saudi oil infrastructure.

[GG]

4 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

Even a coherent plan is subject to alteration in the face of changed situations.  The deployment of AD troops to Saudi Arabia isn't in indication of a lack of a coherent plan, but an indication of the new threat represented by Iran's willingness and ability to bomb Saudi oil infrastructure.

 

Of course every plan is subject to alteration, which is precisely why I'm criticizing him for the impulsive move in Syria.

 

OTOH, WaPo just took the debate to 11 by pointing out that Trump truly insulted Erdogan by calling him a fool.  Whose side are they on again?

[Hedge]

 

 

[ALF]

Syria: Civilians pelt US army vehicles with potatoes in Qamishli

 

Civilians yell and pelt US armoured vehicles with potatoes in Qamishli, on the Syrian border with Turkey, as American troops withdraw from the area.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-middle-east-50124309/syria-civilians-pelt-us-army-vehicles-with-potatoes-in-qamishli

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Warren Zevon]

 

Yup - #orangemanbad

[3rdnlng]

Both sides can be true and Gary, you know that. You're just trying to be a dick.

[Warren Zevon]

8 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Both sides can be true and Gary, you know that. You're just trying to be a dick.

 

Your defense of Trump is impressive - makes since sense he's somewhat of a clone of your old man hero.

Edited October 21, 2019 by Gary Busey

[3rdnlng]

1 minute ago, Gary Busey said:

 

Your defense of Trump is impressive - makes since since he's somewhat of a clone of your old man hero.

You're an idiot idiot.