Warren Zevon Posted October 21, 2019 Posted October 21, 2019 Thank you for pointing out my grammatical error. Continue with your crusade
TPS Posted October 22, 2019 Posted October 22, 2019 On 10/18/2019 at 8:26 PM, 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. There is more to this then the facade of ending endless ME wars. They have not pulled out of Syria completely. They have control of key oil facilities, as has been reported. Troops have moved into Iraq, which last I looked, wasn't "home." I agree with your view the troops to SA are for another purpose. I do believe there is a plan in place... 1
ALF Posted October 22, 2019 Posted October 22, 2019 I would guess Trump decided to pull back in Syria before Dec 20, 2018 when Jim Mattis submitted his resignation letter. The US was caught off guard by how fast Turkey went into Syria US bombs its own ammo dump in Syria as most troops beat a hasty retreat from the country https://taskandpurpose.com/us-bombs-own-ammo-dump
Tiberius Posted October 22, 2019 Posted October 22, 2019 So ISIS is celebrating Trumps move to let them alone?
Tiberius Posted October 22, 2019 Posted October 22, 2019 Big surprise here, not! Putin and Hungary’s Orban helped sour Trump on Ukraine May 13: Trump says Hungary’s Orban is 'a little bit controversial, like me' President Trump on May 13 called it an "honor" to meet with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who has been criticized for weakening Hungarian institutions. (Photo: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post) By Greg Miller, Greg Jaffe, John Hudson and Ellen Nakashima Oct. 21, 2019 at 6:07:00 p.m. EDT President Trump’s effort to pressure Ukraine for information he could use against political rivals came as he was being urged to adopt a hostile view of that country by its regional adversaries, including Russian President Vladimir Putin, current and former U.S. officials said.
3rdnlng Posted October 22, 2019 Posted October 22, 2019 Some people are getting desperate. Has trump not ever claimed it was an honor to meet another head of state, especially when he has invited them to the WH?
Deranged Rhino Posted October 22, 2019 Posted October 22, 2019 5 hours ago, TPS said: There is more to this then the facade of ending endless ME wars. They have not pulled out of Syria completely. They have control of key oil facilities, as has been reported. Troops have moved into Iraq, which last I looked, wasn't "home." I agree with your view the troops to SA are for another purpose. I do believe there is a plan in place... Keeping troops to protect the oil fields, which if taken offline can destabilize the global markets, is something we should do if no one else (the EU/NATO) is willing. And they're not. That's dangerous, risks escalation should something go wrong... but the alternative is global chaos rather than regional. IMO I have little problem using our boots-on-the-ground power in areas/situations like that. I'm not an isolationist, there's a role we can play to keep things stable. But marching across borders, occupying countries, and playing nation building is not it as the past two decades have proven. And, we should not be the only ones doing the heavy lifting -- not when we pay to arm/fund/train most of NATO and EU nations.
TPS Posted October 22, 2019 Posted October 22, 2019 35 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Keeping troops to protect the oil fields, which if taken offline can destabilize the global markets, is something we should do if no one else (the EU/NATO) is willing. And they're not. That's dangerous, risks escalation should something go wrong... but the alternative is global chaos rather than regional. IMO I have little problem using our boots-on-the-ground power in areas/situations like that. I'm not an isolationist, there's a role we can play to keep things stable. But marching across borders, occupying countries, and playing nation building is not it as the past two decades have proven. And, we should not be the only ones doing the heavy lifting -- not when we pay to arm/fund/train most of NATO and EU nations. They are not doing it to protect them, trump wants to control them so Assad can’t access.
Deranged Rhino Posted October 22, 2019 Posted October 22, 2019 10 minutes ago, TPS said: They are not doing it to protect them, trump wants to control them so Assad can’t access. Tomato/Tomatoe
3rdnlng Posted October 22, 2019 Posted October 22, 2019 (edited) 4 hours ago, TPS said: They are not doing it to protect them, trump wants to control them so Assad can’t access. Can't it be both a dessert and a floor wax? Edited October 22, 2019 by 3rdnlng 1
bbb Posted October 22, 2019 Posted October 22, 2019 3 hours ago, Gary Busey said: I'm totally confused. Is it good or bad to pull out troops?
SoCal Deek Posted October 22, 2019 Posted October 22, 2019 4 minutes ago, bbb said: I'm totally confused. Is it good or bad to pull out troops? Don’t be confused. If Trump is doing it has to be either a lie, illegal, or just plain wrong! 2
row_33 Posted October 22, 2019 Posted October 22, 2019 1 hour ago, bbb said: I'm totally confused. Is it good or bad to pull out troops? nobody has come up with a useful scenario as to keeping or removing Assad Still waiting for one that belongs to the real world
bbb Posted October 22, 2019 Posted October 22, 2019 48 minutes ago, row_33 said: nobody has come up with a useful scenario as to keeping or removing Assad Still waiting for one that belongs to the real world Not even Rachel Maddow? It sounds like she knows what she's talking about. 2
Koko78 Posted October 23, 2019 Posted October 23, 2019 7 hours ago, Gary Busey said: Man, that wimpy peacenik Trump is such a warmonger. 1
DC Tom Posted October 23, 2019 Posted October 23, 2019 8 hours ago, Gary Busey said: So MSNBC is complaining that Trump's withdrawing troops from the Middle East, and he has too many troops in the Middle East? No wonder you take Trump seriously. If you believe this *****, you'll buy anything. 1
Warcodered Posted October 23, 2019 Posted October 23, 2019 (edited) 11 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said: Keeping troops to protect the oil fields, which if taken offline can destabilize the global markets, is something we should do if no one else (the EU/NATO) is willing. And they're not. That's dangerous, risks escalation should something go wrong... but the alternative is global chaos rather than regional. IMO I have little problem using our boots-on-the-ground power in areas/situations like that. I'm not an isolationist, there's a role we can play to keep things stable. But marching across borders, occupying countries, and playing nation building is not it as the past two decades have proven. And, we should not be the only ones doing the heavy lifting -- not when we pay to arm/fund/train most of NATO and EU nations. So leaving troops in danger to protect Oil. ? But leaving troops to deter attacks against our allies who fought with us for a common goal. ? Good to know. 2 hours ago, DC Tom said: So MSNBC is complaining that Trump's withdrawing troops from the Middle East, and he has too many troops in the Middle East? No wonder you take Trump seriously. If you believe this *****, you'll buy anything. Yes clearly no one on here championed this as the reason what he did was a good thing. There is absolutely no hypocrisy here at all.? Edited October 23, 2019 by Warcodered
Deranged Rhino Posted October 23, 2019 Posted October 23, 2019 23 minutes ago, Warcodered said: So leaving troops in danger to protect Oil. ? To protect global markets, not just oil. Stability is the goal, is it not? Is that not the stated goal of every regime change war launched in the past two decades? To increase stability -- they never do. The truth is this mission is within our capabilities and worth the danger -- because it's a temporary measure with an end date in mind. The GCC/Israel/NATO will be tasked soon enough to take over the mission -- or the Mullah's will be gone and the problem will have been resolved. 25 minutes ago, Warcodered said: But leaving troops to deter attacks against our allies who fought with us for a common goal. ? With no end date -- yes. A withdrawal with no contingency plan -- bad. But that's not what is happening. The GCC/US/Israel have been preparing for this move for many months in coordination with the Turks (NATO) and several Kurdish factions. Nothing about the region, or the mission, is black and white. Sorry, that's just not how it works.
Recommended Posts