Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
says a lot about where you are looking.
i’m not saying it was a good idea, but i looked to see what arguments were being made by those who support it ( rand paul, etc).
trump campaigned very specifically on bringing home troops rather than leaving them in endless conflict. you guys like to attack him for failing to meet campaign promises, this is one he kept. trump can argue this is why people voted for him.
as i understand it, we were authorized to have troops in syria to combat ISIS. as i understand it, that mission was accomplished some months ago. if congress wants to expand the scope of that mission, they should
go on record and vote for it.
i also don’t feel like i know who the good guys are in this conflict. are the kurds good guys, or was it an “enemy of my enemy” situation. turkey says the kurds are engaging in terrorism in turkey, you made it sound like a britain/northern ireland situation.
The US approached the Syrian civil war with caution. Though opposed to the regime of President Bashar al-Assad, its chief concern was that the chaos there provided ungoverned space for the expansion of the so-called caliphate of Islamic State (ISIS).
With its focus on counter-terrorism rather than re-making Syria, the US looked to find an ally who could mount a serious challenge to the fighters of ISIS. Various abortive attempts at arming and training local militias failed - in some cases US weapons were simply handed over to ISIS.
Finally Washington turned to the Kurds. This presented diplomatic problems. There are significant Kurdish populations in several Middle Eastern countries, including Turkey, Syria and Iraq. Many aspire to Kurdish nationhood. After the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, President Woodrow Wilson supported the idea of an independent Kurdish state, but this dream fell apart when Turkish borders were redrawn in 1923. Denied a homeland of their own, the Kurdish diaspora ended up spread across Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran, facing pressure and often outright hostility in countries that viewed them with suspicion.
Across the border in Syria a Kurdish group known as the YPG had some links with the PKK (bad guys) in Turkey. And it was the YPG that formed the core element of the mixed Kurdish and Arab militia that Washington decided to throw its weight behind.
Kurdish internal politics are undoubtedly complex. And it is interesting that President Trump himself mixed up these two Kurdish groups - the PKK and the YPG.
But in Turkish minds there is no difference. For Ankara Kurdish groups are terrorists and thus Washington was effectively siding with enemies of the Turkish state.
Washington's decision to support the Kurds with training and equipment reaped dividends. They proved both reliable and capable and the dismantling of the ISIS caliphate in Syria owes much to their efforts.
Simultaneously the US has sought to bend over backwards to calm Turkish fears, most recently developing a pattern of joint patrols between US and Turkish troops as a confidence-building measure in the border area. It is these US forces that were withdrawn ahead of the Turkish operation.
americans are dying there. trump made it clear in his campaign that he wasn’t sacrificing american lives unless there was an immediate vital
interest to the us. killing isis fighters qualifies. standing around, waiting to get sucked into a regional conflict with another nato member? not sure if that qualifies.
and if trump claimed
we were staying there until the end no matter what, at least some of you would
be calling him a warmonger.
if you can’t see where the other side is coming from, it’s because your eyes are closed and your fingers are in your ears. and again, i’m not saying i support the move, not at all. but i took the time
to see both sides.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
President Trump has decided that now the Kurds do not count for much and, despite his denials, he has given the Turks a green light to mount this operation by failing to make it clear to Ankara that this partnership really mattered to Washington.
He had that chance and if he was properly prebriefed with talking points and made aware of the ramifications of his actions possibly he would not have folded like a cheap suitcase.
This is not the first time that the Kurds see themselves as having been f-ed by Washington. At least twice before when Iraqi Kurds were encouraged to rise up against the authorities in Baghdad by the Americans they were let down.
If Trump is to be taken at his word, alliances - whether it be with the Kurds or even within Nato - are for him simply transactional business arrangements to be judged according to a short-term cost-benefit analysis: what is the US giving and what is it getting in return?
The US tried every other option before backing the Kurds. The Kurds have proved time and again their capability as a disciplined, effective fighting force and their commitment to the kind of stable, moderate governance that is sorely lacking in the region.
In writing off the Kurds he suggests that the US can easily find other allies in the region. Really?
If there is a resurgence of ISIS then who is Washington going to turn to?
We will end up sending those young men that you claim to not want there because Trump at a minimum did not pay attention or used his great and wonderful brain instead of listening to people with experience in the area.
We will likely be tangled up in the Middle East either for a long time semipeacefully or until it deteriorates into a major conflict and the #^&#^&#^&#^& hits the fan.
Who knew that governing would be so complicated, you can't do it by tweeting and bullying.
It looks like it could be very close to fan time.