Ceasefire in Turkey-Syria


Guest MormonGator
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest MormonGator

https://nypost.com/2019/10/17/pence-erdogan-reach-temporary-cease-fire-deal-in-syria/?utm_source=NYPFacebook&utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_medium=SocialFlow&sr_share=facebook&fbclid=IwAR3EwVKCnlLysoUtaOenOz-XZyVhWRG-47Sn0j0tDX4gT-cQQIZ2RJg4RZI

Good news coming out of Syria-Turkey. I didn't vote for Trump but this latest news story has made me wish I did. I saw NeverTrumpers screaming that Trump didn't send troops to Syria. It's obvious that if he did send troops, they would have complained about that instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really know enough to have an informed opinion, but it sounds reasonable to me that Trump and Turkey sort of had this whole thing planned out from the beginning.  Power vacuum?  Make a deal to have an ally fill it.  And last I checked, Turkey is (kinda) an ally.

What I find fascinating, is the entire antiwar part of the left wing basically died and came back as nevertrumper zombies in love with George Bush foreign policies.  People on the peacenik/no blood for oil/US is bad because we get into wars/Bush lied people died/militaryIndustrialComplex is evil left, whom I've been arguing with for years, now are apoplectic that we're ending a war and bringing troops home.  

And they don't even seem to realize they're doing it.  It's just a gut reflex - Trump sez A, therefore B is the only good and decent thing, and A is the most evil thing ever.  

Hey folks on the left - read up on some A.  You sure you haven't heard this coming out of your mouth since the mid-90's?

1741680877_IMG_E24901.thumb.JPG.46f37bf4942937d4520cdfc37ec128f5.JPG

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cut and paste of response I had a little while ago about the Kurds and situation in Syria:

I don’t really like Trump, but Syria is no win situation and it really isn’t his fault it’s a mess (it isn’t really Obama’s either).     Syria is a spill-over from the Iraq War and the supporters of the Iraq War, both politicians and the general public are to blame and own this mess.  Other than Trump’s support of the Iraq War (which he denies, but which there is a record of) as a non-politician, which doesn’t matter that much since, this is not Trump’s mess or fault.  

As far as the Kurds go, they are not our true allies.    They are only our allies in the sense that they are the enemies of our enemies.    That does not make them our friends.    The Kurds have a long history of terrorism and supporting terrorist groups (such as the PKK).    True allies share your values and work towards a common cause.   That’s the difference between a true ally and an enemy of your enemy.   For the most part, the Kurds, or at least most of their leaders do not share our values; they are merely the enemy of our enemy.

The US (politicians, media, etc.) need to stop making any enemy of our enemy to be made out as the heroic under dog and freedom fighters that are the harmless good guys fighting for a good cause.     Such was the case the US made for Saddam Hussein, the predecessors of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, the Syrian rebels, and now the Kurds (which are one group of rebels).  

For years (especially under Reagan but started marginally under Carter and lasting through Bush I) was to arm and support the Islamic extremists (Operation Cyclone and the Reagan Doctrine) to fight the communists.

Now we have gone full circle and want to arm and support the communists (most prominent Kurd leaders and their factions are communists and want to set up a Soviet style communist state) to fight the Islamic extremists (and as mentioned the Kurds have a long history of committing acts of terrorism).  

Personally I feel that we should protect our true allies, which are ones that share our values.    We don’t need to get involved (or even start) every world conflict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
5 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

What I find fascinating, is the entire antiwar part of the left wing basically died and came back as nevertrumper zombies in love with George Bush foreign policies

Amen brother. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you get a load of what Romney said about the cease-fire?  Sheesh!  I used to like Romney.  I was still suspicious of him politically.  So, I didn't vote for him.  But I thought that he was probably a decent guy.  He's someone I wouldn't mind hanging out with or working with.

Lately, I've decided that the more I hear him speak on political matters, I'm seeing more of Romney, the person... and as such, I'm getting to like him less and less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very informative interview on MSNBC

https://www.msnbc.com/hardball/watch/rand-paul-on-syria-i-don-t-see-a-national-interest-i-see-a-huge-mess-71336517789

I had no idea how literate Rand Paul was on foreign affairs.  But he's really done his homework on Syria.

It is interesting that an MSNBC host had such a favorable interview with a Republican and about his book speaking against socialism.

Overall, a very traditional journalistic interview.  Good questions.  No loaded questions.  No expectations of responses. No gotcha questions.  Good job, MSNBC.

EDIT: I'm puzzled.  I just saw the video.  It doesn't say all the good stuff that I heard before.  I'm not sure what happened to the link.

Paul basically took the position that 1) There was a whole lot more to the story than what we think.  It's much more complex. 2) There are two bad guys.  Why are we taking sides?

Edited by Mores
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think with the Kurd's it's a matter of what is the RIGHT thing to do vs. what is in our national interest.  The Kurds were MUCH more helpful to the US when it invaded Iraq and occupied the Northern Iraq Territories.  That area typically was far more peaceful and the Kurds welcomed many of the US troops.  We've been there for over a decade.

The Kurds desired (and have desired for many decades) their own nation.  They are a different people and culture than those surrounding them.  They had hoped to have the US give them their own area to govern as they desire.

The Kurds have had many who dislike them and wish them wrong.  There is no real parallel in the US currently.  One could sort of make a parallel to the Native American in the late 19th century where everyone wanted the land they were on, but no one wanted the Native Americans who were on it to be there or to reside there.  Thus, the Native Americans were constantly moved and in wars they fought,  and many of their people were destroyed.

The Right thing to do as they Kurds have supported the US troops and much of what we did in Syria and Iraq for years now, in a MUCH MORE ACTIVE ROLE than almost any other ally in the region, would be to actually create a Kurdish nation that we protect and that they have finally to govern as their own culture and people.

This would be a BAD move for US interests.  It WOULD give us a very friendly ally in the region, but one that would be almost powerless on their own.  This means we'd have to post troops their indefinitely.  We'd have to sink a LOT of money (as most of the Kurdish regions have no access to the sea) in goods, transports, and many other services to keep them afloat.  It would become a money hole and a place where we'd constantly be spending resources for very little return.

Overall, I see it as a choice between what would be the right thing to do for a people that have fought, bled, and died for the US goals (whether those were good or bad goals) in the region since we invaded Iraq almost 20 years ago, or whether we want to invest in what is more profitable to the US itself with no concern for those who stood by us in our actions in the regions for these many years.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

What I find fascinating, is the entire antiwar part of the left wing basically died and came back as nevertrumper zombies in love with George Bush foreign policies.  People on the peacenik/no blood for oil/US is bad because we get into wars/Bush lied people died/militaryIndustrialComplex is evil left, whom I've been arguing with for years, now are apoplectic that we're ending a war and bringing troops home.  

You forgot Code Pink!  That was the group that made me cringe the most.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Overall, I see it as a choice between what would be the right thing to do for a people that have fought, bled, and died for the US goals (whether those were good or bad goals) in the region since we invaded Iraq almost 20 years ago, or whether we want to invest in what is more profitable to the US itself with no concern for those who stood by us in our actions in the regions for these many years.

This is from the perspective that the USA has the moral right to redistribute the world outside their borders to whoever they like because they have unopposable might.  I, for one, am happy the US finally quit thinking that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Mores said:

Did you get a load of what Romney said about the cease-fire?  Sheesh!  I used to like Romney.  I was still suspicious of him politically.  So, I didn't vote for him.  But I thought that he was probably a decent guy.  He's someone I wouldn't mind hanging out with or working with.

Lately, I've decided that the more I hear him speak on political matters, I'm seeing more of Romney, the person... and as such, I'm getting to like him less and less.

Romney has been quicker to pounce on Trump’s policies just because it’s Trump who’s adopting them, than I’d like him to be.  But if you and I are reading the same stuff about his views on the cease-fire, I’m not sure he’s really wrong.  Turkey invades with a goal of eradicating the Kurds from a specific geographical area, and the US brokers a deal where the Kurds have a five-day window flee to avoid being being massacred wholesale?  That’s no more a “victory” than the 1838 Mormon War and the 1846 Battle of Nauvoo were “victories” for the Latter-day Saints.

Whether any faction of the Kurds is worthy of ongoing US security guarantees, is beyond me—a co-worker who’s an Army Reserve colonel and just got back from a deployment at the Pentagon doing analyst work with the Joint Chiefs (and has done other tours in the region) thinks a Kurdish state would look a lot like a non-Jewish Israel.  

I don’t like abandoning allies, but we should probably be more careful about who we choose to ally ourselves with in the first place.  And critics who are fully prepared to attack President Trump for any American lives lost in defense of the Kurds, should frankly shut their pie-holes when Trump elects to save those same American lives by pulling them out of what politics renders an untenable situation.  American isolationism means people overseas die—end of story.  Trump’s critics can either live with it, or quit advocating faint-hearted isolationism when all they really want is to score political points.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Romney has been quicker to pounce on Trump’s policies just because it’s Trump who’s adopting them, than I’d like him to be.  But if you and I are reading the same stuff about his views on the cease-fire, I’m not sure he’s really wrong.  Turkey invades with a goal of eradicating the Kurds from a specific geographical area, and the US brokers a deal where the Kurds have a five-day window flee to avoid being being massacred wholesale?  That’s no more a “victory” than the 1838 Mormon War and the 1846 Battle of Nauvoo were “victories” for the Latter-day Saints.

Whether any faction of the Kurds is worthy of ongoing US security guarantees, is beyond me—a co-worker who’s an Army Reserve colonel and just got back from a deployment at the Pentagon doing analyst work with the Joint Chiefs (and has done other tours in the region) thinks a Kurdish state would look a lot like a non-Jewish Israel.  

I don’t like abandoning allies, but we should probably be more careful about who we choose to ally ourselves with in the first place.  And critics who are fully prepared to attack President Trump for any American lives lost in defense of the Kurds, should frankly shut their pie-holes when Trump elects to save those same American lives by pulling them out of what politics renders an untenable situation.  American isolationism means people overseas die—end of story.  Trump’s critics can either live with it, or quit advocating faint-hearted isolationism when all they really want is to score political points.

Things you probably didn't think of:

1.)  Turkey is a NATO ally.  In a fight between Russia/Syria and Turkey, the US and the rest of NATO has the responsibility to side with Turkey.

2.)  Turkey has a history with the Kurds (PKK) trying to oust Turkish government.

3.)  Turkey has been trying to negotiate a safe zone in northern Syria throughout the Syrian Civil War but the US would not agree to it because the Kurds (YPG) wanted northern Syria and they were helping the US' efforts for a Syrian regime change against Assad (I'm gonna share my thoughts on this below).  In Turkey's eyes YPG and PKK are the same group and they don't want any of them controlling northern Syria.  For the US, PKK is a terrorist group but YPG is not and hence Turkey and US cannot see eye to eye on the matter.

4.)  The effort to depose Assad failed.  YPG refused to enter into negotiations with Russia-backed Assad.  Syrian Defense Forces (Assad's military) started creeping into northern Syria occupied by YPG (Obama's red line that the US couldn't keep).  Turkey, once again tried to get the US to agree to a safe zone in northern Syria free of ISIS, YPG or SDF control but the US (Trump this time) will only agree to ISIS-free.  Trump's Syria foreign policy position is - the US will crush ISIS and then Syria (Assad or the rebel Governorate controlling Aleppo) and Turkey can fight their own war over their own borders - the US will not get themselves involved in border disputes or civil wars.

5.)  Contrary to Fake News reports, the US and NATO was notified of Turkey's imminent attack on SDF forces in Northern Syria before Trump withdrew US forces.  This is now Turkey vs Russia/Syria.  Trump decided to respect Turkey as a NATO member and removed all US soldiers out of harms way while at the same time issuing a warning to Edrogan to not be foolish and that the US is willing to impose crippling economic sanctions just like they did when Edrogan refused to release the priest.  It would be majorly stupid for US forces to fight against a NATO ally without a declaration of war that only Congress can make.  Turkey went ahead with the attack on SDF so Trump sent Pompeo and Pence to knock some sense into Edrogan - which caused Edrogan to order a ceasefire.

Now, if Romney was smart, he would have waited until Trump's foreign policy methods - which is not a secret by any means, it's one of the main reasons he won the election after all - played out THEN condemned it if it failed in spectacular fashion - which, as of right now, hasn't.  This is what Ted Cruz and the rest of the non-RINO non-warhawk Republicans who supported Bush's wars did.  They acknowledged that this is the mandate of the American people and if there's a way to deliver it successfully, then let the President give it a try even as they are skeptical.  Instead, Romney showed that he thinks Trump's foreign policy position has zero merit - which makes him either stupid or has a personal stake in the continuation of US presence in the region.  Also - the IA's position on Syria is highly suspect as they were the ones that gave Bush the advice on Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction that has now been exposed as false.

 

*** On the regime change efforts:
This is part of the Arab Spring that has turned into an Arab Winter... at first, when Obama took over Bush's foreign policy, everybody was jumping up and down and praising the Arab Spring complete with Nobel Peace Price - Democracy in the Middle East at last... or so they thought.  What Obama and Hillary/Kerry were actually doing was eliminating heads of states to hand the Middle East to the Muslim Brotherhood.  They got Egypt, they got Libya, they failed to get Syria.  And Egypt was able to stop Morsi and flip that quickly.  The US HAS TO GET OUT of that region.  They've been making a big mess out of that part of the planet.  Lots of people in high places made big money out of it - from oil to heroin to precious gems/metals and gun running.  Trump's election gives the rest of the world hope that the US will finally have a clear sensible foreign policy based on people's lives instead of the riches they can get out of the area.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Things you probably didn't think of:

1.)  Turkey is a NATO ally.  In a fight between Russia/Syria and Turkey, the US and the rest of NATO has the responsibility to side with Turkey.

2.)  Turkey has a history with the Kurds (PKK) trying to oust Turkish government.

3.)  Turkey has been trying to negotiate a safe zone in northern Syria throughout the Syrian Civil War but the US would not agree to it because the Kurds (YPG) wanted northern Syria and they were helping the US' efforts for a Syrian regime change against Assad (I'm gonna share my thoughts on this below).  In Turkey's eyes YPG and PKK are the same group and they don't want any of them controlling northern Syria.  For the US, PKK is a terrorist group but YPG is not and hence Turkey and US cannot see eye to eye on the matter.

4.)  The effort to depose Assad failed.  YPG refused to enter into negotiations with Russia-backed Assad.  Syrian Defense Forces (Assad's military) started creeping into northern Syria occupied by YPG (Obama's red line that the US couldn't keep).  Turkey, once again tried to get the US to agree to a safe zone in northern Syria free of ISIS, YPG or SDF control but the US (Trump this time) will only agree to ISIS-free.  Trump's Syria foreign policy position is - the US will crush ISIS and then Syria (Assad or the rebel Governorate controlling Aleppo) and Turkey can fight their own war over their own borders - the US will not get themselves involved in border disputes or civil wars.

4.)  The US and NATO was notified of Turkey's imminent attack on SDF forces in Northern Syria.  This is Turkey vs Russia/Syria.  Trump decided respect as a NATO member and removed all US soldiers out of harms way while at the same time issuing a warning to Edrogan to not be foolish and that the US is willing to impose crippling economic sanctions just like they did when Edrogan refused to release the priest.  Turkey went ahead with the attack on SDF so Trump sent Pompeo and Pence to knock some sense into Edrogan - which caused Edrogan to order a ceasefire.

Now, if Romney was smart, he would have waited until Trump's foreign policy methods - which is not a secret by any means, it's one of the main reasons he won the election after all - played out THEN condemned it if it failed in spectacular fashion - which, as of right now, hasn't.  This is what Ted Cruz and the rest of the non-RINO Republicans who supported Bush's wars did.  They acknowledged that this is the mandate of the American people and if there's a way to deliver it succesfully, then let the President give it a try.

1.  I did think of that.  I’m also aware that we’ve broken alliances before and will eventually have to do so again.  The Turkey of 2019 is not the Turkey of 1951, and I’m not sending my sons to die for that SOB Erdogan—NATO or no NATO.  Heck, I’m not 100% sure Trump himself wouldn’t walk away from NATO (or that he’d be wrong in doing so).

2.  I did think of that, which is why I mentioned that “we should probably be more careful about who we choose to ally ourselves with in the first place.”

3.  I did think of that, though you summarize it very succinctly.  :) 

4.  I did think of that.  And the Mormons were given advance notice of the assaults on Far West and Nauvoo.  That still doesn’t magically turn a negotiated cease-fire to give time for retreat/evacuation into a “victory”.  

If the Turks aren’t pressing their strategic advantage and killing Kurds again in two weeks, then I’ll give a little more credence to those who are crowing about Trump being the architect of “peace in our time”.  

Like I said to @Mores, maybe he’s read a Romney statement that I haven’t.  But I don’t see that Romney declared a cease-fire a “failure”; he just pointed out that it is not the raging success the Administration has presented it to be.  The rabid NeverTrumpers need to show some wait-and-see restraint—but so do the little Trumpling lapdogs.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

1.  I did think of that.  I’m also aware that we’ve betrayed allies before and will eventually have to do so again.  I’m not sending my sons to die for that SOB Erdogan, NATO or no NATO.

2.  I did think of that, which is why I mentioned that “we should probably be more careful about who we choose to ally ourselves with in the first place.”

3.  I did think of that, though you summarize it very succinctly.  :) 

4.  I did think of that.  And the Mormons were given advance notice of the assaults on Far West and Nauvoo.  That still doesn’t magically turn a negotiated cease-fire to give time for retreat/evacuation into a “victory”.  

If the Turks aren’t pressing their strategic advantage and killing Kurds again in two weeks, then I’ll give a little more credence to those who are crowing about Trump being the architect of “peace in our time”.  

Like I said to @Mores, maybe he’s read a Romney statement that I haven’t.  But I don’t see that Romney declared a cease-fire a “failure”; he just pointed out that it is not the raging success the Administration has presented it to be.  The rabid NeverTrumpers need to show some wait-and-see restraint—but so do the little Trumpling lapdogs.

The point of the whole post was to show that Trump's position has merit - makes sense.  You can disagree with it but it has merit.  Romney has shown and continue to show that he gives Trump's decisions - domestic or foreign - ZERO merit.  There are only 2 reasons I can think of for this position - Romney is stupid... or Romney has a personal stake on the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The point of the whole post was to show that Trump's position has merit - makes sense.  You can disagree with it but it has merit.  Romney has shown and continue to show that he gives Trump's decisions - domestic or foreign - ZERO merit.  There are only 2 reasons I can think of for this position - Romney is stupid... or Romney has a personal stake on the matter.

I agree that Trump’s position makes a lot of sense whether one loves it or not.  Haven’t contested that here.  In fact, I’ve joined in the condemnation of Trump critics who don’t want to let Trump fight for the Kurds, but don’t want him to pull out the US forces protecting them either.

All I’ve done is ask for a source where Romney did or said anything critical of the cease-fire beyond pointing out that it is not a “victory”.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I agree that Trump’s position makes a lot of sense whether one loves it or not.  Haven’t contested that here.  In fact, I’ve joined in the condemnation of Trump critics who don’t want to let Trump fight for the Kurds, but don’t want him to pull out the US forces protecting them either.

All I’ve done is ask for a source where Romney did or said anything critical of the cease-fire beyond pointing out that it is not a “victory”.

Uhm... he said a lot more than that.  He said Trump's Syrian policy is a bloodstain on the annals of American History.

I'll find the video... 

Here ya go:

 

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Romney has been quicker to pounce on Trump’s policies just because it’s Trump who’s adopting them, than I’d like him to be.  But if you and I are reading the same stuff about his views on the cease-fire, I’m not sure he’s really wrong.  Turkey invades with a goal of eradicating the Kurds from a specific geographical area, and the US brokers a deal where the Kurds have a five-day window flee to avoid being being massacred wholesale?  That’s no more a “victory” than the 1838 Mormon War and the 1846 Battle of Nauvoo were “victories” for the Latter-day Saints.

Whether any faction of the Kurds is worthy of ongoing US security guarantees, is beyond me—a co-worker who’s an Army Reserve colonel and just got back from a deployment at the Pentagon doing analyst work with the Joint Chiefs (and has done other tours in the region) thinks a Kurdish state would look a lot like a non-Jewish Israel.  

I don’t like abandoning allies, but we should probably be more careful about who we choose to ally ourselves with in the first place.  And critics who are fully prepared to attack President Trump for any American lives lost in defense of the Kurds, should frankly shut their pie-holes when Trump elects to save those same American lives by pulling them out of what politics renders an untenable situation.  American isolationism means people overseas die—end of story.  Trump’s critics can either live with it, or quit advocating faint-hearted isolationism when all they really want is to score political points.

Well, I'm looking at it from the perspective of,"Why are we there anyway?"  There are no allies in this world. That is a simple fact.  For the few countries that are still on our side and share our values and goals, how many of them can even provide any help to us?  The only ones I can think of are Japan and UK.

Japan has a limited military because of post WWII constraints.  UK has decimated their military since they started paying for healthcare for all.  And being part of the E.U. drained them even more.  They're pretty much broke.   It will be a while before they recover.

But as far as Turkey and Syria, who exactly are we protecting?  Why?  A whole bunch of bad guys that can play the victim card depending on who's covering the news.  All fighting for things that don't interest the U.S.  And we're picking sides and putting our military in harm's way for... what... brownie points from a people who are never going to show any gratitude even if they could?  Yeah, makes sense... NOT!!

I hear all of Romney's arguments and find them wanting.  If I had time, I could go line-by-line, offering a rebuttal.  But it really was sophistry.

Just leave and let them duke it out.  What exactly are our national interests there?  I don't know of any.

BTW, I saw your comment about Never Trumpers vs Trumpling lapdogs.  I'm neither.  I used to be a nevertrumper.  But eventually, I had to wake up to the fact that he's been doing some good things as President.  But I NEVER believed he would get our troops out of foreign wars that went on forever.  I honestly thought that he was still about the military industrial engine because it is easy to justify it as a valid national interest.

I really have a problem with "most" of our foreign wars recently.  So, I was actually pleasantly surprised to see him make this move.  That is why I support it, not because I'm his lapdog.  I was for such withdrawal before I heard about his moves or his motive.

Edited by Mores
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mores said:

Well, I'm looking at it from the perspective of,"Why are we there anyway?"  There are no allies in this world. That is a simple fact.  For the few countries that are still on our side and share our values and goals, how many of them can even provide any help to us?  The only ones I can think of are Japan and UK.

Japan has a limited military because of post WWII constraints.  UK has decimated their military since they started paying for healthcare for all.  And being part of the E.U. drained them even more.  They're pretty much broke.   It will be a while before they recover.

But as far as Turkey and Syria, who exactly are we protecting?  Why?  A whole bunch of bad guys that can play the victim card depending on who's covering the news.  All fighting for things that don't interest the U.S.  And we're picking sides and putting our military in harm's way for... what... brownie points from a people who are never going to show any gratitude even if they could?  Yeah, makes sense... NOT!!

I hear all of Romney's arguments and find them wanting.  If I had time, I could go line-by-line, offering a rebuttal.  But it really was sophistry.

Just leave and let them duke it out.  What exactly are our national interests there?  I don't know of any.

BTW, I saw your comment about Never Trumpers vs Trumpling lapdogs.  I'm neither.  I used to be a nevertrumper.  But eventually, I had to wake up to the fact that he's been doing some good things as President.  But I NEVER believed he would get our troops out of foreign wars that went on forever.  I honestly thought that he was still about the military industrial engine because it is easy to justify it as a valid national interest.

I really have a problem with "most" of our foreign wars recently.  So, I was actually pleasantly surprised to see him make this move.  That is why I support it, not because I'm his lapdog.  I was for such withdrawal before I heard about his moves or his motive.

So, this is one of those situations where I was responding to something I *thought* I’d put in my post but—as it turns out—didn’t.  All I’d initially seen of Romney’s remarks were that the cease fire was “far from a victory”, and that was the spirit in which I was responding.  Because in that regard, he’s right.  The Turks are getting what they want, the Kurdish forces are moving out, and the Kurdish civilians they defended will either go with them or stay and likely be victimized by an orgy of pillaging, brutality, and rapine that will make My Lai look like a walk in the park.  That may not be something that’s in our national interest to prevent—but nor is it something that we can characterize as “a great day for civilization”, as Trump called it.

Having now listened to Romney’s full speech as linked by @anatess2—I do agree that he somewhat overplays the strength of our Kurdish alliance and the realism of any expectation they may have had for us to protect them from anyone but ISIL.  And as I said above, we should be more careful about who we ally with in the first place; and that’s not all Trump’s fault.  And I’ll give a jelly donut if Romney has never kvetched on the campaign trail about being the world’s policeman.  So yeah, he’s guilty of being an isolationist of convenience.  

I do think Romney makes salient points about a) why we didn’t give more notice to the Kurds; b) why the Administration has been so callous about the action and even engaged in some demagoguery towards the Kurds; and c) if it’s true that Erdogan told Trump “we’re doing this whether or not your boys get in our way”; does it—should it—change the way we deal with Turkey as an “ally” going forward?  Not sure it merits ongoing hearings; but it merits a re-evaluation of policy in the region—especially if, as was reported a few days ago, Turkey was threatening American access to our base at Incerlik and the nuclear weapons stored in the area.

As far as Trumpling lapdogs go:  I’m actually in the same boat you are, as far as having initially opposed him and being pleasantly surprised by a lot of what he’s done.  But as it pertains to this discussion, the comment was directed towards those who laud the cease-fire, specifically, as a “victory” or a “good deal”.  It is neither.  We just forced the Nauvoo Mormons to give their temple to the mob, and while it may have been necessary—it’s still a tragedy; and to celebrate it is frankly ghoulish.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

The Kurds were MUCH more helpful to the US when it invaded Iraq and occupied the Northern Iraq Territories.

Because we were at war with their enemy.

Quote

The Kurds desired (and have desired for many decades) their own nation.

And that nation desired is a Soviet (or even North Korea) patterned communist government, but more militant.

Quote

The Kurds have had many who dislike them and wish them wrong.

Including the US who had been helping fighting their terrorists groups for decades.   In addition to terrorist groups, their leadership is also heavily involved with human trafficking, drug trafficking, and organised crime.  They have had many terrorist training camps even in European countries.

Quote

The Right thing to do as they Kurds have supported the US troops and much of what we did in Syria and Iraq for years now, in a MUCH MORE ACTIVE ROLE than almost any other ally in the region, would be to actually create a Kurdish nation that we protect and that they have finally to govern as their own culture and people.

So the "right thing" to do is to create a Soviet/North Korea patterned militant country who has a long history of terrorism (plus human trafficking) and extremism and then protect and support them?

Quote

It WOULD give us a very friendly ally in the region

No it wouldn't.   The Kurdish leadership is just as dangerous to the US (or at least US allies) as ISIS.    They have committed many acts of terrorism and are about as anti-US values as a government body can be.     They would not be our friends any more the al Quaeda and the Taliban are our friends because we supported their predecessors (mujahideen) during the Soviet-Afghanistan conflict. 

Johnson Jones, I respect you a lot (you're one of the top members here for meaningful posts) and I agree with you on a lot of things, but not this one.   I assume it's because you may not be up to date on the history of the Kurdish leadership or region, rather than a disagreement of ideals (though correct me if wrong).

I'd advise anyone who is making the Kurds out to be the "good guys" or our "friends" to delve into their history and ideals a bit.   It is true that we shared some common enemies (Saddam and ISIS), but it doesn't mean that they are our true allies or friends.

Start with things like the ties of the YPG with PKK.    Look into the history of human trafficking and drug trafficking, as well as terrorism from the PKK.  Look at the Kurdish leadership, their goals, and what they stand for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mores said:

Just leave and let them duke it out.  What exactly are our national interests there?  I don't know of any.

Oil and Israel.  Plus, the US still seems hell bent on continuing the cold war with Russia.

Syria doesn't have as much oil as some of the other Middle East countries, so their oil isn't the concern; but that Syria is the pathway for Iranian oil and weapons.  Syria is Iran's only ally.    Although Iran has lost most of it's allies, the Iraq war emboldened Iran.

Also Russia sides with Assad and the US doesn't seem to like Assad either.

My own opinion on the matter is as follows:

Assad is indeed a brutal dictator.  On the other hand, he's better than the alternative (he is a secular leader, not an Islamic extremist).

Assad hasn't really done anything to the US.

If Russia wants to support Assad, let them.   It's better their problem than ours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Whether any faction of the Kurds is worthy of ongoing US security guarantees, is beyond me—a co-worker who’s an Army Reserve colonel and just got back from a deployment at the Pentagon doing analyst work with the Joint Chiefs (and has done other tours in the region) thinks a Kurdish state would look a lot like a non-Jewish Israel.  

????

Why does your friend think that?   Over optimism?    A Kurdish State would likely resemble North Korea more than it would Israel.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Scott said:

????

Why does your friend think that?   Over optimism?    A Kurdish State would likely resemble North Korea more than it would Israel.  

*Shrug* Working with them, talking with them, studying their history . . . Or so he says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This president of yours is indeed a good man, taking all your troops back and stop the messing with other nations is a excelent decision for yourselves, the population. focusing and taking care of your people, So that maybe someday your nation can be just as developed as norway or switzerland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Scott said:

Because we were at war with their enemy.

And that nation desired is a Soviet (or even North Korea) patterned communist government, but more militant.

Including the US who had been helping fighting their terrorists groups for decades.   In addition to terrorist groups, their leadership is also heavily involved with human trafficking, drug trafficking, and organised crime.  They have had many terrorist training camps even in European countries.

So the "right thing" to do is to create a Soviet/North Korea patterned militant country who has a long history of terrorism (plus human trafficking) and extremism and then protect and support them?

No it wouldn't.   The Kurdish leadership is just as dangerous to the US (or at least US allies) as ISIS.    They have committed many acts of terrorism and are about as anti-US values as a government body can be.     They would not be our friends any more the al Quaeda and the Taliban are our friends because we supported their predecessors (mujahideen) during the Soviet-Afghanistan conflict. 

Johnson Jones, I respect you a lot (you're one of the top members here for meaningful posts) and I agree with you on a lot of things, but not this one.   I assume it's because you may not be up to date on the history of the Kurdish leadership or region, rather than a disagreement of ideals (though correct me if wrong).

I'd advise anyone who is making the Kurds out to be the "good guys" or our "friends" to delve into their history and ideals a bit.   It is true that we shared some common enemies (Saddam and ISIS), but it doesn't mean that they are our true allies or friends.

Start with things like the ties of the YPG with PKK.    Look into the history of human trafficking and drug trafficking, as well as terrorism from the PKK.  Look at the Kurdish leadership, their goals, and what they stand for.

Where do you get this idea that they want a Communist government?

all sources I had said DIFFERENTLY.  It's odd that you prop up your statement with such an idea.

You have Kurdish Communist parties, but a great majority are part of other groups.  When left to their own devices it seems more recently they established a DEMOCRATIC government (though admittedly it's more of a fragmented tribal/local leadership government with a few democratic thoughts tossed into the mix in many instances) in the regions they control which seems to go counter to your argument that they all want a Communist government.

The ones being attacked are actually the Democrat Kurds overall, not specifically the Communist Kurds.  Your are considering ALL Kurds as part of the PKK, when that is distinctly NOT true.  In fact, the PKK and it's offshoot joined with many other groups in the Region, many of which were more Democratically aligned.  In their own governance they have a more democratic system, not a communist one.  Of course, it is not over reaching, not complete, and very fragmented.  Thus, it can be hard to actually come up with what a more viable way of governing would be.

The PKK has considerable roots and influence among the Kurds, but it is NOT the only representative group there.  In addition, as I said, the government the Kurds established, at least for this brief time, was NOT a communist one.  The reason Turkey is against them has NOTHING to do with combating communism and in fact, is attacking what appears to be a more Democratic leaning regional government (though non-recognized and thus non-legitimate). 

Thus far, JAG is more correct, it would look more like an Israeli state (but without the modern power or ability, meaning we'd probably have to be there for a loooong while if we wanted it to continue to exist).

Turkey is attacking for several reasons, but Communism is NOT one of them (as far as I know).  They see them as terrorists (most of the region see Kurds as undesirables).  Turkey want's land, and wants to have a buffer state, but the buffer state is one that TURKEY controls.  (A Kurdish nation would have actually made a buffer state but Turkey has a strong element of racism against the Kurds, to many of the more conservative groups all Kurds are Terrorists in their eyes).  In many ways it is considered a fight against Terrorism and an undesired minority.  Turkey want's the land to control in the way they want overall.  They want the buffer state or area, but ONLY one that Turkey actually is in charge of.

If you have evidence that shows that they would actually form a Communist N.Korea it would be interesting to read, as the government they formed from their own coalition in Syria seemed more like a Democratic one (or at least with Democratic leanings).  In other areas such as Northern Iraq, the Kurds had Soviet Backing early on.  Left to their own devices they did not seem to hold a specific Communist government, though their roots of support started with the Soviets.  They have that background but they seemed to lean more towards a democratic way of governance when left to their own devices. With the US's involvement in the past few decades, they seem to be one of the more enthusiastic factions that supported the US's involvement and even the democratic process the US has tried to instill in Iraq.

With that thought, it would appear that even their Communist roots are more on who backed them in their original struggles after WWII, but the way they govern is more of what one would consider a Tribal Democracy based more on family and local cultural powers rather than one of a typical Communist arena.

I am interested in your evidence and sources that it would end up like a N.Korea though, especially if the US had actually been the main creator and influencer of their nation.  Even Germany had a more Democrat minded group after WWII in territories the US controlled though they had a great deal of Soviet influence.  I'd imagine with the Kurds it could turn out similarly (and that's how it seems to have gone thus far, when the US has a strong influence they seem not to turn towards communism as their main government, though without the US and with Soviet influence it seems they turn more towards a communist slant).

I'd say it depends on who is their main ally at the time and pulling the reins.  If it is the US, I'd say they'd actually be more of a local tribal democracy, but if we let them align with the Soviets (such as with what actions we have taken recently)  your commentary may turn out correct.  They seem to align with whoever will actually help them meet their goals.  Early on it tended to be the Soviets which is why you see so many of them with Communist roots in the creation of their various parties.  That does not necessarily reflect what that group is like today.  Typically they are seen more as straight up terrorists by those who do not like them rather than Communist fighters.

I am willing to listen and be shown I am wrong though.

 

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that our allies in the Middle East have a way of becoming our enemies a decade or two later. 

 

We spend a lot of our blood, sweat, and tears to build these nations in that region for such short term gains. 

 

If oil is the reason, what is the REAL cost for that oil? The truth is that we are not going to have long term peace no matter which regime we support with billions of dollars in military support and infrastructure. We will be spending just as much propping up the next regime a few years later. Rinse and repeat. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Scott said:

Oil and Israel. 

I'm going to believe that you don't agree with it.  But you're just saying what you believe the conventional wisdom is.  Well I don't agree that those are valid points either.

If you actually believe it, then I'd say you're sounding like a supporter of the military industrial complex.  Doesn't sound like the position I'd expect from you.

We have the means to be energy independent more than any other nation including Saudi.

Israel can take care of themselves.  We give more money to their enemies than we do to Israel.  If we just stopped giving money to any of them, Israel would be fine.

Quote

Plus, the US still seems hell bent on continuing the cold war with Russia.

No idea what you're talking about.  It seems Russia has been an aggressor in many conflicts in the past 20 years.  And we had nothing to do with their actions.  We could just sit back and let them take over the Middle East again.  That will bankrupt them.

Quote

Assad hasn't really done anything to the US.

If Russia wants to support Assad, let them.   It's better their problem than ours.

Somehow we disagree on all the background and reasoning.  But we agree on the conclusion... I'll take it.

Edited by Mores
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share