A U.S. Special Forces members in Syria told Fox News on the abandonment of our Kurdish allies has left left him “ashamed for the first time” in his career. He also says that the Turks have committed war atrocities after President Donald Trump overruled his military and state departments in suddenly pulling back troops. Trump responded on Thursday to the threat of thousands of extremist ISIS fighters escaping from prisons, including sites bombed by Turkey. When reporters pressed Trump on the widespread condemnation for the betrayal of the Kurds, Trump downplayed the alliance with the Kurds, 11,000 of whom died fighting to help the US mission against ISIS. “They didn’t help us in the second World War, they didn’t help us with Normandy for example,” Trump said. “They’re there to help us with their land, and that’s a different thing.” Normandy is an area of France, not the US.”>Trump triggered further outrage by dismissing the Kurds (who lost 11,000 in fighting with the U.S. in Syria) by saying “They didn’t help us in the second World War, they didn’t help us with Normandy for example.” It is a bizarre comment since Turkey was far from a reliable ally in World War II. Indeed, it signed a treaty with Germany and was accused of assisting the Nazis in critical ways, including chromite exports that kept the Nazi war machine going.
Notably, after getting Trump to back away from the protection of the Kurds, President Tayyip Erdogan is threatening Europe by pledging to send millions of refugees (including extremists) into their countries if they criticize his scorched earth invasion into Syria.
The Special Forces soldier who served along side of the Kurds expressed both shame and disbelief at Trump’s action (which was done without forewarning to our allies or even his own key officials). The soldier noted that Wednesday that “Turkey is not doing what it agreed to. It’s horrible. We met every single security agreement. The Kurds met every single agreement [with the Turks]. There was no threat to the Turks — none — from this side of the border.”
Republican and Democratic leaders have expressed rare unity in condemning Trump’s move. In the meantime, Turkey is shelling civilian areas in its Orwellian named Operation Peace Spring.
The decision to pull back the U.S. troops (and insulting dismissal of the Kurds as allies) is indeed a shameful moment for this country. I can only imagine the emotions of our personnel who had to abandon their comrades in arms to make way for the Turkish invasion.
The ignorance(or deliberate obfuscation) on display by the Prof and everyone who is crying for the Kurds is simply outrageous and inexcusable.
(1) The US(via the CIA), Turkey, SA, and the sunni gulf states all supported the jihadi groups(including ISIS and Al Qaeda) in an attempt to take down the Syrian government.
(2) The US(via the DOD) also ended up supporting the Kurds AFTER the jihadis had taken much of the land. There were points in the civil war where CIA backed jihadis were fighting DOD backed forces(SDF, which is Kurds and Arabs). Unreal, but true.
(3) The Kurdish people are spread among four states(Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Turkey). Are US forces there to carve out a Kurdish state from four nations? That would mean WW3. Pure madness.
(4) If the Kurds would allow the Syrian government to retake control of it’s land, then Turkey would not invade. However, the Kurds have refused to do so.
(5) Syria and Russia can take care of the jihadis. There is no need for us to be there.
(6) Syria has told us repeatedly to leave their country, but we refuse. We have no legal basis for being there.
The Kurds are not helpless children. They know full well all of the above. They have been using us in an attempt to carve out their own state and lead us all into WW3. So, take all your lamentations and stick it up your ass.
yes ivan well said
The Kurds have pressed for a semi-autonomous region within a Syrian federal system.
Probably similar to the Kurdistan region in Iraq.
They’ve had some bilateral talks with the Assad government, but have often been excluded in U.N. multilateral negotiations.
It was not primarily the Assad government or the Russians who took on ISIS in northern Syria, it was the Kurds.
The situation would be somewhat different if the Syrian central government had seriously targeted ISIS, but that wasn’t a priority for Assad.
I think the Kurds rightfully consider the region that they live in and that they fought for deserving of a Kurdistan province in a federal Syrian system.
AT LEAST 20 YEARS WILL PASS BEFORE..
THE U.S. IS TRUSTED AGAIN
The abandonment of our Kurdish allies will have longterm consequences on U.S. foreign policy. The world has seen how easily an unstable blowhard can get The White House. That will have a chilling effect on potential allies for years and possibly decades to come.
Every time the State Department tries to broker an alliance, they will be reminded of The Kurds. “We saw what happened to the Kurds. Why should we risk our lives for the United States?” Even the greatest presidents could have trouble convincing allies that another Trump won’t come along.
America’s honor is reason alone to impeach Trump as soon as possible. The world must see America can’t fall prey to destructive rogues.
any possible “ally” who is worth associating with, knows that great powers may couple and decouple as they see fit.
just like a soldier knows that in the scope of their duties, they may become a casualty
anyhow I’ll give you an example of a name who helped fight the Japanese enemy and did receive aid from the US:
https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-09-18/little-known-story-vietnamese-communist-leader-ho-chi-minh-s-admiration-us
was the US supposed to just do whatever Ho wanted, because there was an association for a time? I dont think so.
It can be painful to admit this but national interests sometimes imply that an “ally” will in fact be disavowed if they come into conflict with a bigger and more powerful “ally.”
People see this happen in life all the time including most of all, politics in general .
If you believe that the terrorist organizations will cease to be a threat in the future ( in the same way that the Axis Powers ceased to be a threat after 1945), good luck with that.
Of course the U.S. ( after 1941) had an alliance with rotten SOBs like Stalin. Once the Axis Powers were crushed and Soviet expansionism became an issue, there was obviously no reason to continue that alliance.
These terrorist networks with a global reach are not going away anytime in the foreseeable future, so I would not count on an unconditional surrender from them.
Was that what you guys were saying when we pulled troops out of Republic of Vietnam, or was that before your time? hmmm maybe LBJ thought that way but he lost the support of Democrats over exactly that!
Let’s think of another example to defy this simple minded remark.
Remember when they bombed the Marine barracks in Lebanon? Ron Reagan shelled the hell out of the perpetrators and soon pulled out.
Today’s war hawks suppose the public has forgotten. Should we have stayed and tried to mediate the Lebanese situation the past 3 decades?
Let’s see what your boss Jeff Bezos other rag says about that. Praise, but that was 2014 after a lot of hindsight……
“thirty years ago this week, President Ronald Reagan made perhaps the most purposeful and consequential foreign-policy decision of his presidency. Though he never said so explicitly, he ended America’s military commitment to a strategic mistake that was peripheral to America’s interests. Three-and-a-half months after the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 241 U.S. military personnel — and after repeatedly pledging not to do so — Reagan ordered the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Lebanon. As Gen. Colin Powell later aptly summarized this military misadventure: “Beirut wasn’t sensible and it never did serve a purpose. It was goofy from the beginning.” [HELLLLLLOOOOOO! ]
What was particularly remarkable about Reagan’s bold decision was its rarity. Presidents often authorize using force or deploying troops to achieve some discrete set of political and military objectives. When they prove incapable of doing so with the initial resources and political support, the mission can be scaled back in its scope, enlarged to achieve additional missions, or, the atypical choice, terminated. The latter option requires having the ability to recognize failure, and political courage to end a U.S. military commitment. In large part, it is a combined lack of strategic awareness and political courage that explains many U.S. military disasters. To understand how Ronald Reagan successfully pulled this off, it is worth reviewing and remembering the strategic mistake that was the U.S. military deployment to Lebanon in the midst of that country’s wrenching civil war…..”
https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/02/07/when-reagan-cut-and-run/
“AT LEAST 20 YEARS WILL PASS BEFORE..THE U.S. IS TRUSTED AGAIN”
You don’t have to worry because the trust was destroyed when Hillary and Obama killed Ghadaffi who got rid of his nuclear weapons. By the way we did not have an alliance with the Kurds to protect them forever. We both wanted ISIS gone for our own personal reasons so we were allies for a short period of time. ISIS was destroyed in the area so it was time to leave. It so happens that Turkey is a NATO ally and not that long ago you seemed terribly worried about NATO. Now you want to put the US in a position to fight a NATO ally.
What about the children that die? I forget you don’t like children and support the killing of babies before they even get to become children. What about the families that lose their fathers and husbands? I forget. You don’t like families either. You place family values at the bottom of the heap.
Professor Turley, you ignored Congress’ role in all this. Article 1, Section 8 reserves the right to declare war to Congress. Now we have Congress complaining that Trump withdrew troops from an undeclared war with a terrorist group fuinded by… Congress through Obama, Clinton and Kerry, and you haven’t any criticism for them?
The phone call to Fox News’ Jennifer Grifffin from an anguished special forces trooper, meanwhile, is awfully convenient. This guy, while his friends are being shelled, just happens to have Fox’s phone number on hand and a sat phone ready to make that call?
At this point we have to remember that Fox News doesn’t so much have a side in political battles as an absolute requirement to keep its coffers full. Yellow journalism has pushed wars to enrich its owners before – the phrase “yellow journalism” goes back to the color of the paper William Randolph Hearst’s journals were printed on while he carried stories like Griffin’s to fan the flames of the Spanish-American War. “Give me the picture and I’ll give you the war”.
Declassified document from the Defense Intelligence Agency(DIA) regarding the situation in Syria in 2012:
https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf
Here are a few select highlights:
(1) “The Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI are the major forces driving the insurgency.”
(2) “The West, the Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition, while Russia, China, and Iran support the regime.”
(3) “If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in Eastern Syria”
My father is retired military. He always said that politicians should let the military fight wars. The politicians give the military an objective, and basic parameters, such as try to avoid civilian casualties. Other than that, stay out of it.
Syria is a complicated issue beyond my pay grade. All I know is that I feel great sympathy for the Kurds, and the Middle East is a very unstable region. The loss of a single one of our soldiers blasts a hole through the family that never fills. So if you go to war, it had better be for a very good reason.
Karen S – in an ideal world the Kurds would have their own country, however that would require 3 countries to give up territory.
I think everyone in that region has tried to wipe out the Kurds, at some point.
What every armchair military analyst and diplomat interviewed by the press forgets to mention is that armed defense of the Kurdish separatists from a country within which they operate is, conveniently or not, taking the Kurds’ side in a long-standing conflict.
Let’s say La Raza decided to kick it up a notch, and declare a country called “Aztlan”within the northern tier of Mexican states, and in the southern counties of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and California? Do we let them carve out that land from our territory? If they resort to terror tactics here from bases south of the Rio Grande, shouldn’t we attack those bases for our sake and Mexico’s?
And is any country which openly supports Aztlan’s claims to our land with military action not at war with us?
My analogy purposely leaves out Turkey’s systematic mistreatement of their Kurdish citizens, because La Raza’s been justifying their slogan – “For the Race, everything – for others, nothing!” – on our own checkered history dealing with our Hispanic citizens. But if I left that consideration in, we’d still have a case to go after violent separatists, even located across the border from us.
loupgarous – La Raza can have every just north of Tucson, AZ, New Mexico and everything south of Sacramento in California.
“War is the continuation of politics by other means.” -Carl Von Clausewitz
If not the Kurds, who?
If not now, when?
Some truth is needed here. First, the US supported ISIS in Syria. I will link to the evidence, which is irrefutable, below. We have armed them, let them escape, etc. The US will not abandon regime change of our former torture buddy, Assad.
Important: There are ways to stop conflicts besides war. The US should take that route. We should not keep trying to get rid of Assad. The Syrian people get to pick their own leaders. Israel, SA and the US need to get out and go to the UN to solve problems.
Here us the link to irrefutable evidence that we support ISIS in Syria: https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/wikileaks-covert-arms-investigation-reveals-uk-shell-companies-served-us-weapons-rat
Weapons serial number, plan flight logs, etc. Main stream verification. People have died to get this info to US citizens. Use it and think about non violent ways to end this horrific conflict.
What was the nature of our “alliance” with the Kurds. Whatever it was, it’s different now. The Kurds were fighting ISIS, as we were, because they were among the many people who were threatened by them. We got into fighting ISIS with NO support from any other liberal democracy. It looks like that alliance, including Russia and Assad, did the job of destroying the caliphate.
That’s good and it’s over! Why do we still have troops there? If there’s a clear risk of the regrouping of ISIS, I’d listen. But nobody’s making a case for that. Instead, it’s about our “shame” at abandoning an “ally” that is threatened by another ally, Turkey. I don’t get it. As far as I know, our “alliance” was not about taking the Kurds’ side in a thirty-years civil war with Turkey. Did we ever have a commitment to do that? Does it mean we want to leave a fighting force of Americans who are there NOT to fight, but to stand as sitting targets? Why are there no “humanitarians” from the UN and other liberal democracies who will offer their troops to be sitting targets with us?
M. Scott,
ISIS was virtually unknown prior to 2014. One reason that a “JV Team” like ISIS was able to take over large chunks of territory was that the U.S. “ended the war in Iraq” a few years earlier.
That total disengagement came after the surge had made significant progress in stabilizing Iraq.
That stabilization came at great cost, and depended on forming alliances with different factions in Iraq.
Because Al Queda was “defeated” in Iraq, there was a widespread belief that there was no need to stay.
These terrorists groups, or offshoots of those groups, are more resilient than that.
Allies are not that easy to come by in that part of the world, and the Kurds are ( or were) one of most valuable ally we had in Syria.
There seems to be a common view that our work is done in fighting terrorist groups, and that things will somehow sort themselves out in the aftermath of the Turkish invasion of Kurdish Syria.
If the Kurds are forced to make a decision to to fight Turkey or fight the remnants of ISIS, they may choose the former. The Kurds in Iraq may stand by passively as the Syrian Kurds are getting hammered, but I wouldn’t count in it.
The commitment and reliabilty of the Turks to take and maintain custody of the 10,000 or ISIS prisoners is questionable.
If this invasion results in a costly, long term insurgency against the Turks, the may find “lax” supervision of ISIS prisoners to their advantage.
These are just some of the risks that I can see in greenlighting the Turkish offensive into Syria. There’s probably a lot more unanticipated and unforeseeable negative blowback from this action by Turkey.
Kurds are all committed to fighting Turkey already. That’s what they have been doing a long time. I admire their mettle. Nonetheless.
The Armenians didn’t fight the Turks very well and paid a million or more dead as the price. Does Turkey ceaselessly apologize for their genocide like Germany does? Hardly a word of it has been heard at all from Turkey! This is as close as it got https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27131543
The Greeks who got kicked out of Asia minor by the Republic of Turkey too. Forcibly with a lot of dead and not a penny of compensation paid (Smyrna) some call this a genocide too in 1914-1922.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_genocide
Greeks had a long history of fighting Turks under the Sultan. the socalled secular Turks proved even crueller than the Sultan. Greeks got the boot from Asia minor, which was essentially greek going back to the Trojan war, before the Turks came riding in on their horses, from the 6th to the 11th century, and overwhelmed Byzantium.
All the time even now,. Turkey is violating Greek sea and airspace and the US ignores it. The Turks let a million or two refugees invade Europe and NATO did nothing against them. It was only once the EU started bribing Erodogan that this flow was staunched. Why?
Among all the NATO allies, strategically for US interests, Turkey might just be the MOST valuable. Maybe second after Germany. Depends on what threat you’re considering, I guess. but it’s generally not well understood by the public how critical the geography of Turkey really is for geopolitics. (Gordian knot)
Turkey as a very important NATO ally is why it’s allowed to act so belligerently and nasty to its ethnic minorities which has also included,…. Arabs. Most of whom got kicked out and went to ….. Syria…..
Is the US supposed to rectify all these historic injustices committed by the Turkish barbarians? That’s crazy. There has to be some education on this topic to Americans instead of all this irresponsible propaganda issued by the phony fake news which is just operating under the directive of “GET TRUMP”
The Turks are horrible people. Always have been. They should be wiped off the face of the earth. Nuke them, napalm them, spray Round-up on them. Whatever. Just eradicate them.
Kitty Wampus – I think spraying Turkey from 50,000 feet with Round-up would be an interesting solution.
Mr. Schulte,
If you think there are already a ton of ads on TV encouraging lawsuits against Monsanto, what do you think would happen if we did that?
There would be no time for regular programming, and the ads would have Turkish subtitles.😉
Anonymous – do you really think we are going to tell them?
If the SF soldier identified himself he would promptly be thrown in the brig, reduced in rank, and eating bread and water. People serving in the military are not allowed to challenge policy set by their Commander in Chief. The Army is not a democracy. When a superior officer says what will be done, whatever he may think of it privately, a soldier salutes smartly, says “Yes sir” and complies with the policy fully and as if it was his own idea.
This SF soldier is not a hero. He is an idiot and is not fit to wear the uniform.
Point two is that these Kurds did not fight ISIS on our behalf. They did not care a whit about us other than the arms and fire support we could give them. They fought ISIS because ISIS was a danger to THEM and to their homes. We owe them nothing. They owe us.
Good idea, Bill. Let the world know what an alliance with the U.S. is worth.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44990594/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/obama-all-us-troops-out-iraq-end-year/
The YPG has a yellow star on a red field for their flag. They are Maoists. They have denounced the US as imperialists before during and will do so after. The last time any nation supported an independent state for Kurds was the USSR which is long gone. This mess is not our problem., Bye bye.
I’m also not overly concerned about the ISIS mercenaries. The Syrians will liquidate them if they capture them which will not harm us. Or, the Turks will liquidate them, or, if they are in collusion with Turkey, which is entirely possible for some, then maybe they will sneak them out. Which they would eventually do with them anyways eventually — if they survive Assad.
The Kurds may also put them to the sword, rather than let them be recaptured and perhaps one day go free.
For my part, I consider the ISIL combattants as terrorists, aka “franc tireurs” exempt from POW protections under the Geneva convention. If Assad or the Kurds or the Turks liquidate them, so be it. These will be equivalent to
As for their families, they are refugees and deserve humane treatment and all the protections laws and treaties allow. I suspect they will not be summarily executed by any side, and I hope not. Nobody has it in their interest to mistreat the women and children. But any way you look at it, the US can’t be the guarantor of that situation either.
If this is turns out to be a short, limited incursion by Turkey, things may not spin out of control.
A major concern for the U.S. and the West is that ISIS or a similar group will reemerge as an even greater threat.
I think it goes back to considering whether we’re serious about the “war on terror” in the long run, or whether we disengage in areas where we’re involved in fighting terrorist groups.
And the related question of whether groups like Al Queda, ISIS, etc. pose a threat to the U.S., or whether they’re just a regional problem we can afford to pull away from.
That is the biggest question this clusterf..k raises, but there are others.
Trump is perfidious and he shames this country. The Republicans started the war in Iraq and everything that came after is on them. It’s amazing how those of us who believe allies should be supported are called “warmongers” while Cadet Bone Spurs and his chicken hawks who are chomping at the bit to start a war with Iran are considered the birds of peace. Double speak at its zenith.
Republicans started it? Well Bush was president but Justice Holmes is no historian. It had an authorization voted yes to by nearly every Dem besides Russ Feingold if I recall. Look it up. Oh, and that Comey guy told us there were WMDs too
That’s wrong kurtz and easy to look up. Most democrats in Congress voted against it with almost all in the House and less than half in the Senate. The GOP bought it lock, stock, and barrel.
United States House of Representatives
Party Ayes Nays Not
Voting
Republican 215 6 2
Democratic 81 126 1
Independent 0 1 0
TOTALS 296 133 3
United States Senate
Party Yeas Nays
Republican 48 1
Democratic 29 21
Independent 0 1
TOTALS 77 23
sorry i confused it with this vote
https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/23/all-info
nonetheless, in site of my error, and thank you for correcting me, but in spite of it, we can see that a large number of Democrats voted in favor and thus what Justice Holmes said is false.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/house-bill/4655
By 1998 there was near unanimous support for “regime change” in Iraq.
A think a few House members voted against it, but it past unanimously in the Senate.
A lot of the core support for the 2002 Gulf War Resolution is related to that earlier 1998 resolution to take out the Saddam regime.
Holmes was correct. A GOP administration proposed and sold the war – on false pretenses – GOP reps & Senators were almost unanimous in support and most democrats – in Congress and among the public – opposed it. The GOP owns it
Anon1,
Both sides are complicit and not being forthright with Americans. China and the WTO is on both parties, as is the Patriot Act and the NSA spying.
I think globalists/corporatists wanted China to rise to replace the waning Russian threat following the collapse of the Soviet Union. That and to have access to cheaper labor than what we had domestically.
we’re speaking of history, not theories and the facts are clear. The Iraq War was a GOP war.
here’s history and here’s facts. a nuclear exchange between the US and Russia will exterminate humanity. or china. even an exchange between india and pakistan now could wipe out about 80% if the simulations are correct
here listen to your saintly Daniel Ellsberg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7cJG9j0NdY
time to get real and get careful and be reasonable in your expectations about militaristic rivalry with them in the middle east and anywhere
1) Hillary Clinton Iraq War Vote Speech
We could have ended up in the same war if Bill Clinton were President.
2) Clinton statement on attack on Iraq
1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkS9y5t0tR0
2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY6vDbWThjo
Gore and Obama opposed the Iraq War and Hillary’s support almost certainly cost her the 2008 nomination. Kerry admitted his vote was a mistake before the 2004 primaries began
“Kerry admitted his vote was a mistake”
As I said Democrats change their minds when the wind blows.
As I also said a short time ago I agreed with certain broad ideas of Obama and that was certainly one of them. However Obama was terrible about carrying out those ideas and his logic when it came to details was poor. One can’t predict what will happen in advance so to judge a person one has to look at the person’s logic.Obama was and is a community organizer who knows how to destroy but doesn’t know how to build.
Yes, Kerry was against Gulf War II before he voted for the Resolution before he decided it was a mistake and was once again against it.
Those flip-flops we’re not helpful to his campaign.
I’d have to review more contemporary statements by Gore I the run-up to the 2003 Gulf War.
He may have been on all sides of the issue.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2002/02/gore-f20.html
Anon1,
What I said was not a rebuttal, it was an extension to say that the finger pointing, us vs them is not in our collective best interest as Americans. Both parties are guilty of failing the very people they purportedly represent (us), as well as failing to defend and uphold the Constitution.
Own it Prairie. Most Democrats – including me – thought the Iraq War was BS then and voted against it. You Republicans bought the whole package.
Glad to see that anon1 took Prairie Rose’s comment about finger pointing to heart.
Anon1,
I am not a Republican. I am a centrist Independent.
I agree with that the Iraq War was BS and it was foolish for Republicans to push for it. Americans were manipulated into supporting it. Of course not everyone fell for or went along with it. Obama and the Democrats did a swell job with Libya and Syria and few said anything in opposition. Both sides are complicit in manipulation of the public for some larger, unshared agenda. Stop the finger-pointing and maybe by working together we can actually do some real good for the nation instead of spending blood and money on war.
Prairie you’re trying to minimize the complete, foolish, and costly in lives, maimed humans, and dollars the Iraq war was with false equivalency. If you supported it own it. Most democrats didn’t and most republicans in overwhelming numbers did.
We did not start the Syrian or Libyan civil wars nor did we lose 1/1000 of the treasure and lives there that we did in Iraq. There is zero equivalency there and your attempts at creating it is false.
” There is zero equivalency there ”
Anon’s attempt to force a conclusion holds no water. He makes things up as he goes along.
I agree with that the Iraq War was BS and it was foolish for Republicans to push for it.
Your preference is what, Uday or Qusay?
I was against it at the time and basically stopped supporting Republicans because I thought it was foolish. I didn’t cross over for a lot of reasons but I clearly recall there were plenty of Democrats in favor of it. Don’t pretend there was any kind of party unity on the topic. You can see from whomever corrected me that there was plenty who voted it. Most of all, you guessed it, HILLARY
https://inthesetimes.com/article/20324/hillary-clintons-hawkishness-may-have-cost-her-the-election.-democrats-cant
We can see from the article many Democrats STILL can’t get the message.
Of course you have some lackeys in the Republican party that favor every foreign war as well.
You people that are pillorying Trump for this, don’t pretend you are antiwar in the slightest bit.
Hell I protested the bombing of Serbia. Another situation in which the USA played footsie with sketchy Islamic radicals, the UCK, and bombed Russian allies that would have wiped them out, all we had to do was stand back and let it happen. Stupid!
Let’s get all that 9/11 stuff back in the open too about what elements inside the Saudi government aided the bombers and we’ll maybe remember when we stopped for a minute to consider whether constantly making Russia a bogeyman was really such a good idea. Remember Al Queda: they’re there on the ground trying to “overthrow strongman assad” too! Even today. But “Russia” is the big bogeyman all over again now, deja vu!
hmmm now let me see what was the guy who popped off a pressure cooker bomb in Boston? a Chechan muslim terrorist if I recall? And who warned the US?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-explosions-boston-congress/russia-warned-u-s-about-boston-marathon-bomb-suspect-tsarnaev-report-idUSBREA2P02Q20140326
And now you clods want to throw Turkey overboard? Here’s a tip for you. Turkey is CLOSER to Russia now even though it remains in NATO. Do we really want to antagonize Turkey? Is that wise? Wait, I thought Russia bad, so maybe, that’s dumb?
nytimes.com/2019/07/12/world/europe/turkey-russia-missiles.html
Here’s another thing. Erdogan thinks the US tried to pull a coup on him, blames CIA maybe and some guy that the US allows to stay here, Fethullah Goblin or something, lives in Pennsylvania. And seeing how the CIA operates against Trump, I think i believe them! You guys LOVE chaos.
And if Erdogan blocked the coup, who do you think gave him the intel to do so? Betcha Russia.
Maybe Trump is just busy here trying to minimize damage done to American interests by Deep state schemers? Really, that’s exactly what i think is happening.
The idea of “regime change” in Iraq predated the Bush Administration by a few years.
It was hard to miss the strong warnings about Iraq’s WMDs from both the Clinton Administration and GOP politicians by the late 1990s.
And it would take a very spotty, selective memory to forget those warnings.
So was the Clinton Administration issuing those warnings ”on false pretenses”?
One of the issues that stood out in the 2004 Bush-Kerry debate was when Bush pointed out that Kerry had access to same intelligence reports that Bush had, and voted to authorize the war.
I agree that it Gulf War II was ultimately the responsibility of the Bush Administration.
To say that “it’s all on” the Bush Administration conveniently ignores the fact that he had widespread bipartisan support.
Bush and Patreus and Crocker “owned” the surge, and a largely stabilized Iraq that was handed off to Obama.
Ownership of “ending the Iraq War” in 2011, or dismissing threats from “JV teams”, does not belong to the Bush Administration.
It takes a good deal of effort and a great deal of blind partisanship to ignore screw-ups by subsequent administrations, who are in fact also responsible for their policies.
The Iraq War would not have occurred if Gore had been elected. The War was hyped and sold by the Bush administration with near unanimous GOP support while most Democrats opposed it. Those are facts.
PS Dollars to donuts, most of you right wingers supported it
Own it.
Maybe you can lay out the entire foreign policy agenda that Gore “would have” followed, since you know for “a fact” what he would have done.
Using your “logic”, Nixon bore no responsibility for the Vietnam War. It’s all on LBJ and the Democratic Administration that sold it.
No bipartisan support, and no responsibility for policy decisions of the subsequent Nixon Administration.
That reasoning should work out
fine for you.
of course hillary voted for it. lol. history.
I watched an interview with the Smothers Brothers about 20 years ago.
The interviewer pointed out that while their views on the Vietnam War ( and the way they expressed them) were controversial back in the 1960s, 90% of Americans now believe the Vietnam War was a mistake.
Tommy Smothers deadpanned ” And 90% of those 90% say that they were always against the war.”
Democrats are known for saying one thing and then changing their minds. The notable ones are on video demonstrating how they pushed us to war. One crazy lady pushed us to war and then I think took the other side but she also landed in a helicopter where she was being fired upon at the same time the band was playing and a young lady was bringing her a gift,
So “most” (about 60%) House Democrats voted against it, and “most” ( again, about 60%) of Senate Democrats voted for it.
I’d have to check the 1990 vote totals, but offhand I’d say there was far more bipartisan support for Gulf War II than there was for the authorization in 1990 to use force to eject Iraqi forces from Kuwait.
So?
Oh my, but the warmongers are having a meltdown! OK, just pick up a gun, go to the MidEast and help them out if you are so concerned. Quit asking other people to die for something you are unwilling to die for. Maybe these hand-wringers need an Irish Poem!
It O-Kurd To Me???
An Irish Poem by Squeeky Fromm
On behalf of the Poor Oppressed Kurds,
We hear sanctimonious words!
All these “fortunate sons”
Should pick up some guns!
If they don’t, they’re just cowardly tu*ds!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky – nice 😉
Thank you PaulCS!!! I am glad you liked it! I did a really good one that guy who spent grant money on strip clubs! A four stanza Irish Poem, with science and everything! You might like it, too!
I say this with no ego – it was darn good!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky – at one point yesterday I had 145 Turley emails in my inbox and was going through them quickly. I must have missed it. Do you have my email? You can send it there.
Here, I will re-post it so you don’t have to dig for it:
——
Oh well, I guess Chik deserves an Irish Poem! I read that he was concerned with electrical power generation. There is some science in this, but Nick Tesla posited that energy could be transferred without wires*. But this is not something one can do in a single verse. . .
Taken for Granted???
An Irish Poem by Squeeky Fromm
There once was a black engineer
Whose devotion to science was clear!
He felt it his duty,
To check out some booty,
He is now self-employed, I hear.
But, perhaps it was all copicetic-
A study of motions kinetic?
For a bump and a grind,
And the friction behind,
Can make forces electromagnetic!
Sooo, taking his work as a whole,
Re-imagine that greased stripper pole-
As an engineer must –
Calculations of thrust!
Combined with centripedal roll!
An inductive transference occurred!
And we don’t have to just take his word.
For the truth at a glance,
Could be found in his pants!
As his personal rod became stirred!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
*See here – https://futurism.com/stanford-scientists-are-making-wireless-electricity-transmission-a-reality
Squeeky – you must send this as an op-ed poem to his school paper. Loved it!!! Thanks for reposting.
It’s time to bring our Men and Women back home onto American Soil 🇺🇸
hp13,
Politically popular move by Obama in 2011, until that JV team raised all kinds of hell.
I don’t remember the US sending in troops to protect the Kurds from the Turks in a war that has gone on for decades.The purpose was to defeat ISIS. A major complaint, and justified, against GWB was he expanded the goals of the Iraqi war and look where that left us.
The goal of removing Saddam from power was obvious and well understood.
Bush 41 recognized the dangers of “mission creep”, and was roundly criticized for years for not going on to Bahgdad and “finishing the job”.
In the lead up to Gulf War II, GWB made it clear from the start that the objective was to remove the Saddam regime.
That was the stated, intial goal, not an expanded one or “mission creep”.
One could say there was a two fold mission. End Saddam’s control and get rid of WMD. Saddam’s control was eliminated and there were no WMD’s. That should have ended our involvement. If you are saying there was no “mission creep” then why did we remain?
Allan, I think that when you over the weekend a government you assume some responsibility for what follows.
I think Powell’s “you break it, you own it” pottery barn rule was largely correct. ( Although Powell has his share of responsibility for the launch of Gulf War II).
There were a lot of wildly optimistic assumptions about a post-Saddam Iraq; that somehow the Iraqi people would come together and form a united, stable country.
Al Queda and other factions made that impossible. There was an argument to be, when things quickly went to hell, that we should just wash our hands of it and leave.
Instead, Bush gambled on The Surge, which succeeded beyond most people’s expectation.
should be overthrow a government…..don’t know how that first sentence auto “corrected” itself into that jumble of words.
“you break it, you own it”
We break a lot of things and we don’t own them.
Several bad mistakes were made IMO and two of them were disbanding the Republican Army and trying to Democratize Iraq. We needed to leave Iraq ASAP by permitting Iraq to form a government even if it was a new dictatorship with essentially the same bureaucracy. Our goal was to get rid of Saddam and whatever WMD’s existed. That was accomplished.
We also didn’t plan for the contingencies of Syria and Iran getting involved later exploiting a balance of power that was upset. Ask yourself who formed ISIS.
Do not trouble yourself with the surge. That comes later and though it worked it was made necessary by bad policy. Don’t trouble yourself with Obama’s failures there that created a vacuum.
I’ve pointed out Obama’s 2011 “ending of the war in Iraq” as a major failure.
I think the 2011 uprising in Syria was more directly related to “Arab Spring” contagion than the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Ushering out allies like Mubarak was another Obama blunder.
It may be that the Iraqi miltary could have been maintained without the Baathist control of the military, instead of disbanding the military and reconstituting it.
It was some time before Saddam himself was captured, and had we left the Iraqi military in place and then left, I think there were concerns that a Saddam- like regime would reemerge.
Given what happened, trying to purge the military of Baathists and finding new military leadership probably would have been worth a shot.
“I think there were concerns that a Saddam- like regime would reemerge.”
What were the objectives of the war?
1) get rid of Saddam
2) end the WMD threat.
If the military remained intact along with the bureaucracy then it would be easier to form a government and leave.
Our reasons for going to war were not to put in the type of government that would satisfy your whims. If before the war Saddam had died of a heart attack and the person that took over proved there were no WMD or a desire to complete the WMD program with proof we would not have gone to war.
So if you believe Turley has direct contact with an SF soldier on active duty in Syria, you probably believe he is an excellent academic as well
Paul C Schulte on October 11, 2019 at 10:42 AM
Squeeky – at one point yesterday I had 145 Turley emails in my inbox and was going through them quickly. I must have missed it. Do you have my email? You can send it there.
John R.,
If Turley is sending 145 emails to Mr. Schulte, I can believe that he has direct contact with the SF soldier. 😁
“I am ashamed for the first time in my career,” the unidentified soldier, who has been involved in the training of indigenous forces on multiple continents, told Fox News Wednesday.”
********************
The critical special forces operator was so brave and wedded to his convictions that he remained anonymous?? Doesn’t sound right — either he’s unlike any special forces op I’ve known or he’s yet another figment of an outraged and outrageous propaganda machine known as the US Press. Fox, CNN, MSNBC are all cut from the same threadbare corporate cloth.
P Turley mentions the 11,000 Kurds killed, but I do not recall JT addressing the Fact Obama, Hillary, McCain, Brennen, Clapper, Comey, McCabe… Obama’s whole crew of Islamic nut jobs supplied the weapons to Isis/Al Qaeda terrorist that killed most of those 11,000. Not counting all those killed by the same in Lybia.
Why hasn’t the DOJ Lock Up those Criminal Bast*rds Yet!
All opposed by Ret Lt Gen Michael Fylinn…. remember the protest by the military that us citizen helped get the word out? “We will not be Al-Qaeda’s Air Force”.
Remember those US personal killed by Obama/Hillary in Benghazi where all those weapons that went to Obama/Hillary/McCains Islamic Terrorist in Syria came from?
Well, I’ll hell looky there, there’s that picture again of McCain having his picture taken with Terrorist.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/former-us-backed-rebel-leader-now-leading-invasion-against-us-backed-syrian-kurds
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=13+hours+the+secret+soldiers+of+benghazi+story&t=lm&ia=web
I would not be overly confident of Buzzfeed’s accuracy in reporting. This claim was discredited, and I don’t think any established publication ran with that.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/john-mccain-meets-isis-leader/
War criminals should be hanged.
What a very sad and complicated mess!
“Republican and Democratic leaders have expressed rare unity in condemning Trump’s move.”
They could declare war, which should have been done in the first place for us to be there at all.
PR:
It is a mess and like so many others, the direct result of muddled-headed, sentimental thinking. Where is the justification for unending protection of the Kurds from our allies the Turks? Oh we may not like the Turks but unlike some of our other allies — the Japanese and the Germans — they haven’t gone to war with us in the past 70 years or so. So what exactly is our commitment to a gang of Maoist Muslims who fought the other gang of Maoist Muslims (only slightly more repugnant to us) to preserve their land clams. Must we pick a side in every Mid-East civil war? How many of our kids will we sacrifice to preserve order in country with only minimal strategic value? Let the chicken-hawks give me a number and a commitment that their kid, grandkid etc. should be the first to ship out and then we’ll talk. Like a smart guy quoted here: “Countries don’t have permanent friends or allies; they have permanent interests.” Ours aren’t here.
I was reading about the disparity in brain size between soldier and worker ants. The academics jumped in, making jokes about how it reflects humans, as well. Academics and elitists disdain the military even more than the bourgeoisie and blue collar workers. The reality is that these men and women go into harms way for our country, while the armchair critics are safe and cozy. Their lives are valuable, and should not be risked without good cause.
I do not know if action in Syria is still justified, only that Turkey is becoming more extreme again. At what point does continued military action require a Congressional declaration of war? If Congress disagrees with Trump’s move, there is a solution for that. They can declare war. If they don’t, then they want the safety of criticizing the withdrawal, without the political commitment of actually declaring a war.
Excellent point, but a declaration of war would (at some point) have to be justified to the folks back home. I supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and paid for that with the life of my younger son. Since then I’ve become more reticent about US involvement in wars which are not, strictly speaking, our business.
The Kurds didn’t cooperate with us from pure devotion to the United States of America. They were (understandably) in it for the guns, ammunition, and air support from the world’s finest air force and navy. There was no understanding that the US would be involved somewhere along the line in a shooting war with a NATO ally in exchange for support in a war which was fully in the Kurds’ self-interest.
Congressional leaders, instead of piling on Trump for not involving us in a war with Turkey, ought to either declare that war they so ardently desire, or support the man who respected their exclusive right to make war by not declaring one for them.
So sorry for your loss Lou. 🙁
Thank you. Not a day passes I don’t think of him, and with regret I didn’t suggest another path of service to his country – for Obama sat on his hands during ISIS’s invation of Iraq and undid what my son and 5,000 other Americans gave their lives to prevent – tyranny and murder in Iraq. They could have and should have been bombed intensively while very obviously on the road to a place Obama left bare of any substantive oppisition.
Not Obama’s fault, thanks for trying.
You know the pain of this far greater than any of us We don’t have to agree on US policy to recognize the what you and your family paid for that policy.
Loup, your points are well stated. There is logic for keeping troops there but that logic I don’t believe should be to protect the Kurds thought that might be a secondary effect. There is a logic to leave as we have. I don’t know enough to choose one side or the other though I might seem to side with leaving.
If there is logic to our staying and fighting then those advocating it *should* be calling for a declaration of war or at least provide a strong rationale that is in the interests of America. They haven’t. Their excuses for war are lame. The reasons for leaving are strong. Lives lost, A NATO ally and two big reasons Iraq and Afghanistan. I hope that those calling for war either go and fight or provide a logical reason to do so.
So far those calling for war say it is because no one will trust us again, but most of those are the same people who saw to it that Ghadaffi was killed. I won’t even bring up post war Vietnam where those same people that were dishonerable then think they are demonstrating honor today. They aren’t.