Trump abandons Kurdish allies to Turkish invasion

[Stoked]

Right. I mean, look if I had my druthers we wouldn't have invaded Iraq in the first place and this entire situation would be completely different, but we did and this is part of the fallout. It's a bitch move to cut bait and run now after all the Kurds have sacrificed in this fight.

To use this as some sort of gotcha against those on the left who are anti-imperialist is such a context free simpleton look at the issue.

If I was another country tied to American might for protection I’d be looking at all other options fast. Places like the Baltics, Middle East and Southeast Asia could become quite volatile from this. And this after all Trump has said about ditching NATO. Then he actually does it to someone?

interesting side take. Could this be what pushes Republicans, specifically senators, against him if an impeachment vote reaches the floor? We’ve already seen a couple Senate
Rs start pushing back.
I’m also wondering if Trump is trying to get impeached and thrown out.

 

[framer]

We invaded Iraq, which destabilized the region and eventually got us ISIS. So yeah, we kind of did.

Your unspoken ellipses doing a lot of work there.

 

[Stoked]

We invaded Iraq, which destabilized the region and eventually got us ISIS. So yeah, we kind of did.

we were major contributors but that was far from a solo effort.

 

[framer]

Right. I mean, look if I had my druthers we wouldn't have invaded Iraq in the first place and this entire situation would be completely different, but we did and this is part of the fallout. It's a bitch move to cut bait and run now after all the Kurds have sacrificed in this fight.

To use this as some sort of gotcha against those on the left who are anti-imperialist is such a context free simpleton look at the issue.

Are you saying that the Kurds would have just joined with ISIS had the United States not become involved? You make the assumption that the Iraq Bathists would always have been able to hold back the forces that became ISIS. Assad certainly couldn't.

It's not a "GOTCHA" so much as a reflection on how this suddenly became important when it could be used to bash Trump. You said nothing when Obama "abandoned our allies" and led to the destabilization that created ISIS. You just didn't care then. Why should anyone care for your opinion now?

 

[Zombie]

we were major contributors but that was far from a solo effort.

Oh absolutely, I mean there were obviously a lot of factors at play. I wouldn't even say we're primarily responsible for the situation in Syria.

It all stemmed from the Arab spring, Assad and other authoritarian regimes are ultimately responsible for their people rising against them.

But it's ludicrous to say that we aren't in some part responsible for the **** show in the Middle East given our long history of ****ing **** up over there.

 

[Zombie]

Are you saying that the Kurds would have just joined with ISIS had the United States not become involved? You make the assumption that the Iraq Bathists would always have been able to hold back the forces that became ISIS. Assad certainly couldn't.

I didn't suggest anything of the sort, and I recognize that Obama should not have withdrawn from Iraq when he did. Speaking of assumptions, I don't know why you think you know what my thoughts were back then.

As for Iraq, it seems fairly likely to me that ISIS as we know it wouldn't have even existed were it not for our invasion of Iraq. After all they were borne out of the power vacuum we created.

The Baathists had a better track record than the US in keeping that country from fracturing into tribal warfare, for better or worse.

 

[Zombie]

If I was another country tied to American might for protection I’d be looking at all other options fast. Places like the Baltics, Middle East and Southeast Asia could become quite volatile from this.

Not to mention Russia.

 

[NAOS]

Laughing at all of the leftists pretending to care about the Kurds for the first time in their lives.

Someone needs to explain to me why, if Turkey invades Syria, this is the fault or sole responsibility of the United States. This would obviously be a move to war and would be something that concerns the United Nations crowd, no? How many German, French, Japanese, and South American troops are protecting Syria from Turkey? Any Canadians? Isn't this type of American unilateralism the stuff that the Jazzfanz prog crowd has decried for a couple decades?

Obviously, I don't want Turkey to invade Syria or mess with the Kurds. Which of you on jazzfanz are ready to send their kid over to fight this battle? Thriller? You ready to sign up?

If it is important, there ought to be an international consensus on this. That will never happen if the US is carrying ALL of the water here. Is the United States the ONLY interested party? If yes, THAT is the part that is broken, not what Trump decides.

We didn't break Syria. There really isn't anything there that amounts to a hard national interest. I'm sure Israel and Saudi Arabia have interests there, is the Anti- Israel jazzfanz brigade willing to jump in there and protect THEIR interests?

Seems like a simple thing to tell Turkey that invading Syria would be considered an unprovoked act of war by the world community and there would be consequences., unless there would actually be no consequences from the world community. If that is the case, then any blood would be on their hands, not ours.

It wouldn’t be a bad idea for you to review the specifics of unilateral actions by the US in Iraq, and how the Kurds stepped up for them. There are important details—and, dare I say honor-bound issues—in this relationship that are lost when someone like yourself throws up their hands and appeals to some global context. I feel confident wagering that the US made promises it is now walking away from even as it declares victory.

Given where things have been headed for a long time, the best thing for anyone around here to do is to get comfortable with the fact that the Kurds picked the wrong alley.

 

[Red]

Official who heard call says Trump got "rolled" by Turkey and "has no spine"

https://www.newsweek.com/exclusive-...-trump-got-rolled-turkey-has-no-spine-1463623

"President Trump was definitely out-negotiated and only endorsed the troop withdraw to make it look like we are getting something—but we are not getting something," the National Security Council source told Newsweek. "The U.S. national security has entered a state of increased danger for decades to come because the president has no spine and that's the bottom line."

 

[The Thriller]

I didn't suggest anything of the sort, and I recognize that Obama should not have withdrawn from Iraq when he did. Speaking of assumptions, I don't know why you think you know what my thoughts were back then.

As for Iraq, it seems fairly likely to me that ISIS as we know it wouldn't have even existed were it not for our invasion of Iraq.

The Baathists had a better track record than the US in keeping that country from fracturing into tribal warfare, for better or worse.

It’s pretty safe to say that had Saddam remained in power ISIS, an extremist Sunni terrorist group which originally began as Al-Qaeda Iraq (set up by Zarqawi who was killed in 2006), would’ve never popped up in the region. Sad ruled with an iron fist. Former army and police Sunnis wouldn’t have joined ISIS since they still would’ve remained employed and in power; they were Saddam’s base.

It’s pretty funny to be lectured by an amateur like @framer on these issues. Both Democratic and Republican admins made choices that have been disastrous for the region. Yet he calls people he disagrees with as “leftist.” It encourages rational and nonpartisan discussion.

 

[Zombie]

It’s pretty safe to say that had Saddam remained in power ISIS, an extremist Sunni terrorist group which originally began as Al-Qaeda Iraq (2006 Zarqawi), would’ve never popped up in the region. Sad ruled with an iron fist. Former army and police Sunnis wouldn’t have joined ISIS since they still would’ve remained employed and in power; they were Saddam’s base.

Great post, thank you for bringing this up. Not sure why framer thinks ISIS was an inevitability considering the status of Sunni Muslims in Iraq before we invaded.

 

[framer]

It’s pretty safe to say that had Saddam remained in power ISIS, an extremist Sunni terrorist group which originally began as Al-Qaeda Iraq (set up by Zarqawi who was killed in 2006), would’ve never popped up in the region. Sad ruled with an iron fist. Former army and police Sunnis wouldn’t have joined ISIS since they still would’ve remained employed and in power; they were Saddam’s base.

It’s pretty funny to be lectured by an amateur like @framer on these issues. Both Democratic and Republican admins made choices that have been disastrous for the region. Yet he calls people he disagrees with as “leftist.” It encourages rational and nonpartisan discussion.

The continuation of Baathist power "as is" was never guaranteed. Succession was inevitable, and the new leader of Syria was certainly weaker than his father. ISIS was always there, to think that they would have been forever repressed is just guessing.

You are going to have to show your work that the extreme Islamicists that made up ISIS was Sadam's "base."

As for "leftist," I meant it as a discriptor rather than an insult. Is it inaccurate?

 

[framer]

If you want an example, the Islamic extremists took over Turkey pretty handily and easily. You think the Baathists had the special sauce to stop it in Iraq and Syria?

 

[The Thriller]

I didn't suggest anything of the sort, and I recognize that Obama should not have withdrawn from Iraq when he did. Speaking of assumptions, I don't know why you think you know what my thoughts were back then.

As for Iraq, it seems fairly likely to me that ISIS as we know it wouldn't have even existed were it not for our invasion of Iraq. After all they were borne out of the power vacuum we created.

The Baathists had a better track record than the US in keeping that country from fracturing into tribal warfare, for better or worse.

I see that region has seen turning points in just the past 20 years.

1. Invasion was favored over containment. The policy after the Persian Gulf War was to enforce no fly zones to protect the Kurds in the north and Shia in the south and west and contain Hussein from invading anywhere else. Until we abandoned this in 2002. Had this containment policy remained, the situation there would most likely be completely different today.

https://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/02/opinion/keeping-saddam-hussein-in-a-box.html

1b. Putin was originally supportive of the war in Afghanistan. He even let us use Russian airfields. It was believed at the time that we’d join forces to fight radical Islam worldwide. It was widely known that he saw the Iraqi war as an intrusion into his sphere of influence and the beginning of our sour relationship. Who knows what our relations would be like today between us and Russia had we never invaded? Putin might still have blamed us for embarrassing election results or poor economics. Who knows?

2. The invasion was one thing. The rebuild was another. Disbanding iraq’s Military and reorganizing the police force disenfranchised thousands of Sunnis/members of Hussein’s party which created the insurgency against the new government. Had Sunnis/Baathists remained more involved, the insurgency might never have risen. Zarqawi wouldn’t have found soldiers to fight his jihad.

Meanwhile, the rebuild was disorganized and poorly run. We used Hussein’s palaces, making us look as imperialists. We had incompetent cronies in charge of the rebuild. It was a disaster.

https://time.com/3900753/isis-iraq-syria-army-united-states-military/

3. Abu Gharib was a real turning point. Humiliating Muslim men was one of the greatest gifts we have to Zarqawi’s recruitment efforts.

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/abu-ghraib-legacy-torture-war-terror-170928154012053.html

4. Pulling out of Iraq too early. This was a no winner for Obama politically. Liberal Democrats would’ve attacked him had he stayed and republicans wouldn’t have given him any credit. In hindsight, we pulled out way too early.

5. Arab Spring and the world’s reaction to it. Our reaction has been too slow. Assad poured gasoline onto the fire. Had Assad reacted in a more measured manner he could’ve diffused the situation. His own citizens (many of which are sunni Baathist. Assad is Shia)were demanding modest economic and social reforms. He overreacted and his actions created the bloodbath in that region.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/may/18/syria-uprising-reform-bashar-al-assad

https://www.pri.org/stories/2011-04-23/syria-how-it-all-began

 

[Stoked]

If you want an example, the Islamic extremists took over Turkey pretty handily and easily. You think the Baathists had the special sauce to stop it in Iraq and Syria?

Saddam did in 82 when an assassination attempt failed.

Then in 88 when he hammered the Kurds.

Again in 91 when the Kurds tried to rebel in northern Iraq and Shiites in southern Iraq

Then again I’m 95 when some Iraqi military units tried a coup.

this isn’t a “we think”. This is a “he did”. Brutally. Gassing, executions, bulldozing downs, mass imprisonments. He even rerouted rivers and waterways away from enemies to deprive them of the water.

He had a successful history of it. And then there the assumption that isis would still be isis in an uprising. Who says they don’t splinter into a dozen groups, or Syria even gets involved. The entire story would have changed.

 

[The Thriller]

Oof. Lots of disinformation here. Lets dig in!

The continuation of Baathist power "as is" was never guaranteed.

In Iraq? Or Syria? It appears that you're conflating the two or I'm just not quite understanding which you're referring to. We don't know how long Hussein would've lived for but he did have two sons and a relatively stable government. What makes you think that Baathist power would've weakened had Hussein died naturally? What do you think would've happened to his sons?

Succession was inevitable, and the new leader of Syria was certainly weaker than his father.

Yes. What's your point?

ISIS was always there, to think that they would have been forever repressed is just guessing.

What evidence do you have to support this?

The rest of the world recognizes ISIS as the outgrowth of Al-Qaeda Iraq, founded by Zarqawi. He was a radical Jordanian who joined Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan. However, once Iraq was invaded, he moved operations there to set up a partner and then rival terrorist network. His network recruited disenfranchised members of Hussein's political party and Iraq's army.

https://www.history.com/topics/21st-century/isis

You are going to have to show your work that the extreme Islamicists that made up ISIS was Sadam's "base."

What? I don't understand what you're asking.

As for "leftist," I meant it as a discriptor rather than an insult. Is it inaccurate?

It didn't appear as you were using it as a descriptor. If it's not an insult but a description, could you provide a description of it?

If you want an example, the Islamic extremists took over Turkey pretty handily and easily. You think the Baathists had the special sauce to stop it in Iraq and Syria?

Erdogan has been in power as either Prime Minister and President since 2003 and has been "democratically" re-elected. Not sure what you mean by "Islamic extremists" taking over Turkey. If you mean Turkey, like Hungary and Russia, is quickly devolving into a dictatorship, sure you might have a point. Is that what you meant to say?

 

[framer]

I see that region has seen turning points in just the past 20 years.

1. Invasion was favored over containment. The policy after the Persian Gulf War was to enforce no fly zones to protect the Kurds in the north and Shia in the south and west and contain Hussein from invading anywhere else. Until we abandoned this in 2002. Had this containment policy remained, the situation there would most likely be completely different today.

https://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/02/opinion/keeping-saddam-hussein-in-a-box.html

1b. Putin was originally supportive of the war in Afghanistan. He even let us use Russian airfields. It was believed at the time that we’d join forces to fight radical Islam worldwide. It was widely known that he saw the Iraqi war as an intrusion into his sphere of influence and the beginning of our sour relationship. Who knows what our relations would be like today between us and Russia had we never invaded? Putin might still have blamed us for embarrassing election results or poor economics. Who knows?

2. The invasion was one thing. The rebuild was another. Disbanding iraq’s Military and reorganizing the police force disenfranchised thousands of Sunnis/members of Hussein’s party which created the insurgency against the new government. Had Sunnis/Baathists remained more involved, the insurgency might never have risen. Zarqawi wouldn’t have found soldiers to fight his jihad.

Meanwhile, the rebuild was disorganized and poorly run. We used Hussein’s palaces, making us look as imperialists. We had incompetent cronies in charge of the rebuild. It was a disaster.

https://time.com/3900753/isis-iraq-syria-army-united-states-military/

3. Abu Gharib was a real turning point. Humiliating Muslim men was one of the greatest gifts we have to Zarqawi’s recruitment efforts.

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/abu-ghraib-legacy-torture-war-terror-170928154012053.html

4. Pulling out of Iraq too early. This was a no winner for Obama politically. Liberal Democrats would’ve attacked him had he stayed and republicans wouldn’t have given him any credit. In hindsight, we pulled out way too early.

5. Arab Spring and the world’s reaction to it. Our reaction has been too slow. Assad poured gasoline onto the fire. Had Assad reacted in a more measured manner he could’ve diffused the situation. His own citizens (many of which are sunni Baathist. Assad is Shia)were demanding modest economic and social reforms. He overreacted and his actions created the bloodbath in that region.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/may/18/syria-uprising-reform-bashar-al-assad

https://www.pri.org/stories/2011-04-23/syria-how-it-all-began

Thanks for that. I'm all for protecting the Kurds, but it cannot be a unilateral US endeavor. As long as the US supplies all of the needed force, nothing will change. For the world to care about the problem, they need skin on the game.

I have family in the military regularly shuttling in and out of the area. I kind of feel at some point, they have done enough and others need to step up.

 

[The Thriller]

Thanks for that. I'm all for protecting the Kurds, but it cannot be a unilateral US endeavor. As long as the US supplies all of the needed force, nothing will change. For the world to care about the problem, they need skin on the game.

I have family in the military regularly shuttling in and out of the area. I kind of feel at some point, they have done enough and others need to step up.

Oh, so you agree, we should work with our European allies to support our Kurdish allies? That's interesting, as all I've heard for the past 3 years has been "America First."

Maybe if we want our allies to do more we shouldn't humiliate them at every opportunity? It's difficult to work with others when you attend conferences and insult them constantly.

 

[Zombie]

Oh, so you agree, we should work with our European allies to support our Kurdish allies? That's interesting, as all I've heard for the past 3 years has been "America First."

Maybe if we want our allies to do more we shouldn't humiliate them at every opportunity? It's difficult to work with others when you attend conferences and insult them constantly.

This doesn't really look like something an administration trying to work with our allies to advance our interests would do.

 

[silesian]

Laughing at all of the leftists pretending to care about the Kurds for the first time in their lives.

Someone needs to explain to me why, if Turkey invades Syria, this is the fault or sole responsibility of the United States. This would obviously be a move to war and would be something that concerns the United Nations crowd, no? How many German, French, Japanese, and South American troops are protecting Syria from Turkey? Any Canadians? Isn't this type of American unilateralism the stuff that the Jazzfanz prog crowd has decried for a couple decades?

Obviously, I don't want Turkey to invade Syria or mess with the Kurds. Which of you on jazzfanz are ready to send their kid over to fight this battle? Thriller? You ready to sign up?

If it is important, there ought to be an international consensus on this. That will never happen if the US is carrying ALL of the water here. Is the United States the ONLY interested party? If yes, THAT is the part that is broken, not what Trump decides.

We didn't break Syria. There really isn't anything there that amounts to a hard national interest. I'm sure Israel and Saudi Arabia have interests there, is the Anti- Israel jazzfanz brigade willing to jump in there and protect THEIR interests?

Seems like a simple thing to tell Turkey that invading Syria would be considered an unprovoked act of war by the world community and there would be consequences., unless there would actually be no consequences from the world community. If that is the case, then any blood would be on their hands, not ours.

you are far off the mark here, it is so much more complicated than you make it.

Trump just green lighted the Turkish invasion.

We’ve been fighting next to the Kurds to defeat ISIS.

But he’ll probably reverse himself once his advisors explain this to them.