President can order troops to invade countries and drop hundreds of bombs on their soil without any questioning but he cannot pull out of the troops to leave peace to everyone?
Syria was peaceful and rich before the civil war. I believe they are capable of being back to normal soon, well only after the foreign troops leave or are defeated. Trump is giving them a chance here. The US troops were sent to fight, alongside with ISIS, against the Syrian government. That's not exactly peace keeping. That's an invasion if international law is still a thing. Also why would Americans care about the peace of Syria after dropping hundreds of bombs on their heads? You just don't, don't fake it. I know Trump wont.
Trump has sold out, let-down, and abandoned United States allies because Russia and Turkey wanted it done. Once again, Trump looks weak. Sadly this time the allies who were fighting for the U.S. will pay the price with their lives. There might have even been a way to pull the troops out of Syria. But doing it as a surprise move to our allies is bad. This kind of move should be talked about with our allies to allow them to make whatever adjustments they see fit. Trump is silly.
It's liberal value to support groups who want to defend themselves from genocide and persecution. In the confusion of proxy wars that is the Middle East, one constant has been our alliance with the Kurdish people, To abandon them to enemies on all sides is a disgrace. As I said in another thread, compromise between honest actors is the root of democracy. In that vein, here is an editorial I'll listen to (even if it does throw shade on Obama and support Bobby The Great) https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...enshaw-why-guys-like-me-go-places-like-syria/ Dan Crenshaw: Why guys like me go to places like Syria Dan Crenshaw, a former Navy SEAL, is a Republican representative-elect from Texas. President Trump’s announcement to withdraw troops completely from Syria comes on the heels of a long-standing political debate over the “right” level of military involvement overseas. It’s a reasonable debate to have, but it’s long been fraught with obsession over short-term objectives instead of long-term security. Voters have consistently brought up the topic of “endless wars” and demands to “bring the troops home” to me since I ran for office. It’s not a left-right issue, either: Both sides question our military presence abroad. I could answer the question in a variety of ways. I could discuss the need to promote American values, prevent the Afghan heroin trade, disrupt the influence of Iran, destroy the Islamic State, defend allies such as Israel, etc. But in the end, I settle on one very simple reason: We go there so that they don’t come here. It really is that simple. We bring the fight to the enemy so that they don’t bring it to us. There is a common misconception that if we just let them fight their own wars they will leave us alone. This is wildly untrue for two main reasons. First, groups such as the Islamic State will always try to attack the homeland. And second, even if we manage to prevent them from attacking the homeland, we cannot stop the cascade effect of instability and chaos that ensues when the United States leaves a power vacuum. Let’s expand on these points. The notion that if we just left these regions alone, they would therefore leave us alone, is at best naive. Consider Osama bin Laden. What exactly did we do to make him hate us? We supported his mujahideens’ cause against the Soviets in the 1980s, and we defended his homeland of Saudi Arabia from Iraqi invasion in the 1991 Gulf War. And yet he planned the 9/11 attacks from Afghanistan, precisely the sort of ungoverned territory that the administration now wants to create in Syria. He hated us because he fundamentally hated Western civilization. The Islamic State and Hezbollah are no different. And what happens when America retreats? What happens when we allow power vacuums to materialize in some of the most dangerous places in the world? Let’s look at recent history. When I was deployed to Iraq in late 2010, the situation seemed stable. The al-Qaeda threat had been mostly subdued, and the Sunni-Shiite civil war somewhat pacified. We still targeted terrorists on a daily basis along with our Iraqi partners, but most were hiding out in Syria (oh, the glory of hindsight). President Barack Obama was planning to fulfill his campaign promise of total troop withdrawal, despite objections from military leadership. While the situation seemed stable, it was obvious to those of us on the ground that it was only stable because the United States was there. The rest of the story is the history of the Islamic State. The consequences of a premature withdrawal from Syria are fairly easy to predict: First, now that the pressure is off, the Islamic State will regroup. After they dust themselves off from years of fighting and evading U.S. smart bombs, they will begin planning. They will operationalize their hatred of Western civilization and take advantage of our free societies to plan attacks on our citizens. But since we no longer will have a presence for intelligence collection, we’ll lose much of our ability to see it coming. The allies we formerly relied on — the Kurds and the Syrian Democratic Forces — will have little interest in helping us after we abandon them to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Second, Hezbollah and, by extension, Iran will expand their influence. Iran will obtain its objective of a land route between Lebanon and Iran, severely endangering our ally Israel and possibly forcing an all-out conflict between Israel and Hezbollah on Syrian territory. And third, the risk of confrontation between Turkey and our erstwhile Kurdish allies increases dramatically. Another humanitarian crisis could ensue, and anyone in the region who ever thought of trusting the United States to have their back will never trust us again. Our ability to create future alliances will disintegrate. Stay the course, Mr. President. We may have accomplished the territorial defeat of the Islamic State — and you deserve credit for that — but we are lying to the American people if we let them believe that the chaos of the Middle East cannot reach our borders. Send our men and women to face our enemies there, so that our enemies don’t face us here.
Still a civil war. That’s right. The US main interest is to defeat isis. So how is the 2000 US troop (who are there to help the Syrian Kurdish to fight isis) leaving help promote peace? Help Syria to go back to “normal”, being back to “peaceful and rich” ... when it started as a civil war, and is still a civil war today?
For the "boots on the ground", yes. Remember Turkey is a NATO country that is considered to be the front line against Russia and Kurds within Turkey were recently considered a separatist threat to that. But in the fight against ISIS outside of the boundaries of Turkey, I think the theater commanders would consider them out staunchest ally.
I love all the right-wingers who think that liberals are warmongers because they don't like abandoning allies without letting them know they are going to be left.
This was one of Donald Trump's campaign promises -- much like Obama's campaign promise to pull out of Iraq. Keep being a racist -- you are doing a good job at it.
If there's one thing that unites the American people, it's borrowing money from China to bring freedom to Islamists by bombing the **** out of people in places no one can find on a map or knows the history of, for reasons no one can explain, other than what they've been convinced by celebrity pundits is somehow an obligation of "American leadership." Also, General Mattis was the guy who Obama fired in 2013 for being nutballs about wanting to provoke a war with Iran. He's at least as milquetoast in imperial apologetics as any other Pentagon sociopath. I suppose if you paid me as much as Rachel Maddow makes I would shill for the war party too, but I think I care too much about my country not to hate myself for doing so. I won't explain why a president who promised to do this two years ago and then appointed John "Darth Walrus" Bolton to be his architect for foreign policy suddenly decided to end two illegal wars, but watching people who think they are "liberal" cheer on endless war and establishment neo-cons as we push past two to midnight on the Doomsday Clock is yet another absurd "We were always at war with Eurasia" moment.
I am not right wing. But I guess I have to take that mantle because I do not agree with mr. hurtsmcfeelings here. Hey I am sorry your hard on for war got interupted but frankly I do not care about the details. I care about a fake proxxy war being ended. A war that we shouldn't have engaged in in the first place. I will celebrate any such news, despite all the gripes.
I don't support wars that are not needed. You can drink the coolaid all you want. Syria was not going to attack us. You are a war monger man. Cannot relate. Also we have an alliance with Turkey... Kurds in ypg are a mix of pkk. Terrorists against an actual ally country. I pick Turkey any day on that. Kurdish militia are also mostly communist. Not in line with America or Turkey. Kurds are fine people, but the terrorists in ypg and pkk are opportunists seeking seperation. They do not speak for all Kurds as well! They were useful idiots for an obama era proxxy war. We never intended to pick them over Turkey. You have likely seen too many romanticized articles on wall street journal about how the Kurds are our friends. Wrong. They were always pawns.
