Syria doesnt want us there. Turkey doesnt want us there. Why should we be there?

Same duty station. Our front line deployments were essentially enough to slow a Warsaw Pact offensive until a larger U.S. mobilization could be accomplished. That really became the strategy from the time the Soviets acquired comparable nukes...thus stalemating their use. The Europeans then wanted a greater U.S. troop deployment to ensure our involvement.

 

There are lots of answers. All of them wrong.

That is fine until a situation comes up where a decision has to be made by the Kurds of who they are going to protect. Their own interests or ours.

 

Why should we be there?

To protect the Kurds who have been our allies in the fight against ISIS

To ensure that the 10,000 or so ISIS fighters now imprisoned by the Kurds DON'T get turned loose

 

You have a special dodger name for Slick Willie or does he just go by nutless?

 

Syria doesnt want us there. Turkey doesnt want us there. Why should we be there?

I can't believe you asked that question. The current regime in Syria is the enemy. Turkey is an unfriendly power, and I don't care if she is a member of NATO. Trump retreated from Turkish forces in northern Syria because he was concerned they would kill American troops.

Are you saying the U.S. should abide by the wishes of unfriendly powers?

I guessing you voted for Trump.

 

For you , definately.

 

It's a straight up FACT that Trump's "big, beautiful" hotels in Turkey were at risk, too.

And, that's who Trump talked to before making his decision with no consultation with our military.

I want to know what was in that conversation.

There isn't any other supporting documentation concerning how this decision got made.

 

I don't think it was a mistake to temporarily send troops into Syria to support the fight against ISIS. But the mission is complete. Staying there indefinitely to protect the Kurds is "mission creep". Mission creep is one of those unforeseen consequences that make it impossible to disengage, and we are right to leave and not become the victim of mission creep.

Afghanistan is another story. We have a real enemy of the United States still very active there. The taliban and Al Qaeda are solidly aligned with each other, just as much as they were on 9/11. If we precipitously leave Afghanistan with no support, the Afghan government will fall, the taliban will take over, and Al Qaeda will have its home again.

I don't like being stuck in Afghanistan. I also don't like Al Qaeda having a host country again either. Tough problem.

 

I don't agree with that, as we struck a bargain with the Kurds and they died for our cause. Walking away and allowing Turkey to break NATO and UN conventions while slaughtering Kurds is a demonstration of how little we're worth.

More importantly, our military was offered no way of contributing to this unexplained snap decision. Our congress was not allowed their role, either.


And again, we need to know what Erdogan told Trump that would make him jump so fast and so high.

 

One thing at a time ...

Yes, they did die for the cause. But the cause was not simply "our" cause. It was their cause too because ISIS would have killed them all if they could. ISIS was horribly brutal to the Kurds. So this was their cause too. And since it was the Kurds who would have suffered under ISIS, it is appropriate that their fighters shed blood. What we did was enable them with our air power and other support.

I think our military did have its say. Syria is most likely the topic over which Gen. Mattis resigned. It is probably also the topic that led to John Bolton being replaced.

I think President Trump has been more than clear that he does not want the U.S. mired in Middle East wars. I think he has heard the voices who say the opposite, but he has not been swayed.

My guess is that Erdogan didn't say anything that would make President Trump "jump so fast and so high". Trump publicly stated his desire to get out of Syria about a year ago. This is a decision he has put off and put off, but he finally made it, and it is consistent with his views on Middle East wars.

I probably said it somewhere already on this thread, but there is a litmus test we should apply to any deployment of troops, and it is this ...

"Would I give up my son for this cause?" In other words, if my son (or daughter) dies in this cause, as I grieve, will I or will I not know that this sacrifice of my child was worth it?"

For me, in the case of Syria, my answer is no.

And for me, this question was driven home the hard way in 2007. When my son was wounded in Iraq, he nearly died. As parents, what we went through changed our perspective on war forever.

 

I never fell for the WMD lie.
UN inspectors had been in Iraq and was finding nothing.
How the liars in gov't convince the sheeple still befuddles me. But most every faux tv viewer was absolutely convince of WMD.

Having said that, we did invade. We did become illegitimate conquerers. We became responsible for some of that area.
I also felt we never should have gone into Syria. But we did. We need to take ownership again for a mistake.
We should not abandon allies.
I know, we have allies in Turkey and Kurds. And we turned our backs on 1 so the other could likely wipe out. A bad decision to end all the other bad decisions.
Trust is going to be very very hard to gain back in the world.

 

tRUMP towers?

 

And to point out the really obvious.
We left, so they could be attacked.
Had our soldiers still been there, Turkey could not attack without serious ramifications. And they likely never would.
It was agreed ahead of time, IMO, we leave, so they could attack.
A prearranged agreement.

 

Too late. Nov 2020 won't solve this.
We, USA, can never be trusted again.
The spineless congress has handed way way to much power to the prez, because the cowards never want to vote on anything that would cost them a reelection.

 

Neither side was a hostile to American troops. That's why nothing has happened until the day we pulled them out. Bombs, within hours.

 

ISIS was born of AQ which was a response to the USA/Saudi Arabia. Without us, Kurds were doing reasonably well. They were making progress toward a homeland. Then, the US conquered Iraq.

We're told that this snap decision came without consultation of our military. It is NOT like he was executing some agreed plan or otherwise was coordinating.

Our president who conquered Iraq was following a policy of STAYING. Our involvement is something that we did. Suggesting that Trump not wanting to be there justifies Trump's snap decision is not even close to being good enough.

ALL our troops who have died in the ME have died for way more than just the ground they stood on and the flag locally flying.

Our decision making process, who we are as a people and as a country, what we stand for, what our promises mean, what kind of world we want - THAT is what our troops are fighting for.

Suggesting this snap decision matches what we stand for is ... pathetic. We stand for a LOT more than running the minute it looks like Turkey is coming and then leaving our allies in the ditch.

 

Well .. and then there is the glaring fact that being there is a violation of international law... Syria did not invite us and we certainly do not have security council approval to be there. Then there is the other violation of international law - Arming an insurgency in a sovereign nation .. and the violation of US Law - by arming terrorist groups.

Guess we forgot the Bush promise "We will not only go after the terrorists but the supporters of terrorism" ...

Nightmare.

 

We didn't win any war against ISIS - We helped with one city - in 2017 - Raqqa - at which point Russia, Iran, Syria had mostly won the war against Al Qaeda/ISIS. .. Prior to 2017 we were arming and supporting ISIS ...

 

Speak for yourself - I don't wan't us there .. and I would prefer we stop violating international law -- telling the rest of the world they should follow the rules - while we are breaking them. Is that "leading by example" ?

I would also be nice if we not give tens of thousands of tons of sophisticated military technology to groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS - in an effort to try and give them another nation.

 

My understanding is that our "withdrawal" consisted of pulling back around 50 soldiers in the border region being invaded. Approximately 1,000 U.S> troops remain in Syria in various locations. Please thank your son for his service and sacrifice.

 

I've seen your posts before, and I think you are one of the more thoughtful posters on this forum.

There was a time when I may have agreed with you (see highlighted sentence). But having been through what I've been through and seen what I have seen, I find myself less concerned with trying to mold the world into the "kind of world we want." I am also less concerned with how we appear to other countries. Now, I only want our young people fighting for the direct defense of our country or, if necessary, in defense of our oldest, most longstanding traditional allies. That is the bar it must rise to if we're going to give up our children for it.

Seth

 

Americans have always had weird ideas about foreign and military affairs.

We send our military into a region. A military whose main purpose is to "kill people and break things" (as has been said more than once) yet...we expect people in that region to be lining the streets and throwing flowers as our guys march in. Come on. Grow up Americans.

 

The Kurds are still guarding the ISIS prisoners without our help.. and Erdogan is shelling them.

 

The US hasn't given AQ weapons since the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan in 1989. What are you referring to?