Narrow majority backs Trump on Syria, Afghanistan troop reductions

Yes, it is now.....it was added after I posted.

 

The Taliban control large amounts of territory in Afghanistan because the local population supports them. That is never going to change, which means there is no military solution in Afghanistan. It's time to leave.

The ONLY reason ISIS was able to establish a foothold in Syria is because the US destabilized it.

Russia has vital interests and assets in Syria. The US does not.

First of all, that isn't true. Second of all, it would make no difference even if it were true. The US has no vital interest in Syria. It makes no difference to Americans who controls Syria. It's also none of our business, legally and ethically speaking. In case some have forgotten, Syria is a sovereign nation.

The US refuses to leave Syria because the US is engaged in an illegal "regime change" operation there. Trump smartly wants to end this insanity. Unfortunately, powerful interest groups oppose Trump's America first foreign policy.

I wonder if those who support endless wars that accomplish nothing have considered the ramifications of our continued military occupation of Muslim lands.

 

Before the Iraq war Turkey was taking military action against their Kurdish region.

The idea that Syria would expend effort in protecting Kurds in Syria might be successful in Syriia, but I doubt it. Why should I believe a promisee of humaniitarian treatment made by Assad?

Plus, it doesn't help the fact that neither other country is interested in Kurdish autonomy, two have significant Iranian influence and all three countries note that the Kurds have consistently backed America.

Given the increasing influence of Iran andd the present leadership of all three countries, the prospect of the USA walking away from commitments in the region is absolutely sure to leave Kurds in a horriible position - one of having a record of pushing for autonomy and of supporting the USA.

How effective would US foreign relations influence be in protecting Kurds were we to have our military walk away today?

 

The US government is not in Syria because it wants to protect the Kurds, it's there to overthrow the Syrian government. That is unlawful, unethical, and insanely stupid. Trump should end this illegal war immediately.

 

Well, I think you need to rethink this, adding the fact that Kurds are interested in autonomy, and haven't pushed for secession. They have been a significant help to us as we pursue regional solutions while Syrian leadership has been on the regime change list since 2001, Iraq has fought the Kurds and Turkey has also taking military action against its own Kurdish population. Their objectives have been within reason, especially considering their circumstance.

During the Bush administration, America seriously considered dividing Iraq along its ethnic lines. It's not as if America hasn't seen logic in Kurdish autonomy - or in this case even independence.

Kurds are striving to become autonomous. They aren't attempting to annex land on which they aren't the majority population. Turkey has been taking military action against their Kurdish region for years, and the history of Iraq and Syria toward Kurds is brutal

Your North/South analogy is weak in that there hasn't been evidence that Turkey wants unity. They want the Kurds to go away, not share in national representation.

I think you should clarify your objection to Kurds, as it might make your position more understandable.

 

They're striving to become autonomous, yet the Kurds population appears to be(by your post) to be a diverse population in territories stretching from Iraq to Syria. So, it's even harder to see them becoming a national State. Ironically, they should've aligned with ISIS when ISIS was prominent if autonomous power was their wish. But that opportunity has been lost to them.

From your post, my point of view isn't weakened, it's strengthened. What the hell are we doing there, other than some pretentious "they fought alongside us!". Have we reduced ourselves strategically to put manpower on the front lines for sentiment? It's clear the Kurds cannot create a state for themselves in their present condition, and thus must put their autonomous wishes on hold until they at minimum create the conditions we enjoyed in our rebellion from England.

My position is that other than fighting with us, the 'Kurdish' State doesn't exist and it brings us into this geopolitical quagmire with no other interest for the US State.

The US must act not with sympathy, but with brutal strategical precision to maintain our overwhelming forces geopolitically. Syria is not in our interests, nor can we protect the Kurds. I sympathize with their autonomous wishes, but they obviously aren't in position to grant them themselves, nor can we grant them without literally clearing the space for them.

 

It just happens that three countries, drawn in ignorance by the west, meet at the point where Syria, Iraq and Turkey intersect. In no way does that mean they are "diverse" in some way that would be an impediment to autonomous rule.

And, your idea of them joining ISIS is just plain crazy. Why the HECK would you think Kurds would accept ISIS?

America tends to stand for the rule of law and representation. Also, we tend not to abandon those who promote our cause in regions where allies are incredibly scarce.

Sentiment? Fighting ISIS isn't "sentiment". It's something that is NOT a one time thing. Terrorism HAS TO BE opposed at the local level and on a continuing basis. This idea that we can "defeat" ISIS with bombs is preposterous. We can reduce their assets, but terrorism crops up when there is a level of injustice that motivates it.

We don't have what you refer to in your first sentence in the Kurdish region of those three countries.

Our chance, the chance we worked toward at the very start of our military adventurism into this region this century, is to develop local government that can withstand the threats of terrorism and other violence coming from despots such as SH, Assad, Iran and to an extent, Turkey.

Pawning off our interests as "sympathy" is a gross misunderstanding.

 

Damn near every single person I ever talk to says we need to get out of that **** hole. Narrow majority my ass. More like super majority.

 

Fighting in Syria is just stupid. ISIS hates Russia and Russia hates ISIS. Let the Russians bleed for their puppet in Syria. We don't need to be there. Afghanistan is NEVER going to be anything other than a backwater, redneck country so no point in staying their either.

 

It's not just about ISIS.

ISIS is just one terrorist group. And, it isn't even just about terrorism.

The ME is moving toward major growth in Iranian and Russian intervention.

I think you have to address that topic if you want to argue that we should walk away.

 

I think most on the left support this, but they haven't had the latest talking points downloaded yet.

This should be something uniting Americans.

But the left can't have that.

 

The ME has always been a mess. The wheels of justice turn slowly, but they do turn.

Our GREAT MILITARY has delivered justice for the heroes lost and wounded in the cowardly attack on the USS Cole. We have just killed the leader of that attack, Jamal al-Badawi. Our work against al Qaeda continues. We will never stop in our fight against Radical Islamic Terrorism!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1081935373914259458?s=19

I say keep a limited presence there (air bases and spec ops) to continue anti terror ops.

 

Let Russia have Syria. It has no importance to us since we are already in Iraq and we have the Israeli's as well. Russia and ISIS can bloody their noses there while we focus on other areas. I am far more concerned with China right now than anywhere else on this planet. Watching some expats in China they are talking about how China's regime has gone nutsoid in the last couple of years banning everything under the sun, kicking out foreigners at record paces and the nationally controlled media is stirring up resentment against foreigners who are still there.

 

Yes, China is working hard to take advantage of the void left by America's flailing international relations and trade policies.

Allies even as close as the EU are having to reassess the degree to which they can count on the US.

Your assessment of Iraq is weak. The government we installed in Iraq is Shiite, with strong ties to Iran. That influence has been growing with every election since we conquered that nation. Our presence there has been seriously limited ever since Bush43 made Iraq independent and relinquished all rights to carry out independent military operations.

 

Who cares where it came from. The OP is spot on.

 

Retribution for the Cole attack is NOT a justification for military adventurism in the ME.

As for combating terrorism, you should try to cite some significant analyst who believes it's adequate to have "limited presence" or "spec ops" capability.

One prominent example is OBL, who took action based on the need for regime change in SA - where we gave (and continue to give) major support to the criminal dictatorship. And, he used our support for Israel's program of ethnic cleansing as a recruiting tool.

"Presence" and "spec ops" does not solve that. We can't overcome popular resistence to despotic dictatorships and extremes of injustice with "presence" and "spec ops". In fact, we should OPPOSE despotic dictatorships and extremees of injustice.

 

Presence in that an air base in Iraq is a good thing to keep Iran cool.

Spec ops was designed and intended to be used to educate and work with locals.

We should not be there to nation build.

 

Agreed on Bolton.

But, very few situations where our military is actively involved are solved by simply walking away.

While our goal definitely should include our departure, we need serious analysis leading to an actual strategy that doesn't just turn over the region to external influences and continuation of the internal problems that have inspired war and terrorism.

 

Yes, Bolton is crazy.

We have not stopped Iran's increasing influence in Iraq with the presence of an air base, spec ops and military training there.

I haven't heard any serious analyst propose precipotous departure.

I do believe we need a strategy. Today, I doubt most Americans know what we're doing, so it's no wonder that leaving is attractive.

 

I do, that's why I asked and at the time I asked, there was not actual link. It was edited in after.

 

This predated Trump so if you are trying to blame him then it isn't going to work. This is entirely about Xin Ping sp? asserting control since he declared himself leader for life 4 years ago. Remember the islands and aggressive grab for airspace from China's closest neighbors? This all happened under Obama. Xin Pin doesn't care who is in charge he is playing the long game and plans to wait out the US.

It took ISIS to do it but Iraq is in much better shape politically than it has ever been.

I do agree with Bush though. I initially supported the invasion but the second they announced they were letting the Iraqi's write their own constitution I had a bad feeling about it. Japan and Germany was successes precisely because we dictated everything they did for years, we even wrote Japan's constitution.

 

99% of Americans have no idea what's even happening in Syria, not really. That alone justifies our withdrawal. There is no genuine democratic support for the US war in Syria.

 

I agree that very few Americans know what the heck we're doing with our military - in Afg, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Africa, etc.

BUT, that does NOT mean that pulling out is the right decision for America.

It just means we have no communicated strategy for what we're doing.

That MAY also mean that we simply have no strategy.

But, pulling out is a strategy and I've seen no serious defense of that as a proper strategy for America at this time or by the proposed method. In fact, I constantly hear about how our DoD believes Trump is WRONG.

We don't even have the executive branch on the same page on this one.

I want to see a strategy - one that includes the DoD.

 

It's really rather simple:

-Either we restrict travel to and from these countries
-Or we make them US Colonies.

Short of either of these two options, the so-called war will be indefinite. Exactly as Osama Bin Laden wanted.

 

Osama bin Laden is on the record over and over again stating that his objective was to get the US out of Saudi Arabia so there could be a change of government from the criminal dictatorship that exists today.

And, America's objective is to be steadily moving toward independent democracies that respect the rule of law.

We are absolutely NOT going to conquer all nations that aren't democratic or which have current leaders who flout the rule of law.