Trump orders American troops to retreat

All politicians are too ****ing stupid to win any war. That's been the trouble since WW2. Republicans lose them, and democrats lose them. Of course, if we let the generals fight the wars, there will be whining about atrocities and body counts.

 

I still believe that, especially during the circumstances at the time, circumstances I described. I also said our withdrawal from the Middle East would take time and it would be contingent on the ability of Arab forces to deal with Islamic extremism. I said only Muslims can defeat Islamic terrorism. Our withdrawal would be in that context.

Remember my saying that?

Never, ever should the American Commander-in-Chief abandon an ally like Trump is doing now!

The Kurds did the fighting, not American combat troops. The Kurds eliminated the caliphate in Syria and Iraq, and they lost 11,000 soldiers.

And now Trump is betraying them. How in the hell can you support that, Seth?

How in the hell can anyone here support Trump for this disgraceful surrender? I do not understand that. Quo bono, who benefits from Trump's deceit? Russia, Iran, and the murderous dictator Bashar al-Assad benefit.

And some here support Trump??? That is impossible to understand unless you are not from around here. .

 

Just a point of clarification. Withdrawal of the troops is not a retreat nor a surrender.

 

That is hardly the point. Are you making excuses for Trump because all politicians are the same?

That is ludicrous, and solid proof you are will stick with Trump no matter how bad his decisions are.

And this is a bad one. I mean, when you piss off everyone except the Russians, something is seriously wrong.

I am sure you will disagree, you being a Trumpet and all. You from Russia?

 

The Department's position has been and remains that establishing a safe zone in northern Syria is the best path forward to maintaining stability.

Unfortunately, Turkey has chosen to act unilaterally. As a result we have moved the U.S. forces in northern Syria out of the path of potential Turkish incursion to ensure their safety. We have made no changes to our force presence in Syria at this time.
https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Re...om-jonathan-hoffman-chief-pentagon-spokesman/

The Trump White House is getting more bizarre by the day. The President asked for interference from a foreign power in our Presidential election to benefit his political campaign.

The Trump White House sent a letter to the House of Representatives telling them to vote on the impeachment of the President.

Our ignorant Commander-in-Chief is concerned the Turkish army will attack American troops and he ordered a retreat from northern Syria to ensure their safety?

What are the odds of the Turks attacking American troops? Slim and there ain't no way. But Trump doesn't know that. Or ...

Trump has an ulterior motive. Who will benefit most from the American withdrawal? The answer is simple, Russia and Russia's ally, Iran.

Then, just when you think matters couldn't get any worse, matters got worse.

This has to be read to be believed. This is what has happened to the leadership of our armed forces under our Commander-in-Chief. In addition to the disgraceful statement that began this report, strongly suggesting a surrender to Turkey, there is this.

Secretary Esper and Chairman Milley were consulted over the last several days by the President regarding the situation and efforts to protect U.S. forces in northern Syria in the face of military action by Turkey. https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Re...om-jonathan-hoffman-chief-pentagon-spokesman/

Esper and Milley were consulted by Trump? It is supposed to be the other way around. The secretary of defense and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff are supposed to consult the Commander-in-Chief, offering him sound advice. What is the problem and what are the alternatives.

Instead, Trump consulted them, according to the Department of Defense statement. In all likelihood, Trump told them his decision to surrender to the Turks, and that was it. Trump was not in the mood to be given advice. He was ordering the retreat.

The White House’s announcement that U.S. forces are pulling back from northeastern Syria to allow a Turkish offensive there took the Pentagon and the government’s Syria point man by surprise ⁠— and the decision defied the current thinking of President Donald Trump's national security leaders. https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/07/trump-syria-turkey-national-security-leaders-037958

 

None of what you just posted has a thing to do with my comment. I pointed out your misstatement.

 

To be fair with you, yes... Obama created a big mess in Libya. There is no denying that.

 

Time reports, "President Donald Trump has ordered a substantial reduction in the staff of the National Security Council, according to five people familiar with the plans, as the White House confronts an impeachment inquiry touched off by a whistle-blower complaint related to the agency’s work."

When Putin helped Trump in the Presidential election of 2016, he knew, according to the American Constitution, the President commands the U.S. armed forces.

Is Trump returning the favor? Is Trump helping Russia? If so, is it a matter of understanding between leaders or does Putin have something on Trump? If so, could the answer possibly be in Trump's tax returns?

We don't know the answer to those questions. All we do know, considering the chaos in Washington, the White House wanting an impeachment vote, the total failure of leadership of our armed forces, the benefits received by the President's decision in Syria, a Russian agent could not be doing a better job for Putin than Trump is doing.

 

Read the first two paras again. I am not going to argue semantics with you.

 

It is not a matter of semantics. Those words simply do not apply.

 

In view of the above I do not understand any American supporting Trump on this. If you do, please explain why you support the betrayal of an important ally who suffered much. Please explain why you support the failure of leadership of our armed forces, ordering the retreat from the Turks!

I'll say this, as a retired Marine, that really sucks.

 

Who gives a shyt? You are easily distracted, my friend.

 

Your take on the gibberish stuff is right on. There are great editors and horrible ones with nothing in between. The great ones can help ensure your voice is pleasant to your target audience. The horrible ones can ruin your thoughts until readers question your sanity. I've had both and have learned, the hard way, to know the difference. Carry on.

 

What is in the US interest for Syria?

 

This is Sandy Shanks' thread, dated October 13, 2016:



The U.S. must abandon the Middle East

This may seem to be a rather extreme approach to some. The idea challenges U.S. policy since the end of World War Two, but it is a recognition of geopolitics today. Also there are several reasons why this would be a prudent approach. It should be noted that Hillary Clinton -- very probably our next President -- opposes sending ground troops to the Mideast, special ops troops and trainers notwithstanding. That, however, is just the first step. It is being suggested here that the U.S. completely withdraws from the Mideast.

One factor to bear in mind. The U.S. is committed to the defense of Israel. This foreign policy initiative would in no way infringes on that commitment, and we must make that very clear to all parties concerned. Moreover, this policy should not be construed as abandoning our commitment to prevent Iran from securing a nuclear device. Indeed, regarding the latter, if Western intelligence services are unburdened of the entire Mideast fiasco, their task of controlling Iran would be that much easier.

There is nothing to be gained by controlling the Mideast. We are a net exporter of oil and we have enough natural gas for generations. We have an abundance of coal. We lead the world in energy production.

We have been fighting in the Mideast for fifteen years. We have accomplished nothing with all that fighting. We have actually lost prestige in the Mideast due to our vain attempts at hegemony. The creation of a democratic Iraq was a pipe dream that showed our lack of understanding of the region. The dream of controlling Iraq’s oil was another fantasy. As a result of our invasion, Iraq joined Iran’s sphere of influence and that still exists today. That’s called negative progress.

Our attempts at control of the Mideast has made matters worse.

Over 5,000 Americans lost their lives so far in that fighting, over 25,000 wounded, cost is over $6 trillion dollars, an estimated million innocent men, women, and children have been killed. That is enough of price to pay for our failure.

We cannot defeat terrorism by fighting in the Mideast. Talk of attacking ISIS with our military might is ludicrous. Islamic terrorism has been around since the time of Mohammad. It started as a ruthless religion that has no use for infidels. Terrorists meld into the populace, be it a Mideast populace or a European populace. Military units are not trained nor are they equipped to handle terrorists. Terrorist do not stand and fight. Their targets of choice are civilian targets with innocent men, women, and children.

Only the world’s law enforcement and intelligence agencies can possibly control, not defeat, terrorists.

Only Muslims nations can defeat Muslim terrorists. Makes sense. Muslim terrorists kill more Muslims than any other ethnicity. Only .006625% of Muslims are terrorists. That leaves a rather large majority of Muslims to fight terrorism when they put their mind to it, and they must. The idea of the U.S. not doing the job for them may encourage them to take on the task themselves. In a very real sense, it is their problem more than anyone else's.

Some would argue the policy of abandoning the Mideast would be a mistake because the region would succumb to Russian influence. After all our bitter fighting there and all the unintended consequences we have suffered, it can be argued that Russia can have the Mideast. Moscow, it can also be argued, would recognize our severe losses in men and treasure and, perhaps, not want the Mideast.

After all, who does? (End of post)



But now, solely because Donald Trump is trying to extricate ourselves from the Middle East wars, Sandy is against it.

 

It's been a remarkable transformation to watch as the neo-cons fled the GOP after Trump won and now they've totally transformed the Democratic Party into the war making party. Pretty amazing if you ask me.

 

I served in the 25th Infantry Division (Army) in the 1970s. My son served in the U.S. Marines and fought in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2007 and 2008.

A great many veterans, myself included, and especially combat veterans, support what Trump is doing, which is trying to extricate our military from the Middle East. It doesn't matter to them if he served in the military or not, as long as he is doing the right thing.

In 2007, while my son was in the hospital recovering from his wounds, he was visited by one of our state senators to Congress. I was there. The Senator asked him what he thought of the war effort. Still on heavy pain meds, I'll never forget his answer ...

"They are not like us",he answered, speaking of the people of the country he had fought in.

5 words that said it all. Better than a 30 minute speech ... 5 words.

The peoples in and around Syria will have to sort themselves out. Our boys are coming home!

 

Trump orders American troops to retreat

Can you please post where you read or heard
Trump ordering a retreat. I need to read or hear our Commander-in-Chief giving the retreat order. Retreat orders are usually given in the field by the company or battalion commander.

 

ISIS is in essence gone. Decamped for Europe hidden among all those Syrian refugees they imported.

 

Nobody IMPORTS refugees.

 

there is a lot I disagree with trump on, especially when it comes to environmental issues. And I don’t really support him on this issue either. I don’t have enough details to make a decision on whether or not I support this. Did we have a sixes le force in the region? Or was it just some support troops? Was it just a few SF teams? I don’t know. Were these the Kurds that were fighting alongside us in Iraq? I like them and enjoyed working with them in Iraq. But not all Kurds are the same. I don’t know much about the Kurds in northern Syria. So, I’m not excusing or supporting or damning anyone yet. But I do know that politicians suck at winning wars.

 

Look up 9-11

 

Yes, ISIS without its Islamic State is just another Islamic terrorist organization.

 

Jill Stein and Michael Moore tried to warn them.

"I am currently trending on both Twitter and Facebook. Why? Because Americans want more than warmongers and fools," Stein tweeted. "Despite Hillary's penchant for flip-flopping rhetoric, she's spent decades serving the causes of the Wall Street, war, & Walmart economy." AP, Who's Jill Stein? Googlers are asking, and the answer is: Clinton's new problem, Alexander Panetta, 7/13/16.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/who-s-j...the-answer-is-clinton-s-new-problem-1.2985936

But did they listen? No.

 

Now that's just mean.

Oh, what a difference a year and another election cycle makes.