Jump to content

Kurds feel betrayed by the US, Pentagon in shock over Trump’s decision


TitanTiger

Recommended Posts

This is like some kind of master class in foreign policy ineptitude. The Kurds have fought side by side with our troops against ISIS. And then Trump goes off script to pull our troops out and allow Turkey to begin attacking the Kurds in Syria. 

It’s indefensible. And it shows the dangers of voting for people because they are good businessmen. That’s all fine and good if you’re humble enough to accept advice and counsel from people who understand the history, nuances and pitfalls of foreign policy as well as your military leaders who talk to those with boots in the dirt. But when you make snap decisions, think you’re smarter than everyone else no matter the subject, and you’re too stubborn to admit when you’re wrong, you do dumb s*** like this. 

Every president has to make tough decisions where there are no good answers and no matter what you do you’re going to piss someone off. This isn’t one of those situations. This is an unforced error committed by a rank amateur who is completely out of his depth. It’s the own goal of all own goals. It’s bouncing off a would be tackler, spinning and sprinting to the end zone, only to realize you scored a safety for the other team because you ran the wrong direction. 

And then this numbskull defends it all by saying the Kurds “didn’t help us in WWII?”  Our troops are stunned and ashamed.  No person or group in any of the world’s numerous dangerous hotspots will or should trust us for the foreseeable future because of this colossal idiot that makes snap decisions without consulting anyone.

What a total clusterf***.  
 

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-abandoning-kurds-syria-didnt-help-during-wwii-allies-2019-10

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/10/pentagon-still-in-shock-3-days-after-trump-went-off-script-in-erdogan-call-and-betrayed-the-kurds-fox-news/

https://www.foxnews.com/world/turkey-syria-invasion-special-forces-soldier-kurds

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/cal-thomas-trump-channels-george-mcgovern-in-abandoning-syria

 

And so help me, if I see one “well Obama...” or “other presidents...” whataboutism type of response to this, you won’t be posting here for a month. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites





When even a stalwart Trump backer like Franklin Graham gets it, you know you've stepped in it:

And from Dr. Russell Moore, head of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission:

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope this event will finally show people that the man is far out of his depth when it comes to this job.  He's literally betraying key allies in the region in favor of strongmen taking over.  It's absurd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  Abandoning the Kurds was a mistake. I definitely not a fan of this decision. ...Im not entirely knowledgeable on the whys and why not's, but I just dont see anyway around this being a bad idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is some enlightenment.  In the mid 90s, my personal time deployed as an A-10 pilot was 94-95-96, the flying operation at Incirlik AB was routinely terminated, stood down, cancelled at the behest of the Turkish base commander. No explanation was given, and personnel were restricted to the buildings during launches because the Turks did not want us to see what was going on.  This happened often during that time period and I suspect continued throughout the years (25 now).  What was going on?

The Turkish AF was bombing the Kurds in northern Iraq.  Numerous two ship formations of F-16s took off with a full load of MK 84 2000 lb general purpose bombs, attacked the Kurds, and returned to Incirlik empty.  Yes, we allowed this to happen. The president was Bill Clinton.  It likely continued throughout Bush 41 and into Obama, with HRC secretary of state.  I did not personally witness the later years but other pilots I know said it continued.

We all at the minion level knew about it, but it was not publicized. Flash forward to now and the outrage is prevalent in all camps. No side is innocent. Just wanted to add some context to the current discussion since I perceive that the posters who have commented do not have the historical background which I have provided.  Complain all you want but unless you are going to admit to the past actions, you are being disingenuous. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Here is some enlightenment.  In the mid 90s, my personal time deployed as an A-10 pilot was 94-95-96, the flying operation at Incirlik AB was routinely terminated, stood down, cancelled at the behest of the Turkish base commander. No explanation was given, and personnel were restricted to the buildings during launches because the Turks did not want us to see what was going on.  This happened often during that time period and I suspect continued throughout the years (25 now).  What was going on?

The Turkish AF was bombing the Kurds in northern Iraq.  Numerous two ship formations of F-16s took off with a full load of MK 84 2000 lb general purpose bombs, attacked the Kurds, and returned to Incirlik empty.  Yes, we allowed this to happen. The president was Bill Clinton.  It likely continued throughout Bush 41 and into Obama, with HRC secretary of state.  I did not personally witness the later years but other pilots I know said it continued.

We all at the minion level knew about it, but it was not publicized. Flash forward to now and the outrage is prevalent in all camps. No side is innocent. Just wanted to add some context to the current discussion since I perceive that the posters who have commented do not have the historical background which I have provided.  Complain all you want but unless you are going to admit to the past actions, you are being disingenuous. 

Thanks jj3, why would Trump make this decision? Contrary to the reported advice of people that support him. Not a political decision? Putting Christians in harms way and emboldening Israels enemies infuriates not only Jews but "evangelicals" as well.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Thanks jj3, why would Trump make this decision? Contrary to the reported advice of people that support him. Not a political decision? Putting Christians in harms way and emboldening Israels enemies infuriates not only Jews but "evangelicals" as well.  

I don't know what is behind this decision. I just wanted to provide some background that there is a strong possibility that we, or the media, or the politicians, don't have all the info.  I know I don't. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

I don't know what is behind this decision. I just wanted to provide some background that there is a strong possibility that we, or the media, or the politicians, don't have all the info.  I know I don't. 

Troublesome to me. Thanks again 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jj3jordan said:

I don't know what is behind this decision. I just wanted to provide some background that there is a strong possibility that we, or the media, or the politicians, don't have all the info.  I know I don't. 

Can you imagine any good reasons that make sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Can you imagine any good reasons that make sense?

Not to me, now or the past 25 years. But I would not pretend to have all the info necessary to make that decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump’s cry that America is fighting ‘endless wars’ is a canard

President Trump has defended his shameful abandonment of our Kurdish allies in Syria, declaring that “I was elected on getting out of these ridiculous endless wars” that have left America “bogged down, watching over a quagmire.” Listening to the president, Americans might think that we still have large numbers of U.S. troops fighting on fronts across the Middle East. We do not.

The days when we deployed hundreds of thousands of troops in the Middle East are long gone. Today, we have 14,000 troops in Afghanistan, about 5,000 in Iraq and just 1,000 in Syria. That is a grand total of about 20,000 troops in all three countries. By contrast, we have about 37,950 U.S. troops in Germany, 12,750 in Italy, 53,900 in Japan, and 28,500 in South Korea — a total of over 133,000. In fact, we now have three times more troops deployed in Spain (3,200) than we do in Syria.

Moreover, the vast majority of these U.S. forces are engaged in a noncombat mission known as “train, advise and assist.” U.S. allies do most of the fighting, while American troops provide intelligence, operational planning, fire support and airstrike coordination from behind the front lines. We have helped train and equip about 174,000 Afghan troops, 64,000 Iraqi troops and 60,000 Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) troops, made up predominantly of Kurdish fighters. They are the ones engaged in ground combat with America’s enemies.

Trump likes to say he “defeated” the Islamic State. Actually, the bulk of the fighting was done by our Kurdish allies, trained and supported by U.S. Special Operations forces. As Gen. Joseph Votel, who served as commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, explains, “Over four years, the SDF freed tens of thousands of square miles and millions of people from the grip of ISIS. Throughout the fight, it sustained nearly 11,000 casualties. By comparison, six U.S. service members, as well as two civilians, have been killed in the anti-ISIS campaign.”

The Kurds bore the burden of the fight and the brunt of the casualties, and they drove the Islamic State from its physical caliphate. But the terrorists are far from defeated. They still have tens of thousands of fighters and vast financial resources. If we take our boot off their necks, they will come roaring back — just like they did in Iraq on President Barack Obama’s watch.

Who is going to stop them? Since Trump has reduced the U.S. military presence in Syria to just 1,000 troops, that means we are depending on the Kurds to keep the Islamic State down. But if we allow Turkey to wipe out our Kurdish allies, who will be left on the ground in Syria to fight the Islamic State? Answer: No one. Is Trump ready to deploy American ground forces to do the job? His abandonment of the Kurds is a recipe for endless war, not a strategy to end one.

We are also depending on the Kurds to guard about 10,000 captured Islamic State fighters held in prisons in Syria — including 2,000 extremely dangerous foreign fighters. If the Kurds have to divert forces to defend against Turkey, they will be less able to guard those prisons, making it more likely that dangerous terrorists escape. If even one of these terrorists carries out an attack in the West, Trump will own it.

It gets worse. Without U.S. support, the Kurds will have no choice but to turn to Russia, Iran and the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for protection. As a result, Iran will own all of Syria — giving it a strategic anchor in the Middle East and a base from which to attack Israel. Trump has made containing Iran’s expansion a centerpiece of his Middle East policy. Abandoning the Kurds will empower Iran as never before, increase the danger to Israel and require us to deploy more troops to the region to counter Iranian aggression.

The cry that America is fighting “endless wars” is a canard. Our force levels in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan are a shadow of their former selves, and U.S. forces are not doing the fighting but rather arming and training allies who are doing the fighting for us. That is the right strategy. But after watching Trump abandon our allies in Syria to be slaughtered, why would anyone step forward to help America in the fight against Islamist radicalism? The president can’t have it both ways. If you don’t want American forces fighting “endless wars,” then you can’t betray your allies.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/10/trumps-cry-that-america-is-fighting-endless-wars-is-canard/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t know if I would pledge a permanent allegiance with the Kurds. butI don’t think we have ever depended on the Kurds or taken advantage of their help to the extent we did to fight ISIS. A blind man can clearly see the value the alliance gives us now. I don’t think it equates to the positions we were in in regards to them in the past. They lost 11000 we lost 6. I think we owe them AND ourselves the support to stay alive and keep Isis locked down. It was relatively easy and cheap compared to what it will cost us the next time. But trump has two towers in Turkey. So we should really question if he is putting “America first.”Even those whose heads are stuck in his ass. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, alexava said:

I don’t know if I would pledge a permanent allegiance with the Kurds. butI don’t think we have ever depended on the Kurds or taken advantage of their help to the extent we did to fight ISIS. A blind man can clearly see the value the alliance gives us now. I don’t think it equates to the positions we were in in regards to them in the past. They lost 11000 we lost 6. I think we owe them AND ourselves the support to stay alive and keep Isis locked down. It was relatively easy and cheap compared to what it will cost us the next time. But trump has two towers in Turkey. So we should really question if he is putting “America first.”Even those whose heads are stuck in his ass. 

That's probably true but seems that the Kurds have benefitted greatly from our military and financial support and I guess there is always a question about how long we do something like that.     Without US troops, weapons and $$ the Turks or Iraqis or Syrians would have likely wiped out most of the Kurds well before now.  Their fight against ISIS served their interests too and could not have been nearly as successful without US support and of course they would like us to back them forever.     

Not that it matters I guess but the US has gained great advantage from having troops and planes located in Turkey.

The middle east is a swamp.....and not that long ago, Dems were eager to see us pull out of that part of the world.  JMO but the uproar is manufactured rage that is politically motivated.   Somebody in the administration made the recommendation but I guess we will never know who...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, AU64 said:

That's probably true but seems that the Kurds have benefitted greatly from our military and financial support and I guess there is always a question about how long we do something like that.     Without US troops, weapons and $$ the Turks or Iraqis or Syrians would have likely wiped out most of the Kurds well before now.  Their fight against ISIS served their interests too and could not have been nearly as successful without US support and of course they would like us to back them forever.     

Not that it matters I guess but the US has gained great advantage from having troops and planes located in Turkey.

The middle east is a swamp.....and not that long ago, Dems were eager to see us pull out of that part of the world.  JMO but the uproar is manufactured rage that is politically motivated.   Somebody in the administration made the recommendation but I guess we will never know who...

I don’t think anyone would have cared about the Kurds until this ISIS formation. They were an afterthought. But ISIS proved to be a serious problem and the Kurds proved to be a very effective strategy in dealing with them. As far as “how long do we do something like that “....you do it as long as it suits your interests and guards you from having to send your own boots to loose 11000 soldiers. ISIS is not gone but the easiest most strategic way to deal with them if they rise up again probably is. 

I cant even imagine the hell that would be raised if Obama was in this position and just so happen to have business interests in Turkey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, AU64 said:

JMO but the uproar is manufactured rage that is politically motivated.

Having a hard time finding if the current situation in the region was going to occur regardless of our small presence. Seems the "story" and message is that Trump screwed up.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, alexava said:

I cant even imagine the hell that would be raised if Obama was in this position and just so happen to have business interests in Turkey.

I find it hard to believe that even DT would do something against the interests of the US because he has "business interests" in Turkey.....a claim which I have not seen any real details about anyway.   Obama walked out of Iraq...which is why we had ISIS to deal with.   DT at least got serious about putting them of action and never call them "the B Team". 

So...how long do we stay?   Maybe our interests are now satisfied?   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, AU64 said:

I find it hard to believe that even DT would do something against the interests of the US because he has "business interests" in Turkey.....a claim which I have not seen any real details about anyway.   Obama walked out of Iraq...which is why we had ISIS to deal with.   DT at least got serious about putting them of action and never call them "the B Team". 

So...how long do we stay?   Maybe our interests are now satisfied?   

Leaving Iraq wasn’t as much of a blunder as going there in the first place. But Iraq was a different animal. You had two sides fighting each other for power killing us in the middle. I don’t think we had taken any side. We just got out of the way to let them finish each other off. Syria has several sides. One in particular is a problem for the US and it’s interest. The Kurds were as helpful as they could possibly be in protecting our interests. Pay the bills, provide tools, training, keep Turkey, Iran, Russia back and they handle the nitty gritty s***. You really can’t ask for a better deal from an ally. 

If you are not concerned with trumps international business dealings( that he never divested from) I hope you don’t have any concerns with Hunter Biden either. Because that would be ridiculous. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, AU64 said:

That's probably true but seems that the Kurds have benefitted greatly from our military and financial support and I guess there is always a question about how long we do something like that.     Without US troops, weapons and $$ the Turks or Iraqis or Syrians would have likely wiped out most of the Kurds well before now.  Their fight against ISIS served their interests too and could not have been nearly as successful without US support and of course they would like us to back them forever.     

Not that it matters I guess but the US has gained great advantage from having troops and planes located in Turkey.

The middle east is a swamp.....and not that long ago, Dems were eager to see us pull out of that part of the world.  JMO but the uproar is manufactured rage that is politically motivated.   Somebody in the administration made the recommendation but I guess we will never know who...

Seriously?

Trump consults with no one.  Doesn't read position papers.  Doesn't understand the political or the military situation on the ground.

He made a phone call to Erdogan and then made one of his instantaneous, "stable genius", gut calls. Trump admires and is enthralled with authoritarian tyrants.  Erdogan played him like a fiddle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump’s Worst Betrayal Yet

By turning his back on the Kurds, the president has done irreparable damage to America’s standing in the world. That’s by design.

President Trump didn’t make a “mistake” in pulling troops out of northeastern Syria last week, as many have charged. It’s what he has long wanted to do. The mistake was not understanding—and, more to the point, not caring about—the consequences.

Trump’s fateful phone call with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Oct. 6, giving him the green light to cross the Syrian border and crush the Kurds without U.S. resistance, did more than any single act has ever done to demolish the post-WWII global order and isolate America from the rest of the world. This, again, has been Trump’s goal since he entered the White House.

Until recently, one or more of his advisers—Jim Mattis, H.R.
McMaster, John Bolton, or Gen. Joseph Dunford—obstructed or dissuaded him from withdrawing. Now all of those advisers are gone, and their replacements lack either the clout or the gumption to push back.

Trump may believe that he’s doing the right thing, that abandoning the rest of the world’s problems will “make America great again.” He doesn’t realize that America’s might and wealth depend, in large measure, on the cooperation it receives from others—either offered or coerced—in pursuing its interests around the world.

He is also blind to the fact—or loath to admit—that he, in fact, is not getting out of the world. On Friday, days after abandoning the Kurdish allies to the Turks (and consequently, all of Syria to Bashar al-Assad and the Russians), Trump announced that he was sending 1,800 troops to Saudi Arabia. But to Trump’s mind, there was a big difference in this deployment.


“Saudi Arabia, at my request, has agreed to pay us for everything we are doing to help them,” he told reporters. “That’s a first. We appreciate that.

It was as if sending American troops abroad doesn’t count as a commitment if taxpayers don’t have to pay for it. It was as if Trump were telling the world that the U.S. military is now a mercenary force. It was a message to any country currently hosting American troops at least in part at our largesse—because, say, previous presidents have considered it in U.S. interests to keep troops there—that they should start rethinking their options for how to stay secure

Trump has made a practice of abrogating treaties, filching on commitments, and alienating allies, but, more than any single act, the betrayal of the Kurds should tell everyone that—as long as Trump is president and, who knows, perhaps beyond—there is no reason to trust the United States on anything.

Western powers, including the United States, have abandoned the Kurds several times over the decades, but Trump’s act was astonishing even by that dismal standard. For the past five years, the main U.S. mission in Syria has been to destroy the ISIS caliphate. The Kurds provided the most potent fighters, and lost 11,000 of them, in that battle; the United States lost a mere eight. And then, with that mission (sort of) completed, Trump allowed the Turks to mow down the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), the Kurdish-led militia that did the bulk of the fighting and dying.

It’s worth emphasizing, over and over, that the Turkish invasion wasn’t an unforeseen side effect of Trump’s withdrawal; it was an explicit part of the decision. The official statement that the White House released on Oct. 6 made this clear:

Turkey will soon be moving forward with its long-planned operation into Northern Syria. The United States Armed Forces will not support or be involved in the operation, and United States forces, having defeated the ISIS territorial “Caliphate,” will no longer be in the immediate area.

By even the most purely self-interested criteria, this was a senseless move. SDF fighters had been guarding four detention centers holding more than 10,000 ISIS jihadists or sympathizers. They can’t keep guarding the centers while defending themselves from Turks—and, in fact, more than 500 of the prisoners have escaped amid the turmoil.

Trump was aware of this too. Asked by a reporter where the terrorists will go, he replied, with an eerie casualness, “Well, they’re going to be escaping to Europe, that’s where they want to go, they want to go back to their homes.”

So much for the trans-Atlantic alliance. It was nice while it lasted.

Now, surprised that even the most loyal Republicans are lambasting him for the withdrawal, Trump is saying that he never intended for Turkey to send in troops and that he is working valiantly with Sen. Lindsey Graham—his most heartbroken sycophant—to impose sanctions on Erdogan’s government.

The sanctions will have little if any effect, and certainly not quickly enough to matter—except to show even authoritarian leaders who make detestable deals with Trump that they can’t trust him to keep his word with them either.

Meanwhile, the big winner of this transaction, besides Erdogan, is Russian President Vladimir Putin. As recently as last year, Russia seemed not triumphant but trapped inside Syria. Its troops were coming under fire from militias, its planes were getting shot down, its one armed confrontation with U.S. forces proved disastrous; Iran seemed to be emerging as Assad’s main ally. But now Russia is the major outside power not just in Syria but increasingly in the region. When the Kurds came under fire from Turkey and realized the United States would not respond, they did the only thing they could do to avoid annihilation—turn to the Russians, who engineered a deal that let Assad’s army take control of northern Syria for the first time in years, while (at least for now) providing a protection zone for the remaining Kurds.

As a nifty follow-up, on Monday, Putin arrived in Saudi Arabia for his first visit in more than a decade—his itinerary also includes a stop in the UAE—to discuss investment opportunities and the role Moscow might play in mediating tensions between the Sunni Arab countries and Iran.

In one sense (and Trump is probably thinking along these lines), this might be for the best: the Middle East is a mess; if Putin and Assad can solve it, fine—and if they can’t, that’s fine too, as long as we’re out of there.

But in another sense, this sort of thinking is delusional.

First, we’re not getting out of it. Second, the rest of the world is watching.
Especially with all the other troubled aspects of its relationship with Trump just now, Ukraine must be rethinking the wisdom of relying on the United States for assistance. The eastern nations of NATO, especially the Baltics, would have good reason to look elsewhere for security guarantees. Already, traditional U.S.
allies in Europe and Asia are exploring agreements, on security and trade, outside of Washington’s orbit.

One big question emerges from this vacuum: What is U.S. foreign policy, and what are American interests—not as some idealized or historical concept but as they actually exist right now? I don’t know. Nobody knows. Certainly our allies and adversaries don’t know. “Strategic ambiguity” is one thing; what we’re now seeing is a deep black hole.

To the extent Trump has foreign policies, they seem to be driven by one of three desires: to enrich his family’s financial holdings; to appease authoritarians who push his buttons by praising his wisdom; and to demolish the diplomatic triumphs of his predecessors, especially Barack Obama. Everything else—strengthening alliances, preserving democracy or human rights, even the Realpolitik gamesmanship of international politics—is secondary, if not irrelevant.

A question that allies might be asking themselves right now: Has Trump accomplished anything in the realm of foreign policy that has objectively served the security interests of the United States? It’s a stumper, and that’s disturbing.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/10/trump-kurds-world-order-betrayal.html

 

It may take decades - if not a generation - to repair the damage the "very stable genius" has wrought on our foreign affairs.  We certainly cannot afford a second term by this idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/10/2019 at 8:58 PM, jj3jordan said:

I don't know what is behind this decision. I just wanted to provide some background that there is a strong possibility that we, or the media, or the politicians, don't have all the info.  I know I don't. 

Well fighting side by side with them on the ground makes me want to punch Trump in the throat. 

 

END 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/10/2019 at 9:58 PM, jj3jordan said:

I don't know what is behind this decision. I just wanted to provide some background that there is a strong possibility that we, or the media, or the politicians, don't have all the info.  I know I don't. 

Says the guy who believes the "Clinton's left behind a string of bodies". :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I actually do agree with Trump. Bush43's failed regime change policies have left us with endless wars that are now 18 years old and growing. It was, and remains, the dumbest idea we ever had in international relations. Getting involved in the ME, a region with perpetual wars is just a dumbass move made by a neocon dumbass president. 

Having said all that, DJT has taken a dump on the only good thing I can see that came from all of the wasted money and blood. We will need the Kurds again because we will be fighting ISIS again at some point. DJT has made the dumbest decision of his Presidency. He should have never betrayed the Kurds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...