President Elect Trump saying he would accept an independent Kurdistan in Iraq
I agree with the President that a draw down in Afghanistan is probably warranted. For those who disagree with the President, at least explain why and for what purpose. Afghanistan is a mess, but a lighter footprint seems to make more sense there.
As for Syria, while Turkey taking over the fight against ISIS has a potential upside, I just know Turkey is just as likely to take the fight to the Kurds in Northern Syria too. The United States (at least since Vietnam) has had a history of selling out and abandoning those who ally with us. It is wrong, be it by Democrats or Republicans. I do not want to see it happen again. While Turkey has issues with internal Kurdish separatists, those are not the same as those Kurds in Syria who were allied with us.
Powerline: The Cost of Betraying Syria's Kurds
Andy McCarthy: US has no stake in the fate of Syria
Don Surber: Trump's ability to work with a NATO ally in Syria
Hot Air: Turkey's Defense Minister Promises To Bury The Kurds
Caroline Glick/Jerusalem Post: Potential upside of a US Syria pullout
Army Times: Here's What May Be Driving A US Troop Withdrawal From Syria
EBL: James Mattis Resigns and ISIS brutally murders Scandinavian girls in Morocco
AoSHQ: Trump Has Turned the Anti-War Left Into Neocon Warhawks and Intervention-Adventurers
TOM: Can We Deport The New York Times, Please? and Syria, Afghanistan, and the #NeverTrump problem of Jonah Goldberg
Instapundit: Maybe Trump knows more than his critics, This is perceptive..., and Trump's great talent is his ability to drive people crazy
The Democrats were not upset when Obama fired Mattis in 2013. The Mad Dog couldn't get along with anyone then either. Another McArthur.
ReplyDeleteMacArthur got along fine with Bill Halsey and the Filipinos.
DeleteHe just didn't like fighting wars nobody intended to win. He was also probably a better general than Mattis.
The Eminent Mr Surber makes a couple of good, or at least interesting, points.
ReplyDeleteParagraph 13 of the AP story said, "Erdogan, though, quickly put Trump on the defensive, reminding him that he had repeatedly said the only reason for U.S. troops to be in Syria was to defeat the Islamic State and that the group had been 99 percent defeated. 'Why are you still there?' the second official said Erdogan asked Trump, telling him that the Turks could deal with the remaining IS militants."
Erdogan made a good point.
Paragraph 14 said, "With Erdogan on the line, Trump asked national security adviser John Bolton, who was listening in, why American troops remained in Syria if what the Turkish president was saying was true, according to the officials. Erdogan’s point, Bolton was forced to admit, had been backed up by Mattis, Pompeo, U.S. special envoy for Syria Jim Jeffrey and special envoy for the anti-ISIS coalition Brett McGurk, who have said that IS retains only 1 percent of its territory, the officials said."
So why stay? 2000 troops will not hold back the dawn, even if maybe half are Rangers.
the Washington Establishment is angry that we are not going to war with Russia and Iran in Syria.
and
I suspect the Saudi government and its Gulf state allies have the situation well under control.
He's using the Sauds as a counterweight to the Turks (remember Peter O'Toole?).
YMMV, but he makes some good observations. If IS is dead, why do we need to stay there? If we're there to protect the Kurds, then somebody better say so.
If you think back, there is a faint sniff of the Crimean War in all this.
And, as I have said elsewhere, a 10 division Army only stretches so far.