Discussion in 'West Mall' started by ShAArk92, Oct 12, 2019.

  1. ShAArk92

    ShAArk92 1,000+ Posts

    Isn't that what the talking points are supposed to be from the 50-trooper redeployment?

    Ran across this article which is pretty well written. IDK the author from Eve ... though a search on her reveals a graduate of Columbia in Poly Scie ... so she's not an idiot. In trying to get a little better educated on the current situation ... seems like somethings never change from my day in at "AO" 25 years ago ... but some things DID. A little break in our long standing support of Israel ...

    check it out when able.
  2. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    My Constitutional Law professor used to refer to the poly sci graduates as the "arts and crafts majors," so I'm not sure her degree means she's not an idiot.

    In all seriousness, I don't think she's an idiot, but her headline is deceptive. She's not really saying that Trump didn't betray the Kurds. She's basically saying it's ok and understandable that he did, because he avoided war with Turkey and basically says we shouldn't care if the Turkish invasion enables an ISIS resurgence, because it's not our job to control the region and hold ISIS down. Ok, fine. That's the Ron Paul philosophy. Of course, if we followed that consistently, all of Europe (including the West) would be controlled by Marxist-Leninist one-party states, and the Soviet Union would almost surely still exist, but that's fine. They think we'd be better off with that world. To each his own.

    However, she goes on to bellyache that we didn't attack Iran to defend Saudi oil production. So it's not our job to defend the Kurds and stop ISIS, but it is our job to defend Saudi oil producers? According to what? We don't have a NATO-style defense treaty with the Saudis.

    I would also take issue with her characterization that Erdogan "called our bluff." He didn't call our bluff. He counter-bluffed, and we backed down. It sounds like he told Trump that he's invading and that US troops would be killed if we didn't pull them out ASAP. And Trump said, "I'm not on board with your invasion, but I'll make sure the troops are out of your way." Calling our bluff would be invading with the US troops in place, and Erdogan doesn't have the balls to do that if he thinks we'd actually fight back.

    The reality is that we shouldn't be taking **** off of Iran or Turkey. The only reason either has been aggressive is because we've tolerated it. What if, instead of walking away, Trump had said to Erdogan, "If you invade and harm one of those 50 troops, there will be 300,000 troops in Syria by the end of the week, and they'll be in Ankara by the end of the month, and you'll be on the end of a rope" and said it like he meant it, do you think Erdogan would risk that? I don't think he would.

    Trump has it in his mind that if he gets into any kind of foreign conflict that it'll doom him in 2020. I don't buy that. If a foreign power attacked US forces, I don't think the public would blame him for fighting back. (The media and Democrats would, but the public wouldn't.) His Twitter feed and idiocy with Ukraine are hurting his chances far more than protecting our troops would.
  3. ShAArk92

    ShAArk92 1,000+ Posts

    perhaps my understanding of the intent in that was incorrect. I didn't hear her "bellyache" just identifying a better case for "betraying an ally"

    It seems like everyone gets a little preoccupied with "re election" as the season approaches. IDK if that's DJT's motivation but I can understand that being identified as such.

    IDK what the right answer is for the ME, specifically. When to get involved and when to let it go ... but I perceive whatever are the details, the big picture will form as it has been said it will. Everyone turns on Israel following the most worthless shepherd the world has ever seen.

    Good review, Deez. Thanks for taking the time to read and respond.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. ShAArk92

    ShAArk92 1,000+ Posts

    here's a better article ... maps ... who doesn't like maps???

    author isn't a right wing Kenessett (though I don't know what's necessarily wrong with that)
  5. Horn6721

    Horn6721 Half of seeming clever is keeping your mouth shut.

    I am also trying to understand our resposibility in this situation. It seems we are in a no win situation. Turkey is our NATO ally. How long did we think they would ignore wnat the Kurds were doing?
    Yes the Kurds fought ISIS but if was for their own benefit not ours.
    If we had sent massive amounts of troops into Syria with the end game of Turkey what would Russia do?
    Where is Congress in all of this? Except for criticising Trump? Did they authorize our support of the Kurds?
    We are sucked into a thousand year old enmity and there are no good answers for us except not one American life should be shed over it.
  6. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    Do you want the US to have a friend in the region? If you don't care, then that's fine. However, I'd rather not just have two Islamist regimes (Turkey and Iran) and a thugocracy (Russia) calling all the shots in the area. It's too close to oil and Israel.

    Do you want your troop presence to mean something? If you'll move them out just because some Islamist thug tells you to, it doesn't say much about your resolve. And if you have no resolve, bad apples will misbehave. It always happens.

    If you want to defend Trump on this, be my guest, but I don't want to hear anymore flack about Obama being too soft on chemical weapons or Iran. This is as sissy and short-sighted as anything Obama did.
  7. Horn6721

    Horn6721 Half of seeming clever is keeping your mouth shut.

    So MrD
    When did Congress authorize troops to Syria? What was the mission?
    Right or wrong is Turkey a member of NATO? Do you really want US troops fighting Turkey?
    I said there is no good answer for us. Shortsighted? So you would be ok with keeping our troops there to get killed? FOR WHAT?

    So what would you do?
  8. BrntOrngStmpeDe

    BrntOrngStmpeDe 1,000+ Posts

    No one likes being a tripwire(the 50 troops) but the truth is, we(and everyone else) were better off maintaining a small force there. We have such an advantage in the air, we don't need to send 300K troops anywhere. If Turkey had proceeded we could have quickly obliterated their advancing forces with air power.

    We are able to keep small forces in places around the world and still keep them relatively safe because we can, within hours, deliver massive amounts of damage to virtually any spot on the globe. These troops were only in danger after Trump gave the signal that he was not going to follow up on his bluff.

    Trump once again showed the weakness of constantly trying to "speak loudly and carry a small stick". His bluster is starting to loose all effectiveness.
    • Agree Agree x 4
  9. ShAArk92

    ShAArk92 1,000+ Posts

    Now ... don't depart hotel reality. :p

    IDK what to think of this, really. 50 troops. Why are they there at all? looks like a nice AQ target to me
  10. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    The AUMF from 2001 is the legal basis for our actions in Syria. You can say that's weak, and it is. However, nobody cared about that until about ten minutes ago.

    Defeat ISIS, protect American interests and allies in the region, and promote the overthrow of Assad (which is a mistake).

    Yes, they are, but that's not relevant to this. If France invaded Germany and as part of that, forced themselves onto Ramstein Air Base, and murdered US troops, I would support kicking France's ***, even though they're in NATO.

    No, and there's almost no chance of that happening. You know why? Because there's one person who wants US troops fighting in Turkey even less than I do. His name is Recep Erdogan.

    I'm not "ok" with our troops being killed anywhere, but you can't just let some Islamist thug order us around either. And again, nobody would be getting killed.

    I would tell Erdogan to go to hell and leave our troops where they belong. If he dared attack them, I'd make him regret it.
  11. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    You harp on the low number, but that's actually a testament to how effective our troops can be. See BOSDe's comment.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. Horn6721

    Horn6721 Half of seeming clever is keeping your mouth shut.

    So our troops should have stayed where they were ??

    BTW I thought ( and I might be wrong) that Trump's threat was what would happen if one of our own got killed by Turkey.
    We are in a horrible situation brought on by horrible decisions from the past.I do not know if Trump made the right decision but IMO that long long "war" going on in that region will be going on for years more whether we let our own troops get killed there or not.

    Why would you be ok with letting our troops be in an area where any could get killed??
    So some get killed and then we would attack Turkey? The troops would still be dead.
  13. Horn6721

    Horn6721 Half of seeming clever is keeping your mouth shut.

  14. ShAArk92

    ShAArk92 1,000+ Posts

    Indeed ... with all due respect to the snake eaters, they are like the chicken I put in a cage to draw a coyote. The chicken isn't itself effective except to draw 'em out.

    And if we did pull the trigger on massive air strikes in Turkey ... what about the security of the forces at Incirlik?
  15. ShAArk92

    ShAArk92 1,000+ Posts

    Yes this ...

    we use massive airpower as the hammer ... but we don't need my aforementioned chicken. Even the Turk can see a line on the map. Don't cross it.
  16. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts


    Are you talking about the "great and unmatched wisdom" comment? He was talking about whatever he deemed "off limits." Is he talking about US troops or butchering the Kurds? Hard to say when we're conducting foreign policy like a 10 year old on a playground.

    The same reason I would have been ok with our troops being on the beaches of Normandy in 1944 even though they were getting shot at. It's their job.

    Well, I can hardly blame them now. Trump told them we were leaving. Besides, we drove home the point that we're gutless cowards who won't do stand up for ourselves. Why would Turkey go to great trouble to avoid hitting our troops?
  17. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    No, they aren't. The troops are there to do the job they were originally assigned.

    You guys are crazy. There wouldn't be massive air strikes on Turkey, because Erdogan would back down. He doesn't want to go to war with the US. The only reason he invaded is that we signaled to him that we would let him do it.

    And for the record, we can evacuate Incirlik. We've done it before. Furthermore, Incirlik at least in the past has housed nuclear weapons. I'm sure they have very significant bomb shelters.
  18. ShAArk92

    ShAArk92 1,000+ Posts

    then help me out. Why do we need 50 guys in a war zone ... their force protection is the threat of massive air power retaliation ...

    Why not just have the massive retaliation threat?

    Incirlik served our needs in the nuclear triad back in the day. I'm not sure we still need that anymore.
  19. ShAArk92

    ShAArk92 1,000+ Posts

    the right winger article addressed the intransigence of the Pentagon regarding the strategy/posture in Turkey.

    the only constant is change ... and perhaps it's time for the Pentagon to embrace that change as they apparently have for the pilotless attack platforms ... aka UAVs.
  20. Horn6721

    Horn6721 Half of seeming clever is keeping your mouth shut.

    Mr D
    I know you are not putting the thousand year old issue in the ME on same level as WWII?
    BTW The Special Forces attacked had moved and the Pentagon had advises Turkey where they were.
  21. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    I don't know. That's a question for the generals who assigned them. And I don't think it necessarily was a war zone. It is now since we're letting the Turks take it over.

    Because we'd prefer they be allowed to do their jobs.

    We probably don't. It's helpful to have, but what we do there could almost surely be done somewhere else. We have options in Greece and Bulgaria, and could probably conduct operations from the RAF base in Cyprus. Those aren't as preferable, but they're available.
  22. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    The level has nothing to do with it. When we send troops somewhere, we should let them do their jobs. We should protect them the best we can, but we shouldn't pull them out just because some bully tells us to. What kind of crap is that? If Obama did this, you guys would be crapping your pants about how weak and passive we were being and how we were throwing an ally under the bus. It's incredible to see you all turn into flower-power hippies with Trump in the White House.

    Yeah, they're bad guys, but we appeased them. Why the heck are you surprised? I don't think they did it on purpose, but I'm sure they didn't care too much. No reason for them to.
  23. mchammer

    mchammer 5,000+ Posts

    FYI - the US pulled out of a China, abandoning our ally to the communists. This whole ally thing is bs as an argument.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  24. LongestHorn

    LongestHorn 1,000+ Posts

  25. ShAArk92

    ShAArk92 1,000+ Posts

    why not? wasn't their orders to include creating a fighting force which made all those combat victories? I'm fairly certain the region they were based wasn't as secure as where either you or I are currently sitting.

    I suppose the question should be rephrased ... if we're not going to defend the single battalion in that location, then we need to have them elsewhere.

    then it seems clear it's time to re-examine our military presence in Turkey. Erdogan has made some moves which are seriously detrimental to US interests ... like presumably affording Russia a look at the F35 which can apparently defeat the Russian S400 anti aircraft system.

    I doubt it. We can what if all day ... but we have Obama removing thousands of troops from Iraq which allowed for the installment of ISIS, right? This redeployment is NOT that. Perhaps it should have been? 5000 rather than 50?
  26. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    How is that a bs argument? China is now our chief rival in the world. We were fools to abandon the nationalists. Very short-sighted move that was penny wise but pound foolish.
  27. mchammer

    mchammer 5,000+ Posts

    I agree, but once the standard is set, it’s hard to use it as a baseline. Sort of like the lying and impeachment standard set by Slick Willie.
  28. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    I'm not saying it's totally secure, but there's a wide spectrum between "totally secure" and "war zone." We do know it's a hell of a lot more dangerous now.

    That's the point. We should be willing to defend it.

    I agree. Turkey is what I'd call "an ally but not a friend." They are quickly realigning with Russia and Iran. However, in this particular incident, even Russia and Iran aren't backing them up.

    And Obama was stupid to do that. Most of us said so at the time.
  29. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    There are different ways to look at this
    Whichever way you chose is fine with me
  30. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    I'm not using it as a baseline. Just because we threw one ally under the bus doesn't mean me should throw another ally under the bus. It was stupid to do it then, and it's stupid to do it now.

Share This Page