TRUMP BETRAYS ALLY

I have a friend in Turkey, this is what she said just today about their econ

we are having the worst recession since my childhood, nobody has any money, literally, even the government is not paying. Even the rich is cash poor. Everybody on edge.

Last week, the market (in my office) next door got robbed. A guy stole one beer, got caught and cashier's foot got stubbed. For just one beer.

I bought some dollars for myself. I don't have the connection at home. it has been a month. such a *****

ME: No net at home ? Why

not for a month, and I can't even use my phone downstairs. I am in the living room watched the tv conference live, connected my phone's internet to the laptop

​

And she lives in Ankara, the capital
Anyways, point being the Turkish econ econ sucks

 

Seattle is trying to reconcile his buddy's report of no WMD with this reporter's testimony of seeing terrorist training camps (incl AQ) in Iraq ...

 

The point needs to be made we, USA Military, leave behind and have left behind tons and tons of equipment when ever we leave.
Unless we are leaving it for a friendly we should destroy it.

 

It isn't a copout though. It is a recognition that these are the people that have been lying to the American people since the start of the Iraq war.

Like I said. I know there are facts within these reports. In terms of who does what and where different forces are going, etc. But the overall narrative of the Syrian war from these guys is dishonest and slanted to get public opinion to support US involvement in the war.

Also, I read the wiki article. Yes. It isn't just Assad vs ISIS. I over simplified. However, it isn't as complicated as you say.

For instance, the rebels today consist of 2 maybe 3 groups. ISIS and Al Nusra. Turkey has been involved some too opposing Assad. But ISIS and Al Nusra are the groups that held land. The Free Syrian Army was done by 2012 as written in the articles linked to the main one you posted. Turkey uses the name some for some of their groups. But it confirms to me and should to everyone here that there are NO moderate rebel groups fighting in Syria. ISIS and Al Nusra are basically Al Qaeda. Guys who used to call themselves Al Qaeda that now call themselves these other names. Then Turkey involves themselves under various guises. They are Sunni. They can't help but be against Shia backed Syria on some level. The Syrian Democratic Force is the Kurdish run militias that we have all been talking about. They have also included Sunni Arabs who are against ISIS and other religious minorities. The religious minorities banded together in the NE of the country since Assad's army didn't reach that far.

So there are essentially 2 sides. Assad and Kurdish run SDF trying to kick Sunni radicals out. And Sunni radicals getting some help from Turkey.

The US has backed both at different times. They helped establish ISIS to be a Sunni counterbalance to the Shia group of Syria, Iraq, and Iran. Then when those guys started cutting off heads and murdering civilians for various reasons we started working with the SDF.

But over the last 7 years, anytime the US did something to support the rebels it was Al Qaeda guys even during Trump's Presidency.

Thanks SH, now I have a better grasp on the situation.

 

Impulsive is not used once in this long article. Read it and weep, morons.

 

mchammer, I think impulsive was a description of the execution. I agree with you though he has wanted to do this for a long time, so that isn't impulse, and he is correct on this.

 

The Syrian Army is now in Raqqa and Kobani

Syrian War Report – October 17, 2019: Syrian Army Entering Kobani And Raqqa

 

Don’t take me too seriously. I usually get serious when I see someone else take themselves too seriously with gotcha words and the like.

 

Execution matters as much as intent. Trump may have been wanting out "for a long time" but his execution was impulsive. Syria was not an "endless war". I would even go so far as to say Iraq and AFG aren't "wars" anymore. We have a relatively small presence and they conduct relatively few missions. That is not a "war". Keeping small QRF (Quick Reaction Force) type of elements and intelligence assets in country is the smart way to play this....at this point. We've invested too much blood and treasure to let it backslide for the lack of a few thousand troops and a few million dollars.

However, in the future, we should decide our interventions differently. They should come in the form of
1. don't go at all. not really important to actual American interest
** this should be our default position unless congress can articulate otherwise
2. Bomb military assets from a distance as a show of force and punishment for perceived bad behavior.
3. Sustained bombing for particularly bad behavior
4. If...and this is a big IF... we believe that ground troops are justified and necessary....then we completely take over with the explicit stated purpose of regime change and democratization similar to Germany, Japan. We structure our fight, our bases and our dealings with the citizens, around a 40 year (2 generation ) commitment. The fight will be done quickly, the changing of attitudes will take 2 generations and has to be constantly supported so it does not devolve into tribal affiliations.

For the majority of these intra-country/civil war'ish fights, that is the only way you'll ever see lasting change. Either it is worth that effort, or its not.

 

Wow! I lived in Turkey (1965) with my uncle in Mersin on the Mobil Oil compound. There was no TV in Turkey. It was a poor country back then, but reading the content your friend posted, sounds as if the place is much worse off now.

 

I agree but would have added that we should allow for small urgent target responses that require boots on the ground. Launching special forces missions and/or training local forces has been a mainstay of our capabilities and should be more the norm. We did just that in Syria.

We are in agreement on nation building. Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that there isn't enough $$$ in the world nor American attention span to successfully execute nation building. Given the volotility of those regions we need to be prepared to maintain some small troop presence for rapid response in perpetual eternity. If not, prepare for the next 9/11, Cole bombing, etc as another terrorist organization safely takes up bases in these areas. The small forces are our eyes/ears to ensure that these terrorist orgs can't ever feel safe.

 

well, since we confer credibility upon military (officer) status for foreign policy ...

take a listen to this guy (yeah, it's Fox, but it's Tucker Carlson formerly of CNN)

 

I've been to several Army and Joint schools and part of what the COL is saying is correct. There is a pervasive school of thought that we will need to be persistently involved in low level conflict operations for the foreseeable future. When you educate officers with this thinking, then they tend accept that as the natural order of things. On that point he is right. However, tying it to Obama and Clinton is ridiculous.

There is a difference between not sending in troops to begin with, which should be our position in the vast majority of situations....and maintaining a presence once you've done all the dirty work already. We are already committed in these places and we've already done most of the sacrificing.

All of these wars were conducted poorly. If we go in, we should go in specifically with the intent to take over. We destroy enough of their fighting power to make them stand down and then we assume control. I would go so far as to call it a temporary colonialization.

 

He included W, by the way. I think the relevance is at least as much attuned to the timing of the officers' accession as anything else. During the Clinton years, post Gulf War, a MAJOR reduction in the number of personnel in the Armed Forces (USAF went from almost 1500 pilots produced per year to 350 SLOTS (there is attrition in the pilot training process) from '92 to about '97 ... then we entangled ourselves in more of these "guerilla" type engagments (Bosnia)

What has happened is that over the course, the warriors were in theater somewhere (Southern Watch, et al) while the motorpool officers, BX officers were back home getting their PME completed "in residence" ... which made them look better in this transitioning force of war fighters to civil servants with funny uniforms ... look better for promotion. So guess who got promoted? I observed several warrior commanders get squeezed out and retired. men for whom I'd have walked through fire to complete a mission ... men for whom I'd have to have RUN to the fire in order to beat them to it.

in the last 1/2 dozen years/so ... the flag officers have become increasingly from that pool of "non-rated" military who sees a weapon once every two years for their M9 (9mm Beretta handgun) certification; whether they need to see it or not (TIC) but they are fiends with powerpoint. A similar thing happened to the fighting force during the post Vietnam/esp Carter years. Warrior spirit was being lost ... hence, at least in the USAF, "Project Warrior" was born in an effort to eschew the "shoe clerk" mentality of the fighting force.

So, as PME adopted the police state strategy, so obviously, then, has the increased thinking of the Pentagon/Joint Chiefs as advisors to POTUS ... who are increasingly comprised of those early-mid 90s "kids" who didn't deploy, but got promoted ahead of those who were. (see the "scandals" like Laughlin AFB which are more about political correctness and CYA than completing the unit's mission)

 

What would you have done that Jerry “Viceroy” Bremmer didn’t? Or CENTCOM?

 

I don't think that invading Iraq was warranted. But if I had invaded Iraq I would not have tried so hard to convince the world that we weren't trying to "colonize" Iraq. I would have stated. "This regime has allowed terrorist to use its soil as a base" "this regime has also been brutal to its own citizens". "we are assuming control of the government and will allow the existing legislature to provide input to the future of Iraq but Iraq will be a secular, capitalist and democratic country from here forward. And other countries should take note of this process because it is what awaits any regime that allows attacks to be launched against the US from its soil."

I believe it takes two generations for beliefs and attitudes to change so I would have stated our expectation that we will have bases here for 2 generations, but the US is prepared and desires to leave should the three conditions above be met and sustained. If we had gone in with an eye towards prolonged operations and bases, we would have structured virtually everything different and I would argue more strategically. We would not have had the yo-yo effect with troop deployments and Al Qaeda would not have been able to sell a narrative of "the US will be gone soon, and then you'll have to answer to us again."

 

This was the 2nd of the two stated reasons .... but for whatever reason, the administration never featured this. They had the intel on those training camps.

"These are the people who hit us" Hussein (Saddam) aided and abetted this bunch.

perhaps one day I'll understand why W didn't remind us of this.

 

It's easy to blame Clinton, but a lot of this was because of the Cold War ending. We did two big things. First, we did the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) - three rounds in the early '90s. That meant fewer personnel were needed. Second, we dramatically cut our forces in Europe - which we continued until 2014.

Honestly, I don't recall a lot of opposition to this. Members of Congress whined about specific bases in their districts closing, but I don't recall much opposition to the broader policy of cutting back. However, there has clearly been a shift. We haven't had a BRAC round in several years, and we're slowly expanding in Europe (especially in the East).

 

I'm just calling it as it happened, Deez. Clinton didn't stop it. One thing which is fairly constant about the military personnel management ... it's always pitiful. One extreme to the other (though until Trump took office, we have lacked the Ray Gun "extreme") ... and Clinton didn't stop the increased "ops tempo" of deployment to various "hot spots" around the globe with that MUCH smaller force (Bosnia ... the one we got wrong, IMHBAO)

in 2008, there was another big RIF (reduction in Force) ... some mid 5 digit number (3-8?) were released. I was one of those. And for the last dozen years/so, we've struggled to "reproduce" ... The pilot training bases lacked instructors back in the late 90s (from the BRAC in the early 90s) so the AFRES was tapped to provide bodies to generate pilot training sorties (I did that at Laughlin) and AFRES has been in all pilot training bases/airframes for 20 years... and then down the chain, there has been an insufficient number of instructors in the "weapons systems" ... A10s, F15s, F16s to make "mission ready" those pilots who'd just graduated from pilot training ... and we were slow to generate sufficient training sorties to upgrade THOSE pilots into instructors. During the Obama years in particular, the USMC was absolutely flatlined in their inability to generate ANY Hornet sorties, several "exposes" were done on that. Bash the democrat critique? well, if the shoe fits. Again, calling it as it happened.

So, as I stated, what then resulted from those BRACs (there were multiples, by the way) ... rated officers; pilots in particular ... became a rare breed and now we have too few warriors in a government organization which is supposed to be comprised and led by warriors. Too many "shoe clerks" are now/have recently been ... the general officers (the 0-7s/up) who are to advise the White House and enact proper policy in support of those objectives.

our fighting force has been pre-occupied with social experimentation which rendered silly that of the Clinton policy changes. I won't expound much beyond that, but accept or reject from a guy who was there and saw the change first hand and then heard from "bros" during the Obama era in particular, but W didn't exactly restore the culture either. (so how's that for equal opportunity bashing?)

My current outfit was among those who struggled post 9/11 and went over a decade between "off the street" pilot hiring efforts. Those guys running hiring were looking at recruiting military experience and licking their chops. Ah ... there are statistically NO pilots retiring out of the USAF (which means the military) in 2012-2017 ... because statistically none entered 20 years prior and that smidgen which did, most of whom are already OUT. 2017, that began to change a little, but starting in '92 Big Blue has never been more than 50% of the RayGun years, and 92-97 was about 350/year (about 23% of the previous annual accession) Clinton's fault? He was the CINC wasn't he?

 

"The United States has been the Kurds' closest ally in recent years. (But) in the end, it abandoned the Kurds and, in essence, betrayed them," Peskov was cited as saying.

 

did peskov acknowledge the common enemy was defeated? did he acknowledge there was no intent to create a NATO style agreement to defend the Kurds against the Turks?

It's a real challenge to pick a single point in time with this arena/AO that isn't at least 1500 years old ... because that's how long this thing has been in conflict. And while it's nice to sit in the comfort of our homes online and pontificate ... the reality is we are not in a vacuum from those events in the past nor of what's about to come.

So while isolationism isn't reasonable, neither is simply picking what suits us and articulating a delcaration to be the standard against which the rest of the drama is measured.

 

Isolation isn't the goal, it is to see the military and DOD demonstrate rationality, transparency, and restraint.

 

Trump announced all sanction against Turkey are being lifted. Waiting for the inevitable quote from Trump "Nobody has been tougher on Turkey than me."

 

So our "betrayal" of the Kurds ... that resulted in what?

zero US casualties ... and the Kurds, our most trusted ally evidently, still have their place in NE Syria ... some were tragically killed after our small training force vacated. US not responsible for their losses. The people who killed them are.

Turkey backed off. Sounds like the closest thing to a win anyone with the ol derangement syndrome could get.

 

And just like that Trump proves the Neocons wrong. You don't have to stay in forever-war or else.

 

Turkey didn't have a strong position, methinks ... but I'm pretty sure if "she" had been POTUS, this wouldn't even have been attempted. I know BHO wouldn't have.

The issue isn't resolved there ... Erodgan is still the Turks' leader ... Turkey is still buying more of those S400 anti aircraft systems from Russia. So they're not exactly a committed NATO member. This will become a problem for status quo soon, maybe even before the inauguration.

 

While I agree with Trump's decision I think it's a little too early to say that we were correct. It's a good start though.

 

to do what? move the 50 spec ops forces from NE Syria?

Seems pretty clear that if we hadn't, we'd have had body bags arriving at Dover or Andrews about now.

I think Erdogan didn't consider the response's swiftness and degree. The list in that order on economic sanctions pretty well showed the Turk's behind ... they are producing almost nothing.

The problem is ... that desperation will make 'em easy pickins for the Russians, too. "here's a loaf of bread, now let us build a nuke base or two/dozen in Turkey."

"OK"

 

Turkey is basically a bad ally, but still an ally through NATO. The US will bend over backward to keep them in the fold and to keep Russia at arm's length I think.

US intelligence is probably waiting until Erdogan is gone to see if Turkey will liberalize back to where they were in the 80s-90s. The Turkey of today isn't the Turkey that joined NATO.