Trump Implementing the Palin. doctrin

[quote="Dilandu]
But what would it means, after US withdraw? What would stop Assad and/or Turkey from immediately forgetting the agreement? Believe me, even without any malicious acts, there simply would be enough incidents & firefights for them to rightfully claim that "Kurds did not fulfill their part of the deal COMPLETELY", and move troops in.


Without the ability to actually stop the invasion, those troops were basically hostages of the situation. I was under impression that the fate of Philippinean Army and Eastern Fleet taught US not to left token force in feeble attempt to "demonstrate the willingness"...[/quote]

Unfortunate, but not the US's fault.

Perhaps you should compare the current state of the US military to it's pre-WW2 status before attempting that analogy. Though I'm sure Turkey was would factor in Japan's eventual fate when attempting to decide what to do.

PeterZ wrote:Agreed with one small caveat. The President did not want to accomplish anything beyond defeating ISIS. That was accomplished.

Leaving a situation where NOTHING more could be accomplished is the course of wisdom. Did the US lose? We did if we had grander goals than the defeat of ISIS. Since the President had no such goals, I am good with this outcome.

Dilandu wrote:Currently you just lost:

* Syria - but it was obvious for the last two years, that there is no way for pro-US forces to turn the tide.

* Turkey - but again, Turkey became uncontrollable long ago. They basically do what they wanted now, without even consulting the USA. So, not much a loss either.

* Kurds - major loss, but sadly, inevitable. There was simply no way you could save them in long therm perspective without recognizing some kind of Kurdish state officially - and this would cause total collapse of your relation with both Turkey and Iraq (and VERY serious problems with other Mid-East players)

It was a painful defeat, but hardly a total catastrophe.

Eyal wrote:
You know, there were perfectly rational - and rather more justified - reasons for Chamberlain's agreeing to the Munich Agreement. Thst hasn't stopped his name from becoming a byword for cowardice and betrayal.

Regardless of whether the US was right to abandon the Kurds, the way it did so was possibly the most damaging way possible. It's done severe damage to the perception of the US as a trustworthy ally, ntm it's competence (you think the haphaxard withdrawal because Trump didn't even give the soldiers involved any warning makes you look good?)

The agreement with the Syrian Kurds did not include an eternal promise to protect them from any and every possible attack. We agreed to help each other defeat a common enemy. Mission accomplished.

So now, the Syrian Kurd's previous terrorism against Turkey has Turkey wanting to create neutral zone. You guys want the US to prevent this, why? Israel has implemented safety precautions along their border for Heaven's sake!

The President is trying to mitigate the bloodshed by the Turks and keep the oilfields from falling into the hands of people like ISIS. This is not unreasonable. For the long term, let the locals decide how their neighborhood is run.

PeterZ wrote:The President is trying to mitigate the bloodshed by the Turks and keep the oilfields from falling into the hands of people like ISIS. This is not unreasonable. For the long term, let the locals decide how their neighborhood is run.

The disconnect in this statement is mindboggling.

Joat42 wrote:

PeterZ wrote:The President is trying to mitigate the bloodshed by the Turks and keep the oilfields from falling into the hands of people like ISIS. This is not unreasonable. For the long term, let the locals decide how their neighborhood is run.

The disconnect in this statement is mindboggling.

That you think the statement is disconnected is indeed mind boggling.
The locals WILL decide their future. Thinking that outsiders have a snowball's chance in hell of controlling what happens there is simply delusional!

PeterZ wrote:The agreement with the Syrian Kurds did not include an eternal promise to protect them from any and every possible attack. We agreed to help each other defeat a common enemy. Mission accomplished.

So now, the Syrian Kurd's previous terrorism against Turkey has Turkey wanting to create neutral zone. You guys want the US to prevent this, why? Israel has implemented safety precautions along their border for Heaven's sake!

The President is trying to mitigate the bloodshed by the Turks and keep the oilfields from falling into the hands of people like ISIS. This is not unreasonable. For the long term, let the locals decide how their neighborhood is run.

I am sure that the Kurds did not expect an eternal link, but - something that you seem to be singularly unable/unwilling to address - is the way that they were literally dumped in 5 minutes.

Do the words trustworthy and faithful mean nothing to you?

PeterZ wrote:The agreement with the Syrian Kurds did not include an eternal promise to protect them from any and every possible attack. We agreed to help each other defeat a common enemy. Mission accomplished.

So now, the Syrian Kurd's previous terrorism against Turkey has Turkey wanting to create neutral zone. You guys want the US to prevent this, why? Israel has implemented safety precautions along their border for Heaven's sake!

The President is trying to mitigate the bloodshed by the Turks and keep the oilfields from falling into the hands of people like ISIS. This is not unreasonable. For the long term, let the locals decide how their neighborhood is run.

isaac_newton wrote:
I am sure that the Kurds did not expect an eternal link, but - something that you seem to be singularly unable/unwilling to address - is the way that they were literally dumped in 5 minutes.

Do the words trustworthy and faithful mean nothing to you?

Of course faithfulness means something. I would have preferred something more planned and organized. I am not sure what the parties were demanding of each other and the US. As I understand it, the Kurds were expecting territorial security the Asad government provided them prior to the civil war. That would require the US commit to creating something just short of a Kurdish homeland. That would certainly require a long term commitment. Making that commitment would betray a NATO ally.

As I said, I can live with this outcome. Happy about it? No. Accept it? Yes.

Given this turn of events. Dilandu is right. Let Asad consolidate his nation and keep as many people alive as possible.

All Hail the Ottoman Empire!

Actually motivating the Kurds to align themselves with Assad.

Don't forget that Isis arose as a result of Obama and Clinton inciting the Arab Spring.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Don't forget that Isis arose as a result of Obama and Clinton inciting the Arab Spring.

You mean in the same way that the Bay of Pigs invasion caused Fidel Castro swing Cuba into communism?
Yep, I see the logic [/sarcasm]

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Don't forget that Isis arose as a result of Obama and Clinton inciting the Arab Spring.

Michael Everett wrote:You mean in the same way that the Bay of Pigs invasion caused Fidel Castro swing Cuba into communism?
Yep, I see the logic [/sarcasm]

I wouldn't say the US incited the Arab Spring, the US did use the Arab Spring to oust a couple of leaders; Gaddafi and Mubarak. I recall Secretary of State Clinton saying "We came, we saw, He died" about Gaddafi. Mubarak resigned in the face of massive protests fueled by social media. Obama did not provide any support for Mubarak (not that Mubarak deserved support for any other reason than stability). They set their sights on Asad next.

Any wonder a civil war erupted in Syria? Any wonder a collection of JV militia wannabes could take advantage of Asad's distractions to secure those oil fields and expand their capabilities? When Obama pulled out of Iraq during a time where Syria was engaged in civil war, Libya is in chaos, Egypt just experienced a generational shift in power and Iran had oil prices over $100 to play with in funding their proxies in Syria and Iraq is it any wonder that someone like al-Baghdadi might flourish? Someone like him to take up the local standard of fighting against the corrupt status quo?

The locals WILL settle things. Outside intervention simply distorts any incentive to come to terms with the other participants.

Michael Everett wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Don't forget that Isis arose as a result of Obama and Clinton inciting the Arab Spring.

You mean in the same way that the Bay of Pigs invasion caused Fidel Castro swing Cuba into communism?
Yep, I see the logic [/sarcasm]

You are talking to someone who grew up with neighbors who survived the ethnic cleansing of Greeks by the Ottoman Empire as well as Armenians. I also knew a victim of an islamicist homicide bombing in Turkey. I used to read him bedtime stories when I visited the Kibbutz he grew up on.

Trump is the first US President to understand that Turkey is not an ally. Trump is giving Edrogen an opportunity to convince the rest of NATO that he is a snake.

The Israelis are now wishing that they hadn't upgraded Turkey's M-60 tanks to 120mm guns.