Trump Implementing the Palin. doctrin

gcomeau wrote:
"Come on guys, we're going to lose a LOT of lives fighting this Hitler guy and his Axis buddies, wouldn't it be easier to just let the dictators have their way and kill the lower number of people they're going to butcher and then let everyone live under authoritarian rule? I mean, it's the practical if not moral thing to do."

I think you means, "Come on guys, let's declare legitimate secular leader a dictator, support a bloody rebellion of religious fanatics, petty nationalists and wannabe-dictators against him, let the whole nation fell apart and hundreds of thousands of innocent peoples die, allow priceless historical artifacts to be destroyed by the hands of fanatics. Then, when it became apparent that the scum we supported could not actually won the war, and mostly interested in looting and raping, let's spread as much chaos as possible, so the war would go on and on, and we would not be forced to admit defeat, so it would be the next administration problem... Wait, the next president admitted defeat? BLOODY BASTARD, HOW COULD HE LOSE THE WAR THAT WE WERE SO BRILLIANTLY LOSING FOR YEARS!!!" Am I right in that representation of events?

Yeah, I perfectly understood the "democratic" point of view. For you it is better to let war go on and on, sacrificing thousands of innocent lives, in feeble hope that - somehow - your losing side of mass murderers and rapist would pull out an impossible victory - than to let "dictator" restore order and stop the massacre. Yeah, it so horrible: Assad would probably kill several hundreds of Very Democratic Rapists And Murderers, only for such pointless goal of several hundred thousand of civilians NOT to die? Yeah, "truly horrible outcome".

You know, gcomeau, the more I read your mad rant, the more you remind me of one particular man with silly mustaches. Who, at the last month of his life and rule, also was willing to let hundreds of thousand die, just not to admit that his side lost, and nothing would save him from destruction. You act exactly like him, you know. Sprouting the "better let all Germans, sorry, Syrians, die, than live under Stalin, sorry, Assad rule!!!" hysteria, just because your safe little word of Absolute Truth is falling apart.

noblehunter wrote:IRRC, one of the reasons the West refused to get involved in the Syrian civil war until ISIS showed up was that there didn't seem to be a side which could be trusted not to wipe out the opposing ethnic or religious group after they won.

So I'm going to be skeptical of the idea that we should happily let Assad seize control of the country again.

Oh, so you would prefer instead for the war to go on and on, and MORE peoples to die, just because you could not admit that Assad is the best out of worst solutions? Wake up, there is no "good" solution anymore. Letting Assad win would at least stop the bloodshed in shortest time possible - and, since he is the most secular of all belligerent parties, he is the most probable to be at least partially controlled in post-war repercussions.

But of course, what are those Syrian lives if GLORIOUS AMERICAN RIGHT TO DECIDE WHAT IS RIGHT AND WHAT IS WRONG IS QUESTIONED???!!! SACRILEGE!!!

I would prefer "us" not to be actively complicit in ethnic cleansing. Regardless of what post-war Syria is going to look like, I'm pretty sure bailing on the Kurds like this was the wrong move.

I like to point out that supporting leaders just because they can keep a lid on discontent is a major reason why the region is such a mess.

noblehunter wrote:I would prefer "us" not to be actively complicit in ethnic cleansing. Regardless of what post-war Syria is going to look like, I'm pretty sure bailing on the Kurds like this was the wrong move.

I like to point out that supporting leaders just because they can keep a lid on discontent is a major reason why the region is such a mess.

What exactly was the alternative? Your government were unwilling to let the Kurdish national state exist, so what possible outcome you envisioned? Okay, you may be wishing for some kind of mutual devastation scenario - that Assad and "democratic" rebels would exhaust each other so much, that they would be forced to let Kurdish state de-facto exist, without need for Washington to confirm or deny it - but sorry, we came into play and your little murderous scheme went right into hell. Assad is winning on the West, and he have more than enough troops to (with our humble support...) won on the East, too.

Even if Turkey would not invade, sooner or later Assad would move to East, to secure the vital economical areas. And you would face a dilemma: to let Kurds die, or to engage Assad directly (or do you seriously believe that after all your bombing and missile strikes Assad forces would be reluctant to obliterate the puny US garrisons on their way?). The second option would basically be an example of "too little, too late"; not to mention that it would bring you dangerously close to the conflict with Russia. And neither Turkey not Iraq would support any of your pro-Kurdish plans, so basically short of declaring war against Syria you would have no ability to save the Kurds anyway.

In short: your situation was hopeless. Gcomeau seems to harbor some feverish dreams that something somehow would work right if only not for Trump, but his position is a position of Hitler in April 1945; no realistic ways to escape, only inability to admit the lost. Trump simply pulled out of hopeless situation before it become even more hopeless.

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.

A timeline for withdrawal that would allow the Kurds to obtain security guarantees from other powers? Not insisting they dismantle their defenses as part of negotiating an arrangement with Turkey? Not announcing the withdrawal with a statement that condoned Turkey's invasion? Withdrawing in a orderly fashion so the US military doesn't look like a bunch of mercenaries whose contract unexpectedly ran out? Staying long enough for some kind of power sharing agreement could be worked out?

Broadly speaking, anything that doesn't make the aftermath look like the US's fault or a heinous betrayal.

And you really need to recognize that the US troops in the area weren't actually there to physically stop an invasion or you're never going to understand why the US withdrawal was so egregious.

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.

gcomeau wrote:
"Come on guys, we're going to lose a LOT of lives fighting this Hitler guy and his Axis buddies, wouldn't it be easier to just let the dictators have their way and kill the lower number of people they're going to butcher and then let everyone live under authoritarian rule? I mean, it's the practical if not moral thing to do."

Dilandu wrote:
I think you means, "Come on guys, let's declare legitimate secular leader a dictator, support a bloody rebellion of religious fanatics, petty nationalists and wannabe-dictators against him, let the whole nation fell apart and hundreds of thousands of innocent peoples die, allow priceless historical artifacts to be destroyed by the hands of fanatics. Then, when it became apparent that the scum we supported could not actually won the war, and mostly interested in looting and raping, let's spread as much chaos as possible, so the war would go on and on, and we would not be forced to admit defeat, so it would be the next administration problem... Wait, the next president admitted defeat? BLOODY BASTARD, HOW COULD HE LOSE THE WAR THAT WE WERE SO BRILLIANTLY LOSING FOR YEARS!!!" Am I right in that representation of events?

Yeah, I perfectly understood the "democratic" point of view. For you it is better to let war go on and on, sacrificing thousands of innocent lives, in feeble hope that - somehow - your losing side of mass murderers and rapist would pull out an impossible victory - than to let "dictator" restore order and stop the massacre. Yeah, it so horrible: Assad would probably kill several hundreds of Very Democratic Rapists And Murderers, only for such pointless goal of several hundred thousand of civilians NOT to die? Yeah, "truly horrible outcome".

You know, gcomeau, the more I read your mad rant, the more you remind me of one particular man with silly mustaches. Who, at the last month of his life and rule, also was willing to let hundreds of thousand die, just not to admit that his side lost, and nothing would save him from destruction. You act exactly like him, you know. Sprouting the "better let all Germans, sorry, Syrians, die, than live under Stalin, sorry, Assad rule!!!" hysteria, just because your safe little word of Absolute Truth is falling apart.

<Peter bows before Dilandu> I am not worthy! I am not worthy!

noblehunter wrote:A timeline for withdrawal that would allow the Kurds to obtain security guarantees from other powers?

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.

noblehunter wrote:And you really need to recognize that the US troops in the area weren't actually there to physically stop an invasion or you're never going to understand why the US withdrawal was so egregious.

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"...

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.

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?)