More on why I’m not too alarmed about the Syria pullout
Last Thursday I wrote a post on that subject, and today I see this from Lindsay Graham, which makes me think that the speculation in that previous post is probably true:
“We’re fighting a war against ISIS. They’re still not defeated in Syria. I’m asking the president to make sure that we have troops there to protect us. Don’t outsource our national security to some foreign power. If we leave now, the Kurds are going to get into a fight with Turkey, they could get slaughtered.”
Then, later, after meeting with Trump, Graham said Trump was “reconsidering” the planned pullout, adding that Trump “told me some things I didn’t know that make me feel a lot better about where we’re headed in Syria … He promised to destroy ISIS. He’s going to keep that promise. We’re not there yet. But as I said today, we’re inside the 10-yard line and the president understands the need to finish the job.”
Graham explained, “The last thing in the world we want is a war for Turkey and the Kurds. That takes pressure off ISIS. The last thing we want in addition to that is Iran to be the big winner here. So I think the president’s going to finish the job when it comes to ISIS. I share his goal to withdraw our forces from Syria. I just want to do it in a smart way to make sure that Iran’s not the big winner.”
It’s all rather vague, but it seems to be mostly a matter of timing.
The neocons (pardon me) got us into this and Trump is trying to ease us out. I think it is more important and a lot more difficult to get out of Afghanistan.
This is what I thought ten years ago.
During Afghanistan’s golden age which consisted of the last king’s rule, the country consisted of a small civilized center in Kabul while the rest of the country existed much as it did in the time of Alexander the Great. I have reviewed Kilcullen’s Accidental Guerilla, which explains much of the Afghan war. He is not optimistic about it and neither am I. Aside from the fact that Obama is a reluctant, very reluctant, warrior here, Pakistan is a serious obstacle to success.
It has only gotten worse with more dead since then.
Syria is a sideshow. I still wonder what was going on in Libya when the Benghazi attack took place and killed the ambassador. I think it was related to Syria,.
“adding that Trump “told me some things I didn’t know” – Graham”
This is the key to so many presidential decisions that we armchair generals get all lathered up about.
I even gave Obama the benefit of the doubt sometimes, until evidence casting doubt on his decisions became overwhelming — usually about 2 days after he did something.
Mike K:
I missed the part where Obama and his foreign policy advisors were neocons.
The neocons got us into the Middle East. Obama was focused on Iran.
You might read this about Khashoggi and Iran.
In the Khashoggi case, the press was playing the part of the pro-Iran echo chamber, originally built to sell the Iran nuclear deal. For Barack Obama, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was a geopolitical instrument realigning U.S. interests with Iran, while downgrading the 75-year-old U.S.-Saudi relationship, along with the U.S.-Israel alliance. One of Trump’s first moves in office was to restore Riyadh to its privileged place as regional partner. The echo chamber used the Khashoggi affair to target Riyadh in an effort to preserve Obama’s pro-Iran policies.
“I missed the part where Obama and his foreign policy advisors were neocons.”
Well we really have been in the Middle East since WWII in some form or another. But I figured Mike was talking about the military interventions that have occurred since 9/11, not just the troops in Syria.
The neocons (pardon me) got us into this and Trump is trying to ease us out.
The messes in Libya and Syria are all on Obama and Hillary. Don’t blame the neocons for them.
George W. Bush and his neocon allies went into Afghanistan and Iraq with a strategic vision on a multi-generational project to prevent a 9/11 or worse from happening again. That project, which they called World War IV, was akin to that other multi-generational project we undertook in the late 20th century they called World War III but was more commonly known as the Cold War. Some here may not agree with that strategic vision, but the neocons had one, and American foreign policy from 2001 to 2008 centered around it.
No one can seem to identify what strategic vision Obama and Hillary had for their actions in Libya, Egypt, and Syria. Some say it was to realign Mid-East policy around Iran. Some say it was just to knock the USA down a peg or two. Whatever it was, it’s not easily discernible from the outside.
But don’t equate American actions in Syria in 2012 with American actions in Iraq in 2003. Whatever the purpose was in 2012, it was very different than the purpose in 2003.
Benghazi has Iran all over it.
They LOVE cut-outs.
The Sunnis involved were MERCS.
Hamas was the cut-out for the operation. The Sunni mercs had no idea that the entire affair was designed to stop Libyan weapons from reaching the Sunnis in Syria.
The Iranian al Quds crew was caught working out the distances for mortar crews during the days immediately prior to the assault. They were wearing Red Crescent uniforms at the time. This was reported by the MSM at the time. ( BBC, IIRC )
This fact has dropped entirely down the Winston Smith memory hole.
The Iranian connection goes a LONG ways towards explaining why Barry ran away from his meeting with SecDef and ‘went to bed.’ Yes, he had a previously scheduled meeting with the SecDef — which occurred just as the bad knews started coming in from Libya.
BTW, the so-called Department of State asset was a CIA STATION. It was NOT a diplomatic compound — not by a long shot. That’s why it didn’t have any of the proper, passive, facilities to protect our ambassador. That’s also why it had so many ‘retired’ Spec Ops boys.
If exposed on a timely basis (2012) the event had the potential to cost Barry the election. So the Deep State swung into high gear.
Correction al Reuters, not BBC.
There are things to be said about the ‘withdrawal” that I never see.
First, there is a reason the Kurds wanted us out of Syria, at least temporarily. It seems that they have a lot of ISIS prisoners. If we are there the fact that they are all war criminals and many mass murderers counts for nothing. We cannot apply capital punishment, and we cannot treat these captives badly, and neither can the Kurds. With us out of there they can be treated as they so well deserve, and as they have treated their many victims.
Second, the fact that we are gone gives us the ability to apply pressure that other foreign forces also leave the country. That includes Turkey, Iran, Hezbullah and even Russia.
They will probably refuse, but air attacks on violators can then be applied, at least to the first four of these.
We have to think about what is a plausible ending to the violence in Syria. Total regime change does not look plausible at this time. Perhaps the best lousy solution would be agreement between the Assad regime with the Kurds allowing some kind of semi-autonomy,withdrawal by Iran Turkey and Hezbullah, with peace guaranteed by Russia Israel and the US and possibly Turkey.
This withdrawal tends to promote thoughts of such a thing.
The alternative is senseless fighting forever.
It should be realized that if the Kurds are attacked that our alliance with them would justify our bombing the hell out of whoever was attacking, on the Northeast side of the Euphrates.
Trump dodged a bullet with the Syrian pullout. Turkey had stated that they were going to Manjib to engage the Kurds. What was the US to do? Open fire on a NATO ally? Shades of the “The Guns of August” and the outbreak of WWI. Instead he replaced the US troops with KSA, UAE and Egyptian forces. The situation is now greatly clarified and the sub-rosa coalition against the Muslim Brotherhood (KSA, UAE, Jordan, Egypt and Israel) has culminated.
Roy,
Well, NAT0 to the side, Turkey under Erdogan is not an ally. In fact, to a lesser extent, Turkey like Iran is a rogue agent in the ME. Basically, an enemy.
Parker,
You can’t put NATO to the side. It is a treaty obligation, the breaking of which has rather severe consequences.
No one can seem to identify what strategic vision Obama and Hillary had for their actions in Libya, Egypt, and Syria.
I think Libya was a British/French operation that, somehow, Hillary thought would be a plus for her.
Egypt was a Muslim Brotherhood operation with deep connections to Hillary(Huma Abedin) and Obama (the hidden Khalidi tape.)
The logic of Syria was that it was a refuge for the Sunni Baathist resistance in Iraq. Beyond that, it seemed to be crazy. Somebody above asked what I thought about Saddam’s sons if we had not invaded Iraq.
My answer would just paraphrase Bismarck, Iraq is not worth the bones of a single US soldier.
I’ve got a post at Chicagoboyz, on this subject,.
More on what is happening in Syria.
The Gulf Arabs are taking over,.