• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Trump orders rapid withdrawal from Syria in apparent reversal

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
UglyCasanova said:
They are a doomsday cult who wants to bring about the end times and sees themselves as a catalyst towards some battle of armaghedon.
Click to expand...

No, that would be Christian rapturists & the like. Sunni Jihadis want to restore the Caliphate that ruled from Spain to Pakistan under Sharia law.
 
https://apnews.com/ec2ed217357048ff998225a31534df12

“The talking points were very firm,” said one of the officials, explaining that Trump was advised to clearly oppose a Turkish incursion into northern Syria and suggest the U.S. and Turkey work together to address security concerns. “Everybody said push back and try to offer (Turkey) something that’s a small win, possibly holding territory on the border, something like that.”

Erdogan, though, quickly put Trump on the defensive, reminding him that he had repeatedly said the only reason for U.S. troops to be in Syria was to defeat the Islamic State and that the group had been 99 percent defeated. “Why are you still there?” the second official said Erdogan asked Trump, telling him that the Turks could deal with the remaining IS militants.

With Erdogan on the line, Trump asked national security adviser John Bolton, who was listening in, why American troops remained in Syria if what the Turkish president was saying was true, according to the officials. Erdogan’s point, Bolton was forced to admit, had been backed up by Mattis, Pompeo, U.S. special envoy for Syria Jim Jeffrey andspecial envoy for the anti-ISIS coalition Brett McGurk, who have said that IS retains only 1 percent of its territory, the officials said.

Bolton stressed, however, that the entire national security team agreed that victory over IS had to be enduring, which means more than taking away its territory.

Trump was not dissuaded, according to the officials, who said the president quickly capitulated by pledging to withdraw, shocking both Bolton and Erdogan.
Click to expand...

This seems like very responsible decision making. Many thoughts. Good brain.
 
If that article is true and that Turkey can take care of the remaining 1%, then we definitely should pull out of Syria, the faster we can leave the Middle East, the better. However, that does not mean that we still can't pledge our assistance to the Kurds, whether it be financial, supply of weapons, or military assistance if needed. Just tell Turkey to leave our allies alone and they can do whatever the fuck they want in Syria to eradicate ISIS, if they touch our allies, prepare for war. A clear message should be sent that one, we stand with our allies, and two, there is no need for our troops to stay one second longer in the ME than necessary, and spend more money there than necessary. Same thing with Afghanistan, that is a losing war, like Vietnam was. There is no way we can keep Taliban out indefinitely without so much money drained in that black hole and lives lost.
 
It all gets so muddy. Obama sent US troops back into Iraq in 2014. Even Wiki has a separate article for it with "Intervention" as part of the article's title. So I can see why US troops went to Syria, to counter the terrorists. Or at least it seems that's the main reason. Or a least a big reason. I wasn't for the 2003 Iraq war btw just for reference.
 
In an attempt to work out what this means I tried searching for "what does trump's withdrawal mean".

It turns up articles about...Iran nuclear treaty withdrawal, Paris Climate Agreement withdrawal, TPP withdrawal, Russian nuclear treaty withdrawal,and the JCPOA withdrawal (I don't even know what that is!)*, before finally some stuff about the Syrian withdrawal.

He really does believe in the withdrawal method.

I suppose it reflects how reactive he is, most of what he does is about compulsively undoing everything his predecessors have done (especially Obama, of course).

* ah, it's the technical name for the Iran nuclear deal.
 
Last edited:
DrunkenSano said:
If that article is true and that Turkey can take care of the remaining 1%, then we definitely should pull out of Syria, the faster we can leave the Middle East, the better. However, that does not mean that we still can't pledge our assistance to the Kurds, whether it be financial, supply of weapons, or military assistance if needed. Just tell Turkey to leave our allies alone and they can do whatever the fuck they want in Syria to eradicate ISIS, if they touch our allies, prepare for war. A clear message should be sent that one, we stand with our allies, and two, there is no need for our troops to stay one second longer in the ME than necessary, and spend more money there than necessary. Same thing with Afghanistan, that is a losing war, like Vietnam was. There is no way we can keep Taliban out indefinitely without so much money drained in that black hole and lives lost.
Click to expand...

But Turkey's main objective is to crush the Kurds. I don't think they really care much about ISIS. (I also suspect Erdogan has dreams of recreating the Ottoman Empire).

And I can't believe war between two NATO members is remotely plausible.
 
pmv said:
In an attempt to work out what this means I tried searching for "what does trump's withdrawal mean".

It turns up articles about...Iran nuclear treaty withdrawal, Paris Climate Agreement withdrawal, TPP withdrawal, Russian nuclear treaty withdrawal,and the JCPOA withdrawal (I don't even know what that is!)*, before finally some stuff about the Syrian withdrawal.

He really does believe in the withdrawal method.

I suppose it reflects how reactive he is, most of what he does is about compulsively undoing everything his predecessors have done (especially Obama, of course).

* ah, it's the technical name for the Iran nuclear deal.
Click to expand...

Per the bolded, heh, I could make a joke about that. 😉 But yeah, I agree with you although from a different perspective. Simply put, as far as international relations are concerned, handling these issues in the only way that Trump knows and the only way that Trump is capable of handling it, namely using his gut instincts (rather than relying on the professionals in gov't that's been doing it for decades) is to run away from his problems (internationally speaking) and insulate himself at home here in the US.

Sadly, Trump is also beholden to Putin and the Saudi Royals and that has heavily influenced his decision making on a number of overseas issues.

So here we have Trump stuck between these threatening outside influences and the demands of his base further complicated by his refusal to put aside his business interests that's compromised his ability to lead the way any POTUS should.

And despite all of the failures he's piled up and counting due to his being compromised in such horrible fashion, he's still got a third of the nation thinking he's doing such a great job of making America great "again"(?)
 
Pull out order signed.

Trump just gave thousands of Syrian and Kurdish refugees tentative dates with a torturer/executioner for Xmas.
 
So this is how Trump is getting back at his enemies here at home? By making decisions that benefit our enemies and against our nation's best interests just to get even with Pelosi and Schummer for not giving him His Wall?

I'm asking because other than caving to Erdogan's and Putin's demands, that's the only other thing that makes sense where Trump and his overly inflated narcissistic ego is concerned.

I mean, I know that Trump is behaving like a cornered panicked rat (justifiably so) with the fed hunting dogs fighting over who should get to dine on his carcass but still, I'd think he's still got enough in him to, as he says "fight back" against his accusers in some kind of reasoned fashion.

What next? Pull out of South Korea because the Rocket Man had a nice talk with him about building golf resorts all along the North Korean coastline?
 
blackangst1 said:
With so many people believing the USA helped to create ISIS, I cant believe this isnt a popular thing.
Click to expand...

That would be the correct take away, I only wish more people were informed as to what happened and when. Some simply choose not to remember those heady Dubya Days. "Not in office" was the common defensive refrain from the right, although the same people would and still do gleeful bash Bill Clinton for his decisions prior to 9/11.
ISIS is a direct result of Cheney and Steele's actions after the 2nd invasion, made worse by Bremer firing most military and us allowing the group leadership to coalesce at Camp Bucca. ISIS is on us, and I'd say the resistance to accept that is one of the reasons the group is technically undefeated today.

Bush left Obama another shitshow, and 8 years later Trump inherited another improving situation only to fuck it up again, just like with the stock market.
 
And what monstrosity are we creating by being there and the inevitable withdrawal? There’s no good end to this. Time to leave. Stop being a hawk. Progs advocating for war, I’m in the upside down.
 
UglyCasanova said:
And what monstrosity are we creating by being there and the inevitable withdrawal? There’s no good end to this. Time to leave. Stop being a hawk. Progs advocating for war, I’m in the upside down.
Click to expand...

I’m not advocating one way or the other as I don’t really have a good answer. (Everything seems bad)

Whatever we do though should be through a thoughtful and deliberative process, not on a whim over the phone.
 
UglyCasanova said:
And what monstrosity are we creating by being there and the inevitable withdrawal? There’s no good end to this. Time to leave. Stop being a hawk. Progs advocating for war, I’m in the upside down.
Click to expand...

There isn't a lot of fighting going on in Syria ATM. Our presence helps to maintain that. Erdogan can't attack Kurdish enclaves along the border because he'd be attacking the troops of his Nato ally among them. Assad's forces are also loathe to attack American personnel. After we're gone, they have little reason to seek political solutions at all. They'll solve their problems the old fashioned way, with blood.

Meanwhile in Russia, they're ecstatic over Trump's largesse-

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/21/world/europe/russia-trump-foreign-policy.html
 
There’s not a lot of fighting, sounds like a great time to pack up. The left arguing for a continued overseas military adventure, wacky.
 
UglyCasanova said:
There’s not a lot of fighting, sounds like a great time to pack up. The left arguing for a continued overseas military adventure, wacky.
Click to expand...
  • The Iraq invasion destroyed stability in Iraq, possibly the Middle East.
  • In our time there we continued to f'up and failed to restore order.
  • As the new Iraqi government started to function, they pissed off the Sunis and we withdrew.
  • The combined timing of Syria's civil war and Iraq's weakness gave rise to ISIS across both borders.
  • Our pullout of Iraq gave ISIS literally half that country, uncontested, with Mosul as a crown jewel.
  • Iraq had to continue to organize the remaining half of their country, bolstered by the Iranian revolutionary guard.
  • We returned to support the Iraq / Iran ground forces in Iraq, and the Kurdish fighters in Syria.
  • We're winning the war against ISIS on both fronts. With "Allies" who can grow stronger and maintain order.
  • But only if we remain there long enough for that stability to grow roots. To become durable.
Do you understand the difference now?

We broke it. We failed to fix it. We ARE fixing it now, leaving would just risk breaking it all over again. Well, at least in Syria which is still anarchy. Iraq might fair better so long as their government / military hold together. But our half third? of Syria is just Kurdish militia. They might be able to stop ISIS, but Assad and Erdogan want their blood too. That chaos is dangerous.

If the Kurds do not hold ISIS in Syria, no one will.
 
fskimospy said:
I’m not advocating one way or the other as I don’t really have a good answer. (Everything seems bad)

Whatever we do though should be through a thoughtful and deliberative process, not on a whim over the phone.
Click to expand...

This is remarkably incomprehensible as to be alien it seems to more that I thought possible.
 
Interesting... Ayalet Shaked sounds off

""The Kurds are great heroes," she said, "and because of them the West succeeded in its fight against ISIS. They are allies, and I hope that they will win in their battle against the Turks. I hope that the international community will prevent Erdogan from massacring the Kurds."

Netanyahu has already expressed worry too. Anyone know if Trump has bothered to address this specifically? I'm starting to hope Israel can help if we can't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top