Generational Dynamics World View

[John J. Xenakis]

** 09-Oct-2019 World View: US troop withdrawal from Syria

(10-08-2019, 01:42 PM)David Horn Wrote: > My point from day one hasn't changed. We had absolutely no
> business walking away in Tora Bora, when al Qaeda was there for
> the taking. If we had done that, told the Taliban not to try
> anything similar in the future and left, none of the post-911
> nonsense in the Middle East would have occurred. Iraq? That was a
> clusterf*ck from the minute the idea crept into Dick Cheney's
> head. We've paid for it 50-fold ever since.

> But once you make the decision to go all-in, the onus shifts to
> you , and that's where the US finds itself after the Neocon
> Follies. We buried ourselves in the region, and, among other
> things, made and received commitments with the Kurds which they
> kept in full. Walking away, leaving them to the tender mercies of
> Erdogan, would be criminal in and of itself, but classically self
> defeating if another conflict occurs -- as it probably will at
> some point.

> I assume you see this, but you were having fun be sarcastic.

Actually, I didn't see this at all. I just assumed that, like almost
all people on the left, you favored the Iraq war when everyone thought
Saddam was developing WMDs, and then after the war showed that Saddam
was not developing WMDs, you changed your mind and decided that, oh,
you were against the war all along. And let's face it. When you use
phrases like "The Scumbag In Chief," as in your previous post, you're
self-identifying as someone as purely ideological who shouldn't be
taken seriously, and that everything you say is based on your
vitriolic hatred of Trump and Bush, and your devoted love and
adoration of Obama. The result was "having fun being sarcastic." A
guy's gotta have some fun.

But OK, you're saying that's wrong, and that in fact you've been
consistently taking principled positions, based on something like the
following principle:

Principle: Once you make the decision to go all-in, then you have
to stay in, until {some undefined} condition is met.

So let's see how this is applied:

• When Democrats demanded that Bush withdraw from Iraq, you must
  have said that the Democrats are wrong, since Iraq was still fighting
  jihadists in al-Qaeda in Iraq.
  
  
• When Obama withdrew from Iraq, you must have opposed Obama's
  decision (just as you currently oppose Trump's decision to withdraw)
  because Iraq was still fighting jihadists.
  
  
• And so now, following the same principle, you oppose Trump's plans
  to withdraw troops from Syria and Afghanistan.

The principle that once you're "all in" you can never leave is
interesting. We still have troops in Germany since the end of WW II.
We still have troops in South Korea since the end of the Korean War.
In Africa alone, we have 6,000 troops in missions in 53 African
countries. I guess they're there forever.

Are we really "all in" in Syria forever? I assume not, since we've
provided weapons, intelligence and air support to the Kurds for the
purpose of defeating ISIS, but not troops. That doesn't seem like
"all in" to me.

Trump says that the original agreement with the Kurds was that we'd
provide support, weapons and money for 30 to 90 days until ISIS was
defeated, and then we'd leave. Trump says that there was never any
commitment to protect the Kurds forever.

Then there's the question of why it's only America's problem. This is
also Europe's problem -- in fact, it's much worse for them -- so why
can't Britain, France and Germany take responsibility for protecting
the Kurds, and for taking back ISIS prisoners from their own
countries? Why is it up to just the US to protect the Kurds forever,
and to transfer 50,000 prisoners to Guantánamo prison? Why can't the
Europeans take responsibility for them? The Europeans can move all
50,000 prisoners to some Mediterranean island, and handle them by
themselves.

Also, Turkey is a Nato member with a population that includes 14
million Kurds. If Turkey can govern its own 14 million Kurdish
citizens, why can't we allow Turkey to govern 2 million more Kurds in
Syria? Some Kurds in Turkey support the PKK, and some Kurds in Syria
support the PKK. Why can't Turkey govern both? And does it really
make sense for American soldiers to be responsible for years,
centuries, and millennia to come to sit between the Turks and the
Syrian Kurds?

Finally, Erdogan said he was going ahead with the invasion whether
Americans occupy the observation posts or not. So what's the point of
putting them in the crossfire if they're not accomplishing anything?

So that's the reasoning of the "Scumbag in Chief."