US Sells Out Kurds To Turkey

[Kathianne]

Russia fills the void left behind by US. Erdogan first snubs Pence and Pompeo, then walks it back.

Bottom line, US/Israel are losing big, Russia/Iran/Turkey win.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/10/16/trump-faces-chaos-backlash-syria-turkey-rebuffs-ceasefire/3993179002/

[jimnyc]

Would any type of war with Turkey been wise? I don't think so myself. Personally I'd like to nuke them but don't think that's in America's best interests. Either win big or save American soldiers lives.

---

Pulling US troops out of Syria will prove to be the right decision

Donald Trump, peacemaker?

Whenever neoconservatives and liberals chant in unison about American policy in the Middle East — as when they championed the Iraq invasion, for example, or the overthrow of Colonel Gaddafi in Libya, or the thwarted attempt to topple the Assad regime in Syria — it means we are being told a pack of lies. Par for the course is the hysterical response to President Donald Trump’s ‘betrayal’ of the Kurds in the wake of Turkey’s invasion of northern Syria.

Turkey’s goal was to repatriate at least two million of 3.6 million Syrian refugees inside Turkey in a border zone controlled, until the invasion began, by the US-allied, Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces. Ankara considers that group to be an extension of the Kurdistan Workers’ party (PKK), which is also active in the region, has committed countless atrocities inside Turkey and is designated as a terrorist organization by Turkey and America.

Since Turkey was never going to back down, Middle East pundits appeared to be arguing that Trump should actually have risked going to war with a fellow Nato member that houses American nuclear weapons at its Incirlik Air Base. Worse, this would have been in defense of the Kurds, with whom the US has no defense treaty and whose ad hoc alliance with the US in Syria was formed with the explicit and limited goal of fighting the now defeated Islamic State. Going into battle against the Turks would also, of course, have meant betraying a historic ally, not to mention potentially causing the outbreak of a third world war.

Even more bizarrely, almost all the pundits and politicians are of the absurd opinion that — amid the endless cycle of war, revolution and terrorism in that cursed part of the world — we should once again foolishly see this scenario (as in Iraq and Libya) as a simple, folkloric tale of good vs evil. This time around, on one side are the secular, heroic Kurdish freedom fighters, lovers of democracy and steadfast American allies. On the other there are the bloodthirsty foot-soldiers from Turkey, a country that wants to annihilate them. As usual when it comes to the Middle East, almost all the pundits and politicians are talking balderdash.

That the reality on the ground is far more complicated will not be news to those who live in the region, but whose opinions are rarely taken into account by western commentators. For, in stark contrast to our rose-tinted admiration of the Kurds, they are resented, if not loathed, by many of the non-Kurds they live alongside or rule over in their self-declared autonomous zones. After decades of pushing for eventual statehood, the Kurds can claim only Israel as a true friend in the region. Almost needless to say, this is why the Lindsey Grahams of this world support them. But being allied, however tentatively, to the Jewish state sure is one way to guarantee that your cause will find little favor on the proverbial Arab street.

The estimated 30 million Kurds who straddle the borders of Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Iran and Armenia have never had a homeland, but arrogantly claim that their shared historic, ethnic, linguistic and cultural roots entitle them to one. To understand why this causes such resentment among Arabs and others whose resource-rich land the Kurds seek to steal, imagine for a moment that the same scenario was playing out in Europe. For example, what would happen if on that continent and on the same pretext the estimated 10 million Roma — who, like the Kurds, are traditionally a nomadic people — moved to establish a state encompassing huge swathes of Romania, Slovakia and Hungary. And they partly did this by engaging in terrorism, targeting civilians with the financial and military support of, say, China. Would the reaction of the indigenous European populations be any less hostile than that of Turkey in northern Syria? If anything, the Roma scenario would be more understandable, because the Kurds have only existed in large numbers in Iraq and Syria since the early 20th century, when they arrived from Turkey as refugees.

Rest - https://spectator.us/pulling-troops-syria-right-decision/

[Kathianne]

I guess the US needed to get to the point of not being able to defend what seemed to be important. It seems to me that if that's the new reality, bring all our troops home and let those countries that are willing to deal with, like Russia and Turkey deal with what is now real.

I get that, but be honest about it. We do only have our interests, here. Now.

[STTAB]

I guess the US needed to get to the point of not being able to defend what seemed to be important. It seems to me that if that's the new reality, bring all our troops home and let those countries that are willing to deal with, like Russia and Turkey deal with what is now real.

I get that, but be honest about it. We do only have our interests, here. Now.


That's what Trump would like to do, that's what we should be doing. Why are we STILL in Afghanistan? All the people behind 9/11 are dead. We should never have committed to turning them into a democracy that they neither understand nor want. We should sent troops in when needed , kick the shit out of who needs the shit kicked out of them, and leave. If Syria doesn't want us coming into their country and kicking the shit out of ISIS and then leaving letting them deal with damage left behind, then perhaps Syria ought deal with ISIS themselves.

And in point of fact I'm perfectly fine with letting Russia deal with Muslim terrorists, Ever notice that Muslim terrorists hate Russia more than they ever thought about hating us, but rarely commit acts of terror in Russia? Why? Because Russia finds out who did such acts and where they're from and wipes the entire village off the map. Quite a few Muslim villages need to be wiped off the map, not sorry for saying that.

I don't think we should just stand idly by as Turkey slaughters the Kurds , but the Kurds have some blame in this too, are they cooperating at all with the effort to hunt down PKE? No , of course they are not.

[jimnyc]

I guess the US needed to get to the point of not being able to defend what seemed to be important. It seems to me that if that's the new reality, bring all our troops home and let those countries that are willing to deal with, like Russia and Turkey deal with what is now real.

I get that, but be honest about it. We do only have our interests, here. Now.

In this case - it's a reality of that situation there - not a new reality forever. Each case has to be made on it's own. It's also important to avoid wars with nato allies, but those against don't want to address that. Should we go against a nato ally, and potential war, and losing American lives that would likely put us into that war? If they pushed, as they said they were going to, and Americans die as a result - then what? Full out war with Turkey? I don't think that's the answer.

[jimnyc]

That's what Trump would like to do, that's what we should be doing. Why are we STILL in Afghanistan? All the people behind 9/11 are dead. We should never have committed to turning them into a democracy that they neither understand nor want. We should sent troops in when needed , kick the shit out of who needs the shit kicked out of them, and leave. If Syria doesn't want us coming into their country and kicking the shit out of ISIS and then leaving letting them deal with damage left behind, then perhaps Syria ought deal with ISIS themselves.

And in point of fact I'm perfectly fine with letting Russia deal with Muslim terrorists, Ever notice that Muslim terrorists hate Russia more than they ever thought about hating us, but rarely commit acts of terror in Russia? Why? Because Russia finds out who did such acts and where they're from and wipes the entire village off the map. Quite a few Muslim villages need to be wiped off the map, not sorry for saying that.

I don't think we should just stand idly by as Turkey slaughters the Kurds , but the Kurds have some blame in this too, are they cooperating at all with the effort to hunt down PKE? No , of course they are not.

I don't care if it's the Kurds, Russians, Syrian or Turks that kill Isis. I think they should have 'disappeared' last week, or left a trip wire with a 40,000 ordinance at the doorway.... but for that fact, if they all want to sit there in some shitty remote location and all kill one another, so be it and I bid them a fond and hellish goodbye.

[Kathianne]

That's what Trump would like to do, that's what we should be doing. Why are we STILL in Afghanistan? All the people behind 9/11 are dead. We should never have committed to turning them into a democracy that they neither understand nor want. We should sent troops in when needed , kick the shit out of who needs the shit kicked out of them, and leave. If Syria doesn't want us coming into their country and kicking the shit out of ISIS and then leaving letting them deal with damage left behind, then perhaps Syria ought deal with ISIS themselves.

And in point of fact I'm perfectly fine with letting Russia deal with Muslim terrorists, Ever notice that Muslim terrorists hate Russia more than they ever thought about hating us, but rarely commit acts of terror in Russia? Why? Because Russia finds out who did such acts and where they're from and wipes the entire village off the map. Quite a few Muslim villages need to be wiped off the map, not sorry for saying that.

I don't think we should just stand idly by as Turkey slaughters the Kurds , but the Kurds have some blame in this too, are they cooperating at all with the effort to hunt down PKE? No , of course they are not.


Then bring all home, now. He announced almost simultaneously to pull out of Syria and let Turkey slaughter away. So, pull out all over the globe, cut the troops, and the defense budget. He should do it within a week. We should stop playing superpower, in costs and bellicosity. We're not going to say 'we're so strong, while being stopped by Turkey.'

We are choosing to be weak and that has a certain strength to it. Save a hell of a lot of money too.

[Kathianne]

Then bring all home, now. He announced almost simultaneously to pull out of Syria and let Turkey slaughter away. So, pull out all over the globe, cut the troops, and the defense budget. He should do it within a week. We should stop playing superpower, in costs and bellicosity. We're not going to say 'we're so strong, while being stopped by Turkey.'

We are choosing to be weak and that has a certain strength to it. Save a hell of a lot of money too.

When we say 'bring them home,' not just in Syria, but world wide. No more crap from Iran or North Korea. It can be Russia's problem. We can all be the NBA with China. Brave New World.

[jimnyc]

Then bring all home, now. He announced almost simultaneously to pull out of Syria and let Turkey slaughter away. So, pull out all over the globe, cut the troops, and the defense budget. He should do it within a week. We should stop playing superpower, in costs and bellicosity. We're not going to say 'we're so strong, while being stopped by Turkey.'

We are choosing to be weak and that has a certain strength to it. Save a hell of a lot of money too.

Rather drastic over one decision. I think each case needs to be judged on it's own. We can't handle one location identically to others, that would be quite naive. I disagree with becoming soft, lowering budges and pulling Americans out worldwide, because of Trump's stance on certain issues.

[jimnyc]

We can all be the NBA with China. Brave New World.

I don't get this kind of stuff from you, because you disagree with a decision with the kurds/Turkey. That means complete world withdrawal and budget reductions? brave new world? I think you forgot "winning" in there too.

[Kathianne]

Rather drastic over one decision. I think each case needs to be judged on it's own. We can't handle one location identically to others, that would be quite naive. I disagree with becoming soft, lowering budges and pulling Americans out worldwide, because of Trump's stance on certain issues.

It's length of time. South Korea, Japan, Germany (Europe in general), all since WWII ends or shortly there after. It's too costly, in $ and lives, that is the winning argument so it should be owned and embraced. It's practical and Russia and China are more than willing as they've made very clear. Let them go bankrupt and not mind business, that is what our government is for.

[Kathianne]

I don't get this kind of stuff from you, because you disagree with a decision with the kurds/Turkey. That means complete world withdrawal and budget reductions? brave new world? I think you forgot "winning" in there too.
We'll be winning when Russia and China are running the world, playing police force of the world. We will be raking in the $$ and not making others mad.

[Kathianne]

I was listening to President Trump answering questions after his meeting with Italian leader while we have been bantering about this. Now there is a news conference coming, can't wait to hear.

I have to admit to stealing some of what he was saying.

[Kathianne]

The woke of the NBA:

https://hotair.com/archives/allahpundit/2019/10/16/lebron-okay-im-done-talking-daryl-morey-china/

...Your willingness to speak out about one injustice doesn’t oblige you to speak out about all injustices. He hasn’t always felt that way (https://twitter.com/KingJames/status/952902403422150657?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw), but certainly we all have issues that animate us more than others do. That logic is both a sword and a shield for James in his criticism of Daryl Morey. It’s a shield in that it lets LeBron off the hook for holding his tongue about China while criticizing police brutality in the United States. And it’s a sword against Morey, who jeopardized an entire industry’s presence in China for nothing more than a single glib tweet...

Actually does seem to carry onto countries.

[jimnyc]

We'll be winning when Russia and China are running the world, playing police force of the world. We will be raking in the $$ and not making others mad.

I think then not only should we cut our defense budget by $600-700 billion dollars, we should also have a super power meeting, and cede all control and powers to Russia and China. Speed it up and save in the long run.

I agree, no more madness and a hell of a lot less folks mad at us. And yeps, the amount of money we'll have saved over a few decades will be monstrous. Add it up, and we can potentially save enough to pay for the new green deal. A more robust economy and a healthier country. And considering us ceding to China, for example, they will of course in turn make out the fairest of all financial trading possible, and enrich our country that much more.

And seeing the way Trump is, the long prospects of countries like China and Russia having much more say and control, I think the world as a whole will be better off & that will likely stop all skirmishes and wars around the world as well.

So as we count our profits we can pop on the 'ol television and all sing kumbaya around the world simultaneously, which will sound eerily similar to "winning".

[STTAB]

Then bring all home, now. He announced almost simultaneously to pull out of Syria and let Turkey slaughter away. So, pull out all over the globe, cut the troops, and the defense budget. He should do it within a week. We should stop playing superpower, in costs and bellicosity. We're not going to say 'we're so strong, while being stopped by Turkey.'

We are choosing to be weak and that has a certain strength to it. Save a hell of a lot of money too.


I think you've misunderstood the situation a bit Kath to be honest.

It seems as though Turkey as much as told the US "were moving into Syria to build a buffer zone and deal with PKE, whether you are there or not" and the US responded by moving our soldiers out of harm's way, the last thing we want is an accidental shooting war with a NATO ally, even a shitty NATO ally like Turkey. But at the same time assurances were made. Lindsey Graham, for example, said as much and says that Erdogen himself lied to him and is dong what he said he would not do.

This is not a situation where the US left and Turkey said "now is our time to destroy the Kurds" this was as planned troop movement, and our "ally" Turkey lied about their intent.

BUT they were coming either way. Would you have preferred that we had left our 50-100 soldiers in place and told them "defend the Kurds?" I mean come on. They would have just gotten killed.

Those 50-100 soldiers being removed did nothing as far as providing a military retaliation against Turkey if that is ultimately what we decide to do goes. If we DO decide to do something militarily it won't be ground troops. it will be cruise missiles launched from one of our air carrier wings in the region.

Turkey could literally annex Syria and kill half the population and we're not going to get into a ground war with them, so what is the point of having ground troops there?

As for pulling out from stations around the world, I tried to explain that to you earlier in the thread as well. There are many many many troops that yes we should bring home. But it won't happen, not because we need them there, or because we must project strength where they are, but because they have Generals and Senators who are making careers out of them being there. Just on the military side of things there are hundreds of Generals who simply wouldn't be needed if we closed overseas bases. Those Generals in turn align themselves with Senators (and Representatives) who simply argue that we NEED those bases for national security, whether we do or not.

Take South Korea , for example. Why do we need 30K+ troops there? Honestly even if North Korea invaded and captured South Korea, how would that affect OUR national security? It wouldn't.

Our troop deployment around the world is entirely about the deep state expanding its own power. PERIOD.

[Kathianne]

I think then not only should we cut our defense budget by $600-700 billion dollars, we should also have a super power meeting, and cede all control and powers to Russia and China. Speed it up and save in the long run.

I agree, no more madness and a hell of a lot less folks mad at us. And yeps, the amount of money we'll have saved over a few decades will be monstrous. Add it up, and we can potentially save enough to pay for the new green deal. A more robust economy and a healthier country. And considering us ceding to China, for example, they will of course in turn make out the fairest of all financial trading possible, and enrich our country that much more.

And seeing the way Trump is, the long prospects of countries like China and Russia having much more say and control, I think the world as a whole will be better off & that will likely stop all skirmishes and wars around the world as well.

So as we count our profits we can pop on the 'ol television and all sing kumbaya around the world simultaneously, which will sound eerily similar to "winning".

If that is what happens, I agree. At least be consistent and no more deficits, at least because of foreign costs.

It's not the path I'd have chosen, but it does seem to be what is being called winning. Maybe, just maybe, when al Queda is reconstituted, if not crushed by Russia/China, they will attack there and not here.

[Kathianne]

I think you've misunderstood the situation a bit Kath to be honest.

It seems as though Turkey as much as told the US "were moving into Syria to build a buffer zone and deal with PKE, whether you are there or not" and the US responded by moving our soldiers out of harm's way, the last thing we want is an accidental shooting war with a NATO ally, even a shitty NATO ally like Turkey. But at the same time assurances were made. Lindsey Graham, for example, said as much and says that Erdogen himself lied to him and is dong what he said he would not do.

This is not a situation where the US left and Turkey said "now is our time to destroy the Kurds" this was as planned troop movement, and our "ally" Turkey lied about their intent.

BUT they were coming either way. Would you have preferred that we had left our 50-100 soldiers in place and told them "defend the Kurds?" I mean come on. They would have just gotten killed.

Those 50-100 soldiers being removed did nothing as far as providing a military retaliation against Turkey if that is ultimately what we decide to do goes. If we DO decide to do something militarily it won't be ground troops. it will be cruise missiles launched from one of our air carrier wings in the region.

Turkey could literally annex Syria and kill half the population and we're not going to get into a ground war with them, so what is the point of having ground troops there?

As for pulling out from stations around the world, I tried to explain that to you earlier in the thread as well. There are many many many troops that yes we should bring home. But it won't happen, not because we need them there, or because we must project strength where they are, but because they have Generals and Senators who are making careers out of them being there. Just on the military side of things there are hundreds of Generals who simply wouldn't be needed if we closed overseas bases. Those Generals in turn align themselves with Senators (and Representatives) who simply argue that we NEED those bases for national security, whether we do or not.

Take South Korea , for example. Why do we need 30K+ troops there? Honestly even if North Korea invaded and captured South Korea, how would that affect OUR national security? It wouldn't.

Our troop deployment around the world is entirely about the deep state expanding its own power. PERIOD.

I don't think I misunderstood anything. Erdogan told Trump to get out of the way or our guys were in harm's way. Our President said, from a position of strength, "Ok." and did.

Naysayers said, "This is not going to go well."

[STTAB]

I don't think I misunderstood anything. Erdogan told Trump to get out of the way or our guys were in harm's way. Our President said, from a position of strength, "Ok." and did.

Naysayers said, "This is not going to go well."


Should we have sacrificed those 50-100 people so Kath could say "hey we stood up to Turkey?" I mean Jesus Christ Kathy, what could Trump have done here that would have satisfied you Invade Turkey? How about if we nuke them. They can't cause problems for us if they are nuclear wasteland.

[Kathianne]

Should we have sacrificed those 50-100 people so Kath could say "hey we stood up to Turkey?" I mean Jesus Christ Kathy, what could Trump have done here that would have satisfied you Invade Turkey? How about if we nuke them. They can't cause problems for us if they are nuclear wasteland.
I HAVE AN ATTITUDE? I doubt very much President Trump knows of my existence, much less cares about my opinion on jack.

Question, what if the President said, "No, it would be a very, very bad idea. For your security and for your economy."

[jimnyc]

I think you've misunderstood the situation a bit Kath to be honest.

It seems as though Turkey as much as told the US "were moving into Syria to build a buffer zone and deal with PKE, whether you are there or not" and the US responded by moving our soldiers out of harm's way, the last thing we want is an accidental shooting war with a NATO ally, even a shitty NATO ally like Turkey. But at the same time assurances were made. Lindsey Graham, for example, said as much and says that Erdogen himself lied to him and is dong what he said he would not do.

This is not a situation where the US left and Turkey said "now is our time to destroy the Kurds" this was as planned troop movement, and our "ally" Turkey lied about their intent.

BUT they were coming either way. Would you have preferred that we had left our 50-100 soldiers in place and told them "defend the Kurds?" I mean come on. They would have just gotten killed.

And it would lead to war with Turkey. Imagine them doing what they said they were going to do - and warned the American counterpart - and then Americans die? Again, worth going to war with Turkey over this? Don't think so myself.

[jimnyc]

I don't think I misunderstood anything. Erdogan told Trump to get out of the way or our guys were in harm's way. Our President said, from a position of strength, "Ok." and did.

Naysayers said, "This is not going to go well."

How were 50 soldiers working in a position of strength? One our name alone? Sounds to me like we were in a position of the opposite, unless of course we increased troops in the area. If the soldiers stayed, and Turkey bombed their areas, then they would have been slaughtered. Of course then there is all out war.

[STTAB]

I HAVE AN ATTITUDE? I doubt very much President Trump knows of my existence, much less cares about my opinion on jack.

Question, what if the President said, "No, it would be a very, very bad idea. For your security and for your economy."

I didn't say that Trump knows of your existence. I am asking YOU what he could have done about this situation that would have satisfied YOU?

[Kathianne]

Just throwing this out here, since a few have spoken about 'my attitude.' I've said more than a few times that quite a few of the President's actions domestically and even on our continent have been very good, much better than I would have thought possible.

I've disagreed with almost all of his foreign policy decisions, not his 'goals per se, but his actions. Wanting to bring the troops home is good, doing what he's done, IMO is bad. Bad as in long term bad.

Look at what Erdogan tried to do with Pompeo and Vice President Pence. He's walked it back, but he is emboldened.

He's not alone.

[Kathianne]

I didn't say that Trump knows of your existence. I am asking YOU what he could have done about this situation that would have satisfied YOU?

and I answered, which you either haven't read, though same post or are ignoring.

[STTAB]

How were 50 soldiers working in a position of strength? One our name alone? Sounds to me like we were in a position of the opposite, unless of course we increased troops in the area. If the soldiers stayed, and Turkey bombed their areas, then they would have been slaughtered. Of course then there is all out war.


I asked Pete this many pages ago.

If 50-100 US soldiers is such great strength and such a deterrent, then why do we have many more than 50 on the Korean peninsula?

[Kathianne]

How were 50 soldiers working in a position of strength? One our name alone? Sounds to me like we were in a position of the opposite, unless of course we increased troops in the area. If the soldiers stayed, and Turkey bombed their areas, then they would have been slaughtered. Of course then there is all out war.

I was speaking of the president, not the 50,(not really 50 as the near hit demonstrated) troops. I answered what I thought might work for the President, in my answer to STTAB.

[STTAB]

and I answered, which you either haven't read, though same post or are ignoring.

Guess I'm stupid or something because I don't see an answer to my question.

[Kathianne]

I asked Pete this many pages ago.

If 50-100 US soldiers is such great strength and such a deterrent, then why do we have many more than 50 on the Korean peninsula?
Why are we still on the Korean peninsula? That's been the case since before I was born.

[Kathianne]

Guess I'm stupid or something because I don't see an answer to my question.

Pretty much what he's saying now, after the slaughter and Russia:


Question, what if the President said, "No, it would be a very, very bad idea. For your security and for your economy."

[STTAB]

Why are we still on the Korean peninsula? That's been the case since before I was born.


I told you why.

The military industrial complex is a major power in this country. They make foreign policy, not the Congress and certainly not the President. Do you think John Bolton is bad mouthing Rudy because he gives a damn about Biden and Ukraine? No, he's bad mouthing Rudy because Rudy's boss isn't playing ball with the real power in DC.

If Trump announced that he was going to pull the US military out of Korea , he really would be impeached , and convicted in the Republican Senate. Guaranteed.

[Kathianne]

I told you why.

The military industrial complex is a major power in this country. They make foreign policy, not the Congress and certainly not the President. Do you think John Bolton is bad mouthing Rudy because he gives a damn about Biden and Ukraine? No, he's bad mouthing Rudy because Rudy's boss isn't playing ball with the real power in DC.

If Trump announced that he was going to pull the US military out of Korea , he really would be impeached , and convicted in the Republican Senate. Guaranteed.

They have a stake in everything, but it's beyond time. He stood against the Kurds, the South Koreans are not our friends, haven't done jack for us.

[Kathianne]

Being practical:

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/15/republicans-buckle-to-trump-on-syria-047618

[Kathianne]

Being practical:

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/15/republicans-buckle-to-trump-on-syria-047618


The problem to be dealt with, within the article, is what to do with an emergence of ISIS? I suppose the total withdrawal from Syria/Middle East as a whole, will deal with it. I mean 9/11 happened because we were over there.

[STTAB]

Being practical:

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/15/republicans-buckle-to-trump-on-syria-047618


Personally I like it when you see some air between members of the same party. Are we really supposed to believe that 300 plus members of the same political party see eye to eye on every topic? Well, if they are Democrats they do............

[Kathianne]

Personally I like it when you see some air between members of the same party. Are we really supposed to believe that 300 plus members of the same political party see eye to eye on every topic? Well, if they are Democrats they do............

I'm pretty intrigued with the idea that US is to blame for 9/11, if we just were not in the middle east.

[jimnyc]

Majority of Republicans Back Trump’s Syria Decision

A poll released Wednesday found that 57 percent of Republicans support President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw U.S. troops from northern Syria.

An Economist/YouGov survey shows 25 percent of Republican respondents said they strongly approve of pulling out troops, while 32 percent stated they somewhat approve of the move. Further, 26 percent of Republicans surveyed said they oppose the move and 18 percent said they do not hold an opinion on the matter. The poll surveyed 1,500 people between October 13th-15th and had a margin of error of plus or minus of 2.7 percentage points.

The survey’s results show Republican lawmakers who oppose the troop pullout – such as Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Mitt Romney (R-UT) – are at odds with the majority of GOP voters.

Graham, one of Congress’s most high-profile foreign policy hawks, has argued the president’s decision is a “disaster in the making” and “will be a stain on America’s honor for abandoning the Kurds.”

Conversely, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), known for his non-interventionist approach with respect to foreign policy, has said Graham is flat-out wrong.

“Lindsey Graham has been wrong about almost every foreign policy decision of the last two decades,” Paul told MSNBC on Tuesday. “He was wrong about the Iraq War. The Iraq War was a mistake. It made Iran stronger, allowed more chaos, more instability, and more terrorism. He was wrong about the war in Libya. It leads to more chaos and more terrorism. He is wrong about this.”

The Department of Defense has argued that continuing to station troops in the area could put American lives at risk.

“Due to Turkey’s irresponsible actions, the risk to U.S. forces in northeast Syria has reached an unacceptable level. We are also at risk of being engulfed in a broader conflict,” said Defense Secretary Mark Esper, before adding that “a small footprint” of troops will stay behind at the Al Tanf garrison in southern Syria. The decision, Esper says, to prevent a re-emergence from ISIS in the area.

Rest - https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/16/poll-majority-of-republicans-back-trumps-syria-decision/

[STTAB]

I'm pretty intrigued with the idea that US is to blame for 9/11, if we just were not in the middle east.
I mean people aren't wrong when they say 9/11 was a direct result of us being in the Middle East . That's just a fact.

Where people go wrong is when they try to say that those who perpetrated 9/11 were justified in doing so because of our presence in the ME.

False, and provably so.

Test

Would those same people react the same if we said "look at all these shit head Somalians being shit heads in MN and MI and we bombed Mogadishu killing 3,000 civilians. Would those smug liberals just say "well that's Somalia's fault for having people in the US?" I hardly think so.

[Kathianne]

Majority of Republicans Back Trump’s Syria Decision

A poll released Wednesday found that 57 percent of Republicans support President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw U.S. troops from northern Syria.

An Economist/YouGov survey shows 25 percent of Republican respondents said they strongly approve of pulling out troops, while 32 percent stated they somewhat approve of the move. Further, 26 percent of Republicans surveyed said they oppose the move and 18 percent said they do not hold an opinion on the matter. The poll surveyed 1,500 people between October 13th-15th and had a margin of error of plus or minus of 2.7 percentage points.

The survey’s results show Republican lawmakers who oppose the troop pullout – such as Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Mitt Romney (R-UT) – are at odds with the majority of GOP voters.

Graham, one of Congress’s most high-profile foreign policy hawks, has argued the president’s decision is a “disaster in the making” and “will be a stain on America’s honor for abandoning the Kurds.”

Conversely, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), known for his non-interventionist approach with respect to foreign policy, has said Graham is flat-out wrong.

“Lindsey Graham has been wrong about almost every foreign policy decision of the last two decades,” Paul told MSNBC on Tuesday. “He was wrong about the Iraq War. The Iraq War was a mistake. It made Iran stronger, allowed more chaos, more instability, and more terrorism. He was wrong about the war in Libya. It leads to more chaos and more terrorism. He is wrong about this.”

The Department of Defense has argued that continuing to station troops in the area could put American lives at risk.

“Due to Turkey’s irresponsible actions, the risk to U.S. forces in northeast Syria has reached an unacceptable level. We are also at risk of being engulfed in a broader conflict,” said Defense Secretary Mark Esper, before adding that “a small footprint” of troops will stay behind at the Al Tanf garrison in southern Syria. The decision, Esper says, to prevent a re-emergence from ISIS in the area.

Rest - https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/16/poll-majority-of-republicans-back-trumps-syria-decision/

No answer to that. My question to all those who agree with the too long wars, Middle East is a yawn. When do we get out of Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, troops in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Oman, etc. Shouldn't it be total, not just a freaking 28 that were just moved or the special ops that weren't? Get the freaking planes and get them the hell out.

[jimnyc]

No answer to that. My question to all those who agree with the too long wars, Middle East is a yawn. When do we get out of Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, troops in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Oman, etc. Shouldn't it be total, not just a freaking 28 that were just moved or the special ops that weren't? Get the freaking planes and get them the hell out.

I think that the situation in Turkey is not related to those other places at all, and each case should be looked at alone. I think ultimately there are likely other places we could reduce/withdraw from. But to make a blanket removal of all, wouldn't be wise.

If that is the case, for example, which would be the top 5/10 places would you say, and your reasoning for leaving? I don't think 'because we left northern syria' is the answer to any of them. Myself, I think Afghanistan and Iraq should be next, at appropriate timing.

[Kathianne]

I think that the situation in Turkey is not related to those other places at all, and each case should be looked at alone. I think ultimately there are likely other places we could reduce/withdraw from. But to make a blanket removal of all, wouldn't be wise.

If that is the case, for example, which would be the top 5/10 places would you say, and your reasoning for leaving? I don't think 'because we left northern syria' is the answer to any of them. Myself, I think Afghanistan and Iraq should be next, at appropriate timing.
So the problem is Turkey, not how long the wars in the Middle East have taken? That sure isn't what the President seemed to be saying today.

There has to be a policy that is cogent, that can be understood.

It seems like yesterday that the cheer was destruction of the Caliphate and today the cheers are for getting out of Syria, with ISIS near sure to be resurrected. So confusing.

[Kathianne]

It does seem like our President has accepted Turkey's claim that the Kurds really are worse than ISIS, which is why Turkey dislikes Kurds more than ISIS. Not that they like ISIS, but they really hate Kurds.

[Kathianne]

Notice the date. Now he talks about how the Kurds are no angels, maybe worse than ISIS. I guess he really thought Erdogan was a good guy? Well it does seem like Erdogan knows how to come out on top. https://twitter.com/trish_regan/status/1184559361638748161

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EHBmdVLW4AIk3IT?format=jpg&name=medium

[pete311]

Notice the date. Now he talks about how the Kurds are no angels, maybe worse than ISIS. I guess he really thought Erdogan was a good guy? Well it does seem like Erdogan knows how to come out on top. https://twitter.com/trish_regan/status/1184559361638748161



Trump has no clue. This 4th grade level letter is another total embarrassment. Written like a total buffoon with no ideas or experience. Putin, Assad, Un, and Erdogan have no respect for Trump and we're all being played. Our foreign policy is in shambles.

[Kathianne]

White House has now released the letter.

Is this actually an admission that he really thought Erdogan would not do what even I knew he would? I mean really? I have nothing going for me but a bit of courses and commonsense. I certainly don't have angry generals and concerned long time state department experts telling me not to trust this guy.

If that's the truth though, with a bit of 'learned that lesson' ala JFK and Bay of Pigs, not a problem.

[jimnyc]

So the problem is Turkey, not how long the wars in the Middle East have taken? That sure isn't what the President seemed to be saying today.

There has to be a policy that is cogent, that can be understood.

It seems like yesterday that the cheer was destruction of the Caliphate and today the cheers are for getting out of Syria, with ISIS near sure to be resurrected. So confusing.

You know there are a lot of other issues and subjects going on around the world, don't you? You seem 'stuck on Turkey' and whenever anyone talks about alternatives and consequences, or what if's about potential war with Turkey.... You don't want to entertain alternatives or whether we should have risked war with Turkey. Then, just over Turkey, you act like the sky is falling, and as a result we should bring home every troop we have abroad and cut our defense budget to nothing and letting China and Russia rule us somehow or another. Not sure why Trump's decision in one place has you so affected universally and what we should instantly do around the world with everything else.

[Kathianne]

You know there are a lot of other issues and subjects going on around the world, don't you? You seem 'stuck on Turkey' and whenever anyone talks about alternatives and consequences, or what if's about potential war with Turkey.... You don't want to entertain alternatives or whether we should have risked war with Turkey. Then, just over Turkey, you act like the sky is falling, and as a result we should bring home every troop we have abroad and cut our defense budget to nothing and letting China and Russia rule us somehow or another. Not sure why Trump's decision in one place has you so affected universally and what we should instantly do around the world with everything else.

The sky is not falling, but US reputation is, to both friend and foe. I surely wouldn't be harping so, if those who think he's just short of JC, (he'd disagree), would admit that this has been a real loss. If he would admit to a big mistake, that he'd never be caught in again, all would move on. Deal with the fallout and get on with it.

[jimnyc]

Just an opinion piece, nothing more.


Trump is right: Nothing good can come from our continued presence in Syria

While most of Washington was watching the hometown team get thumped by the visiting Dodgers on Sunday night, the White House announced that it was pulling military forces from the Syria-Turkey border. The unexpected news was followed by President Trump tweeting that “it is time for us to get out of these ridiculous Endless Wars, many of them tribal, and bring our soldiers home.” He also added that “Turkey, Europe, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Russia and the Kurds will now have to figure the situation out.”

Almost instantly, the foreign policy establishment had a collective bed-wetting at the thought of militarily disengaging from a small piece of territory in faraway northeast Syria. From South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham on the Right to Hillary Clinton on the Left, the criticism rained down on the president. Unfortunately, this widespread reaction against the pullback says a lot more about the stale groupthink of these mandarins than the wisdom of the policy. They simply lack imagination about how it could be to our advantage in this case to “buckpass” to others while steering clear of extended commitments.

Trump, on the other hand, is right to pull back our troops from the Syrian-Turkish border. It is not in our national interest to have a small U.S. force in the middle of a long-running dispute between our NATO ally Turkey and various Kurdish groups in Syria. At the very least, a pullback is warranted.

But consistent with past promises to the American people, Trump shouldn’t be afraid to withdraw all U.S. troops from Syria. Remaining any longer simply isn’t necessary for our safety or prosperity. We were in Syria for a very limited reason: to eliminate ISIS’s territorial caliphate. We have satisfied that goal and can rely on the self-interest of local forces and long-range strike capabilities to deal with any lingering threats from ISIS.

To keep American troops in Syria is only to invite trouble. A particularly dangerous possibility involves an unnecessary war with Iranian proxies. Our continued presence also risks further entanglement in regional politics, where there are few white hats and many gray ones. One of the latter — Turkey — is actually our formal ally, while some of the Kurdish groups we have relied upon are not ideal partners. One even adheres to a communist ideology and has engaged in terrorism to advance their goals.

Rest - https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/trump-is-right-nothing-good-can-come-from-our-continued-presence-in-syria

[Kathianne]

jimnyc you got me thinking about how many posts today, 30 were on Turkey or related; 27 on other things. Of those 30, more than a few were responses on said threads about 'obsession' and 'attitude.' Considering it's the top story of the day, not so obsessive. ;)

[Kathianne]

An opinion piece that comes close to reflecting my opinion:

https://www.militarytimes.com/opinion/2019/10/16/another-former-centcom-general-weighs-in-with-displeasure-over-trumps-syria-gambit/#.Xad7Jm3P4DY.twitter


One after another, the commanders who oversaw this nation’s battles in the Middle East have expressed their distaste for the way that President Donald Trump has handled the long-threatened Turkish invasion of Syria.


Some, like Joseph Votel, the former leader of U.S. Central Command, have been publicly vocal about what he sees as a betrayal of the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, a key partner in ending the Islamic State caliphate in Syria.


Votel, who co-authored a much more detailed piece in the Atlantic, told me he was “disappointed in this policy decision" and that there “was a lot of work undertaken to avoid a decision like this. The SDF have been exceptional partners and we would have not been successful against ISIS in Syria without them. They absorbed nearly 11,000 casualties in that fight. I am concerned what this might mean for future partnerships.”


Others have expressed to me in private similar concerns, ranging from our nation’s credibility to Turkish brutality.


Earlier this week, another former CENTCOM general officer sat down with me to talk about his concerns. Those concerns are deep and they are troubling and they come from a man who, like all the others I have spoken with, is not a social justice warrior or “Never Trumper” type.




“What we are seeing in Syria is probably one of the poorest, most uninformed, even arrogant policy decisions I’ve seen by any administration in the last 30 years, and specifically involving this region of the world,” said that retired general officer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.


“This one seems so arbitrary, so capricious, so uninformed,” he said.


The retired general officer blamed it on Trump dismissing advice and relying instead on his gut instincts.


Sometimes that works, he said, applauding some of Trump’s earlier decisions in Syria.


“The series of precision strikes on sites we believed held chemical weapons on it, an airfield with Russian citizens present, was not something the previous administration would even consider,” he said. “But it stopped the use of chemical weapons.”


But this time, Trump’s gut has needlessly inflamed the region and devastated the Kurds, he said.




The SDF “was doing an incredible job as an economy of force on behalf of the coalition,” he said, “first in the destruction of ISIS, and then actually in control so they made sure you didn’t have an ISIS resurrection.”


He paused for a second or two.


“We have lost the ability to do that,” he said, before asking questions of his own.


“Who in that region is going to ensure we don’t have a return of ISIS?” he asked, both ruefully and rhetorically. “Do you think the Kurds will do that on their own?”


The retired general officer quickly answered his own questions.


“I think we’ve lost them and I think in doing so, we may have given an opening to ISIS or some other radical Sunni violent extremist element to raise its head,” he said.




On Wednesday, Trump doubled down on his gambit. Not only are U.S. troops in Syria “totally safe” thanks to his “strategically brilliant” moves to pull back American assets in recent days, but America’s national security is unaffected.


“They have a problem at the border,” the president said at an oval office event. “It’s not our border. We shouldn’t be losing lives over it.”


A day earlier, the retired general officer said there was indeed a U.S. national security interest in supporting the Kurds because this is a region where “the guy that dominates the population is the guy that has the most guns.”


Support for a regional partner like the Kurds “has nothing to do with politics,” he said. “This is a national security issue.”


“There was bound to be something that wasn’t destroyed, burned or taken out,” he said, adding that he is also concerned about the potential spillover of sensitive tradecraft or information from the Kurds to their new partners, the Russians and Syrian regime forces.


Far from being a proponent of endless U.S. troop presence in the CENTCOM region, the retired general officer said there are a lot of reasons to scale back significantly in the region. Afghanistan, for instance, costs an estimated $50 billion a year in treasure and, so far this year, 17 U.S. troop deaths.


From a financial standpoint, U.S. support for the SDF has come at a mere fraction of the human and monetary costs of Afghanistan.


“This had been in our self-interest for national security,” he said of support for the SDF. “We owe that to our people.”


There is another issue, too, said the retired general officer.


“It’s the moral part,” he said, echoing the deep sense of personal loss felt by many, but certainly not all, military personnel who have worked with the Kurds. (Others I’ve talked to say there is never a good time to leave, but it was time to leave).


“This is not the first time, or the second time we have abandoned the Kurds,” he said. “It is at least the third time that we have walked away from the Kurds as an ally in that region. I think it will be many generations before anyone is willing to trust an American in uniform there. We said, ‘I’m here to protect you. And we should fight together.’ That piece is the most painful to me.”


Asked what he would say to his former Kurdish counterparts, the retired general officer offered this:


“The first words out of my mouth would be a pretty humble apology,” he said. “Like any good American, you want to leave the people you are fighting with something uplifting. Carry on. But how do you do that when you know you are going to stand them up against a massive military force like Turkey?”

[icansayit]

That MILITARY TIMES rag, is not supported by, or endorsed by the U.S.Military. It is, and has been a known, leftist looking propaganda machine...coming from 'FORMER MILITARY", unhappy, Trump Hating members who DO NOT REPRESENT ALL OF OUR MILITARY.

FORMER MEMBERS of the Military...from the Dept. of Defense, and in the Pentagon...ARE FORMER for a reason.
Many of them worshipped OBAMA. The same man who got rid of...197 Flag Officers.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/197-military-officers-purged-by-obama/


https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/18/president-obama-wary-of-generals-admirals-commandi/

https://www.militarytimes.com/

At the bottom of the Military Times page is this 'disclaimer' https://www.militarytimes.com © 2019 Sightline Media Group
Not A U.S. Government Publication

[Kathianne]

White House has now released the letter.

Is this actually an admission that he really thought Erdogan would not do what even I knew he would? I mean really? I have nothing going for me but a bit of courses and commonsense. I certainly don't have angry generals and concerned long time state department experts telling me not to trust this guy.

If that's the truth though, with a bit of 'learned that lesson' ala JFK and Bay of Pigs, not a problem.

FOX reports that Erdogan claims to have trashed the letter:

https://www.foxnews.com/world/erdogan-trump-fool-letter-bin-trash

[Kathianne]

Might be nothing, might be something:

https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2019/10/us-literally-doesnt-know-how-many-isis-fighters-have-escaped-syria/160645/




“We just have less eyes on the ground to know for sure what is happening,” said one senior defense official.
For the better part of a year, Defense and State Department officials have been issuing dire warnings (https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2019/10/trumps-snap-decision-syria-kindles-new-fear-isis-prison-breaks/160434/) about the risk that thousands of captured ISIS fighters could escape from a network of makeshift prisons dotted across rebel-held territory in northern and eastern Syria.
Now, as the United States carries out a sudden and unplanned withdrawal from the country, senior officials across government say that the U.S. has no real idea how many fighters have already escaped amid the fierce fighting between Turkey and Kurdish fighters that Washington previously backed in the fight against ISIS.
“Nobody does,” a senior government official involved in the issue told Defense One.
The fear is that large-scale breakouts will allow ISIS, which survives in sleeper cells hidden among the population in Iraq and Syria, will be able to reconstitute itself with the return of experienced fighters to the battlefield. Last month, ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi ordered (https://www.wsj.com/articles/islamic-state-releases-purported-audio-message-from-leader-baghdadi-11568670466) his followers to accelerate efforts to free fighters.

[STTAB]

No answer to that. My question to all those who agree with the too long wars, Middle East is a yawn. When do we get out of Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, troops in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Oman, etc. Shouldn't it be total, not just a freaking 28 that were just moved or the special ops that weren't? Get the freaking planes and get them the hell out.


I believe Trump would like to get completely the hell out of the ME, but how can he Kath? That's a serious question, his own fucking party shit their pants and publicly trashed him for moving 50 guys out of northern Syria, can you imagine the uproar if he said "We're out of Aghanistan, and that's from his own party, you of course know how the Democrats would react "This jeopardizes our national security!!" X 1000.

And as I've been trying to tell you this is the REAL reason the Deep State hates Trump and have been trying to get him out of office since he won the election . There are a lot of people making a lot of money by keeping us in perpetual war. Those people OWN Washington DC. Yes, in theory Trump in the CinC and could just start issuing orders and relieving flag officers of their commands if they didn't follow through, but in reality it's not that simple.

[jimnyc]

Yes, Trump Is Right to Withdraw from Syria and Let Turkey Deal With the PKK

When Donald Trump ran for president, he made it clear that he wanted to end "Endless Wars." He wanted to bring American troops home and opposed the very notion of American Empire.

Strangely, now that he's doing what he promised on the campaign trail, political insiders are all upset. How can he withdraw from Syria? The Kurds! They are being abandoned! The U.S. should have stayed to "protect" them, these analysts and politicians argue. For how long? Well, that's a question they'd rather not answer.

Trump is right to withdraw the troops from Syria. They were there to defeat ISIS. That mission has been accomplished. It is not America's job to remake the Middle East -- to give this or that people their own nation-state, and then to protect them for, well, the rest of time. America's foreign policy should be aimed at protecting its own interests. Those interests have been taken care of. Now it's time to withdraw and let people in the Middle East decide their own future (and present).

What's more, the "allies" Trump supposedly turned "his back on" are actually members of an internationally recognized terrorist organization. The PKK and its affiliated branches -- all those "Kurdish groups" in Syria are branches of the PKK -- have been responsible for many thousands, even tens of thousands of deaths. Turkish members of the security forces and Turkish civilians have been murdered by these Marxist-Leninist thugs.

The International Crisis Group is keeping track of the death toll in "the conflict" between Turkey and the PKK. The numbers speak for themselves. The PKK -- constantly referred to as simply "the Kurds" by their fanboys in the West -- is one of the most deadly and destructive terror organizations in the world. Just look at this while keeping in mind that TAK is the PKK branch responsible for terrorism in the western part of Turkey:


While the bulk of the PKK conflict has remained highly localised in the country’s majority Kurdish south east, since January 2016 violence has increasingly spread to the west of Turkey. Two bombings by TAK struck Ankara on 17 February and 13 March 2016, killing a total of 38 civilians and 28 security officials. A TAK suicide bomber also detonated herself outside of the Great Mosque in Bursa, a city in north west Turkey, injuring thirteen on 27 April. This was followed by a May 2016 attack in Istanbul’s Sancaktepe district that narrowly missed a bus full of police. TAK also claimed responsibility for a car bomb attack on a police bus on 7 June in central Vezneciler district of Istanbul killing seven police officers and four civilians.

And:


Between 1 February and 19 July 2016, of the 312 security force members killed, 150 were victims of improvised explosive device (IED) attacks (48 per cent), while in the four months prior (October 2015-January 2016) of the total of 115 security force deaths, 33 were from IED attacks (29 per cent). This suggests the PKK is engaging in more high-profile attacks, killing more security forces with single IED attacks, which has resulted in an increase in monthly security force casualties since March 2016 (a daily average of 1.8 between March 2016 and June 2016; compared to a daily average of 1.3 between November 2015 and February 2016).

Rest - https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/yes-trump-is-right-to-withdraw-from-syria-and-let-turkey-deal-with-the-pkk/


This one can go in many ways. Many folks with many positions in many areas. One size doesn't fit all.

Trump Blasts Democrats: They Always Opposed Endless Wars Until I Withdrew from Syria

It's truly amazing to see how passionately Democrats are suddenly supporting the idea of American Empire: a worldwide presence of U.S. troops, with a focus on the Middle East. For decades, Democrats said they opposed endless wars, but from the very moment Trump became president the party's leaders have become more hawkish than George W. Bush (of all people).

President Trump has noticed this too. "I am the only person who can fight for the safety of our troops & bring them home from the ridiculous & costly Endless Wars, and be scorned," he writes on Twitter. "Democrats always liked that position, until I took it. Democrats always liked Walls, until I built them. Do you see what's happening here?"


I am the only person who can fight for the safety of our troops & bring them home from the ridiculous & costly Endless Wars, and be scorned. Democrats always liked that position, until I took it. Democrats always liked Walls, until I built them. Do you see what’s happening here?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 17, 2019

Rest - https://pjmedia.com/trending/trump-blasts-democrats-democrats-always-opposed-endless-wars-until-i-withdrew-syria/

[jimnyc]

Pence and Pompeo Secure Cease-Fire Agreement Between Kurds and Turkey

On Thursday afternoon, Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced they have reached a cease-fire agreement between Turkey and Kurds, following a meeting with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.


VP Pence: "I know the president is very grateful for President Erdogan's willingness to step forward to enact this cease fire & to give an opportunity for a peaceful solution of this conflict that commenced one week ago. For my part, I'm grateful for the president's leadership." pic.twitter.com/1oSAIHUZhr

— The Hill (@thehill) October 17, 2019

"It will be a pause in military operation for 120 hours, while the United States facilitates the withdrawal of YPG (the People's Protection Units) from the affected areas in the safe zone. And once that is completed, Turkey has agreed to a permanent ceasefire and the United States of America will work with Turkey — will work with nations around the world — to make sure peace and stability are the order of the day in this safe zone," Pence said during a press conference.

The significance of this agreement should not be understated. Prior to this announcement, Politico was dismissing the possibility of diplomatic progress as "impossible."


From the outset, the mission had long odds.

President Donald Trump dispatched Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo here to the Turkish capital to try to persuade Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to reverse his assault on northeastern Syria — an assault Trump himself conceded was a long time coming.

But when they landed Thursday afternoon to the news that the Turkish premier tossed a letter from Trump in the trash, the task seemed to border on impossible.

Rest - https://pjmedia.com/trending/pence-and-pompeo-secure-cease-fire-agreement-between-kurds-and-turkey/

[LongTermGuy]

Pence and Pompeo Secure Cease-Fire Agreement Between Kurds and Turkey

On Thursday afternoon, Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced they have reached a cease-fire agreement between Turkey and Kurds, following a meeting with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.



"It will be a pause in military operation for 120 hours, while the United States facilitates the withdrawal of YPG (the People's Protection Units) from the affected areas in the safe zone. And once that is completed, Turkey has agreed to a permanent ceasefire and the United States of America will work with Turkey — will work with nations around the world — to make sure peace and stability are the order of the day in this safe zone," Pence said during a press conference.

The significance of this agreement should not be understated. Prior to this announcement, Politico was dismissing the possibility of diplomatic progress as "impossible."



Rest - https://pjmedia.com/trending/pence-and-pompeo-secure-cease-fire-agreement-between-kurds-and-turkey/


​Oh No!!! Bad news for the Trump haters and Never TRUMPERS!

[pete311]

The arsonist puts out the fire. Hurrah! Except Turkey has gotten everything it always wanted. Did you guys even read the loose agreement?

[jimnyc]

The arsonist puts out the fire. Hurrah! Except Turkey has gotten everything it always wanted. Did you guys even read the loose agreement?

As you did to me in another thread and brought up a past presidency.... I did a cursory search to see where you stood on issues with the Kurds while Obama was in office, you know, since you said you cared and all. The level of concern is a bit different, as in crickets.

[pete311]

Letter to him from @POTUS (https://twitter.com/POTUS)
"was not in line with diplomatic and political courtesy. We will not forget this lack of respect. This is not a priority for us. But when the time comes we would like it to be known that we will take the necessary steps," says @RTErdogan (https://twitter.com/RTErdogan)
.

[Kathianne]

White House has now released the letter.

Is this actually an admission that he really thought Erdogan would not do what even I knew he would? I mean really? I have nothing going for me but a bit of courses and commonsense. I certainly don't have angry generals and concerned long time state department experts telling me not to trust this guy.

If that's the truth though, with a bit of 'learned that lesson' ala JFK and Bay of Pigs, not a problem.


Erdogan is still complaining, along with much of Turkish diplomats. That takes balls, considering he got everything he wanted:

https://hotair.com/archives/allahpundit/2019/10/18/erdogan-trump-wont-forget-discourteous-letter-sent/