Notice that the oldest story is, "A Strategy of Retreat in Syria, With Echoes of Obama." Trump is like Obama. This isn't necessarily pro-Trump, since it suggests that Trump is betraying his own supporters and going back on some position he's emphasized in the past, but for pro-Obama readers, the feeling may be that Obama is vindicated — and perhaps a little relief that the Obama position was right and Trump is endorsing it, not doing anything disturbing, just seeing the best answer and going to the same place. Excerpt:
[E]ven Mr. Trump’s biggest critics, the Democrats, will have a hard time going after him on this decision. Mr. Trump’s view that American forces cannot alter the strategic balance in the Middle East, and should not be there, was fundamentally shared by his immediate predecessor, Barack Obama. It was Mr. Obama who, at almost the exact same moment in his presidency, announced the removal of America’s last troops in Iraq — fulfilling a campaign promise.The other story at the bottom and the story over to the left went up 10 hours ago. These get much rougher on Trump: "U.S. Exit Seen as a Betrayal of the Kurds, and a Boon for ISIS" and — from the Board of Editors and with a crude illustration — "Trump’s Decision to Withdraw From Syria Is Alarming. Just Ask His Advisers/This isn’t the first time the president and his administration have sent mixed messages." The similarity between Trump's judgment and Obama's is out of the picture, the stress is on the better judgment of Trump's military advisers, and the Editors waft the most sinister motivation:
Mr. Obama’s strategy — rely on local partners on the ground, use American air power when necessary to defend American interests and celebrate a return of American troops for the holidays — sounds a lot like discussions inside Mr. Trump’s White House over the past several days. Which is exactly what grates on some of the more hawkish Republicans in Congress.
It’s hard not to wonder whether Mr. Trump is once again announcing a dramatic step as a way of deflecting attention from bad news, in this case a torrent of legal judgments that are tightening the legal noose around him. That would be the worst rationale for a commander in chief sworn to protect the nation and to honor the men and women who serve in uniform.Well, not the most sinister motivation. The most sinister motivation would be that Trump is Putin's puppet, that he's acting for the benefit our enemy, the Russians.
And look at the newest story, which went up 10 minutes ago. In the upper left corner, "Vladimir Putin Welcomes U.S. Withdrawal From Syria." It's quite short, but it's the top story at the NYT right now:
President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia on Thursday welcomed President Trump’s announcement of a withdrawal of American troops from Syria, calling it “the right decision.”... Speaking at his annual news conference, which typically runs for several hours, Mr. Putin said he broadly agreed that the Islamic State had been defeated in Syria. “Donald’s right, and I agree with him,” Mr. Putin said....From the comments already collecting on that article: "Hey Trump: you're the puppet"/"Of course Mr. Putin welcomes it. He probably told Donald to do it"/"Of course he did...."
The photograph at the center of all this shows Putin — on stage and, vastly enlarged, on 2 video screens. It looks creepy and ominous, and the captions is "'Donald’s right, and I agree with him,' President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia said of President Trump’s decision to withdraw American forces from Syria."
পোস্টগুলি
১০৮টি মন্তব্য:
Trump could do it because he had more flexibility after the election.
Unwag the dog.
"announced the removal of America’s last troops in Iraq" . . . with Biden proclaiming our great success there.
What will sell the most papers, or generate the most clicks, or both, for the rabid anti-Trumpers that make up most of the the Times' clientele.
The EXACT SAME PEOPLE that were praising O'Bama for running away from Iraq, are now Condemning Trump for leaving Syria. Ask yourself; what would a LLR say if their butt buddy O'Bama declared Peace in Syria?
If Trump's doing this to distract people, it seems Way people than being like a Democrat and Starting a war. like Ralph L said... Unwag the dog
I'm getting dizzy from all the flip-flopping by the politicians and press.
The narrative is fixed and the news plugs in.
The NYT is satisfied to let Russia determine US foreign policy. All Putin has to do is say he's for something and the Times will demand Trump be against it.
Analysis is hard. This is easier.
I've lost track of who's fighting whom, but 2,000 infantrymen sounds more like a tripwire--or a target, as in Beirut--than enough to affect the outcome. Is there any side that's worth us fighting and dying for?
The 1980s called to demand you stop using their policy as a political narrative.
rhhardin said...
The narrative is fixed and the news plugs in
Yes.
I don't know what's right and what's wrong, but I remember Obama talking about how Vlad would eventually realize it wasn't in his interest to bomb Syria.
Obama was such a bad foreign policy President. The NYT didn't care.
I've stopped caring. We're going to be ok.
I think they're beta-testing a new strategy for the Middle East, the road not taken in Afghanistan:
1) Go in on small scale: Special ops forces, maybe some Marines, plus airpower
2) Kill the hell out of some really bad guys
3) Leave, adding over our shoulder, "Don't make us come back, now."
3) being the alternative to, Stay until the end of time, or until the place is modern Germany/Japan, whichever comes first, adding new conditions that must be met before we can truly make the original mission (which was 2 all along) count.
I don't know. Maybe this is a mistake. Maybe it's a great call. But I honestly don't remember any public debate over deploying a couple of thousand people to a war zone in Syria (did I just miss that? I'm usually pretty up to speed on current events), nor any announcement that it was about to happen. Just an incremental acknowledgment that, of course, we were already there.
Life goes in full circle.
Back in the 50s, when I was a kid, there was a Russian under every bed.
Remember... back in the days of the USSR, the left constantly scolded us that detente and compromise was the only alternative, because nuclear weapons.
The NYT actually prides itself on having become a Fun House Mirror.
Evidence suggests that the Islamic State isn't quite dead and that President Trump's withdrawal of troops from Syria is probably some four weeks or so premature, pending clearing of the last of the Hajin pocket.
But that's too nuanced a narrative for Orange Man Bad!
There are 2,000 Special Forces men( no women on this gig) who are acting as laison with the front line forces they have trained and being the Recon forward spotters for American air power. If removing those men allows the USA to better cooperate with the Turks, Saudis and Russian forces operating in that area of Syria, then why is the CIA going out of its mind about losing its control over their continuous war strategy?
Note: Netanyahu is not worried. Maybe he also sees a better result will come from a move to a Turk/Saudi/Israeli cooalition force being formed to shut down Iran's strategic moves in Syria and being backed by the USA with our SpaceForce and Airforce and Naval Aviation assets.
Anyone who reads the NYT deserves to be manipulated.
I'm looking for the article about how Trump's retreat will sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids. Then, I'll know it's serious.
The New York Times has always been a champion of the Warfare State.
Ralph L. @ 7:48 AM -- Touche!
"The narrative is fixed and the news plugs in."
No kidding.
I fail to see a clear US policy on the use of the US military around the globe. Since Korea I guess. Scatter shot. Here, there, where ever. Never a core tenet as to when, where and how. I'm neutral on this. My core tenet as a citizen is go back to the constitution.
In that, I find the President is the CIC and is exercising that power.
From the long view, you can say this is a big mistake, maybe it is. But President Trump can make another decision and re-engage if that is what is called for. My biggest bitch is the Rules of engagement. Those are political constraints and put our soldiers at risk. If we are going to deploy the military, let them utilize their training, skills, and assets. In short, kill people and break things.
All the rest of this the media inventing conflict where little exists. This is a minor blip in the world stage and means little to Americans. The 24 news channels have to talk about something. Today, Syria is something
Whose tail? Whose dog?
Did Trump do it?
It's wrong.
Trump didn't do it?
He should have.
Did something happen?
It vindicates Obama.
Something didn't happen?
Obama was right!
Per iowan2: My biggest bitch is the Rules of engagement. Those are political constraints and put our soldiers at risk. If we are going to deploy the military, let them utilize their training, skills, and assets. In short, kill people and break things.
Precisely! Our willingness or unwillingness to do that should be the criterion whereon we launch an operation to begin with. A criterion that would have kept us out of most of our senseless military involvements [can't call them 'wars'] for the past eighty years.
It’s great that we’re withdrawing. It’s likely that only a Republican would’ve been able to do it, because Republicans would never accept withdrawl from a Democrat who was in charge. I’m also happy that so many people are changing their minds about W. Bush and nation building.
The consensus is that It's the right move at the wrong time for suspect reasons. In the grand scheme of things, it another nothing burgers
This instance continues to highlight how dangerously effective our fake and biased news media is. That after two years people seriously think trump is some sort of stooge for Putin is absolute lunacy. Those people should never be allowed to drive a car, let alone vote.
Puzzling.
Everyone commenting on the pros/cons of the Syrian withdrawal without a clue of what is actually going on there. There has been virtually no reporting. If there were, odds are it would be propaganda/fake news. We are all left to speculate.
There is no correlation between Syria/Stormy Daniels--Mueller, so it cannot be that important. In the other hand, the silence of Taylor Swift is deafening.
Future News: White helmets report Assad gassed his own people again;just for the fun of it. U.S. pressured to renew bombing campaign.
Not sure how it costs to keep 2k combat troops deployed in a foreign country. But, Trump said the military will build the wall. Looks like he just found some of the $5 billion extra he needs.
I have a hard time believing that trump is going against all his military advisors. And eve if some of those advisors disagreed with trump, they wouldn’t go on record as being against the decision.
People who are in a position close to the president don’t stay in that position long if they blab to all and sundry: people who blab, are not in a position that affects anything. Advisors who blab aren’t advisors any more.
In the grand scheme of things, it another nothing burgers
It's the thought that counts.
I’m also for smoke and mirrors: tell people you are withdrawing right now and then don’t. This may be a case of using the mainstream us media as a channel for misinformation (the American people’s thoughts on this situation don’t really matter, but the way our enemies are informed and react - not in words but actions - is what counts).
The data points are confusing and contradictory. My guiding principle is that anything that anyone can do in the Middle East is absolutely the wrong thing and makes matters worse. The left has a variation of this theory which holds that anything Trump does anywhere at any type me is wrong. In confusing times, it's a comfort to have these fixed principles to guide us through the stormy nights.......I hope care is taken that the Kurds don't get screwed over.
The good news - the French have decided to stay assuring all troops that croissants and cafe au lait will continue to be served. Whew.
NPR was suddenly in favor of American imperialism this morning.
Trump is boycotting Ann Coulter. So sad.
Hey GOP Congress, you want war in Syria; like the power of the purse, you have the power to declare war. How about you stay in DC and get to it, if that's what you think should be done.
[E]ven Mr. Trump’s biggest critics, the Democrats, will have a hard time going after him on this decision.
Thankfully they don't have to worry because the NYT will do it for them.
Since the 9th Circuit hasn't stepped in, I'll assume Democrats are in agreement with Trump.
here is the narrative:
Trump has announced he will do X. That is totally bad policy. IT is not what he promised his base and his base is feeling Y. Mr. Z, respected commentator and politician, states that doing X will lead to disaster for the US.
All B.S.
If NancyBoy Graham and others want to be involved in the war in Syria, give them a gun and a ride.
1) Those 2000 troops were the last best hope for peace in the Middle East. Now we have no chance.
2) Those 2000 troops need to stay in order to finish the fight against 5,000 ISIS fighters holed up in one small town, or else the whole fight will be lost.
3) Those 2000 troops were the only thing keeping the Kurds alive against the dictator Assad.
I find the first 2 false. The 3rd is debatable, but unless we are willing to fight and kill Assad and Turks, there is a limit to how much protection we can provide the Kurds. And of course, if the remaining ISIS fighters are killed, then what? Do we still stay to protect the Kurds?
This is a stepping stone to a bigger policy shift. We will start packing up and leaving Afghanistan after the new year. Trump patiently gave Mattis a chance to prove the old strategy can work, but it hasn't. It's time to leave. This will really piss off Kristol and the neo-cons.
If anyone compares the foreign policies of Trump, Obama, Bush II, and Clinton what they will see is not sharp partisan differences based on different political philosophies but a startling continuity and consensus. Beginning with Clinton, all have been transfixed by all the sole superpower, hegemonic, unipolar twaddle. And this has led the US into one stupid, counterproductive war after another. First in the Balkans and then in the Middle East.
The US was giddy about the Syrian Civil War because it saw it as an opportunity to bring Assad down and thus strike a blow against the Iranians. Our monomaniacal obsession with Iran and the constant exaggerating of and hyperventilating over the Iranian threat has similarly led us to support horrible policies (e.g. Saudi war on Yemen).
Trump hasn't started a new war yet Farmer.
@Howard:
Trump hasn't started a new war yet Farmer.
True. And up until the withdrawal announcement, it was looking like the US was gearing up for a new, indefinite war in Syria. Trump finally pushing back against the national security state is a good sign and a hopeful one. But also, when "not starting new wars" is the bar, it should be a signal to how far down the rabbit hole we have gone. It's also worth remembering that Obama had not started any new wars in his first two years as well.
It's all about changing the news cycle, kiddies. Trump's tired of hearing Foxheads talk about Cohen, Flynn, the Trump Foundation, and his own Great Big Borderwall Surrender to Nancy Pelosi. He even has unfollowed Ann Coulter!
wonder if he'll announce it when he "changes his mind" on Syria and does nothing.
President Trump is simply making good on one of his campaign promises. To put an end to the endless wars in the Mideast where we spend our blood and treasure for basically nothing. These shithole countries will never improve. The only thing we can do is isolate them and keep their horde of filthy destructive scum in their home countries where they can only do damage to each other.
The power players like Saudi Arabia and Israel are working together. It is their neighborhood. Let them sort it out. We are not the worlds policeman. Those days are over.
TML code:
Flashback 2016: Secretary of State John Kerry Admits President Obama Intentionally Armed ISIS in Syria…
“Well, not the most sinister motivation. The most sinister motivation would be that Trump is Putin's puppet, that he's acting for the benefit our enemy, the Russians.”
Might be sinister, might also be true.
I remember the heady days when President Obama asked Congress for a declaration of war in Syria. I remember the strong support of the American Left for arming ISIS to fight Assad.
Royal ass Inga cheered Obama's war declaration.
/AltHistory
If we're going to have a war, let's have a war.
"Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory, and our interests are in grave danger.
With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph — so help us God.
I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7th, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese empire."
Let's do it old school, identify the enemy, declare war, rules of engagement that do not end up with your troops being bound up in law fare for doing their job, and apply the cruel calculus of victory that has been known since the Napoleonic Wars (30% casualties of military aged males of the enemy). Otherwise I endorse JPS at 8:05
"It’s great that we’re withdrawing. It’s likely that only a Republican would’ve been able to do it, because Republicans would never accept withdrawl from a Democrat who was in charge. I’m also happy that so many people are changing their minds about W. Bush and nation building."
Our "nation building" is never about nation building (or about "defending" ourselves). It's about asserting our dominance in the region in question, or smacking down someone who is thwarting our intention in the region.
It will be great if and when we withdraw from Syria. It would be greater if we withdraw our troops from the Mid-east entirely.
“....I hope care is taken that the Kurds don't get screwed over.”
Too late. Erdogan says the Kurds are terrorists, it seems Trump believes him.
No, of course Afghanistan had to have some development this is in part why the Taliban arose and it is part of counterinsurgency (preventive behavior)
@Gordon Pasha:
Let's do it old school, identify the enemy, declare war, rules of engagement that do not end up with your troops being bound up in law fare for doing their job, and apply the cruel calculus of victory that has been known since the Napoleonic Wars (30% casualties of military aged males of the enemy)
This highlights the difficulties in using the war analogy against non-state actors. Who precisely is the enemy? How will we know when it's been defeated? Since there is no sovereign who can bind a territory through an armistice, cease-fire, or peace treaty, how does the conflict come to an end?
Troops should never have been there in the first place. I thought Obama made a big mistake getting involved in Syria, and made a mistake staying in Afghanistan. Trump has, to date, made the same mistakes, but seems ready to fix one of them.
When wars are fought on the basis of political opinion, using political strategies while ignoring winning is exactly why wars are nothing but human sacrifices and economic catastrophes. No country has "won" a declared war since WWII. On the other hand, secret wars such as the Russian attacks on our elections and our way of life are the real dangers today.
Trump is getting out of Syria because Putin, MBS and Erdoğan want us out of the way - and additionally, our low IQ president is looking for security funds to spend on The Wall.
@Yancey Ward:
Agreed. I think Trump has some decent instincts on Afghanistan (i.e. wanting to get out) but has been far too ready to concede to "the generals" and the national security state, in general. Withdrawing troops from Syria and Afghanistan will be good moves for US foreign policy in the region. It's a shame, though, that Trump appears to be captured by the Iran hawks and all their incoherence and histrionics. The "maximum pressure" campaign in order to obtain a "better deal" is shaping up to fall flat on its face.
The best argument left for intervention in the Muslim world is that it has (mostly) kept the evil-doers killing each other over there and not in the West since 2001.
We tried promoting stability for decades because The Spice Must Flo--and became targets.
If one were really serious about defeating ISIS, the way to do it during the Obama Administration would have been to support the Syrian government, not create and support even more opposition to it. ISIS might have been defeated before the 2016 election had that been done. This American penchant for overturning governments, or trying to, in the Middle East is just fucking stupid and immoral. How many people have to die?
Anybody who does not do the opposite of what Lyndsay Graham wants, w/rt foreign affairs, is a moron.
Name the foreign policy successes of that pro-war (Bill Kristol neocons) faction.
Yancey Ward,
The Obama Administration believed the way to defeat ISIS was to deliver weapons to ISIS.
John Kerry said so on tape.
Henry said...
I'm looking for the article about how Trump's retreat will sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids. Then, I'll know it's serious.
you DO Know what those turks put in their coffee, don't you?
Ice Cream, Henry! Children's Ice Cream!
Robert Cook said: Our "nation building" is never about nation building (or about "defending" ourselves). It's about asserting our dominance in the region in question, or smacking down someone who is thwarting our intention in the region.
It's really about handing out billions to NGO's and contractors to build schools and roads and hospitals, etc. Money that could be spent to improve our own schools, roads, healthcare system. I know I sound like an old fashioned liberal, but if we're going to hand out billions of dollars let's at least spend it at home and not in some shithole country.
@FullMoon:
Flashback 2016: Secretary of State John Kerry Admits President Obama Intentionally Armed ISIS in Syria…
That is not what Kerry said. The US, foolishly still in my opinion, was arming fighters against Assad, including members of the Free Syrian Army (the US' preferred clients). This was always a foolish policy because there is no way of knowing that the weapons provided are going to so called "moderate" rebels or to more extremist factions. Critics of the strategy at the time were making this case. With the rise of ISIS, though, the US found itself in the absurd position of trying to fight ISIS and Assad at the same time.
Yeah, they accidentally armed ISIS.
They intentionally delivered weapons to anti-Assad forces...
...including ISIS.
When one has had despotic government for thousands of years, a culture isn't going to embrace Western norms imposed from the outside, so why do we insist on trying?
@Birkel:
Birkel said...
Yeah, they accidentally armed ISIS.
They intentionally delivered weapons to anti-Assad forces...
...including ISIS.
And were fighting ISIS at the same time. The entire policy was incoherent and schizophrenic. And we are repeating some of the same mistakes. In the name of fighting Iran, the US is providing weapons to Saudi Arabia that are ending up in the hands of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. As foolish a policy as I think this is, it still would not be accurate to say that Trump is intentionally arming AQAP. It's just the reality on the ground, which the US has very little ability to do much about it. Other than stopping the supply of weapons to Saudi Arabia.
@Yancey Ward:
When one has had despotic government for thousands of years, a culture isn't going to embrace Western norms imposed from the outside, so why do we insist on trying?
I don't think that is precisely what the US has tried to do. Even the so called "nation-building" under Iraq wasn't really nation-building; it was state-building (e.g. infrastructure, institutions, etc.). The problem with occupying a country and removing its government is that you are then tasked with having to put something in its place.
Amanda Peel returns. You go grrrrrrrl
Gadfly's point indicates Putin, Erdogan and MBS are going to go Midevil on Syria's ass.
@Howard:
Gadfly's point indicates Putin, Erdogan and MBS are going to go Midevil on Syria's ass.
What does that even mean?
If one were really serious about defeating ISIS, the way to do it during the Obama Administration would have been to support the Syrian government, not create and support even more opposition to it. ISIS might have been defeated before the 2016 election had that been done.
Exactly, Yancey! And Tulsi Gabbard, a Democrat [but one who has some common sense], argued against ousting Assad for that very reason. Which is worse, after all? Assad or ISIS? Again, we are making a fatal error when we oppose a leader just because Russia or Iran supports them. ISIS is an enemy of the entire region.
J Farmer wanted the U.S. out of foreign entanglements but somehow still isn't cheering the Trump decision to leave Syria.
Hard to square that circle.
Almost like J Farmer has a secondary agenda.
Smug away, smugster!
Inga: "Might be sinister, might also be true."
On another thread Inga was asserting without qualification that Putin controls Trump.
On this thread Inga merely posits that might be true.
This represents "blog growth" and is something of which LLR Chuck will heartily disapprove.
Get back on script Inga! Your "thinking" can only hurt the team.
@Birkel:
J Farmer wanted the U.S. out of foreign entanglements but somehow still isn't cheering the Trump decision to leave Syria.
Hard to square that circle.
Almost like J Farmer has a secondary agenda.
What I wrote yesterday: "In any event, putting an end to the open-ended forever war in Syria is a good decision and hopefully the goal will actually be realized. Next up, Afghanistan."
Not sure how much more "cheering" you want from me. I mean, I could do a cartwheel but nobody here needs to see that. But also, I am cautiously optimistic. I will be happy once the soldiers are actually withdrawn. There is plenty of time for the national security state to run interference and get Trump to change his mind. I don't think it's particularly likely in this situation, but as I said, cautiously optimistic.
I have to say it is pretty interesting witnessing the ideological shift among the commentariat. When I first started commenting here, it was almost exclusively in opposition to some foreign misadventure the US was embarking on. I incessantly criticized the US' interventionist foreign policy and in response was regularly pilloried as a leftist, an anti-semite, someone who sided with our enemies, yada yada yada.
It has taken several years, but it's nice to see that the anti-interventionist argument has finally been able to sink in and gain some currency.
Wow, Ann's got a suspicion:
The most sinister motivation would be that Trump is Putin's puppet, that he's acting for the benefit our enemy, the Russians.
Wonder how that thought managed to get though the locked front door. Ann, at what point does this possibility tend to mitigate your conclusion that Trump is a decent, honest man, a patriot, and a great president, not to mention extremely clever and funny? Maybe only when he's arrested on his way out of the White House.
NYT looking forward to clicks from World War IV coverage.
J Farmer. With the US gone nobody left gives a shit about rules of engagement. I'm not saying that's what's going to happen but it does give Putin erdogan and MBS an opening 2 not give a shit about civilian casualties in the effort to eradicate the isis fighters
@Howard:
J Farmer. With the US gone nobody left gives a shit about rules of engagement. I'm not saying that's what's going to happen but it does give Putin erdogan and MBS an opening 2 not give a shit about civilian casualties in the effort to eradicate the isis fighters
The US is aiding and abetting a Saudi War that has gotten tens of thousands of children killed and has put million on the brink of famine. The Saudis are attempting to starve the population into submission by bombing farms and food production facilities and preventing food relief. I think you are a bit naive in how much the US gives "a shit about civilian casualties." Also, the US and our Gulf partners helped to prolong the civil war at the expense of tens of thousands of lives.
Syria was and to a limited extent still is the home of the Islamic State. If you don't think ISIS was a threat to the US then I really can't convince you that we had a good reason to put a limited number of support troops into Syria to help defeat them and put an end to their growing international reach.
Coalition airstrikes alone have killed over 8,000 ISIS fighters. We've lost five servicemen - two to IED's, one in a plane crash, and two to non-combat accidents.
The Islamic State in Syria is almost totally destroyed. And destroyed in the best way - we and others have killed the Jihadist scum.
We could stay and assist a bit longer or we could get out now. Either way, we've done our part to help put an end to the murderous barbarians, and rightly so.
@Rabel:
Count me among those who never believed that ISIS was a "a threat to the US." There was actually a very easy way for Americans to avoid being harmed by ISIS: don't go to Syria. But we could have accomplished the goal of defeating ISIS without a single American troop or dollar spent. The strategy is (1) don't fund Sunni radicals to make war against the Syrian regime, and (2) allow the Syrian government and Russia to do the heavy lifting.
The Russians were never our enemy. It was the communists who were our enemy. Now that the communists have taken over the Democratic party and the press they are our enemy.
As well as the Germans. The Germans have always been our enemy. They continue to be to this day. That is why we should take out our troops. If any need stay in Europe let them be in Poland. At least we know they are our true allies.
It used to be England but now that they have become a politically correct Muslim Sharia state it is time to disengage from them and the rest of Europe. Leave Europe to the Europeans. The Middle East to the nations of the Middle East.
America first.
@langford peel:
How are we defining "enemy" here?
J Farmer,
Quite naturally I do not read every comment on the web. I am glad that you have remained consistent, as have I. I am no fan of perpetual war. The Leviathan State is the existential danger we face and perpetual war aids their expansive cause.
I just don't like the Smug, which has been conspicuously absent (that I have read, given that I do not read every comment) of late. Good on you, for that.
Enemy: people who, if given an opportunity, would kill me
"There was actually a very easy way for Americans to avoid being harmed by ISIS: don't go to Syria."
Complete and utter nonsense. Do I have to dig up all the ISIS affiliated terrorist attacks in the US and around the world?
An enemy is someone who treats us as an enemy. The Germans did that directly in two World Wars
militarily and since then economically.
On the other hand the Russians were actually our allies in fighting the Nazi's. It was the communists who were the problem not the Russian people. Currently Russia is a much more Christian nation which respects traditional values. They suppress the Muslim infestation and support traditional mainstream values. No trans-gender bathrooms for them.
Now that the Communists control the Democratic Party and the Press they are the ones who are the enemy of the American people.
@Birkel:
I just don't like the Smug, which has been conspicuously absent (that I have read, given that I do not read every comment) of late. Good on you, for that.
Read what I wrote at 1:35 where I do a victory lap over being right and most of my critics being dead wrong :P
Enemy: people who, if given an opportunity, would kill me,
That's a useful and concise definition.
@Rabel:
Complete and utter nonsense. Do I have to dig up all the ISIS affiliated terrorist attacks in the US and around the world?
Please go right ahead. Start with the ones in the US.
@langford peel:
An enemy is someone who treats us as an enemy.
That is an extremely circular definition. Being a competitor does not make a country your enemy. And as for Germany being our enemy, we are under treaty obligation to defend them in case of an attack. Now I do not believe NATO should even exist, but that's a very peculiar way of defining an enemy.
I incessantly criticized the US' interventionist foreign policy and in response was regularly pilloried as a leftist, an anti-semite, someone who sided with our enemies, yada yada yada.
You are aware situations change over time, no? That what might've been a good thing 15 years ago may not be a good thing now?
You're aware of that, right?
So, how many troops do we need to put in harm's way in order to keep Putin unhappy?
@Jim at:
You are aware situations change over time, no? That what might've been a good thing 15 years ago may not be a good thing now?
I certainly am. I just don't see how that point has any relevance here. The anti-war right made specific criticisms about the likely outcome of an Iraq War. Hell, Dick Cheney made the same argument in the mid-90s. Subsequent events have proven those prognostications true. We have repeated the same mistakes in Libya and Syria. And Trump has been assisting the Saudis with doing the same in Yemen.
Mattis resignation. Now the trumpesinas will call Mad Dog a cuckly turncoat.
JFarmer asserts: There was actually a very easy way for Americans to avoid being harmed by ISIS: don't go to Syria. But we could have accomplished the goal of defeating ISIS without a single American troop or dollar spent. The strategy is (1) don't fund Sunni radicals to make war against the Syrian regime, and (2) allow the Syrian government and Russia to do the heavy lifting.
I agree but there is also one other way: Keep the motherfuckers out of the US! There has already been a number of ISIS operatives blended in with the migrant caravan.
@mockturtle:
Keep the motherfuckers out of the US!
Agreed. I am to Trump's right on immigration. I want a 10-year moratorium.
Howard: "Mattis resignation. Now the trumpesinas will call Mad Dog a cuckly turncoat."
And yet the clear evidence of precisely the opposite is captured on this very thread with zero evidence of your assertion.
You should take a moment and just...breathe...
(Drago said...)
You should take a moment and just...breathe...
Why would you want him to breathe?
Drago said...
Howard: "Mattis resignation. Now the trumpesinas will call Mad Dog a cuckly turncoat."
Shorter Howard: Moar Crapistan!
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন