"But I think a lot of people are not acknowledging that Turkey was coming in one way or another and 50 soldiers would simply be in the way, and be a tripwire to a much worse outcome. And so I think the president was right in moving 50 soldiers out of the way of an onslaught of tens of thousands of Turkish troops.... And the president made a judgment that I think most military commanders would agree with that you don't have 50 soldiers -- you don't go to war with 50 soldiers.... Once the Turks said they were coming, it would have been foolish to leave 50 soldiers in the wake of tens of thousands of people coming across the border.... Realize the president is asking is it in our national security interest to somehow figure out how the Kurds can live with the Turks? The other interesting thing that people don't mention is all the Kurds aren't the same. The Iraqi Kurds actually are cooperating with Turkey to turn in Kurdish Workers Party officials that they see as terrorists. So the Iraqi Kurds are actually turning over some of these Kurds that allied with the Syrians. So, realize that all the Kurds aren't the same on every side of every border.... [A]s we've gotten stability in Iraq and as the Kurds have a lot of self-control in governing sort of like a province, there is actually 1,800 Turkish businesses doing business in that part of Iraq that is controlled by the Kurds. It's a prosperous oil region, and there is back and forth between the Turks and the Kurds and it actually works pretty well. But these Kurds don't actually get along with the Syrian Kurds so well. And many of the Syrian Kurds have been trying to break off part of Turkey into an independent country. It's been going on for really close to 100 years. Many of the Kurds in Syria actually were expelled or exiled from Turkey back in the 1920s, '30s, and '40s. So there is this long history. And the question we have to ask is, and I have to ask, am I going to send the sons and daughters of America and mothers and fathers, and I'm to send them there to die to try to figure out how the Kurds and the Turks can get along? And I don't see that in our national interest. And we should vote on it. We should vote on it in Congress and declare war if that's what people want.... [M]y oath is to the constitution. My oath isn't as to some promise that somebody thinks we made for a Kurdish homeland. We should vote. And here's the reason why we won't vote, they don't know who to declare war on... And ultimately it's probably in the Kurds' best interests to be aligned with Assad. But as long as we continue to say Assad has to go, we're never getting to a peaceful situation. Assad is staying. And if Assad were aligned with the Kurds and the Kurds were given some semi-autonomy in their region, it could develop the way it is in Iraq currently....."
Said Rand Paul on "Meet the Press" yesterday (text with video at link).
October 14, 2019
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
63 comments:
Wow. What a fantastic statement by Senator Paul.
Will any of that explanation get broadcast by the MSM?
Chuck Todd was beside himself. I saw the clip. Paul was very cool and is evolving as I watch him. He might be someone to think about in 2024 as he moves away from the crazier aspects of Big L Libertarianism.
"The Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend". Worked well till we defeated ISIS.... now there is no Enemy to keep Friends friends. So they turn on each other.
I am Shocked!!!!
In all seriousness, bless that man! He bothers--on occasion--to actually learn something of the historical, geographical, economic, political, and strategic context about which the Duopraticans and the MSM know nothing but WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!
Count down to "isolationism legalized marijuana derp koch brothers nobody listen to him" . . .
Narr
Initiate
"...And ultimately it's probably in the Kurds' best interests to be aligned with Assad. But as long as we continue to say Assad has to go, we're never getting to a peaceful situation. Assad is staying. And if Assad were aligned with the Kurds and the Kurds were given some semi-autonomy in their region, it could develop the way it is in Iraq currently....."
This is more or less what Tulsi Gabbard has said in the past. And she was right.
"And I don't see that in our national interest."
End of story.
what bull shit
we betrayed our friends, the Kurds
that's who we are now
don't flatter yourself, we are *ALL* Kurds to donald
he WILL betray you too
Democrat Chuck Todd was making faces and gestures all the way though Ron Paul's talk. BTW, what a worthless program meet the press is! The first guest showed up at the 10 minute mark and at the 38 minute mark we were off to a dumb "Press Panel". Who cares what senile Peggy noonan and a bunch of lefty reporters think? So, its 28 minutes of guests and once you throw out the commercials, introductions, etc. You get about 20 minutes of acutal guest talk, 50% of which is Democrat Chuck todd asking questions (D Guest) or making debating (R Guest).
And now Russia can say this: “The Kurds themselves again picked the wrong patron,” Mr. Kiselyov said. “The United States, of course, is an unreliable partner.”
I’m not a Kurd. Speak for yourself.
It’s a coherent statement. I don’t think I agree with it, but at least it’s about relevant issues, not whether it’s good or bad for Trump.
Trump makes it crystal clear:
[Fox Host ] got it all wrong. We are not going into another war between people who have been fighting with each other for 200 years. Europe had a chance to get their ISIS prisoners, but didn’t want the cost. “Let the USA pay,” they said...
Kurds may be releasing some to get us involved. Easily recaptured by Turkey or European Nations from where many came, but they should move quickly. Big sanctions on Turkey coming! Do people really think we should go to war with NATO Member Turkey? Never ending wars will end!
Of course 50 Americans can stop 10,000 Turks--by preventing the 10,000 Turks from coming in the first place. That theory has been out into practice all around the world--a handful of Americans can make a much stronger force think twice.
The Kurds were using us at least as much as we were using them. They knew it was a temporary arrangement, and they milked it for all it was worth. Now the milking continues for those who seek domestic political advantage.
I certainly agree with Paul here and have always opposed US efforts to topple Assad or the placement of a single US troop in Syria. That said, to be nit-picky, Paul is making a common mistake in foreign policy conversations in America...an overly promiscuous use of the word "allies." An alliance is a formal agreement for mutual insistence in times of war. We have never been "allies" with either the Kurds or the Free Syrian Army. We have never had obligations to come to their defense, and we have no such obligations now. The amount of formal allies the US does have is already ridiculously inflated, and it doesn't help the situation by conflating those with non-allies that our government may choose to support or not at our whim.
The Boston Globe told me this morning that Trump's order was a 'retreat' from the area. The NYT said the move pushed the Kurds into a relationship with an American Foe. They didn't say if it was all the factions of Kurds or just one.
Senator Paul says it's all a lot more complicated, and in some ways simple. He has consistently been against so-called foreign entanglements. I, for one, consistently agree with him on that. He is saying that the best way to resolve our internal dispute over what to do in Syria and the Middle East is have a debate and a vote in Congress. Of course, he's right, but it will never happen. The Democrats are quite content to hurl insults at Trump and his approach.
SunsInga: "what bull shit
we betrayed our friends, the Kurds"
LOL
Hey dummy, why dont you take a moment to tell us why you approved of Obama betraying the Kurds?
In fact, there are about 8 times in the last 100 years that American foreign policy changes affected "the Kurds".
"The Kurds"
Hey SunsInga, which Kurds? You do know there is more than 1 group right?
Do you mean the Maoist Kurds who seek to establish a commie "paradise" in N Syria?
History began 15 minutes ago.....AGAIN!
I don't argue any of Paul's points and I have NO problem with the withdrawl.
My question is simply this: When you make allies and two of your allies decide to war among themselves, and you stand down in a way that withdraws protection from one ally, do you tell that ally in advance to give them as much time as possible to prepare themselves?
My vote would be yes. And what I'm unclear on is this: Did we do that with the Kurds?
ABC News Busted Using Gun Range Footage To Report Turkish 'Slaughter' Of Kurd Civilians
r/v, who didnt know the Kurds existed 10 minutes ago, is lecturing mindlessly on geo-politics of the ME!!
This idiot also thinks the Trump kids got into the Real Estate biz only after Trump got elected!!
Note to self: r/v is attempting to supplant Field Marshall Freder as the biggest joke lefty poster at Althouseblog!
Good luck r/v!!
Just nuking them all would be easier, and more humane.
I still say Congress needs to declare war. Oh yeah, they already did declare war on Trump and his traditionalist voters. Those 535 people claiming to rule America are nearly all in it for the payoffs. The cannot deal with a billionaire stable genius who does not need to be corrupt. All he does is win elections.
I agree with Paul to some extent, which is a surprise to me. I do think he is too isolationist. However he is right, if Congress wants the US to stay then declare War, cut to the chase. Criticism is easy, actions are not. Again, if Graham wants us to stay introduce a motion in the Senate to declare War.
Sen. Paul is very good on foreign policy. He sets a high bar (even higher than what I would like) for US military intervention. He would like to see Congress pass a "Declaration of War" before committing troops to a foreign land.
Truman "nuked" the Declaration of War in Korea circa 1950. Since that time, I don't think Congress has ever passed a Declaration of War, and, well, this allows Congress to "authorize" a military intervention, and they bug out when the politics gets too hot.
With respect to having US troops in Syria (or anywhere else), two questions:
1. What is the US vital national interest?
2. What is our military objective?
If you can't answer those with satisfaction, don't send our troops.
Does anyone here seriously believe that Trump would have been praised for strengthening our commitment to the Kurds?
The hypocrisy of the Left/DNC/MSM is becoming ridiculously obvious. How could Republicans ever lose an election to these clowns?
For a change Rand Paul talks about foreign policy and makes sense.
sunsong and R/V and Freder are signing up =volunteers for their Kurd battalion.
A small contribution for a one way ticket could be considered if you asked.
The left opposes every military effort unless they think it can be used against a Republican. Vietnam became "Nixon's War" on January 20, 1969.
The withdrawal of 50 troops has given the media an opportunity to invade the airways and cable with a shit storm of propaganda while decent people hide away in their hovels waiting for the mighty wind to pass. But what about the Kraken?
Carve Turkey and establish a Kurdovo, or one of several other solutions with 20th and 21st century precedents in progressive policy.
Echoing Browndog above. This would be a red headline on Drudge a year ago. No mention at the moment. Great example of fake news.
ABC News Busted Using Gun Range Footage To Report Turkish 'Slaughter' Of Kurd Civilians
Of course it was Rand Paul, with his standard amoral, dead-conscience, utilitarian thought, expressing these things.
So much concern for the Kurds but none for the Whey.
I posted this late last night on yesterday's Sunday Morning thread. If the moderator agrees, I am reposting it:
My Sunday morning church is binge watching the news. Reliable Sources, State of the Union, GPS, Fox News Sunday and the WSJ Report. The Kurdish situation was number one with a bullet. I'm fascinated by all the anti-Trump positions out there.
For those who have done their basic Wikipedia, Kurdistan is split between Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran. They were ignored in Sykes-Picot. According to Spengler, the Kurds are nearing 50% of Turkey's population but in the other three they are small regional minorities.
Turkey hosts the PKK, which is designated a terrorist organization by the EU and the U.S.
Iraq hosts two Kurdish organizations of appoximately equal strength who are constantly feuding and may have lost Kirkuk for that very reason. We have supported them against the central government of Iraq since the First Gulf War. We cooperated with them, the Iraqi National Army and Shiite militias to defeat the Caliphate in Iraq.
As I understand it, presently there are three Kurdish organizations in Syria. One is the YPG. It was the group the Obama administration settled on to support. [I remember them having to be prodded to help the Yazidis.] The YPG is allied with the PKK, a security threat for the Turks.
There are two other Syrian Kurdish organizations, one who is the ruling party in the Kurdish quadrant and has been allying with Assad, the Syrian civil war victor. The third group I know nothing about as I also know nothing about Iranian Kurdistan.
The Trump administration continued that support to YPG, and possibly the two others, in the fight against the Caliphate and it was defeated. All the various anti-ISIS militias in Syria and Iraq were fighting for their lives and the U.S. helped them turn back the tide and achieve victory.
At no time has the U.S. signed on to the idea of Kurdish liberation. Turkey is our NATO ally. The Kurds are like a number of Marxist sects squabbling about stuff and territory. They haven't reached the, shall we say, Continental Congress stage of their liberation struggle.
Kurdish liberation is not worth the life of a single American grenadier.
2/
That said, what the hell are the Lindsey Grahams talking about, short of war with Turkey? Keeping our human shields there? Fifty special operators over a 300 mile front is one human shield every 6 miles. Maybe a well-manned roadblock every 100 miles. The Turks would just drive around them. Imagine the humiliation when we were simply ignored. The rest of the American contingent is mostly artillery and support units.
What about the American trip wire in the Sinai? Well, that was two parachute battalions that could give a good account of themselves. You couldn't just drive around them.
The Syrians are now driving up from the south. The Kurdish quadrant is home to Syria's eastern oil fields and Assad wants them back. It's time to get out of the way and let the chips fall.
What about all the ISIS prisoners? Most of those 11,000 being guarded by the Kurds are European citizens. The U.S. has been trying to get the Euroweenies to take them back and prosecute them. This is somehow America's problem? We put our prisoners in Gitmo and the world pitched a bitch.
ISIS escapees will infiltrate Europe! See Euroweenies above.
ISIS will regenerate! That's mostly a problem initially for the governments in the region. They should study the last campaign. We'll probably pitch in again.
I can't believe the stupidity. Trump won't solve the Kurdish situation this week or even this month, but He's Kept Us Out of War, as promised.
P.S. The Kurds will milk this like a William Randolph Hearst and Gaza Pallywood production. The Democrats, the Never-Trumpers and the MSM will gleefully join in. But, if it came to a real war, they would turn against it at Kasserine Pass.
I remember when Bush II was supposedly too stupid to realize that there were Iraqi Sunnis and Iraqi Shiites and they didn’t like each other.
Now, there are Trump detractors who evidently don’t realize that there are different flavors of Kurds.
Time to break the ol' George Washington "Who gives a shit about the Middle East?" comic again.
Good comment Milwaukee guy. Nothing to add.
The "sending our sons and daughters into harms way" is certainly valid for a draftee army and should only be used for an existential threat such as the Confederacy or the Soviet Union or, possibly, a full-out Islamic jihad, if that were to arise.
The practice we have seen lately of federalizing National Guard units and using them again and again as a Federal army for "wars of policy," I think is very dubious, and it is no wonder people are getting very tired of this. You may argue that 'if you don't want to go to war, don't join the National Guard,' but the National Guard is supposed to be for national defense, not offense.
For a fully volunteer army, however, the argument 'if you don't want to go to war, don't join' is indeed valid, so spare me the hand wringing and purple rhetoric.
And for this, John McCain’s daughter calls him a chicken heart. I’ve noticed she hasn’t yet picked up a rifle and manned a forward position so I’m guessing she’s simply chicken.
So much concern for the Kurds but none for the Whey.
I almost looked up "Whey".
The left opposes every military effort unless they think it can be used against a Republican.
The Left supports US military efforts if and only if there is no US interest.
Chuck Todd worked on Democrat Harkins campaign, and his wife is doing marketing for Dems.
Todd tried an ambush with Ron Paul, when he used previous footage of calling for a Kurdish state.
I liked how Ron Paul asked for a declaration of War, if the US is going to be there.
As well as pointing out the Turks work with some groups of Kurds.
we betrayed our friends, the Kurds
Nothing stopping your congress person from drafting up the language to put US troops in place to protect your 'friends.'
You know, if you want to go to war with a member of NATO.
One of the earliest National Lampoons I ever read advised "Nuke Anything In A Burnoose". The mendacity of the democrap war mongers whose kids are not on the line.
I don't know what the solution is for the region, and for all I know there is no solution. But I do know that the situation is a hell of a lot more complicated than is being portrayed in the media, but then as a wise man once said, reporters are a bunch of 27 year olds who literally know nothing. Good on on Paul for adding some details.
Milwaukee guy @1114 is an optimist-- the squealer-feeler loudmouths he lists in his PS won't need a Kasserine, all it would take is some blue-on-blue incident and they'll add that to the
roll of grounds to impeach.
Narr
Those people -want- to fight; no reason for us to join in
“The Kurds are turning to Assad & Putin for help because the US abandoned them. This has obvious implications — for example, Assad has made more gains in the past 24 hours than he made in the past 3 years — but there are quieter, potentially more serious consequences, too. 1/
I was talking to someone about the new alliances being forged in Syria, and they raised a very good point that I haven’t seen raised by anyone else. The Kurds, until very recently, were working with the US — we gave them training on tactics, we passed intel to them, etc. 2/
After yrs of working closely with the US & learning our tactics, getting briefed on our intel, knowing the ID’s of informants, etc, the Kurds have been forced into the hands of our enemies. Russia knows the Kurds have knowledge/intel that they would love to get their hands on. 3/
The Kurds also have info relevant to NATO operations & tactics. Now that they’ve been forced into Russia’s hands, they’ll be forced to give up intel that will endanger US & NATO operations, informants, intel gathering, etc. And to be clear, this falls on Trump, not the Kurds. 4/”
~ Caroline Orr
however, the events this week explain why Ocalan, formed the pkk, 'you either die on your feet, or end on your knees'
"we betrayed our friends, the Kurds"
"Betrayal" implies that there was an agreement. What was the agreement?
Does fighting together create an obligation to fight together forever? The answer must be no. So what was the nature of the agreement that is needed for there to be a betrayal?
Which Kurds are our friends, Sunsong?
Does fighting together create an obligation to fight together forever? The answer must be no. So what was the nature of the agreement that is needed for there to be a betrayal?
Good Lord!
I was once a Liberal, then became a Neo-Con in recovery. Now I am recovering again and I agree with Althouse on this foreign policy issue.
There is hope for the world.
I’m an old Cold War conservative, and it’s sometimes hard for people like me to grasp that the conflict has changed. We were used to a monolithic enemy, but radical Islam is not International Communism. It’s a different kind of enemy.
But this is a reminder that maybe NATO has passed its expiration date — certainly as far as Turkey is concerned.
Francisco D reveals: I was once a Liberal, then became a Neo-Con in recovery. Now I am recovering again and I agree with Althouse on this foreign policy issue.
Me too! And I think we have the advantage of knowing how the Libs and Neocons think and what makes them tick [basically, control, power and money]. I'll never go back and it's not due to Trump. His election only showed us how many of us were already out here.
Which Kurds are our friends
It's a diversity judgment. The Kurdish monolithic. minority bloc, of course. Also, the indigenous people, who are lynching the other indigenous people, who are allied with Americans, maybe. Carve Turkey. Slice Syria. Jerrymander Jordan (to realize the original two-State solution).
Now that they’ve been forced into Russia’s hands, they’ll be forced to give up intel that will endanger US & NATO operations, informants, intel gathering, etc.
The logical conclusion of Caroline Orr's train of thought is that we should assist the Turks in killing off the Kurds as quickly as possible before they can rat out our secrets to the Russians. Okay, if you say so.
Or, maybe the Army did some security stuff so that wouldn't happen.
Did you ever criticize Barack Obama for not ordering the destruction on the ground of the RQ-170 drone forced down over Iran, or the specially modified Blackhawk helicopter lost in the Osama Bin Laden raid?
Hurr durr what's a RQ-170?
That's what I thought. Thanks for playing.
Caroline Orr knows shite about how our military operates among our temporary partners;
that sunsong resorts to that credentialed fool's anonymous buddy's opinion tells us all we
need to know.
Narr
Fish in barrels
Turkey is our NATO ally, whether that's good or not and we have no such formal alliance with the Kurds.
It’s a different kind of enemy.
The world has seen this kind of enemy before. Several times. And it all comes down to the same objective of war -- whoever has the superior will is the one that will prevail.
Osama bin Laden was clear with his strategy. And many are proving him right. He said for the Islamists not to worry about battlefield losses. Eventually America would tire of fighting and lose the will to continue, he predicted. He knew that would happen because it has happened before. That's why Saigon is now named after Ho Chi Minh, who also figured that they did not need to win, simply outlast.
By the way -- we are now a nation independent of Britain because of the same strategy. Washington knew he could never defeat the British Army, he could only hope to keep an army in the field long enough to outlast them.
George Washington did defeat the British Army. It was only by capturing whole British armies (2 of them, latest at Yorktown) — and not by “outlasting them” — that American independence was achieved.
The American Rebels won for many reasons, and if we want to discuss history that's fine with me. But the topic is current events, facts on the ground in a situation of complexity, confusion, and multilateral conflict.
Mark will have to do better than throw out inapt historical examples and exhortations to more willpower.
Narr
Or should I say, "Villpower!"
we betrayed our friends, the Kurds
Doesn't everybody already know that the United States Government is an unreliable ally? Just ask the Taliban and al Queda.
whoever has the superior will is the one that will prevail.
How many living future corpses and amputees are you going to throw at this one?
The US having greater 'will to win' in Vietnam would not have made a particle of difference, as most of the South Vietnamese did not. And it's safe to say that defining our 'friends' in the Middle East is like pissing into the wind.
Post a Comment