Trump makes fatal and very flawed decision.

[Heyo]

I am shocked to say it, but I agree with Trump. We need all of those troops home now. Following them home should be all of the troops from South Korea and Europe. That we still have them in Europe is beyond ridiculous.

I am with you on the principle of less military involvement but starting the withdrawal in northern Syria now is the worst place and the worst time possible.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Withdrawing is usually good for us. Russia's involvement in Syria is an excuse for the USA to leave. Remember that Syria is not part of NATO, has not signed on with NATO. There always numerous opportunities for the USA to intervene around the world and to develop a merchant army of lifelong soldiers who live to fight and who know no other life, but lets not.

 

[icehorse]

trump proving yet again that he can find ways to take the low road. what a PAB he is.

 

[Shad]

Still a thousand troops are merely a drop in the bucket. Besides, air power can be readily supplied out of country. We have a fairly substantial air base in Turkey.

Air power is from out of country anyways.

I would add that the US has no legal right to place any bases nor deploy troops in Syria. So take note of all those with TDS flipping out about laws when it suits them.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The rest of the world did nothing but send mean letters. The USA at least got involved which sets it above any other nation-state except for Russia. The do-nothings can babble all they want but the record is clear for all that want to look. When push comes to shove the EU will do nothing as it is weak. Most of Asia will do nothing as it is corrupt or does not care. I wonder which side I would pick in such a situation... *Hint Its not the do-nothing states.

We were involved...*sighs*

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Air power is from out of country anyways.

I would add that the US has no legal right to place any bases nor deploy troops in Syria. So take note of all those with TDS flipping out about laws when it suits them.

Not everyone who disagrees with this is doing so from the point of view of TDS, although that seems a common way of deflecting criticism.

The manner in which this was done...including the timing, the use of Twitter, the promotion of Erdogan as a 'strong leader' and leaving what had previously been allied forces to their fate strikes me as poor. If it were Obama in charge it would similarly strike me as poor.

Discussion about the Kurds not having assisted at Normandy, or that Trump learnt this from magazine article strikes me as bizarre.

Just me, perhaps.

 

[Stevicus]

We were involved...*sighs*

You misattributed this quote to me. @Shad wrote this, not me. (Post #18)

 

[Shad]

Not everyone who disagrees with this is doing so from the point of view of TDS, although that seems a common way of deflecting criticism.

I am pointing some people were against war and defense budgets like 3 week ago yet now advocate the opposite. Seems like TDS to me.More so I pointed out TDS well before I made any serious points.

The manner in which this was done...including the timing, the use of Twitter, the promotion of Erdogan as a 'strong leader' and leaving what had previously been allied forces to their fate strikes me as poor. If it were Obama in charge it would similarly strike me as poor.

It had been planned for awhile. Turkey has been involved for years including launching attacks and sending troops across the border. Turkey has held part of Northern Syria for year.

Discussion about the Kurds not having assisted at Normandy, or that Trump learnt this from magazine article strikes me as bizarre.

Local conflict vs global. A lot of nations and people did nothing during WW2.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You misattributed this quote to me. @Shad wrote this, not me. (Post #18)

Sorry mate.
Went to quote your post, changed my mind, and stuffed up the reply edit...

 

[Shad]

We were involved...*sighs*

Yes. Which well above mean letters for do-nothing Europe.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I am pointing some people were against war and defense budgets like 3 week ago yet now advocate the opposite. Seems like TDS to me.More so I pointed out TDS well before I made any serious points.

Sure, but that doesn't invalidate criticism of Trump.

It had been planned for awhile. Turkey has been involved for years including launching attacks and sending troops across the border. Turkey has held part of Northern Syria for year.

I'd be interested in any background information you have showing its been planned for a while.

Local conflict vs global. A lot of nations and people did nothing during WW2.

Sure. What does that have to do with the issue at hand though? At all??

Turkey fought against the Allies in WW1 and remained neutral in WW2. This is equally irrelevant.

 

[Shad]

Sure, but that doesn't invalidate criticism of Trump.

No my own criticism invalidated criticism of Trump. My point about TDS is to show how people contradict themselves due to TDS

Now answer the following questions as each is key to separating primed outrage versus people actually considering the situation on the ground.

What is the goal of the US in Syria?
What is the end goal? How do you measure if that end goal is met?
What are the costs and benefit compared to alternatives?
Can the US met the goal(s) via political will, military power and economic strength?
What is the timeline for the goal(s)?
What is the exit strategy?
Which side does the US pick? A NATO ally or a non-nation group under the label of "Kurds"?
How does the US stop Turkey if/when they start fighting Kurds well outside Turkey's claimed zone of operations?

I'd be interested in any background information you have showing its been planned for a while.

It is why Mathis resigned. Read his resignation letter. Withdrawing has been a topic for a year

Pentagon Claims Leaders Knew of Trump's Plan to Withdraw from Northern Syria
Graham Says Trump Slowing Down Planned Withdrawal From Syria

Sure. What does that have to do with the issue at hand though? At all??

It shows different tiers of allies. There are formal alliances via treaties. There are alliance which have cultural and historical ties such as the Anglo-American alliance. There are alliances of convenience in which the goals of two parties meet but are not actually shared. The Kurds are the latter with the common goal of fighting ISIS not fighting Turkey nor Assad (or so US leaders claim, I doubt the latter)

Turkey fought against the Allies in WW1 and remained neutral in WW2. This is equally irrelevant.

There was no Turkey in WW1.

Turkey is in NATO due to the Cold War and to contain Russia in the Black Sea. That alliance is worth more than the Kurds. That is a harsh reality. Turkey has still done more for the US in decades than the Kurds have ever. IE cost/benefit as per my questions above.

Like I said all I see is primed media driven outrage with no thought besides talking points the media put out for consumption.

 

[sooda]

Here's what I think is happening.
Putin wants regional control of the oil production in the mideast. He's forming a bloc with Iran, Syria, Turkey, and Iraq.
It will soon be more powerful than the USA bloc, with Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Trump is helping Putin gain control of the incredibly valuable strategic asset that is the gulf oil region. Whether is because he's dumb and easily led or because he'll benefit financially, that's what Trump is doing. And he's been promising this since he started running for president.

It's absolutely no surprise that Putin wanted a billionaire playboy for president, rather than the experienced old warhawk. Clinton wouldn't have been so willing to sell out USA interests.
Tom

That's true to an extent, but...…. Iran and Putin are rivals in the gas business and their target markets in Europe are flat.. Demand is all in Asia..

 

[Shad]

That's true to an extent, but...…. Iran and Putin are rivals in the gas business and their target markets in Europe are flat.. Demand is all in Asia..

Some of that lack of demand is due to sanctions from the US which make it unsustainable for a business to trade with Iran while trading with the US. US based sanctions are very heavy handed

 

[sooda]

Some of that lack of demand is due to sanctions from the US which make it unsustainable for a business to trade with Iran while trading with the US. US based sanctions are very heavy handed

No, Shad.. The Russians and Iranians have been plotting pipelines to Europe since 2002.. They don't have enough gas or enough market demand in Europe to make it work.

This is long, but if you read it, you'll know more about Syria, Russia and Iran than anyone else on the board.

The 'Pipelineistan' conspiracy: The war in Syria has never ...
https://www.middleeasteye.net/big-story/pipelineistan-conspiracy-war-syria-has-never...
May 10, 2017 · The 'Pipelineistan' conspiracy: The war in Syria has never been about gas Paul Cochrane Published date: 10 May 2017 10:57 UTC | Last update: 1 year 5 months ago

 

[lewisnotmiller]

No my own criticism invalidated criticism of Trump. My point about TDS is to show how people contradict themselves due to TDS

If people contradict themselves, just call them out on the contradiction. Personally, I find terms like SJW or TDS or some of the disparaging terms used to describe conservatives as a means to avoid meaningful conversations, or recognition that these discussions aren't binary, and don't have to be instances of 'defending your team'.

Now answer the following questions as each is key to separating primed outrage versus people actually considering the situation on the ground.

You're sophisticated enough on politics to know that the answers to all these questions are both complex and subjective. Not to mention that there can be clear distinctions between stated goals, actual goals, and secondary/tertiary considerations. In the interests of good faith, I'll provide basic answers on these, but have little interest in pursuing these to the level of complexity we could. It would be a derail (at best) and I'm unsure what the point would be. Your macro point (that the US is doing nothing other than pursuing US best interests) is understood.

What is the goal of the US in Syria?

The messaging has been mixed at times. Limiting the scope of the civil war was certainly part of the plan, but messaging from the White House has included anti-Assad dialogue at times (eg. when striking chemical weapons targets) and more broadly seemed to suggest a more stable region was ultimately a goal.
Then there is the whole question about how Russia, and broader foreign policy considerations (eg. influence in the area, leaving a power vaccum, etc) is considered, and that seems variable. Understandably so, I would say, given the volatility of the area, and the impact of a third party (Russia).

What is the end goal? How do you measure if that end goal is met?

Hah! Were it me, planning objectives to determine success/failure, and having an exit plan would be the very first consideration prior to engagement. But even if such an exit plan is stated, it's unlikely we have the full story on what the US considers success. Suffice to say, pre-Presidency and again in the early days of his Presidency, Trump seemed to indicate US goals had nothing to do with removal of Assad, and that Assad's fighting against ISIL, plus Russian backing both played roles in this.
To be fair, he was handed an existing situation, and moved away from interventionist military policy in Syria. That was a pretty clear shift, and seemed consistent.
Strikes against chemical weapons facilities indicated the US was playing some sort of policing role, but muddied the waters on when and where this applied.

But US goals seemed to be;

1. Removal of ISIS
2. Stabilization of the region (with that occasionally seeming to include removal of Assad, sometimes not)
3. Removal of Iranian forces from Syria (with that last being flagged at times)

If those sound laughably broad and unmeasureable, I'd agree, but US military intervention since Vietnam has largely suffered from that same issue. To be clear, I don't think clarity of objectives is simple AT ALL.

What are the costs and benefit compared to alternatives?

If you can do an ROI on military interventions in the Middle East, you're a better man than I am. Given the trillions spent by the US on foreign actions since 2000, it's simply not possible for me to judge cost/benefit. Nor, I suspect, for anyone.

Can the US met the goal(s) via political will, military power and economic strength?

Removal of ISIL, sure. The risk with that goal is not whether it's achievable, though, as I suspect you well know. It's always been the creation of power vacuums where the US has struggled in the Middle East (as has other foreign powers). Chop the head off the Hydra and more will grow.

Stabilization of the region, then seems impossible in any objective sense. Whether the region is more or less stable at any point in time has major economic and political impact though. So perhaps the true goals aren't really about stabilizing the region, and more about keeping things somewhat functional.

Political will is almost impossible to read. Just as foreign policy changed when Trump came to power, so will it change again in the future when there are changes in decision making. It's the nature of democracy. So too does the perception of events play a MAJOR role. Not just the actual events themselves.

What is the timeline for the goal(s)?

For a complete exit?
That's the thing. It can't be a 'time' line. It must be an objective based exit. Otherwise it's more a function of political expediency and shorter term economic factors than one of military strategy or long term economics.
One of the issues with democracy is that long term economics are not effective in doing anything other than making your replacement look good. That's not a US issue, it's simply the nature of fixed term democracy.

What is the exit strategy?

ISIL is largely rendered powerless but not destroyed. Replacement of US forces with effective local forces is an obvious key to exiting, else you'll end up with the next head of the hydra to deal with in short order. However, if you have an idea of how to achieve stable government in the Middle East which will be able to manage this, please let the world know.

Which side does the US pick? A NATO ally or a non-nation group under the label of "Kurds"?
How does the US stop Turkey if/when they start fighting Kurds well outside Turkey's claimed zone of operations?

The US decided not to intervene, form a strong coalition, or flag removal of Assad as objectives.
When Assad used chemical weapons, the US decided to strike.
There was some confusion as to whether this would continue into regime replacement operations, or stop at a first strike.

Now, with the withdrawal of US troops, plus conversations between Turkey and the US having occurred at the highest levels, Trump's tweet seems to indicate something similar. Erdogan can pursue his policies without US interference or condemnation. If he cross 'the line' then there will be economic sanctions.

So...what's the line? If I suspect there is no clearly agreed line, and this will be somewhat driven by political expediency, do you see that as me being cynical, a TDS, or probably correct?

It is why Mathis resigned. Read his resignation letter. Withdrawing has been a topic for a year

Pentagon Claims Leaders Knew of Trump's Plan to Withdraw from Northern Syria
Graham Says Trump Slowing Down Planned Withdrawal From Syria

And this is where it gets harder for me to accept what you're saying. Like I said, I'm trying to answer your questions in good faith. But still, withdrawal of the troops is OBVIOUSLY something that is planned. There is the whole matter of logistics, for starters.

That is not the same as suggesting that this method of withdrawal wasn't sudden. Turkish and US military forces were actively engaged in planning border patrols to try and keep the peace, dissuade KPP cross border movement, etc.

The discussions between Erdogan and Trump caused a sudden shift in planning. I'd be surprised if you disagree with that.

It shows different tiers of allies. There are formal alliances via treaties. There are alliance which have cultural and historical ties such as the Anglo-American alliance. There are alliances of convenience in which the goals of two parties meet but are not actually shared. The Kurds are the latter with the common goal of fighting ISIS not fighting Turkey nor Assad (or so US leaders claim, I doubt the latter)

It was a strange reference to a war that occurred 80 years ago. Whilst that has some semblance of relevance to US-Australian relations, it is meaningless in this context. Your comments about variety of alliances makes more sense. Bringing in irrelevant considerations strikes me as either political or stupid. Let's assume political. He's doing a sales job, in my mind.

There was no Turkey in WW1.

Again, irrelevant to this issue, I was merely suggesting that the history of Turkey is hardly more compelling or relevant than Kurdish history. But, facetiously I might suggest that the current iteration of Turkey might not be too unfamiliar to any familiar with the history of the Ottoman Empire in the first quarter of the 20th century.

Turkey is in NATO due to the Cold War and to contain Russia in the Black Sea. That alliance is worth more than the Kurds. That is a harsh reality. Turkey has still done more for the US in decades than the Kurds have ever. IE cost/benefit as per my questions above.

As an Australian, it warms my heart to think that all alliances are reduced to cost/benefit and are therefore disposable on short notice to expediency.
I'm obviously talking a little tongue in cheek, and I understand the rationale behind NATO inclusions of Turkey. Basically the juice has never been worth the squeeze, right up until the location of their airbases becomes important in one conflict or another.

Assad pegged it right from the beginning. The version of realpolitik America has been playing in the Middle East since at least CIA operations in Afghanistan has consistently backed a horse, then switched based on short term needs. That hasn't worked well. Whether you like it or not, US decisions provided Erdogan tacit approval to invade Syria. That is a horse I would be very wary of backing. Calling him both strong, and threatening destruction of the Turkish economy if he oversteps an invisible line left undefined and in the sole hands of the President seems like a school yard approach to relations and strategy in the most complicated region on Earth.

Like I said all I see is primed media driven outrage with no thought besides talking points the media put out for consumption.

Meh...we can argue about whether the US should be in Syria at all, and that position was handed to Trump to deal with, which is tough.
But the nature of this withdrawal and the method of communicating it to the world is strictly amateur hour, and seems to fly in the face of long term military strategy.

 

[sooda]

If people contradict themselves, just call them out on the contradiction. Personally, I find terms like SJW or TDS or some of the disparaging terms used to describe conservatives as a means to avoid meaningful conversations, or recognition that these discussions aren't binary, and don't have to be instances of 'defending your team'.



You're sophisticated enough on politics to know that the answers to all these questions are both complex and subjective. Not to mention that there can be clear distinctions between stated goals, actual goals, and secondary/tertiary considerations. In the interests of good faith, I'll provide basic answers on these, but have little interest in pursuing these to the level of complexity we could. It would be a derail (at best) and I'm unsure what the point would be. Your macro point (that the US is doing nothing other than pursuing US best interests) is understood.



The messaging has been mixed at times. Limiting the scope of the civil war was certainly part of the plan, but messaging from the White House has included anti-Assad dialogue at times (eg. when striking chemical weapons targets) and more broadly seemed to suggest a more stable region was ultimately a goal.
Then there is the whole question about how Russia, and broader foreign policy considerations (eg. influence in the area, leaving a power vaccum, etc) is considered, and that seems variable. Understandably so, I would say, given the volatility of the area, and the impact of a third party (Russia).



Hah! Were it me, planning objectives to determine success/failure, and having an exit plan would be the very first consideration prior to engagement. But even if such an exit plan is stated, it's unlikely we have the full story on what the US considers success. Suffice to say, pre-Presidency and again in the early days of his Presidency, Trump seemed to indicate US goals had nothing to do with removal of Assad, and that Assad's fighting against ISIL, plus Russian backing both played roles in this.
To be fair, he was handed an existing situation, and moved away from interventionist military policy in Syria. That was a pretty clear shift, and seemed consistent.
Strikes against chemical weapons facilities indicated the US was playing some sort of policing role, but muddied the waters on when and where this applied.

But US goals seemed to be;

1. Removal of ISIS
2. Stabilization of the region (with that occasionally seeming to include removal of Assad, sometimes not)
3. Removal of Iranian forces from Syria (with that last being flagged at times)

If those sound laughably broad and unmeasureable, I'd agree, but US military intervention since Vietnam has largely suffered from that same issue. To be clear, I don't think clarity of objectives is simple AT ALL.



If you can do an ROI on military interventions in the Middle East, you're a better man than I am. Given the trillions spent by the US on foreign actions since 2000, it's simply not possible for me to judge cost/benefit. Nor, I suspect, for anyone.



Removal of ISIL, sure. The risk with that goal is not whether it's achievable, though, as I suspect you well know. It's always been the creation of power vacuums where the US has struggled in the Middle East (as has other foreign powers). Chop the head off the Hydra and more will grow.

Stabilization of the region, then seems impossible in any objective sense. Whether the region is more or less stable at any point in time has major economic and political impact though. So perhaps the true goals aren't really about stabilizing the region, and more about keeping things somewhat functional.

Political will is almost impossible to read. Just as foreign policy changed when Trump came to power, so will it change again in the future when there are changes in decision making. It's the nature of democracy. So too does the perception of events play a MAJOR role. Not just the actual events themselves.



For a complete exit?
That's the thing. It can't be a 'time' line. It must be an objective based exit. Otherwise it's more a function of political expediency and shorter term economic factors than one of military strategy or long term economics.
One of the issues with democracy is that long term economics are not effective in doing anything other than making your replacement look good. That's not a US issue, it's simply the nature of fixed term democracy.



ISIL is largely rendered powerless but not destroyed. Replacement of US forces with effective local forces is an obvious key to exiting, else you'll end up with the next head of the hydra to deal with in short order. However, if you have an idea of how to achieve stable government in the Middle East which will be able to manage this, please let the world know.



The US decided not to intervene, form a strong coalition, or flag removal of Assad as objectives.
When Assad used chemical weapons, the US decided to strike.
There was some confusion as to whether this would continue into regime replacement operations, or stop at a first strike.

Now, with the withdrawal of US troops, plus conversations between Turkey and the US having occurred at the highest levels, Trump's tweet seems to indicate something similar. Erdogan can pursue his policies without US interference or condemnation. If he cross 'the line' then there will be economic sanctions.

So...what's the line? If I suspect there is no clearly agreed line, and this will be somewhat driven by political expediency, do you see that as me being cynical, a TDS, or probably correct?



And this is where it gets harder for me to accept what you're saying. Like I said, I'm trying to answer your questions in good faith. But still, withdrawal of the troops is OBVIOUSLY something that is planned. There is the whole matter of logistics, for starters.

That is not the same as suggesting that this method of withdrawal wasn't sudden. Turkish and US military forces were actively engaged in planning border patrols to try and keep the peace, dissuade KPP cross border movement, etc.

The discussions between Erdogan and Trump caused a sudden shift in planning. I'd be surprised if you disagree with that.



It was a strange reference to a war that occurred 80 years ago. Whilst that has some semblance of relevance to US-Australian relations, it is meaningless in this context. Your comments about variety of alliances makes more sense. Bringing in irrelevant considerations strikes me as either political or stupid. Let's assume political. He's doing a sales job, in my mind.



Again, irrelevant to this issue, I was merely suggesting that the history of Turkey is hardly more compelling or relevant than Kurdish history. But, facetiously I might suggest that the current iteration of Turkey might not be too unfamiliar to any familiar with the history of the Ottoman Empire in the first quarter of the 20th century.



As an Australian, it warms my heart to think that all alliances are reduced to cost/benefit and are therefore disposable on short notice to expediency.
I'm obviously talking a little tongue in cheek, and I understand the rationale behind NATO inclusions of Turkey. Basically the juice has never been worth the squeeze, right up until the location of their airbases becomes important in one conflict or another.

Assad pegged it right from the beginning. The version of realpolitik America has been playing in the Middle East since at least CIA operations in Afghanistan has consistently backed a horse, then switched based on short term needs. That hasn't worked well. Whether you like it or not, US decisions provided Erdogan tacit approval to invade Syria. That is a horse I would be very wary of backing. Calling him both strong, and threatening destruction of the Turkish economy if he oversteps an invisible line left undefined and in the sole hands of the President seems like a school yard approach to relations and strategy in the most complicated region on Earth.



Meh...we can argue about whether the US should be in Syria at all, and that position was handed to Trump to deal with, which is tough.
But the nature of this withdrawal and the method of communicating it to the world is strictly amateur hour, and seems to fly in the face of long term military strategy.

Shad, Assad is a monster.. just like his father and his brother who controls the military and the police.

You seem to have a broad grasp of the issues.. Consider this question, please. Why should Turkey or the Kurds pay for what Assad has done?

Incirlik Air Base in Incirlik, Turkey. Incirlik Air Base is one of the major strategically located US military bases. The base is in Turkey, which means that it is operated by both the US and the Turkish governments, unlike other co-bases.

 

[Stevicus]

But US goals seemed to be;

1. Removal of ISIS
2. Stabilization of the region (with that occasionally seeming to include removal of Assad, sometimes not)
3. Removal of Iranian forces from Syria (with that last being flagged at times)

If those sound laughably broad and unmeasureable, I'd agree, but US military intervention since Vietnam has largely suffered from that same issue. To be clear, I don't think clarity of objectives is simple AT ALL.

I think you have a pretty clear and deep understanding of the issues involved, but as to the US goals, I sometimes wonder if the US leadership even has any long-term goals at this point. They seem more like they're flying by the seat of their pants, improvising their way through.

The US often gets portrayed as the "world's policeman," but it might be a more apt analogy to call us the "world's fireman." We go around trying to put out little fires wherever they crop up, so they don't become big fires.

But we don't really seem to know when or where the fires might start, so it seems hard to really plan for anything or make any long-term goals.

Even terms like "War on Terror" are deceptive and vague.

Many Americans are understandably weary of the whole thing. It really has been just one endless war, at least since the end of WW2. There's always been something going on, from one of the end of the world to the other, along with rousing speeches and appeals to patriotism about how important and vital it is for the US to get involved in these ongoing world crises.

This is also coupled with the notion that US involvement is indispensable, otherwise the bad guys win. But there are plenty of other nations in NATO which have capable and trained fighting forces. (Turkey happens to be one of them.)

Another point which seems to come up a lot is in regard to intervening in other countries' civil wars. I don't think it's ever a good idea. But if it's ever decided that it's politically and militarily "necessary" (which is another can of worms just by itself), then it would be far quicker to just take over the entire country and neutralize every faction involved.

I guess it's a question of whether it would save more lives in the long run to just quickly throw everything in and get it over with, or to let it go on and drag out for an uncertain number of years.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I think you have a pretty clear and deep understanding of the issues involved, but as to the US goals, I sometimes wonder if the US leadership even has any long-term goals at this point. They seem more like they're flying by the seat of their pants, improvising their way through.

The US often gets portrayed as the "world's policeman," but it might be a more apt analogy to call us the "world's fireman." We go around trying to put out little fires wherever they crop up, so they don't become big fires.

But we don't really seem to know when or where the fires might start, so it seems hard to really plan for anything or make any long-term goals.

Even terms like "War on Terror" are deceptive and vague.

Many Americans are understandably weary of the whole thing. It really has been just one endless war, at least since the end of WW2. There's always been something going on, from one of the end of the world to the other, along with rousing speeches and appeals to patriotism about how important and vital it is for the US to get involved in these ongoing world crises.

This is also coupled with the notion that US involvement is indispensable, otherwise the bad guys win. But there are plenty of other nations in NATO which have capable and trained fighting forces. (Turkey happens to be one of them.)

Another point which seems to come up a lot is in regard to intervening in other countries' civil wars. I don't think it's ever a good idea. But if it's ever decided that it's politically and militarily "necessary" (which is another can of worms just by itself), then it would be far quicker to just take over the entire country and neutralize every faction involved.

I guess it's a question of whether it would save more lives in the long run to just quickly throw everything in and get it over with, or to let it go on and drag out for an uncertain number of years.

Good post. Too much here to unpack on a forum, and no easy answers, but this all had me nodding along.

 

[Shad]

If people contradict themselves, just call them out on the contradiction. Personally, I find terms like SJW or TDS or some of the disparaging terms used to describe conservatives as a means to avoid meaningful conversations, or recognition that these discussions aren't binary, and don't have to be instances of 'defending your team'.

I did in one post.

You're sophisticated enough on politics to know that the answers to all these questions are both complex and subjective. Not to mention that there can be clear distinctions between stated goals, actual goals, and secondary/tertiary considerations. In the interests of good faith, I'll provide basic answers on these, but have little interest in pursuing these to the level of complexity we could. It would be a derail (at best) and I'm unsure what the point would be. Your macro point (that the US is doing nothing other than pursuing US best interests) is understood.

I asked those questions to those outraged in general. If they have no answers then they are just responding to the goad and emotions nothing more.

The messaging has been mixed at times. Limiting the scope of the civil war was certainly part of the plan, but messaging from the White House has included anti-Assad dialogue at times (eg. when striking chemical weapons targets) and more broadly seemed to suggest a more stable region was ultimately a goal.

A problem for me getting rid of Assad without being open about that goal is part of the "stability" plan.

Then there is the whole question about how Russia, and broader foreign policy considerations (eg. influence in the area, leaving a power vaccum, etc) is considered, and that seems variable. Understandably so, I would say, given the volatility of the area, and the impact of a third party (Russia).

The US has gained influence not lost it. Iraq before the second war and after the Iran War was not under US control. Now it is. Besides Yemen US influence has increased due to the "War of Terror" and to counter-balance Iran.

Hah! Were it me, planning objectives to determine success/failure, and having an exit plan would be the very first consideration prior to engagement. But even if such an exit plan is stated, it's unlikely we have the full story on what the US considers success. Suffice to say, pre-Presidency and again in the early days of his Presidency, Trump seemed to indicate US goals had nothing to do with removal of Assad, and that Assad's fighting against ISIL, plus Russian backing both played roles in this.

Which is the same story sold to the public by Obama. Then followed the blunders.

To me it seems like the hawks want to stay in Syria to get rid of Assad with trying to tap dance around admitting it. The US and Kurds have refused to turn territory back over to Assad multiple times.

To be fair, he was handed an existing situation, and moved away from interventionist military policy in Syria. That was a pretty clear shift, and seemed consistent.

Well it was part of his platform.

Strikes against chemical weapons facilities indicated the US was playing some sort of policing role, but muddied the waters on when and where this applied.

The UN ended up backing those strikes thus giving more legitimacy

But US goals seemed to be;

1. Removal of ISIS
2. Stabilization of the region (with that occasionally seeming to include removal of Assad, sometimes not)
3. Removal of Iranian forces from Syria (with that last being flagged at times)

2 is the sticking point for me as stability does not seem to be a goal the US actually invests in. Iraq is having riots. The Kurds want to separate.

If those sound laughably broad and unmeasureable, I'd agree, but US military intervention since Vietnam has largely suffered from that same issue. To be clear, I don't think clarity of objectives is simple AT ALL.

The US developed a whole plan for Germany after the war. It is capable of doing the same in the here and now.

If you can do an ROI on military interventions in the Middle East, you're a better man than I am. Given the trillions spent by the US on foreign actions since 2000, it's simply not possible for me to judge cost/benefit. Nor, I suspect, for anyone.

What would you consider intervention, scale-wise? The US has had numerous small scale operations all over the ME. Yemen for example is handled by drones for the most part so is not covered by media as often.

Lets confine it to Syria. So far the US military budget since the US became involved is over 1 trillion. Keeping in mind that the US has been using high tech warfare typically air power which is costly due to munitions and platform. This is based on DOD budget bills.

Removal of ISIL, sure. The risk with that goal is not whether it's achievable, though, as I suspect you well know.

The ideology or the force? This, to me, seem to the issue the US has that it must destroy the former not merely the power of the latter.

[/quote] It's always been the creation of power vacuums where the US has struggled in the Middle East (as has other foreign powers). Chop the head off the Hydra and more will grow. [/quote]

Hence why I think there is a point in which you let the heads fight it out from home.

Stabilization of the region, then seems impossible in any objective sense. Whether the region is more or less stable at any point in time has major economic and political impact though. So perhaps the true goals aren't really about stabilizing the region, and more about keeping things somewhat functional.

The area hasn't been stable for a century.

I think the goal is to spread American influence since bribery didn't work.

Political will is almost impossible to read. Just as foreign policy changed when Trump came to power, so will it change again in the future when there are changes in decision making. It's the nature of democracy. So too does the perception of events play a MAJOR role. Not just the actual events themselves.

This is a Congressional issue due to delegating power.

For a complete exit?

Lets go with something like Germany. Forces in the area but not engaged.

That's the thing. It can't be a 'time' line. It must be an objective based exit. Otherwise it's more a function of political expediency and shorter term economic factors than one of military strategy or long term economics.
One of the issues with democracy is that long term economics are not effective in doing anything other than making your replacement look good. That's not a US issue, it's simply the nature of fixed term democracy.

You can use a timeline in the form of actions rather than actual years. Do X which leads to Y.

ISIL is largely rendered powerless but not destroyed. Replacement of US forces with effective local forces is an obvious key to exiting, else you'll end up with the next head of the hydra to deal with in short order. However, if you have an idea of how to achieve stable government in the Middle East which will be able to manage this, please let the world know.

For Syria the Kurds and Assad need to start talks. The two are the dominate factions in Syria as locals. The Kurds will gain some protection from Syria thus Russia. Trump will do something as he does bow to public opinion at times as per his threats to Turkey. Otherwise we might as well admit the Kurds are a rebel faction either by choice or target (if Assad refuses talks).

The US decided not to intervene, form a strong coalition, or flag removal of Assad as objectives.

When Assad used chemical weapons, the US decided to strike.
There was some confusion as to whether this would continue into regime replacement operations, or stop at a first strike. [/quote]

Why has the US and the Kurds not turned territory back over to Assad then?

Now, with the withdrawal of US troops, plus conversations between Turkey and the US having occurred at the highest levels, Trump's tweet seems to indicate something similar. Erdogan can pursue his policies without US interference or condemnation. If he cross 'the line' then there will be economic sanctions.

Turkey has been trying to get more troops involved for years. Russia and America always called them back at a certain point. Now comes the point to see if either major power repeats the action of every operation Turkey has created and put into action.

So...what's the line? If I suspect there is no clearly agreed line, and this will be somewhat driven by political expediency, do you see that as me being cynical, a TDS, or probably correct?

I think Turkey is trying to sell it's plan to Trump. I think Trump bought it line and sinker. Now he is trying to save face.

And this is where it gets harder for me to accept what you're saying. Like I said, I'm trying to answer your questions in good faith. But still, withdrawal of the troops is OBVIOUSLY something that is planned. There is the whole matter of logistics, for starters.

Yes. I do not see why you have an issue?

That is not the same as suggesting that this method of withdrawal wasn't sudden. Turkish and US military forces were actively engaged in planning border patrols to try and keep the peace, dissuade KPP cross border movement, etc.

The discussions between Erdogan and Trump caused a sudden shift in planning. I'd be surprised if you disagree with that.

I was talking about withdrawing from Syria.