Narrow majority backs Trump on Syria, Afghanistan troop reductions

Then our war objective is to the continued disadvantage of the US.

 

I'm not so sure.

I would push for a serious strategy review that includes foreign relations experts, our top DoD folks on the ME, and those who are experts on the people of the regions in question.

Right now, I don't even know what could legitimately be considered as "our war objective". I know we'd like to kill some terrorists. But, we're destroying whole cities with refugees having no place to go.

I don't see any way to consider that a legitimate approach to reducing the number of terrorists.

 

Let's revisit the basics of warfare: Armies are to kill/take over territory, or defend your territory. That's it. Not Humanitarian warfare, not some grandeur delusional thought by our neocon nitwits. This is what armies have done from Alexander the Great onward.

So our strategy should be simple: Either we colonize the ME, or we contain the ME(Similar to how Britain's encirclement policy wanted to assure no power would arise in Europe.). In our country, we lack the heart for colonization. We just won't do it. In which case, containment is our ONLY option.

We're separated by 5,000 miles of ocean and air. It literally won't hamstring for the US to say "You're not welcome". "OMG, they'll have propaganda pamphlets". And....they don't now? Of course they do. They've said they want to kill us, the only thing is that they can now create another excuse.

That's fine by me, the excuse in of itself isn't going to change anything if they can't come here. The real result of that strategy, is that we'll see a revival of the ME bloodbaths. Terrorism will flourish in the ME and the bulk of citizens there will suffer. But A: They were already suffering and B: We can't alleviate their suffering.

A negative consequence to our policies is when we reacted to the Rhwanda genocide. We couldn't stop it. That's the reality. And it's okay. It's not US Citizens dying. That might sound cruel, but in a survivalist mindset we want America outside of those war zones.

Basically I am not a "citizen of the world" I am a citizen of the US, and will strategize for the US.

 

War is the total failure of other means.

Suggesting that warfare is binary (conquer or pull out) is total nonsense. America has never believed that.

 

I know, that's why winning WW2 was a complete accident(and as much as we loathe to admit it, the Soviets carried our weight in Europe.) In the unique history of mankind, the United States is the only one that fought wars on that humanitarian principle. And its the reason why our military efforts are as pathetic as they are, with our history being mostly small skirmishes.

That and the atomic bomb changed the course of history. We were never meant to be a superpower. We became one by a complete and total accident. Now that we are a world power, we had to change our philosophy accordingly and as you pointed out: We never could. We still fight our humanitarian wars, only the scale's gotten bigger and bigger with each 'humanitarian' crisis.

If Putin wanted to play the long game, he'd let us keep doing us. Let the US continue to 'challenge' the Authoritarians with military might, and continuing to react to each challenge. Perhaps he could muster the coalition, the Norks will have the confidence to launch the bomb and we'll lose more citizens in a few weeks of that hypothetical war, then we've lost in WW1/WW2 combined.

Of course, MAD is MAD for a reason. NORK/Russian citizens would also pay a heavy price, but what do they care if the US financial and militaristic machine is damaged?

Strategically, we need to isolate these countries(and yes, maybe even get a few Eastern Axis nations over to the West) but as long as we're self-righteous we won't be able to isolate the Eastern Axis, the Eastern Axis will continue to grow and it will be us that's isolated.

Not due to Trump, but due to our self-proclaimed righteousness. War is not righteous, there is no such thing as a righteous, humanitarian war.

 

OK - I may not have understood what you're thinking before. (Maybe not now, either?)

We've been driving Russia crazy with our progress with NATO. I'd point to that as a case where major progress has been made without war. Putin's hate for the Clinton's is huge due to that progress.

It could be that Putin's efforts in favor of Trump were motivated by the progress contributed by both Clintons.

I think we need to be strong. But, I don't agree that military involvement is all or nothing. And, America tends not to notice what we gain through civilian means. We also tend to blame our military for not creating success when it really is not their job to create success.

I think we need to learn to recognize successes that aren't military, not not expect the military to do more than a military can do, to have a better concept of how long it takes to make real change. For example, democracy is far more than voting.

 

How many straws where you actually able to hold on to there?

 

We've been driving Russia crazy with NATO indeed, crazy to the point where it interfered in the 2016 elections(I will concede the evidence is there for this. But the evidence is not there(other than our intelligence community's speculations) that it was pro-Trump. The evidence is far larger to suggest what Comey said was Russia's true aim: To manipulate the American public and to divide the US Public.

If we took 'Trump' out of the picture and investigated purely the Russian intent(not much more to investigate here actually, more like countermeasures to take), I think we'd be more effective. Instead, we're still in the hands of the Kremlin. Instead, Putin's message to his citizens is: "The West is indeed internally dismantled, and will soon no longer pose a threat to us." We think it's Trump, Putin is aware strategically that we're doing it to ourselves.

But we've also driven Russia to the point where it is at the center of the Eastern Axis. Any chances for dialogue there are nearly impossible now. And that for us is a crippling blow, because it is China that's the greater strategic and militaristic threat, for it is Bejing that controls Pyongyang. Attempts by the Trump Administration to sway China to the West, also failed miserably(not to his fault though, since I suspect swaying China over would require 1) At best, a bilateral peace agreement between China/Japan. 2) Most likely, concessions against our Japanese ally.

If we had done #2 in a strategically foolish way, Trump would be the new Chamberlain. Japan would break apart as a US ally, China would still seize control of the Asiatic areas, and we'd be even more isolated.

The even greater strategic blow to us, is that instead of the EU making concessions to the US, the EU is now trying to form a relationship with China. Which is incredibly stupid. Europe is signing its freedom away(again) to unwittingly be colonized by the Eastern Axis. Either China sides with Russia, or China does the colonization itself.

The hope was for a strong, independent(yet still allied) Europe. Europe, as always, took the cheap and cowardly way out. In spite of this massive betrayal, Europe still wants us to fight the war in Europe. I am admittedly coming around to my way of thinking, but not for some patriotic defense of Europe, but because if Europe falls(further) into the hands of the East, then we've essentially lost. Reduced to US/India(yay)

Although, what good is defending an ally that has made no good-faith effort towards us and at the first opportunity looks to hug China? It's not like another successful defense of Europe would make them further appreciate the American alliance. No, it'd make them more comfortable as a financial power with a 'protector' they know will protect them thus no need for military.

Europe will sideline itself, and the East will rule the Asiatic/Eurasian spheres, at the current rate of world development.

Maybe the best we can hope for, is to have Japan and the other smaller Asian nations commit to their own NATO, force China to acknowledge these States, and engage a diplomatic peace between Russia and the Europeans. Since Europe wants to capitalize to the East, we should minimize the damage.

If we can 'freeze' the world in such a time period, our objectives(for a time) are achieved and we should start to revamp our domestic development to regain the edge we once had.

The other option is to concede Europe to the Eastern Axis, provided we enter a mutual defense with both Russia/China. If we make it so that our existence is tied to theirs(and vice-versa), we will instantly secure protection to ourselves, but this is probably dissatisfying to the Neocons, since it means that we can't take out either Russia or China.

A lot of these are painful choices, that if you really want to blame Trump I guess you can. I blame the Europeans who showed little faith and commitment to the US alliance.

 

It's hard to respond to a post that large, of course.

I'll just leave the first part to Mueller, who will determine how specifically Russia aimed to help Trump as well as Trump's involvement. So far, the indictments alone clearly dq your limitation on Russia's focus. And, the US response since then is a strong confirmation - cutting Russia sanctions, the 5 President Trump meetings with Putin where no records were allowed to be kept, the continued assault on investigating Russia's involvement. These methods are being used by Russia in other countries.

The tie to China is more simple than that. Russia helped us get a president who doesn't have the abilities necessary for foreign policy. His style of flat out demands probably worked in his boardroom, but he's not the CEO of the world.

Now our traditional allies are learning they can't view America as a trusted ally as much as they thought they could. The one thing corporations need is stability. And, Trump provides chaos. So, foreign governments and corporations are increasing their focus on strengthening relations with other allies. Isn't that what anyone would do?

Rather than facing China with strong trade allies in China's major regions of trade we're going one on one with tariffs that harm our allies as well as any damage they may do to China. And, there is no endgame in sight. The result is that the rest of the world is realigning in order to minimize the disruption caused by America.

 

The strategy is to leave Syria. It's a fine strategy that puts America first. Naturally, the foreign powers who control the US government will not like it. Nor will the people who reflexively oppose anything Trump does no matter how reasonable it is. But it's good for America, which is the only reason needed.

As for the DoD, they haven't been right about anything in decades. The track record at the DoD is one of repeated, prolonged, and incredibly expensive failures and disasters. I find it mind-boggling that anyone still has faith in the DoD or the CIA or the FBI or any other big government agency. It's almost as if they've been living under a rock for the last seven decades.

 

Why is a western media outlet even reporting this? Why should anyone from the west care that some foreign despot disapproves of the US withdrawal from Syria? Does the average westerner wake up in the morning and wonder what "Prince" al-Faisal thinks about our foreign policy?

 

Leaving means turning over Syria to Iran. Assad becomes free to commit his dictatorship, marked by atrocities.

We already increased Iran's regional influence by creating an Iran-friendly regime in Iraq.

You need to describe how this is good for some country besides Iran.



Our military is absolutely stupendous. Their estimates of what we can do with our military and their follow through in terms of military action have been incredibly.

They did their job in Iraq in a matter of 3 or 4 WEEKS!! Our conquest of Afg was also almost immediate, even though it came at a time when we had significantly limited forces in the region.

The fact that we had no plan for what would come next is NOT the fault of the military. It is the fault of GWBush, especially in denying DoS any contribution to decision making regarding Iraq - even after the war!!

These major mistakes got made in the absence of contributions by the experts in foreign policy, in nation building, in the populations affected. That was a political blunder, NOT attributable to our military.

 

The US occupation of Syria is illegal, undemocratic, unethical, immoral, wasteful, dishonest and counterproductive. It's time to leave.

 

I agree with your first sentence.

But, what we need is a regional strategy, especially concerning Syria.

We can respond to any/all difficult circumstances by walking away. Nobody is taking that option off the table.

I just want to know:

What is our strategy?

 

The strategy is to worry about problems IN AMERICA and to mind our own business around the world. The US doesn't need to be in Syria. It doesn't need to "contain" Iran or Russia or China or North Korea. These "threats" are largely manufactured and exaggerated by the war-profiteers and imperialists who control the government. I am constantly amazed that people still haven't figured out how this works. US military interventions have NOTHING to do with truth or justice or even defense of America. They are just power-grabs initiated under the guise of "national security" or "human rights".

 

No, we have a DoD, a DoS, and a number of data collection and operations arms that DO NOT operate inside the US (except for the Coast Guard).

Suggesting we have them all stand down whle we try to figure out Trump is not a strategy.

And, it's not been our goal to "power-grab".

 

I'll do my best to keep it to a minimum. Whether we like it or not, or even whether Trump is a Russian Puppet or not, he currently occupies the President of the United States position. If we enable and act as though it were a lightning rod, we fulfill the agenda of the Kremlin. We're letting them win by reacting to Trump the exact way Comey said that we'd react to Trump.

Can we be, even a little self-conscious and self-reflective here? Why fall for the enemy's propaganda? We lose nothing by at least giving the appearance of a united front. We'll appease Trump while lowering his apprehension to the investigation. Thus that would be the greatest protection offered to Robert Mueller. And if the investigation comes back clean, we will be able to more easily heal wounds and hopefully at least make these last two years manageable. IE: An opened government, debates once more on health care, infrastructure, etc.

Being adults is not 'resisting' Trump. It's acting as though the government is normal, and not even giving the appearance of fractures. Our framers, understanding all potential contingencies gave us the four-year term and impeachments for precisely this reason. We have the tools to combat the enemy, but we have to actually focus on combating the enemy, not the executive branch.

On the one hand, if we give those appearances and Trump is guilty, it can be seen that all fairness was given to him and he was proven guilty. Those 'Trumpsters' are Americans far before they are Trumpsters. By giving all appearances of cooperation, it would be readily apparent that Trump indeed used them, and betrayed our country.

Unity is never a bad thing. The resistance is. The resistance plays into the hands of the enemy, and serves to undermine America.

One could argue that we could quickly depose Trump upon proving guilt, and then thereby unite the country, but it would have to be strong definitive proof. I think unity going first, is a stronger avenue for us.

 

Yep. Trump simply can't overcome the entrenched inner circle of power in DC. There is no way that they will allow someone to remove us from military engagements that shouldn't have been started in the first place.

 

The "experts" only achieve "expert" status if they toe the military industrial complex line. Your "experts" have a different agenda than your best interest.

The swing of politics was toward outsiders because of a lack of trust in the government. Then, useful tools swarm these outsiders for pushing the best interest of the people instead of those trying to maintain the status quo.

 

What exactly will happen in Ohio if we were to bring the troops home from Syria which just as a reminder the original decision to go into Syria was a complete dumpster fire foreign policy move that led to millions of refugees.

 

?? An attack on America is a lightening rod? Darn right!

What the hell is your justification for appeasement?

 

That's not what I suggested.

An incredibly naive statement that runs counter to all evidence and logic.

 

If we're going to make a foreign policy change of strategy of that magnitude it needs to be well thought through by the experts in the agencies involved and discussed with our allies who are contributing in major ways.

It MIGHT be that our best strategy does include us leaving.

BUT, "Leave" just isn't a strategy. NOBODY should accept that. Plus, Trump's flip flop left numerous allies, who promised support for our policy, standing their with their pants down. How does THAT help our cause?

Someone needs to call in the adults.

 

Congress hasn't committed US forces to Syria. The Left are globalist neocon warmongers.

Trump Threatens To "Devastate Turkey Economically" If Kurds Attacked, Sends Lira Sliding

"Will devastate Turkey economically if they hit Kurds..."

 

That would make a lot of sense if it made any sense...