I'm curious where folks stand.

If we pull out. Turkey will slaughter the Kurds. Syria is to busy having a civil war to do much about it.

 

I think the Russians will hold the Turks in check. Assad doesn’t want turkey meddling in his country. It’s not as simple a picture as people like to portray. If the Kurds are smart, they’ll start working with Assad.

 

Actually, that's your purpose, not the thread's. The thread is just a poll.

Yawn. Before that, Israel's native residents were ejected by brutal and grasping foreign Muslim occupiers. Before that, Israel's native residents were ejected by brutal and grasping foreign Roman occupiers. Before that, Israel's native residents were ejected by brutal and grasping foreign Babylonian occupiers. Before that, Israel's native residents were ejected by brutal and grasping Israelite slaves out of Egypt. Before that, Israel's native residents were ejected by brutal and grasping foreign Persian occupiers. Before that, Israel's native residents were ejected by brutal and grasping foreign Egyptian occupiers. I don't think you could identify a human being alive today who is descended from a "native" of that particular area.

 

Get the US out of the UN, throw the UN out of the US, and bring all the troops home.

And cut the umbilical cord to NATO.

 

Re:

Yes, this thread is a poll in which 40 participants feel that America's troops should come home & only 5 feel that they should remain in the region.

Meanwhile, only 24% of Americans, overall, support the American military intervention in Syria(1) so why are Americans occupying hostile & distant lands except for Trump's stated reason: "...for Israel"(2) and what sort of "American" would support the sacrificing of American lives for a thankless, parasitic & aggressive Zionist Occupier?

(1)"Americans Oppose U.S. Military Involvement in Syria"
https://news.gallup.com/poll/162854/americans-oppose-military-involvement-syria.aspx


(2) "TRUMP: U.S. TROOPS WILL REMAIN IN THE MIDDLE EAST FOR ISRAEL"
https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Trump-US-troops-will-remain-in-the-Middle-East-for-Israel-572997

 

Pretty ignorant post. "The mooslims are bad so let's fight the mooslims". Maybe you should educate yourself on the situation in the ME. For exmple how do you deal with the fact that the jihadists attacking us are all Sunni jihadists (ISIS, Al Qaeda, Saudi Arabia etc), while the only countries we're attacking are Shia countries (Iraq, Syria, soon Iran), which are actively fighting the former. A bit weird for a war on terror isn't it?

 

I dont like trump

I think we have made certain committnents in the middle east.... and i think that abruptly abandoning our commitments would make us look like an unreliable partner in the future

I do not think we have massive troops in syria
I have no idea about our troop levels in afghanistan.... but they are currently lower than they were when the military advocated for a surge strategy like suceeded in iraq

I think trumps idea that isis is defeated is absurd. As absurd as bush mission accomplished braggadocio

I think trumps claim that “we” defeated isis is absurd. We mostly supported the fighting done by people trump now proposes to abandon while taking credit for their efforts. Btw, this is also what happened in iraq.... they did the fighting, we did the bombing

Over all, i think that trumps version of reality is what ever is expedient at a given moment. The presence of truth in anything he says is purely accidental, and invariably skewed so as to be nearly unrecognizable

 

*shrugs* You post a lot of stuff that leaves me indifferent. I don't support the American military intervention in Syria, either, but I didn't pick it, Obama did. Now we're stuck there with no good way to get out, no good way to "win", no definition of what a win would even look like, and multiple interested parties looking to take advantage of the situation. Throwing up our hands and pulling out is a bad move despite what the majority of Americans think. Geopolitical strategy isn't most people's strong suit. And I'd say we need to stay even if Israel weren't in the picture. There are multiple concerns about the political instability in the region that demand our attention; foremost in my mind is Iran. Second is Turkey, third is Russian ambitions in the area. Preventing any and all of them from gaining a dominant position in Syria is reason enough to keep our boots on the ground. Preventing any and all of them from going to war over Syria is an even bigger one. None of those countries want to go to war with us, but going to war with each other wouldn't be a problem.

 

Yes. I frequently call for more action to be taken against Saudi Arabia and to start treating them as an antagonist rather than an ally. However, you simplify things too much by failing to note that al-Qaeda was based mostly in Afghanistan, protected by the Taliban, so that's where we attacked first after 9/11. And I opposed the 2nd war on Iraq as an unnecessary distraction from the war we were already in, the War on Terror. There was simply zero reason to invade Iraq: it was militarily crippled; we had no-fly-zones established over 2/3rds of the country; and it was complaisant if not exactly enthusiastically cooperative. Everything Bush said about Iraq in his war speech was far more true of both Iran and North Korea, but he wasn't proposing to go to war against either of them. And there was zero evidence of any connection between Islamic terror and Iraq. Obama's war on Bashar Assad still puzzles me. What was his problem with Assad? Why would you support radical Islamists against a secular leader, even an authoritarian one? Why would you destabilize a nation right next door to where radical Islamists were gaining a foothold? Why would you destabilize a nation in a region known for civil wars that last for decades? Obama's involvement in Syria made zero sense whatsoever. We didn't even have a stake in it.

 

Yes, I didn't mention Afghanistan and there were indeed actual terrorists there. But overall the "war on terror" has been massively misled and directed towards people who never attacked any Western nation.

You mentioned Turkey, Iran and Russia as countries that have to be stopped. Why? How are they a threat?

 

In addition to following events & studying that troubled region for over 50 years, I spent 10 - 11 months walking & hitch hiking, by myself, throughout the Islamic Mid East including Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Lebanon etc and learned, first hand, that the Muslims who were so kind to me would love to have better relations with the US.

They, too, recognize that that is impossible as long as near impotent Israeli lobbies maintain their stranglehold on US Government policy makers. As long as that disastrous reality remains in place, US Troops will only be perceived as hostile occupiers.
In which case, no presence is better than the inflammatory presence of US Troops in the region.

I, too, am not sure that an absolute & complete withdrawal of US Troops from the entire region is a good idea but the US cannot and should not maintain the current "mission" which is remaining in harm's war for the sole purpose of ensuring Israel's regional hegemony (aka "security").

What may be in the best interest of Israel's current bellicose Right Wing Netanyahu regime is not in America's best interests.
I am simply putting America's best interests first since, like many Americans, I have friends & family stationed in the Mid East & after my own military service, am intimately familiar with what modern munitions can do to human tissue.

Please feel free to visit any V.A. hospital to see the real cost of preserving Israeli regional hegemony to young Americans.

 

Iran should be obvious. Turkey is becoming more Islamic and more militant by the year, and its current leader is a dictator and hardline Muslim. Russia is extending its influence everywhere it can. And all three have boots on the ground in the fight against ISIS. If you think they're there out of the goodness of their hearts, I have some oceanfront property in Nevada I'd like to sell you.