Is this what Trump meant when he said, “We have won against ISIS. We've beaten them, and we've beaten them badly.” What? Beaten them badly enough that they can still launch missile attacks against coalition forces? If this is how Trump defines “winning,” no wonder he thinks of himself a success while the rest of us see him as such a loser and a failure. https://www.foxnews.com/world/isis-...ritish-soldiers-seriously-injured-report-says
We all knew about the 30,000 forces that remained of ISIS, and no one was under illusion that they stopped their war against the West. But their political power, for all intents and purposes has been removed. There's no longer a need for us to be there, nor is there a need for the UK to be there.
Trump seemed to indicate that Russia and Assad will deal with the remnants of ISIS in Syria. Perhaps it was part of the agreement of us leaving.
No, he meant they no longer control territory as a cohesive group. Don't worry, we'll find them and kill them somewhere else. We're good at it. Ask me how I know.
But “President Donald Trump's national security adviser said on Sunday the US military withdrawal from northeastern Syria is conditioned on finishing off the armed group ISIL...” https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019...ey-discuss-syria-pullout-190106060645545.html So are we leaving or not? Is ISIS defeated or not? Who knows? Trump just says stuff without thinking about it or talking with his own advisers at all. Because he is an idiot.
Two weeks after I got out of MCT I was in lovely Kuwait. Most of the stuff I was in was picking off technicals trying to get up on our convoys. Was at start of it, we went in between boot camp and MCT for me. After we killed a couple hundred they learned to stop.
Nah they're just whatever piece of crap they can get running and weld a machine gun to. They're a little too convinced of their invincibility or just don't really care if they get killed. They don't think like we do.
The neocons, as the strategic losers that they are(and historically proven to be, which is why it's shocking that people now want to hear their advise because they are perhaps foolishly employed by Donald Trump) have had their advice won. All of this purportedly, because we want to protect the Kurds while being allied with Turkey which wants to banish them. Writing that sentence feels incredibly stupid, that it's an actual strategical thought is rather sad. This whole situation brings to mind, Marine Le Pen's words. In the french elections(or rather in her political position) the oxymoronic state of this alliance is one of the reasons she wanted to leave the EU. Now that it affects the US directly, I can say: She is right. She sounded pragmatic during the elections, but the wisdom of her words rings now that the US is involved in the Syrian conflict. Also, if its the neocon position to ally itself with a butcher in Recip, then we can no longer criticize Trump for 'adoring strongmen'. ISIS is politically defeated. It is "possible"(like it's possible for us to be electrocuted) that the remaining ISIS forces could carve out a political space for itself in Syria. But, so what if it does? ISIS is boxed in now, as the Syrians/Russians will not allow ISIS to exist, for separating reasons. Russia's strong terrorism stance as it regards its northern border, and Assad to reunify the Syrian State. It's no longer a political threat, with the ability to achieve political propaganda aims. As a political state, it posed a danger to the world and the massive ability to inflict damage to civilian populations. But that damage is now limited to Syria only. As far as the Kurds themselves are concerned. I had this discussion with Willreadmore. I'm going to look up Kurd history to get an even better understanding, but in my limited understanding I feel it's utterly hopeless for a political state to be formed in their conditions. And unless the US wants to militarily clear out the space for the Kurds I don't see the strategic reason in our alliance either. Other than their help against ISIS. That IMO, is what would enable them to secure a deal with the Syrian Government perhaps but it's no reason to stick out our necks.(Besides, we could have done the job ourselves with a larger force. Which is what's going to be needed anyway to remain in Syria.) For the above reasons, I'd have told Graham, Mattis and Pompeo to shove it. I care about US Victory, our allies second. Since there's no logical reason for our forces to remain and the need for reinforcements if they do remain, I would have stuck to the original order.
We should start a quick poll to see if the righties think Bolton is a traitor before Trump fires him.
How about we secure our own border before we worry about Syria, or should we be there as long as we've been in Afghanistan?
Lol. Don’t bother. They can’t figure out what to say until their cult leader or his chief priest (Sean Hannity) tells them what to think.
I think he meet that we took back nearly 100 percent of the terroritory they claimed during the Obama admin. This is a clear sign of desperation as they are beaten in a corner.
John Bolton said we aren’t leaving until ISIS is defeated, which means according to the NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER they are not defeated. Trump’s stupidity strikes again.
yeah there are still a few running around, getting there in a remarkablely quick time frame. The Trump Admin has been awesome in it's handing of the Obama's favorite JV team
