Thought I’d post this video in here, as it goes into this question, though only shallowly. I generally find this channel to be good at a non-US perspective on things happening geopolitically throughout the world.
The short answer to the OP is, of course we did. But we had our reasons. Unfortunately, from a US perspective, doing so will, again, make us look weak AND like we aren’t a solid ally to small groups like the Kurds. It will hurt Turkey as well, as their economy was only starting to recover and this will set them back again, big time, if/when sanctions roll in on them. It will help ISIS, as many of it’s fighters are in camps that have been abandoned, which means that they will be free to go back to fighting. The chaos incurred by this is going to be great for them. It will help Syria as well, especially in the north, as the uneasy and fragile truce between Turkey and Syria/Russia wrt the north western parts of Syria controlled by Turkey might be back under assault.
Trump has, once again, done the stupid thing and brought chaos to the region. There was a sort of balancing act going on with the US being the cork in the bottle, so to speak. No one wanted to fuck too much with the status quo. With the US pull out, it has and will increasingly become a free for all in the region, with Syrian civilians caught, again, in the middle, and already starting to be displaced (not to mentioned killed in the cross fire).
And now the Kurds know we can’t and shouldn’t be trusted either. Assad may survive all of this after all and Russia is going to come out of this smelling like a rose.
I can’t help but think that Erdoğan has a recording or other evidence of Trump blatantly abusing his office or committing a crime and has threatened to use it. The release of such evidence now might flip enough Republican Senators to remove the buffoon from office. What else could explain all this?
No, I think Erdogan’s hold over Trump is Trump’s real estate holdings in Turkey. All Erdogan needs to do is threaten to raise Trump’s property taxes and Trump would sell out anyone.
Even before the vote, it was pretty obvious that President Trump’s Syrian troop “withdrawal” / repositioning was at odds with the bulk of the inside-the-beltway opinion on the matter.
Pretty much the only people who thought this was a good idea were Syria, Russia and Iran. Maybe China, though most likely they don’t care but love to see the US look weak. Other than that, only those trying to defend Trump despite this being indefensible, and the man himself who is clueless and probably didn’t even think it through before deciding on a moments notice to just pull the trigger on our withdrawal from the region thought this was a good thing.
Sorry, but he fucked up…again. Big time. And it’s going to cost him and the country quite a lot down the road. Probably a lot more than folks realize, as it will again show that the US isn’t to be trusted or relied on if you are a small fry, despite the fact that the US came to you initially to fix some problem it didn’t want to deal with directly. Which is what we’ve asked of the Kurds, not just in Syria but in the region.
This isn’t personalizing an argument. It’s an established way of phrasing the “Just Asking Questions” debate tactic that many consider fallacious, no different than accusing someone of any debate fallacy.
So… the House haspassed a resolutionopposing the removal of troops from Syria
And Trump has recently ordered US troops into Saudi Arabia, bragging that the US is getting money from the Saudi’s for this.
My question is - is the entire US military at the exclusive beck and call of Trump, by virtue of his being “commander in chief”? Are there no limits whatsoever on his control over the military? For example, if Trump does not like the results of the upcoming Canadian election, could he order via tweet that the military would now mass on the Canadian border, and move in to take control of all major Canadian cities? He’d state, of course, that this was NOT “war” Most definitely not. His administration would explain that is was all perfectly legal. And Fox News would agree that it was perfectly legal. And maybe congress would pass a resolution condemning it. But could he just order it, and the military would do as they were told?
It seems that it is now against the rules to accuse someone of committing a logical fallacy like “Just Asking Questions” Any other logical fallacies that we are not allowed to use? Can we say that an argument is a “straw man argument” or is that too insulting?
No, I doubt he was unfamiliar with the phrase. I certainly knew what the poster was talking about. And the post was, rightfully, censured but no warning was issued. Seems appropriate to me, and I agree with the poster in question.
Also, this isn’t exactly the place for this discussion…
The President has broad control over the military. Congress passed the War Powers Resolution in 1973 over Nixon’s veto to try to put some limits on that, but it has been ignored / sidestepped by various presidents in the past.