T. Belman. This isn’t the first time the NYT has been wrong. In fact when writing about Trump, it is always wrong. Their premise is that the removal of 2000 US troops from Syria counterdicts the US ME policy goals as articulated by John Bolton and James Jeffrey among others. No other evidence is presented to support their conclusions. In truth, the withdrawal of 2000 troops does no such thing. The policy goal of pushing back Iran remains the same. Trump will fill the gap in Syria with the cooperation of Russia, Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
This isn’t the first time the president and his administration have sent mixed messages.
The editorial board represents the opinions of the board, its editor and the publisher. It is separate from the newsroom and the Op-Ed section.
It was less than three months ago that John Bolton, the national security adviser, declared an expanded objective for American troops in Syria.
The goal is not just defeating the Islamic State, but also ensuring that Iranian forces leave the country, he told reporters in what seemed like an authoritative statement of official policy.
Only, as is so often the case with Donald Trump’s chaotic presidency, it apparently wasn’t.
On Wednesday, Mr. Trump summarily overruled Mr. Bolton and the rest of his national security team. He ordered the withdrawal of all 2,000 American ground troops from Syria within 30 days.
That abrupt and dangerous decision, detached from any broader strategic context or any public rationale, sowed new uncertainty about America’s commitment to the Middle East, its willingness to be a global leader and Mr. Trump’s role as commander in chief.
[…]
As late as Monday, James Jeffrey, the State Department’s Syria envoy, told the Atlantic Council that the United States would stay in Syria until ISIS was defeated, Iranian influence was curbed and there was a political solution to the Syrian civil war.
But on Wednesday, Mr. Trump undercut his advisers, and American interests, by reversing course and declaring in a tweet, “We have defeated ISIS in Syria, my only reason for being there during the Trump Presidency.”
There was no attempt to use the leverage of an American withdrawal to achieve any specific political or military goal.
Mr. Trump’s assertion that the Islamic State is defeated is absurd. “We have won against ISIS,” he boasted in a video. The ability of the terrorists to strike has been significantly degraded and much of the territory they claimed for their so-called caliphate has been liberated. But the group still retains a pocket of land on the Syria-Iraq border and has roughly 20,000 to 30,000 fighters, according to military researchers. As Mr. Jeffrey said Monday, “The job is not yet done.”
No one wants American troops deployed in a war zone longer than necessary. But there is no indication that Mr. Trump has thought through the consequences of a precipitous withdrawal, including allowing ISIS forces to regroup and create another crisis that would draw the United States back into the region.
An American withdrawal would also be a gift to Vladimir Putin, the Russian leader, who has been working hard to supplant American influence in the region and who, on Thursday, enthusiastically welcomed the decision, saying, “Donald’s right.” Another beneficiary is Iran, which has also expanded its regional footprint. It would certainly make it harder for the Trump administration to implement its policy of ratcheting up what it calls “maximum pressure” on Iran.
Among the biggest losers are likely to be the Kurdish troops that the United States has equipped and relied on to fight the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, considers many of the Kurds to be terrorists bent on destroying his country. In recent days he has vowed to launch a new offensive against them in the Syrian border region. Mr. Trump discussed his withdrawal decision in a telephone call with Mr. Erdogan on Friday.
The American withdrawal worries Israel, anxious about Iran’s robust military presence in Syria, and Jordan, which bears a considerable burden from Syrian refugees who fled the fighting across the border. While Israel withheld criticism of Mr. Trump’s decision, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said his government would escalate the fight against Iranian-aligned forces in Syria once the Americans leave.
Decisions of such consequence normally are thoroughly vetted by a president’s national security advisers. But congressional lawmakers said there were no signs that any process was followed, and a senior White House official, refusing to discuss internal deliberations, said Wednesday, “The issue here is the president made a decision.”
It’s hard not to wonder whether Mr. Trump is once again announcing a dramatic step as a way of deflecting attention from bad news, in this case a torrent of legal judgments that are tightening the legal noose around him.
That would be the worst rationale for a commander in chief sworn to protect the nation and to honor the men and women who serve in uniform.
@ Michael S:
Wheeeooo….!! No Christian forbearance….??? I must say Michael, that in our most torrid exchanges I never experienced anything like THIS…completely unlike you, really.
(Not that you’re actually wrong in what you say…but….) In the Wild West that would have been “shootin’ palaver”………
@ yamit82: Yes, but Yamit, 28,000 soldiers is still a lot more than 2,200. And the Americans South Korean allies number about 300,000 highly trained and well armed troops. This is a much stronger force than that of America’s ragtag allies in Syria. The U.S. has an elaborate network of bases in Japan and elsewhere in the Pacific that can quickly send in backup troops if need be. And it has a very large Pacific fleet, including several air craft carriers, that can land troops and supplies tin Korea if need be.
In Syria, the U.S. is not as well eqipped to provide backup to its troops. The U.S. has air bases in Turkey. But the Erdogan government is increasingly hostile to the U.S., and might not allow us to use Turkish territory to resupply our troops in an emergency. The Turks wouldn’t allow George W. Bush to use the American bases in Turkey to invade Iraq in 2003, which severely compromised that operation. The U.S. used to have the Sixth Fleet positioned off the eastern Mediterranean coast. But it was moved out of the area for some reason, I think to bolster the U.S. military presence in the Black Sea and in the North Atlantic, in order to protect against possible Russian agression in these areas. The U.S. would have a tougher time resupplying and reinforcing U.S. forces in Syria in an emergency than in Korea or elsewhere in the Pacific.
@ yamit82: Not all economists agree with this optimistic assessment, Yamit. It is certainly true that the biggest problems are with the Fed and China. But both are very serious problems. Trump has no control over the Fed, which insists on raising interest rates. Probably always a bad idea, but certainly a terrible idea now. As for China, Trump can’t control their stealing of American trade secrets, dumping of goods, etc. They hold all the American businesses that do business in China or have their factories there hostage–the Chinese government could destroy them if it wishes to do so.
@ yamit82: Yamit, did I really write, “Ordained in Heaven?” I can’t believe I was so presumptuous as to say such a thing. I don’t profess to know what is ordained in heaven, except to the extent I read it in the Scriptures. And I don’t claim any expertise in interpreting the scriptures. I think you must be accidentally quoting someone else. If I did write something so inane, I retract it.
I am not so sure thatallof Trump’s military advisers opposed his decision to withdraw from Syria. It is possible that the ones who advised withdrawals have been quieter in public than the ones who opposed his decision. Just thinking through the matter as an admittedly armchair “general” with no military expertise whatsoever, Trump’s decision makes sense to me. Russia and it s allies have far more military forces and far more military and air bases in Syria than the U.S. has. The U.S. has only 2,000 “special op” soldiers in Syria, and they are widely scattered because they are “embedded” with the Kurdish troops. I believe that Russia has about twenty times that number of soldiers in Syria. And there are tens of thousands of soldiers allied with Russia–Assad’s “regulars.” the Hizbollah soldiers, and the Shi’ite mercenary forces controlled by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. I think that Trump is afraid that if the Russians decide to orchestrate an attack on the U.S. soldiers, possibly using these proxy armies but supplied with Russian weapons, the U.S soldiers could be in deep trouble. If many of them were to be killed or captured, it would be a serious blow to U.S. prestige and influence around the world. Of course it would be severely damaging to Trump’s personal prestige. I believe that he thinks the withdrawal is the lesser evil from the point of view of American prestige and his own reputation in America.
Yep USA Economy is the strongest in the world. China trade problem needs to fixed. Debt issue of Social Secuirty and Medicare needs to be addressed but Trump promised that will not be touched. Leaving Syria did not address the problem.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/08/15/national-debt-growing-social-security-medicare-entitlement-reform-column/914488002/
adamdalgliesh Said:
NO RECESSION IN THE OFFING…. MOSTLY BUSINESS MEDIA HYPE AND BLOOMBERG INTEREST AND DEFLATING THE ECONOMY AHEAD OF HIS PRESIDENTIAL RUN AND OR HELPING THE DEMS WIN… VERY CYNICAL BUT TRUE… ECONOMIC FUNDAMENTALS TOO STRONG AND THE MARKETS WILL OR SHOULD REBOUND AFTER NEW YEARS. BUSINESSES ALREADY HAVE ENOUGH PRODUCTION CAPACITY BUT ARE INVESTING IN WORKER TRAINING BIG TIME. THE INVESTMENT IN WORKER TRAINING DOES NOT SHOW UP IN THE INVESTMENT SIDE OF THE DATA BUT IN THE CONSUMPTIONS SIDE. DIVIDENDS WILL SHOW UP IN 2019-2020. GDP 3.5% UNEMPLOYMENT 3.7% CONSUMER CONFIDENCE HIGHEST IN 30 YEARS. CORP PROFITS TO REMAIN HIGH AS WELL AS SMALL BUSINESS PROFITS AND EXPANSION. TAX REVENUE HIGHEST IN HISTORY. OFFSHORE REPATRIATION WILL CONTINUE AT LEAST 1-2 4 TRILLION $$. WAGES RISING ABOVE INFLATION FIRST TIME IN 30 YEARS…. GAS PRICES TO REMAIN LOW FUELING CONSUMPTION AND REDUCING BUSINESS COSTS. THINGS ARE GOOD. BIG PROBLEMS ARE THE FED AND TRADE WITH CHINA.
@ adamdalgliesh:
adamdalgliesh Said:
I agree most but not all professional senior military officers are lacking in intellectual out of the box thinking most are too structured and even too political within the military structure as they must conform to rise in rank.
But Politicians are much worse as they all pander to the lowest common denominator and that bar is very low…. Most are really dumb if not outright stupid and corrupt. Foreign policy and the military cannot be run on a civilian business model much to complex too many nuances that are always changing. National interests to a large degree are what the political establishment determines them to be at any given time. Most Presidential candidates have limited knowledge of the military and the world writ large and are dependent to a large extent of their advisers in and out of the military…… If they ignore some in favor of others that’s fine and normal but to ignore all and execute a policy against a near if not total opposition to those appointed and empowered to advise then I would certainly question the president… The burden of proof remains his to demonstrate. Unfortunately, it may take a long time before actual results are apparent and by then all the negative costs of the mistake will have been paid and too late to reverse. I am a great believer in the process not in individual leaders sole abilities….. If America wanted a Rand Paul Libertarian running the country they had a chance to vote for him. Trumps seems to be in alignment with those views with large dollops of Liberalism…. The Russians, Chinese and Iranians are doing much more and more thoroughly than America at a fraction of the cost. Even before the additional budgets Trump got for the military the USA spent on defense more than all other countries in the world combined. Some things do not compute.
@ adamdalgliesh:
Adam, that is an astute observation, for which I applaud you. There is a lot of talk here about “betraying so-called allies”, as though my country and president had unlimited resources to back up any decision. We do not; and even before President Trump was elected, he plainly said that we could no longer AFFORD to be the world’s policeman.
Another thing about “the Kurds”. In practical terms, there is no such entity. The Syrian (the YPG, “Rohava”) Kurds are Marxists, tied in closely with the PKK terrorists in Turkey; the “Peshmerga” of the Barzani clan, and its KDP party, have collaborated for years with the Turks, while the southern PUK and the Talabani clan are oriented more towards Iran. In Sadaam Hussein’s time, the KDP even sided with Hussein against the PUK in a civil war:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a8/Iraq_kurdish_areas_2003_vector.svg/300px-Iraq_kurdish_areas_2003_vector.svg.png
The YPG have had a close relationship with the Russians, going all the way back to Soviet times. All in all, “loyalty” has a definite shelf life in the Middle East, and this is especially true among the Kurds. America’s willingness to support these people with our treasure and our blood, therefore, has its limit.
The U.S. is having serious long-term economic problems. There are widespread predictions that a serious recession may be looming. The stock market has been losing ground. Many economists say that the country cannot keep adding to the national debt. This is yet another reason that trump wants to disengage the U.S. from foreign wars. They are extremely expensive, and add a lot to the national debt.
@ Michael S:
Concerning Truman’s decision in Korea, many argue to this day that the US should have nuked China in order to drive the Chinese and North Korean troops across the Yalu River — and for that matter, out of China. I personally think such a strategy would have been insane; but it is what MacArthur advocated. Instead of a limited war that claimed some 40,000 US lives, it would have resulted in a war on the scale of WWII.
When the Japanese had attacked the Philippines, early in WWII, Gen. MacArthur abandoned our forces there. He was “too important” to die there, or to suffer in the internment camps, as the rest of his soldiers did. I wonder if Jim Mattis would be willing to die in Syria, fighting for the Kurds. I doubt it.
There is a good reason, ordained in heaven, that the US has not been governed by its generals.
This is what I’m reminded of:
“1951
“Truman relieves MacArthur of duties in Korea”In perhaps the most famous civilian-military confrontation in the history of the United States, President Harry S. Truman relieves General Douglas MacArthur of command of the U.S. forces in Korea. The firing of MacArthur set off a brief uproar among the American public, but Truman remained committed to keeping the conflict in Korea a “limited war.”
“Problems with the flamboyant and egotistical General MacArthur had been brewing for months…”
— https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/truman-relieves-macarthur-of-duties-in-korea
Gen. MacArthur, the Deserter of Corregidor, has many fans even today. Despite his popularity, however, it was Harry S. Truman who was elected President of the US, and popular or no, it is bad policy to publicly criticize your Commander-in-Chief in the middle of a war. That is what Jim Mattis has done.
@ yamit82: Yamit-see my analysis of the AP article about the inner workings of Trump’s decision-making process, above. He is secretive, but I don’t think he his impulsive His decision makes sense from the point of view of his long-standing assumptions about America’s national interest. He has made it clear for years that he wants to scale back America’s military involvements abroad and concentrate on U.S. homeland society. Once his advisors told him that iSIS is no longer a serious threat to the U.S., and that defeating ISIS was the original purpose behind our intervention in Syria, he decided to pull out. This is a part of his long-term strategy of disengaging the U.S. from military committments around the world and his belief that homeland security, to be achieved through immigration and border control, is a more important national priority than fighting enemies overseas.
@ Edgar G.: I agree, Edgar. See my post analyzing the AP story, above.
@ adamdalgliesh: Rereading this article, whose author seems to have the inside “scoop” about Trump’s seemingly abrupt decision, we see that various factors went into it that Trmp had been preparing for some time. He maintained his plans secret from several officials whom he had signaled he was planning to replace anyway, such as Jim Mathis. This, too, is part of Trump’s pattern. He retains his advisors as long as they are useful to him, then lets them go if and when they do not support the decisions that he has made or intends to make. Yes, a unusual style of governance, but one that Trump has followed constantly. Everyone is the executive branch of government except the President and Vice President expendable –not their lives, but their official positions. That is how he maintains his authority when he knows that his policy decisions are opposed by most of the “deep state” establishment players.
Among the factors that probably went into Trump’s change of U.S. Policy in Syria were a) a hope that it would ease tensions with Russia, b) release ofvery limited American military resources–the result of heavy cutbacks in the Obama years-to bolster NATO defenses in Eastern Europe and maintain military assistance to Ukraine, c) maintain our alliance with Turkey, which (ironically) the defense and intelligence establishment has told him is necessary for American national security,d) let America’s enemies in Syria duke it out with each other, which will drain the resources of all of them. As for the Kurds, Trump, although very sympathetic to them, knows that Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran are all united about one thing and one thing only–denying independence to the Kurds. There are also internal divisions among the Kurds. He may therefore have concluded that the Kurdish cause can never triumph, that he had to choose between them and the Turks, and so reluctantly decided to abandon the Kurds. Perhaps not the morally right decision, but one that reflects his realpolitik and “America First” perspective. I suspect that Trump thought long and hard about this decision, even though he kept his own counsel. He is not as impulsive as he seems. But he is secretive.
@ yamit82: There is no doubt that this decision will have some very bad consequences. But Trump had to weigh those bad consequences with the danger of war with Russia in Syria. It was a very hard choice, but he probably made the right one. But only time will tell. Yes, I feel really bad about the betrayal of the Kurds.
@ yamit82: Yamit, this analysis is very interesting. I will look into it. Where, and from what source, did you learn this information?
However, if this is true, it is inconsistent with your view that Trump should not pull out of Afghanistan (if I correctly understand your position on that issue). After all, if the purpose for going in there was illegitimate and imperialist in the first place, of course Trump should pull our troops out of there.
@ Michael S:
Yamit, sorry for unloading on you like that. I was in a hurry, and didn’t have time to proofread it. I think you simply misunderstood me — I was comparing the relative merits of spending money in Syria (a black hole, if you ask me) and the more practical matter of securing our country’s borders. There is so much madness going about, from traitors like Chuck Schumer, I was just generally upset over it all. You had nothing to do with that.
@ yamit82:
Yamit, stick to Israeli politics. The President of the US is commander-in-chief, in charge of defending the country. People violently entering this country from another country are to be forbidden from doing so by our military: that is a main function of the military. You idiotic hypocrite! I imagine you support Israel allowing the Gaza demonstrators to freely pour into Israel. What insanity!
Also, FYI, I did not advocate the use of the military against US citizens (as we did in Waco in 1993, BTW). I simply said that it is more important to defend our own borders, than to help the Kurds fight for independence. Go get a brain.
@ Laura:
You put your finger on the crucial point…”Why would he listen to Erdogan over his own Military Advisors etc..”…I don’t think he did…there was some Real Politik going on there, with money, S400s, F-35s and other things involved. I feel he will still be a player n the area. Completely unlike his often avowed tightness with Israel.
But, he knows about a million times more than I do, about what’s happening there, so I’ll wait and see what develops. The news world has so often been wrong about Trump, that whatever he actually does is generally surprising, but works out well for us all.
I have seen how Erdogan works… more of a dictator than a politician, and would likely have made threats to Trump. Trump would very likely act adversely to threats so ……
Edgar G. Said:
When you have your mortal enemy on the ropes and going down for the count you don’t allow him to get up and continue the fight. That very stupid. Probably very costly down the road. 2200 troops in Syria with almost no American losses is very easy to absorb and justify compared to hundreds of other American troop emplacements around the world like Africa and Europe. Most servicemen in Syria as far as I have read are fully supportive of their efforts and mission there and against pulling out now.
Syrian Kurds may release 3,200 ISIS captives
Commanders of the Kurdish-led Democratic Forces (SDF) warned Friday that, after the US army pulls out of Syria. more than 3,000 local and foreign ISIS prisoners held in their detention camps in the Deir ez-Zour region of eastern Syria may be freed. The Kurds are considering withdrawing from Deir ez-Zour and moving north, ready to repel the Turkish army’s advance into East Euphrates. This move would leave the detention camps unguarded.
@ Bear Klein:
Notice almost all of his nominations have turned out to be either anti-Trump or anti-Trumps stated agenda. I think the only ones influencing him are Javanka. They too don’t support his populist agenda being elite NY Liberal Dems.
@ Bear Klein:
I’m surprised that suddenly every Tom Dick and Harry in the White House inner circles, is speaking out publicly about matters they should keep their mouths firmly closed about. Trump and Pompeo firmly declared, that regardless of the 2000 troop withdrawal the fight is still not finished and will be carried on.
@ Michael S:
You got to be kidding ??? You know the Law prohibits using the military for civilian policing unless a state of emergency is declared and supported by Congress.
@ adamdalgliesh:
The fight against Islamic insurgency and terror is generational …. Tough for the Western mind to comprehend and impossible for Western Democracies to combat. They all know they can wear the West down and know that thru immigration and high birthrate liberal West will be absorbed in the Muslim Caliphate. It’s not a linear concept but it is proving to be a successful strategy. China Understands the threat and has put their Muslim population in concentration camps. Japan blocks them access to Japan. Eastern Europe once under Muslim rule still rejects Muslim migrants. China is still the most serious existential threat to the West and the world.
@ yamit82:
I was hoping he was learning, during the primary races I thought he knew so little and would have a long learning curve on foreign policy. When he switched to Bolton & Pompeo and appeared to be listening to them I thought he was making progress.
I believe I was wrong now, he is not truly learning and his very impulsive. His domestic enemies will now have a field day with him politically. Many traditional conservative GOP members may abandon him after he gotten most of them to his side. I believe only the hard core Trump supporters will stay with him. This will also turn out to be a political blunder.
@ adamdalgliesh:
There were at most a couple hundred Al Queda fighters there when Bush invaded. Most then fled or were killed….Taliban was never an enemy or threat to America… The Pathan tribes have defeated the Mongols. Brits, Russians and now the Americans…..The whole invasion and war in Afgnhistan has been fought for control and pacification of local tribes in order to facilitate oil and gas piplines from the energy rich Caucases, Bush had plans to invade even before 9/11 It’s in the Congressional record.
@ adamdalgliesh:
Trump following the same policy as Obama that he was so critical of. Wrong to go into Iraq and getting out too soon while telegraphing to enemies his planned moves in advance. I think he is full of shit and ad-libs from min to min. Not only has he thrown his key and most loyal allies under the bus but his key advisers and many supporters as well. Seems to me he is incapable of learning and has no depth of understanding complex matters.
Another likely aspect of Trump’s reasoning is probably that the Damascus regime, Russia and Iran are on their way to victory over ISIS in any case. Why not let them expend the lives of their soldiers and their money, rather than sacrificing more American lives in the war against ISIS? As for defeating Iran in Syria, this will be very difficult for the Americans to achieve as long as Russia is allied with Iran and Russia remains a military superpower (which it is).
If Trump is planning a withdrawal from Afghanistan, as is widely rumored, that will be a more problematical and risky decision than the withdrawal from Syria. Al Queda will probably return to Afghanistan and use it as a base again if the U.S. withdraws. However, Trump also has to consider the fact that the U.S. has been fighting for seventeen years continuously in Afghanistan, yet th Taliban enemy is growing stronger, not weaker, and the side we are backing is getting weaker, not stronger. Unless someone can present him with a clear strategy for victory, and none of the experts seem to have presented him with such a strategy, he may well have concluded that the U.S.’s war wit the Taliban has been lost, and that it is best to withdraw before American troops are forced out under fire or taken prisoner by the enemy.
I believe that the Afghanistan war could be won if the u.S. ended all aid to Pakistan and replaced it with an embargo against that country. This is because I believe that Palistan is “in cahoots” with the Taliban and even al-Qaeda, even though it poses as America’s ally. Another tactic that might work is saturation bombing of areas controlled by the Taliban, without regard to the civilian populations’ loss of life. But I doubt if any of Trump’s military advisors have presented him with such a changed strategy.And it would definitely be opposed vigorously by the “deep state,” the Pentagon and CIA establishments, and of course the press. Understandible that Trump has decided to cut and run. He must make the best of America’s international situation within the constraints that have been placed on him by America’s political system and internal balance of power. And that is what he is doing.
@ Bear Klein:
Transactional Trump ChoDec 20, 2018 @ 9:22 Binyamin Netanyahu, Donald Trump, Erdogan, IDF, US Syria pullout,se Islamist anti- American anti-West dictator over loyal pro-American allies Israel the Kurds and even Jordan. Everything else is just WH spin.
I supported Trump because I agreed with most of his stated agenda and that included getting out of Afghanistan but not Syria…. America maintains 28 K troops in S Korea most on or near the DMZ not because they could stop NOKO Invasion but as a buffer and symbol that an attack on the south and American troops is total war the America. 2200 American advisers and trainers in Syria serves much the same scenario it protects allies the (Kurds) from Turkey and Iran. They are a very small and limited military footprint and almost no losses aside from a fatal acicent since they have been in Syria,
BB just got kicked in the teeth and is learning that no mater how much he grovels he will be treated as a POS even by Trump. Putin views him with disdain and Iran is winning.
https://www.debka.com/the-idf-must-cut-short-tunnel-operation-get-set-for-repercussions-from-trumps-stunning-syria-withdrawal/
.
@ Bear Klein: Most of the specific criticisms of Trump’s decision are reasonable in and of themselves. But the Times is wrong that Trump’s decsion is wrong simply because Putin likes it. Putin likes to drink the occasional glass of wine. So do I.
The editorial board also ignores the key question of whether America can continue to afford indefinite, unending commitment to wars when there is no clear path to victory, and not even the experts have presented a clear strategy likely to result in victory. Perhaps we should now regard wars as something like police activity, which much continue every day and every year even though it can never bring an en end to crime or see to it that all criminals are permanently put out of circulation.
But this is not the traditional way that Americans have looked on wars. The American public expects a victory when America goes to within a reasonable period of time–let us say, four or five years–and if no victory is in sight after that time, they want their government to end it if at all possible.Americans don’t like seeing their sons and daughters die when their is no clear evidence that their sacrifice is achieving a clearly defined goal. Even Lincoln had great difficulty persuading the people of the Union states to continue the civil war in 1864, even though it was nearly won by that time. As a politician, Trump has to consider whether the American people will tolerate open-ended wars when no victory is in sight, no clear light at the end of the tunnel visible. Politically Trump has no real choice but to end all three of America’s “major” wars if he wants to maintain his base of public support. And he probably decided to do what he has to do now, since after the Democrat-controlled House takes office in the first week of January, they may prevent him from doing anything at all.
https://www.breitbart.com/middle-east/2018/12/20/caroline-glick-pros-and-cons-of-the-u-s-pullout-from-syria/
@ Laura: Laura, I hadn’t meant to suggest that Trump’s decision was the right one because the NYT opposed it.It is possible that the Times critique of this particular Trump decision icon target. But my point is that they can be relied on to condemn any Trump decision, whether wise or not. We just have to dismiss their rhetoric as background noise. The ine the Times takes on this or any other decision of Trump is unrelated to the question of whether or not Trump’s decision is the right one. This is because The Times can be relied on to oppose any Trump decision, whether it is wise or unwise, good or bad, simply because Trump made it. The Times and and most of the press hate Trump personally , not because they disagree with his policies.In analyzing Trump’s decision, then, we should just try to examine the “facts on the ground,” and not on the basis of what the press has to say about it. THat is because the press’s reaction to any Trump action is automatically negative. Melania can’t eve be wearing the right dress or the right shoes from their perspective, She is an illegal immigrant from their perspective.
This critique of Trump’s decision about Syria by the NYT, whether justified or not, is just part of their larger campaign to remove him from office.That is why we should ignore it as irrelevant background noise.
@ Laura:
You are on the Mark on this really bad decision by Trump.
@ adamdalgliesh:
I find it baffling that the president would take erdogan’s advice over his own military advisors. The alt right kooks cheering this decision may see this as a defeat for the DC establishment, but apparently they don’t care that erdogan and Iran see it as a victory. Apparently Rand Paul, Tucker Carlson et al are more concerned with sticking it to the DC establishment than in stopping Iran.
@ adamdalgliesh:
This is true, which is why I shut out big media and dismiss their opinions altogether. But the fact that they are criticizing Trump over Syria is also no reason to think that Trump is necessarily making the right decision. You are still allowing yourself to be manipulated by the media.
@ Michael S:
The troops he is removing from Afghanistan or elsewhere can fulfill that mission on our southern border.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/12/22/brett-mcgurk-us-envoy-anti-isis-coalition-quits-over-trumps-syria-move/2397034002/
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/256529
I have been thinking through this decision of Trump’s, and I think I now understand his reasons for it.
Trump had goodwill towards Israel, and would like it to be secure and prosperous. But his first priority, as President of the United States, is to protect Americans. And that is as it should be. Israel’s security should be the priority of the Israeli, not necessarily the American, government.
Trump cares deeply about the lives of American soldiers. He is deeply troubled by the casualties that American soldiers have taken during his administration in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria.. Not only those killed, but the many crippled for life. He has frequently visited GIs in hospitals, and his concern for them is obvious. And he has noticed that these wars never seem to end. He does not like indefinite military committments that may go on forever without a clear victory over America’s enemies. And he doesn’t much like American involvement in a civil war in which both sides are hostile to the United States.
But an even bigger priority for Trump is to avoid a war with Russia. He knows that such a war could quickly escalate into a nuclear exchange in which millions of Americans might be killed. American and Russian forces have repeatedly come close to firing on each other in Syria, and in fact American planes did, so the Russians claim, bomb one of their positions and shot down one of their planes. Trump may be willing to “concede” Syria to Russia as within Russia’s sphere of influence. And the fact is that it has been in Russa’s sphere of influence since as early as 1966, when the Ba’athists first seized power. So it is nothing new.
Trump knows he cannot allow Russia’s aggression in Ukraine remain unanswered or tolerated. If he does not take countermeasures to pressure Russia into withdrawing its troops from Ukraine and abiding by its treaties with Ukraine (which Putin has broken), then Russia might be tempted to invade or attack the Eastern European nations that have joined NATO, such as the three Baltic republics and Poland. If Russia were to misread American resolve in Eastern Europe, that too would mean war. But the fact that the U.S. cannot afford to end its military aid to Ukraine or withdraw its troops from Eastern Europe makes it all the more necessary to make concessions to Russia in other areas that Trump thinks are not as vital to American interests as Eastern Europe. Spmehow a “deal” with Russia must be struck to avoid war with Russia. Trump clearly sees his decision to withdraw from Syria as part of his attempt to strike a bargain with Russia.
Trump believes that as long as Israel is provided with adequate weapons from the United States, it can take care of itself. He probably thinks outright war between Israel and Russia is unlikely. Russia is not a friend of Israel. But Putin does seem to wantmaintain a cordial and “correct,” although not intimate, relationship with the Israelis. He does not appear to want a war with them, which would be full of risks for Russia and also deprive it of a valuable trading partner.Trump knows that If Russia does go to war with Israel, the U.S. has a number of options available to to support Israel and punish the Russians. But he probably believes that Netanyahu has worked out a moudus vend with Russia inhis numerous meetings with Putin, making aRusso-Israeli war unlikely.
On the whole, Trump has made the right decision to protect American lives and interests. Of course the NYT says it is a disaster. But if Trump had decided to step up America’s involvement in Syria, they would have denounced that decision, too. The “liberal” media hate Trump, regardless of what he does or doesn’t do.
This from AP via the Hamodia website:
Trump Call With Erdogan Led to U.S. Pullout from Syria
Friday, December 21, 2018 at 12:11 pm | ?”? ??? ???”?Updated Friday, December 21, 2018 at 12:28 pm
trump erdogan, trump syria
U.S. President Donald Trump (L) and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan tour the new NATO headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, last July. (Tatyana Zenkovich/pool photo via AP)
WASHINGTON (AP) –
President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw American troops from Syria was made hastily, without consulting his national-security team or allies, and over strong objections from virtually everyone involved in the fight against the Islamic State terror group, according to U.S. and Turkish officials.
Trump stunned his Cabinet, lawmakers and much of the world with the move by rejecting the advice of his top aides and agreeing to a withdrawal in a phone call with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan last week, two officials briefed on the matter told The Associated Press.
The Dec. 14 call, described by officials who spoke on condition of anonymity as they were not authorized to discuss the decision-making process publicly, provides insight into a consequential Trump decision that prompted the resignation of widely respected Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. It also set off a frantic, four-day scramble to convince the president either to reverse or delay the decision.
The White House rejected the description of the call from the officials but was not specific.
“In no uncertain terms, reporting throughout this story is not true,” National Security Council spokesman Garrett Marquis said. “It is clear from the context that this false version of events is from sources who lack authority on the subject, possibly from unnamed sources in Turkey.”
The State Department and Pentagon all declined to comment on the account of the decision to withdraw the troops, which have been in Syria to fight Islamic State since 2015.
Despite losing the physical caliphate, thousands of IS fighters remain in Iraq and Syria, and the group continues to carry out terror attacks and could easily move back into territory it once held if American forces withdraw.
The call came a day after Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his Turkish counterpart Mevlut Cavusoglu agreed to have the two presidents discuss Erdogan’s threats to launch a military operation against U.S.-backed Kurdish rebels in northeast Syria, where American forces are based. The NSC then set up the call.
Pompeo, Mattis and other members of the national-security team prepared a list of talking points for Trump to tell Erdogan to back off, the officials said.
But the officials said Trump, who had previously accepted such advice and convinced the Turkish leader not to attack the Kurds and put U.S. troops at risk, ignored the script. Instead, the president sided with Erdogan.
In the following days, Trump remained unmoved by those scrambling to convince him to reverse or at least delay the decision to give the military and Kurdish forces time to prepare for an orderly withdrawal.
“The talking points were very firm,” said one of the officials, explaining that Trump was advised to clearly oppose a Turkish incursion into northern Syria and suggest the U.S. and Turkey work together to address security concerns. “Everybody said push back and try to offer (Turkey) something that’s a small win, possibly holding territory on the border, something like that.”
But Erdogan quickly put Trump on the defensive, reminding him that he had repeatedly said the only reason for U.S. troops to be in Syria was to defeat the Islamic State and that the group had been 99 percent defeated. “Why are you still there?” the second official said Erdogan asked Trump, telling him that the Turks could deal with the remaining IS fighters.
With Erdogan on the line, Trump asked National Security Adviser John Bolton, who was listening in, why American troops remained in Syria if what the Turkish president was saying was true, according to the officials. Erdogan’s point, Bolton was forced to admit, had been backed up by Mattis, Pompeo, U.S. special envoy for Syria Jim Jeffrey and special envoy for the anti-IS coalition Brett McGurk, who have said that IS retains only 1 percent of its territory, the officials said.
Bolton stressed, however, that the entire national security team agreed that victory over IS had to be enduring, which means more than taking away its territory.
Trump was not dissuaded, according to the officials, who said the president quickly capitulated by pledging to withdraw, shocking both Bolton and Erdogan.
Caught off guard, Erdogan cautioned Trump against a hasty withdrawal, according to one official. While Turkey has made incursions into Syria in the past, it does not have the necessary forces mobilized on the border to move in and hold the large swaths of northeastern Syria where U.S. troops are positioned, the official said.
The call ended with Trump repeating to Erdogan that the U.S. would pull out, but offering no specifics on how it would be done, the officials said.
Over the weekend, the national security team raced to come up with a plan that would reverse, delay or somehow limit effects of the withdrawal, the officials said.
On Monday, Bolton, Mattis and Pompeo met at the White House to try to plot a middle course. But they were told by outgoing chief of staff John Kelly and his soon-to-be successor Mick Mulvaney that Trump was determined to pull out and was not to be delayed or denied, according to the officials. The trio met again on Tuesday morning to try to salvage things, but were again rebuffed, the officials said.
The White House had wanted to announce the decision on Tuesday — and press secretary Sarah Sanders scheduled a rare briefing specifically to announce it. But the Pentagon convinced Trump to hold off because the withdrawal plans weren’t complete and allies and Congress had not yet been notified, according to the officials. The first country aside from Turkey to be told of the impending pull-out was Israel, the officials said.
Word of the imminent withdrawal began to seep out early Wednesday after U.S. Central Command chief Gen. Joseph Votel started to inform his commanders on the ground and the Kurds of the decision.
Following the official announcement, the White House emphasized that the U.S. will continue to support the fight against IS and remains ready to “re-engage” when needed. But in a tweet, the president said U.S. troops would no longer be fighting IS on behalf of others.
“Time to focus on our Country & bring our youth back home where they belong!”
Updated Friday, December 21, 2018 at 12:28 pm .
The USA will now be seen as an unreliable ally who can NOT be counted on when the chips are down. Trump has now used the Kurds and dis-guarded them while under pressure from Erodogan. Will Trump now find a way to throw Gulen (a legal US green card holder) to Erodgoan to a sure Turkish prison cell and possible death? Erodogan has been demanding this and there are now voices that say Trump is trying to find a way to get him extradited.
So this will have major geo-strategic implications across the globe. If the US fails to stand with its allies when the rhetoric gets too loud what will happen elsewhere?
Will the Chinese take Taiwan? Will the Russians keep taking territory that was part of the former Soviet Union?
If the US is perceived as weak Russians, Chinese and Iranians will test the boundaries of what they can take. Trump had changed the perception of Obama’s USA as soft. Trump is now making a very Obama like decision and unless something is done to change course this will invite challenges to the US and its friends from the Pacific to the Middle East.
@ Michael S:
The greatest security threat to the US is at its southern border. That is where we need the troops, not in northeastern Syria.
@ greenrobot:
Ted, you and greenrobot are both right; Laura and Bear Klein are both wrong.
Nothing in the Middle East will change from pulling 2000 troops out.
Every one will keep fighting until they stop on their own.
Russia not going to fight the Iranians who are their clients and partners in Syria, just like Erodgan has never seriously fought ISIS and is only interested in destroying any Kurdish military power and slaughtering them plus keep them from having a state in Northern Syria.
This has been consistent for many years now and believing the opposite is not credible!
Trump is rewarding the Kurds with letting them be slaughtered by the Turks in-spite of them being the ally on the ground fighting with US troops against ISIS and the attack of Russian mercenaries and Hezbollah against US troops across the Euphrates. So for fighting and suffering as the defacto US infantry in Syria and also Iraq they are being abandoned to Erodgan.
What bullshit and Trump bought it. This is what is being reported in Turkish papers that Erodgan said and is also reported in the Times of Israel. https://www.timesofisrael.com/trump-decided-on-syria-pullout-during-phone-call-with-erdogan-report/
Groping to rationalize Trump’s illogical pullout if one cares about security. Logical if one believes in Isolation like policy such as a Rand Paul,
@ Laura:
You are correct. Totally illogical. This is like believing the tooth fairy is going to come and help you. Turkey promoted and still does many elements of ISIS. They are Muslim Brotherhood. Russia has said they can not control their ally Iran in Syria and they are there by invitation.
Why on earth would we trust Russia and Turkey, both of who are allies with Iran? I just think you’re reaching for some kind of justification when the simple answer is that Trump is an isolationist at heart. Or at least he’s pandering to that element of his base. Why would he listen to Erdogan over his own advisers; Mattis, Bolton, Pompeo? I do however still believe Trump is committed to Israel’s security.