One passage in the Reuters news article about the announced U. S. deployment of troops in Saudi Arabia caught my attention:
Trump said the United States would not bear the expense of the deployment. “Saudi Arabia, at my request, has agreed to pay us for everything we’re doing,†he told reporters.
Are U. S. troops really mercenaries in the pay of Saudi Arabia? IMO the only justifiable reason to have U. S. troops in Saudi Arabia would be to oust the Saud family from their present control. The present regime is one of the most ghastly in the world.
From the 14th century through the early 19th century the Ottoman maintained an elite corps of Europeans called the Janissaries. Initially the Janissaries were Christian boys who were enslaved and forced to fight for the Ottoman. The Janissaries were known for their cohesion and ferocity in battle.
Have we been reduced to the Saudis’ janissaries?
Yeah,,, I originally thought this was a response to the drone and missile strike on their oilfield. To help sell and set up an Iron Dome or some such. But 3,000? Trump doesn’t seem to be consistent here.
Watching criticism of his Syria move this morning I’ve come to believe he had little choice. Erdogan told Trump they were coming in in and his choices were move those 100 Special Forces guys or reinforce them. His tweet today was if congress wants us to fight Turkey, let them vote to declare war. Good one.
We have cost sharing with all our NATO and Asian allies, so this is nothing new.
What is striking is that we are deploying the same air defense systems that failed spectacularly against the drone and cruise missile attack a little while ago. The new deployment will be equally ineffective.
Of course, the US does not have any defense system against low and slow drones and cruise missiles. The Army has always assumed that’s an Air Force job.
Saudi Arabia is not an ally and never has been.
Without their wealth, the House of Saud would long be gone. They can afford to purchase military systems and therefore the allegiance of their suppliers. Same thing as allies.
WTF! He is selling our troops to a corrupt autocrat, to a country that is not an ally, for purposes that have nothing to do with our national defense. This is actually unprecedented. From the KSA POV this must be awesome. Remember when they were trying to pay some Pakistani troops to come fight for them and they said no? They just got upgraded to US troops.
Steve
Sadly, it’s worse than that. Putting troops in KSA has known risks.
Below is another perspective regarding Trump’s act of moving back soldiers stationed on the Syrian-Turkish border. Included in this piece is a critique of the inept actions earlier taken by the Obama Administration, designed mostly to finesse and assure him of the Iran deal still being on tract. Trump did not betray the Kurds.
“The hard truth is that the 50 US soldiers along the Syrian-Turkish border were a fake tripwire. Neither Trump nor the US military had any intention of sacrificing US forces to either block a Turkish invasion of Syria or foment deeper US involvement in the event of a Turkish invasion.
Here it is critical to note that Trump did not remove US forces from Syria. They are still deployed along the border crossing between Jordan, Iraq, and Syria to block Iran from moving forces and materiel to Syria and Lebanon. They are still blocking Russian and Syrian forces from taking over the oil fields along the eastern bank of the Euphrates. Aside from defeating ISIS, these missions are the principle strategic achievements of the US forces in Syria. For now, they are being maintained. Will Turkey’s invasion enable ISIS to reassert itself in Syria and beyond? Perhaps. But here too, as Trump made clear this week, it is not America’s job to serve as the permanent jailor of ISIS. European forces are just as capable of serving as guards as Americans are. America’s role is not to stay in Syria forever. It is to beat down threats to US and world security as they emerge and then let others – Turks, Kurds, Europeans, Russians, UN peacekeepers – maintain the new, safer status quo.”
For those without time to read jan’s cited article, let me give a brief synopsis. Obama didnt do everything Israel wanted. He sucks. Trump does everything Israel wants. He is great.
The real hard truth is that the Turks were not attacking Kurds in Syria until we gave them the go ahead. The author might believe Trump’s threats (she probably doesn’t but has to say nice stuff about Trump so he will continue to be an Israeli lapdog) but it looks like the Turks dont. At least that is how the dead Kurds probably see it.
We clearly walked out on a client state that had been working with us. Were we going to stay there all along? Probably not. Could we have left in a planned, disciplined manner that let these people with whom we were working try to achieve a better outcome. Yes.
Steve
Nice of you to translate that article for people, Steve. However, it’s unfortunate your summary falls squarely into the category of cynical bias.
Trump signaled his intentions in Syria long ago about not staying for indefinite periods of time. What he did do was immediately play clean-up for Obama’s poor leadership and enforcement of hands-tying, demoralizing rules of engagement. Also, how all this plays out is yet to be determined in lieu of every option – staying too long or leaving too early – having plenty of downsides.
This is a significant deployment – it means that US will now have some significant air power coverage of the Gulf on a continuous basis without having to rely on carrier support. And politically, it means that the forces stationed there will likely have much more leeway in confronting Iran than, for instance, forces stationed in Kuwait.
If what’s been reported is correct, the assets are not really designed to shoot down future cruise missile strikes – this is an more an offensive force that can retaliate quickly should the Iranians or their proxies conduct another strike.
What about confronting the Houthis? Why do we want our troops to retaliate if the Houthis attack, directly or with drones/missiles? What does this do for the US?
Steve
“What about confronting the Houthis? Why do we want our troops to retaliate if the Houthis attack, directly or with drones/missiles? What does this do for the US?”
This is about Iran, not the Houthi’s. The missile strike on the Saudi refining facility was Iranian-sponsored if not undertaken directly by Iran.
The Patriots are there to detect future attacks and, possibly, shoot down incoming missiles. The aircraft are there for retaliation. The THAAD is there for force protection if the situation goes south and Iran starts lobbing ballistic missiles.
It’s all a very strong signal to Iran saying, “don’t try that shit again.”