At New York Magazine Andrew Sullivan reacts to the reports that we will be removing our troops from Syria and (at least some) from Afghanistan:
Neoconservatism, it seems, never dies. It just mutates constantly to find new ways to intervene, to perpetuate forever wars, to send more young Americans to die in countries that don’t want them amid populations that try to kill them. If you want the most recent proof of that, look at Yemen, where the Saudi policy of mass civilian deaths in a Sunni war on Shiites is backed by American arms and U.S. It’s also backed by American troops on the ground — in a secret war conducted by Green Berets that was concealed from Congress. There is no conceivable threat to the U.S. from the Houthi rebels in Yemen; and there was no prior congressional approval. Did you even know we had ground troops deployed there?
The same for liberal internationalism, which also never seems to die, however many catastrophes it spawns. There’s always an impending “massacre†somewhere to justify intervention, which is why we have been dutifully told that withdrawing from Syria would lead to a “slaughter†of the Kurds. Remember the massacre that gave Hillary Clinton a chance to launch another Middle Eastern war in Libya? How many more innocents were slaughtered after we toppled Qaddafi than those in danger before? And all because Clinton refused to learn a single thing from Iraq. (If Clinton had actually won in 2016, we would probably have far more troops occupying Syria today, and be digging in for the long haul, and we’d probably have even more troops in yet another doomed surge in Afghanistan. That goes some way to explaining why Clinton has a massive 31/62 negative approval rating in the latest, Democrat-friendly Quinnipiac poll, much worse than even Trump.)
The claim that being opposed to invading countries with the presumed intention of imposing liberal democracy on them at the point of a gun is isolationism is a particularly vicious canard and it’s high time that we start punching people who make that accusation in the nose. At the very least. Is there some sort of strategic tar and feathers shortage?
Which would you prefer for this charlatan and his handwringing wife, punching the nose or tar and feathers?
https://hotair.com/archives/2018/12/24/scarborough-even-trump-apologists-saying-enough-syria-withdrawal-mattiss-departure/
It only works because Americans are so pro-war, or at least pro-bombing.
Steve
I don’t believe that Americans are pro-war. I don’t think they’re anti-war. I think they’re pro-defense and will swallow a lot of codswallop when political leaders claim things are necessary to defend the country.
I think the basic problem is stupid, immoral political leadership and what you’re interpreting as being pro-war is the Jacksonians not believing in limited war, somewhat different.
BTW, I think that’s part of the discontent that led to Trump being elected. The Jacksonians are dumbfounded by the restraint that has been shown since 9/11. If left to their own devices, they’d’ve nuked a good part of the Arab world. They don’t believe in invading and holding territory. They believe in obliterating enemies but unless attacked or threatened they just don’t give a damn.
Trump Syria withdrawal – winner.
Turkey is going after the Kurds. US troops are with the Kurds. What happens if the Turks advance on the Kurds? Do US forces open fire on NATO member Turkish troops? Bit of a sticky wicket. Trump replaces US forces with Saudi and UAE forces. Now Erdogan has to pick a fight (war) with KSA and UAE to get the Kurds.
War between Turkey and Saudi Arabia is inevitable. The present Turkish government is irredentist. Look at a map of the Ottoman Empire at its greatest extent. Restoring that puts Turkey in opposition to Russia, Iran, and most of the Arab countries of the Middle East but especially Saudi Arabia. The Saud family is well aware that their claims to the whole Arab peninsula depend on occupation of the Muslim holy places.
There can only be one caliph and the argument is over whether he will be a Turk or an Arab. There hasn’t been an Arab caliphate since 1517.
Dave,
I have looked at maps of that part of the world. In great detail I might add. I have seen the waters of the Black and Mediterranean and Red seas, and of the Indian Ocean and the Arabian Gulf and Lake Van and Mount Ararat and the sands of the Sahara, the Khyber Pass and the Hindu Kush. At the time there were no nav aids and no GPS. At 400 knots you can find yourself in big trouble real quick if you don’t pay attention to the maps.
The point of my comment is that the Kurds are now safer because the presence of US forces among them is an uncertain tripwire. The withdrawal is not precipitous but rather a logical step in the process, apparently facilitated by Trump, of forming a coalition of the anti Muslim Brotherhood states – KSA, UAE, Egypt, Jordan and Israel – against the MB states Iran, Turkey, Yemen, Iraq(?) and Lebanon. Syria is a bit of an enigma as its purported allies and its insurgents are aligned with the MB. Remember that Assad pere gained his reputation as a butcher by his shelling of Homs, an MB stronghold.
That area of the world is basically uncivilized, and has been forever. Trump, I am being presumptive here, is distancing us from our perpetual Mexican Standoff posture. He is actively and effectively using our most effective weapon, economic pressure, to cool the hot spots. Will it work? Only time will tell but what we have been doing for the last 30 or 40 years hasn’t been very effective.
I don’t think our presence makes the Kurds safer. I think it puts them at greater eventual risk. They need to make their peace with the rulers of the countries in which they live, e.g. Turkey, Syrian, Iraq, Iran, Jordan, etc. Letting them think that we will enable them to carve out a state of their own from one or more of those countries encourages excessive risk-taking.
We are on the same page vis a vis the presence of US forces. A large part of the current mess is that the Sykes-Picot borders were drawn with little regard for the ethnic and tribal realities on the ground. The Kurds weren’t at the table so they were on the menu.
It’s unclear to me why we’re defending the British foreign policy of 100 years ago but that’s what we’re doing.
Inertia? I think not. The Bilderbergers and/or the Trilateralists? Eisenhower’s Military-Industrial Complex? Maybe the conspiracy nuts aren’t all that nuts. The Globalists may be an imaginary bogeyman but there is a certain logic to the claims. What we do know is that Trump, with his nationalism, has stirred up a lot of hornet nests around the world. Orange Man bad. Halloween every other Thursday.
“The withdrawal is not precipitous but rather a logical step in the process”
Just out of curiosity, how do we know this, the not precipitous part? As to the Kurds, I kind of feel if they are trusting the US to reliably help them, they are the equivalent of Charlie Brown trying to kick the football. They need to decide what they can accomplish and then maintain on their own.
Steve
Steve,
It appears that the KSA and UAE forces were already in place with the Kurds when the announcement was made. Additionally, the Russians, the Turks and the Jordanians made statements concerning the move which indicated that they were not surprised. It was also announced that the Turks cancelled their deal for Russian S-300 anti-air systems and will purchase US Patriot missiles instead.
The possible confrontation of NATO allies was a ticking bomb that threatened unforeseen disasters for all involved. WWI started under similar circumstances. I’m inclined to credit Trump for talking everybody back from the ledge. If nothing else the frenzy generated by his moves and deals since taking office have made them dizzy enough to want a time-out to think things through.
The Kurds desperately need alliances to survive. The US, because of our political volatility, is not a good solution for them. Additionally, being allied with infidels alienates potential friends. KSA is a very good fit.