Erdogan - we will 'strangle' U.S.-backed force in Syria 'before it's even born'

[Jack Mountain]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Your original post said "Don't mention the oil!". From the above, seems like the oil is being mentioned, though (there are actually quite a few articles discussing the situation). But what we're talking about here is hardly significant on international or even regional level. If you original comment was an attempt to spin this along these lines, doubt it holds.

I noticed that in the article the oil reserves there where not mentioned, that's why .... As in "Don't mention the war!" when you are in German company. Serious and funny at the same time. Maybe that's more familiar ...

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, Jack Mountain said:

I noticed that in the article the oil reserves there where not mentioned, that's why .... As in "Don't mention the war!" when you are in German company. Serious and funny at the same time. Maybe that's more familiar ...

Compared to the major oil fields in the mideast, it's very small potatoes. Not worth the investment of a war.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, Jack Mountain said:

I noticed that in the article the oil reserves there where not mentioned, that's why .... As in "Don't mention the war!" when you are in German company. Serious and funny at the same time. Maybe that's more familiar ...

 

The oil reserves, such as they are, may be relevant to Syria and Syrian Kurds. Less so with regard to the US presence or Turkey's objections to the "new" Kurdish military outfit. The "don't mention the war!" thing doesn't quite apply.

[Scott]

Keep the discussion civil.   Continued derogatory remarks aimed at others will have consequences.   

[ilostmypassword]

Turkey deploys tanks, says will act against US-backed forces in Syria as US backpedals

 

• Turkey's President Tayyip Erdogan said he would not hesitate to take action against US-backed fighters in Syria's Kurdish Afrin district after deploying tanks to the region.
• The US denied reports that it would form a new 30,000-strong border force to police the Turkey-Syria-Iran border.
• Turkey considers elements of the Syrian forces that the US backs to be part of the PKK, a Kurdish organization widely considered to be a terrorist
•  
• www.businessinsider.com/turkey-deploys-tanks-says-will-act-against-us-backed-forces-in-syria-2018-1

No big surprise here for those who understand the depth of Turkish rancor against the PKK and its allies. There are those who will argue that this is merely a cosmetic change of stance for the US and that the program will continue. They simply do not understand the vehemence of Turkish opposition to anything resembling a Kurdish state. Especially when it would be on the border with Turkey.

The US has no realistic choice but to back down. The Turks won't.

•  

[Sir Dude]

Maybe so, true...but it would probably be a smart move.

[ilostmypassword]

7 minutes ago, Sir Dude said:

Maybe so, true...but it would probably be a smart move.

Why would it be smart? An ensuing worldwide economic crisis would be a good thing? Unless you're counting on the Russians to keep the peace.

[Sir Dude]

OK, everyone can keep on pandering to corporatism and the financial world. High time people realised that this (economics) should not supercede everything not matter what. Rest my case.

[Scott]

A post with an aberrant spelling has been removed.   The name of the Turkish PM is Erdogan.   Continued deliberate misspellings will get you a suspension.  

[Kiwiken]

On 1/16/2018 at 5:30 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

Time for the US to face reality and realise the Erdogan's government is not a US ally.

Time for them to dump Erdogan and his anti democratic government, but let it be known they'd change their mind if Erdogan was gone and replaced by a democracy.

If the Turks strike the Kurds will the US do nothing. Easy to give hope to a people and then turn your back on them. Turkey is no longer an Ally of the West. It is a neo Ottoman state trying to reassert its influence in the middle east. How long before Erdogan begins accusing Greece of transgressions?

History is an endless loop of unlearned lessons

[bartender100]

So this will be the next major conflict? final battle between Kurds and Turks

 

I favor the Kurds personally 

[steven100]

it's a mess is all I've got to say.  

[stevenl]

10 hours ago, Sir Dude said:

OK, everyone can keep on pandering to corporatism and the financial world. High time people realised that this (economics) should not supercede everything not matter what. Rest my case.

So why would it be a good move?

[Morch]

22 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Turkey deploys tanks, says will act against US-backed forces in Syria as US backpedals

 

• Turkey's President Tayyip Erdogan said he would not hesitate to take action against US-backed fighters in Syria's Kurdish Afrin district after deploying tanks to the region.
• The US denied reports that it would form a new 30,000-strong border force to police the Turkey-Syria-Iran border.
• Turkey considers elements of the Syrian forces that the US backs to be part of the PKK, a Kurdish organization widely considered to be a terrorist
•  
• www.businessinsider.com/turkey-deploys-tanks-says-will-act-against-us-backed-forces-in-syria-2018-1

No big surprise here for those who understand the depth of Turkish rancor against the PKK and its allies. There are those who will argue that this is merely a cosmetic change of stance for the US and that the program will continue. They simply do not understand the vehemence of Turkish opposition to anything resembling a Kurdish state. Especially when it would be on the border with Turkey.

The US has no realistic choice but to back down. The Turks won't.

•  

 

The US will "back down" how? Stop supporting the Kurds in Syria? Withdraw US troops? Retrieve supplied arms? These are all demands and requests raised by Erdogan at one point of another. Unlikely these will materialize any time soon.

 

It does not matter much whether Tillerson's denial is mere damage control or if it does have factual merit. The announcement did sound somewhat bogus (or rather unnecessarily provocative) to begin with, and guess that with proper vetting by the State Department things wouldn't have escalated. The Trump administration's ability to create misunderstandings based on this or that statement is a common occurrence by now.

 

Erdogan (directly or via minions) says a whole lot of things, much of it bluster, posturing and hot air. Confusing his bombastic statements with actual, persistent action is off-mark, though. Most such instances go nowhere much, or at least not as far as Erdogan's big mouth indicates.

[ilostmypassword]

Are you saying that Mattis and McMaster were left out of the loop on this one? Seems unlikely. I thought they were supposed to be the grown-ups. I think that, like you, they were lulled by the tepid,  if undependable, Turkish acceptance of a role for the SDF in the Syrian civil war. and underestimated the ferocity of the Turkish response to this move. It scared the sh*t out of them and forced them into a clumsy and apologetic retreat. I think the story below provides strong evidence for this interpretation.

Turkish attack on US-backed Kurds in Syria believed imminent

Turkish troops and tanks near the Syrian border are making final plans to attack the US military’s Kurdish partners inside northern Syria as tensions between Ankara and Washington near unprecedented levels.

Ahead of a widely expected incursion, the Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, threatened to “destroy all terror nests”, a reference to Kurdish forces that the US has used as proxies in the fight against Islamic State (Isis) and Turkey views as a subversive threat.

Tensions over the Kurds, which have tested relations between two nominal allies for the past three years, spiked over the weekend, when Washington announced it would raise a border force from the Kurdish-dominated Syrian Defence Force, which led the battle against Isis in north-east Syria.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/16/turkish-attack-on-us-backed-kurds-in-syria-believed-imminent

[Rhys]

Will somebody stroke them please.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎1‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 1:44 PM, spidermike007 said:

The real question is, does the US have a coherent policy, when it comes to Syria? It does appear that the US suffered it's greatest ass whooping, perhaps since Afghanistan, and perhaps even Vietnam, in Syria. The Russians absolutely destroyed the US. It was Russia's greatest overseas victory since Georgia. So, I ask once again, does the US have a policy in Syria that makes any sense at all? Obama totally blew any opportunities we had in Syria. And it appears the circus huckster is doing the same. But, I sense it is too late, at this point, to accomplish anything significant in Syria. 

The US should never have got involved with that morass in the first place. Far as I know was one of the few places the US didn't cause the problem, and have, IMO, zero chances of a good outcome, whatever that may be in that quagmire. Like Afghanistan after the US abandoned the place once the Russians were gone, it's probably just going to come back and bite the US on the bum.

[manarak]

I would prefer to use the 'misspelling' that Erdogan fully deserves, but "Erdogan" will do for now.

This islamist dictator is currently playing Russia against the US.

I'm not sure of what goal he wishes to achieve, but his play is so obvious.

Turkey is still a NATO member on paper, but one where German warplanes cannot be stationed.

Putin would have given them hell if "Erdogan" didn't sell out Turkey's US allies to Russia.

Putin's and Turkey's interests are congruent in not wanting the Kurds become stronger, so they both oppose the US there.

And the US can't do anything against Turkey, lol, otherwise Russia gets a new very strategic ally controlling the bosphorus...

This is so comical.

 

[manarak]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The US should never have got involved with that morass in the first place. Far as I know was one of the few places the US didn't cause the problem, and have, IMO, zero chances of a good outcome, whatever that may be in that quagmire. Like Afghanistan after the US abandoned the place once the Russians were gone, it's probably just going to come back and bite the US on the bum.

the US didn't cause the problem?

are you sure?

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, manarak said:

the US didn't cause the problem?

are you sure?

"Far as I know" usually indicates that one is not sure. What did you think it meant?

[manarak]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

"Far as I know" usually indicates that one is not sure. What did you think it meant?

well, as far as I know, many of the "arab spring" fomenters received training by the US in the use of social media.

[JemJem]

The Kurds shouldn't rely on Russia or the US. There have been so many instances in history that the Kurds were sold out by Western powers. I sadly think that this time won't be any different.

 

Erdogan's ultimate aim is to turn Turkey into a theocratic state (or a state that is as Islamic-oriented as possible) that is totally under his control. Already, many signs are not looking good for secularism in Turkey. And, democracy exists only on paper in Turkey, especially since 2-3 years ago.

 

The West, especially the EU will sadly do virtually nothing against Erdogan, even if he keeps threatening and bullying other nations, and keeps putting various opposition activists in jail. The reason ? Erdogan's 'refugee card' of course. No EU government wants any more Syrian refugees. EU wants the refugees who are in Turkey to continue staying in Turkey.

 

Also, business deals and military deals are sadly more important to the West, than the loss of secularism, human rights and democracy in Turkey.

 

Yes, it is a sad world.

 

 

 

Edited January 19, 2018 by JemJem

[stevenl]

4 hours ago, JemJem said:

The Kurds shouldn't rely on Russia or the US. There have been so many instances in history that the Kurds were sold out by Western powers. I sadly think that this time won't be any different.

 

Erdogan's ultimate aim is to turn Turkey into a theocratic state (or a state that is as Islamic-oriented as possible) that is totally under his control. Already, many signs are not looking good for secularism in Turkey. And, democracy exists only on paper in Turkey, especially since 2-3 years ago.

 

The West, especially the EU will sadly do virtually nothing against Erdogan, even if he keeps threatening and bullying other nations, and keeps putting various opposition activists in jail. The reason ? Erdogan's 'refugee card' of course. No EU government wants any more Syrian refugees. EU wants the refugees who are in Turkey to continue staying in Turkey.

 

Also, business deals and military deals are sadly more important to the West, than the loss of secularism, human rights and democracy in Turkey.

 

Yes, it is a sad world.

 

 

 

IMO Erdogan does not care about the religion at all, it is just the easiest way for him to get total control. Because that is all that matters to him, he wants to be a dictator, just like Putin is and Trump aspires to be (but the latter can never reach his ideal there).

[ilostmypassword]

16 minutes ago, stevenl said:

IMO Erdogan does not care about the religion at all, it is just the easiest way for him to get total control. Because that is all that matters to him, he wants to be a dictator, just like Putin is and Trump aspires to be (but the latter can never reach his ideal there).

Yes, Erdogan is awful. No doubt about it. But as far as his stance towards a Kurdish armed force being created to protect a Kurdish geo-political entity of some sort, Erdogan's response is no different than would have been the case with previous Turkish regimes. Turkish governments would always have seen this as too big a threat to be allowed to exist.Whether Erdogan cares about religion or not, it has nothing to do with his opposition to the creation of a Kurdish state or statelet.  Remember that Ataturk himself, the arch-secularist, refused to even recognize Kurds as a separate people. He called them "mountain Turks."

[stevenl]

7 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Yes, Erdogan is awful. No doubt about it. But as far as his stance towards a Kurdish armed force being created to protect a Kurdish geo-political entity of some sort, Erdogan's response is no different than would have been the case with previous Turkish regimes. Turkish governments would always have seen this as too big a threat to be allowed to exist.Whether Erdogan cares about religion or not, it has nothing to do with his opposition to the creation of a Kurdish state or statelet.  Remember that Ataturk himself, the arch-secularist, refused to even recognize Kurds as a separate people. He called them "mountain Turks."

Yes, all very true.

[spidermike007]

11 hours ago, manarak said:

well, as far as I know, many of the "arab spring" fomenters received training by the US in the use of social media.

 

No doubt the US at least encouraged the dissent, that lead to the uprising, and the eventual genocide that Assad committed against his people. We had no business promoting our false brand of democracy in Egypt, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Algeria, and elsewhere. What has it led to? An extraordinary amount of destabilization throughout that region. The hypocrisy of US foreign policy is embarrassing for those of us that are American. Why leave Mugabe, Kim, Duterte, and countless others alone? Where is the coherency in the policy? The US needs to keep their noses out of other nations business. Iraq and Afghanistan should be the benchmark, for failed foreign policy. 

 

Sure, alot of these leaders are murderous despots. But, so is Hun Sen. So is Than Shwe. So is King Salman. Why do we continually lend them support? 

[Morch]

 

@ilostmypassword

 

Could you possibly stop with the routine twist of "are you saying" followed by some nonsense assertion which was not part of my post? Thanks (yes, I already know, futile).

 

Neither Mattis nor McMaster featured in my post. That you try to imply otherwise is plain dishonest. The Trump administration often features disconnect between officials, even on the highest levels, is nothing new though. That you pronounce such an occurrence "unlikely" does not conform with previous instances of the same.

 

I seriously doubt that either Mattis or McMaster were "lulled" by anything. Both have a pretty solid background when it comes to the region, and wouldn't be in need of simplistic lecturing from wannabee "experts". As for myself, I don't know where you get the "lulled" from or what you imagine it applies to. Probably involves some contrived, minute "interpretation" of this or that word in my previous posts, been there done that.

 

As asked and left unanswered - what does the US "backing down" amounts to? Not setting up a "border force" which may or may not have been an actual proposition (and was not, either way, associated with the area in question)? The US is not about to fold, withhold cooperation with and support for the Kurds, and not about to withdraw troops and presence from Northern Syria. I would also venture this - there are various Kurdish factions, some more palatable for the US to support than others. Perhaps relevant to know who exactly is being attacked, in this context, rather than lumping them all together.

 

Turkey's military operation will not be all that widespread, and so far, targets an area where direct confrontation with US troops is unlikely. Assad's regime, on the other hand, is beating up its own war drums opposing Turkey's designs. It would be interesting to see how the Russians play this, and on who's side.

[ilostmypassword]

11 hours ago, Morch said:

 

@ilostmypassword

 

Could you possibly stop with the routine twist of "are you saying" followed by some nonsense assertion which was not part of my post? Thanks (yes, I already know, futile).

 

Neither Mattis nor McMaster featured in my post. That you try to imply otherwise is plain dishonest. The Trump administration often features disconnect between officials, even on the highest levels, is nothing new though. That you pronounce such an occurrence "unlikely" does not conform with previous instances of the same.

 

I seriously doubt that either Mattis or McMaster were "lulled" by anything. Both have a pretty solid background when it comes to the region, and wouldn't be in need of simplistic lecturing from wannabee "experts". As for myself, I don't know where you get the "lulled" from or what you imagine it applies to. Probably involves some contrived, minute "interpretation" of this or that word in my previous posts, been there done that.

 

As asked and left unanswered - what does the US "backing down" amounts to? Not setting up a "border force" which may or may not have been an actual proposition (and was not, either way, associated with the area in question)? The US is not about to fold, withhold cooperation with and support for the Kurds, and not about to withdraw troops and presence from Northern Syria. I would also venture this - there are various Kurdish factions, some more palatable for the US to support than others. Perhaps relevant to know who exactly is being attacked, in this context, rather than lumping them all together.

 

Turkey's military operation will not be all that widespread, and so far, targets an area where direct confrontation with US troops is unlikely. Assad's regime, on the other hand, is beating up its own war drums opposing Turkey's designs. It would be interesting to see how the Russians play this, and on who's side.

My apologies for the reference. I misread a post referring to the competency of the Trump administration.

That said, why are you gratuitously trying to exculpate Mattis and McMaster  now from their obvious responsibilities in this case? Does that mean they weren't in the loop when the announcement of this new force was aired? That doesn't speak well of them. And if they didn't kow, once they learned about it, why didn't they move immediately to quash it? Why let it hang there? I'm betting that communications between Washington and Syrian HQ are reasonably good. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to assume that they didn't foresee what the Turkish response would be and that the Turk putting into high gear their preparation for their offensive against Afrin had something to do with convincing them otherwise.

 

I suppose in the sense that anything is possible , the border force "might or might not have been an actual proposition"? What is your estimate of which one is more likely? You really lend much weight to Tillerson's delayed denial?

 

"The US is not about to fold, withhold cooperation with and support for the Kurds, and not about to withdraw troops and presence from Northern Syria. I would also venture this - there are various Kurdish factions, some more palatable for the US to support than others. Perhaps relevant to know who exactly is being attacked, in this context, rather than lumping them all together."

It might also be a question of who is doing the attacking. If it's the Syrians, that's one thing; if the Turks, quite another. The Turks have already attacked Kurdish troops who were acting in concert with the Americans in the middle of a major offensive. The Americans protested, but didn't fight back. It's far from inconceivable that the Turks might repeat the exercise in a larger way and that the Americans would again do nothing militarily to oppose it.

[Morch]

 

@ilostmypassword

 

 

Doubt anything was "misread", more like you just can't help yourself. A disingenuous "apology" followed by more of the same. I did not try, "gratuitously" or otherwise, to "exculpate" anyone, deny responsibilities or any other made up nonsense you choose to inject into my posts. Once that bogus construct is in place, you move on to the "does that mean" ploy. Same old on so many topics.

 

As pointed out, misunderstandings, controversial announcement, conflicting statements and working at cross purposes are pretty much hallmarks of what passes for the Trump administration's foreign  policy. That you choose to ignore this for the sake of your current "argument" does not change facts. What you consider not "unreasonable" is more indicative of your standing and often expressed bias regarding both persons mentioned.

 

I don't know whose brainchild that "border force" was, or if there was even a formal decision taken in this regard. As said previously, not much point to announcing such a thing - bound to piss off Erdogan (and Assad), while not actually changing anything de-facto. How much weight one lends to Tillerson's denial is irrelevant.

 

There is nothing in your last comment (or rather, deflection) which relates to the questions raised. The US needs to balance conflicting interests pertaining to different goals and parties. So far, it managed to maintain this balance while avoiding major head on confrontations. As is the nature of such things, win some, lose some - but nothing which amounts to a "backing down" other than in a limited sense. Whether the US chooses to keep the "border force" label or not, will not fundamentally effect ongoing US support for the Kurds, or US presence in Northern Syria.

 

[ilostmypassword]

 

On 1/21/2018 at 4:36 PM, Morch said:

 

@ilostmypassword

 

 

Doubt anything was "misread", more like you just can't help yourself. A disingenuous "apology" followed by more of the same. I did not try, "gratuitously" or otherwise, to "exculpate" anyone, deny responsibilities or any other made up nonsense you choose to inject into my posts. Once that bogus construct is in place, you move on to the "does that mean" ploy. Same old on so many topics.

 

As pointed out, misunderstandings, controversial announcement, conflicting statements and working at cross purposes are pretty much hallmarks of what passes for the Trump administration's foreign  policy. That you choose to ignore this for the sake of your current "argument" does not change facts. What you consider not "unreasonable" is more indicative of your standing and often expressed bias regarding both persons mentioned.

 

I don't know whose brainchild that "border force" was, or if there was even a formal decision taken in this regard. As said previously, not much point to announcing such a thing - bound to piss off Erdogan (and Assad), while not actually changing anything de-facto. How much weight one lends to Tillerson's denial is irrelevant.

 

There is nothing in your last comment (or rather, deflection) which relates to the questions raised. The US needs to balance conflicting interests pertaining to different goals and parties. So far, it managed to maintain this balance while avoiding major head on confrontations. As is the nature of such things, win some, lose some - but nothing which amounts to a "backing down" other than in a limited sense. Whether the US chooses to keep the "border force" label or not, will not fundamentally effect ongoing US support for the Kurds, or US presence in Northern Syria.

 

"As pointed out, misunderstandings, controversial announcement, conflicting statements and working at cross purposes are pretty much hallmarks of what passes for the Trump administration's foreign  policy. That you choose to ignore this for the sake of your current "argument" does not change facts. What you consider not "unreasonable" is more indicative of your standing and often expressed bias regarding both persons mentioned."

 

In an article from Reuters published on Jan 14:

"A senior Turkish official told Reuters the U.S. training of the new “Border Security Force” was the reason that the U.S. charge d‘affaires was summoned in Ankara last week, and President Tayyip Erdogan’s spokesman said the development was worrying and unacceptable.

The force, whose inaugural class is currently being trained, will be deployed at the borders of the area controlled by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) - an alliance of militias in northern and eastern Syria dominated by the Kurdish YPG.

"In an email to Reuters, the coalition’s Public Affairs Office confirmed details of the new force reported by The Defense Post.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-sdf/u-s-led-coalition-helps-to-build-new-syrian-force-angering-turkey-idUSKBN1F30OA

 

Jan 14 is 4 days before Tillerson made his "explanation." What reason would the Turks have to claim that they had complained to the Charge d'Affairs a week before? At the time, no one was denying that a force was being created. There was no dispute about the fact of it with the USA.  Reuters sent an email to the coalition's public affairs office and it confirmed that a force was being created. .

 

And your statement assigning possible blame to the Trump administration is nicely vague. But in fact had you cared to be more specific you would have noted that this came from the coalition. Which is under the purview of the Department of Defense. That's James Mattis' territory. So is he the kind of leader responsible for "misunderstandings, controversial announcement, conflicting statements and working at cross purposes .." Whatever Mattis faults may be, that kind of incompetence has never been listed among them.

 

So, in the sense that anything is possible, it could just have been a misunderstanding. But given the evidence, it is a vanishingly unlikely possibility.