Tillerson meets Turkey's Erdogan for 'open' talks after weeks of strain

[webfact]

Tillerson meets Turkey's Erdogan for 'open' talks after weeks of strain

By Yara Bayoumy and Tulay Karadeniz

 

U.S. Secretary of Defence Jim Mattis poses with Turkish Defence Minister Nurettin Canikli during a NATO defence ministers meeting at the Alliance headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, February 14, 2018. REUTERS/Virginia Mayo/Pool

 

ANKARA (Reuters) - Top U.S. diplomat Rex Tillerson and Turkey's Tayyip Erdogan had a "productive and open" talk on Thursday about improving ties strained recently over their policies on Syria, in a meeting following weeks of escalating anti-American rhetoric from Ankara.

 

Tillerson arrived in Turkey on Thursday for two days of what officials have said would likely be uncomfortable discussions between the allies, whose relations have frayed over a number of issues, particularly U.S. support for the Syrian Kurdish YPG militia, seen as terrorists by Turkey.

 

Turkey launched an air and ground assault last month in Syria's northwest Afrin region to drive the YPG from the area south of its border. Ankara considers the YPG to be an arm of the PKK, a banned group that has waged a decades-long insurgency in Turkey.

 

The militia is the main ground element of the Syrian Defence Forces (SDF), which the United States has armed, trained and aided with air support and special forces to fight Islamic State.

 

"The two engaged in a productive and open conversation about a mutually beneficial way forward in the U.S.-Turkey relationship," said a U.S. State Department spokesman travelling with Tillerson.

 

In a photo distributed by the Turkish presidency before the start of the more than three-hour meeting, the two are shown shaking hands, although only Tillerson was smiling.

 

Erdogan conveyed his priorities and expectations on Syria, the fight against terror and other regional issues, a Turkish presidential source said.

 

Ahead of the meeting, Turkey had called for the United States to expel the YPG from the anti-Islamic State SDF forces it is backing in Syria.

"We demanded this relationship be ended, I mean we want them to end all the support given to the Syrian arm of PKK, the YPG," Turkish Defence Minister Nurettin Canikli told reporters in a briefing in Brussels, a day after meeting U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis on the sidelines of a NATO meeting.

 

"We demanded this structure be removed from SDF," he said.

 

TACTICAL DIFFERENCES

 

Tillerson, who is on a five-city tour, told a news conference in Beirut before arriving in Ankara that the United States and Turkey had the same main objectives, and put their differences down to tactics. He is due to meet the foreign minister, Mevlut Cavusoglu, on Friday.

 

Islamic State fighters were driven last year from all the population centres they occupied in both Syria and Iraq, but Washington still considers them a threat, capable of carrying out an insurgency and plotting attacks elsewhere.

 

Ankara has placed greater emphasis in recent months on the need to combat the Kurdish militia and has said the United States is merely using one terrorist group to combat another.

 

Turkey says the United States has yet to honour several pledges: to stop arming the YPG, to take back arms after Islamic State was defeated in Syria, and to pull YPG forces back from Manbij, a Syrian town about 100 km (60 miles) east of Afrin.

 

Canikli also said that Mattis had told him the United States was working on a plan to retrieve weapons given to the YPG, especially heavy weapons. However, Tillerson later said that Washington had "never given heavy arms" to the YPG and there was therefore "nothing to take back". 

 

Turkey is the main Muslim ally of the United States within NATO and one of Washington's most powerful friends in the Middle East dating back to the Cold War era. But widening differences on Syria policy are just one of a number of issues that have caused a rupture in that strategic relationship.

 

Speaking with reporters on the sidelines of the NATO meeting in Brussels, Mattis said his talks with his Turkish counterpart were open and honest, but acknowledged the differences.

 

"I believe we are finding common ground and there are areas of uncommon ground, where sometimes war just gives you bad alternatives to choose from ... We continue to collaborate on ways to ensure their legitimate concerns are addressed."

 

The Turkish offensive against the YPG in Syria has so far been limited to Afrin, a border region where the United States is not believed to have troops on the ground.

 

But Turkey has openly discussed extending it to other areas where its forces could potentially come into contact with units supported by the Americans. It says Washington should pull its forces out of the way; the United States says it has no plans to withdraw.

 

(Additional reporting by Idrees Ali in Brussels; Ezgi Erkoyun and Ali Kucukgocmen in Istanbul; Lisa Barrington in Beirut; Editing by David Dolan/Peter Graff)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-02-16

[Srikcir]

8 hours ago, webfact said:

Tillerson later said that Washington had "never given heavy arms" to the YPG

Likely came from ISIS after abandoning their positions.

[ilostmypassword]

It's not surprising that Turkey mistrusts the USA on this question:

U.S. will take weapons from Kurds after Islamic State defeat: Turkey

"The United States has told Turkey it will take back weapons supplied to the Kurdish YPG militia in northern Syria after the defeat of Islamic State, Ankara said on Thursday, seeking to address Turkish concerns about arming Kurds on its border.

 

Turkish defense ministry sources said U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis also promised his Turkish counterpart to provide a monthly list of weapons handed to the YPG, saying the first inventory had already been sent to Ankara.

 

Turkey sees the YPG as an extension of the outlawed Kurdish PKK, which has been waging an insurgency in the country’s southeast since the mid-1980s."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-turkey-usa/u-s-will-take-weapons-from-kurds-after-islamic-state-defeat-turkey-idUSKBN19D10J

[Morch]

 

Tillerson breaks protocol by meeting Turkey's Erdogan without translator

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/15/politics/tillerson-erdogan-turkey-meeting-no-translator/index.html

 

Reminiscent of Trump's meeting with Putin:

 

The Other Putin-Trump Meeting

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/trump-putin-second-meeting/534099/

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

What we do know is that Kurdish fighters are beginning to desert Manbij to fight in Afrin. It's not surprising that their first loyalty would be to  defending their fellow Kurds and not to fighting ISIS.

Of course, the Turkish armed forces may not be in the best fighting shape since Erdogan is a paranoid megalomaniac who has meddled quite a bit lately in the organization of the Turkish Armed forces. Not entirely without reason but still it tends not to make for a less effective fighting force.

[Morch]

12 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

What we do know is that Kurdish fighters are beginning to desert Manbij to fight in Afrin. It's not surprising that their first loyalty would be to  defending their fellow Kurds and not to fighting ISIS.

Of course, the Turkish armed forces may not be in the best fighting shape since Erdogan is a paranoid megalomaniac who has meddled quite a bit lately in the organization of the Turkish Armed forces. Not entirely without reason but still it tends not to make for a less effective fighting force.

 

Well, "deserting" is a loaded term. Are Kurdish fighters actually "deserting" Manbij? Is there currently a major operation targeting ISIS and heavily or specifically relying on Kurdish forces based in Manbij - and which is hampered by Kurdish forces "deserting" Manbij? Which army are they deserting? Which orders are they defying?

 

Similarly, "loyalty" is yet another loaded term. The Kurds were fighting ISIS because it was a threat. They are currently under attack by Turkey, which represents another threat. The Kurds "loyalty" is not, and I don't think ever was, related to "fighting ISIS", but more about protecting their own.

 

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Well, "deserting" is a loaded term. Are Kurdish fighters actually "deserting" Manbij? Is there currently a major operation targeting ISIS and heavily or specifically relying on Kurdish forces based in Manbij - and which is hampered by Kurdish forces "deserting" Manbij? Which army are they deserting? Which orders are they defying?

 

Similarly, "loyalty" is yet another loaded term. The Kurds were fighting ISIS because it was a threat. They are currently under attack by Turkey, which represents another threat. The Kurds "loyalty" is not, and I don't think ever was, related to "fighting ISIS", but more about protecting their own.

 

 

 

I agree with your second paragraph entirely. Which calls into massive question the stated primary reason for US forces being in Syria at all. If you can't rely on a force that you've trained and armed (paying salary, too?), to fight ISIL, what are you doing there?

Again, as for deserting... well, how about abandoning? And is that the way war works? You have a campaign planned well in advance and there are planned lulls where nothing is going on? That only works if your enemy is complaisant and passive. Does that describe ISIL? Is this the way the US would conduct a campaign with US troops or with troops of allied nations? I know you're supposed to go with the army you've got and not the army you want, but what happens if that army just gets up and leaves? The numbers aren't large yet from what I've read, but if the situation gets worse for the Kurds in Afrin...

Turkey is just not going to put up with the creation of a Kurdish statelet on its border. Especially now that the lie has been given to the US contention that the creation of the mainly YPG force in Manbij has nothing to do with the situation in Afrin. The US is going to have to choose between the Turks and the Kurds.

Fred Kaplan had a pithy analysis of the hopelessness of the US position (in an article that mainly addressed the big weakness and the not unlikely impending failure of the Russian position in Syria):

"In Syria, the Russians are making a better show of things than we [the USA] are. In part that’s because we’re pursuing lots of interests (with varying degrees of enthusiasm), many of them mutually exclusive, while the Russians are focused on just one. We want to crush ISIS, help the Kurds, placate Turkey, contain Iran, keep Iraq from falling apart, and reach a political settlement that eases President Bashar al-Assad out of power. These are all worthy goals, but it’s impossible to achieve any one or two of them without torpedoing the others."

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/02/vladimir-putins-grand-ambitions-for-syria-arent-working-out-quite-as-planned.html

[Morch]

 

@ilostmypassword

 

Switching one loaded term with another is no answer. Other than no support offered for the claim that Kurdish fighters are actually "abandoning" (or "deserting") Manbij - the reasoning behind these labels does not seem compelling.

 

How "war works"? War is not a static situation, and war plans are changed according to shifts in conditions and circumstances. Wars can have multiple goals, and even contradicting ones. Not nearly as orderly as it "ought" to be. So having a "campaign planned in advance" is all very well, guess addressing Turkey's invasion will just have to wait, then. ISIS is not quite the threat it was, and the current threat, as far as the Kurds go, is Turkey. It's not as if all the Kurdish forces were diverted to confront the Turkish army, it isn't as if all operations against ISIS came to a halt.

 

The Kurds are not part of the US armed forces. They are not an allied army. They are a militia. Perhaps a competent one, but still. Their loyalty, first and foremost is to their own people. That their interests and the US's may converge on some issues and be at odds on other is just how the World works. You are making a faux argument, whereby military support by the US somehow implied total loyalty, and putting their own interests in the backseat. That's not how it works, and never did.

 

US foreign policy, as far as the ME goes, is a mess. But it was this way for quite a a while, and it is not obviously clear that past, present and future alternative policies (if applicable) represent a magic solution, or even a general  improvement. I feel that the complexity associated with such decision making is often underestimated, in favor of  simplistic and hindsight solutions.

 

And a word about the Russian involvement in the Syrian quagmire. Yes, so far (more or less) Russia managed to keep a rather narrow agenda, and followed it ruthlessly. I seriously doubt that this would hold up quite as well as time goes on. Russia may seem ascendant at present, with perhaps clearer and fewer goals - but I'll be putting my money on the ME doing it's thing and complicating whatever can be complicated. Military intervention is one thing, diplomacy in the ME is another.

[JemJem]

I have seen this article just now. I think it's a good one and it's relevant to the topic here :

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/how-to-tackle-the-biggest-obstacle-to-finishing-the-war-against-the-islamic-state/2018/02/15/7891cfde-129b-11e8-9065-e55346f6de81_story.html?utm_term=.5207168b8a50

 

Today is another black day for democracy and human rights in Turkey (so many of them in recent times !). 6 journalists have been given a life sentence. And, dozens of journalists and activists remain behind bars. And, of course, don't forget the Kurdish politicians who are also behind bars and are yet to be sentenced. Will they get a fair trial and sentence ? Of course not ! Should they have been arrested or  even charged in the first place ? Of course not !

 

And, today, Deniz Yucel, a Turkish-German journalist has been freed after having spent about one year behind bars without trial. Yes, this is good news but he shouldn't even have spent a day behind bars. He had one year stolen from his life. And, guess what ? His freeing came shortly after talks in Germany between Merkel and Yildirim, the puppet prime minister of Turkey. Hmmmm....I wonder what sort of deal was made !

 

Sadly, even worse days are to come for Erdogan opponents, both in Turkey and elsewhere. He seems to be beyond any control now. And, the EU and the US are yet to consider imposing sanctions on the Turkish government ! I doubt very much that this will happen. I doubt that they will even stop making military deals with this government ! Big shame !

 

 

Edited February 16, 2018 by JemJem

[ilostmypassword]

"How "war works"? War is not a static situation, and war plans are changed according to shifts in conditions and circumstances. Wars can have multiple goals, and even contradicting ones. Not nearly as orderly as it "ought" to be. So having a "campaign planned in advance" is all very well, guess addressing Turkey's invasion will just have to wait, then. ISIS is not quite the threat it was, and the current threat, as far as the Kurds go, is Turkey. It's not as if all the Kurdish forces were diverted to confront the Turkish army, it isn't as if all operations against ISIS came to a halt."

I entirely agree with you. But apparently you don't agree with yourself:

" Are Kurdish fighters actually "deserting" Manbij? Is there currently a major operaWar is not a static situation, and war plans are changed according to shifts in conditions and circumstances.tion targeting ISIS and heavily or specifically relying on Kurdish forces based in Manbij - and which is hampered by Kurdish forces "deserting" Manbij? Which army are they deserting? Which orders are they defying?" 

There may or may not be a major operation under way. But as you put it: "War is not a static situation, and war plans are changed according to shifts in conditions and circumstances." In war you can pretty much count on the unforeseen happening. What if the unforeseen happens and the troops you were counting to cope with it aren't there but off fighting in Afrin?

I quite agree with you about the Kurds putting their own interests first. It's the US government that doesn't seem to hold that opinion.. It was the US government that told the Turks that the primarily Kurdish force it was backing in Manbij was an entirely separate entity from the Kurds in Afrin.

And yes, the Syrian situation is an extremely complicated one. But all the other players have goals that are at least theoretically achievable. Whereas the US seem to have a kind of fractal policy in which the contradictions of the situation at large have been distilled into a game plan of multiple contradictory goals. So, unlike those goals of other players, by their very contradictory natures the goals of the USA in Syria are not achievable. 

[Morch]

 

@ilostmypassword

 

Other than mangling my post, and twisting my words, there's still nothing of substance in your reply.

 

You keep claiming Kurdish forces "deserting" (or "abandoning") Manbij in order to aid other Kurdish forces under attck in Afrin. That's the foundation for the overreaching faux "argument" offered. No actual support for these claims was presented, and in one of your posts you even acknowledge that "numbers aren't large yet". Perhaps better to first establish that there is, actually, a concrete problem which needs to be addressed.

 

Not sure what's the point of being intentionally obtuse with regard to US (or any other player, for that matter) diplomatic talk. Taking such at face value is a choice, and the same goes with regard to faux indignation expressed about words not conforming to actions. The balancing act of maintaining US interests in the region requires a bit (or a lot) of diplomatic BS. This is the done thing, and as always, it serves only up to a point. Not as if Turkey isn't engaging in the same - it didn't always have that much objection to the YPG, for example. Changing circumstances, changing narrative.

 

I would have to disagree with the assertion that other players' goals are ("theoretically") achievable. Certainly not all of them in conjunction, so some are bound to be frustrated. As for what seems relatively more straightforward at present, these things have a tendency to get more complicated as time goes by. Not that it helps much to salvage relevant US foreign policy debacles.

 

 

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

9 hours ago, Morch said:

 

@ilostmypassword

 

Other than mangling my post, and twisting my words, there's still nothing of substance in your reply.

 

You keep claiming Kurdish forces "deserting" (or "abandoning") Manbij in order to aid other Kurdish forces under attck in Afrin. That's the foundation for the overreaching faux "argument" offered. No actual support for these claims was presented, and in one of your posts you even acknowledge that "numbers aren't large yet". Perhaps better to first establish that there is, actually, a concrete problem which needs to be addressed.

 

Not sure what's the point of being intentionally obtuse with regard to US (or any other player, for that matter) diplomatic talk. Taking such at face value is a choice, and the same goes with regard to faux indignation expressed about words not conforming to actions. The balancing act of maintaining US interests in the region requires a bit (or a lot) of diplomatic BS. This is the done thing, and as always, it serves only up to a point. Not as if Turkey isn't engaging in the same - it didn't always have that much objection to the YPG, for example. Changing circumstances, changing narrative.

 

I would have to disagree with the assertion that other players' goals are ("theoretically") achievable. Certainly not all of them in conjunction, so some are bound to be frustrated. As for what seems relatively more straightforward at present, these things have a tendency to get more complicated as time goes by. Not that it helps much to salvage relevant US foreign policy debacles.

 

 

 

 

"You keep claiming Kurdish forces "deserting" (or "abandoning") Manbij in order to aid other Kurdish forces under attack in Afrin. That's the foundation for the overreaching faux "argument" offered. No actual support for these claims was presented, and in one of your posts you even acknowledge that "numbers aren't large yet". Perhaps better to first establish that there is, actually, a concrete problem which needs to be addressed."
 

The Turkish operation "has detracted from our fight to defeat Islamic State in eastern Syria", Tillerson said of ongoing offensives by US-backed Kurdish militia to clear remaining pockets of extremists.

"Forces have diverted from there to Afrin," he said.

http://www.france24.com/en/20180214-tillerson-turkey-afrin-offensive-detracted-fight-against-group

Concrete enough for you? And really, common sense would dictate that this kind of thing is inevitable and only going to grow in size in the days ahead.

 

"Not sure what's the point of being intentionally obtuse with regard to US (or any other player, for that matter) diplomatic talk. Taking such at face value is a choice, and the same goes with regard to faux indignation expressed about words not conforming to actions. The balancing act of maintaining US interests in the region requires a bit (or a lot) of diplomatic BS. This is the done thing, and as always, it serves only up to a point. Not as if Turkey isn't engaging in the same - it didn't always have that much objection to the YPG, for example. Changing circumstances, changing narrative."

 

I d think by now it's pretty clear that the Turks are not displaying faux indignation with regard to US support of the Kurds. And what the USA has been saying isn't simply diplomatic BS The US has repeatedly broken its promises to Turkey in regards to the Kurds. And then came the last straw - the announcement of the creation of a new primarlly Kurdish force to patrol the Syrian Kurdish border.  Anyone who believes that the Turks are just putting on a display of histrionics about the Kurds, hasn't read the news from Afrin lately.

 

"I would have to disagree with the assertion that other players' goals are ("theoretically") achievable. Certainly not all of them in conjunction, so some are bound to be frustrated. As for what seems relatively more straightforward at present, these things have a tendency to get more complicated as time goes by. Not that it helps much to salvage relevant US foreign policy debacles."

 

Talk about being willfully obtuse!. Of course  all the players' goals are not achievable since the achievement  one player's goal  means the defeat of some other player's goal. But the goals of each one at least are not inherently self-contradictory. Whereas the USA's goals are a self-contradictory mess.

 

 

 

 

[Morch]

 

Yawn.

 

No, not "concrete" at all, and this can be addressed on several levels.

 

Your original assertions was about Kurdish fighters beginning to desert Manbij. Manbij is not referenced in the linked article, nor in Tillerson's one-liner quote. What Tillerson does claim, and without much detail, is  that forces were diverted to Afrin from "there", which would imply where operations against ISIS are ongoing.

 

I'll expand on taking Tillerson's words at face value later on. But for now, if forces were indeed diverted from fighting ISIS, this would probably relate to other areas than Manbij. In fact, Tillerson does reference "Eastern Syria". Perhaps this map would help make this clearer:

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-43084963

 

At the same time, Tillerson's statements also included a bit regarding "the end of major combat operations". While it was said with the caveat that ISIS isn't fully defeated, it does convey a different level of urgency, especially in contrast to the present and ongoing Turkish incursion.

 

Allow me to doubt your take on "common sense", what it may or may not "dictate" and what is or is not "inevitable". As said, perhaps better to start with establishing the argument, rather than rushing to the conclusion.

 

Now to diplomatic talk and taking Tillerson's (or Erdogan's, for that matter) words at face value. For starters, make up your mind. Either what US representatives say is "concrete" (as in basing the argument above on Tillerson's words) or they cannot be trusted (re broken promises and conflicting goals). 

 

I think that fighting ISIS is pretty much the only half-way "acceptable" reasoning for the ongoing US presence in Syria, and therefore it is what's being highlighted and touted in US statements. And it is worthwhile noticing that such US statements often refer to defeating ISIS as an ongoing long term mission. In other words, as long as ISIS is perceived as a credible and serious threat, it serves as a justification for US military presence. And at the same, time, a handy diplomatic tool for leveraging other parties and public opinion.

 

As to Turkey's expressed indignation being genuine - allow me, once more, to doubt your view. About as substantiated as the "we do know" with regard to the original claim. Turkish policy and Turkish public sentiment are one thing, the way Erdogan (directly or via others) expresses or makes use of them, another. The MO is rather similar across various foreign relations crises. A whole lot of drama and hot air, posturing and bullying, manufacturing a showdown, and ending in some sort of compromise presented as victory or glossing over any non-achievements/concessions. Obviously, there was nothing said about it being "just putting on a display of histrionics".

 

That you announce other players (as opposed to the US) goals to be "not inherently self-contradictory" does not make them so. More a difference in degree. So even in this version, no sale.

[ilostmypassword]

"This is the done thing, and as always, it serves only up to a point. Not as if Turkey isn't engaging in the same - it didn't always have that much objection to the YPG, for example. Changing circumstances, changing narrative."

I don't know you mean by always. Certainly for a long time now Turkey has had huge objections to the SDF which is mostly YPG:

"On 24 August [2016] Turkey and pro-Turkish FSA forces launched a large-scale military operation against ISIL in and near the border city of Jarabulus, obstructing the SDF's Manbij offensive further south. The next day Turkish and allied FSA forces attacked the SDF and eventually forced them south across the Sajur River several days later."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YPG–FSA_relations#Turkish_intervention_(August_2016_–_present)

 

"And in May 2017, President Donald Trump announced that the US would arm the Syrian Kurds over Turkey’s objections.

Shortly after the announcement, Turkish officials told the Trump administration behind closed doors that it would attack the Kurds. However, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoǧan didn’t order a strike at that time — though he warned for months that one might be imminent."

https://www.vox.com/world/2018/1/23/16920606/turkey-afrin-syria-kurds-russia

 

I believe Tillerson when it makes sense to believe him. For instance, if he's complaining about SDF troops leaving to fight in Afrin, it's most likely to be the truth since it would be automatic diplomatic procedure to deny that there is a problem until it can no longer be denied: And then there's also this:

Some U.S.-Backed Syrian Fighters Leave ISIS Battle to Counter Turkey

Members of a U.S.-backed force of Syrian fighters who played a critical role in the collapse of Islamic State have begun leaving that operation to counter Turkey’s offensive against Kurds along its border with Syria, according American officials and Syrian fighters.

U.S. officials have voiced repeated concerns about Ankara’s assault in recent weeks against Kurds in the northwestern Syrian city of Afrin, warning it could become a security distraction that would draw the U.S.-backed force away from the fight to defeat remaining pockets of Islamic State militants.

Now, as some members of the force begin to peel away, officials fear the group may be on the verge of breaking up. 

http://www.cetusnews.com/news/Some-U-S--Backed-Syrian-Fighters-Leave-ISIS-Battle-to-Counter-Turkey.r1NdjDCv8M.html

https://www.wsj.com/articles/some-u-s-backed-syrian-forces-leave-isis-battle-to-counter-turkey-1517964304

 

And this too:

" As the Syrian Democratic Forces shift fighters to the battle in Afrin, they have weakened the ISIS campaign far to the east.

“It’s illogical that while we are fighting ISIS, the enemy of the world, over there, the Turks attack us in Afrin,” said Shervan Derwish, the spokesman for the Manbij Military Council. “Our fight against ISIS has had to be minimized as we reduce our power there to defend Afrin.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/07/world/middleeast/us-turkey-manbij-kurds.html

 

" I think that fighting ISIS is pretty much the only half-way "acceptable" reasoning for the ongoing US presence in Syria, and therefore it is what's being highlighted and touted in US statements. "

Really? Where were you on January 16, 2018 when Tillerson made this major policy speech on US involvement in Syria?:

Tillerson Says U.S. Troops to Stay in Syria Beyond Battle With ISIS

American troops will remain in Syria long after their fight against the Islamic State to ensure that neither Iran nor President Bashar al-Assad of Syria take over areas that have been newly liberated with help from the United States, Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson said on Wednesday.

Mr. Tillerson said the military commitment to Syria was “conditions-based” and not indefinite. But he underscored that it would take time to foster a democratically elected government in Syria that he — like the Obama administration — said would require Mr. Assad’s departure from power."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/17/world/middleeast/tillerson-troops-syria-islamic-state.html

And a few days later, Turkey launches its attack on Afrin. Do you think maybe the prospect of a very prolonged American stay with a Kurdish mini-state under the protection of the USA might not alarm and enrage the Turks?

 

"That you announce other players (as opposed to the US) goals to be "not inherently self-contradictory" does not make them so. More a difference in degree. So even in this version, no sale."

So what are the inherently contradictory goals of  Syria, Iran, Russia, or Turkey? And just to be clear, I don't mean how their goals conflict with each other's, but how the goals of each party are self-contradictory.

 

 

 

 

 

[Morch]

@ilostmypassword

 

Would it be possible for you to please stop butcher my posts? Either quote them or don't quote them. And if you do bother quoting, at least try and make it clearer where my words end and yours start.

 

Turkey was not always that hostile to the PYD (essentially, the YPG's political parent). This dates well before the current Turkish incursion or even the Syrian Civil War. Turkey's change of view - and henceforth applying the "terrorist" moniker and alleging associations and support of the PKK came about, I think, as a result of PYD/YPG ascendance and independence. In other words, it was not denounced so long as it was deemed useful. So as said,  changing circumstances, changing narrative. What you described came afterwards.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Union_Party_(Syria)#Conflict_with_Turkey

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Protection_Units

 

 

Your argument for taking Tillerson's words at face value is not particularly compelling. If a diplomat/politician says there's a problem it's most likely true or it would be "admitted"? Is this really the "automatic diplomatic procedure"? There is no lack of instances in which politicians create or inflate problems and crises in order to further goals or divert attention elsewhere.

 

Reading them articles your provided as support for your assertions, and they do not reference Kurdish fighters leaving Manbij, they do reference a relatively small number of SDF fighters, and mostly convey worries that things might go further, rather than an actual unraveling taking place.

 

It is mentioned that most of the fighters in Manbij are not even Kurds, and that the outfit sending troops to support Afrin is not Kurdish. Other references are to worries troops will be diverted to Manbij rather than from Manbij. As for relative figures - the YPG and the SDF are said to number in the tens of thousands, so even if there were actually "hundreds" of fighters diverted, assertions and worries that this would seriously damage anti-ISIS operations seems somewhat exaggerated. The full might of the YPG/SDF was called for when dealing with ISIS back when the latter was a severe threat. If ISIS indeed suffered great losses, was pushed back, and is almost defeated, this ought to be reflected with regard to operational requirements relating to YPG/SDF units. If ISIS is beat to a pulp, it may not be dead yet, but it ain't quite the same threat it used to be.

 

In case it was missed - the last bit is one of Turkey's points: tolerance for US support of the SDF associated with the credibility of terming ISIS a threat. If ISIS isn't quite the threat it was, time for the US to cease/minimize support for the SDF. This is also one way of interpreting US representatives hyping the ongoing operations against ISIS. I think the US's issues here are more diplomatic/political, than military. A few hundreds fighters more or less will not make the SDF crumble, the US fence sitting or even seen as giving Turkey a green light, is a whole different matter. In this sense, statements by US officials seem to be aimed at exercising political and public image pressure on Turkey, rather than dealing with a major concrete issue.

 

As for fighting ISIS being pretty much the only half-way "acceptable" reasoning for the ongoing US presence in Syria, the comment stands. That the Trump administration may issue other statements does not change the "acceptability" (if not legitimacy) of US presence in Syria. And while Tillerson did make this speech, it's worth bearing in mind that over the last year Tillerson (and Trump or his aides) made several conflicting statements with regard to US policy on Syria. Another reminder - I'm not the one hooked on taking Tillerson's (or for that matter Trump's, Erdogan's or most other politicians) at face value. As with other foreign policy instances involving this administration, stay tuned....flipping back, or changing course wouldn't be much of a surprise by now. By contrast, the fight against ISIS is a constant in most such references.

 

Your last comment is a lame spin - you are the one who raised this point as "fact", without bothering to substantiate it - why expect others to make your arguments for you? Other than that, going into each party's multiple interests and their interactions in detail would undoubtedly exceed the scope of this topic.

 

[JemJem]

Hmmmm :)

 

Is this the beginning of the end for the within-Syria atrocities of Erdogan and his Islamist 'rebel' friends, I wonder ?

 

Let's wait and see. As you know, alliances etc. change fast in this conflict. And, also, this most recent development hasn't been confirmed yet.

 

It is a big shame that those who speak out against Erdogan's atrocities are still very few in the Western world. What are they waiting for ?!

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/19/syrian-regime-fighters-heading-afrin-join-kurds-fight-against/

Edited February 19, 2018 by JemJem

[Jai Dee]

A post containing jumbled quotes from another member making it difficult to differentiate between his words, other members words, and sections quoted from other sources has been removed from this thread.

 

From the Forum Rules:

 

16) You will not make changes to quoted material from other members posts, except for purposes of shortening the quoted post. This cannot be done in such a manner that it alters the context of the original post.

[ilostmypassword]

On 2/18/2018 at 3:38 PM, Morch said:

 

Yawn.

 

No, not "concrete" at all, and this can be addressed on several levels.

 

Your original assertions was about Kurdish fighters beginning to desert Manbij. Manbij is not referenced in the linked article, nor in Tillerson's one-liner quote. What Tillerson does claim, and without much detail, is  that forces were diverted to Afrin from "there", which would imply where operations against ISIS are ongoing.

 

I'll expand on taking Tillerson's words at face value later on. But for now, if forces were indeed diverted from fighting ISIS, this would probably relate to other areas than Manbij. In fact, Tillerson does reference "Eastern Syria". Perhaps this map would help make this clearer:

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-43084963

 

At the same time, Tillerson's statements also included a bit regarding "the end of major combat operations". While it was said with the caveat that ISIS isn't fully defeated, it does convey a different level of urgency, especially in contrast to the present and ongoing Turkish incursion.

 

Allow me to doubt your take on "common sense", what it may or may not "dictate" and what is or is not "inevitable". As said, perhaps better to start with establishing the argument, rather than rushing to the conclusion.

 

Now to diplomatic talk and taking Tillerson's (or Erdogan's, for that matter) words at face value. For starters, make up your mind. Either what US representatives say is "concrete" (as in basing the argument above on Tillerson's words) or they cannot be trusted (re broken promises and conflicting goals). 

 

I think that fighting ISIS is pretty much the only half-way "acceptable" reasoning for the ongoing US presence in Syria, and therefore it is what's being highlighted and touted in US statements. And it is worthwhile noticing that such US statements often refer to defeating ISIS as an ongoing long term mission. In other words, as long as ISIS is perceived as a credible and serious threat, it serves as a justification for US military presence. And at the same, time, a handy diplomatic tool for leveraging other parties and public opinion.

 

As to Turkey's expressed indignation being genuine - allow me, once more, to doubt your view. About as substantiated as the "we do know" with regard to the original claim. Turkish policy and Turkish public sentiment are one thing, the way Erdogan (directly or via others) expresses or makes use of them, another. The MO is rather similar across various foreign relations crises. A whole lot of drama and hot air, posturing and bullying, manufacturing a showdown, and ending in some sort of compromise presented as victory or glossing over any non-achievements/concessions. Obviously, there was nothing said about it being "just putting on a display of histrionics".

 

That you announce other players (as opposed to the US) goals to be "not inherently self-contradictory" does not make them so. More a difference in degree. So even in this version, no sale.

Allow me to reassert that common sense dictated that Kurdish troops would abandon their positions with the US to help their Turkish compatriates under siege in Afrin. How could anyone sensibly maintain that it would be otherwise? I take no great credit for my prediction. It was obvious:

Amid Turkish Assault, Kurdish Forces Are Drawn Away From U.S. Fight With ISIS

The United States-led campaign to hunt down the last pockets of Islamic State militants in Syria has lost its most effective battleground partner in what American military officials fear will stall a critical phase of the offensive and leave open the door for hundreds of foreign fighters to escape.

Thousands of Kurdish fighters and commanders who make up the backbone of the Syrian Democratic Forces in recent weeks have diverted to defend Afrin, in Syria’s northwest, where other Kurdish militia are facing sharp attacks from Turkish troops.

The Kurdish-led S.D.F. was the driving force last fall in routing the Islamic State from its self-proclaimed headquarters in Raqqa and chasing insurgents fleeing south along the Euphrates River Valley to the Iraqi border.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/28/world/middleeast/syrian-kurds-isis-american-offensive.html

[ilostmypassword]

On 2/19/2018 at 9:06 PM, Morch said:

@ilostmypassword

 

Would it be possible for you to please stop butcher my posts? Either quote them or don't quote them. And if you do bother quoting, at least try and make it clearer where my words end and yours start.

 

Turkey was not always that hostile to the PYD (essentially, the YPG's political parent). This dates well before the current Turkish incursion or even the Syrian Civil War. Turkey's change of view - and henceforth applying the "terrorist" moniker and alleging associations and support of the PKK came about, I think, as a result of PYD/YPG ascendance and independence. In other words, it was not denounced so long as it was deemed useful. So as said,  changing circumstances, changing narrative. What you described came afterwards.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Union_Party_(Syria)#Conflict_with_Turkey

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Protection_Units

 

 

Your argument for taking Tillerson's words at face value is not particularly compelling. If a diplomat/politician says there's a problem it's most likely true or it would be "admitted"? Is this really the "automatic diplomatic procedure"? There is no lack of instances in which politicians create or inflate problems and crises in order to further goals or divert attention elsewhere.

 

Reading them articles your provided as support for your assertions, and they do not reference Kurdish fighters leaving Manbij, they do reference a relatively small number of SDF fighters, and mostly convey worries that things might go further, rather than an actual unraveling taking place.

 

It is mentioned that most of the fighters in Manbij are not even Kurds, and that the outfit sending troops to support Afrin is not Kurdish. Other references are to worries troops will be diverted to Manbij rather than from Manbij. As for relative figures - the YPG and the SDF are said to number in the tens of thousands, so even if there were actually "hundreds" of fighters diverted, assertions and worries that this would seriously damage anti-ISIS operations seems somewhat exaggerated. The full might of the YPG/SDF was called for when dealing with ISIS back when the latter was a severe threat. If ISIS indeed suffered great losses, was pushed back, and is almost defeated, this ought to be reflected with regard to operational requirements relating to YPG/SDF units. If ISIS is beat to a pulp, it may not be dead yet, but it ain't quite the same threat it used to be.

 

In case it was missed - the last bit is one of Turkey's points: tolerance for US support of the SDF associated with the credibility of terming ISIS a threat. If ISIS isn't quite the threat it was, time for the US to cease/minimize support for the SDF. This is also one way of interpreting US representatives hyping the ongoing operations against ISIS. I think the US's issues here are more diplomatic/political, than military. A few hundreds fighters more or less will not make the SDF crumble, the US fence sitting or even seen as giving Turkey a green light, is a whole different matter. In this sense, statements by US officials seem to be aimed at exercising political and public image pressure on Turkey, rather than dealing with a major concrete issue.

 

As for fighting ISIS being pretty much the only half-way "acceptable" reasoning for the ongoing US presence in Syria, the comment stands. That the Trump administration may issue other statements does not change the "acceptability" (if not legitimacy) of US presence in Syria. And while Tillerson did make this speech, it's worth bearing in mind that over the last year Tillerson (and Trump or his aides) made several conflicting statements with regard to US policy on Syria. Another reminder - I'm not the one hooked on taking Tillerson's (or for that matter Trump's, Erdogan's or most other politicians) at face value. As with other foreign policy instances involving this administration, stay tuned....flipping back, or changing course wouldn't be much of a surprise by now. By contrast, the fight against ISIS is a constant in most such references.

 

Your last comment is a lame spin - you are the one who raised this point as "fact", without bothering to substantiate it - why expect others to make your arguments for you? Other than that, going into each party's multiple interests and their interactions in detail would undoubtedly exceed the scope of this topic.

 

As it turns out, Tillerson wasn't overplaying the threat posed by Kurds leaving their positions with the US forces. In fact, according to the Times article I cited above, US officials were underplaying the significance.

And the situation is even worse than they are saying. The SDF Arab troops are not much of a threat to anybody. They have not performed well in the fight against Isis and other Islamist extremists.

Turkey, on the other hand has taken a bizarrely relaxed attitude towards the threat posed by Isis

http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/02/15/erdogans-fatal-blind-spot/

and may in fact be recruiting them.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/turkey-isis-afrin-syria-kurds-free-syrian-army-jihadi-video-fighters-recruits-a8199166.html

What happens if Turkey turns them loose on those hapless Syrian Arab SDF troops in Northern Syria?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/turkey-isis-afrin-syria-kurds-free-syrian-army-jihadi-video-fighters-recruits-a8199166.html

[Morch]

 

@ilostmypassword

 

Allow me to reassert that your willingness to buy wholesale into statements made by US officials seem to be a function of the support afforded to whichever current "argument" is touted. It may also be of value to revisit your unsupported, original claims, especially in light of the links provided at this time.

 

Let me also reassert a point made earlier - US  statements regarding the ongoing fight vs. ISIS seem somewhat contradictory and suspect. With regard to the current status of ISIS, these come in three flavors: ISIS is almost beaten, fighting ISIS is essentially an open-ended mission, and ISIS may re-surge at short notice. The version presented at any given time seems to be related to the venue or diplomatic/political goal at hand.

 

Operations against ISIS represent the only semi-legitimate foundation for US military presence in Syria. While the US may or may not be happy with Assad's regime, Iranian and Russian presence or have actually have a firm interest in supporting the Kurds, all of these do not serve as reason enough for the current and ongoing US military presence in Syria. If the fight against ISIS is over, or if it requires less resources (seeing as ISIS is said to have taken a beating) - then there's less of a justification for the US to stick around.

 

If ISIS is nearly routed, then the diversion of Kurdish fighters (whether related figures are accurate or inflated), could not serve as a very credible argument for the whole endeavor might be going down the drain or coming to a standstill. Not going as far as suggesting ISIS is a zero-threat bogeyman, but I do think that the way things are presented by US officials are more to do with other (if related) US interests.

 

 

[Morch]

 

@ilostmypassword

 

Again, asserting "as it turns out" relies on your full acceptance of this or that narrative. You have not provided much by way of a compelling reason to do so. Ignoring that all sides involved got wider and more varied agendas then the public statements offer, is a choice.

 

I don't know that the SDF Arab troops are "not much of a threat to anybody". Don't think I saw anything in the links provided which goes as far as that, and saying that he Kurdish fighters are better is not quite the same thing.

 

The figures thrown about vary - some places refer to thousands, other places more like hundreds. There are also various figures offered with regard to total SDF strength and composition, but any which way - hard to accept without question the claims that this brought the campaign against ISIS to a standstill. That it might be the case in specific areas is possible, but maybe not quite as dramatic as presented.

 

Under Erdogan, the referenced Turkish attitude toward and relations with Sunni extremists is not exactly news. And I think it was pointed out in one of them links that they'll be discarded when their usefulness expires. As for Turkey turning "them loose on those hapless Syrian Arab SDF troops in Northern Syria" - I'd suggest that this exhibits (again) some lack of clarity as to demographics, battle lines, composition and position of forces. Not really as straightforward as that.

 

 

[tonbridgebrit]

On 2/16/2018 at 4:31 PM, ilostmypassword said:

Fred Kaplan had a pithy analysis of the hopelessness of the US position (in an article that mainly addressed the big weakness and the not unlikely impending failure of the Russian position in Syria):

"In Syria, the Russians are making a better show of things than we [the USA] are. In part that’s because we’re pursuing lots of interests (with varying degrees of enthusiasm), many of them mutually exclusive, while the Russians are focused on just one. We want to crush ISIS, help the Kurds, placate Turkey, contain Iran, keep Iraq from falling apart, and reach a political settlement that eases President Bashar al-Assad out of power. These are all worthy goals, but it’s impossible to achieve any one or two of them without torpedoing the others."

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/02/vladimir-putins-grand-ambitions-for-syria-arent-working-out-quite-as-planned.html

 And the comment from Fred Kaplan sums it up in a massively correct way. Washington had several goals when being involved in Syria, but as he says, achieving one or two of those goals will torpedo the others.

I still reckon that Washington's intent always was to, back whatever rebel groups in Syria, support them in the fight against Assad. And then, once Assad had gone, then target any of the rebel groups that are against America and Europe, and bomb them.

And, because Turkey is in NATO,  Turkey will get things their way, in the end. Or shall I say, Washington will try to make sure that Turkey is happy once this is all over.

Edited March 1, 2018 by tonbridgebrit

[ilostmypassword]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

@ilostmypassword

 

Again, asserting "as it turns out" relies on your full acceptance of this or that narrative. You have not provided much by way of a compelling reason to do so. Ignoring that all sides involved got wider and more varied agendas then the public statements offer, is a choice.

 

I don't know that the SDF Arab troops are "not much of a threat to anybody". Don't think I saw anything in the links provided which goes as far as that, and saying that he Kurdish fighters are better is not quite the same thing.

 

The figures thrown about vary - some places refer to thousands, other places more like hundreds. There are also various figures offered with regard to total SDF strength and composition, but any which way - hard to accept without question the claims that this brought the campaign against ISIS to a standstill. That it might be the case in specific areas is possible, but maybe not quite as dramatic as presented.

 

Under Erdogan, the referenced Turkish attitude toward and relations with Sunni extremists is not exactly news. And I think it was pointed out in one of them links that they'll be discarded when their usefulness expires. As for Turkey turning "them loose on those hapless Syrian Arab SDF troops in Northern Syria" - I'd suggest that this exhibits (again) some lack of clarity as to demographics, battle lines, composition and position of forces. Not really as straightforward as that.

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

@ilostmypassword

 

Allow me to reassert that your willingness to buy wholesale into statements made by US officials seem to be a function of the support afforded to whichever current "argument" is touted. It may also be of value to revisit your unsupported, original claims, especially in light of the links provided at this time.

 

Let me also reassert a point made earlier - US  statements regarding the ongoing fight vs. ISIS seem somewhat contradictory and suspect. With regard to the current status of ISIS, these come in three flavors: ISIS is almost beaten, fighting ISIS is essentially an open-ended mission, and ISIS may re-surge at short notice. The version presented at any given time seems to be related to the venue or diplomatic/political goal at hand.

 

Operations against ISIS represent the only semi-legitimate foundation for US military presence in Syria. While the US may or may not be happy with Assad's regime, Iranian and Russian presence or have actually have a firm interest in supporting the Kurds, all of these do not serve as reason enough for the current and ongoing US military presence in Syria. If the fight against ISIS is over, or if it requires less resources (seeing as ISIS is said to have taken a beating) - then there's less of a justification for the US to stick around.

 

If ISIS is nearly routed, then the diversion of Kurdish fighters (whether related figures are accurate or inflated), could not serve as a very credible argument for the whole endeavor might be going down the drain or coming to a standstill. Not going as far as suggesting ISIS is a zero-threat bogeyman, but I do think that the way things are presented by US officials are more to do with other (if related) US interests.

 

 

Really? You're going to cast doubt on what several independent sources say? The Age of Trump is well and truly upon us. By all means, disregard what doesn't suit you and offer tendentious suppositions. Sad.

[ilostmypassword]

23 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

 And the comment from Fred Kaplan sums it up in a massively correct way. Washington had several goals when being involved in Syria, but as he says, achieving one or two of those goals will torpedo the others.

I still reckon that Washington's intent always was to, back whatever rebel groups in Syria, support them in the fight against Assad. And then, once Assad had gone, then target any of the rebel groups that are against America and Europe, and bomb them.

And, because Turkey is in NATO,  Turkey will get things their way, in the end. Or shall I say, Washington will try to make sure that Turkey is happy once this is all over.

I think the USA's overriding concern was and is Iran. But cat's paws just won't do the trick. I think Turkey is about to make things a lot worse for the USA. I would bet as I noted above that they will start providing clandestine support for Islamists in Northern Syria.

[ilostmypassword]

On 2/20/2018 at 12:32 AM, JemJem said:

Hmmmm :)

 

Is this the beginning of the end for the within-Syria atrocities of Erdogan and his Islamist 'rebel' friends, I wonder ?

 

Let's wait and see. As you know, alliances etc. change fast in this conflict. And, also, this most recent development hasn't been confirmed yet.

 

It is a big shame that those who speak out against Erdogan's atrocities are still very few in the Western world. What are they waiting for ?!

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/19/syrian-regime-fighters-heading-afrin-join-kurds-fight-against/

I don't think Erdogan is even close to competing with Assad when it comes to atrocities. And not so long ago Kurds in Afrin were celebrating the imminent arrival of Syrian support by carrying placards of Ocalan and, wait for it, Assad. I don't blame the Kurds for that. They're facing possible extinction in Afrin and a monster on their side is better than one against them. But let's not get too carried away about Turkish atrocities. And let's not forget that once Syria is invited in, it may not be so easy to invite them out.

 

[JemJem]

https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2018/03/erdogan-pushes-forward-afrin-despite-un.html

 

When will the West realise that Erdogan is the number one menace to peace and stability in the region, and, actually do something about it ?

 

Let me answer my own question......possibly never    Erdogan has a big weapon against the West_the 'refugee card'.

 

Also, let's not forget the various business and military deals to be made of course.

 

Does the West care about the ethnic cleansing of Kurds in Syria ? Sadly no. Does the West care about the continually deteriorating human rights situation within Turkey ? Again, sadly no.

 

Big shame.

 

 

Edited March 2, 2018 by JemJem

[ilostmypassword]

35 minutes ago, JemJem said:

https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2018/03/erdogan-pushes-forward-afrin-despite-un.html

 

When will the West realise that Erdogan is the number one menace to peace and stability in the region, and, actually do something about it ?

 

Let me answer my own question......possibly never    Erdogan has a big weapon against the West_the 'refugee card'.

 

Also, let's not forget the various business and military deals to be made of course.

 

Does the West care about the ethnic cleansing of Kurds in Syria ? Sadly no. Does the West care about the continually deteriorating human rights situation within Turkey ? Again, sadly no.

 

Big shame.

 

 

You have a point. He was an early and enthusiastic backer of overthrowing the Assad government. I take it you're against that.

[Srikcir]

2 hours ago, JemJem said:

When will the West realise that Erdogan is the number one menace to peace and stability in the region

When Turkey is no longer a member of NATO?

Turkey's diplomatic behavior in the Middle East is complicated, sometimes hostile to NATO allies and sometimes friendly. In foreign relations there is little black and white politics. What is more important is dialog and consistency. On the latter the US suffers under the Trump administration.

[Morch]

12 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

 

Really? You're going to cast doubt on what several independent sources say? The Age of Trump is well and truly upon us. By all means, disregard what doesn't suit you and offer tendentious suppositions. Sad.

 

That's the best deflection you can come up with? Really?

 

You can wave "several independent sources" (and that wouldn't even be a 100% correct assertion) all you like - the fact is that you cannot provide a reasonable counter-explanation for the obvious inconsistencies pointed at. Mind, most of the doubt "cast" on linked reports and your own interpretations of them, relies on the very same sources themselves. 

 

As for your nonsense "Age of Trump" crapola - I'm not the one swallowing and regurgitating official statements and narratives. All the more amusing considering the very same administration gets routinely bashed (and rightly so) with regard to its communications and conflicting statements/policies.

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

That's the best deflection you can come up with? Really?

 

You can wave "several independent sources" (and that wouldn't even be a 100% correct assertion) all you like - the fact is that you cannot provide a reasonable counter-explanation for the obvious inconsistencies pointed at. Mind, most of the doubt "cast" on linked reports and your own interpretations of them, relies on the very same sources themselves. 

 

As for your nonsense "Age of Trump" crapola - I'm not the one swallowing and regurgitating official statements and narratives. All the more amusing considering the very same administration gets routinely bashed (and rightly so) with regard to its communications and conflicting statements/policies.

 

 

There's no point in answering your tendentious contentions. I'll just wait a few more weeks to allow for more information and reality to refute what you're saying. Bye bye for now.