Trump tells advisers he wants U.S. out of Syria - senior officials

[simple1]

11 hours ago, gogetem said:

He's getting them out of Syria and Afghanistan will be next.

SecDef and other senior military people have advised such a move at this stage would be a significant error of judgement. Trump has practically zero strategic knowledge of managing warfare and associated international politics. Trump would be extremely foolish to ignore SecDef.

[attrayant]

Bringing this back to page 1 because Trump now says that Saudi Arabia can have our troops stay in Syria if they pay us.

 

"Saudi Arabia is very interested in our decision, and I said, 'Well, you know, you want us to stay, maybe you're going to have to pay'."

[pkspeaker]

Who cares if Iran & Russia are 'overjoyed' by the American exit-Russia and Iran need Syria and the US does not-so they can have it since it has no strategic value to the US or NATO; That's because the American presence in Syria is totally illegal and US officials have admitted that the reason they are really there is to sort of 'mess' with Iran & Syria.  This messing has failed as Iranian backed militia's who took over the territory ISIS once held in Iraq and met the Syrian Army at the Syrian/Iraqi border-creating a road link between Tehran & Damascus.  Meanwhile the threatening US presence in Syria increases the Russian presence and gives the Syrian Government a 100% safe-area in the Latkia area.  So the US spends billions to be holed up in NE Syria, surrounded on all sides by Iran, Turkey, Russia, and @TheRealSyria.  To make it worse US forces will increasingly be targeted for occupying part of the country and creating a defact-o illegal 'state' in NE Syria that is severed from the rest of the country; And staying means the US comes under increasing pressure to fix the destroyed country.. right now the country needs $200,000,000 just to get started, if they don't pay, the Saudi's & Company always disappoint and come up with a fraction of what they say they will come up with.  

Edited April 5, 2018 by pkspeaker

[Morch]

5 hours ago, attrayant said:

Bringing this back to page 1 because Trump now says that Saudi Arabia can have our troops stay in Syria if they pay us.

 

"Saudi Arabia is very interested in our decision, and I said, 'Well, you know, you want us to stay, maybe you're going to have to pay'."

 

Wonder how that makes troops out there feel. Probably not too happy about the decision, or the manner in which it was made - now throw this bit in.

 

Trump aired similar sentiments in the past - with regard to NATO, South Korea, Japan. Seems like the only element considered is financial gain/loss, not a whole lot of insight when it comes to pretty much else. And that nonsensical "keep the oil" - either he doesn't know anything about anything, or he's having trouble expressing himself properly. But since he's declared himself to be top dog on both fronts....must be so in his own mind (and some of his supporters'). 

[Morch]

2 hours ago, pkspeaker said:

Who cares if Iran & Russia are 'overjoyed' by the American exit-Russia and Iran need Syria and the US does not-so they can have it since it has no strategic value to the US or NATO; That's because the American presence in Syria is totally illegal and US officials have admitted that the reason they are really there is to sort of 'mess' with Iran & Syria.  This messing has failed as Iranian backed militia's who took over the territory ISIS once held in Iraq and met the Syrian Army at the Syrian/Iraqi border-creating a road link between Tehran & Damascus.  Meanwhile the threatening US presence in Syria increases the Russian presence and gives the Syrian Government a 100% safe-area in the Latkia area.  So the US spends billions to be holed up in NE Syria, surrounded on all sides by Iran, Turkey, Russia, and @TheRealSyria.  To make it worse US forces will increasingly be targeted for occupying part of the country and creating a defact-o illegal 'state' in NE Syria that is severed from the rest of the country; And staying means the US comes under increasing pressure to fix the destroyed country.. right now the country needs $200,000,000 just to get started, if they don't pay, the Saudi's & Company always disappoint and come up with a fraction of what they say they will come up with.  

 

Another of them rambling stream of consciousness rants...

 

The US presence in Syria can hardly be called "threatening", especially so in comparison to the scope of Russia's military intervention, or Shia/foreign militias sponsored by Iran. The Russia military intervention was more to do with propping the Assad regime - less to do with US forces deployed. Even your next bit makes the supposed "threatening" comment odd - if the US is merely "holed up in NE Syria", and surrounded on top - doesn't sound all that "threatening".

 

Looking at the map and areas of control, that "NE Syria" the US is supposedly "holed up" in, is kinda a large bit of Syria (or even of @TheRealSyria). For the most part, them other parties mentioned weren't all that keen trying to dislodge the US by force.

 

Why would the US be expected to foot the bill for Syria's destruction? Most of the damage was not even done by the US. The last bit about the "Saudi's & Company" (whatever that means) is incoherent.

 

I tried looking up @TheRealSyria, came up with https://twitter.com/therealsyria and https://www.instagram.com/therealsyria/?hl=en... Was either what you had in mind?

 

 

[tonbridgebrit]

On 05/04/2018 at 1:42 PM, pkspeaker said:

Who cares if Iran & Russia are 'overjoyed' by the American exit-Russia and Iran need Syria and the US does not-so they can have it since it has no strategic value to the US or NATO; That's because the American presence in Syria is totally illegal and US officials have admitted that the reason they are really there is to sort of 'mess' with Iran & Syria.  This messing has failed as Iranian backed militia's who took over the territory ISIS once held in Iraq and met the Syrian Army at the Syrian/Iraqi border-creating a road link between Tehran & Damascus.  Meanwhile the threatening US presence in Syria increases the Russian presence and gives the Syrian Government a 100% safe-area in the Latkia area.  So the US spends billions to be holed up in NE Syria, surrounded on all sides by Iran, Turkey, Russia, and @TheRealSyria.  To make it worse US forces will increasingly be targeted for occupying part of the country and creating a defact-o illegal 'state' in NE Syria that is severed from the rest of the country; And staying means the US comes under increasing pressure to fix the destroyed country.. right now the country needs $200,000,000 just to get started, if they don't pay, the Saudi's & Company always disappoint and come up with a fraction of what they say they will come up with.  

Yes, this is almost how I myself feel.
Anyway, looking back, I think everybody now feels that it would have been far better if Washington had not of got involved in the first place.

What Washington needs right now is an exit strategy, and I hope Donald Trump can carry it out.

Edited April 6, 2018 by tonbridgebrit

[tonbridgebrit]

On 05/04/2018 at 4:59 PM, Morch said:

Why would the US be expected to foot the bill for Syria's destruction? Most of the damage was not even done by the US. The last bit about the "Saudi's & Company" (whatever that means) is incoherent.

 

Washington's continued presence in Syria means that Syria is still in the media. And if the general public carry on seeing Syria on television, and about how Washington is still present, well, people start asking "what's the point of being in Syria ?".  "Are they still there, because they're trying to help the Syrians, if not, well, what's the point ?".  "And, if they're trying to help the Syrians, well, why not help them re-build some of the damaged buildings in Syria by financing the reconstruction".

[Morch]

6 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Washington's continued presence in Syria means that Syria is still in the media. And if the general public carry on seeing Syria on television, and about how Washington is still present, well, people start asking "what's the point of being in Syria ?".  "Are they still there, because they're trying to help the Syrians, if not, well, what's the point ?".  "And, if they're trying to help the Syrians, well, why not help them re-build some of the damaged buildings in Syria by financing the reconstruction".

 

Last I checked, Washington was still on the East Coast. While I understand the insistence on using "Washington" instead of the US as low level propaganda differentiation between government and people - it does sound inane.

 

As for you equally inane argument, Syria is on the news regardless. Quite a bit of Russians, Iranians and Lebanese around. Don't see much by way of a reaction such as you allege. As for your made up quotes, doubt you could provide anything concrete which supports the attitude.

 

Not that such was expected, but will point out that no reasonable explanation was given as to why the US would be expected to foot the bill for destruction largely caused by other parties, some of which are still fully engaged in it.

[pkspeaker]

On 4/5/2018 at 10:59 PM, Morch said:

 

Another of them rambling stream of consciousness rants...

 

The US presence in Syria can hardly be called "threatening", especially so in comparison to the scope of Russia's military intervention, or Shia/foreign militias sponsored by Iran. The Russia military intervention was more to do with propping the Assad regime - less to do with US forces deployed. Even your next bit makes the supposed "threatening" comment odd - if the US is merely "holed up in NE Syria", and surrounded on top - doesn't sound all that "threatening".

 

Looking at the map and areas of control, that "NE Syria" the US is supposedly "holed up" in, is kinda a large bit of Syria (or even of @TheRealSyria). For the most part, them other parties mentioned weren't all that keen trying to dislodge the US by force.

 

Why would the US be expected to foot the bill for Syria's destruction? Most of the damage was not even done by the US. The last bit about the "Saudi's & Company" (whatever that means) is incoherent.

 

I tried looking up @TheRealSyria, came up with https://twitter.com/therealsyria and https://www.instagram.com/therealsyria/?hl=en... Was either what you had in mind?

 

 

It might be a large chunk of Syria (but regionally it's not very big & it's landlocked) but it's mostly empty desert and they are clearly there to make a proxy war vs the Syrian Army.  That's true that most of the destruction was done by others, but the US is attempting to create a 'better alternative' to this so called 'brutal dictatorship' that is the legitimate Syrian government.. that costs money and they have to satisfy the population because their stated goal is to 'compete' with Syria in it's own country.. all I was saying was that dissatisfaction creates more attacks, they are already being targeted as foreign occupiers.  Example: what money is even used in this new quasi-state? The Syrian Dinar?  or are they going to have a SDF $ that has a central bank in Raqqa?  Who represents Syria at the UN?  The legitimate Syrian government does that's who.  Claiming a country is a 'brutal dictatorship' and then stealing some of it's territory and putting separatists (the Kurds) in charge of a majority Arab population is criminal-totally in violation of international law.

[Morch]

44 minutes ago, pkspeaker said:

It might be a large chunk of Syria (but regionally it's not very big & it's landlocked) but it's mostly empty desert and they are clearly there to make a proxy war vs the Syrian Army.  That's true that most of the destruction was done by others, but the US is attempting to create a 'better alternative' to this so called 'brutal dictatorship' that is the legitimate Syrian government.. that costs money and they have to satisfy the population because their stated goal is to 'compete' with Syria in it's own country.. all I was saying was that dissatisfaction creates more attacks, they are already being targeted as foreign occupiers.  Example: what money is even used in this new quasi-state? The Syrian Dinar?  or are they going to have a SDF $ that has a central bank in Raqqa?  Who represents Syria at the UN?  The legitimate Syrian government does that's who.  Claiming a country is a 'brutal dictatorship' and then stealing some of it's territory and putting separatists (the Kurds) in charge of a majority Arab population is criminal-totally in violation of international law.

 

A whole lot of incorrect assumptions, claims and facts in the post above.

 

Yes, it is a "large chunk" of Syria, and this topic is about Syria. That it is "regionally...not very big" is pretty irrelevant. Also, "mostly empty desert" is equally irrelevant (if that was an issue, it would perhaps apply to Syria in general, and indeed regionally), and a somewhat misleading statement.

 

Who is there to "make proxy war vs. the Syrian Army"? Neither the US nor the Kurds are not fighting the Syrian Army.

 

The US current efforts are concentrated in NE Syria. Whatever aid is provided to Rojava is a separate issue from footing the bill for the entire destruction resulting from the Syrian Civil War. As the US does not have much of a presence elsewhere in Syria, how or why would you arrive at that odd "dissatisfaction" conclusion? If anything, won't the Syrians in these areas by more likely to be "dissatisfied" with present parties not contributing to reconstruction?

The US forces are not seen as "foreign occupiers" by the people of NE Syria, and are generally welcomed, rather than "already being targeted".

 

Syrian currency is called Lira, not Dinar. Rojava uses the same (Syrian) currency, which makes sense as it was envisaged as an autonomous region, rather than an independent state. Accordingly, doubt there was a plan to institute a separate currency and a "central bank" (which, by the way, would not have been located in Raqqa in any case).

 

What does representation in the UN got to do with the regime being a "brutal dictatorship"? The Assad regime is a brutal dictatorship whether you care to accept it or not, and regardless of how one feels about the US. As for the "stealing" bit - the US did not "steal" anything, and the Kurds are not all that into "separatism". Rojava, by the way, does a relatively good job when it comes to ethnic representation when it comes to administration and governance - not quite Kurds in charge of majority Arab population as you claim.

[midas]

On 3/31/2018 at 11:21 PM, Morch said:

So Trump favors withdraw - Mattis and Bolton (probably) see it otherwise, for different reasons. State - the remnants of professionals probably in the "remain" camp, Pompeo (if and when he assumes office) will try to keep up with Trump's lead. Interesting times.

 

Got to wonder how this effects troops on the ground, especially those cooperating on a daily basis with the Kurds.

Got to wonder also, who is really in charge-the president or the generals?

[tonbridgebrit]

4 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Last I checked, Washington was still on the East Coast. While I understand the insistence on using "Washington" instead of the US as low level propaganda differentiation between government and people - it does sound inane.

 

As for you equally inane argument, Syria is on the news regardless. Quite a bit of Russians, Iranians and Lebanese around. Don't see much by way of a reaction such as you allege. As for your made up quotes, doubt you could provide anything concrete which supports the attitude.

 

Not that such was expected, but will point out that no reasonable explanation was given as to why the US would be expected to foot the bill for destruction largely caused by other parties, some of which are still fully engaged in it.

Morch, what are you trying to say ?
So I use the ord "Washington" and you claim this is "low level propaganda differentiation between government and people-it does sound inane" ?   What, and it's okay for Rueters and other people to do this, and that's okay ?

About Syria in the news. Look, lets look back at Iraq. When Washington still had it's soldiers in Iraq, well, Iraq was constantly in the news, on the television. When Washington pulled out, well, Iraq was given far less coverage. So, Iraq, as far as the general public was concerned, was no longer an American problem once America had left the place. I think the general public will feel the same about Syria.

Morch, do YOU feel that what Washington needs right now, is, is an exit strategy out of Syria ? Surely, this is how just about everybody feels ?

[tonbridgebrit]

2 hours ago, midas said:

Got to wonder also, who is really in charge-the president or the generals?

Scary issue this. Very dangerous. Is the president in charge, or the generals ?
And that's bearing in mind the generals were not democratically elected to be generals.

[pkspeaker]

OK there.. so according to Morch's alternative reality:

 

1. Syria is a brutal dictatorship; This is some kind of a 'fact' so therefore it is OK for the US to illegally occupy part of the country.  On the other hand it is not OK for the US or some other 3rd party to invade part of the other brutal dictatorships in the region or to invade the apartheid state in Israel-Palestine; And those 30,000 annual dead from gun violence in the US or the fact that the US has more people in prison than any other country in the world with civilians cut down in cold blood by the police often in cases of excessive force-that's just good'ol freedom.. it's not brutal.  

 

2. The Kurdish militants in the region are not 'separatists' , even though their goal is to carve out a Kurdish state from parts of Iraq,Turkey,Iran, and Syria.  

 

3. The US is Syria are seen as liberators not occupiers .. where have we heard that one before? .. despite the fact that they are already being attacked with several KIA causalities recently.

[Morch]

5 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Morch, what are you trying to say ?
So I use the ord "Washington" and you claim this is "low level propaganda differentiation between government and people-it does sound inane" ?   What, and it's okay for Rueters and other people to do this, and that's okay ?

About Syria in the news. Look, lets look back at Iraq. When Washington still had it's soldiers in Iraq, well, Iraq was constantly in the news, on the television. When Washington pulled out, well, Iraq was given far less coverage. So, Iraq, as far as the general public was concerned, was no longer an American problem once America had left the place. I think the general public will feel the same about Syria.

Morch, do YOU feel that what Washington needs right now, is, is an exit strategy out of Syria ? Surely, this is how just about everybody feels ?

 

I don't think Reuters comments on "Washington's presence in Syria", or at the very least not anywhere routinely as you do. As said, low level propaganda construct.

 

As for your Iraq example nonsense - the US was the major player in Iraq, whereas it is not the major player in Syria. I don't think the "general public" feels Syria is an "American problem". That you say so means less than little.

 

What I feel is that you are trying that faux pick-one-options thing. As for co-opting "everybody" - about the same level of "discussion" as can be expected.

 

[Morch]

5 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Scary issue this. Very dangerous. Is the president in charge, or the generals ?
And that's bearing in mind the generals were not democratically elected to be generals.

 

Funny how you suddenly find democratic elections to be of importance.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, pkspeaker said:

OK there.. so according to Morch's alternative reality:

 

1. Syria is a brutal dictatorship; This is some kind of a 'fact' so therefore it is OK for the US to illegally occupy part of the country.  On the other hand it is not OK for the US or some other 3rd party to invade part of the other brutal dictatorships in the region or to invade the apartheid state in Israel-Palestine; And those 30,000 annual dead from gun violence in the US or the fact that the US has more people in prison than any other country in the world with civilians cut down in cold blood by the police often in cases of excessive force-that's just good'ol freedom.. it's not brutal.  

 

2. The Kurdish militants in the region are not 'separatists' , even though their goal is to carve out a Kurdish state from parts of Iraq,Turkey,Iran, and Syria.  

 

3. The US is Syria are seen as liberators not occupiers .. where have we heard that one before? .. despite the fact that they are already being attacked with several KIA causalities recently.

 

 

Assad's regime is a brutal dictatorship. This is not an "alternative fact" but a rather common take on the Syrian government. Denying it is quite out there. The "therefore" part is something you dreamed up, I never made any such connection or reasoning, nor did I say anything whatsoever about the US presence in Syria being in accordance with international law.

 

What I did say is that the US does not play an "occupier" role in Syria. If you see it otherwise, do explain how 2000 troops managed the feat, and maintain said "occupation". Quite a  story there. Your off-topic ramblings about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, US domestic violence and incarceration rates have nothing to do with Syria. And, of course, they do not make the US into a "brutal dictatorship". Moreover, even if the US was a "brutal dictatorship", it wouldn't take from Assad's regime being one.

 

The Syrian Kurds and other minorities in Rojava talk more about autonomy (as part of Syria), and less of complete independence. May want to check out the flag of the SDF, which makes the point clear. While many people talk about the Kurds as if they are unified, this isn't really how things are. For example, one does not see the Kurds in Turkey and Iraq rally to aid the Kurds in Syria. The Kurds may have a dream about having their own homeland, but Rojava is a different political construct.

 

As for US troops in Syria are seen as "liberators" - wasn't part of my post. All I said was that they are not seen as "occupiers", and that they are not "targeted", by the local population but mostly welcomed. US casualties were due to fighting ISIS (and other groups), the local population in NE Syria is not generally hostile to US presence.

 

[tonbridgebrit]

Right, Trump is saying that he is going to take swift action due to the 'chemical attack'.
I hope Trump is still going to pull America out of Syria. I really do hope that Trump's advisors don't tell him to continue having Washington in Syria for years. They'ill probably use the issue of the 'chemical attack' as an excuse to continue America's presence in Syria.