Trump starts withdrawal of U.S. forces from Syria, claims victory

[Cryingdick]

9 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Putin will have his hands full in Middle east now. Remember how Afghanistan weared them down, and we will see now. A human catastrophe it is, and I guess it will be worse. Europe will have a flow of refugees the next decade as well. 

 

What's weird is usually liberals always make the case how we shouldn't interfere in foreign places etc. Now we are simply going home it is some sort of travesty. Maybe it is time to stop living behind walls (which obviously don't ever work) in foreign lands and take care of our own country. 

 

For those saying it is a win for Putin that's fine hope he relishes it. Let him win a game we don't need to play. 

 

Leaving the region will also be the end of taking any of the refugees on the USA side. Countries don't usually volunteer to take refugees when they aren't involved. 

[riclag]

On 12/20/2018 at 1:57 PM, carken said:

No benefit to the USA??? .... how about all the lives that will be spared??? How about all the tax dollar$ that will be saved??? ... I could go on and on with the numerous and many benefits of stopping a war, any war, but hey, I'm sure it would be lost on all the war mongering psychopathic sociopaths out there ... USA should withdraw all it's military forces from all around the world, bring the troops home and shut down all foreign military bases ... the billions of dollars saved could be used to rebuild our country USA and put the military butcher force to work building instead of killing and destroying ... course this will not make The Powers That Be (TPTB) happy, nor the rich 1%ers, nor the bankers, nor the MIC war industry, but it sure would make the world a better place to live in

 

 

As a side note yes I'm an American (81 years old), who lived in USA for 68 years, Thailand for 13 years and yes I served 4 years in the US Army 2nd Armored Div(Hell On Wheels) I was stationed in Germany for 2 years (1956-58) and saw first hand all the destruction still untouched from WW II ... I have lived and visited many countries around the world so I also have an idea what different cultures/societies look and act like ... America/USA had a chance to be a real leader in a civilized world based on peace and a humane desire for good but instead due to greed and a lust for power starting with the vietnam war chose the path of war/murder/destruction ... and wrapped it all up in a evil deceptive blanket of "democratic humanitarian cleansing" and the world allowed us to get away with it ... sticks and stones can break my bones but words ........

 

 

yes I'm ready for the slings and arrows of the word warriors, the justifiers of war and all it's faux heros and indignant militant hawks who see nothing wrong with wholesale murder, destruction and the slaughter of entire nations and societies

BOO RAHHH!!!!

I'm not being sarcastic ! I thank you sir for your service!!!!! God Bless You!

[Hummin]

4 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

What's weird is usually liberals always make the case how we shouldn't interfere in foreign places etc. Now we are simply going home it is some sort of travesty. Maybe it is time to stop living behind walls (which obviously don't ever work) in foreign lands and take care of our own country. 

 

For those saying it is a win for Putin that's fine hope he relishes it. Let him win a game we don't need to play. 

 

Leaving the region will also be the end of taking any of the refugees on the USA side. Countries don't usually volunteer to take refugees when they aren't involved. 

Well, liberals also need to protect their living standards by protecting their allies and partners. The world is not straight foreward easy and peacefull. Most people understand that. When we first have this situation, you have to complete it and make sure your allies is safe and leave them in the middle of the fight. 

 

Going to war against Saddam was a huge mistake in the first place. 

[Ron19]

Multiple reported off topic posts have been removed.

This topic is about the president starting to remove troops from Syria 

Please keep on topic when this topic is reopened.

 

[bkkcanuck8]

4 hours ago, Hummin said:

Well, liberals also need to protect their living standards by protecting their allies and partners. The world is not straight foreward easy and peacefull. Most people understand that. When we first have this situation, you have to complete it and make sure your allies is safe and leave them in the middle of the fight. 

 

Going to war against Saddam was a huge mistake in the first place. 

It tends to be in the eyes of the beholder.  Liberals (generalizing greatly) tend not to want to interfere in others conflicts (external) because on the one side think the US will just mess up the situation... but when the US does not 'interfere' and people are on their TV screens starving and being dismembered live on TV... they suddenly want to get involved.  Like many when it comes to politics there are many factors that come into play -- who is the president is one.  We are still a very tribal society -- which is more than amply demonstrated with Trump and his hard-core supporters.  With Syria before Russia basically entered the conflict directly to prop up their proxy in the region -- the US was already deployed in the area because the regime had basically fallen and was weakened by internal strife.  There was a vacuum in an area where ISIS was taking advantage to create their caliphate...  the end result of the caliphate is that it must encompass the entire world and the people taking part have little or no respect for human life... it is all about the ends.  It basically checks all boxes... for 'liberals' it was in their face on TV, for those on the security side - there was the problem with taking on ISIS before it became a larger problem and extended directly into western countries through terrorism (which it has and would even more).  The problem is the US is a rather weak country when it comes to military if they do not overwhelm and are withdrawn in 3 years... the temperature of the politics change and there is pressure on why we are there (people have short memories).  Any type of long conflict or generational conflict -- the US is completely unable to survive long enough to win.  The goal of any enemy has to be to use the tactics of surviving for more than 3 years and to have a constant drip of deaths in US forces until the US withdraws in defeat (even if they declare victory).  Donald Trump unfortunately lacks any compassion at all (other than for himself) and he has no knowledge of military history or tactics... and is unwilling to listen or learn from those that are the professionals (not all will agree so you really have to learn yourself and learn what questions to ask).

[Prissana Pescud]

The worst aspect of US withdrawal is the discarding and abandonment of the Kurds. Turkey will now

attack them. Turkey will suffer huge casualties but overwhelming force will prevail. 

The Kurds were a major influence in defeating ISIS in Iraq. Now Trump discards them like used chaff. 

Shame.

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, Prissana Pescud said:

The worst aspect of US withdrawal is the discarding and abandonment of the Kurds. Turkey will now

attack them. Turkey will suffer huge casualties but overwhelming force will prevail. 

The Kurds were a major influence in defeating ISIS in Iraq. Now Trump discards them like used chaff. 

Shame.

Why would Turkey suffer huge casualties? It has overwhelming air power and a modern army. It didn't have much of a problem driving the Kurds out of Afrin.

[Prissana Pescud]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Why would Turkey suffer huge casualties? It has overwhelming air power and a modern army. It didn't have much of a problem driving the Kurds out of Afrin.

The Kurds have something to fight for. Turkish troops don't. 

As I said, overwhelming firepower will defeat the Kurds. But the Kurds have been in true combat, the Turks are novices.

Most possibly will not want to be there. The withdrawal from Afrin was strategic, there was nothing to gain from making a stand there against the odds.

[JackThompson]

On 12/20/2018 at 9:45 AM, BestB said:

Was it not until Russia stepped in that ISIS kept growing ? 

 

Was it not Russia who cut off all supplies to ISIS including financial support?

 

Perhaps now that US is out, Syrian civil war will end , though the so called democratic army may turn into yet another form of fighters and most likely will be anti US that left them to hang.

When Russia bombed ISIS's-allies weapons-cache, the USA air-dropped fresh supplies - so, yes.  Love or hate Putin, the Russians were always on the "least bad" side of that conflict - opposing the head-choppers and heart-eaters. 

Imagine the Middle-East, today, if the USA had never started aiding the bloodthirsty Taliban in Afghanistan - setting aside the Non-Nuclear Proliferation effort with Pakistan to get their support - in order to to "bait the Russians into invading" (as admitted by Zbig Brz, national security adviser - in an interview on the latter, and in a letter to President Carter on the NNP issue).

Edited December 21, 2018 by JackThompson

[impulse]

On 12/19/2018 at 6:14 PM, simple1 said:

Considering trump has ignored the warnings from his national security advisers and Mattis not to pull out of Syria one has to question whether the withdrawal is in fact the 'correct' decision for the US. Given that just in the last week there were 250 US airstrikes in Syria and still thousands of IS fighters (look up David Kilcullen's latest interview) seriously doubt the decision will lead to less Western military / civilian deaths in the longer term.

 

trump's decision appears to be pandering to his base, not for the benefit of the USA.

 

I understand your statement, but the problem is the conflict of interest when you take advice from someone who has lined up a multi-million dollar career with the very corporations to which they're throwing $$$ Billions of government work today.  Once those national security advisers leave the government, they'll go straight into employment, consulting, or lobbying for the military industrial complex.  So I take their "advice" with a grain of salt.

 

And that doesn't even consider the possibility that they're so indoctrinated into a culture that's blind to alternatives.  If it was working, I'd have more support for it.  But Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Beirut and other recent experiences have shown that it's a disaster. 

 

The poop is going to hit the fan (or not) when the USA leaves, whether that's tomorrow or in 50 years.  The only question is what the USA will spend in those 50 years in our kids' blood and our treasure, and what will be left of the USA if we stay on course to spend $750 Billion a year on defending "allies" with a high probability that they'll be coming after us with the very weapons we supplied them. (Anyone else remember when Osama Bin Laden was our guy?  The advisers sure mucked up that call)

Personally, I'd prefer we spend that money on health care and infrastructure in our own country.

 

Edited December 21, 2018 by impulse

[anon7854]

I have  a feeling Vladimir has Trump by the balls. Not sure with what but that is for the American ret...public to find out ???? I remember when US was all against communism but now is shaking hands with the biggest fan of URSS.

 

What has the world come to. We need to save USA.

[simple1]

6 hours ago, impulse said:

 

I understand your statement, but the problem is the conflict of interest when you take advice from someone who has lined up a multi-million dollar career with the very corporations to which they're throwing $$$ Billions of government work today.  Once those national security advisers leave the government, they'll go straight into employment, consulting, or lobbying for the military industrial complex.  So I take their "advice" with a grain of salt.

 

And that doesn't even consider the possibility that they're so indoctrinated into a culture that's blind to alternatives.  If it was working, I'd have more support for it.  But Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Beirut and other recent experiences have shown that it's a disaster. 

 

The poop is going to hit the fan (or not) when the USA leaves, whether that's tomorrow or in 50 years.  The only question is what the USA will spend in those 50 years in our kids' blood and our treasure, and what will be left of the USA if we stay on course to spend $750 Billion a year on defending "allies" with a high probability that they'll be coming after us with the very weapons we supplied them. (Anyone else remember when Osama Bin Laden was our guy?  The advisers sure mucked up that call)

Personally, I'd prefer we spend that money on health care and infrastructure in our own country.

 

The Coalition is on course to eliminate IS in Syria, still more effort required in Iraq, even more so in Afghanistan. In the meantime IS ideology is motivating continuous civilian killings in Western & Islamic countries. IMO trump's unilateral decision is a slap in the face for his own Defense Dept, Coalition members fighting in Syria and elsewhere. To me it is evident trump is incapable to articulate and promote strategic vision for World security. To quote trump "making decisions on gut feeling" - what a farcical individual - no wonder his business ventures more often than not ended in bankruptcy - LOL

 

BTW please provide facts to support your claim the US is spending "$750 Billion a year on defending "allies".

 

 

[metisdead]

Some more off topic posts and the replies have been removed. 

[Kiwiken]

Another great American redeployment and realignment Just like Vietnam in 1975, Somalia , Now Syria and Afghanistan Cut and run with tails between the legs. Another defeat of American Military intervention. The Wiltering American Eagle feathers ruffles withdraws into its shell. Perhaps you should replace the Bald Eagle with a turtle as you symbol. Trumps America great again . this new Years gift Mirrors so Americans can glory in themselves

[JackThompson]

3 hours ago, simple1 said:

The Coalition is on course to eliminate IS in Syria, still more effort required in Iraq, even more so in Afghanistan. In the meantime IS ideology is motivating continuous civilian killings in Western & Islamic countries. IMO trump's unilateral decision is a slap in the face for his own Defense Dept, Coalition members fighting in Syria and elsewhere.

The non-Kurdish allies of the USA in Syria (so-called "moderates") were had a very ISIS-like  ideology, and were sharing the weapons we provided with ISIS.  Assad, pre-war, had no history of slaughtering the peaceful factions within the country - it was US so-called "Allies," along with their ISIS allies, which did that.  Assad was the "moderate" - relatively speaking.

I dislike seeing the Kurds get a knife in the back, yet again (like in Iraq, repeatedly) - but this will keep happening as long as the USA continues trying to work with Turkey (arch-enemy).  The best we can hope for, is that some agreement was made with Turkey, Russia, and Assad whereby no extermination-campaign will be carried out in our absence (likely in exchange for Turkey retaining control of its border-region).

 

3 hours ago, simple1 said:

To me it is evident trump is incapable to articulate and promote strategic vision for World security. To quote trump "making decisions on gut feeling" - what a farcical individual - no wonder his business ventures more often than not ended in bankruptcy - LOL

...

Articulate is not a good word to describe Trump.  But his "enough of the never-ending and pointless foreign wars" campaign rhetoric was welcomed by many.  He plucked that from the "libertarian wing" of the R-Party (and what is left of the peacenik-left), while discarding that same faction's highly-popular open-borders / "any willing worker" policy.

But set Trump aside for a minute, and look at the big picture / history.   Project "global jihad" was a US-supported operation - used to harm the then-USSR - not an organic phenomenon.  Taking out Assad was yet another "use" of that same tactic.  The people using this tactic see the "blowback" killings of Americans, Europeans, etc (maximized through expansive immigration-policy) as a "feature," enabling public-support of an increasingly Orwellian police-state.  The best way to see an end to this, is to stop funding the Madrassas and Wahabbi-minded proxy armies - either directly (as was ongoing in Syria) or via allies like the Saudis.

[JackThompson]

9 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

It took Trump to change the liberals. lol 

Trump's election was made possible, in part, due to the reaction of anti-war lefties to war-hawk Hillary being the Democratic Party standard-bearer.  Her tenure as SoS was awful - Libya at the top of the disaster-list. 

 

Trump's election has caused elements in both major parties to reveal aspects of their nature which they had previously worked in-tandem to conceal behind a smokescreen of meaningless-issues.  This "disruption" aspect of his presence may turn out to be his greatest legacy. 

 

Hopefully, we will get a very different pair of parties in the future (3rd parties being unworkable absent Constitutional amendment) - a Gabbard/Bernie styled D-party, and "Liberty Caucus" styled R-party.  Compromises between those two would be a welcome change from the horrible policies of the parties' current leadership (Pelosi/Ryan + McConnell/Schumer), supporting the anti-citizen agendas of the Koch Bros right, Soros left, and CFR/Davos/Chatham-House Corporatist foreign-policy.

[JackThompson]

2 hours ago, Kiwiken said:

Another great American redeployment and realignment Just like Vietnam in 1975,

President Ford pleaded with Congress to fund air-support for South Vietnam, as the North violated the treaty.  The Dems / Carnegie-types would have none of it - as their goal was to "merge" communism with capitalism (see China) - not defeat communism. 

Thank goodness Thailand was not sacrificed along with Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos - though we must credit HM IX for winning the "hearts and minds" battle, in this country.

But Middle-East policy is something entirely different - especially given there is no more Soviet/Communist threat.  In Syria (and Libya, etc), the USA was aligned with the head-chopping factions - not the "lesser of evils."  The "re-alignment" in Afghanistan was to support the formerly USSR-backed "Northern Alliance" - after previously supporting the Wahabbis.  There is no line of principle or purpose, other than destablization in an effort to gain control - very different from the "black and white" cold and hot wars against global-communism.  We are losing war that war - which actually matters - from the inside - see US Universities, etc.

Edited December 22, 2018 by JackThompson

[bristolboy]

30 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

The non-Kurdish allies of the USA in Syria (so-called "moderates") were had a very ISIS-like  ideology, and were sharing the weapons we provided with ISIS.  Assad, pre-war, had no history of slaughtering the peaceful factions within the country - it was US so-called "Allies," along with their ISIS allies, which did that.  Assad was the "moderate" - relatively speaking.

I dislike seeing the Kurds get a knife in the back, yet again (like in Iraq, repeatedly) - but this will keep happening as long as the USA continues trying to work with Turkey (arch-enemy).  The best we can hope for, is that some agreement was made with Turkey, Russia, and Assad whereby no extermination-campaign will be carried out in our absence (likely in exchange for Turkey retaining control of its border-region).

 

Articulate is not a good word to describe Trump.  But his "enough of the never-ending and pointless foreign wars" campaign rhetoric was welcomed by many.  He plucked that from the "libertarian wing" of the R-Party (and what is left of the peacenik-left), while discarding that same faction's highly-popular open-borders / "any willing worker" policy.

But set Trump aside for a minute, and look at the big picture / history.   Project "global jihad" was a US-supported operation - used to harm the then-USSR - not an organic phenomenon.  Taking out Assad was yet another "use" of that same tactic.  The people using this tactic see the "blowback" killings of Americans, Europeans, etc (maximized through expansive immigration-policy) as a "feature," enabling public-support of an increasingly Orwellian police-state.  The best way to see an end to this, is to stop funding the Madrassas and Wahabbi-minded proxy armies - either directly (as was ongoing in Syria) or via allies like the Saudis.

What is "Project "global jihad". Are you referring to the Saudi support spreading Wahabi version of Islam. And you're claiming that this was directed at the USSR? Really. More nonsensical conspiracy theory mongering.

[keemapoot]

9 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

Trump's election was made possible, in part, due to the reaction of anti-war lefties to war-hawk Hillary being the Democratic Party standard-bearer.  Her tenure as SoS was awful - Libya at the top of the disaster-list. 

 

Trump's election has caused elements in both major parties to reveal aspects of their nature which they had previously worked in-tandem to conceal behind a smokescreen of meaningless-issues.  This "disruption" aspect of his presence may turn out to be his greatest legacy. 

 

Hopefully, we will get a very different pair of parties in the future (3rd parties being unworkable absent Constitutional amendment) - a Gabbard/Bernie styled D-party, and "Liberty Caucus" styled R-party.  Compromises between those two would be a welcome change from the horrible policies of the parties' current leadership (Pelosi/Ryan + McConnell/Schumer), supporting the anti-citizen agendas of the Koch Bros right, Soros left, and CFR/Davos/Chatham-House Corporatist foreign-policy.

Your posts are articulate, thoughtful and well-researched. I don't agree with some of your implied implications or conclusions, but the over-arching gist that Trump has been the disruption of both parties I think is accurate. I also agree with you that change was and is needed. The problem is that Trump as a change agent is highly defective, toxic and damaging to the established US and world order. He is a disjointed, loose canon change agent, and will leave the foundations weaker until he is removed.

 

Yes, I agree that hopefully the two parties will end up reformed by this. As of now, we have a mostly spineless GOP in the face of Trump, and they will be long remembered that way. We also have a Democrat party that shows little evidence of fundamental change. As I stated in another thread, I am not hopeful for 2020, as I think there is not enough time for fundamental change.

[JackThompson]

Just now, bristolboy said:

What is "Project "global jihad". Are you referring to the Saudi support spreading Wahabi version of Islam. And you're claiming that this was directed at the USSR? Really. More nonsensical conspiracy theory mongering.

Have you read the history of Zbignew Brzezenski's efforts as President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser?  Much of the correspondence has been declassified.  Part of this included scrapping "non-nuclear proliferation" efforts in Pakistan, aiding the Wahabbi-faction in Afghanistan to cause later Soviet involvement (the US acting first was denied for years, finally declassified), etc.

 

The Saudis have been partners in this - not only with financial aid and support of madrassas and proxy-armies - but earlier, with radicals booted from countries like Egypt being given jobs as madrassa teachers in Saudi Arabia. 

 

I do not need "conspiracy theories" when we have documented evidence going back decades of these activities.  BTW, are you aware of the origin of the term"conspiracy theory" in popular political critique - it's origin, use, and targets?  That's an interesting topic, also.

[bristolboy]

My own hypotheses about the withdrawals is this. Trump, as commander-in-chief hasn't yet visited the troops abroad. I think it's pretty clear he's afraid to put himself in harm's way. This way, there soon won't be troops to visit in any hotspots. Problem solved!

[JackThompson]

11 minutes ago, keemapoot said:

The problem is that Trump as a change agent is highly defective, toxic and damaging to the established US and world order. He is a disjointed, loose canon change agent, and will leave the foundations weaker until he is removed.

The "world order" and "established USA" were both headed in the wrong direction, though.  Trump was a political-moderate who opposed the direction. 

 

Peace, stability, and higher standards of living, we can all support - the question is how to get those results on domestic and international fronts.  The actions of the anti-nationalists on domestic-policy, and neo-cons on the international-front, were not helping achieve those ends. 

 

Trump's campaign-rhetoric on these points was correct (written by others, of course).  His will to do something about them is another question - though we have seen some improvement on trade policy - or at least, less harm, than if any of the other Rs (in the primary) or Hillary had won.

 

Some of the best ideas are trapped in the fringes of either party, mixed with terrible ideas. 

[keemapoot]

Just now, JackThompson said:

The "world order" and "established USA" were both headed in the wrong direction, though.  Trump was a political-moderate who opposed the direction. 

 

Peace, stability, and higher standards of living, we can all support - the question is how to get those results on domestic and international fronts.  The actions of the anti-nationalists on domestic-policy, and neo-cons on the international-front, were not helping achieve those ends. 

 

Trump's campaign-rhetoric on these points was correct (written by others, of course).  His will to do something about them is another question - though we have seen some improvement on trade policy - or at least, less harm, than if any of the other Rs (in the primary) or Hillary had won.

 

Some of the best ideas are trapped in the fringes of either party, mixed with terrible ideas. 

Participating in and leading comprehensive global trade pacts like the TPP, though needing revision, was not the wrong direction. Abrupt withdrawal and ceding regional power to the Chinese is the wrong direction. Rejecting almost all strong allies, while embracing or ceding power to US competitors, opponents is the wrong direction.

 

Trump doesn't understand any of the issues, let alone read the briefings or listen to the expert opinions of his own (less than stellar) staff. I was watching CNN Talk with Max Foster last night where he and his all-British panel did a review of the year's news, and though comprehensive, again, all agreed that everything in 2018 was dominated by Trump news. He has been the most disruptive force in world order and politics in recent memory. And, in that respect, yes, his legacy will be perhaps he is the one who started real change in US political parties, but the cost will be tremendous.

[bristolboy]

8 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

The "world order" and "established USA" were both headed in the wrong direction, though.  Trump was a political-moderate who opposed the direction. 

 

Peace, stability, and higher standards of living, we can all support - the question is how to get those results on domestic and international fronts.  The actions of the anti-nationalists on domestic-policy, and neo-cons on the international-front, were not helping achieve those ends. 

 

Trump's campaign-rhetoric on these points was correct (written by others, of course).  His will to do something about them is another question - though we have seen some improvement on trade policy - or at least, less harm, than if any of the other Rs (in the primary) or Hillary had won.

 

Some of the best ideas are trapped in the fringes of either party, mixed with terrible ideas. 

The notion that you can reduce the balance of trade while increasing the deficit is widely derided by economists left right and center.

And one huge problem with the New World Order is that it takes a very expensive military to enforce it. So on the one hand, Trump wants to reduce American exposure abroad, yet on the other he supports massive increases in military spending. Huh?

[JackThompson]

14 minutes ago, keemapoot said:

Participating in and leading comprehensive global trade pacts like the TPP, though needing revision, was not the wrong direction. Abrupt withdrawal and ceding regional power to the Chinese is the wrong direction. Rejecting almost all strong allies, while embracing or ceding power to US competitors, opponents is the wrong direction.

We fundamentally disagree on this.  I view the WTO as disastrous; Chinese inclusion in it was the mechanism which empowered China, and destroyed the American manufacturing base; NAFTA was then brought in, to finish the job.  The motivation for these agreeements was the destruction of the middle-class, because the ultra-rich didn't want to pay for middle-class lifestyles for "their" workers. 

 

But absent a middle-class, you get a destabilized country, where the rich can act with impunity, until the point that the poor go full communist in response - which we are seeing with the Democratic-Socialist response - and then the far-Right reaction to this.  As a fan of markets (generally "free" domestically) and social/economic stability, I find value in a strong middle-class, held in place by tariffs and immigration-restrictions. 

 

In terms of trade more generally, bi-lateral agreements can be great.  These can also help increase middle-class populations throughout the world, if implemented with this as a goal.  The "wage neutralizing tariff," once promoted by Thom Hartmann and his then-Friday guest-host Bernie Sanders, is a great idea, on that front.  Lower-wages must be removed as a source of "comparative advantage" for global business, if we hope to see a world-wide middle-class ever emerge.  Policies which erode middle-classes where they exist are not constructive in that endeavor.

[simple1]

1 hour ago, JackThompson said:

The non-Kurdish allies of the USA in Syria (so-called "moderates") were had a very ISIS-like  ideology, and were sharing the weapons we provided with ISIS.  Assad, pre-war, had no history of slaughtering the peaceful factions within the country - it was US so-called "Allies," along with their ISIS allies, which did that.  Assad was the "moderate" - relatively speaking.

I dislike seeing the Kurds get a knife in the back, yet again (like in Iraq, repeatedly) - but this will keep happening as long as the USA continues trying to work with Turkey (arch-enemy).  The best we can hope for, is that some agreement was made with Turkey, Russia, and Assad whereby no extermination-campaign will be carried out in our absence (likely in exchange for Turkey retaining control of its border-region).

 

Articulate is not a good word to describe Trump.  But his "enough of the never-ending and pointless foreign wars" campaign rhetoric was welcomed by many.  He plucked that from the "libertarian wing" of the R-Party (and what is left of the peacenik-left), while discarding that same faction's highly-popular open-borders / "any willing worker" policy.

But set Trump aside for a minute, and look at the big picture / history.   Project "global jihad" was a US-supported operation - used to harm the then-USSR - not an organic phenomenon.  Taking out Assad was yet another "use" of that same tactic.  The people using this tactic see the "blowback" killings of Americans, Europeans, etc (maximized through expansive immigration-policy) as a "feature," enabling public-support of an increasingly Orwellian police-state.  The best way to see an end to this, is to stop funding the Madrassas and Wahabbi-minded proxy armies - either directly (as was ongoing in Syria) or via allies like the Saudis.

I'll ignore all the conspiracy and other nonsense in your post. However, you may like to provide credible links of allies & IS pre the start of the Syrian Civil War (2011) who were slaughtering people in Syria.

 

Assad was torturing and oppressing his opposition well before the Civil War - a relative moderate - LOL

 

https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2010/country-chapters/syria

[bristolboy]

18 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

We fundamentally disagree on this.  I view the WTO as disastrous; Chinese inclusion in it was the mechanism which empowered China, and destroyed the American manufacturing base; NAFTA was then brought in, to finish the job.  The motivation for these agreeements was the destruction of the middle-class, because the ultra-rich didn't want to pay for middle-class lifestyles for "their" workers. 

 

But absent a middle-class, you get a destabilized country, where the rich can act with impunity, until the point that the poor go full communist in response - which we are seeing with the Democratic-Socialist response - and then the far-Right reaction to this.  As a fan of markets (generally "free" domestically) and social/economic stability, I find value in a strong middle-class, held in place by tariffs and immigration-restrictions. 

 

In terms of trade more generally, bi-lateral agreements can be great.  These can also help increase middle-class populations throughout the world, if implemented with this as a goal.  The "wage neutralizing tariff," once promoted by Thom Hartmann and his then-Friday guest-host Bernie Sanders, is a great idea, on that front.  Lower-wages must be removed as a source of "comparative advantage" for global business, if we hope to see a world-wide middle-class ever emerge.  Policies which erode middle-classes where they exist are not constructive in that endeavor.

But why is it the workers and the middle class have it so much better in the developed nations of the EU? For one thing, strong unions. For another, universal health care. And Fairer taxation. And access to cheap or even free higher education. The huge gap between the upper class and the middle and working class essentially began in the REagan years thanks to those tax cuts. Worker productivity has hugely increased since then but the top 10 percent have made most of the gains. There have been some losses due to WTO but in a fairer economic system, the effects would have been mitigated.

Upward mobility in the USA is now much lower than it is in the EU.

[Scott]

Please stay on the topic of the withdrawal of troops.  

 

[JackThompson]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

But why is it the workers and the middle class have it so much better in the developed nations of the EU? For one thing, strong unions. For another, universal health care. And Fairer taxation. And access to cheap or even free higher education. The huge gap between the upper class and the middle and working class essentially began in the REagan years thanks to those tax cuts. Worker productivity has hugely increased since then but the top 10 percent have made most of the gains. There have been some losses due to WTO but in a fairer economic system, the effects would have been mitigated.

Upward mobility in the USA is now much lower than it is in the EU.

Agree with nearly all of your sentiments on this, except the trade aspect, but will withhold further comment per mod-request.

[JackThompson]

 

1 hour ago, keemapoot said:

I am firmly a globalist, and though I do admit many of the knock-on effects to the middle class you allege in your post, companies, manufacturing, and jobs will always migrate to the lowest cost locale.

Not if you have a wise tariff regime.

 

1 hour ago, keemapoot said:

But, obviously, the interlocked global economy, and everyone's products and services, are highly globalized, supply chains and value chains are globalized, everything is globalized. There is no going back, in spite of all the romantic notions otherwise. 

Supply chains can be re-routed to support local markets.

 

Bringing this back to point - the reason for these wars - including Syria, is to support the "globalized trade" system - which was never a law-of-nature, but rather a contrived plan to maximize wealth for a few. 

 

You have the war-profiteers in the mix also, of course - and note how military contracts are broken out across states to get votes.  So there is also that faction that supports any/all wars - and, therefore, any policy (such as Arab Spring) designed and/or exploited/twisted to cause conflicts which can become profit-making opportunities for them.