Congressional hawks in both parties are predictably outraged at President Trump’s Syria strategy. Even keeping a few hundred troops in Syria explicitly to “guard the oil” is not enough to placate them.
Most mainstream outlets made their decision when Trump suggested he was getting out of the Syria War, an idea which media outlets are viewing as incomprehensible, and analysts are spinning as helping “jihadists,” Syria, Russia, and Turkey.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is insisting that Trump must not be listening to commanders, assuming that his pro-war stance would necessarily be embraced by the military brass. Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) presented the policy as a betrayal of the Kurds to Russia.
Absent from all of this is the idea of a debate on the policy, with everyone insisting that the most pro-war strategy possible must necessarily be the default, and anything short of that needs to be challenged.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) sought to take the lead in challenging Trump, after the House passed a resolution condemning Trump over Syria. McConnell now insists Congress needs to “go beyond” Syria. He is looking for the Senate to get out in front and condemn any drawdown in Afghanistan, even though by most indications such a drawdown is not going to be coming at all.
If anything, condemning Trump on Afghanistan doesn’t make much sense right now, since Trump already scrapped the peace process, with a deal in hand, and now seems to be set to continue the Afghan War beyond all reason, and with no apparent goals in mind. If anything that seems to be exactly what everyone else is counseling in Syria.
Trump already effectively backed down on Syria, keeping troops there for the oil, and even if that’s going to pointlessly continue the US military engagement there, the very hint of a drawdown continues to drive momentum against Trump’s policy, whatever it is at any given time.
Israel wants the US in Syria, for the purpose of using it against Iran, and keeping Syria so wrecked it can never be a factor in any decisions by Israel.
It is bomb Iran, for the Villa in a wasteland.
That is what has so spun up every single part of the US political spectrum that is touched by the Israel Lobby.
Israel has worse coming its way too. If Warren or Bernie defeat the corrupt war mongers called centrists, then Israel’s conduct will be “on the table.” That has never been allowed before.
Hmm not sure from where you get this Warren and Sanders posture towards our ME “bestie.”
Wishful thinking 100% in the vein of hope n change 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0
“Trump already effectively backed down on Syria, keeping troops there for the oil”
I highly doubt Trump objected to keeping some troops there to protect the oil. He been suggesting we “keep the oil” from the countries we have leveled since the campaign trail..
Countdown to where the Syria deployment, and air strikes are down to level when the “peace train” arrived…..
“The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
It is quite clear, the Military Industrial Complex, MSM and both mainstream political parties are complicit in driving (and supporting) foreign interventions/wars.
Further, it seems highly unlikely that our troops will be coming home any time too soon. (The more we promise to leave any of the countries we have interfered with, the longer we seem to stay…)
Even if Trump means anything he says in this regard (and I do not believe he does), it is has become quite apparent, not even a sitting US President has the ability stop these war mechanisms which are now well entrenched in our political system.
Trump is geo-politically (and domestically) illiterate…
Handing 4.5 million US dollars to the CIA backed White Helmets is proof of that.
Trump has reduce US troops in Afghanistan by 2000
so far in 2019,
removed troops from northern Syria and
turned the entire useless quagmire over to the Russkies and Turks to manage.
While the MIC fulminates and melts down.
Would Biden, Warren or Hillary have done the same?
That’s really the only question.
Truth is, stokr, neither Biden, Warren, nor Hillary would’ve done the same that DJT did .. Those 3, along with the vast majority of Democrat presidential candidates, would’ve never withdrawn any US troops from Syria – including the northern region.
The 2000 are subtracted from the 7000 he sent since taking office. For those not proficient at math, that’s a plus 5000.
And there were 300 to 400 troops in Syria when he took office.
I said in 2019, for those not proficient in reading comp.
Now, tell me which current candidate would do better against the MIC than Trump?
And I said, “since taking office” and “when he took office”. My reading comp is fine, how’s your cherry picking?
The current candidates would do the same. Nothing. Has Trump cut the MIC off and I’m not hearing about it? Or do we have a record Offense Budget? Sales up or down? Profits? The MIC is doing fine under Trump.
I know what you said,
but that was then, and removing 2K troops in 2019 is now.
The trend, is our friend.
The entire DC establishment, right and lef,t is attacking him for leaving northern Syria.
While you pretend that’s not a big deal.
The noise from the MIC is screaming a very different story.
Maybe work on removing entire Congress and voting for people with a brain and the spine to stand against American Tribalism. Trump can’t do anything if his supporters keep throwing the swamp critters back in the pool. If Trump wanted to fight the MIC he could have rallied his base to do their job, instead he just continues the same identitarian dog-whistling.
If you really wanted change, you don’t,
you would support good policy and encourage more.
But you enjoy the ranting too much for anything like that.
I’ll follow Rand Paul’s lead and actually DO something.
Show me some policy that is good to support
Leaving northern Syria to the Turks and Russkies.
Removing 2000 US troops from Afghanistan in 2019.
That’s good. It’s not following the law of the land but not bad…
And sending 3,000 troops to Saudi Arabia is now. The airstrikes in multiple countries is now. The sanctions are now. The trend hasn’t changed, the occupant has. The MIC chugs merrily along.
3K troops to Saudi Arabia will block Iranian aggression.
It’s in our interest and it is defensive in nature, not a conflict but minimizing the chances for conflict.
Typical neocon response. Your inner John Bolton is showing again.
And your unicorn riding to the tune of “Somewhere Over the Rainbow” is also showing.
Right, because I actually want the troops out of the ME and not rearranged like you. The longer you converse, the more your true neocon colors come out.
Our military should support our national interest. Syria is a chaotic mess, allowing ISIS to regroup (it takes financing) by abandoning those oil fields is Pollyanna stupid UNTIL there is no threat from ISIS.
There it is again. “allowing ISIS to regroup” How many neocons/warmongers have said the same thing to justify our presence? You’re no different than Biden, Hillary or Warren.
I don’t run from it.
It took effort, some lives and taxpayer money to dethrone ISIS,
I wouldn’t throw that away like you would.
Why would you run from it? Neocons never admit they’re wrong.
So much for trends.
https://news.antiwar.com/2019/10/24/trump-moves-firmly-to-restructure-syria-war-around-oil/
That oil funded ISIS,
keeping out of their hands is in America’s interest, the difference.
When ISIS controlled the oil fields maybe. Not now. Quit grasping.
The ISIS remnant is on the loose, better safe than naively stupid.
Trump has said on numerous occasions HE has defeated ISIS. And you have Russia, Syria and those Iranian militias that really wiped out ISIS still around. No need for us to be anywhere in the vicinity. But way to use more neocon talking points.
Correction, Trump said he defeated the ISIS CALIPHATE. There are still thousands of combatants milling around looking for a financing source.
You see neocons behind every bush.
Because you talk like one.
Truth is so difficult in your Fantasyland.
Neocon “truth” is.
And more trends.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-raytheon-results/raytheon-profit-beats-estimates-raises-2019-forecast-on-higher-weapons-demand-idUSKBN1X31BL?il=0
https://www.wnd.com/2019/10/rand-paul-heaps-praise-donald-trumps-extraordinary-breakthrough-syria/
Relevant how? Does that mean we’re NOT sending tanks and armored vehicles to Syria TO PROTECT THE OIL?
Relevant, Paul gets it, you never will.
Not relevant to what I posted. Do you think Rand Paul agrees with sending Tanks and Armored vehicles to protect the oil? Or does what Rand Paul said change the fact that the profits for the MIC continue unabated? You fool, I agree on the withdraw of our troops if it actually meant we were withdrawing from the region. But we’re not, as todays headlines point out. Try reading them.
Avoiding a useless war with Turkey was a victory for sanity over the warmongering DC establishment who almost universally opposed Trump’s withdrawal. Credit, where it’s due.
Keep ignoring those tanks.
If the tanks are defensive, so be it.
“defensive” tanks on the other side of the planet. Wow. You really are a non-interventionist.
ISIS had no problem inspiring and directing attacks in the US,
“from the other side of the planet”.
Why did they do that?
And why did they have “no trouble” doing it?
Could it possibly have anything to do with the presence of anywhere from thousands to hundreds of thousands of US troops murdering their way across the Middle East at any given moment?
It is possible that if the latter stopped, the former might stop too?
OBL cited:
the US support for Israel;
American immorality: “The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you. (a) We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling’s, and trading with interest.”
Sanctions against Iraq for invading Kuwait;
And the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia.
Israel has the right to exist,
I don’t accept OBL’s version of “morality”,
invading Kuwait was wrong and sanctions for it were appropriate,
and if Saudi Arabia DECIDES to allow US troops into their country,
OBL can pack sand.
What you are missing Tom, is that OBL was a madman and creatures like him will never be satisfied.
Yes, OBL was a madman. As was Saddam. And Fahd. And Bush.
Yes, we agree.
And you think tanks are the answer to stopping terrorists attacks? God, you are an idiot.
Tanks stop them from their funding source, so yes.
They can plan terrorists attacks from a hotel room, like 9/11 was planned. And they don’t need oil revenues to do terrorist attacks. They might need them to form a caliphate but certainly not for some random attack in a populated place where it’s easy to kill people on the cheap. But keep trying.
“They might need them to form a caliphate …”, bingo brightstar.