mattdzz: What do you mean, 'there comes a time when civilian control must be reasserted.' There was no loss of civilian control to reassert. And we do have a pretty good idea, at this time, where the action in Syria will take us. Assad has pushed back into norther Syria, Turkey has a buffer zone and has taken over Kurdish territory, our allies, the Kurds, have been pushed back, Iran now has a clearer path for troops in Syria, and ISIS is getting a new lease on life. This is pretty clear.
I forgot. Russia has just now, taken over some of the American bases we just abandoned. The big winners here are: 1. Putin and Russia 2. Iran 3. ISIS 4. Assad and Syria 5. Turkey The big losers are: 1. Our allies the Kurds 2. Anybody, including the U. S., that ISIS terrorists, now newly freed, will attack down the road.
First: The Kurds aren't out allies, and were only fighting alongside us because we had a common foe. They're a pain in the ass of one of our long-standing allies, Turkey, and it would not be in that interest of that actual alliance (you know, with a country) to continue doing anything more than urging respect for human rights.Second: I mean beyond the next six months. Of course Assad is going to reassert himself, and Turkey will gain a buffer, neither of those actions will give ISIS a new lease on life. You're fundamentally wrong about that, and no serious foreign policy analyst thinks that's the case.Third: You're acting like the bases we abandoned are actually dependable, or strategically important, they're not. Russia just invested themselves to the point they'll have to maintain a permanent military presence in a region where they'll be getting shot at for the next ten years. That's not a win.
mattdzz: 1. That's one of the definitions of an ally. One who fights along side us, against against a common enemy, for a period of time. In the case of the Kurds, for years. 2. You are dead wrong, about saying no serious foreign policy expert thinks this will give ISIS a new lease on life. I have seen long time foreign policy experts say this is a real possibility. That the will not, is a Fox/Republican talking point, to protect Trump from criticism. 3. It's a win for Russia to get bases in Syria. Russia has been propping up Assad, and to get more influence in the region is very good for Russia. And Russia will not necessarily be getting shot at, as Assad likes Russia.
We have no perpetual allies, and of our allies the Kurds were one of the most useless, costly, and short-term arrangements we've had in recent memory. Thanks for reminding me of a definition, but need I remind you the Soviet Union was our ally in WW2?ISIS in terms of being an idea, may come back, in the same way that Al Qaeda is back in a new form. You can't erase these organizations, even when you remove the leadership, money, manpower, etc. Because all you need is a handful of guys to claim ISIS and begin again. And guess where they're most likely to be located? In the Levant. AND they'll be shooting at whom? Russia and Syrian security forces.How does this threaten the US or our interests?
mattdzz: What on earth are you talking about, saying the Kurds were one or our most useless allies. Apparently, to make Trump look good, his supporters must denigrate a people who lost over 10,000 lives fighting with us. You are demonstrating an attitude like Trump's. No matter how much good a person, or people, have done you, throw them under the bus the moment it's handy. Trump has demonstrated this with those who have been very loyal to him. When Trump does this with allies, it endangers America, as they readily see we can't be trusted. In the future, when we need them to work with us, they will be in the orbit of Russia and Iran, instead of being willing to help us. Trump has demonstrated a weakness, an inability to maintain good connections with democracies, and with countries that were, at least until recently, our allies. Instead, Trump has forged "friendships" with dictators and our enemies. This has resulted in Trump being unwittingly used by dictators. At least I hope it's not deliberate.
You're acting like we were fighting in some battlefield far off from both our homes, for shared values; we weren't. They were fighting for their homes, we were fighting a cancer that had effected our allies and the stability of the region (albeit transient), and our enemy was the same. This attitude isn't unique to Trump, this is REALPOLITIK, and in line with the Offensive Realist School of International Relations, best illustrated by John Measheimer at the University of Chicago, who advocated abandoning the costly and disastrous strategy the US had taken on after the fall of the Soviet Union, where we had sought to "nation-build," via the launching of preemptive invasions.Do we really need to argue how well that strategy has served us?Or do we need to revision a history where standing up for "friends" in untenable geopolitical positions (e. g. Vietnam), with no clear US interest, hasn't cost thousands of needless American deaths/ cost, without tangible benefits.You're speaking with the same naive hawkish impulse policy advisers employed when they were demanding we stay in Vietnam for "just another year," or "until the enemy is defeated" since we seemed to be "so damn close," for so long. Or, the similar line of how our allies will lose faith in us if we abandon, in this case, an ethnic group who has no political/ economic institutions, and whose aim is to establish autonomy/ sovereignty to the absolute chagrin of our ACTUAL allies.Once again, this is not our fight, we stand to lose nothing, and stand to gain nothing. That equates to me, someone who has actually fought in these stupid wars, with a TIME TO LEAVE.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
The only opinion from girls was selected the Most Helpful Opinion, but you can still contribute by sharing an opinion!