Middle East Trump makes way for Turkey operation against Kurds in Syria

[Marduk]

Sure the public lost out, but oil companies and haliburton made bufu bucks.

In which case it would be plain corruption then. If USA went to truly gain lots of oil cheaply and did get exactly that, it would have been a very solid national interest argument, whether you would love or hate such an argument.

 

[ShieldWife]

The invasion may have largely been to prop up the petrodollar, since in 2000 Iraq began to accept Euros for oil instead of the US dollar. Middle Eastern nations only taking US dollars for their oil, like Saudi Arabia, allows us to spend frivolously and to engage in corrupt and unsound monetary policy. Iraq taking Euros endangered that and after the 2003 invasion, Iraq sold oil for dollars again.

Along the same lines, Gaddafi was planing on introducing the Libyan Gold Dinar as a pan African currency before he was overthrown (with the help of the US and France) and Libya plunged into chaos.

 

[Bacle]

Russia dominates the Middle East? Let them have it. May they fare better there than we have.

Russia’s welcome to the sand pit of misery and death. And I hope they bleed themselves dry trying to keep the damn place.

These posts sum up my feelings pretty well. If Russia can prevent the Kurds from being attacked by Turkey, good for them. And that they also helped enable a political solution between Assad and the Kurds is even better.

I am not a person who sees every Russian gain as a 'loss' or 'embarassment' for the US, unlike many. Russia has a history in Syria, has the power to make Turkey think twice, and can now bleed blood and lives to ensure a long-term peace.

This is also why the Establishment on both sides was so fixated on staying in Syria. The didn't really care about the Kurds, they just didn't want the Kurds to get help from Russia instead of the US.

 

[The Original Sixth]

Russian troops are now patrolling a contact line around Manbij between Turkish and Syrian forces.

Let us put this very simply: Putin is brilliant. He is the smartest living national ruler on the planet today. Many people have talked about his 4-d chess while we play checkers. Many people have pushed back and said he is a common tyrant, a dictator who is going to screw up. He may be a dictator, but he is also the most brilliant living politician.

Putin is indeed brilliant, but this move wasn't so much a master stroke so much as it was the next logical choice by Russia. The US withdrawing from Syria is actually not in Russia's interest. It in fact, is a setback for Russia. Let me explain.

1. Russia started this Syrian mess. When Syria was in its Civil War, Russia "helped" the Syrians by turning the war from a static one into a mobile one, which allowed ISIS to move into the area.
2. The first major effect this had was to direct the US to check the Russians by moving into the area to destroy ISIS and support the local Kurd militias.
3. The second major effect was the splintering effect this would have on NATO. It caused a major migration crisis into Turkey and the EU, which not only set Turkey and the EU against each other, but also caused further stress upon the internal membership of the EU--it arguably may have helped to trigger Brexit sooner than it might have otherwise happened.
4. The third major effect was that after the US and the local powers eventually destroyed ISIS, the Kurds armed and trained by the US military would be strong enough to resist Syria and pose a threat to Turkey's southern border--which sets the US and Turkey against each other, because the US cannot easily abandon their "freedom fighters" of whom they'd supported for several years against ISIS and Syria...and Turkey cannot accept a Kurd nation forming on their southern border, due to the ethnic population of Kurds within their own country.

As painful as it was, the withdrawal of US troops in the area is the best move the US could manage. The consequences for remaining would lead to a possible showdown between not only NATO allies, but between the world Super Power and the greatest Major Power of the Middle East. Let's run down what the consequences might have been and what effects that would have had:

1. First Scenario is diplomatic and economic punishment for Turkey until it complied with the US wishes. While that might work, it is doubtful. Any nation will choose poverty and cohesion over wealth and a fracturing nation. A blossoming Kurd nation to the south of Turkey would draw in the Kurds that live within southern Turkey and compromise their territorial integrity.
2. Second Scenario is Turkey's ejection out of NATO or the splintering of NATO. In such a case, the US would need to withdraw its nuclear weapons, close its military bases, and lose a massive strategic asset against Russia. And you can bet that Turkey would be pushed into Russia's corner for the next few decades. And given that Turkey is basically where we get most of our logistics for our forces in Syria at the moment, closing those bases effectively ejects those US forces out anyway.
3. Third Scenario is a war with Turkey. In which case you can basically write off any of our forces in Syria, because there is nowhere for them to go. South into Assad controlled territory? Nope. Can't go north. East is bad too. West is already controlled by Turkey and even if it weren't, would easily be cut off or otherwise blasted into oblivion. Such a war would also be bloody and costly--it would further distract the US from Eastern Europe and put Turkey on the path to being crushed. Either way, Russia would have a free hand to act on the land bridge to the north east connecting to Turkey, as well as in Eastern Europe, where Turkey might otherwise check them.

All things considered, this was the best move Trump could make to check the Russians and ease tensions with the Turks. Staying there only pushes the Turks closer to the Russians, but pulling out actually undermines that relationship. The reason is that the Russians were using that to keep the Turks focused south and not north. So to get the best out of this move, the Russians will want to draw out Turk involvement. They can do that by either trying to check the Turks themselves (which undermines their relationship) or by burning the Assad Regime.

For the Russians to step in so quickly and deconflict the situation simply means one thing. This was coordinated. From the moment that Trump agreed to withdraw, like the Hitler-Stalin pact, the operation in Syria against the Kurds was coordinated between the Turks and the Syrians by the Russians. Presumably, decades from now, we will hear about the secret negotiations which led to an agreement over the areas of Syria which were to remain in a Turkish sphere, and which ones were to be reunified under Assad's rule.

I mean, it's certainly possible that there was some sort of coordination, but keep in mind that Trump wanted to leave 10 months ago. That's why Mattis left the administration. If you're a Kurd freedom fighter leader, you can't exactly be ignorant of that or the future of your alliance with the US. Russia and Turkey must have also guessed what that meant too. And I expect the US Military and Intelligence Agencies have been dreading it for much longer.

The Russians have now totally dominated the mid-east, and we are playing on the defence with only the Gulf states as allies. This is incredibly damaging to the United States--and the most masterful diplomatic act of my entire adulthood.

The Russians aren't dominating so much as they are trying to keep it off-balance. And while the Russians have played their cards well, what has happened is really more the Russians shaping the results in their favor rather than engineering the situation.

As to the damage to the US...that damage is nonexistent. Apart from reputation, limited mostly to the Kurds. The US withdrawal from the Middle East really began under Obama, beginning with Obama's apathy towards Middle Eastern affairs, despite his many, many drone strikes and later interventions. And it's not because Obama was a moron--the dude gave several exit interviews that showed he really understood what was happening; he just didn't want to be involved until he had to be.

Trump is actively tearing down the support structure in the Middle East, because it stems from a similar belief that Obama had and that the US public has held at large; "Why the fuck are we even here?"

Back during the Bush era, the answer was "oil" and "really, just the oil" and now it's "we've got our own oil now..." and that leaves you with only one natural conclusion.

To sum up.

Putin and his government played their hand well, no denying that. But the trap was sprang long before Trump got into office. After Obama got involved, we had already committed ourselves to the "Free Kurd" narrative and that has corroded our relationship with Turkey ever since. Trump doing what he's doing now is really only the best option Trump has left to check Russia and avoid worsening relation with Turkey.

 

[The Original Sixth]

I don't think we did. Japan was an unusual case; most of the fundamental civil institutions remained largely unchanged (the Emperor for example remained in place). What actually happened was that a lot of additional and deleterious changes/additions that accumulated in the 1920s went out the window. Japan wasn't rebuilt or subject to 'nation-building', as a very thoughtful Japanese business friend of mine puts it, Japan was restored. Japan was also lucky in that the restoration only had to remove 25 years worth of ugly additions.

Germany is a much better example of nation-building that did work. In fact, Germany is the one significant example of a nation-building effort that actually succeeded. Exactly why would probably be a good PhD thesis for somebody.

Right and Wrong.

Japan was a success story because the US allowed Japan to retain a degree of sovereign power, while protecting Japan, and supplying Japan with the trade that it needed. Germany is much the same issue; US NATO membership assured it access to the markets and resources it needed, while also ensuring its safety. The result wasn't so much that the nations were altered by US foreign policy, so much that these were nation states that were willing to cooperate with the United States in return for something they thought was valuable.

Iraq and Afghanistan cannot possibly do the same because they are not true nations; they are artificial monstrosities composed of different ethnic groups that deeply hate one another. The only options the US has in dealing with such countries is either the US must install a dictator-like government to keep people in check, police the countries themselves to ensure peace and stability, appoint someone else to ensure stability, or break up the countries and attempt to keep them from attacking each other.

Or leave and let nature take her impartial and majestic course.

And the bitch speaks Russian.

 

[PsihoKekec]

Russia started this Syrian mess.

No it didn't, Syrians started the mess, with help of Saudia Arabia and Quatar.

When Syria was in its Civil War, Russia "helped" the Syrians by turning the war from a static one into a mobile one, which allowed ISIS to move into the area.

Nope, direct Russian intervention was in October 2015, by that time ISIL was well beyond it's zenith.

The first major effect this had was to direct the US to check the Russians by moving into the area to destroy ISIS and support the local Kurd militias.

Nope, USA started directly supporting YPG more than year before Russia got directly involved, remember battle of Kobane?

The rest of it is spot on.

 

[Francis Urquhart]

Let us put this very simply: Putin is brilliant. He is the smartest living national ruler on the planet today. Many people have talked about his 4-d chess while we play checkers. Many people have pushed back and said he is a common tyrant, a dictator who is going to screw up. He may be a dictator, but he is also the most brilliant living politician.

A long time ago (after ODS but before OIF) the Israelis sent an IDF Army unit, allegedly one of their best to a US Army training range, essentially the US Army equivalent to Red Flag. There's a regiment there as the aggressor force which was responsible for working with the Israelis. I was talking with a dazed officer from that Regiment whose comment was "We thought these guys would be shit-hot. They're idiots." The aggressor regiment had curb-stomped the Israeli unit. The great secret was, the Israelis aren't superbly good, its that they fight people who are incredibly bad. The same people described the Iranians as having the finest military minds of the 7th century.

Putin is the same. He isn't brilliant. Russian leaders tend not to be; they tend to be middle-tier. If they are too stupid, they get themselves killed. If they are too bright, they become a major threat and are sidelined or liquidated. The successful ones fall between those two extremes. I'd put Putin as the upper band of that middle tier. He has one enormous advantage and its the same one the IDF Army has; he's been up against people who are utterly, moronically incompetent. Compared with Obama, Putin is indeed absolutely brilliant. Compared with May, Merkel etc etc, he was brilliant. Compared with a competent national leader, he's average if that.

For the Russians to step in so quickly and deconflict the situation simply means one thing. This was coordinated. From the moment that Trump agreed to withdraw, like the Hitler-Stalin pact, the operation in Syria against the Kurds was coordinated between the Turks and the Syrians by the Russians. Presumably, decades from now, we will hear about the secret negotiations which led to an agreement over the areas of Syria which were to remain in a Turkish sphere, and which ones were to be reunified under Assad's rule.

It was also pre-planned which is saying much the same thing. I would say that this sequence of events has been cooking for six to nine months. I suspect that the driver force, ISIS having been defeated, was to make sure that a replacement group to ISIS does not emerge.

The Russians have now totally dominated the mid-east, and we are playing on the defence with only the Gulf states as allies. This is incredibly damaging to the United States--and the most masterful diplomatic act of my entire adulthood.

That's a bit extreme. the Russians now dominate Syria and the Syrians dance to their tune - but that's simply a reversion to the status quo. Syria was a Russian satellite for decades; the grip slipped in the 1990s and 2000s and has now been reasserted. It's an achievement certainly but it is what one would expect of a reasonably competent player. The US is actually rebuilding its diplomatic and power-politics position in the Middle East as well, restoring its position with Israel and Saudi Arabia that was severely degraded by Obama's incredibly incompetent bungling. What has happened in total is that we're reverting to the situation as it existed in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

The big guess is where we'll go from here. And all eyes suddenly look at Iran. Everybody hates the Iranians (even the Iranians). My guess right now is that's where Putin will move next.

 

[The Original Sixth]

Putin is the same. He isn't brilliant. Russian leaders tend not to be; they tend to be middle-tier. If they are too stupid, they get themselves killed. If they are too bright, they become a major threat and are sidelined or liquidated. The successful ones fall between those two extremes. I'd put Putin as the upper band of that middle tier. He has one enormous advantage and its the same one the IDF Army has; he's been up against people who are utterly, moronically incompetent. Compared with Obama, Putin is indeed absolutely brilliant. Compared with May, Merkel etc etc, he was brilliant. Compared with a competent national leader, he's average if that.

I disagree. I think Putin is very intelligent. That's not to say that he's a strategic genius, although he may employ some. I think the difference is that Putin isn't motivated by ideology, but rather survival. He knows Russia is a failing power and he's plotted for decades to reverse that position. And he's willing to do whatever it takes to make it work. When you compare that to Obama, who was very much an idealist, there's no way that Obama could ever compete.

Obama strikes me as an idealist who could never truly accept that he had been wrong about how the world actually worked. I get the idea that he thought he could stroll into the White House and he could then usher in the socialist utopia he had always dreamed about. And everyone would listen and love him because he was a genius who had the interest of the people in mind. And instead of doing things like saving the Middle East from greedy oil barons, Obama discovered that the Middle East was fucked to begin with.

Merkel is different. She obviously wants to be seen as a German Obama, but I don't think she is. Instead, I think she's mostly out of touch and firmly entrenched in the elitist EU concept. That the leaders of all the European nations could simply stitch together a super state that they ran and that the peons would follow them, because that is what peons do best. And if Germany's economic and social situation led to a massive collapse in births? No problem! Work visas! Free immigrants! And of course, the US is going to continue allowing Germany to do this because that's how things are, not because it's sensible.

 

[Francis Urquhart]

I disagree. I think Putin is very intelligent. That's not to say that he's a strategic genius, although he may employ some. I think the difference is that Putin isn't motivated by ideology, but rather survival. He knows Russia is a failing power and he's plotted for decades to reverse that position. And he's willing to do whatever it takes to make it work.

I'd agree that Putin is a realist; he has the very valuable gift for a politician, he sees things the way they are, not how he would like them to be. That fits in with your comment about Russia being a declining power and how Putin wants to reverse it. I think he does employ some strategic geniuses and a few other experts upon whom he relies. I don't think he's very intelligent himself although he is talented. He's something better than intelligent though; he recognizes skills and intelligence in others and knows how to use them. After all, that's almost the job description of a KGB officer.

When you compare that to Obama, who was very much an idealist, there's no way that Obama could ever compete. Obama strikes me as an idealist who could never truly accept that he had been wrong about how the world actually worked. I get the idea that he thought he could stroll into the White House and he could then usher in the socialist utopia he had always dreamed about. And everyone would listen and love him because he was a genius who had the interest of the people in mind.

Obama has never been an idealist, he's an ideologue. Ideology to him is everything and he will not listen to anything that contradicts his world-view. In that sense, he's almost a diametric opposite to Putin. Putin, by the way, is reputedly a very pleasant person to deal with outside business hours.

Merkel is different. She obviously wants to be seen as a German Obama, but I don't think she is. Instead, I think she's mostly out of touch and firmly entrenched in the elitist EU concept. That the leaders of all the European nations could simply stitch together a super state that they ran and that the peons would follow them, because that is what peons do best. And if Germany's economic and social situation led to a massive collapse in births? No problem! Work visas! Free immigrants! And of course, the US is going to continue allowing Germany to do this because that's how things are, not because it's sensible.

I think that's an excellent summary of her.

 

[Arch Dornan]

The big guess is where we'll go from here. And all eyes suddenly look at Iran. Everybody hates the Iranians (even the Iranians). My guess right now is that's where Putin will move next.

Russians also want to topple Iran too?

Their involvement in Syria which is Russian proxy turf must be it.

 

[Deleted member]

Russians also want to topple Iran too?

Their involvement in Syria which is Russian proxy turf must be it.

No, it's just that he wants them out of Syria. He supports Assad and Iran supports Assad, but for very different reasons with very different end state objectives.

 

[Bacle]

So, Trump sent a letter to Erdogan, making things abundantly clear:


This is how diplomacy should been done with the likes of Islamist dictators like Erdogan.

 

[HistoryMinor]

So, Trump sent a letter to Erdogan, making things abundantly clear:


This is how diplomacy should been done with the likes of Islamist dictators like Erdogan.

He writes/threatens like a third grader.

 

[Francis Urquhart]

I would insert the word "allegedly" between "Trump" and "sent". There have been so many cases of edited or outright forged documents being circulated that I think it would be wise to treat any leaks like this with suspicion until some sort of official conformation is issued. Letters at this level are almost always written by the State Department rather than the White House directly.

 

[Deleted member 18]

The White House confirmed the letter was genuine. I mean face reality here. Trump is a vain, impulsive, incompetant, self-absorbed man-child who has failed upward his entire life. Even when he is correct on an issue, like withdrawing from Syria, the execution is totally abysmal because he has no idea what he is doing, lacks the self-discipline or attention span to see it done correctly, and will flounder around between his own venal instincts for self-aggrandizement and the opinions of whoever has flattered him last.

Granted also I suspect part of the blame should fall on the officials who assured the Kurds we wouldn't leave despite Trump very obviously wanting to do just that. Rather than work toward a competent execution of the President's repeatedly expressed desires, they sabotaged any policy that could head in that direction. Given the impulsive whims of President Trump they could convince themselves he wasn't serious or would always be talked out of his clear preference, but that was an arrogant gamble they lost. And with it the Kurds lost, and President Trump lost, and the United States as a whole lost. So there's blame to go around here.

But the fish rots from the head. Whatever his insights on the failure of our establishment bipartisan foreign policy or willingness to express necessary populist counteractives to neoliberal economic nostrums like free trade and open borders, he's too incompetent and incapable to actually be trusted to do anything about it. Though even impeachment is not a solution since Pence is just a rehash of Dubya minus any human warmth and empathy. And the Dems seem hellbent on losing in 2020 by embracing open borders and banning private insurance, so I'm just throwing up my hands in despair...

 

[Bacle]

I would insert the word "allegedly" between "Trump" and "sent". There have been so many cases of edited or outright forged documents being circulated that I think it would be wise to treat any leaks like this with suspicion until some sort of official conformation is issued. Letters at this level are almost always written by the State Department rather than the White House directly.

While I understand the doubt, given the number of falsified/manipulated documents 'leaked' by people opposed to Trump's position/policies, this is completely genuine.

 

[HistoryMinor]

While I understand the doubt, given the number of falsified/manipulated documents 'leaked' by people opposed to Trump's position/policies, this is completely genuine.

Most if not all of the shit I've heard about is genuine, just accept that the emperor has no clothes.

 

[Marduk]

The White House confirmed the letter was genuine. I mean face reality here. Trump is a vain, impulsive, incompetant, self-absorbed man-child who has failed upward his entire life. Even when he is correct on an issue, like withdrawing from Syria, the execution is totally abysmal because he has no idea what he is doing, lacks the self-discipline or attention span to see it done correctly, and will flounder around between his own venal instincts for self-aggrandizement and the opinions of whoever has flattered him last.

It's Trump, honestly, if anyone expected poetry or conventional western diplo-speak, well, why, why would you expect that, don't you know anything about Trump?
It's written in a way quite similar to his speaking style, like it or not.
But de gustibus non est disputandum.

The more interesting question here is - what do you think would "correct" execution of withdrawal from Syria look like?

Granted also I suspect part of the blame should fall on the officials who assured the Kurds we wouldn't leave despite Trump very obviously wanting to do just that. Rather than work toward a competent execution of the President's repeatedly expressed desires, they sabotaged any policy that could head in that direction. Given the impulsive whims of President Trump they could convince themselves he wasn't serious or would always be talked out of his clear preference, but that was an arrogant gamble they lost. And with it the Kurds lost, and President Trump lost, and the United States as a whole lost. So there's blame to go around here.

We have no idea who promised what, and how did the Kurds interpret it (could very well be an issue there too), but the decision for indefinite, open ended US military presence in northern Syria, because that's in effect what we are discussing here, is a decision that only Trump at least, and Congress at best, has the authority to take, and it doesn't seem like either of the two came even close to being in favor of such a decision.

However, that goes back to your previous point - there are some factions within US government that do want US presence there, and if we assume the "correct" way to disengage would be planned, public and with lots of warning, they would have certainly tried to sabotage it by various means, and possibly successfully, with a far worse PR than this. And that's without even getting into how the mess in the Middle East itself would react, could be just as bad. Making it a surprise for everyone may well have been the better option, giving as little time as possible for all disagreeing parties to interfere.

Whatever his insights on the failure of our establishment bipartisan foreign policy or willingness to express necessary populist counteractives to neoliberal economic nostrums like free trade and open borders, he's too incompetent and incapable to actually be trusted to do anything about it.

He's certainly bumbling around when doing these things. Sometimes he even turns that bumbling into an odd kind of success, sometimes not. But the very situation that led to his election was that he was the only major candidate willing to try to do all these things. So it was either him, increasingly left wing DNC establishment who might have pulled out the R2P card again, or GOP who probably would have played ball with the neocon wing on Syria.

 

[Bacle]

So, looks like Trump's letter, and publicizing it, had the intended effect. I'll let the video speak for itself.

 

[Terthna]

The White House confirmed the letter was genuine. I mean face reality here. Trump is a vain, impulsive, incompetant, self-absorbed man-child who has failed upward his entire life. Even when he is correct on an issue, like withdrawing from Syria, the execution is totally abysmal because he has no idea what he is doing, lacks the self-discipline or attention span to see it done correctly, and will flounder around between his own venal instincts for self-aggrandizement and the opinions of whoever has flattered him last.

True, but I'd say that about basically every politician in office since I started paying attention to politics; Trump is nowhere close to being unique in that regard. Obama was the same, Bush Jr. was the same, Clinton was the same; and everyone from those in their cabinets, to the House and the Senate, were the same. They were all simply better at hiding it. I mean face reality here; for as bad as Trump is, he only seems so much worse due to his honesty and bluntness.