Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Syria Exit
President Donald Trump announced his desire to withdraw from Syria as one of his goals as president. I thought about this and it sounded like a good idea. The country of Syria has been a “thorn in the side” of many countries and people for a very long time. Syrian refugees are scattered across the world, like the Jews – desperate to return home, to family, history, their land – the land of their ancestors. Their president has been a “thorn in the side” of many countries and an enigma – what do we do with him? Bashar al-Assad never wanted the throne. Who knew?
Turkey wants its borders back. Iran wants a rumble. Israel just wants its security and safety, as the Jews begin another Yom Kippur. How long has this country and region been in turmoil? Is this a region that we can bring democracy to, or stability at minimum, as past administrations have tried? Is Donald Trump asking those questions, as our young soldiers hold the line?
I have to wonder – maybe it’s time to let the bigger thugs, the leaders of Turkey, Russia, and Syria, battle for their little piece of control and power. They can deal with the little thugs, ISIS, and regional conflicts – long and tribal, some who have no regard for life, culture, or the Syrians. This may be as good as it gets; I get where our president is coming from.
This is decades in the making; what has changed, as American leadership has changed? Is it time to let the age-old turmoil play itself out? We know Russia wants a foothold in the Middle East to control oil. They prop up their fellow thug Assad while stirring the pot, not because they care about the Syrians. What’s Turkey’s stake in this? Is it time to let the major players of this region contend with each other at long last?
What is the advantage of staying in this region?
Published in General
In my life I watched my country sell out the South Vietnamese and now we’ll do it to the Kurds.
“It’s okay Mountie, just say “But Gorsuch” a couple of hundred time and your shame will go away”.
I understand this sentiment and feel it too. But is there an exit strategy that will not betray the Kurds? Or will it always be the same story decade after decade?
You may vaguely recall that we had an actual “accord” with South and North Vietnam, and that we had been fighting North Vietnam. You might note that Turkey is our actual, legal obligations, ally in the region.
“Now?” Both Bushes sold out the Kurds, serially, leading in part to the current state of affairs. And we have an actual consulate in the Kurdish region of Iraq. You might wonder about the lack of coordination between the Kurds you are worried about and the Kurds in Iraq. Poke into it a bit further and you might find the factions in opposition to one another.
Leaving Iraq was a mistake. With no strong government in charge, it was easy for a group such as ISIS to form and fill the void left behind. Syria however, has Assad. He may be a total a**hole, but there’s no way he’d let a group like ISIS form.
As for Turkey and the Kurds, I’d prefer to back the Kurds because Turkey is on the way to turning into an Islamic cesspool with Erdogan as its Grand Imam-Ayatollah-Caliphate. However, I’m reminded of the Falklands War where we had to stand by and let two allies duke it out (although I suspect we secretly backed the British). I’m sure we would have intervened if one side had begun to commit acts of brutality against the other. This I suspect could happen in the Turkey-Kurd conflict, with Erdogan leading a campaign of cruelty against his opponent . . .
I want to have a real discussion about what we are doing in the Middle East instead of name calling.
From what I heard on the radio, these Kurds while they have been battling ISIS, are not the Iraqi Kurds, and in fact, lean communist and Marxist. We only had 50 troops in this northern area of Syria. It’s hard Bryan, to have an intelligent discussion about it, since the president has not addressed the American people on this decision and what was worked out with Turkey. I really think he needs to stop blindsiding the military and the Republicans in Congress on these foreign policy moves. If there was a small circle of advisors on this decision, who were they and what were the details? This is too big to just “tweet out” and the next day Turkey is rolling in tanks. There’s more at stake here and I am starting to feel like A – Turkey is not going to do anything he said with Trump and B – it may be causing a bigger crisis to snowball.
How does keeping troops in the region advance the interests of the US? Once you can answer that you can weigh the costs and benefits of keeping the troops there.
I read a number arguments for keeping troops in Syria:
Sen. Graham says IS will reconstitute itself if the US pulls out. I don’t think he envisions another Caliphate, however. That’s a straightforward cost/benefit answer.
Protecting the Kurds is another argument some make for keeping the troops in Syria. Who are the troops protecting them from: Turks or Syrians or IS or Russians?
What is it worth to the US to prevent an Iranian “Shia Crescent” from Syria to Lebanon to Gaza?
Russia, Turkey, Iran, Syria, Kurds and IS sparring in the region. What could go wrong?
The outcome to avoid is the one where US troops are there as “peacekeepers.” That never works out.
I also have been trying to settle my own mind about what is going on in that area and how I feel about his decision on this point. The most helpful thing that I have found is this piece by a Mr. Kurt Schlichter, who, I think must have at one time been a serving officer:
https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2019/10/08/critics-aghast-as-trump-keeps-word-about-no-more-wars-n2554328
I have tried to piece together his argument below:
I hope that I haven’t so chopped up Mr. Schlichter’s thoughts that I have made them unintelligible. I found his argument persuasive.
Except “commie terrorist” is a convenient label for the Turkish government, which took advantage of our partnership in NATO to continue its domestic campaign, over the decades, of suppressing another ethnic group. That other ethnic group, without our support for decades, turned to the other big player, the Russians. The Russians were in their commie phase, so we got the PKK.
President Trump has used economic pressure to get a Christian pastor freed from Turkish jail. He is talking now about using more economic sanctions, as well as offering to the honest broker/mutual friend of our Turkish ally and the Syrian Kurds.
Thinking through the trip-wire argument, I do not think it makes sense. If the Turks announce they are going to start shelling and roll tanks into a town, and we say “hey we have three American military personnel there,” the obvious answer is “yes, and we’re giving you notice to move them out of the way.”
So, what is the next message from us? “No, we’re not moving.”
The correct Turkish answer then is, “well then tell them to get real deep in their bunker, and give us a recognition signal when our tanks roll up on their location, since we both use NATO standard radio equipment and signals.”
I am always good to be on the side of Andrew McCarthy
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/turkey-and-the-kurds-its-more-complicated-than-you-think/
Note, I posted the same thing in three threads because this conversation is taking place across them.
This is a really helpful discussion, y’all.
Thank you.
Carry on.
I also remember a recalcitrant Congress, bent on flexing their ire and power, denying the very aid to the South Vietnamese that those accords provided for. Hence a sell out.