Impeaching Trump: Make America Sane Again

[Pelado]

I know we shouldnt have to police the world. But we made promises to the kurds, and they faced danger on our behalf. It was fricken 1035 soldiers, we have 55K in Japan and 35K in Germany. Why couldn't we have reduced Japan and Germany by 500 each?

Let's bring them home, too.

[falafel]

Not to offend anyone on this board, but we are all about as equally qualified as Whoopi and the other Ladies on that show to discuss foreign policy and troop withdrawals.

I guess I will cancel my national TV appearances.

[frank ryan]

Let's bring them home, too.

Let’s not. It’s been important to our security. It’s not just about protecting them. It might sound to bring back all our overseas forces but that is foolish, isolationist thinking. It’s not an accident that there has been significant peace since WW2 and we have those troops deployed.

[myboynoah]

I know we shouldnt have to police the world. But we made promises to the kurds, and they faced danger on our behalf. It was fricken 1035 soldiers, we have 55K in Japan and 35K in Germany. Why couldn't we have reduced Japan and Germany by 500 each?

Yep. And a very efficient, effective way to maintain a presence in the region and stave off the type of thing that is happening right now.

[Uncle Ted]

I know we shouldnt have to police the world. But we made promises to the kurds, and they faced danger on our behalf. It was fricken 1035 soldiers, we have 55K in Japan and 35K in Germany. Why couldn't we have reduced Japan and Germany by 500 each?

What? Why do we have 55K in Japan and 25K in Germany? How about we reduce them down to 50 each? Apparently that was more than enough to keep all of Turkey from invading Syria.

[creekster]

This really isn't about isolationism as a foreign policy, nor is it about general retrenchment. It is about a specific example of an incredibly poor tactical choice that has zero apparent benefit to the United States and has a very predictable and bloody result for the Kurds, a reshuffling of alliances that undermines our strategic position in the theater, an expansion of Russian influence, the undermining of Israeli security, and results in greatly diminished USA credibility on the ground where real alliances are born and built, for years, both in the middle east and everywhere.

There have been so many apparent poor choices during Trump's administration. But they can usually be explained or have some ambiguous purpose, etc. Not this one. Zero ambiguity. Zero benefit. Zero strategic or tactical value. It is the fruit of either unimaginable corruption or complete incompetence. I tend to think it is the latter, but it is so incomprehensibly foolish that I would not be shocked if it were the former.

[falafel]

What? Why do we have 55K in Japan and 25K in Germany? How about we reduce them down to 50 each? Apparently that was more than enough to keep all of Turkey from invading Syria.

Haha. Wasn't your dad in the military?

[Uncle Ted]

This really isn't about isolationism as a foreign policy, nor is it about general retrenchment. It is about a specific example of an incredibly poor tactical choice that has zero apparent benefit to the United States and has a very predictable and bloody result for the Kurds, a reshuffling of alliances that undermines our strategic position in the theater, an expansion of Russian influence, the undermining of Israeli security, and results in greatly diminished USA credibility on the ground where real alliances are born and built, for years, both in the middle east and everywhere.

There have been so many apparent poor choices during Trump's administration. But they can usually be explained or have some ambiguous purpose, etc. Not this one. Zero ambiguity. Zero benefit. Zero strategic or tactical value. It is the fruit of either unimaginable corruption or complete incompetence. I tend to think it is the latter, but it is so incomprehensibly foolish that I would not be shocked if it were the former.

I thought Rand Paul said the Turks were coming no matter what to flight with this tribe of Kurds because they claimed their were "terrorists"? (Apparently using the keyword "terrorist" is the way around of getting approval first. Ask Obama. That is how he got us into Syria in the first place without congress' approval.) So if they Turks were coming no matter why it seems that we had two choices: (1) Move our boys out of harms way. or (2) Carpet bomb our NATO "ally".

[chrisrenrut]

There have been so many apparent poor choices during Trump's administration. But they can usually be explained or have some ambiguous purpose, etc. Not this one. Zero ambiguity. Zero benefit. Zero strategic or tactical value. It is the fruit of either unimaginable corruption or complete incompetence. I tend to think it is the latter, but it is so incomprehensibly foolish that I would not be shocked if it were the former.

The timing of the decision, at the height of impeachment talks for his Ukraine call, tells me there was a purpose. It seems like anytime he is under pressure, he does something out of left field that changes the dialogue and distracts from the issue applying said pressure.

[frank ryan]

Yep. And a very efficient, effective way to maintain a presence in the region and stave off the type of thing that is happening right now.

Trump cares more about what Erdogan and Putin want. He is subservient to Putin and that is probably why we he trying to conceal all those details of his interactions with him, and why congress has not been able to speak the translator who was in Helsinki.

Trump cares more about what authoritarian/nationalist/fascist leaders think than our own allies. Truly shameful to support that guy.

[creekster]

I thought Rand Paul said the Turks were coming no matter what to flight with this tribe of Kurds because they claimed their were "terrorists"? (Apparently using the keyword "terrorist" is the way around of getting approval first. Ask Obama. That is how he got us into Syria in the first place without congress' approval.) So if they Turks were coming no matter why it seems that we had two choices: (1) Move our boys out of harms way. or (2) Carpet bomb our NATO "ally".

Well, if Rand Paul said it ....

Maybe they would have. But when? And under what circumstances? And what sort of prep could we have had or could the Kurds have had? Could we have acted to preserve the alliance and avoid consolidation of the Kurdish forces under the PKK banner? Could we have avoided Russian influence increasing and undermined credibility? All of these things? Yes, it was all possible. But not in the way it was handled. Have you read reports of the phone cal between Trump and Erdogan on the Sunday morning before he announced this policy via twitter? Shameful.

Your fascination with how we got into Syria in the first place and your false dichotomy of leaving or carpet bombing are a bit silly. They are both irrelevant to the analysis of Trump's decision.

[creekster]

The timing of the decision, at the height of impeachment talks for his Ukraine call, tells me there was a purpose. It seems like anytime he is under pressure, he does something out of left field that changes the dialogue and distracts from the issue applying said pressure.

Perhaps so, but if that was his purpose then even his lauded instincts for survival are dubious, because this swayed a lot of people to support impeachment, rather then lead them away from it.

Also, reports of the phone call suggest he was just wildly unprepared and was rolled by Erdogan.

[Uncle Ted]

Well, if Rand Paul said it ....

Maybe they would have. But when? And under what circumstances? And what sort of prep could we have had or could the Kurds have had? Could we have acted to preserve the alliance and avoid consolidation of the Kurdish forces under the PKK banner? Could we have avoided Russian influence increasing and undermined credibility? All of these things? Yes, it was all possible. But not in the way it was handled. Have you read reports of the phone cal between Trump and Erdogan on the Sunday morning before he announced this policy via twitter? Shameful.

Your fascination with how we got into Syria in the first place and your false dichotomy of leaving or carpet bombing are a bit silly. They are both irrelevant to the analysis of Trump's decision.

See http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthr...=1#post1431891

Paul sits on the foreign relations committee so I assume he knows what he is talking about. He said, "Turkey was coming in one way or another and 50 solders would just be in the way, being a tripwire to a much worse outcome."

[creekster]

See http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthr...=1#post1431891

Paul sits on the foreign relations committee so I assume he knows what he is talking about. He said, "Turkey was coming in one way or another and 50 solders would just be in the way, being a tripwire to a much worse outcome."

You're smarter than me so I know you heard the nuance in what he said as well as what he did not say. If you assume that "10s of thousands" of Turks are swarming the 50 soldiers, no matter what, then, yes, you move them. But that is almost certainly a faulty premise. Erdogan called Trump to inform him of Turkey's propsed plan for a terrorist free zone. Rather than demur or object or inform him that it was unacceptable or tell him it had to be modified or that he needed more time to assess, etc., Trump simply said "fine" and then tweeted that he was moving the advisors who were in Turkey's way. Rand says they were coming? Of course they were, but the rest of his assumptions are speculative and assume conditions that were only present BECAUSE of Trump's decision.

[Uncle Ted]

OMG... That looks bad: