Mattis: Trump's troop pullout will lead to 'disarray' in Syria and Isis resurgence

[STODR]

You said ask anybody. I am one. If you think the amount of troops, armor, artillery and aircraft are equal to 50 troops in Syria you are nuts.

[SottoVoce]

@zantax

@SottoVoce

@zantax

@SottoVoce

I see. So if 50 troops used as a shield could prevent the loss of hundreds or thousands of lives, the reemergence of ISIS, and hundreds of thousands of displaced people, that’s a “callous disregard for lives and unnecessary.” Interesting.

Yes, it is, because it’s totally unnecessary. There is not one thing stopping us from protecting the Kurds or communicating to Turkey that we would do so without using them in such a manner.

Fine. You’d rather be reactionary than preventative. Ignoring troops as a deterrent, why are we not protecting the Kurds? Why has Turkey suffered no consequences? You said there is nothing stopping us from protecting the Kurds. Doesn’t seem very effective. Seems like we just left and let Turkey do whatever they want.

Again, not defending his inaction or failure to communicate there would be consequences and following up on it. Just saying neither of those things require using troops as sacrificial goats.

If the loss of 50 lives prevents the loss of hundreds or thousands, that’s a victory. If it prevents the return of ISIS, with who knows what kind of consequences, that’s a victory. If it prevents hundreds of thousands of displaced people, destroyed infrastructure and regional instability, that’s a victory.

A strong president would have told Turkey we’re going to keep our 50 troops where they are to protect our Kurdish allies and local civilians, and to prevent ISIS prisoners from escaping. He would have told Turkey if they decide to attack, there will be immediate consequences and followed through with the consequences. He would have told Turkey we will keep those troops in place as we continue to work toward an agreement for the region.

We have seen what a weak president does.

[zantax]

@sikofit

@zantax

Not defending Trump here

You most certainly are. But that’s completely expected by now

Nope, am not. Just pointing out, if he wanted to deter Turkey he didn’t need to use the lives of US troops to do it.

[TommyLucchese]

@STODR

You said ask anybody. I am one. If you think the amount of troops, armor, artillery and aircraft are equal to 50 troops in Syria you are nuts.

I didn’t say that. Okay, tell the people how many pieces of artillery the North Koreans have aimed at the DMZ and what the likely result of using them would be then.

[Excast]

@zantax

I don’t recall abandoning them. Trump should have communicated there would be grave consequences if they acted in this fashion and followed up on it. He deserves condemnation for it. Unless he quickly gets his butt in gear and puts an end to it.

No, you just consistently come here to carry water for a guy you claim not to support. And you will be here tomorrow, next week, next month, and next year doing exactly the same thing.

Trump is not going to do a damned thing about the plight of the Kurds because he is a dangerous combination of ignorant, weak, easily manipulated, and sociopathic. They don’t personally benefit him, so he has no use for them. And as he has no use for them, he doesn’t care if their heads end up on spikes. Unfortunately for the Kurds, they don’t have a Trump Tower complex they can point to when they want to get the man’s attention.

[calirepub]

@zantax

@Excast

@zantax

Keep in mind he has also maintained Turkey is not a US ally and needs a good ass kicking.

So why in the ■■■■■■■ world would you abandon the one group that has been a consistent, loyal ally for years in order to appease a nation not seen as an ally? Explain how that is in any way logical or helpful to America building long term alliances around the globe.

I don’t recall abandoning them. Trump should have communicated there would be grave consequences if they acted in this fashion and followed up on it. He deserves condemnation for it. Unless he quickly gets his butt in gear and puts an end to it.

There are no consequences. There will be none. Donald Trump doesn’t care. Neither do his supporters. His inaction is going to lose him zero votes.

[STODR]

I haven’t commented on that so why asking me? But for the record I was against going into Syria, it was of the very few times I agreed with Obama. One of the reasons was because I believed we would abandon the Kurds again like before.

[calirepub]

@STODR

One of the reasons was because I believed we would abandon the Kurds again like before.

You were right!

[zantax]

@SottoVoce

@zantax

@SottoVoce

@zantax

@SottoVoce

I see. So if 50 troops used as a shield could prevent the loss of hundreds or thousands of lives, the reemergence of ISIS, and hundreds of thousands of displaced people, that’s a “callous disregard for lives and unnecessary.” Interesting.

Yes, it is, because it’s totally unnecessary. There is not one thing stopping us from protecting the Kurds or communicating to Turkey that we would do so without using them in such a manner.

Fine. You’d rather be reactionary than preventative. Ignoring troops as a deterrent, why are we not protecting the Kurds? Why has Turkey suffered no consequences? You said there is nothing stopping us from protecting the Kurds. Doesn’t seem very effective. Seems like we just left and let Turkey do whatever they want.

Again, not defending his inaction or failure to communicate there would be consequences and following up on it. Just saying neither of those things require using troops as sacrificial goats.

If the loss of 50 lives prevents the loss of hundreds or thousands, that’s a victory. If it prevents the return of ISIS, with who knows what kind of consequences, that’s a victory. If it prevents hundreds of thousands of displaced people, destroyed infrastructure and regional instability, that’s a victory.

A strong president would have told Turkey we’re going to keep our 50 troops where they are to protect our Kurdish allies and local civilians, and to prevent ISIS prisoners from escaping. He would have told Turkey if they decide to attack, there will be immediate consequences and followed through with the consequences. He would have told Turkey we will keep those troops in place as we continue to work toward an agreement for the region.

We have seen what a weak president does.

Keeping the fifty troops, uneccesary. As in, not needed to communicate resolve to act or to act. I won’t condone using them to sway public opinion to give a President political cover to act in the nations best interests and that’s what they were there for.

[Guilds]

@TommyLucchese

Yes, the smart thing would be to wait until the North Koreans are occupying Seoul after one of the most devastating artillery barrages in history, which would take about two days. That’s what any intelligent person would do.

Worse example of an armchair quarterback. I have very little expertise in military strategy, but even I get this.

It seems some people really do want another World war of some type.

And if cost is going to come into play…these types of actions, have so far, been a pretty good ROI.

[TommyLucchese]

@Guilds

Worse example of an armchair quarterback. I have very little expertise in military strategy, but even I get this.

It seems some people really do want another World war of some type.

And if cost is going to come into play…these types of actions, have so far, been a pretty good ROI.

I’m sure you’ll be thrilled to hear them that Trump has been trying to remove the soldiers in Korea since like day one of his presidency and his own administration was so concerned they kept pulling out the laser pointer to distract him into chasing it around the room.

[sikofit]

@Excast

No, you just consistently come here to carry water for a guy you claim not to support. And you will be here tomorrow, next week, next month, and next year doing exactly the same thing.

…while not thinking the act was completely transparent

[SottoVoce]

@zantax

@SottoVoce

@zantax

@SottoVoce

@zantax

@SottoVoce

I see. So if 50 troops used as a shield could prevent the loss of hundreds or thousands of lives, the reemergence of ISIS, and hundreds of thousands of displaced people, that’s a “callous disregard for lives and unnecessary.” Interesting.

Yes, it is, because it’s totally unnecessary. There is not one thing stopping us from protecting the Kurds or communicating to Turkey that we would do so without using them in such a manner.

Fine. You’d rather be reactionary than preventative. Ignoring troops as a deterrent, why are we not protecting the Kurds? Why has Turkey suffered no consequences? You said there is nothing stopping us from protecting the Kurds. Doesn’t seem very effective. Seems like we just left and let Turkey do whatever they want.

Again, not defending his inaction or failure to communicate there would be consequences and following up on it. Just saying neither of those things require using troops as sacrificial goats.

If the loss of 50 lives prevents the loss of hundreds or thousands, that’s a victory. If it prevents the return of ISIS, with who knows what kind of consequences, that’s a victory. If it prevents hundreds of thousands of displaced people, destroyed infrastructure and regional instability, that’s a victory.

A strong president would have told Turkey we’re going to keep our 50 troops where they are to protect our Kurdish allies and local civilians, and to prevent ISIS prisoners from escaping. He would have told Turkey if they decide to attack, there will be immediate consequences and followed through with the consequences. He would have told Turkey we will keep those troops in place as we continue to work toward an agreement for the region.

We have seen what a weak president does.

Keeping the fifty troops, uneccesary. As in, not needed to communicate resolve to act or to act. I won’t condone using them to sway public opinion to give a President political cover to act in the nations best interests and that’s what they were there for.

Our nation’s best interest was in preventing what is happening right now. This all began immediately after those troops left. This isn’t about swaying public opinion, it’s about making sure a dictator knows beyond any doubt that if he decides to act, he will be acting directly against the US. Threats of consequences do not carry the same weight.

[mobiusptc]

this is going to help!

US pulling out of northern Syria; full withdrawal possible

trump showing how afraid of turkey he is.

[STODR]

@TommyLucchese

@zantax

Well it’s a little different there given the number of troops and tanks etc. At least they would be a significant speed bump, unlike say, fifty troops.

No, they wouldn’t Ask anyone who served in the DMZ. They are there to absorb the artillery barrage that would signal the start of the war and kill the vast majority of them.

You have short memory this morning? that is exactly what you said

[Oryx]

@STODR

I haven’t commented on that so why asking me?

Because you said you were there for two years, so I assume you have some knowledge and an opinion. And this is a discussion board.

@STODR

But for the record I was against going into Syria, it was of the very few times I agreed with Obama. One of the reasons was because I believed we would abandon the Kurds again like before.

I agree. I was against going into Iraq, but once we did, we had a responsibility to the country, and I disagreed with Obama’s decision to leave when we did. I see this situation the same way.

[STODR]

blind squirrel

[TommyLucchese]

To be clear, I have no real moral compunction against this, we’ve betrayed local allies dozens of times just since WW2. What irritates me is that we didn’t do it for a reason. There was nothing serving the national interest here, Turkey got what they wanted and we got. . .nothing.

[zantax]

@SottoVoce

@zantax

@SottoVoce

@zantax

@SottoVoce

@zantax

@SottoVoce

I see. So if 50 troops used as a shield could prevent the loss of hundreds or thousands of lives, the reemergence of ISIS, and hundreds of thousands of displaced people, that’s a “callous disregard for lives and unnecessary.” Interesting.

Yes, it is, because it’s totally unnecessary. There is not one thing stopping us from protecting the Kurds or communicating to Turkey that we would do so without using them in such a manner.

Fine. You’d rather be reactionary than preventative. Ignoring troops as a deterrent, why are we not protecting the Kurds? Why has Turkey suffered no consequences? You said there is nothing stopping us from protecting the Kurds. Doesn’t seem very effective. Seems like we just left and let Turkey do whatever they want.

Again, not defending his inaction or failure to communicate there would be consequences and following up on it. Just saying neither of those things require using troops as sacrificial goats.

If the loss of 50 lives prevents the loss of hundreds or thousands, that’s a victory. If it prevents the return of ISIS, with who knows what kind of consequences, that’s a victory. If it prevents hundreds of thousands of displaced people, destroyed infrastructure and regional instability, that’s a victory.

A strong president would have told Turkey we’re going to keep our 50 troops where they are to protect our Kurdish allies and local civilians, and to prevent ISIS prisoners from escaping. He would have told Turkey if they decide to attack, there will be immediate consequences and followed through with the consequences. He would have told Turkey we will keep those troops in place as we continue to work toward an agreement for the region.

We have seen what a weak president does.

Keeping the fifty troops, uneccesary. As in, not needed to communicate resolve to act or to act. I won’t condone using them to sway public opinion to give a President political cover to act in the nations best interests and that’s what they were there for.

Our nation’s best interest was in preventing what is happening right now. This all began immediately after those troops left. This isn’t about swaying public opinion, it’s about making sure a dictator knows beyond any doubt that if he decides to act, he will be acting directly against the US. Threats of consequences do not carry the same weight.

What were the troops if not a threat? If you kill these troops there will be consequences. Not necessary and disregards their lives. If you attack the Kurds, there will be consequences, follow up on it. Done.

[TommyLucchese]

@STODR

You have short memory this morning? that is exactly what you said

I was pointing out that the soldiers in the DMZ serve the same purpose, essentially human shields.