Syria War Update

Looks like maybe a deal was reached with SDF and SAA cause reports are saying SAA went into Arima with no fighting. It’s west of Manbij(and I remember when SDF rolled into Arima with our airstrikes). But, west of the Euphrates(Manbij area), fewer Kurds, we have claimed that YPG is not there. That it’s all the Manbij Military Council, but Turkey doesn’t buy that. Oh well

Soooo, if this Arima report is accurate, then get ready for Turkey and their pet TFSA to move into Syria soon to take area before SAA moves into SDF areas. Erdogan wants Manbij bad.

does article 5 trigger if your the aggressor in a conflict or only defensive?

Doesn’t matter. All about being “attacked”. But, attacks on Turkish forces in Syria I think fall maybe under article six. And no one talks about that one.

It’s a defensive alliance.

And I take that back. Article six wouldn’t apply in Syria. Had to reread it.

Can’t find anything in the charter that says you can’t have started it. It’s more big on geography of attacks. And I can easily find a legitimate excuse for Turkey invoking article five in Syria.

But late and heartfelt Merry Christmas to everyone!

They’re going to massacre those Kurds and we’re going to let them.

2 Likes

And the worst part is that this is far from the first time we’ve just abandoned Kurds to the slaughter.

I doubt they’ll ever trust us again.

So SAA is in Manbij. That’s how it’s going to go I guess. It took many weeks to drive ISIL out ofManbij. There’s no SDF/YPG on this forum, but if they were here, Assad is executing leaders from FSA who reconciled. FYI.

Yeah, I’m sure they’re going to miss us. :roll_eyes: And why should anyone trust us? We installed Saddam Hussein and then turned on him. Just like we supported the Kurds until it was no longer advantageous for us to do so. The Kurds were never an ally, they were merely an opportunity to be taken advantage of. This is what most of our “allies” are and always have been. This is one time where we are better off not sticking our noses in the middle of it, but for some reason we’ll still insist we need to be right there in the thick of it and then whine later when it comes back to bite us in the collective ass eventually, just as our interventionism always does.

1 Like

If ISIS does it, its a problem. If Turkey does it, so what?

Those Kurds are the ones that did most of the actual on the ground fighting against ISIL. For us. And now we’re gonna let them get massacred for no reason. Again.

And how long should we stay in Syria to protect the Kurds? Will we have a permanent base in Syria allotted to the protection of the Kurds in Syria? Because that is the only option. Turkey isn’t going anywhere, and there hatred for the the Kurds dates back to 1924, when it was even illegal in Turkey to mention the word Kurdistan or speak Kurdish, the year after the Turks mass deported and slaughtered over 1 millions Kurds in the 14 years that followed.

Since then it hasn’t gotten much better between the two. Remember watching Turkey parking their tanks on the border of Kobani forbidding the Kurds to cross for safety as ISIS was threatening to slaughter them all, as well as holding up a small force of Kurds to come in to fight for Kobani.

I have read some of your posts, you come off as very smart, you know nothing good comes from that region except Trillions of dollars wasted along with dead and disfigured American troops. Look at the results of the two Iraq wars, Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan(17 years) and the Taliban controls 40% of it, and now Syria.

If we want to be the protectorates of the Kurds we better be ready to stay forever, because the Turks and Kurds historically hate each other, and whether we pull out tomorrow or 15 years from now that will still be the case.

3 Likes

The whole middle East has been in the middle of their holy war longer than we’ve been a nation…but we’re magically going to fix that overnight. Because reasons.

1 Like

Just for once, I’d like us to uphold our promises to the Kurds. Our presence in Manbij and Kobani and Hasakah is very light. It costs us almost nothing(relatively speaking compared to Iraq and Afghanistan, dollar wise). But when we leave it will destroy them. Literally, thousands will die.

Quick aside, love the user name. Another annoying aspect is the out of left field nature of Trump’s decision. Pentagon thought we were gonna be there for a while. Do a google maps search of the Reimelan airstrip in Syria. We don’t redo that when we think we’re leaving.

For once I would like to see people think of history beyond their own meager existence.

President Trump is correct and the Kurds have MUCH bigger issues than what we do.

:do_not_litter:

No one said that

You are right that the conflicts in the Middle East are deep, long and unsatisfying.

We have tried engagement – regime change in Iraq under the Bush Administration – and failed to satisfy almost anyone

We have tried turning tail and running away – Ronald Reagan’s precipitous withdrawal from Lebanon – and failed to successfully disengage.

We have tried grand gestures to make peace – Bill Clinton’s 1999 efforts to establish a Palestinian state – only to have them scorned by those whom such efforts would benefit most.

We have tried picking winners and losers – the Trump Administrations refusal to address the crimes of MBS – and generated scorn both at home and abroad.

I would suggest the last US President to have a successful policy in the region was Jimmy Carter – the peace he brokered between Egypt and Israel has lasted for forty years and remains stable Ironic, that Carter tends be scorned while Presidents who achieved far less are thought superior. (Maybe history is written by the whiners, not the winners.)

It certainly is frustrating.

But abruptly taking our ball and going home ignores several difficult facts:

  • · America’s allies need to believe in American constancy. Even when constancy is costly, it is a price we pay to have allies and influence in the world. An isolationist America is an America without influence.
  • · America should continue to support Israel because it is our one democratic ally in the region and America should avoid policies that strengthen Israel’s adversaries
  • · The global economy is dependent on the uninterrupted flow of Persian Gulf oil, even as the US is less dependent on it. Any disruption to that flow would damage the US economy
  • · Problems in the Middle East are not confined to the Middle East. 9/11 was an effort to draw the US into ongoing Sunni/Shiite conflicts. And it worked! As Yael Harari points out, terrorists are like a gnat trying to destroy a china shop. The gnat can’t do that by itself, but if it can make a bull angry, the bull will do the gnat’s work for it. The Bush Administration did exactly that – creating a pro-Iranian Shiite state in Iraq – something ISIS could never have done without the Bush Administration’s help

So sadly, and costly as it is, there is value to staying engaged in the Middle East in a constant, unhappy fashion.

The best way to achieve disengagement from the Middle East would be to focus on transitioning our economy (and the world’s) to renewable energy sources. Drying up the income sources of the major actors in the region (other than Israel, whose economy is diversified) and, as a collateral benefit, drying up Russia’s economy would provide the only basis for lasting change in the region and greatly limit what those bad actors could do.

And you don’t even have to accept the science of global warming to acknowledge the benefit of transitioning off of fossil fuels. Green New Deal anyone? It probably is the best way to achieve the Middle East exit you wish for

Well there’s something to be said for our consistency in being inconsistent. One of the reasons most won’t mess with us. We’re unpredictable. Or at least we were.