The problem is that Trump does occasionally say things that some of us agree
with, like withdrawing from Syria, withdrawing from Afghanistan, making peace
with North Korea, staying on friendly terms with Russia. We don't know why he
says those things or whether or not he'll change his mind tomorrow, but it's
wrong to oppose something just because he says it. Of course, as several
experts have pointed out, often, he doesn't understand the implications or
repercussions of what he proposes. On the other hand, being negative about
something, just because he happens to have said it, seems really unwise.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2018 11:54 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: We're Allowed to Celebrate Trump's Withdrawal
From Syria
What's the old Saying?...Give the Devil his due?
I'm sure that there are many things that Donald Trump thinks and does that I
think and do, also. But why on God's Green Earth would we go there? The man
is a threat to himself, as well as to Life on Earth.
Giving him credit for some action that will probably come back to bite us in
the ass, is not the way to righting the wrong imposed upon America by an
Oligarchy of Crazy White Supremacists. Why, oh why does our Media promote
Trump's every Tweet? Doesn't the Press know that Donald Trump fears and hates
them? Well, we must exclude FPN(Fox Phony News).
Please all you reporters, just stand by. You'll have plenty of excitement to
report once Donald Trump's final melt down begins.
Carl Jarvis
On 12/21/18, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
We're Allowed to Celebrate Trump's Withdrawal From Syria
Gage Skidmore / Flickr
This piece originally appeared on anti-war.com.
"Impulsive, irresponsible, and dangerous." Such was the way, just this
morning on CNN, that Democratic Representative, and House Minority
Whip, Steny Hoyer described President Trump's recent announcement that
he's bringing home the 2,000 U.S. troops currently in Syria. Last
night, Republican Senator Lindsay Graham - a true hawk's hawk -
declared on the Senate floor that Trump's decision is a "disaster,"
and a "stain on the honor of the United States." Two points here, one
minor, one major - let's begin with a semantic quibble: when
maintaining national "honor" becomes a last ditch argument for
continuing indecisive, perpetual war, perhaps it really is time to
leave. And, more importantly, there's this: anytime that Steny Hoyer
and Lindsay Graham are in agreement and share a disdain for a foreign
policy decision - even a Trump decision - well, then, the president might
just be on to something.
My point is this: the bipartisan interventionist/militarist consensus
of centrist Dems and hawkish Republicans has brought only disaster,
death, humanitarian crisis, exploding debt and endless war for nearly two
decades.
For ample evidence see Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, etc. So, why
are we still listening to these folks? Well, partly because the United
States is an increasingly militarized (ostensible) republic in which a
world-leading domestic arms industry all but owns Congress and the
corporate media. Then there's the matter of Trump - a man that the
bipartisan Washington establishment simply loathes. Indeed, The Donald
can do no right as far as these folks are concerned. Now, few authors
- especially serving on active-duty in the military - have been as
(constructively) critical of this president as I have, but
occasionally the man demonstrates good sense, especially in foreign
affairs. Fairness demands that we recognize this, whatever we think of
the president's general personality.
Let us return, then, to Syria, and take Representative Hoyer's
assessment apart one piece at a time. In point of fact there was
nothing particularly "impulsive" about President Trump's announcement.
More than six months ago, in May, he announced that the US military
would be withdrawing from Syria "like, very soon." In fact, arguably
the only reason American troops have remained in the country as long
as they have can be attributed to poor advice from the last
"adult-in-the-room," Defense Secretary Jim Mattis.
Candidate Trump ran on a largely anti-interventionist platform, and -
during the Obama presidency - regularly tweeted that the US should
"stay out" of Syria. So there's nothing exceptionally impulsive or
surprising about Trump's latest decision on troop withdrawal.
Next, Hoyer called Trump's decision "irresponsible." But is it,
really? One could, in fact, argue the exact opposite. Besides the
originally stated mission to defeat ISIS's physical caliphate - which
has essentially been accomplished - ever more expansive, unachievable,
and flimsy justifications for a perpetual US troop presence in Syria
have begun to creep in. Trump's own cabinet members, and the usual
(perennially wrong) Beltway insiders have alternately argued that
America must stay in Syria to check Russia, counter Iran, deter
Turkey, protect the Kurds, and on and on. No one, not Trump nor his
"grown-up" advisors, seemed capable of articulating a cogent,
sustainable strategy or communicating an exit strategy. And military
occupation of a sovereign country - sanctioned neither by the US
Congress nor the United Nations - ought to be driven by more than policy
inertia.
Only that's become the norm in US Mideast policy. We stay because we
don't know what else to do - remaining not for positivist goals but
out of fear of negativist what-ifs. When policy goals are muddled and
end-states unclear, now that's "irresponsible." If Trump's team can't
enunciate a vital national interest in maintaining a military
intervention - which they've proven time and again that they can't -
then the president has a duty to pull the plug on the latest forever
war.
Then there's Hoyer's claim - echoed by Senator Graham, every pundit on
CNN and MSNBC, and just about every vacuous D.C. analyst - that
pulling out of Syria is "dangerous." It's not, or, put another way,
it's at least less dangerous than staying. This author has argued for
over a year that Syria is the next great Middle East trap, all risk
and no reward for the United States. Let's review just why this is.
Here's what the US stands to gain by staying put in Syria - a
temporary denial of Assad and his allies' forces entering the
country's far east, a limited zone of unsustainable Kurdish autonomy,
and tough-guy bragging rights on the international scene.
Up against this are the truly "dangerous" - and arguably unacceptable
- risks of perpetual military occupation. As if the latest
(unnecessary) iteration of Cold War with Russia in Eastern Europe
isn't treacherous enough, in Syria today US troops (and allies)
face-off with Russian troops (and their allies) on an unstable front
along the Euphrates River. Despite some limited deconfliction measures
in place, we now know that American and Russian soldiers have -
according to the special US ambassador - exchanged gunfire "more than
once" along this precarious boundary. In one particularly disturbing
incident several months back, US airstrikes killed "dozens" of Russian
mercenaries in a four-hour battle. Luckily Putin showed restraint
after that exchange. Can we count on that in the future? Who knows.
What's certain is that Russia holds the stronger hand in Syria, has
been invited there by Assad, and possesses thousands of nuclear
weapons. De-escalation seems more than prudent given these undeniable truths.
Then there's the minor matter of Turkey, a treaty ally with the
second-largest army in NATO. President Erdogan has repeatedly
threatened US troops, actually invaded Northern Syria, and refuses to
recognize any sort of Kurdish autonomous entity (and he never will).
All this bluster led the Pentagon, in November, to announce a new
strategy of placing outposts along the Turkish border to deter Ankara. Tell
me how this risky "strategy"
contributes to the stated mission of US troops in Syria - the defeat
of ISIS? It doesn't. Again, plentiful risk, scant reward.
Finally, if 17+ years of indecisive war in the Greater Middle East
should have taught Washington anything, it'd be this: prolonged
ground-force occupation of sovereign Islamic states or regions is
ultimately counterproductive. The longer the US stays in Syria - or
anywhere for that matter - the greater the chance of an outbreak of
armed insurgency. Turns out (gasp!) that folks don't appreciate being
occupied by a foreign superpower. Sure, the Kurds want our protection,
but Eastern Syria is home to more than just a Kurdish minority.
Indefinite US military presence could enflame Sunni tribal
hostilities, reestablishing that perilous, if ubiquitous, alliance
between nationalist Sunnis and Islamist jihadis - something we've seen
percolate in both Afghanistan and Iraq. And just wait:
should such an insurgency break out - and I predict it eventually
would - well then the Pentagon and professional DC pundits would tell
us we have to stay and sprinkle some magic counterinsurgency dust on
that new enemy. It is thus that America's post-9/11 wars have become
self-sustaining quagmires.
US strategy, especially military strategy, should be undergirded by
realism, policy sobriety, and facts. And here's the most relevant, if
inconvenient,
fact: Bashar al-Assad's regime - backed by Iran and Russia - has
already won the civil war. Nothing the US has done, can do, or is
willing to try, will change that salient truth. The endgame in Syria -
just as in Afghanistan someday soon - will be messy, uncomfortable,
and optically unsettling.
Syria
will remain what it's been for half-a-century, a minor "adversary's"
ally stably situated in the Russian and, to a lesser extent, Iranian
camp. So it has been and so it shall remain. Assad's Syria is
eminently containable - as is Iran, for that matter - and presents no
existential threat or vital interest to U.S. security. Indeed, though
Assad is undoubtedly a monster, his secular regime is actually
morelikely to suppress transnational terror threats than a divided
Syria at war with itself. Extremism feeds on instability and division
- precisely what continued American military intervention would
ensure.
It is long past time to leave behind childish things - excessive
optimism, sentimentality (for the Kurds, for example), and the foolish
fantasy of America's special mission to transform the world - in the
interest of sound strategy. Love Trump or hate him, his decision on
Syria is neither "impulsive," "irresponsible," or unacceptably
"dangerous." The president is delivering on his - albeit muddled -
campaign promise to eschew risky interventionism and put American
interests first in foreign policy. Let us give credit where credit is due.
Maj. Danny Sjursen
Maj. Danny Sjursen is a U.S. Army officer and former history
instructor
