Posted on 11/02/2019 6:46:05 AM PDT by Kaslin
Following Turkey and America’s agreement on a “permanent ceasefire” in Syria, President Trump lifted the sanctions placed on Turkish officials. The sanctions were put in place when Turkish forces were plunging into Syrian territory held by the Kurds, who were U.S. partners in the fight against ISIS. The new ceasefire agreement would set up a buffer zone on the Syria-Turkey border that Kurdish forces couldn’t occupy.
The ceasefire marks a stark turn of events from where things stood earlier this month, when the entire Washington political and media establishment was lambasting Trump for daring to pull troops out of northern Syria.
Yet at the time, most talking heads were unwilling to directly make the argument that represented the only alternative to a pullout: that 50 American troops should have remained in northeast Syria, essentially acting as human shields, to block the onslaught of NATO ally Turkey. Most critics decided to focus on criticizing the process—they said President Trump’s decision to pull out of Syria was too sudden, ill-planned, and surprised our “allies.” But that’s not the whole story.
Actually, the Pentagon and the State Department knew the political leadership had no appetite for remaining in Syria forever, but they forged ahead with their own path anyway, and made promises they couldn't back up. This made things worse for the Kurds.
According to Brett McGurk, former presidential special envoy to the coalition against ISIS, the Kurds could have protected themselves if they had made a deal with the Syrian government and its Russian backers. Even with Trump’s desire to get out of Syria being no secret, U.S. officials discouraged Kurdish reconciliation with Damascus, making a U.S. exit more complicated.
Specifically, bureaucrats in both the Pentagon and the State Department told the Kurds to back off. “We’ll manage Turkey, don’t make a deal with the [Assad] regime,” said Special Representative for Syria Engagement Jim Jeffrey. That’s because former National Security Advisor John Bolton was committed to staying in Syria until “Iran was out.” And because of the Assad government’s ties to Iran, Bolton probably meant, ‘until the Assad government was overthrown.’
In other words, President Trump was following through on what he had long claimed he would do. But his national security apparatus was standing in opposition.
Reporters Christopher Dickey and Spencer Ackerman, who interviewed McGurk, said it best:
“…once it became clear in 2018 that Trump was hostile to the open-ended U.S. presence in Syria he inherited, the Kurds had options to help ease the end of their relationship with the Americans. But Trump’s State Department and Pentagon, unwilling to face up to a final withdrawal—and the unequivocal loss of U.S. influence in a part of the Middle East where it is increasingly impotent, if not irrelevant—convinced the Kurds not to plan for an American departure. Had the Kurds done so, their new Russian and Syrian partners might have been able to spare them the devastation that Turkey is now wreaking as the U.S. pulls back and stands by.”
Returning to the ceasefire, it turns out the consequences of hasty withdrawal are not as severe as initially feared: U.S. withdrawal hastened a new equilibrium in northeast Syria, where the Kurds promptly worked with the Syrian government returning to the pre-war status quo.
Turkey—which has long battled a Kurdish militant group called the PKK—has been itching to clear the Kurds away from its border with Syria. Because officials had already worked behind the scenes to keep us in Syria after ISIS was defeated, America faced only two choices: (1) stay in Syria indefinitely, use our forces as human shields, and risk war with NATO-ally Turkey, or (2) get out of the way of the Turkish offensive.
That doesn’t mean the White House should escape all criticism. If anything, failure to fully withdraw months ago was a grievous error. Trump ran into the problem of an intransigent bureaucracy because he hired people who think it’s their calling to continue the failed foreign policy of George W. Bush’s first term. And while some troops were moved to a different region of Syria, our troops that did leave the country are now in Iraq—they still aren’t home. And now, our troops look like they will remain indefinitely to hold Syria’s oil fields, a terrible idea that isn’t in America’s interest.
What’s amazing is how often unelected officials seek to continue the foreign policy status quo, no matter who is president. The whole thing is reminiscent of Michael Glennon’s book “National Security and Double Government,” which shows how national security officials between the Bush and Obama years were able to drive a remarkably similar foreign policy, despite the party change in the White House.
When America’s leaders make bad policy decisions and political appointments, the people have a say in throwing them out. Yet too often in Washington, a clique of permanent but unelected bureaucrats steers policy.
This is problematic even if the bureaucrats are right and the politicians are wrong. But the foreign policy bureaucrats in question represent and defend an ossified status quo. They have been repeatedly wrong, and fail to acknowledge or learn from past mistakes. And there is a huge disconnect between the foreign policy views of the D.C. insiders, and the views of normal Americans. One wonders how long the Washington establishment can continue to be so disconnected from the American people on foreign affairs.
We have lots of them knee-jerkers right here...
What do 95% of the FR concern trolls have in common?
They use every opportunity to “worry’ about President Trump, aren’t above using fake news stories/tales/yarns to do it with, and never seem to donate a cent to FR.
In plain language, Trump was right.
Let these mooselimb raghead terrorists continue to kill each other as they have for decades if not centuries.
It is their blood stained sandbox, let them die in it.
Trump had a great line last night in Tupelo, MI.
Not exact but something like, "Just because we beat them over there, doesn't mean we have to admit them over here".
Of course he was right
Opps. MS not MI.
Trump’s decision to pull out forced the Kurds to stop their war with Assad but it also forced the hand of the bureaucracy. Trump is bold. His biggest weakness has been his in ability to get people who support his general policy positions in places of power (see impeachment and Russian investigation for further evidence). The troops that remain to keep the oil seems like a compromise but it also seems to make sense. That being said, while they bureaucracy. Military complex have plans of staying until they can get Trump out and someone who will once again bow to their will gets in; Trump has a more clear cut plan. Cut a deal with the Russians and the Syrians to get U.S companies contracts in exchange for a complete removal of U.S troops. This will be the next controversy. That’s when you’ll see Linda and his ilk complain about leaving the oil and giving money to ISIS. In actual fact, that will be the sign that Trump for exactly what he wanted
I think we’ve had the policy of containing Russia for so long that it has become unquestioned. All while our country has failed to address the existential threat that is China. Our deep state people have failed spectacularly on China. So how do you get rid of the people who kept up the zombie foreign policy that harmed our interests in a very quantifiable way? Shouldn’t that be a question the press should address? I know a lot of average people are wondering this, but our questions never seem to get answered. Instead we are treated to an endless set of temporary stepping stone talking points (that fail quickly) leading us presumably back to the plan of globalism. I think these guys are so focused on this goal that they ignore facts that don’t support their narrative. Which means they need to go.
“Our deep state people have failed spectacularly on China.”
You can certainly SAY THAT AGAIN. Those ‘foreign policy experts’ ASSURED us that if we bring China up to First World standards, they would become much freer and much less threatening to the world.
Well, we did #1, they’re certainly a very wealthy country now (go visit if you doubt that), but now they are almost where we left off with the Soviet Union and their control over their society even embarrasses North Korea.
As to Russia, we actually were friendly with them, until 2014. What happened then? Biden and his son played politics in the Ukraine, pretty much forcing Russia’s hand regarding Crimea (if they wanted to keep their huge navel base there) and somewhat the same in Eastern Ukraine. But even more than that, the Russians, TO THE HORROR OF THE WORLD, passed a law saying that kids should be free of gay recruiting (in other words you won’t find too many Drag Queen Storytimes in their libraries). As so that was it...Russia become OUR ENEMY again. They never threatened us, or even our interests...although they did make some noises and almost certainly cheated on arms treaties (nothing new in either case, even when they were our ‘friends’).
Now, after the CIA arranged for US troops to be embedded with the Kurds rather than staying out of the front lines and shipping the Kurds them way, way, more aid than they had ever gotten before, the media liars yell about it being a "knee jerk" pull out that abandons "our allies the Maoist Communist Kurds".
What it is is nothing but another attempt for the Deep State Lilliputians to tie down Trump the way the did Gulliver and force him to cede what is rightfully Presidential authority to them and their money grubbing Congress Critter pals.
Over the long term, the Kurds will win their Kurdistan, in part with US help, what's the rush?
.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.