Posted on 12/17/2016 3:39:34 AM PST by DoodleDawg
U.S. President-elect Donald Trump said on Friday his administration would build "safe zones" to try to help civilians trapped in Syria's bloody conflict, an idea that President Barack Obama said would be too hard to enforce.
Mr Trump and Mr Obama spoke separately of the conflict after efforts to evacuate civilians from the city of Aleppo ground to a halt on Friday after weeks of bombardments by the Syrian army.
"We're going to try and patch that up and we're going to try and help people," said Mr Trump, who takes over from Obama on Jan. 20.
"We're going to build safe zones," he told supporters at a rally in Florida. "We're going to get the Gulf States to pay for the safe zones."
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Do you HONESTLY think that he and Mattis has not thought this through for a long time? Do you HONESTLY think either will telegraph what their thought process is in relation to what action they are going to take? The only thing he is telling is what the end game will be once they have finished.
The reality is the end of the interventionist era is just 34 days away. Get your mindset out of that time and get with the confidence he or his closest advisors will act accordingly. The time for pearl clutching is passe’.
Is this a sort of a “gun free” zone?
Is it akin to the 30 foot “if” as in “if you build a 30 foot wall you will have a run on 32 foot ladders”
So I’m torn, I visualize a Safe Zone as a great expense (in money, blood, sweat, and tears) that will be compromised sporadically, painted on continuously, and as breeding a false sense of security, because at some point this “Safe Zone” will be taken for granted and at that point it fails.
http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2015/10/02/clinton-backs-potential-no-fly-zone-in-syria
Maybe we should cooperate with Assad getting rid of the opposition. Yeah he’s a bad guy. But who cares. You think his opposition is any better?
I’d rather that there be NON-MUSLIM SAFE ZONES. Muslims want to build their HELLS-ON-EARTH. Let them build and have their various brands of hell. But require them to live in their constructed hells and not flee from their creations (only for them to attempt to recreate their hells in their new environs) to OUR PARTS OF THE WORLD.
Don’t bring these monsters here! Don’t think that WE can reform their hells. MUSLIMS’ HELL FLOW FROM THEIR HEARTS.
Assad and the Syrian arab army are the safe zone
The citizens of Aleppo were desparate to reach govt controlled zones
And IS was shelling and killing them to stop them
Unless you are a militia dedicated to killing syrian police , military and civilians who,support him - then you are not safe
I think trump will change US policy and work with Russia and assad to go after IS , stop the killing and stop the foreign intervention into SYRIA
Then work on politucal reform as it is needed
Lots of reconstruction work in Syria if they can stabilize the country and draw refugees back home
>>”Mr Trump and Mr Obama spoke separately of the conflict after efforts to evacuate civilians from the city of Aleppo ground to a halt on Friday after weeks of bombardments by the Syrian army.”<<
Were they saying the same thing? I know there’s a transition period. But that (smooth) transition period should also mean Obama and the incoming president must privately consult, agree, and present a unified front to the public. At least, Obama should not be making separate announcements, or contradict the incoming president.
>>”Who are you keeping the zone safe from if not Assad?”<<
Assume he means non-Syrian govt forces. Yes, he should be more specific, or not make a sweeping statement at all.
>>”How do you do that without sending in the troops to take it and to keep it afterwards?”<<
Troops will be necessary. I said in another thread a couple of days ago that Russians at least will have to maintain an active presence in Syria to ensure stability, until this AQ/ISIS/Rebels issues are resolved.
The backers of Anti-Syrian forces must be reined in; they strongly contribute to destabilisation & killing of civilians. They are SA, Qatar, Turkey, and any other (including U.S. anti Assad team). It may well require U.S. troops on the ground.
>>”How do you establish safe zones without taking the territory away from Assad?”<<
They can be established within Assad held territory, but only after agreement with Assad. No need to take any territory away from him for that purpose.
>>”And where is that worth the cost in U.S. lives?”<<
Obama admin clearly backed and continues to support anti-Assad jihadis in Syria. The U.S. is already very involved by proxy at least. IF the new U.S. administration is looking to defeat AQ, ISIS, and work for stability in the M.E., then should cooperate with Russia & Assad, and fully commit to doing so.
He’s contrasting it to opening the world’s borders to “refugees” and with Mattis and others, I’d wager he really can get it done (with other nations’ support) and manage for the Gulf States to pay for it and possibly help enforce it. When the most powerful man in the world sets his sights on something, and has the right people planning and carrying it out, great things can happen.
I hope “safe zones” are the result of some ordnance that turns the ground to glass; hence, not even bacteria are left in a safe zone.
Safe zones are okay if we don’t have anything to do with them.
So YOU tell ME what it means to establish a safe zone and how he does it without committing U.S. troops to take the zone and keep the zone safe?
A no-fly zone is one thing. A safe zone is another. And for the record I think that the no-fly zone is a stupid idea as well which would accomplish nothing.
I certainly do not. But if Trump is talking about safe zones then it's safety from Assad. Help Assad kill off all his opposition and what do you need a safe zone for?
It seems very odd. Heretofore, Trump seemed to have embraced Assad and Putin’s policy of collective guilt and schrecklichkeit as the best way to deal with terrorists. Old fashion ideas like Just War theory, proportionality, and viewing innocent civilians as non-combatants gave way to the mad mullahs of Iran, Putin, and Assad know best. The safe zon contradiction will likely resolve itself with a one hundred eight degree turn back to making the world safe for Putin and Assad.
Even our wonderful non-PC POTUS has to know when to keep his mouth shut - avoid telegraphing his moves.
If Trump was forthright about every tax, every regulation and federal department he was planning to eliminate, he would face a deafening chorus of angry leftists 24-7.
They would demand explanations for how he was going to solve all of society’s problems if he guts the federal government. It would be the same if he announced that Syrian refugees are simply not our problem. They would condemn him as a heartless racist who did not represent American values.
Of course it would be impossible for Trump to answer these charges to the left’s satisfaction, because in their way of thinking, huge federal redistribution programs and foriegn interventions are the only solutions they can conceive of.
So, he has to think of things to say that will keep the leftists at bay so he can do his job. These things Trump has to say will sound like he’s moderating or back peddling or softening.
An example is tax cuts - the leftist economists put his proposals through their static no-growth models and conclude he will add trillions to the deficit unless he cuts trillions in spending.
If he says he will cut trillions in spending, they say that means eliminating entitlements, increasing poverty and a crumbling infrastructure. We know the tax and regulation cuts will spur economic growth (which is the only true welfare program) but the leftists don’t get it, so Trump would be hammered non stop for a plan that “just doesn’t add up”.
It would be a stupid waste if time to try to explain concepts like capitalism, peace through strength, and strong border control to the leftists - he has to say what he needs to say while he gets the job done. This is what I still hope is happening.
Let’s give Trump a few months before we give up on him.
Troops will be necessary. I said in another thread a couple of days ago that Russians at least will have to maintain an active presence in Syria to ensure stability, until this AQ/ISIS/Rebels issues are resolved.
And you see that as a good use of U.S. troops? Sorry but I don't think that the safety of every refugee in Syria is worth the life of one U.S. soldier.
They can be established within Assad held territory, but only after agreement with Assad. No need to take any territory away from him for that purpose.
And having spent years fighting against his opponents then why would Assad agree to setting up territories where they could continue their opposition in peace?
Obama admin clearly backed and continues to support anti-Assad jihadis in Syria.
Which I disagree with and I would rather not see Trump follow the same mistakes.
If he really thinks that then he's living in a dream world.
Well the safe zones could be in neighboring countries, right? Or in Muslim countries that are the same religion as the refugees. They shouldn’t be sent to our country or other countries and be told they should be made citizens. Let them return to their own home when they can and let the Muslim brothers take care of them financially.
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.