US Officials Send Mixed Messages on Withdrawal of Troops from Syria

No American interests?

To the extent we were fighting ISIS, that served an American interest, but that was not the central thrust of the efforts I'm familiar with. Helping anti-Assad forces mainly destabilized Syria and divided Assad's efforts. We had two logical choices: overthrow Assad and pray that turns out better than the Arab Spring did anywhere, or allow Assad free reign to retake his country. The world would have been much better off if we had stayed out of the way and Assad had won quickly.

"The world would have been much better off if we had stayed out of the way and Assad had won quickly."

We never really were in Assads way. I'm not sure why you think this. We've never impeded him in his civil war. Trump's initial inclination on this was correct. Work with the Iraqi government to clear ISIS out of Iraq and put troops in and give support to our one reliable ally in Syria that would fight and kill ISIS, the Kurds. The first part is completely done and the second part is almost done. We need to finish the job and not spike the football on the five yard line.

No where in that document you provided did it state that ISIS was created by the west.

The document identified Sunni extremists as the major factor driving the insurgency in Syria and predicted the rise of ISIS if the West continued to destabilize Syria.

The warning was quite clear, both as to who the West was climbing into bed with in Syria and what the likely out come would be. Western powers ignored the prediction, continued to arm and fund the Sunni extremists (under the guise of moderate rebels) and ISIS emerged a year later.

Also the notion that a continued US military presence in Iraq would have prevented all this from happening is frankly absurd. Six years of Western military "training" and the Iraqi military threw down their weapons and ran away from the Sunni head choppers the first chance they got.

The article says that the Gulf States, the West and Turkey were supporting the insurgency. What were we supposed to do? Bomb the Gulf States, western Europe and Turkey so they don't support the insurgency? The west did not mean us, you do realize that don't you? We're not responsible for all evil in the world. Are you sure, you're not a Democrat?

"Also the notion that a continued US military presence in Iraq would have prevented all this from happening is frankly absurd."

What U.S. military presence in Iraq would have done would have prevented the sectarian violence to rise in Iraq. The proof of that is that the sectarian violence and all violence was practically at an end by 2009 - 2010 timeframe. What U.S. military presence in Iraq would have done is contained the ISIS craziness in Syria, so that Russia, Syria and whoever else wanted to could go ahead and kill them. As the article you posted notes, in their nascent form they were getting aid and support by slipping back into western Iraq. No sectarian violence, this doesn't happen. If it did happen, Iraqi forces with the support of our Military doesn't run from them and give them all the equipment we gave the Iraqi military over the years.

First of all, its NOT an article written in DC by some think tank...its a declassified Defense Intelligence Agency briefing memo gathered from field intelligence on the ground in Iraq and Syria.

Second, this notion that the "West" the memo refers to does not include the United States is total hogwash...the US leads the West, so of course the US was involved.

Third, your stated belief that the United States somehow had influence over the behavior of Sunni extremists in Iraq, but not over the behavior of allies in Western Europe and the Gulf is backward thinking sophistry at its best.

Are you sure, you're not a Democrat?

Says the guy defending the Clinton State Dept. foreign policy...

"First of all, its NOT an article written in DC by some think tank...its a declassified Defense Intelligence Agency briefing memo"

Yes, I can read.

"Second, this notion that the "West" the memo refers to does not include the United States is total hogwash...the US leads the West, so of course the US was involved."

So a briefing written by us names the personnel who are supporting the insurgency, but just uses the amorphous 'West' as one of the ones supporting the insurgency? It doesn't name us in it by name? Or course the administration that touted itself as leading from behind should naturally be assumed to be leading this support. Actually, that's total hogwash and stupid at best. You're just reading into it what you want to read into it.

"Third, your stated belief that the United States somehow had influence over the behavior of Sunni extremists in Iraq"

I said they had influence over the Iraq government and the Iraqi military. The Iraqi military that cut and run when ISIS invaded western Iraq. That's not my opinion, that was the opinion of a large majority of defense experts.

Obama’s administration frigging fostered ISIS because they thought they could ride them to overthrow Assad. Have you not read what General Flynn made clear?
Stupid kind of wishful thinking behind Obama’s overthrow of the Libyan government. Even the Ukrainian coup was naive as hell.
The interventionists decrying leaving Iraq ‘too soon’ can never admit we shouldn’t have gone in and destroyed the place and created jihadists strongholds in the first place.
Wrong over and over, and now more than two and half decades into bombing the Middle East the interventionists still say we have to keep on with this stupidity.
Enough. If Trump gets our troops out of the Middle East he automatically has my vote. I voted against that warmongering whore Hillary, and I’ll vote in the next election for someone who will bring this insanity to an end.

"If Trump gets our troops out of the Middle East he automatically has my vote."

This statement right here goes to show your complete ignorance of the situation. We have major commands and huge bases in Camp Arafjan Kuwait, 5th fleet, U.S. Naval Forces Middle East in Bahrain and U.S.Central Command forward in Al Udeid Air Base Qatar. This is not to mention all of the other multitude smaller bases we have in the middle east.

Your and many other statements on here are completely out of touch with reality. People in this thread think I repeat THINK they know what they are talking about in regards to what is happening in the Middle East and yet have no idea of things like what the U.S. force posture is over there and what our objectives and goals are in relationship to our National Interest. I would dare say that the majority in this thread that think they know of what they talk about have never stepped one foot in any country in the Middle East.

We have major commands and huge bases in Camp Arafjan Kuwait, 5th fleet, U.S. Naval Forces Middle East in Bahrain and U.S.Central Command forward in Al Udeid Air Base Qatar. This is not to mention all of the other multitude smaller bases we have in the middle east.

And yet, according to you the US has NO influence over the Gulf states behavior with regard to Sunni extremism AND were simply passive bystanders as these same Gulf states funded and supported an extremist insurgency in Syria that led to the ISIS caliphate.

You've got a helluva lot of nerve calling out people who object to this endless stream of blood and treasure being squandered in the Middle East, while country after country gets destabilized and nothing good is ever accomplished.

Folks like you have made careers out of protecting so-called "American interests" which sound much more like "foreign interests" and "corporate interests"...to the point where I believe the lines between "patriotism" and "paycheck" have been blurred.

If the United States can fly stealth bombers out of Qatar to execute an precision strike on an empty biological sciences lab in the Damascus suburbs, it can just as easily use the same g-d bombers to drop some bunker busters on the small pocket of ISIS fighters in Southeastern Syria.

That mission could have been done at any time in the past 12 months, but it hasn't because the g-d Pentagon thinks it doesn't answer to the President.

Well, think again.

"And yet, according to you the US has NO influence over the Gulf states behavior with regard to Sunni extremism"

We do. Do you think it's going to change overnight?? The first time I was there was 1990, the first Gulf War. In Saudi Arabia at the time, our women were not allowed to take their blouses off and work in t-shirts outside because of the blazing 120 degree heat because seeing outlines of their boobs offended the Saudis. They now have women driving cars. That's a huge step in their backwards society. The Saudi Royals, while not angels are the best thing we have to re-shape that society. They don't want the crazy Mullahs either because it's a threat to them as well. They are working on stamping this out. It's a lot better since 1990 and a lot better than 9/11/2001.

This war on Islamo Fascism in a lot of ways is like the Cold War. It's a generational fight. When I first joined, every wargame was something like the green army (US) facing the red army. Did we want Ivan coming over the wire. Who do you think Ivan was? None of us at the time thought we would still be in the military when the cold war ended, but I was. We have to play the long game. Our adversaries are more than willing, are you?

Perpetual War isn’t in our National Interest.
Closing the bases we have in support of our invasions and bombings comes after the invasions and bombings end.
The interventionists policies have been a grand failure to accomplish their goals, and we’re in fact using people sworn to defend the Constitution instead to prop up disgusting monarchies.
Enough. Wake up to the fact the end game for the interventionists is this preposterous status quo.

I was there was 1990, the first Gulf War. In Saudi Arabia at the time, our women were not allowed to take their blouses off and work in t-shirts outside because of the blazing 120 degree heat because seeing outlines of their boobs offended the Saudis. They now have women driving cars. That's a huge step in their backwards society.

Don’t you realize how laughable it is that the best ‘accomplishment’ the interventionists can tout is that for sacrificing trillions of dollars, thousands of dead, and tens of thousands of wounded American citizens Saudi Arabia will, almost THREE DECADES later, let a women drive a car, provided she is properly accompanied.

What a joke.

When you re-upped did they slip in a line about defending the Saudi throne?

"Perpetual War isn’t in our National Interest."

I agree 100%. However, having forward bases in key strategic areas to influence policy and prevent our enemies from their aggression is in our National Interest. Hopefully if we ever achieve peace in North Korea, I can see large forces deployed in South Korea coming home. I was for large Army withdrawl from Western Europe before the Crimea invasion and Russia's new found recalcitrance. In the long run, forward deployed bases deters enemy aggression and keeps us out of wars.

"Don’t you realize how laughable it is that the best ‘accomplishment’ the interventionists can tout is that for sacrificing trillions of dollars, thousands of dead, and tens of thousands of wounded American citizens Saudi Arabia will, almost THREE DECADES later, let a women drive a car, provided she is properly accompanied."

This attitude is why America's enemies are willing to wait us out. They are in for the long game. They know that the American people (not the soldier) gets tired and will eventually want to pull out. What difference does it make if we have soldiers stationed in Arafjan Kuwait rather than Fort Hood Texas? As long as those troops are not getting killed and we are in no active wars, what difference does it make if it moves our national interests forward?

We are having a small amount of casualties in Syria and Afghanistan (1 in Syria this year and 12 in Afghanistan). Yes, it sucks for those 13 families and I grieve more than anyone for them. But the only thing worse than dying is dying for nothing and if we pull out and ISIS reconstitutes and the Taliban take Afghanistan back then their sacrifices would have been in vain.

We have a clear exit strategy in Syria and that should be left to run it's course. President Trump is right to be asking the tough questions and grilling Generals about Afghanistan. He should go over there himself and make it a priority. He should be demanding clear objectives and measurable progress reports from his Generals. Has he done that? I haven't seen any of that. If he hasn't then he's not doing his job. The Generals are accountable to him and he's accountable to us the American people. He demands it of them so he can report it back to us the American people. When has he done that on Afghanistan? Just yelling I wanna get out is not doing his job.

——measurable progress ——

How does a general measure progress?

Having some casualties now and then is meaningless trifle compared to 70% casualties on Pelilieu. Then there are the more or less resort bases in Italy where there are no casualtities. War an peace produce different results.

Afghanistan is neither war nor peace. Afghanistan is however a threat. A measurement is meaningless in a static condition.

I can’t speak to Syria because I don’t know the facts on the ground.

"Afghanistan is neither war nor peace. Afghanistan is however a threat. A measurement is meaningless in a static condition."

Believe me, there are metrics to be applied. First you have to define what the endgame is and then you can develop metrics to measure by. There has to be an endgame and that's what Trump has to demand from his Generals. There has not been a lot written about this so I don't know what the endgame is, I can only guess.

If there wasn't an endgame, then Trump needs to be on the phone with Asharaf Ghani to ask him what he needs the United States Military forces for in Afghanistan. What needs to be accomplished in order for us to give your country back to it's people.

If I had to guess what some of the goals are, it is:

1. Bring the Taliban to the negotiating table. How is this done? Probably by making them hurt, deal from a position of strength. Do we have to take back parts of Afghanistan they control? Where? How can we do this? What is the plan to do this?

2. Stand up the Afghani army on it's own to work with coalition partners and fight. If they need our support, then train them (as we're training the Kurds) on Joint ops with coalition partners.

He needs to ask why this hasn't been done over the last 17 years. What's it going to take. Get someone in there that can do it and report back with measurables on these tasks. Instead of firing SecDefs, he should be firing (not promoting) Generals until he finds one that can get the job done. That's the Lincoln example of CnC. You think Grant, Ike, Patton came up with excuses? They produced results.

They know that the American people (not the soldier) gets tired and will eventually want to pull out.

'Being there' is counterproductive.

What difference does it make if we have soldiers stationed in Arafjan Kuwait rather than Fort Hood Texas? As long as those troops are not getting killed and we are in no active wars, what difference does it make if it moves our national interests forward?

It doesn't advance our national interest to engender enmity in the populations ruled by despots who cling to power through our military. Thousands dead in NYC and a surveillance state that would make the Stasi blush born because we had troops stationed in the Middle East, and you ask me why it's a problem?!

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.