Trump faces growing GOP revolt on Syria

Trump faces growing GOP revolt on Syria BY ALEXANDER BOLTON - 10/09/19 06:00 AM EDT

Republicans are in a full-out revolt against President Trump over his decision to withdraw troops from northern Syria, a move broadly seen as putting the lives of Kurdish allies at risk.

The overwhelming opposition from GOP lawmakers is putting increasing pressure on Trump to reverse course. And it comes at a time when Democrats are moving full steam ahead with an impeachment inquiry.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), one of Trump’s loudest congressional supporters, on Tuesday demanded a senators-only briefing on the Syria move, which he said betrayed the Kurds and would make it tougher for the U.S. to build alliances going forward.

“The President’s decision will have severe consequences for our strategic national interests and reduce American influence in the region while strengthening Turkey, Russia, and Iran,” Graham wrote in a letter also signed by Sen. Christopher Coons (D-Del.). “The decision also dramatically increases the threat to our Kurdish allies, who helped destroy ISIS’s territorial caliphate, and will impair our ability to build strategic alliances in the future.”

Trump’s decision, seen as enabling Turkey to go after Kurds in Syria, was lambasted by Trump loyalists such as Rep. Liz Cheney (Wyo.), the third-ranking House GOP leader, and Republicans who have differed with the president on policies, such as Sen. Mitt Romney (Utah).

Cheney called the decision a “catastrophic mistake” and Romney characterized it as a “betrayal” of Kurdish allies that would show “America is an unreliable ally.”

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), one of Trump’s most ardent defenders in the Senate, said he agrees with the president that the United States should not be the world’s policeman but warned that “abandoning the Kurds” would send a “terrible signal to America’s allies and adversaries” and would be “unconscionable.

The broad-based backlash left some in the GOP hoping Trump would reverse himself, something Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) on Tuesday raised as a possibility.

“I understand he’s reconsidering. I do not think we should abandon the Kurds,” he told a reporter for Politico.

Senate Republican sources said the Pentagon has warned Turkey not to advance into northern Syria, despite interpretations of Trump’s decision to pull back U.S. forces as a go-ahead signal.

Top Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman on Monday said the Defense Department has “made clear” that “we do not endorse a Turkish operation in Northern Syria.”

The following day, Hoffman disputed reports that Trump made his decision without consultating Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley, adding that U.S. troops were repositioned in Syria to ensure their safety.

“Secretary Esper and Chairman Milley were consulted over the last several days by the President regarding the situation and efforts to protect U.S. forces in Northern Syria in the face of military action by Turkey,” Hoffman said in statement.

He said the Defense Department continues to hold the position that “establishing a safe zone in Northern Syria” is the best way to maintain stability.

“Unfortunately, Turkey has chosen to act unilaterally. As a result we have moved the U.S. forces in Northern Syria out of the path of potential Turkish incursion to ensure their safety,” Hoffman said. “We have made no changes to our force presence in Syria at this time.”

Trump, in a set of mixed messages conveyed via Twitter, threatened to retaliate against Turkey if the country goes too far. But he did not specify what kind of action would cross the line.

Expert panel says regime change in Iran is getting closer SPONSORED CONTENT Expert panel says regime change in Iran is getting closer

BY ORGANIZATION OF IRANIAN AMERICAN COMMUNITIES “If Turkey does anything that I, in my great and unmatched wisdom, consider to be off limits, I will totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey,” Trump tweeted Monday.

“I think there’s a sense of waiting to see what the administration is actually going to do,” said a Senate Republican aide who called the situation “clear as mud.”

GOP aides said Trump’s announcement caught Capitol Hill by surprise and appeared to be made off the cuff after a phone conversation with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who is now scheduled to visit the White House in mid-November.

Brett McGurk, a former member of Trump’s national security team, told NPR that the president’s sudden decision to withdraw from Syria appeared made “on a haphazard basis after a single call” and called it “almost unprecedented.”

Graham and Coons, in their letter to Senate leaders, raised concerns “that this was an abrupt decision taken in the face of reported opposition from military and diplomatic leaders.”

“We believe that it is imperative that the Department of Defense, State Department, and the Intelligence Community provide an all-members classified briefing on this decision as soon as possible,” they wrote.

But another one of Trump’s closest allies, Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.), defended the president’s action and criticized fellow Republicans for rebelling.

“They always want to stay at war. They think it’s the best answer,” Paul said of what he called the “neocon war caucus of the Senate.”

“President Trump recognizes what President Reagan recognized, unfortunately too late, in Beirut. Leaving 300 or 400 people in an area that are vulnerable could lead to catastrophe,” Paul said Monday on Fox News.

In the House, Democrats said they were looking at several options to push back against Trump’s latest foreign policy move, which caught leaders of both parties by surprise.

“Multiple committees are looking at possible legislative efforts to put the House on record against the president’s outrageous decision,” said a Democratic leadership aide.

While House Republicans have not sided with Democrats on many measures critical of Trump, it seemed possible that the Syria decision could be an exception.

The Senate voted 70-26 in February to advance a resolution authored by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) expressing strong opposition to the precipitous withdrawal of troops from Syria or Afghanistan.

McConnell reminded Trump of that in a statement Monday, urging him “to exercise American leadership to keep our multinational coalition to defeat ISIS and prevent significant conflict between our NATO ally Turkey and our local Syrian counterterrorism partners,” referring to Kurdish forces.

A second Senate Republican aide said there could be language added to the annual National Defense Authorization Act to influence Trump’s Syria policy.

But a Republican spokeswoman for the Senate Armed Services Committee noted the bill is still under negotiation and declined to speculate on what might be included in the final version.

The House version of the legislation limits military spending until the secretary of Defense submits to the congressional committees a detailed report on the military mission to combat Islamic militants in Syria and Iraq.

The House bill also requires the secretaries of Defense and State to submit to Congress plans for providing assistance to vetted Syrian opposition forces.

Aside from the defense authorization bill, Congress could pass other measures, from ratcheting up sanctions on Syria to sanctioning foreign individuals who provide support to the Syrian government.

But Graham on Tuesday endorsed the threat of sanctions against Turkey to safeguard against a military strike against Kurdish forces.

“If Turkey moves into northern Syria, sanctions from hell – by Congress – will follow. Wide, deep, and devastating sanctions,” he tweeted.

“If you had done your research you’d know the PKK is a communist faction and is not representative of the Kurds in general.”

Bad time of the month, perhaps?

Anyway, sounds to me that we’ve been helping the PKK, regardless of intentions. Glad to see that ending!

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/world/middleeast/turkey-kurds-syria.html

I would say that Trump took Eisenhower’s “Military Industrial Complex” speech quite seriously. About 60 years too late...but we can see the disaster and degradation that permanent low-level war can wreak on a nation. It is a significant part of the overall deterioration of America as a nation. It only benefits the politicians, who have become the Corrupt American Oligarchs, as they are the modern day profiteers and gun-runners.

America makes the Aegean Stables look like a Class 1 Clean Room.

What is the vital US Security interest involved in the US giving the Kurd’s a US backed military shield to hide behind while they continue their separatists attacks on the internationally recognized Governments of Iran, Iraq and Turkey?

So were just suppose to endlessly continue the “Emperor of Earth” polices of the last 4 US Presidents? We suppose to write a blank check payable in US blood and treasure to every oppressed group everywhere?

Frankly I prefer Trump’s return to the pre Bush family traditional US policy. Bush the 1st made a massive mistake ending our “Over the Horizon” posture in the ME. By failing to decisively win Desert Storm in 1991 Bush locked us in a full body hug with the Middle East tar-baby ever since.

It is time the USA start figuring out how to pry ourselves off that mess. Now that we are a energy exporter since the 1960s, our national security interest in protecting the flow of oil out of the ME is greatly reduced. It is time we start re-thinking our national polices.

Actions like this by the President certainly brings out all the Hawk Neocons that lurk here on FreeRepublic.

If only we could have a NeoCon Army Division or two. I am sure we wouldn’t hear from all them around here as they would be out persecuting yet another Foreign War without victory as a goal and no end in site.

This is a (history of the Kurds) Five nations are involved, Turkey, Syria, Iran, Iraq, and a small part of Armenia. The only winner so far has been those who manufacture military gear and weapons, medical suppliers and food conveyors. President Trump is right to stop this madness; it is a no win situation.

I’m not sold on the theory that Saudi Arabia was instrumental in the origin of ISIS. Perhaps elements within SA, but not official policy. ISIS was a real threat to the royal family. There’s more evidence to the Muslim Brotherhood being its true source - which explains why the Obama administration (including Hillary) only had a policy of containment towards “the caliphate.” The ivy league intellectual community that has trained most of our governmental elite believe the West’s injustice towards the Middle East is the ultimate source of terrorism. Hence the desire to undo that “wrong” by creating a unified Muslim state to replace the old Ottoman. Why else was Sec of State Clinton allowing the US to be involved in arms smuggling in Libya as well as regime change? Why support the toppling of every ME government that has Western origin?

The U.S. did not remove ISIS, Kurdish fighters with U.S. assistance did. You can’t defeat an enemy from the air unless you bomb everything that moves. That wasn’t an option. If President Trump had ordered to bomb everything that moved, he would have been removed from office with 80+ senators voting for his removal.

The U.S. used the Kurdish fighters to defeat ISIS and then threw (or has decided to throw) them to the lions (the Turks). That’s dishonest in the extreme. The U.S. has always known that the Turks hate the Kurds. If the U.S. has never wanted to guarantee the Syrian Kurds some sort of protection, it should not have used them.

Would you prefer if President Trump had sent U.S. ground troops (not only some special forces) against ISIS? Or would you prefer if the ISIS caliphate in Syria still existed?

What I am saying is that the territory which is now contested by both the Kurds and the Turks is newly freed land. It’s not the area which is the Kurdish homeland, but an area in Iraq and Syria invaded by ISIS. The Kurds control it because Iraq is unable to do so given their problems in the south with Iran. Syria is also unable to regain control of the area. Therefore, what is now happening is a redrawing of national boundaries. Turkey does not want the Kurds to control territory along their eastern border because of past terrorism against them by Kurdish fractions. It is not an unfounded concern.

I agree, therefore, with the President that this is not a fight that entails US national interest. American resources shouldn’t be used to redraw the map of the Middle East. The Kurds have our financial support. They have been trained and have probably even better fighting ability than the Turks. They have tons of military equipment. The Turkish government also has been given limitations by the US government.

Finally there is the question of captured ISIS fighters, many who are Europeans. Those nations have refused to repatriot them. The Kurds are guarding them now; but are unable to do that long term w/o US troop involvement. That is not sustainable. Turkey has agreed to take control of the prisoners. The President has decided that is the best solution and I also agree.

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.