|
On December 21 2018 14:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2018 05:51 iamthedave wrote:
How is it good for Trump? He couldn't more obviously be setting himself up to be blamed for the shutdown if he walked around with a neon sign pointing at himself reading 'I DID IT, IT WAS ME, BLAME ME AND ONLY ME'. He can't win, and he won't win. Not on this one. The Dems have zero reason to bend. Border security is a winning issue for Trump. Not only is it popular, but it's a major distinguishing issue that separates him from the Swamp. There's really no reason for him not to play that card as hard as he can. In contrast, Trump is finished as a president if he caves on border security/the wall. Everyone knows this. That's why Pelosi was celebrating last night when she believed that Trump had caved.
This sounds almost exactly like the Tea Party back when they were claiming defunding Obamacare was a winning issue, and the situation here is even worse, as back then there was at least the pretense of an argument that the Democrats were being unreasonable. In this instance there's no doubt Trump's doing it. The optics are 100% against him and the Democrats have 0 reasons to do him a favour.
It isn't going to be a winning issue if he shuts down the government for any length of time over it.
Re: the current discussion
Now that the boys are coming home and Trump's pulling out of Afghanistan slowly, can the US start scaling back military spending? Apparently you don't want to actually use it anymore so what's the point of spending such a huge amount of money on it? Trump seems to think there's too much going on the military as well going by a few of his comments.
|
On December 21 2018 17:38 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2018 17:29 ReditusSum wrote:
What is "proper prepration"? What does that mean? How does that look? What does that entail?
If you think Mattis or anyone else has a solid answer to those questions, then find some way to get them to tell everyone else what they're thinking, because otherwise that is just another vaguery. To be fair, Trump wasn't there when troops hit the ground either. He inherited this mess. (Yes I realize that Obama was blasted by conservatives for "cut and running" from the crap he inherited. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa) I'm not trying to blame Trump over anyone else here really. He's responsible for the latest mess about pulling out, but he inherited this, as you say. Proper preparation involves slowly phasing out involvement while empowering the local allies to step up and fill the gap that is left when you leave. This means things need to be planned, discussed and decided beforehand, not just simply announced with a tweet when something stressful happens at home. Basically my point is this: Obama and his friends decided to give the US some responsibility in Syria, and Trump has decided that he doesn't want it. This is going to have some effects in the long term, but Trump doesn't seem concerned about that. I'm saying it should be a concern.
All presidents since Bush decided to conduct Middle East interventions on authorization from Congress made in the early aughts. Now we have boys fighting there who weren’t even born the last time Congress gave the president authority to make the decision himself (or what’s being treated as such).
If you’re invested in the principle of orderly administrative debate and withdrawal, surely you can say it’s past time that it was not “Obama and his friends” or “Trump” deciding ... and rather the war-declaring branch of our seperate powers. Congress. I’m very concerned about that effect in the long term regardless of who occupies the White House and whether or not they pass your bar for proper preparation.
|
On December 22 2018 00:14 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2018 17:38 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 21 2018 17:29 ReditusSum wrote:
What is "proper prepration"? What does that mean? How does that look? What does that entail?
If you think Mattis or anyone else has a solid answer to those questions, then find some way to get them to tell everyone else what they're thinking, because otherwise that is just another vaguery. To be fair, Trump wasn't there when troops hit the ground either. He inherited this mess. (Yes I realize that Obama was blasted by conservatives for "cut and running" from the crap he inherited. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa) I'm not trying to blame Trump over anyone else here really. He's responsible for the latest mess about pulling out, but he inherited this, as you say. Proper preparation involves slowly phasing out involvement while empowering the local allies to step up and fill the gap that is left when you leave. This means things need to be planned, discussed and decided beforehand, not just simply announced with a tweet when something stressful happens at home. Basically my point is this: Obama and his friends decided to give the US some responsibility in Syria, and Trump has decided that he doesn't want it. This is going to have some effects in the long term, but Trump doesn't seem concerned about that. I'm saying it should be a concern. All presidents since Bush decided to conduct Middle East interventions on authorization from Congress made in the early aughts. Now we have boys fighting there who weren’t even born the last time Congress gave the president authority to make the decision himself (or what’s being treated as such). If you’re invested in the principle of orderly administrative debate and withdrawal, surely you can say it’s past time that it was not “Obama and his friends” or “Trump” deciding ... and rather the war-declaring branch of our seperate powers. Congress. I’m very concerned about that effect in the long term regardless of who occupies the White House and whether or not they pass your bar for proper preparation.
I think it's fair to assess it as careless for generals to find out about a military order from the president from news media by any measure.
That said leaving is the right thing to do and left to a congress that accepts no responsibility but to keep signing the checks (with bipartisan support) it'll never happen.
People seem confident Trump will crack but that seems to presume an awareness by Trump of the negative consequences of shutting down the government and a connection with reality he doesn't appear to have.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Lmao, didn’t read the news for like a week until I saw “Mattis rumored to step down” in passing. Only now caught up to the firestorm surrounding that happenstance.
This was the original reason Trump was aggressively opposed by the powers that be, so I guess the Middle East withdrawals drawing doomsayer talk is no surprise, but... lol.
(And of course to be fair, some supporting voices, but the usual actors do what is expected.)
|
I have yet to hear a particularly compelling reason for keeping a half-assed military presence in Syria. Getting rid of Assad is not going to happen. I certainly understand that that was almost certainly Obama's goal in arming ISIS and the rebels, but it simply isn't going to happen now (to the extent that it was ever a good idea).
|
On December 22 2018 01:56 xDaunt wrote:
I have yet to hear a particularly compelling reason for keeping a half-assed military presence in Syria. Getting rid of Assad is not going to happen. I certainly understand that that was almost certainly Obama's goal in arming ISIS and the rebels, but it simply isn't going to happen now (to the extent that it was ever a good idea).
Wasn't the main reason about interdicting Russia's influence in the region? I mean yes, Assad's a big meanie but that's not why we went over there.
|
On December 22 2018 02:51 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2018 01:56 xDaunt wrote:
I have yet to hear a particularly compelling reason for keeping a half-assed military presence in Syria. Getting rid of Assad is not going to happen. I certainly understand that that was almost certainly Obama's goal in arming ISIS and the rebels, but it simply isn't going to happen now (to the extent that it was ever a good idea). Wasn't the main reason about interdicting Russia's influence in the region? I mean yes, Assad's a big meanie but that's not why we went over there.
Getting rid of Assad meant limiting both Iran and Russia in the region. The problem with the idea, however, is that Obama half-assed it, thereby letting Russia get involved militarily.
|
On December 22 2018 03:16 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2018 02:51 iamthedave wrote:On December 22 2018 01:56 xDaunt wrote:
I have yet to hear a particularly compelling reason for keeping a half-assed military presence in Syria. Getting rid of Assad is not going to happen. I certainly understand that that was almost certainly Obama's goal in arming ISIS and the rebels, but it simply isn't going to happen now (to the extent that it was ever a good idea). Wasn't the main reason about interdicting Russia's influence in the region? I mean yes, Assad's a big meanie but that's not why we went over there. Getting rid of Assad meant limiting both Iran and Russia in the region. The problem with the idea, however, is that Obama half-assed it, thereby letting Russia get involved militarily.
While I'm far from an interventionist, just working on the principle that he half-assed it... isn't the original reason still valid, and a reasonable one to not-half-ass it?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 22 2018 03:51 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2018 03:16 xDaunt wrote:On December 22 2018 02:51 iamthedave wrote:On December 22 2018 01:56 xDaunt wrote:
I have yet to hear a particularly compelling reason for keeping a half-assed military presence in Syria. Getting rid of Assad is not going to happen. I certainly understand that that was almost certainly Obama's goal in arming ISIS and the rebels, but it simply isn't going to happen now (to the extent that it was ever a good idea). Wasn't the main reason about interdicting Russia's influence in the region? I mean yes, Assad's a big meanie but that's not why we went over there. Getting rid of Assad meant limiting both Iran and Russia in the region. The problem with the idea, however, is that Obama half-assed it, thereby letting Russia get involved militarily. While I'm far from an interventionist, just working on the principle that he half-assed it... isn't the original reason still valid, and a reasonable one to not-half-ass it?
The problem is that it’s now too late. What was an unstable situation dominated by anarchy is now a fragile equilibrium sustained by the involvement of foreign nations who happened to deploy significant military hardware in the area. Trying to butt in to both destabilize that and stand against a party that could hit back with significant force is a bad idea.
Whatever the political calculus was back for intervening in 2012 or 2014 or what have you - and in my eyes it wasn’t favorable then - it’s basically a straight worse idea to try again now. The time to act has come and gone.
|
On December 22 2018 03:51 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2018 03:16 xDaunt wrote:On December 22 2018 02:51 iamthedave wrote:On December 22 2018 01:56 xDaunt wrote:
I have yet to hear a particularly compelling reason for keeping a half-assed military presence in Syria. Getting rid of Assad is not going to happen. I certainly understand that that was almost certainly Obama's goal in arming ISIS and the rebels, but it simply isn't going to happen now (to the extent that it was ever a good idea). Wasn't the main reason about interdicting Russia's influence in the region? I mean yes, Assad's a big meanie but that's not why we went over there. Getting rid of Assad meant limiting both Iran and Russia in the region. The problem with the idea, however, is that Obama half-assed it, thereby letting Russia get involved militarily. While I'm far from an interventionist, just working on the principle that he half-assed it... isn't the original reason still valid, and a reasonable one to not-half-ass it?
Like everything else, it’s not purely an issue of desire, but also an issue of cost. Russia wasn’t in Syria when Obama decided to destabilize it and arm the rebels. Trump faces a very different cost proposition now that Russia (and Turkey) have a significant military presence in Syria. War with Russia is simply too high of a cost to pay to remove Assad.
And let’s not forget that a consequence of Obama half-assing intervention in Syria was the rise of ISIS and the loss of half of Iraq.
|
The cause of ISIS gaining so much territory was our total withdrawal from Iraq. Trump now proposes total withdrawal from that specific region. That removes our ability to quickly respond to the formation of a terrorist organization and take it out. We should be keeping a (small) permanent presence in the area for the purpose of rapid response.
(This is my personal opinion but it's also the pre-Trump conservative opinion.)
|
On December 22 2018 01:56 xDaunt wrote:
I have yet to hear a particularly compelling reason for keeping a half-assed military presence in Syria. Getting rid of Assad is not going to happen. I certainly understand that that was almost certainly Obama's goal in arming ISIS and the rebels, but it simply isn't going to happen now (to the extent that it was ever a good idea).
There is no good solution in Syria. There hasn't been for years, like in Afghanistan and Irak.
The US is involved in this region only for oil, it has been a warzone for foreign powers for nearly a century, and we fucked up the region trying to push democracy (including in Iran) for oil. Which has ultimately brought terrorism against the west, and more war.
Leaving now, after botching the intervention, is handing the keys to the region to Iran, Russia and Turkey, and weakening your influence in the region (the US reputation is already down in the gutter everywhere but in Israel, I'm pretty sure even Saudi Arabia is looking down on the US at this point).
Europe has tried not to go too deep there, as we already fucked up a lot of times long before the US repeated the same mistakes.
The only good solutions about Syria should have been taken in the first 6 monthes of the conflict. Now, nobody can do anything to exit the status quo without serious consequences. Trump is doing it (french expression is "mettre les pieds dans le plat") like an *****, making even more enemies (you do not want to have the Kurds as enemies) and purely benefiting "enemy" nations (don't tell me Turkey is an ally please).
The timing is awful, but there isn't really a good timing. It's just... being a noob at geopolitics.
ReditusSum stop with your "bringing the boys home" anthem. The US isn't there for humanitarian reasons, it's there for oil, contracts and influence. The end. Maybe you feel you have enough at home with fracking, so just hand it over to Russia, they will be perfectly happy to get all the contracts. Which is why Trump's decision is even less understandable, as these interventions are about $$$. It might cost a lot for the military, but private companies make a huuuuuuge amount of money rebuilding the country and the power infrastructures afterwards.
Trump handed Africa over to China already (economically), it's over and done with, and is now graciously gifting the middle east to Russia (military and economically afterwards).
Source : me, being in the military and formerly NATO.
|
Interventionism is a terrible idea in the context of fighting terrorism. It only becomes profitable when you account for strategical questions, like fighting Russia's influence, and external profits, because eternal war is obviously profitable in itself as long as it happens far away from you. Trump is making (part of) the right move, probably for the wrong reasons, probably not at the best time, and he says a bunch of dumb things in the middle of doing it, but hey, it's Trump, I'll take a move in the right direction.
|
On December 22 2018 04:54 Doodsmack wrote:
The cause of ISIS gaining so much territory was our total withdrawal from Iraq. Trump now proposes total withdrawal from that specific region. That removes our ability to quickly respond to the formation of a terrorist organization and take it out. We should be keeping a (small) permanent presence in the area for the purpose of rapid response.
(This is my personal opinion but it's also the pre-Trump conservative opinion.)
Well, this is sort of true. ISIS formed and got strong because Obama and other nations armed them in Syria and otherwise destabilized the Assad regime. Pulling out of Iraq made Iraq vulnerable to an organized, armed force like ISIS taking large swaths of it over. So stated another way, ISIS taking over Iraq was the result of two Obama-era policies that combined to create a giant error.
Furthermore, it is a mistake to compare pulling out of Syria to pulling out of Iraq. The US had complete control of Iraq at the time that it withdrew and had made massive investments into the country to take take it over and then rebuild it. We have never had that type of relationship with Syria. There's nothing particularly valuable or worthwhile in Syria for the US to preserve by remaining there.
|
Its important to note that we didn't invade iraq so we could get the oil we invaded iraq so that the global supply of oil would be stable. It's an important distinction beacuse the "you only invaded for oil" sends the message that we did it so we could get the oil contracts when we clearly allowed the locals to decided that and they specifically gave those contracts to other nations oil companies.
The problem with withdrawing from syria isn't per say the syrian part but the kurdish part. Turkey has threatened constantly with rather colorful language about the things they want to do to the kurds in syria and iraq. Simply pulling out people out of the area so russians and turkish supported forces can sweep them from the area is the issue people have with the whole thing.
|
On December 22 2018 09:25 Sermokala wrote:
Its important to note that we didn't invade iraq so we could get the oil we invaded iraq so that the global supply of oil would be stable. It's an important distinction beacuse the "you only invaded for oil" sends the message that we did it so we could get the oil contracts when we clearly allowed the locals to decided that and they specifically gave those contracts to other nations oil companies.
The problem with withdrawing from syria isn't per say the syrian part but the kurdish part. Turkey has threatened constantly with rather colorful language about the things they want to do to the kurds in syria and iraq. Simply pulling out people out of the area so russians and turkish supported forces can sweep them from the area is the issue people have with the whole thing.
The US did get the 2nd largest contract behind China, bigger if you add the UK. So no US companies didn't take all of the oil, but we did take a big share while doing a piss poor job of sorting out the distribution. Something like Kuwait makes more sense but that's basically socialism when most% of the governments income comes from oil (including companies like Exxon).
|
We shouldn't forget as well a change between the Iraq war era and now : the domestically-produced oil in the us has increased my leaps and bounds.
Before that, the main focus was having a stable supply at a reasonable price, and trying to maintain some kind of control.
There has been a slight change now : fracking and other schist (is that the correct English word?) oil production methods are only profitable when the price is not too cheap. There is an even thiner line to tread now, and this changes things on the level of involvement required abroad.
This is also why the relationship with Saudi Arabia is complicated and they need to be kept as an Ally despite atrocities. If they decide to increase production to lower prices too much, it is going to affect jobs and industry in the us (though never at the level of what it contributed to do to Venezuela)
We can no longer apply the reasoning used during Koweït/Iraqi War to the current time.
|
I thought that trying to prevent the massive unending refugee crisis was also a part of the considerations. I doubt that'll stop now that we've left.
|
On December 22 2018 18:15 iamthedave wrote:
I thought that trying to prevent the massive unending refugee crisis was also a part of the considerations. I doubt that'll stop now that we've left.
These refugees don't go to the us, do you think Trump would care?
|
On December 22 2018 19:29 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2018 18:15 iamthedave wrote:
I thought that trying to prevent the massive unending refugee crisis was also a part of the considerations. I doubt that'll stop now that we've left. These refugees don't go to the us, do you think Trump would care?
That is a fair point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
