JUST the Stolen Documents/Mar-A-Lago/"Judge" Cannon Trial

[ChairmanOfTheBoard]

maybe i'm splitting hairs... but did the US govt kill al-Baghdadi, or did he kill himself (and three children)?

regardless of the semantics, while i support "neutralizing" terror threats, i don't support DJ Trump's crass reaction.

[RedFromMI]

maybe i'm splitting hairs... but did the US govt kill al-Baghdadi, or did he kill himself (and three children)?

regardless of the semantics, while i support "neutralizing" terror threats, i don't support DJ Trump's crass reaction.

I think he did actually kill himself plus three children. Trump has hinted he might release the actual video of the attack, although I am not sure that adds anything to the picture.

[old salt]

Seems to me that there's no way Turkey would have risked the kind of devastation we'd have brought down on them.
At a minimum, we could have backed them off long enough to have given all around fair warning, from the Kurds to our European allies to our own forces on the ground to, obtw, Congress.

You overestimate the restraint of the Turks & their proxy forces.
The Turks shot down a Russia fighter. That was an even more dangerous move.

The most likely forces the US would have been in contact with would have been Turkey's proxy Syrian Arab militias, including some extremists like the ones videoed committing war crimes. Do you think they'd exercise restraint if they had the chance to overrun an outpost manned by 12 Americans infidels ? There was no way to reliably anticipate how that situation would have devolved. Not worth the risk.
There's no way a responsible commander would put his troops in that position (tethered goats was a serious analogy).
Force Protection is always Mission #1.

So, reinforce those troops. If they really were so out manned, outgunned, that they couldn't repel and destroy the Syrian militias, who made that call?

If we really thought the Turks and the proxy militia were gonna roll, we should have made clear that would be met with an overwhelming force response. And moved the assets to ready posture.

Force protection doesn't mean cut and run, abandon allies in the field.

Reinforcements ? Who ? from where ? The 82nd Airborne can't get there in time.
The decision to place our troops in those exposed positions was made based on an agreement with our NATO ally, which was executed as agreed.
The SDF had the option to withdraw as well, as many did.

So, why not a sufficient force deployed? Are you really saying that we didn't plan this scenario out?
Or are you saying that the plan was indeed to cut and run as soon as Turkey changed its mind?

Again, what did Erdogan say and what was Trump's response?

From his various comments post-decision about the Kurds, it sure sounds like he was happy to throw them under the bus.
You've made clear you didn't like that as well.

But when we say Trump 'green lit' the Turkish advance, you have a problem with that characterization?
Let's see the transcript.

Did you listen to any of Amb Jeffrey's Senate testimony ?
He explained that one of the tenets of our Joint Security Mechanism with the Turks was that we would not militarily oppose an incursion on their part.
We would do joint patrols of the border safety zone & man observation posts to ensure there were no PKK incursions into Turkey. We would convince the SDF(YPG) to dismantle border fortifications.
In return, Turkey agreed to give us fair warning if they intended to move, so we could fall back.
Those were the assurances we received from a NATO ally before we exposed out troops in such a vulnerable peace keeper role.

As part of our light footprint strategy, we did not have a large ground force in Syria, which would have provided force protection & sufficient forces to enable a rapid reinforcement.
We never intended to deploy our forces in such a manner that would bring them into contact with NATO ally Turkey. That was implicit in everything we did in Syria, from the outset, & was necessary to secure the use of Incirlik & other bases, & what other access & support we received from Turkey since we began operations in Syria in 2014.

We were operating in Turkey's back yard. They had a 30k man Army just N of our exposed positions. Because of where this is -- we're forced to play by Turkey's rules. We can't always count on their support or access, thus we had to conduct thie Baghdadi raid all the was from Iraq, rather than from Incirlik.

We're not catering to Turkey because Erdogan rolled Trump -- based on location & force disposition, they have leverage on us. Look at the F-35 / S400 flap & they way they've leveraged the use of their bases & transit of their territory & airspace. They do not see themselves as our junior NATO partner.

This goes back to 2003 when Erdogan became PM & blocked our N invasion route into Iraq, stranding an entire US Infantry Division on ships in the Med. Erdogan sent Rumsfeld home with his hat in hand. He's become stronger & even more difficult since then. He still suspects our support of Gulen & complicity in the coup plot against him.

[Trinity]

Trump was kept in the dark about operational planning to get al-Bahgdadi. Military, intelligence and counterterrorism officials said @realDonaldTrump’s decision to withdraw troops from Northern Syria disrupted careful planning.
- @nytimes

But sshhh, don’t tell the Gang of Eight.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Trump was kept in the dark about operational planning to get al-Bahgdadi. Military, intelligence and counterterrorism officials said @realDonaldTrump’s decision to withdraw troops from Northern Syria disrupted careful planning.
- @nytimes

But sshhh, don’t tell the Gang of Eight.

So much crap on his shoes. He can’t help but step in it.

[Trinity]

Hogan Gidley actually suggested Speaker Pelosi would sabotage national security to punish Trump. Who really believes that? Anyone? Bueller?

Kurdish leader Gen. Mazlum says an ISIS informant, run by Kurdish intelligence, provided detailed information about Baghdadi's safehouse to US intelligence, including its floor-plan and tunnels.

[jhu72]

Why do the Kurds not have a homeland? They are the largest ethnic minority on the planet, not to have a homeland. Three times as many Kurds as Jews in the world. We guarantee a Jewish homeland. Why not the Kurds? Because they are majority Muslim?

[old salt]

Hogan Gidley actually suggested Speaker Pelosi would sabotage national security to punish Trump. Who really believes that? Anyone? Bueller?

Kurdish leader Gen. Mazlum says an ISIS informant, run by Kurdish intelligence, provided detailed information about Baghdadi's safehouse to US intelligence, including its floor-plan and tunnels.

He had reportedly infiltrated Baghdadi's inner circle, was in the compound during the raid, & was evacuated with the raiding party.

[Trinity]

He stole his underwear! That’s very inner circle.

[old salt]

He stole his underwear! That’s very inner circle.

.. DNA source ?

[jhu72]

Glad to hear the Kurds still trust the American people and our representatives in the House and Senate. Just not the Orange Turd.

[old salt]

Glad to hear the Kurds still trust the American people and our representatives in the House and Senate. Just not the Orange Turd.

Hah ! As usual, the NYT buries the lead :

As the alliance matured, the United States armed and trained Kurdish-led fighters and pressed them to shift their priorities to serve American interests.

The United States pushed them to take the fight against ISIS to areas outside their traditional homeland, costing them many lives. It also discouraged them from negotiating a deal with the Syrian government, telling them that sticking with the United States would win them a stake in the country’s future.

“We said being associated with the U.S. coalition would put you in a position where you would be represented,” Gen. Joseph L. Votel, former head of the military’s Special Operations and Central Commands, said in a telephone interview. “You’d be on the winning team.”

In an effort to placate Turkey, the United States convinced the Kurds to destroy their defenses, softening them up for a Turkish attack. It also sought their help in the United States’ regional struggle with Iran, a cause they had little stake in.
“It was a stab in the back,” said Nesrin Abdullah, a spokeswoman for the Kurdish women’s militia. “The Americans kept saying they would not allow the Turks to enter, but in the end that’s what happened.”

Part of the problem was that American officials sent conflicting messages about how long the United States would stay in Syria and what it was doing there.

Obama administration officials told their Kurdish allies that the partnership would last through the defeat of ISIS, but that the United States would help them play a role in Syria’s future. That message grew even more muddled over the last year, as Mr. Trump vowed to withdraw American troops while other officials in his administration said they would stay until Iran had left the country and there was a political solution in Damascus.

While there may not have been explicit promises, to the Kurds these messages pointed to a continued American presence.

OK, be honest. How many of you understood that was our US policy ?

Who in govt (under Obama or Trump) told us we'd be staying in Syria beyond the destruction of ISIS, until Iran's proxies pulled out & the Kurds would get autonomy under SDF/YPG/PKK leadership after Assad reunited Syria (with the assistance of Russia & Iran). I don't recall McGurk, Thomas, Votel, Mattis, Kerry, Tillerson, Pompeo, Obama or Trump, or any of the Congressional hawks, telling us that was US policy. That we'd keep troops on the ground, fighting, enabling, (& funding) until the Kurds had autonomy & Iran pulled out.

I don't recall being told that. I'd have said -- " sounds good to me, but who's gonna tell the Turks ? "

I remain in awe of Mattis & McGurk. They did a great job in the field, but they knew they couldn't sell their plan to their Commander(s)-in-Chief, the US public, or our NATO ally the Turks. So they got along to get along. Nobody wanted to push the issue with the Turks -- not that it would have succeeded. As usual, the Kurds got screwed by the big boys. Given Gen Kobani's bio, do you still not understand why the Turks demand a demilitarized impenetrable buffer zone.

If we can continue to enable the Kurds to hold the oil fields, we may still be able to help them secure a measure of autonomy in Assad's post war Syria & keep them in the fight (& jailers) against ISIS, but it's not realistic to expect it to give us the leverage to hold on & stay until Iran withdraws. ...although Trump might stay forever if it's named Trump Overseas Oil Co & he can claim we're turning a profit & he can brag about the Abrams tanks from the plant he saved in Lima, OH.

PS -- that NYT article reminisced about the Siege of Kobane in 2014, as the birth of our alliance of opportunity with the YPG/PKK.
Here's an article that details what a remarkable feat of air power that battle was :
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArch ... obani.aspx

[foreverlax]

OK, be honest. How many of you understood that was our US policy ?

This must be a joke...when was the last foreign policy that was clear?

Powell and Friedman, have it right - you break it, you own it.

[MDlaxfan76]

Seems to me that there's no way Turkey would have risked the kind of devastation we'd have brought down on them.
At a minimum, we could have backed them off long enough to have given all around fair warning, from the Kurds to our European allies to our own forces on the ground to, obtw, Congress.

You overestimate the restraint of the Turks & their proxy forces.
The Turks shot down a Russia fighter. That was an even more dangerous move.

The most likely forces the US would have been in contact with would have been Turkey's proxy Syrian Arab militias, including some extremists like the ones videoed committing war crimes. Do you think they'd exercise restraint if they had the chance to overrun an outpost manned by 12 Americans infidels ? There was no way to reliably anticipate how that situation would have devolved. Not worth the risk.
There's no way a responsible commander would put his troops in that position (tethered goats was a serious analogy).
Force Protection is always Mission #1.

So, reinforce those troops. If they really were so out manned, outgunned, that they couldn't repel and destroy the Syrian militias, who made that call?

If we really thought the Turks and the proxy militia were gonna roll, we should have made clear that would be met with an overwhelming force response. And moved the assets to ready posture.

Force protection doesn't mean cut and run, abandon allies in the field.

Reinforcements ? Who ? from where ? The 82nd Airborne can't get there in time.
The decision to place our troops in those exposed positions was made based on an agreement with our NATO ally, which was executed as agreed.
The SDF had the option to withdraw as well, as many did.

So, why not a sufficient force deployed? Are you really saying that we didn't plan this scenario out?
Or are you saying that the plan was indeed to cut and run as soon as Turkey changed its mind?

Again, what did Erdogan say and what was Trump's response?

From his various comments post-decision about the Kurds, it sure sounds like he was happy to throw them under the bus.
You've made clear you didn't like that as well.

But when we say Trump 'green lit' the Turkish advance, you have a problem with that characterization?
Let's see the transcript.

Did you listen to any of Amb Jeffrey's Senate testimony ?
He explained that one of the tenets of our Joint Security Mechanism with the Turks was that we would not militarily oppose an incursion on their part.
We would do joint patrols of the border safety zone & man observation posts to ensure there were no PKK incursions into Turkey. We would convince the SDF(YPG) to dismantle border fortifications.
In return, Turkey agreed to give us fair warning if they intended to move, so we could fall back.
Those were the assurances we received from a NATO ally before we exposed out troops in such a vulnerable peace keeper role.

As part of our light footprint strategy, we did not have a large ground force in Syria, which would have provided force protection & sufficient forces to enable a rapid reinforcement.
We never intended to deploy our forces in such a manner that would bring them into contact with NATO ally Turkey. That was implicit in everything we did in Syria, from the outset, & was necessary to secure the use of Incirlik & other bases, & what other access & support we received from Turkey since we began operations in Syria in 2014.

We were operating in Turkey's back yard. They had a 30k man Army just N of our exposed positions. Because of where this is -- we're forced to play by Turkey's rules. We can't always count on their support or access, thus we had to conduct thie Baghdadi raid all the was from Iraq, rather than from Incirlik.

We're not catering to Turkey because Erdogan rolled Trump -- based on location & force disposition, they have leverage on us. Look at the F-35 / S400 flap & they way they've leveraged the use of their bases & transit of their territory & airspace. They do not see themselves as our junior NATO partner.

This goes back to 2003 when Erdogan became PM & blocked our N invasion route into Iraq, stranding an entire US Infantry Division on ships in the Med. Erdogan sent Rumsfeld home with his hat in hand. He's become stronger & even more difficult since then. He still suspects our support of Gulen & complicity in the coup plot against him.

So...I buy all that. Thanks for laying it out.

But here's where we doubt the decision process was as forward planned, and without options, as described. Based on some of your earlier comments, I think you may even agree.

The precipitous retreat, coupled with disparaging comments made by POTUS about the Kurds, is more aligned with a 'green lit' scenario than simply dealing with 'force protection' as pre=planned.

Nor was the initial set of announcements by Trump that we were entirely withdrawing from Syria (since reversed) representative of well thought through, pre-planned strategy.

The notion that Erdogan couldn't have given us a couple of weeks to remove that handful of troops, inform our allies, etc, and be clear with the Kurds that we were not wholesale abandoning them to ethnic cleansing, is not simply a matter of 'leverage' all on the side of Turkey. We too have substantial leverage.

So, the question is did we try? Or are Trump's disparaging comments about the Kurds the reality of how he decided to withdraw? Is his worldview actually that Erdogan is our ally, the Kurds not really? And that the Russians and Iran are welcome to Syria, regardless of the path to the Mediterranean...threatening Israel?

That's why is say, let's see the transcript...BTW, not the white washed version, the actual transcript of what was said.
By "let's see", I'd be fine with the Intelligence Committees in House and Senate seeing the transcript.
If the White House thinks it is dispositive that there was no green light, quite the opposite, and want to provide it publicly all the better.
But if he did take a passive, ahh well, do as you will sort of response, then the public really does have an interest in knowing that to be the case.

[MDlaxfan76]

Glad to hear the Kurds still trust the American people and our representatives in the House and Senate. Just not the Orange Turd.

Hah ! As usual, the NYT buries the lead :

As the alliance matured, the United States armed and trained Kurdish-led fighters and pressed them to shift their priorities to serve American interests.

The United States pushed them to take the fight against ISIS to areas outside their traditional homeland, costing them many lives. It also discouraged them from negotiating a deal with the Syrian government, telling them that sticking with the United States would win them a stake in the country’s future.

“We said being associated with the U.S. coalition would put you in a position where you would be represented,” Gen. Joseph L. Votel, former head of the military’s Special Operations and Central Commands, said in a telephone interview. “You’d be on the winning team.”

In an effort to placate Turkey, the United States convinced the Kurds to destroy their defenses, softening them up for a Turkish attack. It also sought their help in the United States’ regional struggle with Iran, a cause they had little stake in.
“It was a stab in the back,” said Nesrin Abdullah, a spokeswoman for the Kurdish women’s militia. “The Americans kept saying they would not allow the Turks to enter, but in the end that’s what happened.”

Part of the problem was that American officials sent conflicting messages about how long the United States would stay in Syria and what it was doing there.

Obama administration officials told their Kurdish allies that the partnership would last through the defeat of ISIS, but that the United States would help them play a role in Syria’s future. That message grew even more muddled over the last year, as Mr. Trump vowed to withdraw American troops while other officials in his administration said they would stay until Iran had left the country and there was a political solution in Damascus.

While there may not have been explicit promises, to the Kurds these messages pointed to a continued American presence.

OK, be honest. How many of you understood that was our US policy ?

Who in govt (under Obama or Trump) told us we'd be staying in Syria beyond the destruction of ISIS, until Iran's proxies pulled out & the Kurds would get autonomy under SDF/YPG/PKK leadership after Assad reunited Syria (with the assistance of Russia & Iran). I don't recall McGurk, Thomas, Votel, Mattis, Kerry, Tillerson, Pompeo, Obama or Trump, or any of the Congressional hawks, telling us that was US policy. That we'd keep troops on the ground, fighting, enabling, (& funding) until the Kurds had autonomy & Iran pulled out.

I don't recall being told that. I'd have said -- " sounds good to me, but who's gonna tell the Turks ? "

I remain in awe of Mattis & McGurk. They did a great job in the field, but they knew they couldn't sell their plan to their Commander(s)-in-Chief, the US public, or our NATO ally the Turks. So they got along to get along. Nobody wanted to push the issue with the Turks -- not that it would have succeeded. As usual, the Kurds got screwed by the big boys. Given Gen Kobani's bio, do you still not understand why the Turks demand a demilitarized impenetrable buffer zone.

If we can continue to enable the Kurds to hold the oil fields, we may still be able to help them secure a measure of autonomy in Assad's post war Syria & keep them in the fight (& jailers) against ISIS, but it's not realistic to expect it to give us the leverage to hold on & stay until Iran withdraws. ...although Trump might stay forever if it's named Trump Overseas Oil Co & he can claim we're turning a profit & he can brag about the Abrams tanks from the plant he saved in Lima, OH.

PS -- that NYT article reminisced about the Siege of Kobane in 2014, as the birth of our alliance of opportunity with the YPG/PKK.
Here's an article that details what a remarkable feat of air power that battle was :
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArch ... obani.aspx

Gee, seems to me that we actually did understand that we were engaged in the Syria conflict beyond simply eliminating the caliphate. Our policy had long been regime change, not exactly an 'in and leave' policy. That said, we also understood that we'd gotten way smarter about how to utilize our strengths through the on the ground work of our allies, both Kurds and Syrians (this group being understood to be much more difficult in figuring out who we could trust). We also understood that strangling the caliphate territorially did not mean the defeat of ISIS as a threat, that such would require ongoing engagement.

Now, there may have been simplistic wishful thinking out there, but if one was paying attention, that was the policy and game plan.
And it was working.

What I think you describe having changed is that Trump doesn't consider any past promises or assurances to allies, made by former Administrations (nor by his own), to be relevant to his decision making, moment to moment. That was the new reality.

It gets even a bit worse, though.
Trump clearly has an affinity for dictators, sees them as 'strong' in a positive way. "ruthless" now being a compliment.

Is this something in his own character? Is it tied to his personal financial interests?
We really don't know.

What we do know is that no traditional ally, none, can trust America under Trump.

[old salt]

Seems to me that there's no way Turkey would have risked the kind of devastation we'd have brought down on them.
At a minimum, we could have backed them off long enough to have given all around fair warning, from the Kurds to our European allies to our own forces on the ground to, obtw, Congress.

You overestimate the restraint of the Turks & their proxy forces.
The Turks shot down a Russia fighter. That was an even more dangerous move.

The most likely forces the US would have been in contact with would have been Turkey's proxy Syrian Arab militias, including some extremists like the ones videoed committing war crimes. Do you think they'd exercise restraint if they had the chance to overrun an outpost manned by 12 Americans infidels ? There was no way to reliably anticipate how that situation would have devolved. Not worth the risk.
There's no way a responsible commander would put his troops in that position (tethered goats was a serious analogy).
Force Protection is always Mission #1.

So, reinforce those troops. If they really were so out manned, outgunned, that they couldn't repel and destroy the Syrian militias, who made that call?

If we really thought the Turks and the proxy militia were gonna roll, we should have made clear that would be met with an overwhelming force response. And moved the assets to ready posture.

Force protection doesn't mean cut and run, abandon allies in the field.

Reinforcements ? Who ? from where ? The 82nd Airborne can't get there in time.
The decision to place our troops in those exposed positions was made based on an agreement with our NATO ally, which was executed as agreed.
The SDF had the option to withdraw as well, as many did.

So, why not a sufficient force deployed? Are you really saying that we didn't plan this scenario out?
Or are you saying that the plan was indeed to cut and run as soon as Turkey changed its mind?

Again, what did Erdogan say and what was Trump's response?

From his various comments post-decision about the Kurds, it sure sounds like he was happy to throw them under the bus.
You've made clear you didn't like that as well.

But when we say Trump 'green lit' the Turkish advance, you have a problem with that characterization?
Let's see the transcript.

Did you listen to any of Amb Jeffrey's Senate testimony ?
He explained that one of the tenets of our Joint Security Mechanism with the Turks was that we would not militarily oppose an incursion on their part.
We would do joint patrols of the border safety zone & man observation posts to ensure there were no PKK incursions into Turkey. We would convince the SDF(YPG) to dismantle border fortifications.
In return, Turkey agreed to give us fair warning if they intended to move, so we could fall back.
Those were the assurances we received from a NATO ally before we exposed out troops in such a vulnerable peace keeper role.

As part of our light footprint strategy, we did not have a large ground force in Syria, which would have provided force protection & sufficient forces to enable a rapid reinforcement.
We never intended to deploy our forces in such a manner that would bring them into contact with NATO ally Turkey. That was implicit in everything we did in Syria, from the outset, & was necessary to secure the use of Incirlik & other bases, & what other access & support we received from Turkey since we began operations in Syria in 2014.

We were operating in Turkey's back yard. They had a 30k man Army just N of our exposed positions. Because of where this is -- we're forced to play by Turkey's rules. We can't always count on their support or access, thus we had to conduct thie Baghdadi raid all the was from Iraq, rather than from Incirlik.

We're not catering to Turkey because Erdogan rolled Trump -- based on location & force disposition, they have leverage on us. Look at the F-35 / S400 flap & they way they've leveraged the use of their bases & transit of their territory & airspace. They do not see themselves as our junior NATO partner.

This goes back to 2003 when Erdogan became PM & blocked our N invasion route into Iraq, stranding an entire US Infantry Division on ships in the Med. Erdogan sent Rumsfeld home with his hat in hand. He's become stronger & even more difficult since then. He still suspects our support of Gulen & complicity in the coup plot against him.

So...I buy all that. Thanks for laying it out.

But here's where we doubt the decision process was as forward planned, and without options, as described. Based on some of your earlier comments, I think you may even agree.

The precipitous retreat, coupled with disparaging comments made by POTUS about the Kurds, is more aligned with a 'green lit' scenario than simply dealing with 'force protection' as pre=planned.

Nor was the initial set of announcements by Trump that we were entirely withdrawing from Syria (since reversed) representative of well thought through, pre-planned strategy.

The notion that Erdogan couldn't have given us a couple of weeks to remove that handful of troops, inform our allies, etc, and be clear with the Kurds that we were not wholesale abandoning them to ethnic cleansing, is not simply a matter of 'leverage' all on the side of Turkey. We too have substantial leverage.

So, the question is did we try? Or are Trump's disparaging comments about the Kurds the reality of how he decided to withdraw? Is his worldview actually that Erdogan is our ally, the Kurds not really? And that the Russians and Iran are welcome to Syria, regardless of the path to the Mediterranean...threatening Israel?

That's why is say, let's see the transcript...BTW, not the white washed version, the actual transcript of what was said.
By "let's see", I'd be fine with the Intelligence Committees in House and Senate seeing the transcript.
If the White House thinks it is dispositive that there was no green light, quite the opposite, and want to provide it publicly all the better.
But if he did take a passive, ahh well, do as you will sort of response, then the public really does have an interest in knowing that to be the case.

Just my hunch. Gut feeling. Pure speculation :
-- Trump, Esper, Milley & anyone else on the call was taken totally by surprise by Erdogan's abrupt reversal.
-- Trump was already exasperated with no other coalition members taking their ISIS prisoners or doing more militarily.
-- It's budget crunch time, operating on a CR, Trump no doubt resented having to spend anything on Syria.
-- Erdogan said he was going to move, that he'd guard the prisoners, he'd do the resettlement/reconstruction, he'd deal with IS remnants.

-- So Trump said -- OK. You want it. You got it.
-- Trump thinks he's unloaded a nagging, unsolvable problem on Turkey.
-- Trump thinks he can spin it as a good deal.
-- Trump doesn't consider the 2nd & 3rd order consequences.
-- Trump doesn't anticipate the (R) Congressional & MSM pushback.
-- Esper & Milley do what they have to do to protect their troops.
-- Facing blowback, Trump walks back his decision to remove all troops.
-- Graham & Keane pitch the oil grab to get him to stay.
-- Esper & Milley craft a strategy to hold the oil patch & use it as a way
to maintain a presence to fight IS & save the alliance with the SDF.
-- SDF negotiates with Assad & Russia to survive.
-- SDF still guards the prisoners & gives us intel to bag IS #1 & #2,
securing continued US support.
-- 2 convoys of US armored vehicles roll out of NW Iraq, back into NE Syria,
heading to the oil fields.
-- SDF announces agreement with Turks to remove all fighters from buffer zone.

[old salt]

Glad to hear the Kurds still trust the American people and our representatives in the House and Senate. Just not the Orange Turd.

Hah ! As usual, the NYT buries the lead :

As the alliance matured, the United States armed and trained Kurdish-led fighters and pressed them to shift their priorities to serve American interests.

The United States pushed them to take the fight against ISIS to areas outside their traditional homeland, costing them many lives. It also discouraged them from negotiating a deal with the Syrian government, telling them that sticking with the United States would win them a stake in the country’s future.

“We said being associated with the U.S. coalition would put you in a position where you would be represented,” Gen. Joseph L. Votel, former head of the military’s Special Operations and Central Commands, said in a telephone interview. “You’d be on the winning team.”

In an effort to placate Turkey, the United States convinced the Kurds to destroy their defenses, softening them up for a Turkish attack. It also sought their help in the United States’ regional struggle with Iran, a cause they had little stake in.
“It was a stab in the back,” said Nesrin Abdullah, a spokeswoman for the Kurdish women’s militia. “The Americans kept saying they would not allow the Turks to enter, but in the end that’s what happened.”

Part of the problem was that American officials sent conflicting messages about how long the United States would stay in Syria and what it was doing there.

Obama administration officials told their Kurdish allies that the partnership would last through the defeat of ISIS, but that the United States would help them play a role in Syria’s future. That message grew even more muddled over the last year, as Mr. Trump vowed to withdraw American troops while other officials in his administration said they would stay until Iran had left the country and there was a political solution in Damascus.

While there may not have been explicit promises, to the Kurds these messages pointed to a continued American presence.

OK, be honest. How many of you understood that was our US policy ?

Who in govt (under Obama or Trump) told us we'd be staying in Syria beyond the destruction of ISIS, until Iran's proxies pulled out & the Kurds would get autonomy under SDF/YPG/PKK leadership after Assad reunited Syria (with the assistance of Russia & Iran). I don't recall McGurk, Thomas, Votel, Mattis, Kerry, Tillerson, Pompeo, Obama or Trump, or any of the Congressional hawks, telling us that was US policy. That we'd keep troops on the ground, fighting, enabling, (& funding) until the Kurds had autonomy & Iran pulled out.

I don't recall being told that. I'd have said -- " sounds good to me, but who's gonna tell the Turks ? "

I remain in awe of Mattis & McGurk. They did a great job in the field, but they knew they couldn't sell their plan to their Commander(s)-in-Chief, the US public, or our NATO ally the Turks. So they got along to get along. Nobody wanted to push the issue with the Turks -- not that it would have succeeded. As usual, the Kurds got screwed by the big boys. Given Gen Kobani's bio, do you still not understand why the Turks demand a demilitarized impenetrable buffer zone.

If we can continue to enable the Kurds to hold the oil fields, we may still be able to help them secure a measure of autonomy in Assad's post war Syria & keep them in the fight (& jailers) against ISIS, but it's not realistic to expect it to give us the leverage to hold on & stay until Iran withdraws. ...although Trump might stay forever if it's named Trump Overseas Oil Co & he can claim we're turning a profit & he can brag about the Abrams tanks from the plant he saved in Lima, OH.

PS -- that NYT article reminisced about the Siege of Kobane in 2014, as the birth of our alliance of opportunity with the YPG/PKK.
Here's an article that details what a remarkable feat of air power that battle was :
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArch ... obani.aspx

Gee, seems to me that we actually did understand that we were engaged in the Syria conflict beyond simply eliminating the caliphate. Our policy had long been regime change, not exactly an 'in and leave' policy. That said, we also understood that we'd gotten way smarter about how to utilize our strengths through the on the ground work of our allies, both Kurds and Syrians (this group being understood to be much more difficult in figuring out who we could trust). We also understood that strangling the caliphate territorially did not mean the defeat of ISIS as a threat, that such would require ongoing engagement.

Now, there may have been simplistic wishful thinking out there, but if one was paying attention, that was the policy and game plan.
And it was working.

What I think you describe having changed is that Trump doesn't consider any past promises or assurances to allies, made by former Administrations (nor by his own), to be relevant to his decision making, moment to moment. That was the new reality.

It gets even a bit worse, though.
Trump clearly has an affinity for dictators, sees them as 'strong' in a positive way. "ruthless" now being a compliment.

Is this something in his own character? Is it tied to his personal financial interests?
We really don't know.

What we do know is that no traditional ally, none, can trust America under Trump.

-- Many of US may have hoped for the outcome you lay out, but hope is not a strategy.
-- Show me a statement by either the Obama or Trump Admin that our mission in Syria was anything beyond the defeat & destruction of IS.
-- Both Admin's underplayed our involvement & didn't take advantage of our tremendous success to generate public support.
-- Both Admin's view the US public as war weary & cynical of promises of pending success & withdrawal.

[Typical Lax Dad]

It was deemed to be “open ended” at one point. Thats 1.

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/ ... VD20151030

[RedFromMI]

Cringeworthy mashup of what Obama said post Bin Laden mission and Trump...

https://twitter.com/jimmykimmel/status/ ... 0167564288

[jhu72]

Cringeworthy mashup of what Obama said post Bin Laden mission and Trump...

https://twitter.com/jimmykimmel/status/ ... 0167564288

Stark comparison. A real US President and a reality TV star.