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

[old salt]

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

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

That's 1 that makes my point. Nothing beyond providing military aid to Kurdish fighters in Syria vs ISIS, while Kerry pursues a diplomatic solution.

No mention of supporting the Kurds until they gain autonomy or remaining until Iran's proxies leave.

It did say this :
But Washington has been cautious about publicly committing to help the Syrian Kurds, who are mistrusted by U.S. NATO ally Turkey.
The senior U.S. defense official said Washington had no intention for now of airdropping weapons to the Syrian Kurdish YPG militia.
"I don't rule it out in the future but...nothing would be done without the close coordination of the government of Turkey," the official said.

This is what's known a "mission creep".

[foreverlax]

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

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

That's 1 that makes my point. Nothing beyond providing military aid to Kurdish fighters in Syria vs ISIS, while Kerry pursues a diplomatic solution.

No mention of supporting the Kurds until they gain autonomy or remaining until Iran's proxies leave.

It did say this :
But Washington has been cautious about publicly committing to help the Syrian Kurds, who are mistrusted by U.S. NATO ally Turkey.
The senior U.S. defense official said Washington had no intention for now of airdropping weapons to the Syrian Kurdish YPG militia.
"I don't rule it out in the future but...nothing would be done without the close coordination of the government of Turkey," the official said.

Since 9/11 have we heard any coherent message on any of our foreign adventures?

Like sending troops to SA to protect their oil -

How long are we staying?

How is success measured?

[Typical Lax Dad]

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

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

That's 1 that makes my point. Nothing beyond providing military aid to Kurdish fighters in Syria vs ISIS, while Kerry pursues a diplomatic solution.

No mention of supporting the Kurds until they gain autonomy or remaining until Iran's proxies leave.

It did say this :
But Washington has been cautious about publicly committing to help the Syrian Kurds, who are mistrusted by U.S. NATO ally Turkey.
The senior U.S. defense official said Washington had no intention for now of airdropping weapons to the Syrian Kurdish YPG militia.
"I don't rule it out in the future but...nothing would be done without the close coordination of the government of Turkey," the official said.

This is what's known a "mission creep".

Open ended is just that..... open ended.

[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.

-- 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.

As others have just responded, it was actually what those paying attention thought was policy.
Yes, our policy objective (hope) but it was indeed what we understood as 'strategy'.
Now, was it 100% realistic? different argument.
But it was certainly working.
The US and our allies successfully strangled ISIS, near or total elimination of caliphate territory held, constriction of ISIS resources, and the establishment of a significant portion of Syria as dramatically safer, including for women, the beginning of return to stability. Did it remove Assad? No, but well on the way to an alignment in fact that could have been solidified over time.

And we let Erdogan, Russia, Iran, Assad in to throw that all into question...because Erdogan said he wouldn't wait...and Trump wanted out

[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.

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.

So, the way I read this first part is, Trump wanted out anyway, and so it was easy to wimp on standing up to the "surprise".

Second part, Trump=idiot + Thank goodness for others.

One nit that you may not have meant to imply, but I don't think the Kurds provided the intel they did on #1 and #2 in order to secure support per se, rather they had been doing so all along and didn't stop. Not simply a transaction, certainly not something they'd withheld. You didn't say that exactly, so I may be over-reading.

Again, Trump's very weak 'thanks' to the Kurds relative to his effusiveness about Russia #1, Turkey, Iran, Assad...

It would be very, very interesting to see the actual transcript, or better yet, hear the recording...which undoubtedly exists on these things, right?

I suspect Most Americans would be horrified by the tone and what was actually said by each party.
But as you say:
"Just my hunch. Gut feeling. Pure speculation:"

[Typical Lax Dad]

You saw the man cower in Helsinki

[old salt]

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

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

That's 1 that makes my point. Nothing beyond providing military aid to Kurdish fighters in Syria vs ISIS, while Kerry pursues a diplomatic solution.

No mention of supporting the Kurds until they gain autonomy or remaining until Iran's proxies leave.

It did say this :
But Washington has been cautious about publicly committing to help the Syrian Kurds, who are mistrusted by U.S. NATO ally Turkey.
The senior U.S. defense official said Washington had no intention for now of airdropping weapons to the Syrian Kurdish YPG militia.
"I don't rule it out in the future but...nothing would be done without the close coordination of the government of Turkey," the official said.

Since 9/11 have we heard any coherent message on any of our foreign adventures?

Like sending troops to SA to protect their oil -

How long are we staying?

How is success measured?

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

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

That's 1 that makes my point. Nothing beyond providing military aid to Kurdish fighters in Syria vs ISIS, while Kerry pursues a diplomatic solution.

No mention of supporting the Kurds until they gain autonomy or remaining until Iran's proxies leave.

It did say this :
But Washington has been cautious about publicly committing to help the Syrian Kurds, who are mistrusted by U.S. NATO ally Turkey.
The senior U.S. defense official said Washington had no intention for now of airdropping weapons to the Syrian Kurdish YPG militia.
"I don't rule it out in the future but...nothing would be done without the close coordination of the government of Turkey," the official said.

This is what's known a "mission creep".

Open ended is just that..... open ended.

Again. You are both ignoring my premise. Neither Obama or Trump Admin made public a commitment to remain in Syria until the Kurds attained autonomy or until Iranian proxies were ejected or defeated.

The betrayal of the Kurds was a betrayal of unspoken expectations, most expressed by politicians & the MSM ex post facto, when it could be used as a criticism of Trump. Where was all this support of the Kurds & extending our mission in Syria before Trump made his two announcements that we'd be pulling out ?

[old salt]

So, the way I read this first part is, Trump wanted out anyway, and so it was easy to wimp on standing up to the "surprise".

That, plus the fact that we had no viable military options to deter or counter Erdogan's precipitous decision.

One nit that you may not have meant to imply, but I don't think the Kurds provided the intel they did on #1 and #2 in order to secure support per se, rather they had been doing so all along and didn't stop. Not simply a transaction, certainly not something they'd withheld. You didn't say that exactly, so I may be over-reading.

Yes. Over-reading. You are imputing motive which I did not state or imply.

[foreverlax]

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

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

That's 1 that makes my point. Nothing beyond providing military aid to Kurdish fighters in Syria vs ISIS, while Kerry pursues a diplomatic solution.

No mention of supporting the Kurds until they gain autonomy or remaining until Iran's proxies leave.

It did say this :
But Washington has been cautious about publicly committing to help the Syrian Kurds, who are mistrusted by U.S. NATO ally Turkey.
The senior U.S. defense official said Washington had no intention for now of airdropping weapons to the Syrian Kurdish YPG militia.
"I don't rule it out in the future but...nothing would be done without the close coordination of the government of Turkey," the official said.

Since 9/11 have we heard any coherent message on any of our foreign adventures?

Like sending troops to SA to protect their oil -

How long are we staying?

How is success measured?

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

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

That's 1 that makes my point. Nothing beyond providing military aid to Kurdish fighters in Syria vs ISIS, while Kerry pursues a diplomatic solution.

No mention of supporting the Kurds until they gain autonomy or remaining until Iran's proxies leave.

It did say this :
But Washington has been cautious about publicly committing to help the Syrian Kurds, who are mistrusted by U.S. NATO ally Turkey.
The senior U.S. defense official said Washington had no intention for now of airdropping weapons to the Syrian Kurdish YPG militia.
"I don't rule it out in the future but...nothing would be done without the close coordination of the government of Turkey," the official said.

This is what's known a "mission creep".

Open ended is just that..... open ended.

Again. You are both ignoring my premise. Neither Obama or Trump Admin made public a commitment to remain in Syria until the Kurds attained autonomy or until Iranian proxies were ejected or defeated.

The betrayal of the Kurds was a betrayal of unspoken expectations, most expressed by politicians & the MSM ex post facto, when it could be used as a criticism of Trump. We only know what they tell us....you assume you know what we told the Kurds and you don't.

Where was all this support of the Kurds & extending our mission in Syria before Trump made his two announcements that we'd be pulling out ? That is hilarious...so we are now back to taking what Trump actually says, assuming it makes sense and he isn't making sh$te up, suspect there would have been similar outrage as we have seen.

Bottom line - Trump got the Kurds to fight his fight....now they can pack up and go live by the oil we are taking for ourselves.

[Typical Lax Dad]

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

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

That's 1 that makes my point. Nothing beyond providing military aid to Kurdish fighters in Syria vs ISIS, while Kerry pursues a diplomatic solution.

No mention of supporting the Kurds until they gain autonomy or remaining until Iran's proxies leave.

It did say this :
But Washington has been cautious about publicly committing to help the Syrian Kurds, who are mistrusted by U.S. NATO ally Turkey.
The senior U.S. defense official said Washington had no intention for now of airdropping weapons to the Syrian Kurdish YPG militia.
"I don't rule it out in the future but...nothing would be done without the close coordination of the government of Turkey," the official said.

Since 9/11 have we heard any coherent message on any of our foreign adventures?

Like sending troops to SA to protect their oil -

How long are we staying?

How is success measured?

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

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

That's 1 that makes my point. Nothing beyond providing military aid to Kurdish fighters in Syria vs ISIS, while Kerry pursues a diplomatic solution.

No mention of supporting the Kurds until they gain autonomy or remaining until Iran's proxies leave.

It did say this :
But Washington has been cautious about publicly committing to help the Syrian Kurds, who are mistrusted by U.S. NATO ally Turkey.
The senior U.S. defense official said Washington had no intention for now of airdropping weapons to the Syrian Kurdish YPG militia.
"I don't rule it out in the future but...nothing would be done without the close coordination of the government of Turkey," the official said.

This is what's known a "mission creep".

Open ended is just that..... open ended.

Again. You are both ignoring my premise. Neither Obama or Trump Admin made public a commitment to remain in Syria until the Kurds attained autonomy or until Iranian proxies were ejected or defeated.

The betrayal of the Kurds was a betrayal of unspoken expectations, most expressed by politicians & the MSM ex post facto, when it could be used as a criticism of Trump. Where was all this support of the Kurds & extending our mission in Syria before Trump made his two announcements that we'd be pulling out ?

I didn't ignore your premise. I just pointed out that someone in the administration said that our involvement was opened ended. Not sure that means pack up and leave by XYZ.

[MDlaxfan76]

So, the way I read this first part is, Trump wanted out anyway, and so it was easy to wimp on standing up to the "surprise".

That, plus the fact that we had no viable military options to deter or counter Erdogan's precipitous decision.

One nit that you may not have meant to imply, but I don't think the Kurds provided the intel they did on #1 and #2 in order to secure support per se, rather they had been doing so all along and didn't stop. Not simply a transaction, certainly not something they'd withheld. You didn't say that exactly, so I may be over-reading.

Yes. Over-reading. You are imputing motive which I did not state or imply.

Fair enough on the second; that's why I raised it rather than just assuming.

You and I simply disagree as to "no viable military options"...not that they were attractive options, but we certainly have some very large deterrent and response capabilities. And, of course, all sorts of longer term effects that could have been made clear.

But I think you're basically right. Trump already wanted out.
And doesn't care a wit about promises/assurances made by anyone, even himself.

[MDlaxfan76]

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

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

That's 1 that makes my point. Nothing beyond providing military aid to Kurdish fighters in Syria vs ISIS, while Kerry pursues a diplomatic solution.

No mention of supporting the Kurds until they gain autonomy or remaining until Iran's proxies leave.

It did say this :
But Washington has been cautious about publicly committing to help the Syrian Kurds, who are mistrusted by U.S. NATO ally Turkey.
The senior U.S. defense official said Washington had no intention for now of airdropping weapons to the Syrian Kurdish YPG militia.
"I don't rule it out in the future but...nothing would be done without the close coordination of the government of Turkey," the official said.

Since 9/11 have we heard any coherent message on any of our foreign adventures?

Like sending troops to SA to protect their oil -

How long are we staying?

How is success measured?

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

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

That's 1 that makes my point. Nothing beyond providing military aid to Kurdish fighters in Syria vs ISIS, while Kerry pursues a diplomatic solution.

No mention of supporting the Kurds until they gain autonomy or remaining until Iran's proxies leave.

It did say this :
But Washington has been cautious about publicly committing to help the Syrian Kurds, who are mistrusted by U.S. NATO ally Turkey.
The senior U.S. defense official said Washington had no intention for now of airdropping weapons to the Syrian Kurdish YPG militia.
"I don't rule it out in the future but...nothing would be done without the close coordination of the government of Turkey," the official said.

This is what's known a "mission creep".

Open ended is just that..... open ended.

Again. You are both ignoring my premise. Neither Obama or Trump Admin made public a commitment to remain in Syria until the Kurds attained autonomy or until Iranian proxies were ejected or defeated.

The betrayal of the Kurds was a betrayal of unspoken expectations, most expressed by politicians & the MSM ex post facto, when it could be used as a criticism of Trump. Where was all this support of the Kurds & extending our mission in Syria before Trump made his two announcements that we'd be pulling out ?

You're overplaying this "made public a commitment" aspect. The Kurds weren't relying on public announcements, they were relying on the relationships they had military commanders to military commanders, diplomat to diplomat, on the ground.

Our policy relied on their support and sacrifices and we gave them every reason to believe they could rely on our support when it came to nut-cutting time.

You can believe without any doubt that our guys and gals who fought side by side with them are horrified by this betrayal.

[old salt]

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

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

That's 1 that makes my point. Nothing beyond providing military aid to Kurdish fighters in Syria vs ISIS, while Kerry pursues a diplomatic solution.

No mention of supporting the Kurds until they gain autonomy or remaining until Iran's proxies leave.

It did say this :
But Washington has been cautious about publicly committing to help the Syrian Kurds, who are mistrusted by U.S. NATO ally Turkey.
The senior U.S. defense official said Washington had no intention for now of airdropping weapons to the Syrian Kurdish YPG militia.
"I don't rule it out in the future but...nothing would be done without the close coordination of the government of Turkey," the official said.

Since 9/11 have we heard any coherent message on any of our foreign adventures?

Like sending troops to SA to protect their oil -

How long are we staying?

How is success measured?

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

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

That's 1 that makes my point. Nothing beyond providing military aid to Kurdish fighters in Syria vs ISIS, while Kerry pursues a diplomatic solution.

No mention of supporting the Kurds until they gain autonomy or remaining until Iran's proxies leave.

It did say this :
But Washington has been cautious about publicly committing to help the Syrian Kurds, who are mistrusted by U.S. NATO ally Turkey.
The senior U.S. defense official said Washington had no intention for now of airdropping weapons to the Syrian Kurdish YPG militia.
"I don't rule it out in the future but...nothing would be done without the close coordination of the government of Turkey," the official said.

This is what's known a "mission creep".

Open ended is just that..... open ended.

Again. You are both ignoring my premise. Neither Obama or Trump Admin made public a commitment to remain in Syria until the Kurds attained autonomy or until Iranian proxies were ejected or defeated.

The betrayal of the Kurds was a betrayal of unspoken expectations, most expressed by politicians & the MSM ex post facto, when it could be used as a criticism of Trump. Where was all this support of the Kurds & extending our mission in Syria before Trump made his two announcements that we'd be pulling out ?

You're overplaying this "made public a commitment" aspect. The Kurds weren't relying on public announcements, they were relying on the relationships they had military commanders to military commanders, diplomat to diplomat, on the ground.

Our policy relied on their support and sacrifices and we gave them every reason to believe they could rely on our support when it came to nut-cutting time.

You can believe without any doubt that our guys and gals who fought side by side with them are horrified by this betrayal.

Overplaying the importance of stated US policy ?

My point is -- our people dealing with the Kurds were making (or implying) promises they could not keep.

Even Gen Kobani acknowledges this. His primary beef was that it happened so fast & he didn't have time to make arrangements with Assad's govt.

[3rdPersonPlural]

Even Gen Kobani acknowledges this. His primary beef was that it happened so fast & he didn't have time to make arrangements with Assad's govt.

OK. Since we had a military relationship with the Kurds that lasted longer, worked better, and produced more than most marriages, didn't we owe them a heads up?

At the very least?

[old salt]

Even Gen Kobani acknowledges this. His primary beef was that it happened so fast & he didn't have time to make arrangements with Assad's govt.

OK. Since we had a military relationship with the Kurds that lasted longer, worked better, and produced more than most marriages, didn't we owe them a heads up?

At the very least?

Yes. We gave them as much of a heads up as Erdogan gave us.

Did you watch Amb Jeffrey ? He testified that until Erdogan's ph call, all mil to mil & dip to dip relations with Turkey were that the Joint Security Mechanism was working.

[MDlaxfan76]

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

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

That's 1 that makes my point. Nothing beyond providing military aid to Kurdish fighters in Syria vs ISIS, while Kerry pursues a diplomatic solution.

No mention of supporting the Kurds until they gain autonomy or remaining until Iran's proxies leave.

It did say this :
But Washington has been cautious about publicly committing to help the Syrian Kurds, who are mistrusted by U.S. NATO ally Turkey.
The senior U.S. defense official said Washington had no intention for now of airdropping weapons to the Syrian Kurdish YPG militia.
"I don't rule it out in the future but...nothing would be done without the close coordination of the government of Turkey," the official said.

Since 9/11 have we heard any coherent message on any of our foreign adventures?

Like sending troops to SA to protect their oil -

How long are we staying?

How is success measured?

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

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

That's 1 that makes my point. Nothing beyond providing military aid to Kurdish fighters in Syria vs ISIS, while Kerry pursues a diplomatic solution.

No mention of supporting the Kurds until they gain autonomy or remaining until Iran's proxies leave.

It did say this :
But Washington has been cautious about publicly committing to help the Syrian Kurds, who are mistrusted by U.S. NATO ally Turkey.
The senior U.S. defense official said Washington had no intention for now of airdropping weapons to the Syrian Kurdish YPG militia.
"I don't rule it out in the future but...nothing would be done without the close coordination of the government of Turkey," the official said.

This is what's known a "mission creep".

Open ended is just that..... open ended.

Again. You are both ignoring my premise. Neither Obama or Trump Admin made public a commitment to remain in Syria until the Kurds attained autonomy or until Iranian proxies were ejected or defeated.

The betrayal of the Kurds was a betrayal of unspoken expectations, most expressed by politicians & the MSM ex post facto, when it could be used as a criticism of Trump. Where was all this support of the Kurds & extending our mission in Syria before Trump made his two announcements that we'd be pulling out ?

You're overplaying this "made public a commitment" aspect. The Kurds weren't relying on public announcements, they were relying on the relationships they had military commanders to military commanders, diplomat to diplomat, on the ground.

Our policy relied on their support and sacrifices and we gave them every reason to believe they could rely on our support when it came to nut-cutting time.

You can believe without any doubt that our guys and gals who fought side by side with them are horrified by this betrayal.

Overplaying the importance of stated US policy ?

My point is -- our people dealing with the Kurds were making (or implying) promises they could not keep.

Even Gen Kobani acknowledges this. His primary beef was that it happened so fast & he didn't have time to make arrangements with Assad's govt.

No, they were within the parameters of "stated US policy" as stated over quite a few years, not to mention approved policy throughout the chain of command.

The problem is that Trump wanted to change that policy over the objections of his military, IC, State, and Congress.

You are trying to create a straw man of how much need to be explicitly stated by the POTUS in order to be actual policy on the ground. But that's not required.

Again, Trump simply doesn't care what promises and assurances had been made by Americans for the benefit of the United States.

ALL allies beware.

[MDlaxfan76]

Even Gen Kobani acknowledges this. His primary beef was that it happened so fast & he didn't have time to make arrangements with Assad's govt.

OK. Since we had a military relationship with the Kurds that lasted longer, worked better, and produced more than most marriages, didn't we owe them a heads up?

At the very least?

Yes. We gave them as much of a heads up as Erdogan gave us.

Did you watch Amb Jeffrey ? He testified that until Erdogan's ph call, all mil to mil & dip to dip relations with Turkey were that the Joint Security Mechanism was working.

Leaving them to die and badmouthing them on the way out.
Cut and run.

[wahoomurf]

An MLB umpire threatened to start a CIVAL war if HIS President is impeached? The personal lawyer for the Current U.S. Head of State, who doubles as the AG of the United States of America, was asked if that chap would face justice. The attorney dismissed the ump's tweet as merely a silly CAVIL.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2 ... ts-wrapper

[MDlaxfan76]

An MLB umpire threatened to start a CIVAL war if HIS President is impeached? The personal lawyer for the Current U.S. Head of State, who doubles as the AG of the United States of America, was asked if that chap would face justice. The attorney dismissed the ump's tweet as merely a silly CAVIL.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2 ... ts-wrapper

The stupidity of these folks is only matched by the danger they actually do represent.

Man, we need some healing.

[old salt]

No, they were within the parameters of "stated US policy" as stated over quite a few years, not to mention approved policy throughout the chain of command.

Still waiting for you to show us a link to any official US statement that our mission extended to anything beyond destroying ISIS,
or included staying until the Kurds achieved autonomy or Iran's proxies withdrew.