old salt wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 12:22 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 9:44 am
old salt wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 3:34 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 12:59 pm
old salt wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 12:24 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 10:06 am
old salt wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 12:39 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 7:39 pmSeems 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.