Trump annihilated ISIS forces in Iraq, crushing 100% of their occupied lands.
A crushing that NEVER would have occured under Barack Hussein Obama or Hillary Rodham Clinton.
There are 10,000 ISIS prisoners in Northern Iraq, mostly held by Kurdish forces. Most of these ISIS POW's are European muslims, and Trump has for 2 years pressured European nations to seize custody of the fighters from their respective nations, they have not done so. At some point, Trump had to act.
I would have given them a year's warning before doing so, but maybe Trump actually did this, behind closed doors with European and Arab leaders.
In the case of the Kurds, as you are probably aware, there are Kurdish chunks of Syria, Turkey, Iraq and Iran, and for decades, if not hundreds of years the Kurds have fought against these nations, to attempt to slice away a "Kurdistan" from all 4 nations. That is why all 4 of these nationss have been slaughtering Kurds for decades.
Further, the atrocities of the Kurds almost equal those of ISIS. They have conscripted children into service as frontline combat soldiers, they have raided and terrorized and raped towns of other minorities, particularly Yazidis and Christians. They treat Christians as second class citizens, seizing their homes and property. So the Kurds are bastards too, but over the last 18 years, they've been our bastards. And the Kurds have also initiated terrorism and combat against the Turks within Turkey, as well as across their border. So while the Turks are genocidal maniacs too, it can't be portrayed as if the Kurds are just innocent victims. Over several decades, they have initiated conflict with the Turks, and the Turks wish to prevent Syrian Kurds from allying with and causing more chaos within Turkey itself.
The U.S. only had about 1,000 troops remaining in Northern Syria, so I question how essential U.S. military presence is at this point in Northern Syria. I think their presence at this point was to risk escalation of U.S. presence, if they were attacked. But as long as they remained in Syria, they remained ducks in a shooting gallery, who were at risk of being shot at by all sides: Russians, Turks, Kurds, the Syrian Assad forces, or multiple other islamic groups. Even friendly forces could fire on them and blame the other side, to trick the U.S. into escalating its military action on the other side. VERY CLEAR: 6 U.S. soldiers have been killed in Syria this year alone, out of only 1,000 posted there. So it's not like there isn't an incentive to leave.
And gee, what a shock, the Democrats immediately jump on this withdrawal and allege that Trump is aiding the enemy, or in your partisan liar words, that Trump is an "employee" of ISIS. The complete annihilation of ISIS forces, except for 10,000 prisoners in Kurd hands, is testament to that, hardly an employee of ISIS.
If I were the Kurds, and what these ISIS prisoners have done to Kurds and other minorities, I would slaughter them in their camps before ever allowing them to escape and regroup. Europeans and Arab nations had the opportunity to take custody of them, despite at least 2 years of Trump appealing to these nations to take part of the load. What Trump is doing with a sudden departure is not what I would have done, but at some point U.S. forces needed to leave. And U.S. lives were at risk every day we remained.
In the short term, Trump has threatened to "destroy the Turkish economy" with sanctions if they attempt genocide on the Kurds in Syria. I would further back that up with no-fly-zones, air-strikes, missile attacks and drone strikes to push back Turks if they continue an attempt at genocide.
This in some ways reminds me of the 1991 U.S. withdrawal from Iraq after the Gulf War, where the U.S. should as a condition of pulling out in 1991 not have allowed Saddam Hussein's government to move helicopters and other military equipment that could be used to slaughter Kurds and Shi'ites in Iraq. Now we are seeing that same situation potentially play out in Syria. Or perhaps Trump made such a deal with these conditions, but Turkey broke it, gambling that the U.S. and other nations won't do anything about it.
Isis thanks you for you and Trump's support. I will just give you a future GFY for when you're blaming a future democratic president for Isis's resurgence.
Editor’s note: We endeavor to bring you the top voices on current events representing a range of perspectives. Below is a column supporting president Trump’s Syria withdrawal. You can find a counterpoint here, where Blaise Misztal argues it is a mistake.
William Ruger Contributor October 09, 2019
Official Washington was rocked Sunday night by the Trump administration’s announcement that it was pulling military forces from the Syria-Turkey border. Trump took to Twitter first thing Monday to explain, noting that “it is time for us to get out of these ridiculous Endless Wars, many of them tribal, and bring our soldiers home.” He then added that “Turkey, Europe, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Russia and the Kurds will now have to figure the situation out.”
While families of these troops likely said, “Thank God” and careful observers saw that this was only a redeployment of a small number of forces rather than the withdrawal suggested by Trump’s tweets, the foreign policy establishment went ballistic.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, for example, tweeted: “Let us be clear: The president has sided with authoritarian leaders of Turkey and Russia over our loyal allies and America’s own interests. His decision is a sickening betrayal both of the Kurds and his oath of office.” Not to be outdone, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham stated that: “This impulsive decision by the President has undone all the gains we’ve made, [and] thrown the region into further chaos.” Many other officials and think-tank scholars raged at Trump’s move. (RELATED: Tucker Carlson Rebuts Washington Neo-Cons Agitated By Trump’s Syria Withdraw)
Of course, it would be easier for Americans to believe these folks if it weren’t for the fact that, to use President Trump’s words from the 2016 campaign trail, they have “perfect résumés but very little to brag about except responsibility for a long history of failed policies and continued losses at war.”
In this case, even though it is a small redeployment, Trump is right to pull back those troops. As has been the case repeatedly since the end of the Cold War, the foreign policy elite is wrong. Indeed, we need to go further and withdraw all overt military forces from the country and rethink our entire approach to the Middle East.
And the president seems to understand this. He tweeted recently that, “GOING INTO THE MIDDLE EAST IS THE WORST DECISION EVER MADE.” While there are other historical foreign policy missteps that would rival our Middle Eastern blunders, Trump understands that what we’ve been doing isn’t working, noting in that same tweet that we have spent trillions in the region and “Thousands of our Great Soldiers have died or been badly wounded.” Of course, the establishment panics every time he wants to reduce ever so slightly America’s military footprint abroad. But we need to go even further. We need to withdraw from not only Syria but Afghanistan as well. This minor pullback should only be the first step. Here is why a fuller withdrawal is in order:
First, we are stuck in the middle of a multi-sided fight in which our interests are extremely limited. We went in to destroy ISIS’s territorial caliphate that could provide a base of operations for this violent terrorist organization. We accomplished that goal, and we can safely leave it up to local actors who share our interests to keep ISIS down and out. Buckpassing to those with greater stakes in the outcome and better local knowledge about how to effectively handle threats is a time-honored tradition in international politics. If ISIS poses a threat to American interests in the future, our long-range strike capabilities are more than capable of keeping us safe without a permanent garrison in Syria.
Second, the Kurdish groups in Syria that we are protecting in the region aren’t exactly ideal partners. Indeed, one has espoused a communist ideology, is an offshoot of a group on the U.S. State Department list of terrorist organizations, and has feuded with other Kurdish groups in Iraq that have also fought against ISIS.
Third, one dangerous consequence of remaining in Syria is that we could end up in a fight with Iranian proxies or Russian forces that could drag the U.S. into a broader war that would be unnecessary and extremely costly. The fact is that both countries have long-standing ties to Syria and thus their footprint in the country is not new. They too have an interest in keeping ISIS down and it is to our advantage to have those countries tied up helping the Syrian government. A broken Syria is no gift to our adversaries. (RELATED: Turkey Launches Military Offensive In Northern Syria As US Troops Leave The Region)
Fourth, Americans understand that we have more important priorities. Our national debt is a growing threat to our future prosperity and security. We’d be wise to focus on it rather than a desolate corner of a ruined country half-way around the world that matters very little to our safety or prosperity. And as our new National Security Strategy emphasizes, great powers such as China should receive more of an attention than fourth-rate powers in the Middle East. Instead, we stay mired in the Middle East, an area of declining strategic importance. The Chinese must be laughing at us: we talk up the threat they pose but focus our attention on minor issues and are unable to extricate ourselves from unwise commitments. Again, Trump gets it instinctually, noting Monday night that: “the two countries that are most disappointed that we’re leaving are China and Russia because they love that we’re bogged down and just watching and spending tremendous amounts of money instead of continuing to build our forces.”
And lastly, this is good policy and good politics. Polling shows that our Middle East wars are not popular. And Trump himself understands he made a campaign promise that he’d be unwise to violate: “I fully understand both sides of it. But I campaigned on the fact that I was going to bring our — our soldiers home, and bring them home as rapidly as possible.”
The Syria pullback is a good first step. Let there be many more on the road out of the Middle East. ____________________________________
William Ruger is the Vice President for Research and Policy at the Charles Koch Institute. He is also a veteran of the war in Afghanistan.
I'm pretty confident you won't be seeing a similar weighing of both political sides in one news source at, say, CNN, MSNBC, NBC or the New York Times. Or (dare I say it!) MediaMatters.
Quite the opposite, they will be doing a hard sell on one side, that of attacking President Trump.
Frankly, this is one of the few areas I'm unsure I want to defend the president, as it is risky how it will turn out. And I at least hope Trump has a Plan B and Plan C if it doesn't work. But beyond what Trump has already laid out, what other options are there? To militarily strike Turkey, a NATO ally?
Is it a shocker that the Daily Caller thinks Trump made the right decision? And the world watched as Trump had our country abandon the Kurds. I think it would be very naive to paint that as good policy. Isis is happy with Trump's actions here.
Like I said, at the very least, instead of brainwashing with one partisan point of view, Carlson offers both sides.
Carlson was also in favor of not going to war with Iraq about a month ago. He praised Trump at that time for NOT listening to his advisors and getting us into another costly war. As opposed to presidents Bush Sr., Bill Clinton, W. Bush and Obama.
God forbid you should ever give Trump credit for thinking independently and not dragging the U.S. into another costly war, and in his doing so opposing both the globalist Dems and the neocon Republicans. I supported Pat Buchanan on this point, when he was the only one in the Republican party arguing this point. Buchanan argued that while they are small wars, such as Korea, Vietnam, Persian Gulf war, Iraq war, Haiti, Somalia, Libya, they cumulatively cost the U.S. trillions in new debt, the collective cost that he terms "death by a thousand cuts".
And the "naive" guy in the above article who argues the point of view that withdrawing from Syria is a good thing is a veteran of the Afghan war, and has seen daily war and the cost firsthand. Have you, M E M?
I'm willing to bet you didn't have the same opinion in Dec 2011 when Obama withdrew all forces from Iraq, and 2 years later ISIS invaded over the Syrian border and took half he country. If Trump similarly left no eyes on the ground and set the scene for a complete implosion, then he'll deserve the same criticism I give Obama.
But it's telling that you only criticize it when it's Trump withdrawing, and ignore the chaos caused by Obama's withdrawal in Iraq, the tens of thousands murdered by ISIS, the millions who have immigrated to and de-stabilized Europe. If it's worst-case-scenario, Trump is repeating Obama's mistakes. But I suspect he has learned from Obama's mistakes, and is more forward thinking.
It's difficult to find a map that gives a good visualization of the troop movements and intended goals of the Turks. This is the best one I've seen so far.
As best I've seen it described, the Turks are attempting to create a "safe zone" (for them) creating a barrier region 20 miles beyond their border, into Syria. If the Turks go further south, their only possible objective is ethnic cleansing of Kurds. And it does seem like they're preparing to do that.
Yeah it's now okay to be nuanced when it's your guy in office but when a democrat ends up with the mess to clean up than you'll be calling him a traitor and demanding that the deficit needs to be taken care of at the same time. I'm not a vet like you or President bone spurs but mayor Pete was and has a different take on the pull out.
I do get that foreign policy is complicated and there usually are not any easy decisions but this seemed like it fell into Trump fulfilling a campaign promise and his loyal miniority base would have been yelling and screaming if it was a democrat doing it. In a couple of years when Isis blooms again like it did before will you be as angry at Trump?
This actually got Trump some criticism from his own party. The Kurds that did our fighting are now being slaughtered thanks to Trump.
I’m not thrilled with what appears to be the abrupt way that Trump pulled out. That being said when did Democrats become in favor of endless occupation of the Middle East? I can’t help but feel like your response would’ve been more nuanced if, for example, Obama (or a hypothetical president Hillary) had done something similar.
Interesting how sides have switched with you and Trump speaking of endless war. The gay democrat vet running for President against pulling the troops out. Given that Isis already bounced back before maybe it should have been a lesson that was learned for both sides at this point. Now it really is just a matter of time for the whole thing to repeat itself.
Interesting how sides have switched with you and Trump speaking of endless war. The gay democrat vet running for President against pulling the troops out. Given that Isis already bounced back before maybe it should have been a lesson that was learned for both sides at this point. Now it really is just a matter of time for the whole thing to repeat itself.
I don't know what "gay" has to do with this issue. Buttegeig is a marxist idealogue, whose policies would only damage and diminish the United States.
ISIS bounced back before because of President Obama's complete withdrawal of all forces, not even leaving intelligence on the ground in Iraq to forewarn that ISIS was going to invade across the Syrian border and seize half of Iraq.
Trump has at least been attempting a change in strategy, it is too soon to know what the next few steps or the ultimate outcome will be. But it's clear how you and the Democrats want to spin it, no matter what the outcome.
My major problem with Buttegeig and all the other 2020 Democrat candidates is: 1) they favor open borders and de-criminalizing illegal immigrants, and 2) federally funded healthcare for illegals, and 3) federal reparations for blacks (and probably for hispanics and other minorities after, which not only hoses away federal money, but also just increases racial division, and a sense of entitlement among minorities and against white America). And 4) the Democrat attempt to marginalize Republican/conservative speech and religious freedom. We've already seen in the cases of the Brett Kavanaugh nomination, as well as the Nicholas Sandmann incident, as well as over 600 attacks on Trump supporters, and Sarah Huckabee-Sanders being excluded from twwo restaurants, and the violence and intimidation-endorsing rhetoric of Maxine Waters, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris and other Democrats the attempt to even deny conservatives the ability to work, to eat in restaurants, or to even speak their views in public without being attacked.
There is not a single 2020 Democrat candidate running who has not openly endorsed these things, or who would at the very least passively endorse the Left wing of their party enacting these things. What they advocate would essentially be the Roman empire in 400 A.D. in the U.S., the destruction of our sovereignty and of any free thought, and the destruction of U.S. sovereignty as we are absorbed into and become subservient to a global government. And a step further toward China eventually imposing its domination over the entire world. And if you want to know how China's global dominion would be, just look at the millions in Tibet and Xinjiang province in concentration camps, and what is going on right now in Hong Kong, or how they kill political prisoners and then harvest their organs. Democrats offer no resistance to that, Trump for the first time in at least 3 decades is pushing back and diminishing Chinese expaansion, and is rebuilding the United States economically and militarily in the process.
See my earlier comment about nuance. It's out the door for you with Obama. As brought up many times before the withdrawal date was set up while W was in office. The country wanted us to leave. While Bush was in office they were told we were liberators not occupiers. Yes Obama could have tried harder to stay but let's contrast that with Trump's retreat that appears to have left Russia with some nice American made bases. So stupid and unnecessary but so predictable. You voted for somebody that wasn't fit for the office.
It's not shocking anymore that you distort democratic positions while not even holding that lump of corrupt filth accountable for the things he actually says and does.
See my earlier comment about nuance. It's out the door for you with Obama. As brought up many times before the withdrawal date was set up while W was in office. The country wanted us to leave. While Bush was in office they were told we were liberators not occupiers. Yes Obama could have tried harder to stay but let's contrast that with Trump's retreat that appears to have left Russia with some nice American made bases. So stupid and unnecessary but so predictable. You voted for somebody that wasn't fit for the office.
It's not shocking anymore that you distort democratic positions while not even holding that lump of corrupt filth accountable for the things he actually says and does.
I would argue that Trump is more qualified and ready to be president than anyone since Ronald Reagan. Someone with a supreme understanding of economics who has amassed an estimated fortune of $4 billion, who has transacted business in 20 nations worldwide, who has met foreign leaders and as a matter of business understands international politics and finance. Who has been active in U.S. political campaigns with presidents, senators and congressmen for decades. Who has participated in presidential politics and been close friends with both the Reagans and the Clintons. THIS is the man you insult and diminish, while praising marxist idealogues who are hostile to the country itself, and want to transform it from a Constitutional republic into a marxist utopia. Or more accurately, an authoritarian one-party liberal-marxist police state.
It's a simple fact that Trump had the will to change the situation in Iraq/Syria, and by that sheer will, found a way to defeat ISIS 100% in Iraq/Syria in 18 months!
Obama lacked the will to do so, and it never happened in his 8 years.
Was Obama also bound by a similar troop-withdrawal agreement in the other 40 nations that ISIS spread to? Absolutely not.
Obama was a weak and ideologically anti-American leader. http://archive.discoverthenetworks.org/summary.asp?object=Persons&category= A cultural marxist radical. An anti-Colonialist. As is abundantly evident in Obama's own writings, in his actions as president, in his lifelong associations with radicals like Frank Marshall Davis, William Ayers and Valerie Jarrett, in the people he employed in his White House, in the policies he implemented. Obama favored policy that weakened the hegemony of the United States, whether it was handing over wealth or oil-drilling rights to third-world nations, collapsing U.S. diplomatic and military infuence in the Middle East, allowing a radical Muslim-Brotherhood regime in Egypt, by inaction in Syria and Iraq sending millions of refugees to de-stabilize Europe, invading and then by inaction de-stabilizing Libya, or expanding the reach of radical Islam in nations worldwide. Trump, in contrast, pursued a complete and decisive victory over ISIS, and now wants to withdraw troops. We have other forces in the area that can make targeted strikes and then quickly withdraw, as needed. Instead of being penny-arcade ducks on the front line in a shooting gallery, waiting to be shot at and draw us unneccessarily into a wider conflict.
The multiple slanderous narratives the Democrats and complicit media have unleashed on Trump and his administration, that have all failed to destroy Trump, despite their best vicious efforts.
On what was then the latest "bombshell" lying media narrative that was sure to destroy Trump's presidency. No! Seriously! We really mean it this time! The media leaps on each lying narrative, usually disproven within 48 hours. All disproven within months at most, as the truth leaks out. But the media desperately wants the PROVEN lies to be true, and they continue to sell it, even after disproven. Even disproven by the Mueller Report!
Trump Jr. sarcastically says "Yeah, the guy that's a billionaire, leading a pretty incredible lifestyle, he left all of that to go into this snakepit, to go into the swamp, to run against 16, 17 contenders, he's got zero chance of doing that, to then defeat Hillary Clinton, he had zero chance of doing that... he did all this because he's a Russian agent! The reason the media has no credibility is because this is what they do. This is what they do to themselves, each and every time."
With each false narrative they leap on that is again proven untrue, they further destroy their own credibility. As do their masters, the Democrat party itself.
In attacking a fellow Democrat, Hillary Clinton by repetition of her M.O. manifests the standard vicious slanders normally reserved for Republicans.
But as has been increasingly visible in recent years, Democrats for whom these vicious tacticss have increasingly become the norm, can't help themselves from unleashing these tactics on rivals within their own party. That is increasingly the saving grace in watching Democrats succeed to some degree with these tactics, that if they somehow manage to deceive the American public and seize power, to purge Republicans from power, that will not be the end of it. No. Like the French Revolution and the Great Terror, like the Bolsheviks in Russia, they will turn their vicious machinery on each other, and destroy themselves. And something better will rise from the ashes. Democrats are increasingly not hiding, not even apologetic, about how truly evil they are.
I clicked on this just to get a laugh from Gutfeld's humorous approach to the news. But the commentary was actually quote insightful. Even more so Dana Perrino, and best of all that of Jesse Watters, on the leftist pro-Russia 70-year history of the Democrat party, and the incredible hypocrisy of THEM calling ANYONE ELSE a "Russian asset" or unpatriotic.
While I'm sure you would prefer to go after Dems this still looks like Trump doing the same mistake that you raked Obama over the coals for. Isn't it dumber repeating a mistake?
While I'm sure you would prefer to go after Dems this still looks like Trump doing the same mistake that you raked Obama over the coals for. Isn't it dumber repeating a mistake?
No. It's the Democrats being guilty as sin of weaponizing federal agencies. First in the case of Lois Lerner and the IRS, weaponizing the IRS against grassroots Tea Party and religious conservative groups, and Republican campaign donors, as part of a web of abuses to steal the 2012 election. And "fast and furious" where the Obama administration was running guns through ATF to Mexican drug cartels and getting a lot of people killed, just so they could blame it on gun retailers and, based on that deception, rationalize a crackdown on gun retailers and shut down the 2nd amendment. Exposed, that backfired on Obama, but no one was punished for it. Among other Democrat abuses of power.
And getting away with that, Obama and the piece of shit Democrats were emboldened to weaponize federal intelligence agencies to faalsify FISA warrants and spy on and with falsified evidence smear the Trump campaign. This all should have ended with the Mueller Report, and Mueller's testimony in the pathetic failure when Mueller was summoned to tesify before the House. And now, very suspiciously, all of a sudden when FOUR federal investigations have failed, this anonymous "whistleblower", a CIA plant inside the White House, with partisan ties having worked for Joseph Biden, who instead of going to the entire judiciary committe spent 18 days crafting a partisan attack with Adam Schiff's office, who has a lawyer selected for him by Schiff's office (a lawyer with heavy ties to the Depp State CIA), whose very "whistleblower report" was made possible by mysterious changes at the highest levels of the CIA, which NO ONE CAN EVEN EXPLAIN WHO OR WHEN THE CHANGES TO THE WHISTLEBLOWER REPORT WAS CHANGED TO ALLOW USING HEARSAY TO ATTACK A PRESIDENT, no less! Connected to Gina Haspel, who is the handpicked successor of former CIA director John Brennan, who is the plotter of the Russia Hoax coup. Who is by coincidence Trump's most vitriolic critic. Brennan, whose highest former advisors are now Haspel's advisors, one of whom came out of retirement to serve Haspel (and the coup).
Closed-door hearings, where Republicans are not even allowed to call witnesses of cross-examine witnesses, where Republicans are not even allowed copies of the transcripts of those witness interviews! Pure deception. Abuse of power.
The Democrat way.
When Democrats accuse Republicans of stuff, it's to create a distraction from the fact that Democrats are the ones who doing these exact things. All to try and distract from and/or discredit the pending A G reports, and the Durham and Barr investigations that are about to expose all these Democrats and Deep State FBI/DOJ/CIA/DNI officials.
If the grassroots cattle who vote Democrat had any ethics whatsoever, they would want their side held up to the same scrutiny and the same rule of law and put under the same microscope of investigation Trump is being held to. In the name of rule of law (as occurred with both Nixon and Clinton under those impeachment proceedings) they would hold the same standard of open disclosure and equal access to summoning and deposing witnesses, and transcripts. It enrages me what the Democrats are doing. This is just another example of the authoritarian abuse of power Democrats would engage in if they ever regained power over all three branches. A Bolshevik revolution.
Hannity last night had a great overview of what's going on. The abandonment of openness and bipartisan procedure set during the Nixon 1973 impeachment proceedings, that Gingrich followed exactly in the 1998 Clinton impeachment proceedings. And the contrasting extreme partisanship and secretiveness of Schiff and the Democrats now. Commentary from Rep. Devin Nunes, reporter Sara Carter, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, and Newt Gingrich.
Unlike the liberal networks, they are citing facts and past precedent. Aas opposed to the Soviet-style hijacking of of the system to hide the true evidence and eliminate a political rival they otherwise can't beat, that the Democrats are indulging in.
Actually conservatives like Hannity and Lindsey Graham had just the opposite feelings towards close door depositions and such during the Clinton impeachment. Seeing them blow up trying to protect this fat bloated lying potus I guess shouldn't be surprising.
