Home        About Dan        News        Books        Forum        Art
 
   
Page 2 of 3 <123>
Topic Options
#168669 - 12/27/18 12:12 PM Re: U.S. Withdrawing from Syria [Re: ColinFraizer]
Enright Offline
Super User


Registered: 05/17/06
Posts: 3466
Loc: CA
 Originally Posted By: ColinFraizer
Jmill, I agree we should always take care not to see others as less-than-human, but I want to express my appreciation for the fact that you tried to read Cothren’s statement in a charitable way.

I think we all sometimes fail to live up to our own highest ideals, but social media exchanges seem to have become mostly exercises in virtue-signaling to “our side” and “gotcha”s of “their side”.

I read the “no soul” statement to mean that DJT lacks empathy. I think that’s a fair accusation
, but I think many who oppose him should examine their own words and actions. For example, I personally favor mostly uncontrolled migration, but I can empathize with those who believe such migration has damaged their economic position. (I think they misunderstand the economics of the situation, but I don’t have to believe they are heartless bigots because they want to limit immigration.) I would love to see both DJT and his opponents display more empathy for those with whom they disagree.


Personally, given that "lacks empathy," covers quite a lot of territory, before I could accept such a statement as reflective of reality, I would want to see more qualification. Donald Trump has displayed great empathy for the families of people who have been murdered by illegal aliens, publicly pointing out their plight, drawing attention to their suffering, for example.
_________________________
Jim

Top
#168670 - 12/27/18 12:42 PM Re: U.S. Withdrawing from Syria [Re: Enright]
Dan Simmons Administrator Offline
CEO of the Hegemony


Registered: 09/02/05
Posts: 11197
Loc: Colorado
DS comments:

Will Character Be Trump's Downfall?

The whole issue here of "Donald Trump has no soul" is echoed in a recent column by Jonah Goldberg (whom I used to enjoy more than I do now).

I tend to agree that Trump's character (and lack of it) will lead to his downfall, but I'm not sure what form that downfall will take. Nothing that will shake the nation to its roots, I hope. In truth, character has unhorsed more than a few of our elected presidents: Richard Nixon is a good example. JFK, had he not gone to Dallas, might have had to face certain character flaws that the 1960's press agreed to be blind to (flaunting his illicit affairs to the Secret Service and others, using odd drug cocktails daily to fight the pain of his injured back, coming into office based on the Cook County vote where his father may have had Mayor Daley jigger the 1960 vote that put Kennedy into office in the closest electoral contest in history, etc). We saw Bill Clinton pay heavily for his sexual appetites and lack of self-discipline even in the White House. Und zo fort . . .

Anyway, here's a commentary on character --

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/12/trump-character-will-be-his-downfall/

ds

Top
#168671 - 12/27/18 12:55 PM Re: U.S. Withdrawing from Syria [Re: Enright]
Ward Offline
veteran


Registered: 03/02/09
Posts: 1342
I was about to respond to the "lacks empathy" comment as well. It does cover a wide range but generally serves as an explanation for the actions or behavior of a sociopath. I've been mulling over the seeming lack of empathy or the low level of functioning reflexivity or low level of self-awareness, or intersubjectivity, or something. So far all I've been able to come up with is that there seem to be more than a few folks suffering from "it". Perhaps a new level of L. Kohlberg's theory of moral development is in order. Let me temporarily refer to it as The Dumb Ass Level. This theory needs further development so any help would be appreciated.
Top
#168672 - 12/27/18 01:23 PM Re: U.S. Withdrawing from Syria [Re: Enright]
ColinFraizer Offline
enthusiast


Registered: 12/15/13
Posts: 87
Loc: Indiana, USA
I understand that it covers a lot of territory. It just seems to best fit the visceral hatred that DJT seems to draw from people on the left. I apologize that I so poorly expressed my partially-formed thoughts. :-)

I do not believe that DJT is completely without empathy. That is, I do not believe he is a psychopath. However, I think he feels free—in a way that is shocking to people on the left—to almost flaunt his non-empathy for classes of people who are almost sacred to them.

For example,
- he enjoys showing his contempt for many mainstream journalists;
- he clearly does not treat women with the kid gloves they have come to expect from polite men. [Yes, in some ways he can be crude, but I find some amount of this refreshing given the excesses of folks like Sarah Jeong or even the weird double-standard on display when HRC felt free directly challenge men, but when she encountered forceful disagreement, WJC would decry those louts who "are attacking my wife [the delicate flower who must be protected from nasty, brutish men]".

I think those outside the left are sometimes a little shocked by DJT's tone, but don't see it as wildly disproportionate, but people on the left see it as self-evidently unspeakable that DJT refuses to nod to their preferred classes of people.

I suspect this is partially because the left seems to have truly internalized the idea that women can't be sexist and that only white people can be racist and that the only possible reason why someone might want gender-specific locker rooms and rest rooms is rank bigotry.

That is, the people for whom DJT shows empathy are people the left have defined as being unworthy of empathy.

Anyway, enough of my rambling. I'd best get back to expressing my ideas in code…

Top
#168674 - 12/27/18 06:34 PM Re: U.S. Withdrawing from Syria [Re: Dan Simmons]
Enright Offline
Super User


Registered: 05/17/06
Posts: 3466
Loc: CA
 Originally Posted By: Dan Simmons
DS comments:

Will Character Be Trump's Downfall?

The whole issue here of "Donald Trump has no soul" is echoed in a recent column by Jonah Goldberg (whom I used to enjoy more than I do now).

I tend to agree that Trump's character (and lack of it) will lead to his downfall, but I'm not sure what form that downfall will take. Nothing that will shake the nation to its roots, I hope. In truth, character has unhorsed more than a few of our elected presidents: Richard Nixon is a good example. JFK, had he not gone to Dallas, might have had to face certain character flaws that the 1960's press agreed to be blind to (flaunting his illicit affairs to the Secret Service and others, using odd drug cocktails daily to fight the pain of his injured back, coming into office based on the Cook County vote where his father may have had Mayor Daley jigger the 1960 vote that put Kennedy into office in the closest electoral contest in history, etc). We saw Bill Clinton pay heavily for his sexual appetites and lack of self-discipline even in the White House. Und zo fort . . .

Anyway, here's a commentary on character --

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/12/trump-character-will-be-his-downfall/

ds



Mr. Goldberg seems to have first talked about Trump in 2011, when he said, "Like the scorpion in Aesop's fables who must sting the frog because that's simply what scorpions do, the world renowned, self-promoting billionaire-clown must tout himself with passion and narcissistic self-regard." So as far as Trump is concerned, Jonah has been doing this same sort of highly critical thing for a long time.

Personally, during the time that Kim Jong Un was threatening the people of the United States with nuclear weapons, I wouldn't have wanted anyone else as president of the United States other than Donald Trump. I felt he dealt with that crisis marvelously. Against that, we have the logic of a critical, narrative argument about the president's character. I believe that those sorts of narratives simply leave out too much of what is most important in a presidency.
_________________________
Jim

Top
#168679 - 12/29/18 01:18 PM Re: U.S. Withdrawing from Syria [Re: Enright]
Dan Simmons Administrator Offline
CEO of the Hegemony


Registered: 09/02/05
Posts: 11197
Loc: Colorado
The Frustrating Necessity of Staying in Syria and Afghanistan, Explained

By DAVID FRENCH

December 28, 2018 2:56 PM

We almost certainly know who will dominate in our absence, and we know their hostile intent.

One of the primary problems with our endless debates over (seemingly) endless American conflicts with jihadists overseas is that we rarely go back to first principles. We rarely take a step back and accurately define our strategic and tactical challenge. We don’t do this in debates between pundits, and we don’t do it in public arguments. Instead, all too often we resort to sloganeering and sniping, with serious pieces like those of my colleagues Andy McCarthy and Michael Brendan Dougherty (who disagree, by the way, with my counsel to stay in Syria) the welcome exceptions to the dreary rule.

Moreover, there is a distressing tendency to sweep together the last several Republican and Democratic administrations as if they’re all part of the same foreign-policy establishment that tries to do the same things the same way and then falls prey to the same temptations to turn to American military force as a first resort in the face of persistent Middle Eastern challenges. In reality, however, different approaches have confronted a series of difficult realities, and those realities have necessitated military intervention.

Let’s analyze our challenge as clearly and concisely as we can.

First, there exists a jihadist enemy of our nation and civilization that doesn’t just seek to harm our national interests, it actively seeks to kill as many Americans as possible, as publicly as possible — with the goal of so thoroughly destabilizing and demoralizing our nation that we make room for the emergence of a new jihadist power.

Second, this enemy exists not because of immediate and recent American actions (though it can certainly use some of those actions to recruit new followers) but because of an ancient, potent systematic theology. Never forget that one of the grievances Osama bin Laden listed as justifying his attack on America was the Christian Spanish reconquest of Muslim Spain. That event occurred almost 300 years before the American founding.

Third, while it is difficult to predict any given terrorist attack, this much we can say — when terrorists obtain safe havens, they become dramatically more dangerous. The creation of a safe haven escalates the threat and renders serious attacks a near-inevitability.

Fourth, for reasons too obvious to outline, terrorist safe havens are always in nations and locations that are either hostile to the United States or in a state of fractured chaos. Terrorist cells may operate in places like France, but a true safe haven cannot thrive in functioning, strong allied territory.

Finally — and this is critically important — the national obligation of self-defense is permanent. No functioning government that abdicates its duty to protect its citizens from hostile attack can remain legitimate. Preferably self-defense is maintained by deterrence. But when deterrence fails, a failure to engage the enemy doesn’t bring peace, it enables the enemy to kill your people.

For all these reasons, at the very least American military strategy should be dedicated to denying terrorists safe havens. Keep terrorists on the run. Don’t grant them the opportunity to plan, recruit, and execute attacks in an atmosphere of peace and safety. When they have that opportunity, they can do terrible things. September 11 taught us that much.

But here’s the problem: Given that safe havens exist in hostile and broken places, there is immense practical difficulty in either delegating the fight against safe havens to allies or believing you can take the fight to the enemy entirely through (relatively safe) aerial bombardments. Even air campaigns require intelligence on the ground, and air campaigns are rarely sufficient by themselves to end a land-based threat.

Compounding the challenge is that, because safe havens exist in broken or hostile places, there are rarely satisfactory allies on the ground who can take the fight to the enemy. And our record of creating satisfactory allies without being physically present to bolster their fighting strength and fighting spirit is so abysmal that it’s virtually criminal to even try it again. After all, the locations of the safe havens are broken and/or hostile for longstanding, deep-seated reasons.

So when you read news reports about detachments of Americans in far-flung places (Niger, for example), that’s not evidence of bloodthirsty commitment to “endless war” but rather the applied lessons of 17 years of direct combat with a jihadist enemy. We cannot permit our terrorist enemies (not all terrorists are American enemies) to establish safe havens anywherewithout courting catastrophe, yet we cannot effectively deny those safe havens without some presence on the ground.

What does this mean for Syria and Afghanistan? To say that ISIS has been mostly routed from northern Syria is not to say that it’s been entirely routed — especially when we know that ISIS still exists in some strength in areas ostensibly controlled by the Assad regime and its Russian and Iranian allies. To let up the pressure now is to invite ISIS to return.

If we depart and leave behind the conditions for re-creating the hostility or brokenness that created the threat in the first instance, we’re not ending a war, we’re just rescheduling it for a later date. That was the fundamental flaw of the Obama withdrawal from Iraq in 2011. He rendered a fragile ally vulnerable to exactly the catastrophe that occurred three years later, and I’d argue that the Obama withdrawal was more defensible than Trump’s Syria withdrawal. Jihadists in Iraq were weaker in 2011 than jihadists in Syria today.

This is especially true when the logical successor to our influence in northern Syria or Afghanistan is either an unabashedly hostile regime (Syria) or the same jihadist force that we’ve faced since 9/11 (Afghanistan). We almost certainly know who will dominate in our absence, and we know their hostile intent.

It’s worth noting that the present American deployments are keeping terrorists at bay at a fraction of the immense cost in men and matériel of the Afghan or Iraq invasions or of the Afghan or Iraq surges. American casualties are light, enemy casualties are heavy, and the Syrian intervention has been especially successful. It’s as if we took the sum total of all our bitter lessons learned since 9/11 and applied them in one devastatingly effective military operation.

Now we risk throwing that away. And by abandoning allies in the field, we raise the risk that next time we’ll need to use more troops and lose more men and women to deal with renewed threats. After all, which local allies will be willing to spill blood by our side if they know we’ll leave them to die?

I’m in complete agreement with Andy McCarthy when he argues that American military intervention in Syria is presently unconstitutional. I’ve made that argument repeatedly, even before Trump’s present decision. When ISIS blitzkrieged through northern Syria and northern Iraq, beheaded Americans, and inspired deadly attacks here at home, President Obama should have gone to Congress and sought the necessary authorization to respond. He did not. Congress should have introduced and voted on its own resolution. It did not.

That is a shameful, bipartisan failure that deprived us of exactly the kind of debate and discussion necessary to establish public support for renewed conflict. That failure further damaged our constitutional order and further bolstered the strength of the imperial presidency.

But the remedy for that bipartisan failure isn’t a headlong retreat but instead a new resolution. The remedy is for the commander in chief and congressional allies to make the case to the American people for the most responsible military strategy.

Instead, we’re compounding failure with failure. While there are thoughtful arguments for and against the American military presence in Syria, don’t think for a moment that the present American withdrawal is the product of a thoughtful, intentional, and informed decision by a thoughtful and informed commander in chief. It’s an impulsive act by an ignorant man, and while military professionals will do their best to mitigate the damage of his impulsiveness and ignorance, Trump’s decision-making process is no way to run a war or defend a nation.

The Trump administration is making bad decisions through a bad process, and our nation has lost its foremost warrior in protest. While it will likely take time for the renewed threat to materialize, Donald Trump is repeating one of his predecessor’s worst foreign-policy mistakes. I pray that we don’t see a repeat of the same terrible consequences.

David French is a senior writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom.


Edited by Dan Simmons (12/29/18 01:22 PM)

Top
#168680 - 12/30/18 02:10 PM Re: U.S. Withdrawing from Syria [Re: Dan Simmons]
Enright Offline
Super User


Registered: 05/17/06
Posts: 3466
Loc: CA
 Originally Posted By: Dan Simmons
The Frustrating Necessity of Staying in Syria and Afghanistan, Explained

By DAVID FRENCH

December 28, 2018 2:56 PM

We almost certainly know who will dominate in our absence, and we know their hostile intent.

One of the primary problems . . .
. . .

While there are thoughtful arguments for and against the American military presence in Syria, don’t think for a moment that the present American withdrawal is the product of a thoughtful, intentional, and informed decision by a thoughtful and informed commander in chief. It’s an impulsive act by an ignorant man, and while military professionals will do their best to mitigate the damage of his impulsiveness and ignorance, Trump’s decision-making process is no way to run a war or defend a nation.
. . .

The Trump administration is making bad decisions through a bad process, and our nation has lost its foremost warrior in protest. While it will likely take time for the renewed threat to materialize, Donald Trump is repeating one of his predecessor’s worst foreign-policy mistakes. I pray that we don’t see a repeat of the same terrible consequences.

David French is a senior writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

I would agree with many of the arguments French presents in his full essay. As I wrote on this forum some years ago:

 Originally Posted By: Enright
I heard a former CIA analyst say on Fox News that the number one recruiting tool for Al Qaeda, the one that works the best, is a successful attack. And certainly the success of the mujahideen (which means "those engaged in jihad") against the Soviets in Afghanistan enormously empowered Islamist recruitment later, so I would assume that withdrawal or a moderate course in Afghanistan ultimately leading to failure on our part would have a similar, catalytic effect on Islamic militancy, and lead to more and bigger problems for us everywhere.

The whole situation of American civilization versus Islamic militancy highlights the difficulty of suppressing an ideology with a nation state. Ideally one would fight an ideology with another ideology, but having a state do it is awkward, expensive and difficult. In the past we were helped in our struggle against Islamic militancy (though most of us didn’t even know we were in such a battle) by a third force, the ideology of atheistic communism. As long as communism was a force to be reckoned with in the Middle East, militant Islam was diverted from its path. Communism was attractive to the idealistic youth, whereas Islam was viewed by the vanguard as old hat, and the ideology of old people. I remember reading that sometime in the 1920 or 30’s the number of people on the Hajj in a particular year was only something like 20,000, or some incredibly small number like that.

Although it wasn’t recognized at the time, the weakness of communism seems to have been that it was dependent for its success on its primary state sponsor, the Soviet Union. When that state failed, the credibility of the whole ideology was seriously or fatally injured. Islam as an ideology has no such dependency, as any state failure merely proves to the initiated that the failed state wasn’t Islamic enough (not Islamic enough compared to the Islamic states of the golden 7th, 8th, and 9th centuries, so the reasoning goes). Islam is a highly successful religious and political ideology that has survived and prospered for centuries even against repeated failures in the “real” world.

However I doubt if French has enough evidence of the inside goings-on at the White House over the last two years to make the claim that our withdrawal from Syria is "an impulsive act by an ignorant man." Surely staying or withdrawing from Syria has been debated at the White House a number of times, given that withdrawing from such places was a Trump campaign promise (as I understand it), and we have had on-going operations there. We can reasonably infer that President Trump has heard the arguments and considered them. I infer that he simply disagrees with them or has other, over-riding considerations in mind, and has decided to act now. He may even have been waiting until after the midterm elections to do it, for one thing.
_________________________
Jim

Top
#168681 - 12/30/18 04:01 PM Re: U.S. Withdrawing from Syria [Re: Enright]
Enright Offline
Super User


Registered: 05/17/06
Posts: 3466
Loc: CA
Here is an interesting report from the Wall Street Journal saying that, at the urging of Senator Lindsey Graham, President Trump may be reconsidering the wisdom and timing of his quick withdrawal (just 30 days to be completely withdrawn):

WASHINGTON—President Trump is re-evaluating a rapid pullout of U.S. troops from Syria, an influential Republican senator said Sunday, signaling White House concerns that a withdrawal could allow Islamic State militants to regain a foothold in the country.

The president’s decision earlier this month marked an abrupt shift in U.S. Middle East policy and helped prompt the resignation of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. Critics have warned the exit of more than 2,000 U.S. forces could also strengthen Iran’s power and fuel worries about U.S. commitment among other allies around the world. A day after the defense secretary resigned, Brett McGurk, the senior U.S. envoy to the international coalition fighting Islamic State, resigned as well.

“The president is reconsidering how we do this,” Senator Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) said on CNN. Mr. Graham added that he has discussed the Syria withdrawal with Marine Gen. Joe Dunford, who as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is Mr. Trump’s top military adviser, and that he planned to pitch a new approach to the president during a Sunday meeting.

“I’m going to ask him to sit down with his generals and reconsider how to do this,” Mr. Graham said, saying he wants the administration to “slow this down, make sure we get it right, make sure ISIS never comes back.”

The White House’s National Security Council declined to comment and referred to a Dec. 23 tweet by the president. “I just had a long and productive call with President @RT_Erdogan of Turkey,” Mr. Trump wrote. “We discussed ISIS, our mutual involvement in Syria, & the slow & highly coordinated pullout of U.S. troops from the area. After many years they are coming home. We also discussed heavily expanded trade.”

Mr. Trump gave no sign that he was prepared to temper his plan to withdraw from Syria during his trip to Iraq last week, saying he had overruled a request from military commanders for more time to defeat Islamic State and suggesting the U.S. could use bases in Iraq to strike the militants in Syria if they attempted to regroup.

Yet Mr. Trump has hinted that he is open to revising the original 30-day timeline after a barrage of criticism, including from his own party. Turkey’s leader said his country would take over the fight against Islamic State after the U.S. departs Syria.

Some military experts question whether Turkey has the capability to counter Islamic State, suggesting Mr. Erdogan’s efforts would instead allow his forces to more forcefully suppress Kurdish forces who Ankara views as a threat.

In light of that risk, the U.S.’s Kurdish partners said they are considering abandoning the fight against Islamic State and seeking new partners, including U.S. foe, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Mr. Graham warned that the Kurds could face a massacre after American troops depart.

Mr. Graham, who is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a Trump ally, and other foreign policy veterans point to the initial rise of Islamic State in Iraq years ago and warn of a similar risk in Syria now.

“ISIS is an idea and as long as the fertile ground exists…you’re going to have it flare back up again,” retired Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal said Sunday on ABC.

Amid the opposition within Mr. Trump’s administration to the exit, one official said, the U.S. military wanted as long as 120 days to withdraw U.S. forces from the country.

Some military experts also warn that a U.S. exit will hand Iran a major strategic advantage, giving Tehran access to supply lines and bolstering its efforts to establish a corridor over land to Lebanon, on the doorstep of its avowed enemy and U.S. ally, Israel.

Mr. McChrystal said the loss of American influence in the region would likely fuel regional instability. “There is an argument that says we just pull up our stuff, go home, let the region run itself,” he said. “That has not done well for the last 50 or 60 years.”

—Michael Gordon and Peter Nicholas contributed to this article.

Write to Ian Talley at ian.talley@wsj.com

https://www.wsj.com/articles/senator-say...od=hp_lead_pos2

ETA: What a mess.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/...m=.4da262de7a8d


Edited by Enright (12/30/18 04:19 PM)
_________________________
Jim

Top
#168682 - 12/30/18 04:15 PM Re: U.S. Withdrawing from Syria [Re: Enright]
Dan Simmons Administrator Offline
CEO of the Hegemony


Registered: 09/02/05
Posts: 11197
Loc: Colorado
 Originally Posted By: Enright
Here is an interesting report from the Wall Street Journal saying that, at the urging of Senator Lindsey Graham, President Trump may be reconsidering the wisdom and timing of his quick withdrawal (just 30 days to be completely withdrawn):

WASHINGTON—President Trump is re-evaluating a rapid pullout of U.S. troops from Syria, an influential Republican senator said Sunday, signaling White House concerns that a withdrawal could allow Islamic State militants to regain a foothold in the country.

The president’s decision earlier this month marked an abrupt shift in U.S. Middle East policy and helped prompt the resignation of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. Critics have warned the exit of more than 2,000 U.S. forces could also strengthen Iran’s power and fuel worries about U.S. commitment among other allies around the world. A day after the defense secretary resigned, Brett McGurk, the senior U.S. envoy to the international coalition fighting Islamic State, resigned as well.

“The president is reconsidering how we do this,” Senator Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) said on CNN. Mr. Graham added that he has discussed the Syria withdrawal with Marine Gen. Joe Dunford, who as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is Mr. Trump’s top military adviser, and that he planned to pitch a new approach to the president during a Sunday meeting.

“I’m going to ask him to sit down with his generals and reconsider how to do this,” Mr. Graham said, saying he wants the administration to “slow this down, make sure we get it right, make sure ISIS never comes back.”

The White House’s National Security Council declined to comment and referred to a Dec. 23 tweet by the president. “I just had a long and productive call with President @RT_Erdogan of Turkey,” Mr. Trump wrote. “We discussed ISIS, our mutual involvement in Syria, & the slow & highly coordinated pullout of U.S. troops from the area. After many years they are coming home. We also discussed heavily expanded trade.”

Mr. Trump gave no sign that he was prepared to temper his plan to withdraw from Syria during his trip to Iraq last week, saying he had overruled a request from military commanders for more time to defeat Islamic State and suggesting the U.S. could use bases in Iraq to strike the militants in Syria if they attempted to regroup.

Yet Mr. Trump has hinted that he is open to revising the original 30-day timeline after a barrage of criticism, including from his own party. Turkey’s leader said his country would take over the fight against Islamic State after the U.S. departs Syria.

Some military experts question whether Turkey has the capability to counter Islamic State, suggesting Mr. Erdogan’s efforts would instead allow his forces to more forcefully suppress Kurdish forces who Ankara views as a threat.

In light of that risk, the U.S.’s Kurdish partners said they are considering abandoning the fight against Islamic State and seeking new partners, including U.S. foe, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Mr. Graham warned that the Kurds could face a massacre after American troops depart.

Mr. Graham, who is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a Trump ally, and other foreign policy veterans point to the initial rise of Islamic State in Iraq years ago and warn of a similar risk in Syria now.

“ISIS is an idea and as long as the fertile ground exists…you’re going to have it flare back up again,” retired Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal said Sunday on ABC.

Amid the opposition within Mr. Trump’s administration to the exit, one official said, the U.S. military wanted as long as 120 days to withdraw U.S. forces from the country.

Some military experts also warn that a U.S. exit will hand Iran a major strategic advantage, giving Tehran access to supply lines and bolstering its efforts to establish a corridor over land to Lebanon, on the doorstep of its avowed enemy and U.S. ally, Israel.

Mr. McChrystal said the loss of American influence in the region would likely fuel regional instability. “There is an argument that says we just pull up our stuff, go home, let the region run itself,” he said. “That has not done well for the last 50 or 60 years.”

—Michael Gordon and Peter Nicholas contributed to this article.

Write to Ian Talley at ian.talley@wsj.com

https://www.wsj.com/articles/senator-say...od=hp_lead_pos2


DS comments:

Thanks for bringing our attention to this. I hope that Trump slows down, at the very least. Military bugouts too much resemble panicked retreats.

ds

Top
#168686 - 01/03/19 02:59 PM Re: U.S. Withdrawing from Syria [Re: Dan Simmons]
jmill Offline
Full Shrike


Registered: 04/01/06
Posts: 5526

I lambasted Obama for throwing away the sacrifices in life and limb that thousands of American soldiers and their families made in Iraq by announcing that we were quitting and pulling out. I do not believe in paying for the same "real estate" twice, whether it's territory or policy objectives, especially when the cost is the lives and health of our warriors. Obama threw away a huge part of what Bush had achieved with his feckless, lead-from-behind fairy tale foreign policy theories.

If Trump does something similar, then I will lambaste him as well. Sauce for the goose...

Top
Page 2 of 3 <123>


Hop to:

Generated in 0.037 seconds in which 0.027 seconds were spent on a total of 13 queries. Zlib compression disabled.

Home    Books    Curtis on Publishing   Previews    Bio    Bibliography    Snapshots     Foreign News    Reader's Forum    Art