EXCLUSIVE: OFFICIAL WHO HEARD CALL SAYS TRUMP GOT 'ROLLED' BY TURKEY AND 'HAS NO SPINE'
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Donald Trump got "rolled" by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a National Security Council source with direct knowledge of the discussions told Newsweek .
In a scheduled phone call on Sunday afternoon between President Trump and President Erdogan, Trump said he would withdraw U.S. forces from northern Syria. The phone call was scheduled after Turkey announced it was planning to invade Syria, and hours after Erdogan reinforced his army units at the Syrian-Turkish border and issued his strongest threat to launch a military incursion, according to the National Security Council official to whom Newsweek spoke on condition of anonymity.
The U.S. withdrawal plays into the hands of the Islamic State group, Damascus and Moscow, and the announcement left Trump's own Defense Department "completely stunned," said Pentagon officials. Turkey, like the United States, wants regime change in Syria. Russia and Iran support the Assad regime.
"President Trump was definitely out-negotiated and only endorsed the troop withdraw to make it look like we are getting something—but we are not getting something," the National Security Council source told Newsweek. "The U.S. national security has entered a state of increased danger for decades to come because the president has no spine and that's the bottom line."
Newsweek granted the National Security Council official anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly. The source said it would not be surprising to see a Turkish incursion in the next 24 to 96 hours.
Turkey has long considered the Kurdish militia in Syria to be a terrorist insurgency, despite the United States providing military and financial aid to the group in its fight against ISIS, the Islamic State militant group. A battle with the vastly superior military of Turkey, a NATO ally, could drive the Kurds into the arms of Bashar Al-Assad, the Syrian dictator that Washington wants ousted, and by extension into an alliance with Russia and Iran, two U.S. rivals with forces in Syria.
The White House said late Sunday evening in a statement that Turkey will soon invade northern Syria but both the Defense Department and Trump on Twitter said they made clear to Turkey that they do not endorse a Turkish operation in northern Syria.
"As I have stated strongly before, and just to reiterate, if Turkey does anything that I, in my great and unmatched wisdom, consider to be off limits, I will totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey (I've done before!)," said Trump on Twitter Monday. "They must, with Europe and others, watch over the captured ISIS fighters and families...it is time now for others in the region, some of great wealth, to protect their own territory."
According to the NSC official, who had first-hand knowledge of the phone call, Trump did not endorse any Turkish military operation against Kurdish Forces, but also did not threaten economic sanctions during the phone call if Turkey decided to undertake offensive operations.
In a statement, White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham said, "The United States Armed Forces will not support or be involved in the operation, and United States forces, having defeated the ISIS territorial "Caliphate," will no longer be in the immediate area."
The New York Times reported Monday that about 100 to 150 American forces would withdraw from northern Syria but not completely from the country. Newsweek confirmed the Times reporting but the National Security Council official said the number was closer to 230 service members, among them U.S. Special Forces and reconnaissance units.
The Times also reported witnesses observed United States forces withdraw from two observation posts in Tel Abyad and Ein Eissa in northeastern Syria. Newsweek confirmed these on Monday—a senior Defense Department official said American forces are about 90 percent complete with the withdraw as of publication.
One of the main issues in the phone call between the two world leaders concerned the roughly 2,000 Islamic State militant prisoners being held by the Kurdish-dominated Syrian Defense Forces in northeastern Syria, who the U.S. military assists financially.
Trump told Erdogan he did not want anything to do with ISIS prisoners despite the United States not currently detaining Islamic State prisoners in Syria. The Syrian Defense Forces control custody of the prisoners.
Erdogan said Turkey would take custody of the ISIS militant prisoners, according to the White House statement and the National Security Council official Newsweek spoke to for this story.
"The ISIS prisoners, some of them, will eventually be freed amongst the chaos, and remain in the area or go elsewhere to rejoin the fight," speculated the National Security Council official.
The White House statement on Sunday also expressed Trump's long-held frustration with how other NATO-allied countries had dealt with captured Islamic State group fighters. The statement singled out "France, Germany and other European nations," for refusing to take back their citizens who had joined the Islamic State militant group.
U.S. Army General Mark A. Milley, Trump's newly minted chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, is scheduled to meet with the service chiefs this morning to discuss the matter, said National Security Council source.
The National Security Council official said they could not speak about what Trump's admirals and generals may plan, but said they would not expect anything out of the usual norms as the Defense Department follows orders with or without advanced knowledge.
If the United States had refused to move out of Turkey's war path, U.S options would not just be the threat of potential conflict between nation-state militaries, it would have been applied pressure on the Turkish economy, according to the National Security Council official.
However, the United States chose not to stand its ground to protect Kurdish Forces against Turkish airstrikes as a part of Trump's "America First policy" and his historical views that war is bad for business, according to the official.
On Sunday, Erdogan reinforced his army units at the Syrian-Turkish border hours after he issued his strongest threat to launch Turkish forces over the border and into the "buffer zone," between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.
The buffer zone—sometimes referred to as the peace corridor—was established to prevent another Turkish invasion of northern Syria. The United States had been working to establish a proper demilitarized zone prior to Trump's endorsement of Turkey's military plans.
If Trump's withdraw of U.S. forces had not occurred, the National Security Council official told Newsweek, the United States could have continued to refine the buffer zone on the Syrian-Turkish border.
"To be honest with you, it would be better for the United States to support a Kurdish nation across Turkey, Syria and Iraq," said the National Security Council official. "It would be another Israel in the region."
The current foreign policy debacle is what prompted Trump's former defense secretary, James Mattis, to resign his post after Trump decided to abruptly withdraw American forces from Syria in December 2018. Mattis was the last of the generals touted as the "adults" in the administration—and was an outspoken opponent of a Syrian withdrawal.
A senior Defense Department official told Newsweek in January no U.S. general was happy with the decision to pull back U.S. troops from Syria as Pentagon officials feared the withdrawal could spark an ISIS resurgence similar to the Taliban's growing influence and territory in Afghanistan.
Administration officials in January told Newsweek Trump's sudden withdraw order could undercut strategic U.S. alliances with regional allies; free Russia and Iran to re-establish a full military presence and solid footing in the Mediterranean; and leave U.S.-backed Kurdish fighters vulnerable to being decimated by a Turkish air campaign.
A complete withdrawal could also potentially give up a valuable regional position to American military forces that threaten United States interests in the region, including the interests of allies such as Israel and, to some extent, Jordan.
The National Security Council official compared Turkey to "playground bullies" on Monday.
Tags
Who is online
105 visitors
When it rains it pours.
Do we really want this for 5 1/2 more years, conservatives?
5 1/2 minutes is too long.
Trump is in so over his head, it's pathetic, and those that continue to defend the special needs mental midget with out morals or ethics, as they are contrary to all Trump is, have US All being led by a death mix, of one who would kill the American Spirit as he believes we cannot mix immigrants with his White power, disregard any and all rules he doesn't think apply to him ( All ), all while attempting to unlawfully influence another election in his favor.
Then , to icing the cake, he screws over our best allie against ISIS, a group he claims has been defeated, but has not a clue about what this will do to our world standing the next time we ask a group or nation to be our allie, which is ironic for one who speaks virtually all lies
Amazing how the Repubs call this one out almost immediately, yet blow off the Ukraine scandal.
What I don't want is officials/sources who speak from the shadows. The President gets to have his own foreign policy. I'm sure President Trump is wondering the same thing Obama must have wondered - how the hell do you get out of the middle east???
As far as Turkey goes - if they want to annex northern Syria and deal with all the ISIS prisoners & Syrian refugees, more power to them. As a matter of fact let them try and resurrect the Ottoman Empire. Harsh measures may be the only way to deal with the middle east.
To answer your question - YES, YES & YES!
There have been "unnamed sources" used in news stories as long as I have been alive. It is standard procedure in journalism when there is a sensitive issue.
It's been a mainstay where Donald Trump is concerned. Thus far most of it has been wrong & ALL of it has been anti-Trump!
Then he should stop using Putin's.
I'll let that meaningless slur sit there for all to see.
Gee, I wonder why?
Amateur pro-Trump ‘sleuths’ scramble to unmask whistleblower: ‘Your president has asked for your help’
Trump lashes out at whistleblower and renews attack on House intelligence chair
Whistleblower’s lawyers fear for his safety amid Trump remarks
'Some people'? 'My friend John'? 'I've heard lots of people say'? 'Many many people think'?
The shadow is over Trump, he is the one who pulls things out of his ass daily.
The WB is (both 1 & 2) kind of irrelevant now. The text of the call is out there for all to see. Either there is a quid pro quo or there isn't. The ball is in Pelosi's court.
Really? why did the so called WB go to Adam Schiff before he went to the AG? Who leaked the WB complaint?
Were you just as outraged over the leaks regarding Benghazi? Or did you focus on the content of the leaks?
And maybe the whistleblower didn't trust Barr to do the right thing ... which is a valid concern that I would have shared.
I don't trust Barr. He himself thinks the office of the president is above the law.
He was involved in all the Iran-Contra affairs. He was instrumental in getting a lot of people pardoned that should have been in jail.
Barr is NOT trustworthy....he's playing attorney for the Crooked donnie..
No, leakers during the Obama years faced prosecution. That was Obama's policy.
Or did you focus on the content of the leaks?
I only focused on the facts pertaining to how & why those Americans were killed.
And maybe the whistleblower didn't trust Barr to do the right thing
Barr? The WB needed to go to the IG first. He didn't and he concealed it and Schiff concealed it. That is a bad look for an investigation.
Let's bring back Loretta Lynch
Ah, you said AG originally - I should have realized it was a typo. Doesn't sound to me as if he did anything wrong. From Snopes:
Now, the fact that MacGuire failed to follow through and Atkinson had to do it is probably a bad look for an investigation.
When I got married, the wife of Poindexter was the priest who married me
It was just after the Iran Contra scandal, and of course I didn't dare ask her any questions.
What meaningless slur?
You mean truth?
Right wing talking point, quid pro quo is not necessary. Trump used his office to pressure the Ukraine to investigate his political opponent. Quid pro quo just takes it to an higher level.
The WB concealed that fact. Schiff lied about it. If it was all on the up & up why the secrecy?
And that's the liberal talking point. Go ahead impeach on that. Remember impeachment goes to the US Senate. You tell me, where is this going? Will Pelosi take a vote on the Articles of Impeachment?
Would you rather a meeting in the dead of night in a dark empty garage shrouded in secrecy?
Pompeo was very evasive and didn't admit for some time that he was on the call. Same question applies there, right?
Either way, neither Schiff nor Pompeo did anything illegal in these two particular scenarios. Sure, I'd prefer they had each told the truth, but I imagine they were both waiting to see how this was going to play out.
No matter what Trump does - shoot someone on 5th Avenue - the Republicans will never remove him from office.
While I don't expect them to do that, there's still plenty of time for the GOP to start supporting a primary... if they start soon.
He was evasive. I don't blame him. If I was him I wouldn't want to get in front of Trump. At least he didn't lie about it. Now that we solved "what about Benghazi and "whatabout Pompeo can I ask why Schiff lied about his staff's meeting with the so called WB? Or why the WB didn't fill in the space on the report asking if he met with congressional staff Or why he didn't tell the IG?
neither Schiff nor Pompeo did anything illegal in these two particular scenarios.
From my perspective it appears this hit job was well orchestrated and was intended to strike quickly with one felt swoop. It is already bogging down. As inappropriate as that phone call was the President, miraculously, didn't cross that technical line of linking an investigation to military aid.
After all the left has put this man through you still want to risk disaster for your party with a Hail Mary pass?
there's still plenty of time for the GOP to start supporting a primary.
What do you mean?
Ala Woodward & Berstein?
I'm not a Democrat. And I've already said that I don't see much point in going through with impeachment - Trump won't be removed from office any more than Clinton was, even if he does get impeached.
The GOP is trying to make it impossible for anyone to primary Trump (and yes, I know the DNC does the exact same damn thing when the incumbent is a Dem). Maybe this is what the GOP needs to start realizing that having some rational adults to choose from on the GOP side would be a good thing for them (also some people who aren't so damn old).
That makes two things I like about you.
And I've already said that I don't see much point in going through with impeachment - Trump won't be removed from office any more than Clinton was, even if he does get impeached.
I think we both agree that impeachment needs to be bipartisan.
The GOP is trying to make it impossible for anyone to primary Trump (and yes, I know the DNC does the exact same damn thing when the incumbent is a Dem). Maybe this is what the GOP needs to start realizing that having some rational adults to choose from on the GOP side would be a good thing for them (also some people who aren't so damn old).
Now I see what you mean. I'm a lifelong Republican. There are many Republicans who speak & sound better than Trump. However, aside from the Great Ronald Reagan, no Republican President has been able to perform like Trump - and that's despite overwhelming obstruction.
He advised the WB to go to the IG, which the person did. So why would he need to take any other actions? And why haven't we heard who the other people at that meeting were, for that matter?
If my boss had a conversation like that with me, I'd know damn well that I was basically being told to do something, and what the repercussions would be if I didn't. You're not that naïve. If Obama had done it, you'd fully admit what it had meant. None of the countless investigations into Dems have been hit jobs in your mind - but every investigation into Trump has been.
And even without the aid, it is totally inappropriate for the President to request foreign assistance in investigating his political rival (as Romney, I think it was, pointed out - it was clearly politically motivated, as apparently Trump only cares about corruption if it's the Bidens). Then he asked China to investigate - China, who is our enemy.
Look, I don't think Trump intentionally set out to violate the law. I don't think he gave it a single thought, because he's repeatedly said he is completely above the law. Little people obey laws. He is his own worst enemy, and I always figured this was a possible outcome when he got elected, since he just can't keep his mouth shut or listen to his advisors. And I doubt that even now, he has any real understanding that he's done this to himself. He just blames Rick Perry (today) and who knows who tomorrow.
Yes he did and the WB did well with that. Many who saw the WB report thought it was written by a law professor (and possibly in conjunction with Schiff's staff!).
So why would he need to take any other actions?
Once the record of the phone call was released the WB became irrelevant. Do you agree?
If my boss had a conversation like that with me, I'd know damn well that I was basically being told to do something, and what the repercussions would be if I didn't.
That may be true, but it gives the Republicans a huge out. It wasn't specific.
If Obama had done it, you'd fully admit what it had meant.
I'm positive Obama did do it, at least once with the same country and as I recall Bill Clinton did it openly with the British PM concerning British Airlines. No Whistleblowers. No demands for impeachment. Not a peep from the media.
None of the countless investigations into Dems have been hit jobs in your mind - but every investigation into Trump has been.
None of them? I'm not sure of that. I could go back to Andrew Johnson. That was a hit job.
Then he asked China to investigate - China, who is our enemy.
He never asked. He said "they should." The Peoples Republic dosen't take it's marching orders from what Trump thinks should happen.
Look, I don't think Trump intentionally set out to violate the law. I don't think he gave it a single thought, because he's repeatedly said he is completely above the law. Little people obey laws. He is his own worst enemy, and I always figured this was a possible outcome when he got elected, since he just can't keep his mouth shut or listen to his advisors.
That's a fair assessment. He also does have an awful lot of help!
And I doubt that even now, he has any real understanding that he's done this to himself.
That remains to be seen.
Trump used unnamed sources to promote his birtherism bullshit too. He said his, "unnamed sources" in Hawaii had remarkable proof that Obama wasn't born in the USA. Of course there were no sources at all, it was just another conspiracy theory.
So? The right has been after Hillary for 25 years, maybe trump needs to get some thicker skin.
I hate drifting into this birther shit, but I have to ask - Wouldn't it be a good idea for the political parties to certify the place of birth of candidates as soon as their candidacy is announced?
As has been pointed out, perhaps he wanted assurances that their identity would be protected, which is the law, BTW.
Trump is the master of unnamed sources. He loves to say "many people say" or "I've heard people say" and his base counts that as if it were accurate, even though it's just him making up bullshit as usual. Hell, he has even pretended to be someone else when calling reporters to get his name in the paper. But his hypocritical base ignores those things while screeching when reporting works the way it's supposed to.
Also, his base clearly has no clue what investigative journalism is, or they wouldn't make such asinine comments about unnamed sources.
I'd prefer to see them conduct background checks, but we've already discussed that.
Not even close. She really got away with a lot of shit and she created one of the greatest political machines in American history. Kind of unlucky in those DNC primaries. In 2008 it should have been hers and along came Obama. Even some of her key supporters went over to Obama. Bill Clinton said the media favored Obama over her. Then came 2016 and the DNC was secretly on board yet that pesky old Socialist gave her more than a few scares! Then came that Populist revolution!
On the contrary, his base helped make the investigative journalist John Solomon a household name!
And he went to Schiff for that?
And maybe a senior official in the intelligence community has written lots of reports, and happens to be a good writer. Not everything is a conspiracy.
No - the WB is still going to need to testify or provide further information, most likely. Besides, we still apparently don't have the entire record of the call, and we don't even know who was on it.
I'm not so sure about that.
Asked them to investigate his main political rival a year before the election, after withholding much needed aid? Really? And Clinton did it too???
Neither does Russia - except they did, and got those emails for him.
He has never, in his entire life, accepted blame for anything, or admitted he was wrong. No way he'll start now.
The guy who creates fake controversy? No wonder his base is confused - that's not what a good investigative journalist does.
And clearly his base doesn't get it, or they'd stop screeching about unnamed sources. They prefer to be outraged than to research facts.
We may never know, but on the other hand we saw what went on with Christine Blasey Ford and for that matter the intelligence community itself. It's hard to win back the public's trust.
No - the WB is still going to need to testify or provide further information, most likely. Besides, we still apparently don't have the entire record of the call, and we don't even know who was on it.
I think we do have the entire call. We are going to interview all the people on the call - that would solve it! Be careful of what you wish for.
I'm not so sure about that.
As it stands right now impeachment dies one way or another in the US Senate - should Pelosi actually pull the trigger!
Asked them to investigate his main political rival a year before the election, after withholding much needed aid? Really? And Clinton did it too???
Oh yes. I refer you to the case of Paul Manafort (Obama) and British Airways (Clinton)
Neither does Russia - except they did, and got those emails for him.
What e-mails? The DNC hack? That went to Trump? BTW It wasn't US intelligence that investigated that. They took the word of a private firm.
He has never, in his entire life, accepted blame for anything, or admitted he was wrong. No way he'll start now.
That's true, but not everything done to him was done by his own hand. He suffered for 2 and a half years because of progressives.
The guy who is always dead right!
They prefer to be outraged than to research facts.
Like Trump conspiring with Russia
He's a suckup to Hannity, and NOT an investigative reporter. I really expected better from you than to equate a conspiracy theorist with an investigative journalist.
What I want is the truth. I have no need to be careful what I wish for.
You don't seem to understand that the Russia investigation started with Carter Page and George Papadopoulos, not with Trump conspiring with Russia. There was enough "there" there to warrant an investigation, which resulted in a lot of indictments, guilty pleas, and convictions - including Russians and those in the Trump campaign. Somehow since Trump wasn't implicated, you seem to agree with him that it was a hoax. And of course the investigators wanted to see if Trump or his campaign had any involvement - if Obama's campaign had as many crooks in it as Trump's did, wouldn't you think it was worth making sure that corruption didn't include him?
As it was, the only thing he got caught for was obstruction of justice, but then he had to keep running his mouth, and now here we are.
Transcript covers about 12 minutes of a 30 minute call. Why would you think it was the whole call?
Exactly. And there seem to be some gaps right where the most damaging information is. Could it be that he merely trailed off? Yes. Could it be that portions are missing? Yes. We need to see the entire transcript to know for sure. Nixon tapes come to mind.
Sounds like a James O'Keefe.
Oh yes he is - he recently won WTP's Fielding Chase Award for investigative journalism and as of tonight he officially became a Fox News contributor.
Congrats John! Keep up the good work.
if Obama's campaign had as many crooks in it as Trump's
With the news that John Durham's investigation is expanding, James Clapper said today that they only did what Obama told them to do! Isn't that interesting?
How about a link to this award Vic? Google cannot find anything about it.
FoxNews hired Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and she admitted to lying to everyone. Being hired by FoxNews is far from being something to prove your honesty.
Mueller report reveals Sarah Sanders lied for Trump.
THAT would have been the better thing to do. Erdogan is a mini-monster who is no friend of the west, and to support him rather than those who fought bravely alongside of the Americans is a travesty. Trump's allowing the Turks to replace the Americans in Syria is also a negative towards Israel's security.
Both the Pentagon and leading Republicans are against Trump's decision:
Nikki should be POTUS.
Amen to that!
I'd vote for her....
For a while, there was speculation floating around that she might replace Pence on the ticket for 2020.
That would actually be a good idea, so it's unlikely that Trump would go for it.
That would most likely lose the evangelists' votes. For sure Nikki will run in 2024 - she is young enough,. Hopefully she will take on an important position in the government before then that would be even a bigger boost for her. I really hope she becomes POTUS one day.
Nikki could break that glass ceiling. I hope she's the one.
I would vote for Nikki Haley over just about any other Republican, but not over many Democrats. She is quite conservative.
I could vote for her.
Trump may be toying with the idea of adding Don Jr's girlfriend to the ticket - Kimberly Guilfoyle - former wife of CA Gov Gavin Newsom!
That doesn't sound like such a brilliant move to me. If he were actually going to replace Pence - which I doubt he will - Nikki would be a much better choice. Except I doubt she'd shut up and do what he told her to do, as Pence does. She seems to have some balls, and Trump doesn't deal well with disagreement from anyone, especially strong women.
On the face of it, it wouldn't be
If he were actually going to replace Pence - which I doubt he will - Nikki would be a much better choice.
I totally agree on both points. Pence is still one of Trumps best picks. Nikki would be a good one too. I'd like to see her enter in 2024 on her own running for the top job.
Except I doubt she'd shut up and do what he told her to do, as Pence does.
Then she shouldn't be a VP or anything else in any administration. If you are not on board with the President's agenda yo do what Mattis did - You resign and keep your mouth shut!
She seems to have some balls, and Trump doesn't deal well with disagreement from anyone, especially strong women.
That's your perception. She is a strong woman as is the President's wife & daughter and many other women in his administration.
And she calls 'em like she sees 'em. Quite eloquently at that. She has a way to slap the hell out of you and make you like it. I wish she would take the VPOTUS away from Mr. Pence but I doubt she has much use for Mr. Trump right now.
I don't think anyone with intelligence, morals, and ethics could serve as Trump's VP without trying their best to counsel him privately when he makes really bad choices.
And he completely ignores their advice too. If she were going to be VP, I think she'd want to try to do a good job, and part of that would by necessity include trying to manage Trump's worst gut instincts. Since that's not possible, I doubt she'd put herself in that position even if she were asked.
You know what I wish I was? Answer - the guy who goes through every agency of government for Trump - finding and getting rid of every anti-Trump employee!
And he completely ignores their advice too. If she were going to be VP, I think she'd want to try to do a good job, and part of that would by necessity include trying to manage Trump's worst gut instincts. Since that's not possible, I doubt she'd put herself in that position even if she were asked.
You mean giving advice. I'm all in favor of that when necessary. Once the President makes his decision he should gets everyone's support
Let's save her for 2024 after Trump's second term.
It will be interesting to watch trump give campaign speeches from prison.
So you are in favor of trump doing whatever he wants to do, no matter what, without any checks and balances? You want a dictator, good to know.
Save your money, don't bet on it.
I'm in favor of defeating progressives. I want them out of government, out of education and out of the media.
If you hate progressives, get off the internet, that'll show'em.
Trump wouldn't go for it because he want a "yes man" who kow-tows to him. Someone who doesn;t think for themselves, follows him blindly. And praises him constantly.
Pence is that sort of perfect toadie.
But Haley wouldn't be!
And another moron is found working in the US government. Must be a life long convention. WTF. People think that going to war to carve Kurdish nation Turkey, Syria, Iraq- and don't forget Iran, they want a hunk of that as well- is a good idea? At best you get genocide. At worst you get a whole bunch of pissed off anti US terrorists from those that survive; and another country in the ME that has to propped up financially, militarily, and in the UN by the US.
There is no Kurdistan, period. If this is an example of the someone working in the NSC we had better clean house.
Our main concern is not the Kurds or Israel. It is the fact that US forces are in a foreign country illegally. A country that is fighting a proxy civil war; and is bringing US forces into close proximity to Russia, Chinese, and Iranian forces. We have no legal standing in Syria. If sustained conflict breaks out against US forces the UN, nor NATO, will support us. WWIII over Syria is about as dumb as you can get. Thanks Bush Jr and Obama for getting us here.
Why isn't anyone calling on NATO to revoke Turkey's membership? How about UN sanctions if they even think about crossing into Syria. They have nothing at stake in Syria.
As for the Kurds, don't kid yourselves. It was in their best interests to align with the US. Was anyone else jumping to their aid? Was anyone else giving them arms, training, or air support in Iraq or Syria?
Worried that they will jump ship and join the Russia/Syrian coalition against ISIS/ISIL and Turkey? That is what they should do! They are living in Syria- they are technically Syrians. Russia, China, Iran, and Syria are more than capable of handling Turkey/ISIS/ISIL from here on out. There is no reason to keep US forces in Syria. Assad will not be removed from power unless he pisses off Russia. Putin then will put a puppet in charge more to his liking.
ISIS/ISIL is no longer a military power in Iraq or Syria. They have moved onto greener pastures in Lebanon, Libya, Afghanistan, and Africa. We are only fighting them in Afghanistan- for all the good it is doing as we are tied to a weak corrupt Afghan government.
I wasn't aware that China was involved in Syria - have you a valid source for that? However, if there are UN peacekeeping forces in Syria then they would be there under its auspices, because there are more Chinese in the UN peacekeeping forces than from any other nation.
Yes-- Germany.
Was anyone else giving them arms, training, or air support in Iraq or Syria?
Israel, of course .
Was anyone else giving them arms, training, or air support in Iraq or Syria?
Naturally Great Britain did.
Funny you should mention that!
But of course like most nations concerned about the spread of ISIS, Canada did<.
Was anyone else jumping to their aid? Was anyone else giving them arms, training, or air support in Iraq or Syria?
Many people aren't aware of the fact, but Albania is a Eoropean country with a Muslim majority.
So its not surprising that they were concenred about the spread of ISIS in the Middle East-- and so, knowing that the Kurds were the best fighters and most effective ground force fighting ISIS-- Albania also sent weapons to the Kurds!
(Good for them!)
Yup
Croatia!
Well, in addition to otheer major players, France has also been threatened by ISIS-- so it shouldn't be surprising to know that they also sent weapons to this effective fighting force!
I thought you'd never ask!
Sophia!!!
Yes-- the Italians took a break from making love and enjoying their scrumptious cuisine to face the hard cold facts that ISIS was a real threat- - so they sent weapons to the Kurds as well.
Not surprisingly, Denmark did as well
(I believe severalother countries did-- but this is getting tiring so I'll stop for now.
Any other questions?
Of course there is a Kurdistan. It is a region , with a name. It is not a country. Just because it is not a country doesnt mean it doesnt exist.
There is a Kurd people. Does their history as a people dissolve because the powers that carved up the region didnt deign to give them their own country?
From your own link.
So no military training, and no air support.
So, no troops, no training, and no air support.
So again, no troops, no training, and no air support.
Yet again, no troops, no training, no air support.
I am going to make this simple- as you are simply stating sending weapons is the same as sending in troops to train, provide logistics, fight alongside, and air support.
Read my whole comment. What other countries have provided the Kurds with troops, training, and air support?
We don't need troops in Syria, and air power in Syria, to send weapons to the Kurds. I have no problem sending as many weapons as they need.
Sorry, they are SOL just like every other people that was carved up by Britain and France. Why are the Kurds more important than the Palestinians, Turkmen, Turkoman, or any other faction that wasn't given a country? Many of those people would want the same territory the proposed Kurdistan would be in.
Trump buckles to Erdogan--again.
Have long suspected that the murder of Khashoggi was culminated not to protect MBS or the House of Saud. It was done to protect someone else.
The murder was committed in Turkey.
I couldn't watch t.v. this morning after hearing that we were withdrawing and handing over power to Turkey. The US is creating more enemies through our betrayal to these allies and fighters. Trump is a fool but his supporters are culpable for his actions because of their failure to hold him accountable.
If Congress and the Senate have the power to reverse Trump on this, I sure as hell hope they do it!
I think that is what anyone with knowledge of Turkey, Erdogan, and the Kurds are hoping for.
If there is a vote in the Senate, it will be interesting to see whom on the republican side of the isle vote against Trump's position.
Trump is CiC.
What can they do outside of rebuke him? Congress does not have the power over the military.
We are on the eve of another Holocaust-- this time the victims will be the Kurds.
Yeah, so much for "Never again".
Please can the hyperbole.
Kurds make up 18% of the population of Turkey. About 15 million of them. Why hasn't Turkey killed them all off? Considering they want to carve a hunk of Turkey off for their imaginary Kurdistan. The Turks have considered the PKK a terrorist organization since 1996.
From the same article.
I wonder why Turkey thinks thinks the YPG is a threat to them?/S Also, people seem to be leaving out Turkey wants to return 700,000 Syrian refugees.
I do not agree with Turkey entering Syria. But it is up to the world to stop them, not the US. NATO can revoke their membership. The UN can call on countries to apply economic sanctions against Turkey. Where is the rest of the world on this- besides sticking their heads in the sand as it will cost them money and resources.
Keeping a couple thousand US troops in direct danger to act as a deterrent to Turkey is just plain stupid.
Why didn't Hitler kill off all the Jews in Germany?
I don't have a clue-- 'tis a mystery indeed!
Wait! Could it possibly be because Turkey bombs kurdish villages. Arrests and tortures Kurdish civilians for no reason? Tries to wipe out their use of their language? Etc, etc.
And on some level even an idiot like Erdogan must realize that if you treat people that way-- a least a few of them might decide to ressit-- even fight back?
Because some Jews were bombing the snot out of him and his forces from the sky, among other things, and I knew 2 of those pilots.
Trying to compare Turkey to Hitler? They aren't even in the same league.
Hitler tried to exterminate as many Jews as possible. Luckily he missed those that fled, hid, or joined underground resistance movements.
Trump is like a senior suffering from early dementia falling for scam calls. He is unaware of all the implications of any conversation because he can no longer grasp the many facets of a decision. As long as they compliment him, point out a financial gain he might receive, then he just jumps in creating chaos and division to the detriment of the American people. He listens to Fox and conspiracies because he can no longer grasp reality.