The real reason trump is screwing over our best allies- (the Kurds
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, left, and U.S. President Donald Trump at the
June 2019 G-20 conference in Osaka, Japan. Presidential Press Service/Pool Photo via AP
Late Sunday night, the Trump administration announced that US troops would be pulling back from their positions northern Syria, allowing Turkey to move into a region controlled by Kurdish forces that had fought with the US against ISIS. Trump’s announcement is a big win for Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and it has already enraged many in American national security circles—including Trump allies who say it reverses years of US policy. Kurdish leaders are being more blunt, saying it qualifies as a betrayal
“I have a little conflict of interest ’cause I have a major, major building in Istanbul.”
Whatever else it may be, Trump’s policy toward Turkey is also a significant conflict of interest, as Trump himself has admitted. In 2015, while running for president, Trump gave an interview to Stephen Bannon, not yet his campaign manager, in which he talked about Turkey. Right away, he admitted that his business interests in the country would make it difficult for him to deal with Turkey with a clear mind.
“I have a little conflict of interest ’cause I have a major, major building in Istanbul,” Trump told Bannon during a Breitbart radio show. “It’s a tremendously successful job. It’s called Trump Towers—two towers, instead of one, not the usual one, it’s two.”
Trump doesn’t own the buildings . . . instead, Trump licenses his brand to the building’s actual owner,
Tags
Who is online
84 visitors
His closeness with Erdogan has continued, even over the objections of some of Trump’s most reliable supporters. For instance, in May 2017, when Erdogan visited Washington, D.C., for a White House visit, Turkish agents violently attacked protesters outside the Turkish ambassador’s residence—shoving past local police officers to do so.
Video showed Erdogan calmly watching the attack from his car.
Although the House of Representatives, then under GOP control, voted 397-0 to condemn the attacks, Trump refused to do so. A few months later, Trump praised Erdogan, describing him as “a very good friend” and saying he gets “very high marks” for the way he runs Turkey.
Obama considered him a "very good friend" as well, and did I not read that he took Erdogan's advice about raising his daughters?
Sadly, every president has called Turkey a good ally, and that is why we don't recognize the Arminian Genocide, which was the prototype for the Germans. The only difference between Obama and Trump is that Obama didn't do business with Turkey.
I had a good client who was an Armenian, who became a very good friend, even bought a home close to ours so we could spend more time together. He had pretty strong feelings about the Turks, having been told about the genocide by his ancestors.
Yes you did, on a RW parody site, why repeat it?
I just recall reading it, I don't recall WHERE I read it. I repeated it because I thought it was relevant to the relationships that American Presidents have had with Erdogan.
GEO politics can be----awkward and pursued out of necessity-----and to often with ignorance of the long term obligations or consequence.
And the argument that Trump wants to pull out the 2000 troops we have there because he wants to end the wars and bring our troops home is nonsense-- because we have 14,000 in Afghanistan--if he wants to end the wars, why isn't he bring them home to end that war?:
Nearly 18 years after U.S. forces first dropped into Afghanistan, yet another administration is s truggling to get out of the quagmire .
And the struggle is not going well.
As much as he wanted to pull troops out, President Donald Trump, like his predecessors, has not found the way forward.
Quite the opposite.
When Trump took office, there were about 8,400 troops in Afghanistan. Now there are about 14,000. Troop deaths have risen to the most in years, the Taliban holds more territory than ever and a new foe, ISIS-K, has emerged to add to the deadly misery.
Maybe because he doesn't have a Trump Tower there?
And we have a winner!
BINGO!
The president is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.
Presidents don;t "try" to move troops out..or in. They just do it or not!
Why not also bitch that Trump has increased troops in Iraq with the growing cold war against Iran?
Why don't you stick to the topic (which is not Iraq-- or Japan-- or germany-- or any other place we have troops!
Erdogan is a massive Islamist and for some reason, some people are not remembering that.
Erdogan is a massive Islamist and for some reason, some people are not remembering that.
He also supported ISIS early on. Turkey has a long border with Syria-- and Turkey looked the other way when foreigners wanting to join ISIS in Syria first traveled to Turkey-- then easily crossed the border into Syria..
In April 2018 an article was published by Foreign Policy in which it was stated that In 2013 alone, some 30,000 militants traversed Turkish soil, establishing the so-called jihadi highway, as the country became a conduit for fighters seeking to join the Islamic State.
Furthermore wounded Islamic State militants were treated for free at hospitals across southeastern Turkey. Among those receiving care was one of the top deputies of Islamic State chieftain Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Ahmet el-H, who was treated in a private hospital in Sanliurfa in August 2014
They alsoallowed weapons to travel through Turkey to ISIS:
On August 25, 2015 the Turkish newspaper Bugün ran a front-page story, illustrated with video stills, about what it said was the transfer, under the observation of Turkish border guards, of weapon and explosives from Turkey to ISIL through the Akcakale border post. Bugün reported that such transfers were occurring on a daily basis and had been going on for two months.
In response, a couple of days later offices of Koza İpek Media Group, the owner of the newspaper, were raided by Turkish police. [93] [94] In October 2015 control of Koza İpek Media Group was seized by the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor's Office which then appointed new managers with links to the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), and in July 2016 Bugün was closed down on the orders of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. [
He wants to be the reincarnation of Suleiman, the Caliph of a great Middle East Caliphate.
Do not forget that Erdogan backed the law-breaking blockade-crashing Mavi Marmora. The UN afterwards declared that Israel's blockade was LEGAL.
Thanks for reminding us Buzz. Even I forgot that one.
I remeber that! Given the large number of blatantly racist and anti-Semitic countries in the UN that's pretty amazing! (So if even the UN said it was legal under International law it obviously was!)
The KURDS??? The Kurds are our BEST allies? Seriously? Our Best!
Better than the United Kingdom. Better than Canada. Better than France. Ireland. Italy. Norway. Sweden. Germany. Japan. Belgium. Iceland. Luxembourg. Netherlands. I could go on.
And oh yeah: Even though I think Turkey is run by a bunch of repressive assholes, they are a member of NATO. That makes them an ally, too.
I can't believe the hysteria I am seeing over this today. Until 5 years ago, we weren't even there, and yet today people are acting like we're undoing centuries of brotherhood and mutual reliance. It's ridiculous.
Republicans are pissed because they never saw a deployment they wanted to walk away from, never saw a military project they didn't want to spend even more money on or throw more lives at.
Democrats are pissed because Trump just did something that, if any Democrat did it, they'd throw him a freakin parade, and they can't stand it.
I think maybe the author meant that the Kurds are our best ally in the region but that leaves someone out. Israel. Isn't Israel supposed to be our, "Best Ally", too?
Israel, the only genuine democracy in the Middle East, IS America's best ally in the Middle East. As Alexander Haig put it, Israel is America's biggest aircraft carrier in the Middle East that does not require one American soldier on board.
We have a few "best allies"-- although the number has declined significantly since WWII...
I would also put the Kurds into that category-- although like Israel they've been screwed over by the major powers and never got their country back. (Israel finally did after centuries./.in 1948. But while the Kurds were promised the return of their country [Treaty of Sevres] they're still been screwed The Kurds are exceptional Allies, yes-- but still not recognized as a country/
And so your idea on how to effectively kill and fight ISIS in a less expensive/more effective way than through the Kurds would be .........what?
Based on his comments, apparently a resurgence of ISIs may not be something that would bother him?
(Adter all, the Middle east seems so far away...)???
You are just showing your ignorance of the facts!
For starters-- Sweden is not our ally. It is a neutral country and has always maintained that. (During WWII, Norway was occupied by Nazi Germany and the Norwegian underground fought the Germans.meanwhile neutral Sweden sold Swedish steel to the germans and also traded with Allied countries.
Sweden an ally? BULLSHIT-- its neutral!
Yes-- you could.
But you'd only be making even more of a fool of yourself!
Better than the United Kingdom. Better than Canada. Better than France. Ireland. Italy. Norway. Sweden. Germany. Japan. Belgium. Iceland. Luxembourg. Netherlands.
Luxembourg is the best of all-- they've made massive contributions to our national defense-- simply massive! (Did you know that if not for Luxembourg's YUGE military-- we probably lwould've lost the Cld War to the USSR?
I could go on.
Please don't!
[Deleted]
Yeah, in this case. Tell me how many from those countries bled like the Kurds did for our guys there? Again, do your research. Here is the help those other nations gave us:
Germany
Did you see that qualifier? Did you see some limitation on the assessment that it was specific to this one minor conflict which has only been going on for a few years and is now basically over? I sure didn't. And everything I said about it reflects that.
And that's really the whole point. This was a relatively small scale effort compared to the history of American military efforts. The history of our military alliance with the Kurds is a relatively modest one. It cannot compare to our many other alliances covering generations of history, and yes, that includes the piece-of-crap Turks, who have been members of NATO and helped us in our struggles against Russia since 1952.
Based on the hysteria I see today, you'd think we walked away from London being surrounded by an advancing Nazi army. Nothing close to that is happening in Syria.
Except that those Kurds will be genocided (not really a word) by those same POS Turks you spoke of.....
Jesus Wally..... crack a history book, or something will ya?
Will someone here please splain to Wally why the Turks would wipe the Kurds off the face of the earth given half a chance. I'm afraid I would again end up in violation of the CoE here given my disbelief of his post.
Wally likes to play rope a dope,
although there is always a question as to who the dopes are.
Did you see that in your crystal ball? Cuz when I look, it's just me but upside and backward.
So, in theory, by this logic, they've never had the chance before or there wouldn't be any alive right now.
Same for you Tacos..... Go take a look at where the Turks just performed air and artillery strikes. Just in the last few hours no less. If we're not there, the Kurds are going to get rolled.
And we're there now, which just goes to show that it's apparently not the mission of the people stationed there to protect Kurds from Turks. If that's the case, then it makes no difference if they stay or leave.
Diplomatically, do you think the US should enter into a conflict with Turkey before or after they actually do something that would justify a response? Which scenario will be most likely to unite NATO or the UN?
Because they've been doing it all along-- why should they stop now?
(Apparently you know little or nothing about the Middle east)
He doesn't have to "predict the future" to know that-- all he has to do is know what Turkey has been doing to the Kurds all along!
Trump makes a decision (stab one of our best allies in the back)-- and just because itsa trump who's done it, Trump supporters who know little or nothing about the area feel the need to defend trump!
Sheesh...
Trump explained the real reason why he's abandoning one of our best allies,
Here it is, in his own words:
“I have a little conflict of interest ’cause I have a major, major building in Istanbul.”
Whatever else it may be, Trump’s policy toward Turkey is also a significant conflict of interest, as Trump himself has admitted. In 2015, while running for president, Trump gave an interview to Stephen Bannon, not yet his campaign manager, in which he talked about Turkey. Right away, he admitted that his business interests in the country would make it difficult for him to deal with Turkey with a clear mind.
“I have a little conflict of interest ’cause I have a major, major building in Istanbul,” Trump told Bannon during a Breitbart radio show. “It’s a tremendously successful job. It’s called Trump Towers—two towers, instead of one, not the usual one, it’s two.”
How long?
Apologizes up front, when it comes to certain things I am not much of a fan of the readers digest version of things...
Here is a start:
Kurd
The Kurdish Language And Traditional Way Of Life
The Kurdish language is a West Iranian language related to Persian and Pashto . The Kurds are thought to number from 25 million to 30 million, including communities in Armenia, Georgia , Kazakhstan , Lebanon , Syria, and Europe, but sources for this information differ widely because of differing criteria of ethnicity , religion, and language; statistics may also be manipulated for political purposes.
The traditional Kurdish way of life was nomadic , revolving around sheep and goat herding throughout the Mesopotamian plains and the highlands of Turkey and Iran. Most Kurds practiced only marginal agriculture. The enforcement of national boundaries beginning after World War I (1914–18) impeded the seasonal migrations of the flocks, forcing most of the Kurds to abandon their traditional ways for village life and settled farming; others entered nontraditional employment.
History
The prehistory of the Kurds is poorly known, but their ancestors seem to have inhabited the same upland region for millennia. The records of the early empires of Mesopotamia contain frequent references to mountain tribes with names resembling “Kurd.” The Kardouchoi whom the Greek historian Xenophon speaks of in Anabasis (they attacked the “Ten Thousand” near modern Zākhū, Iraq, in 401 BCE ) may have been Kurds, but some scholars dispute this claim. The name Kurd can be dated with certainty to the time of the tribes’ conversion to Islam in the 7th century CE . Most Kurds are Sunni Muslims, and among them are many who practice Sufism and other mystical sects.
Despite their long-standing occupation of a particular region of the world, the Kurds never achieved nation-state status. Their reputation for military prowess has made them much in demand as mercenaries in many armies. The sultan Saladin , best known to the Western world for exploits in the Crusades , epitomizes the Kurdish military reputation.
The principal unit in traditional Kurdish society was the tribe , typically led by a sheikh or an aga, whose rule was firm. Tribal identification and the sheikh’s authority are still felt, though to a lesser degree, in the large urban areas. Detribalization proceeded intermittently as Kurdish culture became urbanized and was nominally assimilated into several nations.
In traditional Kurdish society, marriage was generally endogamous. In nonurban areas, practices such as arranged marriage and child marriage are common. Households typically consist of father, mother, and children. Polygamy , permitted by Islamic law , is sometimes practiced, although in Turkey it is forbidden by civil law . The strength of the extended family’s ties to the tribe varies with the way of life. Along with Kurdish men, Kurdish women—who traditionally have been more active in public life than Turkish, Arab , and Iranian women, especially in prerevolutionary Iran—have taken advantage of urban educational and employment opportunities.
The Dream Of Autonomy
Kurdish nationalism came about through the conjunction of a variety of factors, including the British introduction of the concept of private property, the partition of regions of Kurdish settlement by modern neighbouring states, and the influence of British, U.S., and Soviet interests in the Persian Gulf region. These factors and others combined with the flowering of a nationalist movement among a very small minority of urban, intellectual Kurds.
The first Kurdish newspaper appeared in 1897 and was published at intervals until 1902. It was revived at Istanbul in 1908 (when the first Kurdish political club, with an affiliated cultural society, was also founded) and again in Cairo during World War I. The Treaty of Sèvres , drawn up in 1920, provided for an autonomous Kurdistan but was never ratified; the Treaty of Lausanne (1923), which replaced the Treaty of Sèvres, made no mention of Kurdistan or of the Kurds. Thus the opportunity to unify the Kurds in a nation of their own was lost. Indeed, Kurdistan after the war was more fragmented than before, and various separatist movements arose among Kurdish groups.
The Kurds of Turkey received unsympathetic treatment at the hands of the government, which tried to deprive them of their Kurdish identity by designating them “Mountain Turks,” by outlawing the Kurdish language (or representing it as a dialect of Turkish), and by forbidding them to wear distinctive Kurdish dress in or near the important administrative cities. The Turkish government suppressed Kurdish political agitation in the eastern provinces and encouraged the migration of Kurds to the urbanized western portion of Turkey, thus diluting the concentration of Kurdish population in the uplands. Periodic rebellions occurred, and in 1978 Abdullah Öcalan formed the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (known by its Kurdish acronym , PKK), a Marxist organization dedicated to creating an independent Kurdistan. Operating mainly from eastern Anatolia, PKK fighters engaged in guerrilla operations against government installations and perpetrated frequent acts of terrorism . PKK attacks and government reprisals led to a state of virtual war in eastern Turkey during the 1980s and ’90s. Following Öcalan’s capture in 1999, PKK activities were sharply curtailed for several years before the party resumed guerilla activities in 2004. In 2002, under pressure from the European Union (in which Turkey sought membership), the government legalized broadcasts and education in the Kurdish language.
Peace talks and a cease-fire initiated in 2013 between Turkey and the PKK appeared promising at its outset, but talks faltered. While Turkey renewed its crackdown on the PKK, PKK-aligned Kurds were strengthening their self-governance in northeastern Syria amid the continued civil war in Syria and the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL; also called the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria [ISIS]). In August 2016 Turkey launched an incursion into northwestern Syria and maintained an active military presence there in the years that followed, in part serving to prevent the Kurds in northeastern Syria from extending their reach westward. It began preparing to expand its mission into northeastern Syria in 2018 but held off from launching an offensive in anticipation of the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the region at a later date.
Kurds also felt strong assimilationist pressure from the national government in Iran and endured religious persecution by that country’s Shiʿi Muslim majority. Shortly after World War II (1939–45), the Soviet Union backed the establishment of an independent country around the largely Kurdish city of Mahābād , in northwestern Iran. The so-called Republic of Mahābād collapsed after Soviet withdrawal in 1946, but about that same time the Kurdish Democratic Party of Iran (KDPI) was established. Thereafter, the KDPI engaged in low-level hostilities with the Iranian government into the 21st century.
Although the pressure for Kurds to assimilate was less intense in Iraq (where the Kurdish language and culture have been freely practiced), government repression has been the most brutal. Short-lived armed rebellions occurred in Iraq in 1931–32 and 1944–45, and a low-level armed insurgency took place throughout the 1960s under the command of Muṣṭafā al-Barzānī , leader of the Iraqi Kurdish Democratic Party (IKDP), who had been an officer of the Republic of Mahābād. A failed peace accord with the Iraqi government led to another outbreak of fighting in 1975, but an agreement between Iraq and Iran—which had been supporting Kurdish efforts—later that year led to a collapse of Kurdish resistance. Thousands of Kurds fled to Iran and Turkey. Low-intensity fighting followed. In the late 1970s, Iraq’s Baʿth Party instituted a policy of settling Iraqi Arabs in areas with Kurdish majorities—particularly around the oil-rich city of Kirkūk —and uprooting Kurds from those same regions. This policy accelerated in the 1980s as large numbers of Kurds were forcibly relocated, particularly from areas along the Iranian border where Iraqi authorities suspected Kurds were aiding Iranian forces during the Iran-Iraq War (1980–88). What followed was one of the most brutal episodes in Kurdish history. In a series of operations between March and August 1988, code-named Anfal (Arabic: “Spoils”), Iraqi forces sought to quell Kurdish resistance; the Iraqis used large quantities of chemical weapons on Kurdish civilians. Although technically it was not part of Anfal, one of the largest chemical attacks during that period took place on March 16 in and around the village of Ḥalabjah, when Iraqi troops killed as many as 5,000 Kurds with mustard gas and nerve agent. Despite these attacks, Kurds again rebelled following Iraq’s defeat in the Persian Gulf War (1990–91) but were again brutally suppressed—sparking another mass exodus.
With the help of the United States , however, the Kurds were able to establish a “safe haven” that included most areas of Kurdish settlement in northern Iraq, where the IKDP and Patriotic Union of Kurdistan—a faction that split from the IKDP in 1975—created an autonomous civil authority that was, for the most part, free from interference by the Iraqi government. The Kurds were particularly successful in that country’s 2005 elections, held following the fall of Saddam Hussein and the Baʿth Party in 2003, and in mid-2005 the first session of the Kurdish parliament was convened in Erbil .
Violence and instability in Iraq following the removal of Saddam Hussein and in Syria following the outbreak of civil war in 2011 threatened the security of Kurdish communities but also offered new opportunities for Kurds to advance their claims to autonomy . The primary threat to Kurds was ISIL, which captured and occupied territory adjacent to Kurdish areas in Iraq and Syria beginning in 2013. Kurdish fighters in northern Syria entered into heavy fighting with ISIL and quickly proved to be some of the most effective ground forces against the group. As a multinational campaign to expel ISIL from its strongholds led to ISIL’s decline, a referendum for independence held in Iraqi Kurdistan in September 2017 passed with more than 93 percent support. But as Kurdish forces moved to control strategic areas such as Kirkūk , the Iraqi army pushed back and quickly quelled the bid for independence.
IF YOU ARE REALLY INTERESTED TH FOLLOWING LING IS WORTH FOLLOWING AND WATCHING
Correct. Turkey never had the chance to totally exterminate all the Kurds. But he's massacred quite a few-- and would love to finish the job.
(Hitler killed 6 million Jews-- but since he didn't kill all the world's Jews, using your "logic" that would mean that Hitler really didn't want to exterminate all the world's the Jews...)
How many Kurds are there in Turkey?
Turkey must really suck at genocide, with 15 million Kurds in their own country.
This anti Trump BS has really gone over the top. Trump is not to blame for Bush Jr's or Obama's fuck ups. It is not his fault ISIS/ISIL exists. It is not his fault that we illegally entered another country using the pitiful excuse of "the war on terror" to try and dethrone the rightful government in a proxy civil war. It sure as hell isn't his fault that a bunch of chicken hawks have thrown full support behind a people that have no damn country, and never will.
There is no Kurdistan. If there is how many other people can make claims to land and carving out their own countries. I am sure some people can cobble themselves together and claim their were Babylonians. Just how far back do you want to go with this? Whose to say the Kurds claim to the area outweighs the Babylonians?
So what you're telling me is they have a long, rich history in the region going back centuries. Cool.
Our troops have been there five years. We're supposed to solve all their problems now? Boy the US Military is just the cure for everything, I guess.
Tacos, I thought you were better than that.
You just at this instant, turned yourself into the x turns in to y posters and the "by the fuck way" posters.
Come on Tacos, don't lower yourself.
I answered a specific question of yours with well documented history.
If you want to play those same old games of those others, you are talking to the wrong person.
Definitely.
Among them are many who practice Sufism and other mystical sects.
The Yazidis are an interesting sect. (They often claim that they are not Kurds but rather a distinct ethnic group. But they are really Kurds! (They just practice a different, very unique religion).
They are persecuted by the Arabs much worse than even the regular Kurds.
Here's a really fascinating article about the Yazidis I seeded a while back (its a fairly quick read)
(Actually from I know of Sufiism, that's a pretty cool practice...).
[Deleted]
And besides, you are responding to something that wasn't even addressed to you, so you don't get to be offended by it.
You are the one who deviated from the topic. That is not a judgement. That's a fact.
I thought you were better. That's all.
...and who is offended? That is another deviation.
So your attitude would also apply to the fact that although the Uighurs want to "carve out their own country", China is correct in making sure that doesn't happen.
Good point! No country has ever done anything stupid!
Never, ever-- in the entire history of the world!
./sarc
It's in the blood.
Look up Armenia.
Even go back to the times of Hattusa.
I never thought you'd ask.
Dave's links (comment # 6.1.13, below), are excellent.
Or you can read this one. I discovered it about the time it was written (2007) and haven't seen anything as good since:
Well, we all make mistakes in judgement sometimes, so don't feel bad.
Did you see that in your crystal ball?
How about now Tacos? Now that the tanks are rolling, the artillery shells are falling and the air to ground strikes have 60,000 Kurds fleeing?
All of this was fucking preventable Tacos! [Deleted]
Trump followers never truly grasped that he has a global empire of real estate and now he is openly using our tax dollars, our military, and any means necessary to stop his taxes from being released which will prove he is in financial difficulty and using his power and position to resolve his own financial woes.
I think some of them probably never grasped those facts-- but others know most of that but support him anyway!
(Which says a lot about the sort of people they are
I agree-- yes I am really quite good at that!
An old classmate of mine who lives in the Middle East and has his finger on the pulse there had this to say:
However, personally, I think Erdogan has a real hatred of the Kurds, so I can't imagine his granting anything to them.
Buzz:
The Kurds were the ones who'd been doing the bulk of the fighting against ISIS (with American air support).
Trump isn't merely "throwing the Kurds under the bus"-- he withdrawing US troops so Erdogan's YUGE military can go in and exterminate them!
But if Trump is so willing to suddenly change his position on one of our best allies in the area so suddenly (after one phone call!)-- guess what other ally in the region Trump may decide to abandon next?
Hint: this other country-- like the Kurds it is one of our most reliable allies-- sent covert operatives into northern Iraq to train Kurdish forces. This even happened during the Gulf War, because some of the people in this other country were fluent in Kurdish.
Yes-- here's the "something else" that's going on: Here's what that "something else" is-- in Trump's own words:
“I have a little conflict of interest ’cause I have a major, major building in Istanbul.”
Whatever else it may be, Trump’s policy toward Turkey is also a significant conflict of interest, as Trump himself has admitted. In 2015, while running for president, Trump gave an interview to Stephen Bannon, not yet his campaign manager, in which he talked about Turkey. Right away, he admitted that his business interests in the country would make it difficult for him to deal with Turkey with a clear mind.
“I have a little conflict of interest ’cause I have a major, major building in Istanbul,” Trump told Bannon during a Breitbart radio show.
I actually think my old classmate had something different than that in mind. It probably has more to do with Russia than with Trump Towers.
I totally disagree.
While your friend may have his finger on the pulse of the Middle east, he doesn't have his finger on the pulse of Trump!
That way of acting is typical with Trump. He acts on impulse, on the spur of the moment. Without consulting any of his advisors.
That's his standard modus operendi.
If Erdogan wants to invade Syria, Russia will not stop him.
Remember, Turkey's a member of NATO-- would Putin want to attack a NATO member-- thereby going to war with all of NATO? I don't think so.
And Syria is not nearly as powerful as Turkey militarily--- they're lousy soldiers, decimated by years of fighting, And remember, they're still fighting a war on their home turf with several enemies. (Turkey has one of the most powerful militaries in the entire world).
So neither Syria nor Russia will try to stop Turkey militarily.
So what can they do-- bring it to the UN for a vote? LOL!!!
I will just say this; never underestimate your enemy, especially with a KGB mind at the helm with his own games.
Erdogan is playing with fire if he wants to face off against "boris".
Turkey is a member of NATO, was a member of the European Economic Community (that preceded the EU), and is negotiating to join the EU. Why doesn't Europe impose some restraint on Turkey? Why must the United States engage in a proxy war against Europe by supporting the Kurds?
Is Turkey going to annex northern Syria, start a geopolitical war with the Assad government, and drag Europe into the conflict? For everyone wanting to depose Assad this would provide the opportunity. Just remember, if you break it you buy it. That's why Europe wants the United States to be stuck with another little European dirty war.
With the United States out of the way, I wouldn't be surprised if the Kurds won't be particularly squeamish about emptying the prisons or refugee camps. The Kurds will do the work that Americans refuse to do. The US strategy against ISIS has been clear from the beginning; weaken ISIS with US military forces and then get out of the way so that ISIS can be exterminated by local fighters. ISIS will never be defeated while the US remains in the region because the US is unwilling to do the uncivilized work that is necessary; the US must leave so the strategy can work as intended.
The US no longer needs to be in Syria. The US remaining in Syria impedes achieving the strategic goals of the effort. If Europe wants another little dirty war in the Middle East then Europe will need to fight it.
If that were true, you'd have no trouble supplying several links from reliable sources to prove it.
But one will do.
(Provide the link or your statement is a lie)
The U.S. has thousands more troops in Afghanistan than Syria.
If Trump's real goal was to get our troops out of the Middle east, he'd withdraw thousands from there. (BTW, Afghanistan is the longest war in U.S,.history-- and we're losing badly. This is from The American Conservative)
But instead, he's withdrawing a relativwely small number of troops from syria.
Why?
For one thing, Afghanistan isn't technically the Middle East, generally speaking. It borders the Middle East in Iran, but I don't think most authorities consider Afghanistan to be part of the ME.
Be that as it may, he can't withdraw troops from one place unless he's withdrawing troops from all other places? What's wrong with doing what you can where you can afford to do it?
The trumps are not in Afghsanistan-- remeber, they are draft dodgers!
They love to have American kids risk their lives abroad-- while they themselves are draft dogers, living a life of luxury
Are you?
Aside from the fact that it will result in genocide of the Kurds-- mass extermination of one of best allies..
And aside from the fact that it will lead to the resurgence of ISIS
And aside from the fact that Trump's stabbing the Kurds in the back leading to our other allies wondering if they can trust us..
Well, aside from that..I suppose there's nothing really wrong with that...
/sarc
This is but one example:
Israelis Watch U.S. Abandon Kurds, And Worry: Who’s Next?
So the name of the area a country is in should determine our policy re: terrorism in that country?
BTW-- what countries do you think are technically "The Middle East"?
Too bad the Commander-in-Chief is powerless to remove troops from Afghanistan (especially given that he wants so badly to do it),
Heck-- its in the Constitution-- he's only allowed to take troops out of countries whose names start with letters like "S" (Syria) but is forbidden to remove troops from countries starting with"A". (Afghanistan).
Sad-- because Trump really, really wants troops out of Afghanistan-- but his hand are tied.!
/sarc
Territories and regions usually considered within the Middle East
Afghanistan is more like South Asia. However, a few years ago, people starting referring to the " Greater Middle East." In that case, they generally include Afghanistan, but that's a much newer thing.
WTF?
One question-- where can I get some of that stuff that you are smoking?
It wouldn't be a proxy war vs the Kurds-- when Europwe itself is arming and trainingnthe Kurds!
For starters, there's Germany:
Germany to arm and train Iraq's Kurdish fighters
Germany plans to fly Kurdish troops to Europe for weapons training and is prepared for the first time to arm peshmerga fighters from its own military arsenal
DUH!
That's correct. The Kurds are the proxy against another country. Which one?
Keep in mind that the Kurds weren't fighting ISIS to help the United States. The Kurds were fighting ISIS before the United States began coordinating with them. The Kurds were protecting their own territory; the United States simply tagged along.
As you have pointed out, Europe has been arming and training the Kurdish people. Turkey is a member of NATO, has been a member of the European Economic Community, and is attempting to join the European Union. Turkey is a European ally. European support for the Kurds would be a proxy war against a European ally.
The United States currently does not have enough troops in Syria to stop an incursion by Turkey. The United States attempting to intervene by committing more troops to northern Syria would make the United States a proxy fighting another dirty little war for Europe's benefit.
Why doesn't Europe impose restraint on Turkey? Why must the United States commit more troops to oppose a European ally's incursion into northern Syria?
Seems everyone is willing to "Send" stuff to the kurds.
How 'bouts Germany sending side-by-side "People" too ?
Now why do you "think" they would do "that"?
How about we send you......You seem to have all the answers.
Because they want the Kurd Human Body fighting, not their own peoples Human Bodies fighting !
A Nice way of doing the "Genocide" thingy ?
Kinda like one of those …. "here's a few sticks, now YOU go fight …… for us" !
...… Sensational !
That's what you came up with ?
Have you ever heard of "The War in Iraq"?
(I would hardly call that "tagging along" with the Kurds!)
Ummm...let me think onit a bit.
Uruguay!
Yup-- that's it-- gotta be Uruguay!
What, you're not up for some "hands on" OJT?
"So put down your books and pick up a gun, we're gonna have a whole lotta fun."
"And it's one, two three, what are we fighting for......"
Pure speculation, but I wonder if somewhere in the deep recesses of the Syrian/Kurdish 'new situation' is a payback of some sort for the elimination of Khashoggi.
Nope.
The reason is clear-- Trump was on a call with Erdogan.Then he decided to take the troops out.
Here's what he said to Bannon a while back:
“I have a little conflict of interest ’cause I have a major, major building in Istanbul.”
Whatever else it may be, Trump’s policy toward Turkey is also a significant conflict of interest, as Trump himself has admitted. In 2015, while running for president, Trump gave an interview to Stephen Bannon, not yet his campaign manager, in which he talked about Turkey. Right away, he admitted that his business interests in the country would make it difficult for him to deal with Turkey with a clear mind.
“I have a little conflict of interest ’cause I have a major, major building in Istanbul,” Trump told Bannon during a Breitbart radio show. “It’s a tremendously successful job. It’s called Trump Towers—two towers, instead of one, not the usual one, it’s two.”
Erdogan merely "reminded" him who controls the real estate in Istanbul-- and in fact controls all of Turkey.
And since under Erdogan is not a democracy, Erdogan can do whatever he wants.
And in case Trump forgot-- he owns buildings there...
So trump had better kiss Erdogan's ring (figureitively speaking of course)
Yeah we all know about the Trump buildings and other stuff. But we don't know where the money came from. I just wonder if Khashoggi uncovered something to embarrassing for to many.
Netanyahu has just intimated that perhaps America might turn its back on Israel just as it has done to the Kurds in a speech he just made:
Although I personally would be supportive of the Kurds, and if the UN resolved Partition for the State of Israel, I would support their doing so for creating a Kurdistan, I would be remiss in not putting forward an opposite viewpoint concerning Trump, Turkey and the Kurds for the purpose of discussion and balance. What Conrad Black (an arch right wing conservative) has said may have merit for the right wing conservative Trump supporters' point of view on this site:
Trump Is Seeking Broad Coalition in The Middle East
By Conrad Black, NY SUN , October 9, 2019
The practical effects on the ground will depend on the extent to which Turkey adheres to its word in the informal agreement that has apparently been reached between President Trump and his Turkish counterpart, Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
If Turkey contents itself with eliminating Kurdish infiltration on its border with Syria, does not release the 10,000 ISIS prisoners detained there (Turkey has no more affection for ISIS than the U.S. does), and does not employ its position to further oppress the Kurds, who, at 14 million, are about 18 percent of the Turkish population, there will be no downside to these arrangements.
The Kurdish problem vastly transcends the skirmishing along the Turkish border. There are about 35 million Kurds in the world, the largest concentration being in Turkey, where they have frequently manifested a desire to secede and have often been an oppressed minority. There are broadly 6 million in each of Iraq and Iran, and just 2 million in Syria, and the rest are scattered, including almost 2 million in Germany.
The area where Americans are being withdrawn is a small piece of the puzzle , and while there is no doubt that Kurds have been trying to support Kurdish secessionists in Turkey, they have also been valued allies against ISIS in particular, and were no fonder of the Assad regime in Syria than they had been of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
‘As a practical matter, the Kurds have no prospect of gaining independence anywhere except in the remains of Iraq, where the current rioting confirms the almost complete failure of the George W. Bush post-Saddam nation-building policy.
There is no solution in sight to the general Kurdish problem, and it is true that the world has failed the Kurds, especially after the successful Gulf War in 1991, when we had the opportunity to ensure autonomy for the Iraqi Kurds and instead condemned them to another decade of the barbarous brigandage of Saddam Hussein. Iraqi Kurdistan is the most politically coherent Kurdish region and, because of its extensive oil reserves and facilities, the most prosperous.
To hear the opponents of President Trump’s policy, you might think he was withdrawing a whole division from a mission of protecting millions of Kurds from genocide. In fact we are speaking of 400 American servicemen, and if the Turks can replace them adequately and without brutalizing the Syrian Kurds as they do so, this is a viable solution. If they carry their mistreatment of the Kurds into Syria, President Trump has pledged to respond economically. Unless Mr. Erdogan has taken complete leave of his senses, this should be a sufficient deterrent.
The larger strategic question is: Whither Turkey? It was one of the original great states of the modern world in the 16th century: Suleiman the Magnificent was one of the greatest rulers of the time, with England’s King Henry VIII, France’s King Francis I, and the Holy Roman emperor (Spain, Austria, and the Netherlands), Charles V.
It continued to be an important power thereafter, and even when the Ottoman Empire was in decline, with the Russians, the Austro-Hungarians, and even the Italians picking pieces off it, and it was reviled as the “Sick Man of Europe,” and the “Abominable Port,” when it entered World War I, it soundly whipped a British and French invasion force at Gallipoli — inflicting over 300,000 casualties and the greatest defeat in Winston Churchill’s career — and more than held its own with the Russians, outlasting that country in the war, as Lenin and Trotsky seized control and signed a humiliating peace with Germany.
Kemal Ataturk modernized and revived Turkey after World War I, and it wisely abstained from World War II but joined the Allies at the end, “to be at the table and not on the menu,” as Ataturk’s successor, Ismet Inonu, put it. Turkey was a founding member of NATO and a staunch ally for more than 50 years, accepting the deployment of medium-range nuclear-tipped missiles (which President Kennedy agreed to withdraw as part of the Cuban Missile Crisis resolution in 1962, to the irritation of the Turks).
The current ambiguous status of Turkey is in considerable part the responsibility of the Europeans, in cavalierly rebuffing Turkish attempts to join Europe. The desire not to be swamped with Turkish immigrants was understandable, but Europe has received large numbers of Arabs while driving Turkey halfway into the arms of Russia and Iran, and, as President Trump pointed out on Monday, left Syria almost entirely to the Americans to deal with.
U.S.-Turkish relations must be seen in the wider arc of legitimate American interests in the region. Europe has rejected the Turks and largely abdicated any serious or coherent foreign-policy role, apart from the U.K., Poland, and the Baltic states, which for obvious reasons feel the Russian presence nervously and are pulling their weight in the alliance. The Europeans, even the otherwise magnificent Margaret Thatcher, never had any Middle Eastern policy except to await American proposals and then put forward something more favorable to the Arabs.
Now that Syria and Iraq have imploded, while Turkish encroachments and, more seriously, Iranian promotion of radical Islam — especially Hamas (Gaza), Hezbollah (Lebanon), and the Houthi (Yemen) — have caused Egypt and Saudi Arabia to ditch the Palestinians, cooperate with Israel, and take the lead in repelling Iran, there is a diplomatic opportunity for the United States. The president seems to be moving in the direction of creating a cooperative framework with the principal Middle Eastern countries to assist in the containment and deterrence of Iran. Turkey is a natural and historic rival of both Russia and Persia (Iran), and President Trump is right to give Turkey the incentive required to treat the Syrian Kurds reasonably, and to welcome it into an arrangement that constitutes an extension of NATO.Turkey should be embraced as an ally in keeping Iranian influence out of the Middle East and discouraging its support of terrorism, and should be paid the courtesy due to such a vital associate state. Apart from economic and other incentives, any such action would flatter Mr. Erdogan’s affectations of great-power status. The greater the Turkish influence in Syria and Iraq, the better (they’re all Sunni Muslim countries). The West can reinforce the Kurds where they are strongest and richest, in Iraq. Ultimately, the Middle East must be governed by its principal countries, with only the subtlest possible American intervention.
President Trump appears to be assembling an informal coalition of interests between Turkey, Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Jordan, and the United States. He is on the right track, and most Americans sense this, despite hip-shooting overreactions on Capitol Hill and in the anti-Trump press, which are generally even more ignorant of the Middle East than they are of that incidental part of United States that lies between Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles.
Between Turkey (under Erdogan) and Israel?
That's just plain nuts!
(In fact I just read a comment you made about Turkey's role re: the Mavi Marmara!
I have a little conflict of interest ’cause I have a major, major building in Istanbul.
If he is making money from it, isn't that a violation of the EC?
The emoluments clause, also called the foreign emoluments clause, is a provision of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 8) that generally prohibits federal officeholders from receiving any gift, payment, or other thing of value from a foreign state or its rulers, officers, or representatives.