Lindsey Graham Rages Against Trump’s ‘Shortsighted and Irresponsible’ Syria Pullout: ‘Big Win for ISIS’

Graham called out the administration for falsely stating that ISIS has been defeated, and predicted this move would lead to a rebirth in the region.

“ISIS is not defeated, my friend,” Graham said. “The biggest lie being told by the administration [is] that ISIS is defeated. 

Graham called out the administration for falsely stating that ISIS has been defeated, and predicted this move would lead to a rebirth in the region.

ISIS/ISIL is no longer a military threat in either Syria or Iraq.

You want to combat them militarily look to Lebanon, Libya, Afghanistan, and Africa.

Russian, China, Iran, and Syria beg to differ on the rebirth part. Or did everyone forget those major players in the area?

“ISIS is not defeated, my friend,” Graham said. “The biggest lie being told by the administration [is] that ISIS is defeated.

You cannot defeat and ideology. ISIS/ISIL will always be a terrorist threat. The ISIS/ISIL Caliphate is dead. It might resurrect elsewhere; places we don't seem to be interested in.

Graham is a chicken hawk, like so many others. I am sure the Kurds would welcome him; or any of the chicken hawks, into their ranks if they really want to support them. 

There’s thousands of fighters over there. … this impulsive decision by the president has undone all the gains we’ve made, thrown the region into further chaos.

Iran is licking their chops. 

Iran is licking their chops.

That is the first accurate thing stated. But you can thank Bush Jr and Obama for that, not Trump.

So, why is Turkey supporting ISIS?  Why is NATO turning a blind eye to one of its member nations attacking the Kurds?  Isn't Europe concerned about ISIS or Europe's alliance with the Kurds?

Why is this story only about the United States?  Europe isn't a poor, third world region unable to extend military power into northern Syria.  The UK, France, and Germany are quite capable of bombing Turkey into submission.  The United States shouldn't be involved if Europe refuses to be involved.

So, why is Turkey supporting ISIS?

I never thought you'd ask!

Its actually quite simple.

While many Muslims hate all of the kuffar ("non-believers") there's also another major dynamic at play in the area--- the ancient hatreds between the Sunni Muslims and the Shia Muslims. This runs very deep...and goes back a long way. 

In Syria, Assad,is the ruler. He's a Shiite.

Turkey is Sunni. So is ISIS 

So even though Erdogan is a bit worried about ISIS' extremism (its even worse than his extremism!)  it shouldn't be surprising that Sunni Turkey is supporting Sunni ISIS-- after all, they are both opposed to Syria's Shiite ruler (Assad).

Next question?

Why is this story only about the United States?

You're totally missing the point!

You could've also asked why isn't it about Saudi Arabia? Or...Egypt? Or ..Russia? Or China? Or...even Iran! (After all, they've all also been threatened-- and in fact have suffered several attacks from Muslim extremists.

The current situatiion is this: ISIS had been weakened (but not totally defeated).  In Syria and Iraq most of the effective fighting vs ISIS was done by the KUrds (with U.S. air support). They have made a significant differencw in the situation in the area-- more than anyone!

But Turkey wants to annihilate the Kurds.

Which has been easily prevented, not by Saudi Arabia, or Europe, or Egypt ...but by the mere presence of a small number of US troops.

Pullling them out would let Turkey invade..and attempt to annihilate the major  (and most effective) anti-ISIS force in the area (Kurds).

Next question?

You could've also asked why isn't it about Saudi Arabia? Or...Egypt? Or ..Russia? Or China? Or...even Iran! (After all, they've all also been threatened-- and in fact have suffered several attacks from Muslim extremists.

Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Russia, and China are not members of NATO.  Turkey is a member of NATO.

But Turkey wants to annihilate the Kurds.

The Kurds are predominantly Sunni Muslim.  Same as Turkey and ISIS.  So, claiming some sort of religious pogrom is disingenuous.  This is a fight over control of territory; not a religious war.

The Kurds are separatists who are pursuing the creation of their own country.  The situation bears some similarities to the fight for Irish independence.  And the Kurds have engaged in some of the same types of subversive militant activities (terrorism) as did the Irish Republican Army.

Which has been easily prevented, not by Saudi Arabia, or Europe, or Egypt ...but by the mere presence of a small number of US troops.

Yes, Turkey was concerned about the political implications of killing US troops.  But Erdogan has been building the case that the Kurds are terrorists intent on destabilizing the government of Turkey.  And the Kurds have been engaged in subversive militant activities against the Turkish government.

The Kurds are predominantly Sunni Muslim.  Same as Turkey and ISIS.  So, claiming some sort of religious pogrom is disingenuous.  This is a fight over control of territory; not a religious war.

I never said that the conflcit between them was religious. Rather what I said was that that was Assad was Shia, and the Kurds were Sunni-- read my comment again!

Yes, Turkey was concerned about the political implications of killing US troops.

Correct. Which is why a small US troop presence alone was enough to keep Turkey from attacking the kurds. We didn't need a large number of US troops-- nor did we need European help.

But since Trump is pulling out those troops-- now Turkey can attack (without fear fo attacking Americans).

Its really not that difficult to understand....

Correct. Which is why a small US troop presence alone was enough to keep Turkey from attacking the kurds. We didn't need a large number of US troops-- nor did we need European help.

European troops would serve the same purpose as US troops.  Why doesn't the UK, France, or Germany send a small number of troops to northern Syria to replace US troops?  The political implications of killing European troops wouldn't be any different than killing US troops.

Europe could deploy sufficient forces to northern Syria within 24 hours and provide the same political protection for the Kurds as does the United States.  Where's Europe?  Where's NATO?  Where's the United Nations?

The United States isn't the only NATO country with a military.  Europe simply isn't doing its fair share.

The United States isn't the only NATO country with a military.  Europe simply isn't doing its fair share.

Why would Europe want to get their hands dirty; and waste their resources on a never ending proxy civil war?

Also, any NATO or EU force would be in Syria illegally- just like the US forces there now. Russia & China will never support a UN Security Council Resolution to allow NATO or even UN troops in Northern Syria.

With no legal leg to stand on why risk it?

Why would Europe want to get their hands dirty; and waste their resources on a never ending proxy civil war?

Same questions apply to the United States.  Why should the United States become Europe's proxy in the Levant?  Especially since Europe isn't providing any military or monetary aid to the United States?

Also, any NATO or EU force would be in Syria illegally- just like the US forces there now. Russia & China will never support a UN Security Council Resolution to allow NATO or even UN troops in Northern Syria.

Turkey's incursion into Syria is also 'illegal' by the same criteria.  Turkey is dragging NATO into Syria whether Europe likes it or not.

"Short sighted and irresponsible."  Senator Lindsey Graham is more than qualified to utter those words.  He's lived by them for decades.

It will not be forgotten that the US has abandoned an ally in the field of battle; and, effectively turned them over to their enemy. This day, we deserve to be shamed.

Turkey is a NATO Member !

We MUST " Trust " them to do the right thing !

Hell ….. The last administration " Trusted " Iran.

" Trust " must be the end all to working things out !