This site requires Javascript to function properly - please enable Javascript in your browser

Fox News reports: Mitch McConnell says Trump’s Syria withdrawal is a ‘grave’ mistake

community » Discussions » Category » News & Politics » Discussion » Fox News reports: Mitch McConnell says Trump’s Syria withdrawal is a ‘grave’ mistake

Category: News & Politics

Via: krishna • 5 years ago • 22 comments

Fox News reports: Mitch McConnell says Trump’s Syria withdrawal is a ‘grave’ mistake

“Sadly, the recently announced pullout risks repeating the Obama administration’s reckless withdrawal from Iraq, which facilitated the rise of the Islamic State in the first place.”

S E E D E D C O N T E N T

512

(Photo: Fox News)

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell rebuked President Trump’s withdrawal of troops from Syria on Friday, calling it a “grave strategic mistake” in an op-ed that claimed the move had set back the U.S. fight against Islamic terrorism in the region.

“Withdrawing U.S. forces from Syria is a grave strategic mistake. It will leave the American people and homeland less safe, embolden our enemies, and weaken important alliances,” McConnell, R-Ky., writes.

“Sadly, the recently announced pullout risks repeating the Obama administration’s reckless withdrawal from Iraq, which facilitated the rise of the Islamic State in the first place.”

Tags

[]

Professor Expert

1 seeder Krishna 5 years ago

Trump has faced fierce bipartisan criticism for his decision to move U.S. forces from northern Syria, effectively abandoning Kurdish fighters who have long been allied with the U.S. and subsequently clearing the way for an invasion by Turkey.

In his op-ed, McConnell warns against America abandoning the “mantle of global leadership.”

“If we abandon that mantle today, we can be sure that a new world order will be made — and not on terms favorable to us,” he said, an apparent reference to fears that Russia will use the U.S. withdrawal to strengthen its foothold in the Middle East.

Professor Expert

2 seeder Krishna 5 years ago

He urges the president to keep a “limited military presence” in Syria, as well as maintaining U.S. presence in both Iraq and Afghanistan, before taking a shot at President Trump’s comments about ending “endless wars” by arguing that wars do not end, but are only won or lost.

“America’s wars will be “endless” only if America refuses to win them,” he writes.

Professor Quiet

2.1 Ronin2 replied to Krishna @2 5 years ago

Right, because Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria are such winnable conflicts.

Wars do end; despite neocons and chicken hawks claims to the contrary. The war in Syria is over for the US. A war we should never have been involved in from the start.

That leaves Afghanistan and Iraq. Which have gone on for far longer, and will never be won either.

I don't care how much they bitch, whine, and moan. It is not their asses on the front lines. They just rake in the money from these never ending wars.

Professor Expert

2.1.1 seeder Krishna replied to Ronin2 @2.1 5 years ago

That leaves Afghanistan and Iraq. Which have gone on for far longer, and will never be won either.

Yes-- and yet the Uber-neocon Trump is no better than past presidents-- he steadfastly refuses to have us get out of Afghanistan.

Professor Guide

5 Dulay 5 years ago

“Sadly, the recently announced pullout risks repeating the Obama administration’s reckless withdrawal from Iraq, which facilitated the rise of the Islamic State in the first place.”

Fuck Mitch and his bullshit gaslighting.

Bush signed off on leaving Iraq because he couldn't negotiate an agreement to protect our troops from prosecution. We either left or allowed our troops to be under Iraq's legal jurisdiction.

Even when he FINALLY finds the balls to criticize Trump, he can't manage it without talking shit about Obama.

FAIL.

Professor Quiet

5.1 Ronin2 replied to Dulay @5 5 years ago

Bush signed off on leaving Iraq because he couldn't negotiate an agreement to protect our troops from prosecution. We either left or allowed our troops to be under Iraq's legal jurisdiction.

Well when you are wrong, you are very wrong. Bush signed the SOFA agreement; but neither nor Obama could renegotiate it. Obama offered to leave as many troops in Iraq for as long as the Iraqi's wanted. You seem to be leaving that very important point. The Iraqis rejected the offer; and wouldn't budge on the US troops would be subjected to Iraqi law part.

The White House is offering to keep up to 10,000 troops in Iraq next year, U.S. officials say, despite opposition from many Iraqis and key Democratic Party allies who demand that President Barack Obama bring home the American military as promised.

Any extension of the military's presence, however, depends on a formal request from Baghdad - which must weigh questions about the readiness of Iraqi security forces against fears of renewed militant attacks and unrest if U.S. soldiers stay beyond the December pullout deadline.

Iraq is not expected to decide until September at the earliest when the 46,000 U.S. forces left in the country had hoped to start heading home.

Already, though, the White House has worked out options to keep between 8,500 and 10,000 active-duty troops to continue training Iraqi security forces during 2012, according to senior Obama administration and U.S. military officials in interviews with The Associated Press. The figures also were noted by foreign diplomats in Baghdad briefed on the issue.

You are also leaving out the Democrats were dead set on the troops staying.

The Senate's top Democrat, Sen. Harry Reid, told the AP that the high cost of keeping U.S. troops in Iraq - given a mounting U.S. debt crisis and Iraq's fledgling security gains - is no longer necessary.
Reid, the Senate majority leader, estimated nearly $1 trillion has been spent in Iraq since the U.S. invaded in 2003, including $50 billion this year alone.

"As Iraq becomes increasingly capable, it is time for our own troops to return home by the end of the year and for these precious resources to be directed elsewhere," Reid, Democrat of Nevada, said in the statement. "There is no question that the United States must continue to provide support for the Iraqis as they progress, but now is the time for our military mission to come to a close."

Reid was responding to a request for comment after 15 U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq in June, mostly by Shiite militias, in the deadliest month for the American military here in two years. It was the first public statement by a top party leader to oppose Obama's policy in Iraq, and may signal splintering Democratic support over his war planning just as he ramps up his 2012 re-election campaign.

Iraq has flown under Washington's political radar for much of the past year, and Democrats who want Obama to end the war this year as promised vowed to exert more pressure on the White House.

"With a false declaration that combat operations are over in Iraq, what is now Operation New Dawn has ironically become a forgotten war," said Ashwin Madia, a former Marine who served in Iraq in 2005-06 and is now interim chairman of VoteVets.org. "That is about to change."
The group has raised millions of dollars for Democratic Party candidates.

Really neither Bush Jr, nor Obama, are to blame for withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. That is all on the Iraqi government.

You can blame Bush Jr for the initial Iraqi invasion and removal of Saddam. You can blame Obama for reinserting US troops back into Iraq to save an Iraqi government loyal to Iran from ISIS/ISIL.

As for Syria. That is all fucking Obama no matter how you slice it. Obama entered Syria illegally. No NATO to back him up, no UN Security Council Resolution to protect US troops. Obama entered under the guise of the "War on Terror" but stated repeatedly the ultimate goal was to remove Assad. A major fuck up that opened the door for Syria to invite Russia, China, and Iran in. Russia gained a key port, military base, and air fields in Syria.

ISIS/ISIL is no longer a military force in Syria. The Syrians have called the US bluff on it and have asked US, French, and Turkish forces to leave the country.

Syria’s top diplomat on Saturday demanded the immediate withdrawal of American and Turkish forces from the country and said his government reserves the right to defend its territory in any way necessary if they remain.

Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem’s remarks to the United Nations General Assembly were made as Turkey and the United States press ahead with a deal to create a safe zone along Syria’s border with Turkey.

On the political front, he reaffirmed the government’s support for the recently agreed committee to draft a new constitution for the country. As has been the government’s tone since the start of the 2011 uprising in Syria, the foreign minister took a hard line, stressing there must be no interference from any country or timeline imposed on the process.

Al-Moallem’s speech highlighted the enormous challenges to achieve reconciliation in Syria, where over 400,000 people have been killed during the conflict and millions more have fled.

The more than eight-year conflict has also drawn numerous foreign militaries and thousands of foreign fighters to Syria, many to support the now-defeated Islamic State extremist group and others still there backing the opposition and battling government forces.

“ The United States and Turkey maintain an illegal military presence in northern Syria,” al-Moallem said. “Any foreign forces operating in our territories without our authorization are occupying forces and should withdraw immediately.”

If they refuse, he said, “we have the right to take any and all countermeasures authorized under international law.”

There are around 1,000 U.S. troops in Syria on a mission to combat Islamic State militants. The United States also backs and supports Kurdish groups in the northeast that are opposed to the Syrian government and have fought against Sunni extremist groups.

U.S. President Donald Trump had said he wants to bring the troops home, but military officials have advocated a phased approach.

Al-Moallem described Turkey and the United States as “arrogant to the point of holding discussions and reaching agreements on the creation of a so-called ‘safe zone’ inside Syria” as if it was on their own soil. He said any agreement without the consent of the Syrian government is rejected.

The deal between the U.S. and Turkey keeps U.S.-backed Syrian Kurdish fighters, considered terrorists by Turkey, away from Syria’s northeastern border with Turkey. It involves an area five to 14 kilometers deep (three to eight miles), as well as the removal of heavy weapons from a 20-kilometer-deep zone (12 miles). The length of the zone has not yet been agreed to by both parties but will likely stretch hundreds of kilometers.

Most of Syria is now under the control of the Syrian government, which is backed by Russia and Iran. However, Syrian rebels and extremists still hold Idlib in the northwest, and U.S-backed Kurdish groups hold parts of the oil-rich northeast.

The Syrian government maintains that Idlib remains a hotbed for “terrorists” and al-Moallem vowed that its “war against terrorism” will continue “until rooting out the last remaining terrorist.”

Trump has been calling for troops to be removed from Syria for the past two years.The military generals, intelligence agencies, and our "allies" were just too damn stupid to listen.

In a major victory for U.S. President Donald Trump’s national security team, the United Kingdom and France have agreed to send additional forces to Syria to pick up the slack as U.S. troops withdraw, sources familiar with the discussions told Foreign Policy .
Britain and France, the only other U.S. partners that still have ground forces in Syria, will commit to a marginal 10 to 15 percent troop increase, a U.S. administration official confirmed. Other countries may send small numbers of troops as well, but in exchange the United States would have to pay, the official said.

Neither the timeframe for the deployment nor the exact number of additional troops is clear, the official said, adding that “overall we have been disappointed” in efforts to persuade U.S. allies to commit additional resources to the ongoing fight against the Islamic State terrorist group in Syria.

In addition to Britain and France, Italy is close to a decision on whether or not to send additional forces, and a number of Balkan and Baltic states are “almost certain to send handfuls of soldiers each,” according to a separate source with knowledge of the discussions.

Trump announced the United States would completely withdraw from Syria in December 2018, a move that prompted the resignation of then-Defense Secretary James Mattis and other top officials. However, he has since partially reversed course , agreeing to leave a small U.S. footprint in the country.

While it is a success for the administration, the marginal increase of U.K. and French troops likely won’t completely fill the gap left when U.S. forces leave. The U.S. footprint in Syria is expected to drop from an estimated 2,000 troops to just 400; the exact number of British and French forces in the country is unknown, but the second source estimated each country currently has just 200 to 300 troops there.
The news comes a day after Germany rejected a similar U.S. request to send ground troops to Syria, where war has been ongoing since 2011. The German military currently provides reconnaissance jets, a refueling aircraft, and other noncombat military assistance to the fight against the Islamic State, according to German media.

Of course our "allies" said the US would have to pay for their increased troop presence. ISIS/ISIL terrorists in Syria are far more of a threat to Europe than the US. Why the fuck are we wasting money, resources, and lives protecting Europe's sorry asses? They have advanced military and can damn well protect themselves.

Please stop crying a river over the poor Kurds. They got over the US leaving really damn quick. They joined the Syrian government like they should have done from the start; except Obama gave them false hope that Assad would be removed. Who else were they going to join? The Turkish backed radical Islamist rebels? How about those so called "moderate" Islamist rebels? Nope, both of those groups can't stand the Kurds and have attacked them. That leaves Assad. The damn civil war might have been over years ago if not for Obama's fuck up.

As for ISIS/ISIL they are now the Syrians, Kurds, Russian, and Iranians problem. I am sure they will deal with them once Turkey and their radical Islamist rebels are dealt with.

Professor Guide

5.1.1 Dulay replied to Ronin2 @5.1 5 years ago

Well when you are wrong, you are very wrong. Bush signed the SOFA agreement; but neither nor Obama could renegotiate it. Obama offered to leave as many troops in Iraq for as long as the Iraqi's wanted. You seem to be leaving that very important point. The Iraqis rejected the offer; and wouldn't budge on the US troops would be subjected to Iraqi law part.

The SOFA was ALREADY negotiated by Bush and he and the Iraqis signed it.

I didn't leave anything out, you merely restated what I said. Well done.

Really neither Bush Jr, nor Obama, are to blame for withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. That is all on the Iraqi government.

GREAT, we agree, McConnell is full of shit.

You can blame Obama for reinserting US troops back into Iraq to save an Iraqi government loyal to Iran from ISIS/ISIL.

Prove that bullshit.

As for Syria. That is all fucking Obama no matter how you slice it. Obama entered Syria illegally. No NATO to back him up, no UN Security Council Resolution to protect US troops. Obama entered under the guise of the "War on Terror" but stated repeatedly the ultimate goal was to remove Assad. A major fuck up that opened the door for Syria to invite Russia, China, and Iran in. Russia gained a key port, military base, and air fields in Syria.

Delusional.

ISIS/ISIL is no longer a military force in Syria. The Syrians have called the US bluff on it and have asked US, French, and Turkish forces to leave the country.

Oh so now you're claiming that the Syrian government booted the US? The Syrians aren't asking the Turks to do a fucking thing right now.

You're comments are devolving deeper into delusion.

Professor Expert

5.1.2 seeder Krishna replied to Dulay @5.1.1 5 years ago

You're comments are devolving deeper into delusion

Well its pretty obvious that he has no idea at all re: what's going on in the Middle East!

Professor Quiet

6 bbl-1 5 years ago

Amazing. All of these 'politicians' are angry the Trump abandoned another ally.

Why? They let him do it. If these dudes were real politicians ( which they aren't ) they would have rushed the WH, dragged him out of his chair and thrown him in lock-up.

McConnell. He's banking on the Russian oligarch to bankroll the Kentucky Aluminum plant.

Hell. McConnell must be happy the US military are being used as mercenaries for The House of Saud. What's to worry?

Get a life McConnell. Concentrate on those anti-birth control judges. What you want ain't it?

Professor Expert

6.2 seeder Krishna replied to bbl-1 @6 5 years ago

Get a life McConnell.

McConnell is a verifiable "Turtle Person"- - and must be stopped!

Professor Quiet

6.2.1 bbl-1 replied to Krishna @6.2 5 years ago

I suspect he, McConnell, has some dirty Russian money sticking to him. Others too. Remember Rohrabacher, ex-GOP Calif. congressman? His time 'in the barrel' is coming. And there are others.

Lev and Igor. You know of whom I speak. Bizarre. Foreign money into GOP.

You must be logged in to post a comment

Who is online

441 visitors