Trump pulling (some) troops out of Mid-East

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I'm actually surprised I didn't see a thread about this already, considering that this is actually significant. It is the first thing Trump has done that I can approve of with only the reservation of "you need to do more of it."

He's pulling 2,000 troops from Syria. After reluctantly adding 3,500 troops to Afghanistan, he's pulling 7,000 troops out. He's talking about pulling troops out of South Korea, over sixty years after the war ended. South Korea has an economy 40 times that of North Korea, has a population advantage, has a technology advantage, etc. He correctly notes that most people, even those in the Senate on the Armed Services Committee, don't know all the places that the troops are stationed. He's even talking about pulling troops out of decent places outside the US, such as Japan and Germany, noting that WWII ended over seventy years ago.

This move made Mattis resign in disgust, with lots of comments about how Trump doesn't have any "adult supervision" on foreign policy. So being a Hawk is adult, while advocating for peace is childish? I know the peace movement within the Democratic Party died on January 20, 2009, but if any remnant of it still exists in the hearts of Democrats who forsook their beliefs, they have to acknowledge that pulling troops out isn't a bad thing.

There are people in the leadership of both parties who never met a war they didn't like. Now John Bolton (R) and Chuck Schumer (D) are forced to do the unthinkable - presiding over the end of a war. I cannot imagine this happening had Hillary been elected, as her love of war was my biggest criticism of her.

 

[PyramidHead]

It is simultaneously encouraging and hard to square with the usual aggressive tendencies of the neoconservative movement. I agree with you that automatically labeling this as bad tactical thinking assumes that all wars must continue unabated until the situation is resolved to the liking of "American interests" (which means: never). However, I am also sympathetic to the argument that the Kurds in Syria are now vulnerable in a way that they weren't before, and it seems that Trump has considered this angle as well since he has backed off on the immediacy of the withdrawal. Though whether this is an empty gesture remains to be seen. There is something to be said for peace, sure, but creating a power vacuum that will almost certainly be filled by Assad and ISIS is not what I would call an act of peace; it shows that the situation has escalated past the point where simply leaving Syria can be entertained without consideration of the consequences. It qualifies in the sense of "peace for us, for now" which is the sentiment behind many of Trump's decisions.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

As much as I am sympathetic to the Kurds, I have to recognize another fact as well - the job of the US government is to take care of the US citizens and the US landmass. Until and unless the Kurds start paying US taxes it isn't the job of the US government to take care of them.

Even if some area now has a power vacuum, that doesn't mean it is the job of the US government to fill that vacuum. I really am against war and in favor of peace no matter who is in office. As much as I think Assad has the "power vacuum" question covered, even if he didn't my ultimate response is "it isn't my job." The most responsibility the US has for the rest of the world is to fix up the messes the US created.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Trump has done a great job taking America out of the conversation of many theaters, Syria, TPP, UN group.

The Syrian replacement to Assad, if anyone, was always going to be stamped with Russia's stamp. But taking the US out of Syria takes us out of the conversation. In diplomacy, you sometimes give up something, but gain an advantage for something else down the road. The US is abandoning the Kurds. These are the same tactics that helped pave the way for what we saw in Afghanistan in the late 90s. And certainly Trump isn't making any of these decisions with any particular reason in mind.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

"In diplomacy, you sometimes give up something, but gain an advantage for something else down the road."

What we are giving up (troops in Syria) gives us both an immediate and long term advantage (no troops in Syria). Otherwise we are hooked on the Sunk Cost Fallacy.

 

[ronburgundy]

As much as I am sympathetic to the Kurds, I have to recognize another fact as well - the job of the US government is to take care of the US citizens and the US landmass. Until and unless the Kurds start paying US taxes it isn't the job of the US government to take care of them.

Even if some area now has a power vacuum, that doesn't mean it is the job of the US government to fill that vacuum. I really am against war and in favor of peace no matter who is in office. As much as I think Assad has the "power vacuum" question covered, even if he didn't my ultimate response is "it isn't my job." The most responsibility the US has for the rest of the world is to fix up the messes the US created.

Basically, you are arguing for a policy based in very short-term thinking and only reacting to threats once they are at our front door, which means once it is too late to do what might have lessened the threat.

That is rather short term thinking that will put US citizens in greater danger in the future.

This is not to say that the specific actions Trump is calling for are wrong, just that I question your narrow definition of what our "job" is, even when it is restricted to the interests and safety of the American people.

Also, let's not pretend that peace or any other motive is behind this other than Trump doing what some pollsters are telling him will increase his chances in 2020. Add a dash of it being something his buddy Putin desires (e.g., he profits from supplying the weapons for Assad's brutality, which will be greater without US paying attention), and you have your motives for Trump's actions. Actually, I guess winning in 2020 and making Putin happy are really the same explanation.

 

[Tammuz]

There is something to be said for peace, sure, but creating a power vacuum that will almost certainly be filled by Assad and ISIS is not what I would call an act of peace; it shows that the situation has escalated past the point where simply leaving Syria can be entertained without consideration of the consequences. It qualifies in the sense of "peace for us, for now" which is the sentiment behind many of Trump's decisions.

It isn't really a power-vacuum if the US leaves, as the SDF is in full control of its territory, from what I understand. However, the SDF are going to get smashed by Assad and Turkey as soon as they get the chance.

Though I can see the American rationale for wanting to withdraw, it's a sad thing really. The SDF might well be the only ideologically acceptable group in the entire region. It is secular, it is democratic, it is not ethno-nationalist (while the Kurds are the backbone of the SDF, it is inclusive of Arabs and Assyrians as well, unlike their compatriots in Iraq). They don't even seek to secede from Syria, instead wanting their federalistic system to be implemented in the entire country.

If they are lucky, they might be able to get a half-assed deal for autonomy from Assad. Otherwise major massacres are likely during the year, as Assad's forces and his allies turn cities to rubble as they bring them under his control.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

As much as I am sympathetic to the Kurds, I have to recognize another fact as well - the job of the US government is to take care of the US citizens and the US landmass. Until and unless the Kurds start paying US taxes it isn't the job of the US government to take care of them.

Even if some area now has a power vacuum, that doesn't mean it is the job of the US government to fill that vacuum. I really am against war and in favor of peace no matter who is in office. As much as I think Assad has the "power vacuum" question covered, even if he didn't my ultimate response is "it isn't my job." The most responsibility the US has for the rest of the world is to fix up the messes the US created.

Basically, you are arguing for a policy based in very short-term thinking and only reacting to threats once they are at our front door, which means once it is too late to do what might have lessened the threat.

That is rather short term thinking that will put US citizens in greater danger in the future.

This is not to say that the specific actions Trump is calling for are wrong, just that I question your narrow definition of what our "job" is, even when it is restricted to the interests and safety of the American people.

Also, let's not pretend that peace or any other motive is behind this other than Trump doing what some pollsters are telling him will increase his chances in 2020. Add a dash of it being something his buddy Putin desires (e.g., he profits from supplying the weapons for Assad's brutality, which will be greater without US paying attention), and you have your motives for Trump's actions. Actually, I guess winning in 2020 and making Putin happy are really the same explanation.

Not at all. Of course you are going to mention "Putin" because that isn't an actual argument but a scare word designed to make everyone throw reason out the window because "Orange man bad."

A policy of US government taking care of the US and not taking care of the world doesn't mean the US government cannot take an interest in the long term and must confine to the short term. But do you know what we see when we look at the long term? We see that many of these conflicts that Bolton and Schumer support are conflicts because the US made them into conflicts. If you keep looking at root causes you will find each conflict is because of every other conflict, a very complex interconnected structure, each piece supported by some other piece, and the whole structure supported by absolutely nothing.

Your response to my statement that the job of the US government is to watch of the US, your response that it means only thinking in the short term, is a straw man. It is a warmonger straw man, as would be used by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al. I didn't accept it under Bush Jr, I didn't accept it under Obama, and I don't accept it now.

 

[PyramidHead]

As much as I am sympathetic to the Kurds, I have to recognize another fact as well - the job of the US government is to take care of the US citizens and the US landmass. Until and unless the Kurds start paying US taxes it isn't the job of the US government to take care of them.

Even if some area now has a power vacuum, that doesn't mean it is the job of the US government to fill that vacuum. I really am against war and in favor of peace no matter who is in office. As much as I think Assad has the "power vacuum" question covered, even if he didn't my ultimate response is "it isn't my job." The most responsibility the US has for the rest of the world is to fix up the messes the US created.

Basically, you are arguing for a policy based in very short-term thinking and only reacting to threats once they are at our front door, which means once it is too late to do what might have lessened the threat.

That is rather short term thinking that will put US citizens in greater danger in the future.

This is not to say that the specific actions Trump is calling for are wrong, just that I question your narrow definition of what our "job" is, even when it is restricted to the interests and safety of the American people.

Also, let's not pretend that peace or any other motive is behind this other than Trump doing what some pollsters are telling him will increase his chances in 2020. Add a dash of it being something his buddy Putin desires (e.g., he profits from supplying the weapons for Assad's brutality, which will be greater without US paying attention), and you have your motives for Trump's actions. Actually, I guess winning in 2020 and making Putin happy are really the same explanation.

Not at all. Of course you are going to mention "Putin" because that isn't an actual argument but a scare word designed to make everyone throw reason out the window because "Orange man bad."

A policy of US government taking care of the US and not taking care of the world doesn't mean the US government cannot take an interest in the long term and must confine to the short term. But do you know what we see when we look at the long term? We see that many of these conflicts that Bolton and Schumer support are conflicts because the US made them into conflicts. If you keep looking at root causes you will find each conflict is because of every other conflict, a very complex interconnected structure, each piece supported by some other piece, and the whole structure supported by absolutely nothing.

Your response to my statement that the job of the US government is to watch of the US, your response that it means only thinking in the short term, is a straw man. It is a warmonger straw man, as would be used by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al. I didn't accept it under Bush Jr, I didn't accept it under Obama, and I don't accept it now.

You're not wrong about the interconnectedness of Middle East conflicts, but what can be done about it at this point? If we have created a situation where the consequences of our inaction are worse than those of gradual scale-down and reparation, shouldn't it be incumbent upon us as the cause of all the turmoil to play some part in its resolution? I mean, if I spent my whole day hanging around in your house, messing up your furniture, eating your food, generally making a mess everywhere, pitting your roommates against you and each other, and leaving you defenseless against other would-be invaders, what would be the ethical thing to do: abruptly vacating the premises and leaving you to fend for yourself, or sticking around to help clean up the gigantic quagmire I created for you? It would maybe be nice, in a way, if I left, compared to continuing the destruction of your home. But it might not be the right thing to do, you know? I'm not sure if this analogy is apt here, and I don't know enough about the whole situation to be sure; maybe on balance, removal of US presence in the region quickly and decisively, like tearing off a band-aid, is the best bet in the long run for everybody. Is this what you think, and if so what kind of reasons do you have for thinking so?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Not at all. Of course you are going to mention "Putin" because that isn't an actual argument but a scare word designed to make everyone throw reason out the window because "Orange man bad."

Actually, he'd mention Putin because Russia likes Syria's warm water port.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Not at all. Of course you are going to mention "Putin" because that isn't an actual argument but a scare word designed to make everyone throw reason out the window because "Orange man bad."

Actually, he'd mention Putin because Russia likes Syria's warm water port.

And............?

 

[untermensche]

It's a tiny first good step in removing US troops from all over the world.

But it is not part of any larger policy or some productive plan.

It is just one good thing randomly done with no hope of anything else good happening.

 

[ronburgundy]

Your response to my statement that the job of the US government is to watch of the US, your response that it means only thinking in the short term, is a straw man. It is a warmonger straw man, as would be used by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al. I didn't accept it under Bush Jr, I didn't accept it under Obama, and I don't accept it now.

You said that even if there was a power vacuum in Syria, it should not concern the US, and even if Assad fills that vacuum with more of his brutality, that should not concern us.
Both create a situation where the Middle East poses a greater long term threat to the US and to the safety of US citizens. Thus, both are the job of the US government to consider and not to simply disregard as "not our job". Exactly, what the US should do about those situations to protect those long term interests is a matter of reasonable debate, but simply saying we should stay out of it and do nothing b/c "it is not our job" is unseasoned and short-sighted.

As for Putin, he is highly relevant to the Syrian situation and likely to other US troops elsewhere which he no doubt opposes.
There is ample evidence that makes it likely that Trump has colluded with Putin in ways that undermine US interests, and overwhelming evidence that Trump has a sociopathic-level of disregard for the well being of most Americans. Thus, even if these actions happen to be in US interests, any analysis of Trump's motives makes it more probable that appeasing Putin is a greater factor is Trump's decisions than concern for any US interests that do not benefit himself personally.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You said that even if there was a power vacuum in Syria, it should not concern the US, and even if Assad fills that vacuum with more of his brutality, that should not concern us.
Both create a situation where the Middle East poses a greater long term threat to the US and to the safety of US citizens.

Because if the US pulls out of Syria and Assad strengthens his control there, then the next thing he'll do is send his Navy across the Atlantic to attack the US. Nope.

Unless you think that is exactly what Assad will do, then it really honestly is, in both the short AND long term, not our job.

As for Putin, he is highly relevant to the Syrian situation and likely to other US troops elsewhere which he no doubt opposes.
There is ample evidence that makes it likely that Trump has colluded with Putin in ways that undermine US interests, and overwhelming evidence that Trump has a sociopathic-level of disregard for the well being of most Americans. Thus, even if these actions happen to be in US interests, any analysis of Trump's motives makes it more probable that appeasing Putin is a greater factor is Trump's decisions than concern for any US interests that do not benefit himself personally.

Eeek, you finally scared me with your hyperbolic Russian hysteria! Let's throw reason away, it prevents us from stopping Evil Putin!

"Other US troops elsewhere" goes back to my point about how every aspect of US foreign policy is supported by some other aspect, but the structure as a whole is supported by nothing. Which other US troops? The ones in Iraq that shouldn't be in Iraq? The ones in Afghanistan that shouldn't be in Afghanistan? If it is true that each base is needed to defend all the other bases then pulling out of one starts a chain reaction where the base that protects it is no longer needed and can also be closed.

 

[southernhybrid]

I don't really have a problem with pulling out of the mideast, but I do have a problem with the way Trump is doing it. Of course, he may change his mind next week and end up sending more troops into the area since he's nuts. What I don't like is that a lot of the people that we are abandoning made sacrifices for us, but now we're walking away. If Trump would give any of these people the option to come and live in the US and eventually apply for citizenship, that would be a lot better imo. When we left Nam, we let in a lot of Vietnamese people for their own safety. We've murdered enough innocent people in these countries. The least we can do at this point is give them the option of coming to the US. A lot of them that helped us will be killed or seen as prey by the very people that we were fighting.

And what about Yemen. We've enabled the Saudis in Yemen, but supplying them arms and then turning our backs on the innocent victims that the Saudis have killed, tortured or allowed to starve. We have been complicit in many evil deeds around the world and now we want to walk away. I'm very much anti war, but I don't think simply walking away without a good plan is the best way to end our involvement in these wars.

So, if we get out of all these places, when will the military budget be drastically cut so that money can be used to benefit our own people? I won't hold my breath.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Sometimes "cold turkey" is the only way to quit, in spite of all the pain that comes with it.

 

[ronburgundy]

You said that even if there was a power vacuum in Syria, it should not concern the US, and even if Assad fills that vacuum with more of his brutality, that should not concern us.
Both create a situation where the Middle East poses a greater long term threat to the US and to the safety of US citizens.

Because if the US pulls out of Syria and Assad strengthens his control there, then the next thing he'll do is send his Navy across the Atlantic to attack the US. Nope.

Unless you think that is exactly what Assad will do, then it really honestly is, in both the short AND long term, not our job.

Great. You just demonstrated how short-sighted and childishly simplistic your grasp of history, human conflict, and cause-effect are.
There is no possible straw man I could create that is more absurd and more exemplifies these attributes than what you just wrote and it's presumption that the only effects of an action are those that follow immediately and directly from the action. In your mind, the only possible harmful effect relevant to the well being of the US and safety of its people is if Assad directly orders a military attack on US soil.
We should just blindly ignore all of the many more indirect but highly plausible and equally harmful effects of regional destabilization, religious and political radicalization with side effects including but not limited to anti-Western terrorism and social systems that enable it.

As for Putin, he is highly relevant to the Syrian situation and likely to other US troops elsewhere which he no doubt opposes.
There is ample evidence that makes it likely that Trump has colluded with Putin in ways that undermine US interests, and overwhelming evidence that Trump has a sociopathic-level of disregard for the well being of most Americans. Thus, even if these actions happen to be in US interests, any analysis of Trump's motives makes it more probable that appeasing Putin is a greater factor is Trump's decisions than concern for any US interests that do not benefit himself personally.

Eeek, you finally scared me with your hyperbolic Russian hysteria! Let's throw reason away, it prevents us from stopping Evil Putin!

If you don't think that Putin qualifies as "evil", then you lack the basic human decency to make any discussion of what the US or anyone should do about anything pointless, b/c those are moral questions. If you don't think it is likely that Trump has and would collude with Putin to advance their mutual interests at the expense of the well being of the US public, then you don't have enough capacity to reason about the available evidence to make any such discussion fruitful.

Putin is not our only or even primary concern, and I never implied he is the primary reason for Trump's current actions, which is why a said "a dash" in reference to his relevance. But in terms of Trumps motives there is no reasonable doubt that Trump would be more motivated by personal gain from appeasing Putin than by any sincere concern for peace or the safety of US citizens beyond himself.

The only strawman is your characterization of any questioning of Trump's motives and ethics as "Orangeman bad", which shows that you completely disregard the mountain of evidence in the form of what Trump has said and done for his adult life, which shows he is a dangerous amoral sociopath for whom personal power and wealth are his sole considerations.

Other US troops elsewhere" goes back to my point about how every aspect of US foreign policy is supported by some other aspect, but the structure as a whole is supported by nothing. Which other US troops? The ones in Iraq that shouldn't be in Iraq? The ones in Afghanistan that shouldn't be in Afghanistan?
If it is true that each base is needed to defend all the other bases then pulling out of one starts a chain reaction where the base that protects it is no longer needed and can also be closed.

None of this is relevant to anything I said. Whether various troops abroad are objectively needed to serve valid US interests has nothing to do with the separate question of why Trump would be pulling them, which is the point of this particular exchange we are having.
And when considering the separate issue of whether we should pull those Troops, we certainly should not listen to you and confine our causal reasoning to only immediate direct effects of war ships bombing US soil next week. And we absolutely should not assume that Trump has engaged in the slightest degree of either causal or moral reasoning on the matter since he has demonstrated an incapacity for both.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You are still going back to the straw man of "if the US government only considers US interests, then the US government can only be looking in the short term." It is, was, and the next time you make it will be, a straw man. It is possible to consider the long term benefit of the US qua the US. You don't have to be Cheney-Wolfowitz-Clinton to think in the long term, and in fact a greater argument can be made that "throw troops at it" is itself the short-term argument. If you say that we should not listen to the foreign policy advice of those who only think in the short term, you've just disqualified yourself.

Do you want to look at the causes of anti-US terrorism? Or are you going to fall back on the old Cheney-Rumsfeld argument of "trying to understand them means you sympathize with and support them"? Personally, taking a long view, a much longer view than yours, I have discovered that if we stop creating terrorists there will be fewer terrorists. You have discovered that if we maim and kill dozens of people to get at one, that one is dead. I have discovered that the relatives of those dozens aren't very happy with us anymore.

If you think I'm wrong about what Assad may do if the US pulls out and Assad controls Syria, please explain all the ways in which Assad would harm the US. Remember, you're describing the potential harm to the US.

You have ONE thing right - I'm not considering the "why" of Trump's action. Whether by accident or on purpose, he did one thing right. Not only was it one thing, it was one big thing. This is the first thing I've seen right in foreign policy in this century. At this point I don't care if he flipped a coin to arrive at this decision, it was the right decision.

 

[Politesse]

I'm actually surprised I didn't see a thread about this already, considering that this is actually significant. It is the first thing Trump has done that I can approve of with only the reservation of "you need to do more of it."

He's pulling 2,000 troops from Syria. After reluctantly adding 3,500 troops to Afghanistan, he's pulling 7,000 troops out. He's talking about pulling troops out of South Korea, over sixty years after the war ended. South Korea has an economy 40 times that of North Korea, has a population advantage, has a technology advantage, etc. He correctly notes that most people, even those in the Senate on the Armed Services Committee, don't know all the places that the troops are stationed. He's even talking about pulling troops out of decent places outside the US, such as Japan and Germany, noting that WWII ended over seventy years ago.

This move made Mattis resign in disgust, with lots of comments about how Trump doesn't have any "adult supervision" on foreign policy. So being a Hawk is adult, while advocating for peace is childish? I know the peace movement within the Democratic Party died on January 20, 2009, but if any remnant of it still exists in the hearts of Democrats who forsook their beliefs, they have to acknowledge that pulling troops out isn't a bad thing.

There are people in the leadership of both parties who never met a war they didn't like. Now John Bolton (R) and Chuck Schumer (D) are forced to do the unthinkable - presiding over the end of a war. I cannot imagine this happening had Hillary been elected, as her love of war was my biggest criticism of her.

Well, this liberal is very happy to see us withdraw, just as I approved of our limited withdrawal from Iraq and pray for a similar withdrawal from Afghanistan and an end to our aid of the genocidal war in Yemen. I don't see how staying there was supposed to help the people we were supposedly helping; we were always going to stab them in the back. That's what we do to everyone who is desperate enough to accept our conditional support. Up until now I didn't hear anyone, in either party, talking about making a long-term diplomatic ally of the Kurdish people against all of their enemies. Nor would I really support such an alliance; as much compassion as I have for Kurdish civilians, not all of these paramilitary groups we have joined ourselves to are doing things I feel comfortable lending arms and support to. We are not and have never been in Syria for altruistic or humanitarian reasons; rather, we are fighting a proxy war against various other powers, within a nasty conflict that sees daily atrocities committed in every direction.

Would Vietnam and its people be better off today if we had insisted on staying and fighting for an additional five years? Ten? Twenty-five?

I do agree with Sohy that we should freely accept those who seek asylum as a result of all this.

 

[Tammuz]

There are people in the leadership of both parties who never met a war they didn't like. Now John Bolton (R) and Chuck Schumer (D) are forced to do the unthinkable - presiding over the end of a war. I cannot imagine this happening had Hillary been elected, as her love of war was my biggest criticism of her.

This is not really accurate. The Syrian Civil War started with a popular uprising against Assad (almost a decade ago). The war did not start with American involvement, nor will it end with American withdrawal. The US gave some half-assed support for Assad's opponents, but not enough for it to affect anything (Assad is still in power after all), and became more involved with the Kurds for the specific purpose of fighting IS.

From a geopolitical point of view, Syria didn't really matter to the US that much. Yeah sure, Assad is aligned with enemies of the US, but is himself a rather tepid enemy, and there is no guarantee that any replacement would be friendlier. Regional powers as well as Russia have a much bigger stake in the outcome of that war. Iran in particular has a major stake in it, and would be severely hurt if Assad was replaced by a regime hostile to Iran. This shows in how much resources Iran has spent in Syria, especially considering that Iran itself is not an economic powerhouse.

Tl;dr: The war was not started with American involvement, and it will not end with American withdrawal.

This in itself is not an argument either for or against withdrawal, but I think factual accuracy is important.