US Troops Withdrawal (contd.)
It seems that the H of R doesn’t appreciate Mr. Trump doing what he thinks needs to be done with out getting their approval first, which – obviously – they’d never give. So they held a vote and wrote up a resolution four pages long to let him know that they are not amused.
The gist of it is here: The four-page resolution, from House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., and ranking member Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, calls on Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to “immediately cease unilateral military action in Northeast Syria and to respect existing agreements relating to Syria.”
It also calls on the U.S. to continue supporting Syrian Kurdish communities through humanitarian support, including to those displaced or otherwise affected by ongoing violence in Syria and to work to ensure Turkish military acts with restraint and respects existing agreements relating to Syria. – article
If they’ve passed it, so the full text should be online by now. I’m really, really sure that Erdogan is going to heed their demands and obey them right away. (If I have to put /sarc on that….)
Other than opposing everything Trump does, what is that really has their undies in a bunch over this? Oh, right: he made the decision Without Consulting Them. As I understand it, the Kurds are now trying to get help from Russia.
The author of the article does indicate that the bases the US is leaving behind may possibly become “fortresses” for ISIS, because they are reinforced, but no real backup is provided for that. It is not all that difficult to pound a fortified facility with artillery and wreck it, or is it? I have no details on the construction of them, but it seems to me that a petard properly constructed and placed could do the job.
Category: "Your Tax Dollars At Work", Syria
That’s it in a nutshell for me, the D-rats will always shit themselves and screech every time they don’t get things 100% their way, President Trump knows that and I’m sure that he doesn’t give a damn. Just look at how many times GW Bush and other Republican Presidents shafted themselves when they caved to what the D-rats wanted!
As stated below, this even had a majority of Republicans in the House supporting it.
Given it would’ve passed without them, since it’s a D-majority House, clearly this isn’t just the ‘D-rats’ screeching and whining.
Well, they could just write up a declaration of war, right?
You know, state who is the enemy, declare the goal of their defeat, and say “Sic em!”
But they wont, so Trump is free to pull out our troops.
Why wont they declare war if war is needed? And if it -isn’t- a war, why are troops needed?
As tokens, to die for “feelings” and “postures”?
Congress, if they truly want troops there, can fix this in one argumentative afternoon.
Don’t hold your breath. They want them out too. They just want the virtue-signal of opposing Trump as it happens. They won’t lift a finger of their readily-available power to actually declare the war needed to achieve some sort of goal there, ergo, they don’t want any such thing.
The bipartisan desire to withdraw troops from Syria is manifest in the silence of Congress to vote to put troops there to some declared purpose.
But they would own it then, would they not?
Exactly on point. If the Congressional delegation wants The US Military in theater fighting. Then do their job and declare War.
I don’t offer this as a defense of Congress’s ostensible dereliction of duty, but for better or worse, .. we just don’t do that these days. I believe every action since 9/11 has been under the same AUMF, no? And we haven’t technically ‘declared war’ since, what, 1942?
Yes, President Trump is free to pull out the troops. But when people who understand the effect of this say, “That’d be a really bad idea!”, maybe it should give one pause? Now, I know, nobody has his unmatched wisdom. And he’s tougher than Mattis. And knows more than all the generals, but come on, even if you want to pull them, does it have to be right after you talk to Erdogan? And without a careful plan for a withdrawal?
Now, I agree Congress doesn’t want to own this, because they see the massive fuck-up that the President is making of it, and feel it’s radioactive. But if your fault is with Congress for not declaring war, I hope, for consistency’s sake, you’ve been against every similar action in the past few decades.
Me personally? I think there’s a pretty clear goal. Get al-Baghdadi, and ideally other senior leadership of ISIL. Instead, we’re opting for screwing over allies and laying the foundation for their resurgence. How is that in our national interests, especially given the stronger vendetta we’ve given them against us?
There is no requirement that a declaration of war use the phrase “declaration of war.”
AUMF = declaration of war.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but all current actions are somewhat dubiously using the AUMF after 9/11. That is, Congress hasn’t approved a new one in 18 years – which is the point I made above.
The Obama administration did try to pass a new one for use against ISIS, but Democrats insisted on language requiring a clear scope for any actions, and when Republicans took over in the 2014 elections, they balked at restricting a CinC’s options. It just kind of disappeared after that.
So if people want to argue that Congress isn’t doing its job, great, I agree! But, as I said above, for better or worse, this is just how things are done now, it seems.
I’m happy to correct you because you are wrong.
The last AUMF was against Iraq in 2002.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Iraq_Resolution_of_2002
You know, the one that Hillary tried argue she was tricked into supporting? 😉
That was separate from the post 9/11 AUMF.
Also the 2013 AUMF that Obama sought was NOT against ISIS it was against the Syrian Government for the use of chemical weapons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_the_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_the_Government_of_Syria_to_Respond_to_Use_of_Chemical_Weapons
So not only would that action NOT have been against ISIS, it would have had the practical effect of being in SUPPORT of ISIS since it would have targeted one of ISIS’s enemies, the Syrian government.
In practical terms, there’s no difference between an AUMF and a ‘declaration of war.’ In both cases Congress is explicitly authorizing the President to use the US armed forces against a specified enemy.
I stand corrected, at least partly. So it’s been a mere 17 years since Congress approved an AUMF, though we are still using the 9/11 one for actions against ISIL.
And I wasn’t referring to the 2013 AUMD he sought, but rather the 2015 one against ISIL:
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/02/11/letter-president-authorization-use-united-states-armed-forces-connection
We’re in broad agreement that in practical terms there’s no difference between an AUMF and a declaration of war from Congress, but I do still think the fact we’re using the 2001 AUMF for our Syrian operations calls into question how committed Congress is to issuing new ones. Not doing so seems to be the ‘new normal’.
Why should we expect anything different? The main reason for a declaration of war (or an AUMF) is to, in effect, put Congress’s fingerprints on the “pistol” of US military force. Why the hell would they want that when they can talk tough but still avoid responsibility by doing nothing?
It’s ironic that the War Powers Act, which was passed over Nixon’s veto, purports to give Congress the power to rein in the presidential use of force, when in fact our congressmen and women seem to do everything they can to AVOID exercising their Constitutional powers because as any comic book fan knows “with great power comes great responsibility.”
People in Congress love the trappings of power, but the responsibility that comes along with that power seems to be something they’d rather not be saddled with.
If Congress opposed the withdrawal, they would have voted for war, or AUMF, or Letter of Reprisal.
They did -nothing-, so they are going along.
Lots of folks seem to want us there. Not too many folks can state a victory condition, or even a realistic objective.
And we have no allies in that particular cesspit. We have some occasional co-belligerents. That is -it-.
We whacked the organized Islamic State. Keeping it from existing as a notion or sub-state organization requires conquest of the region and likely requires genocide of any adhering tribes.
Not happening.
So why stay? Kill asshole X Y and Z? Raid/drone/contract.
Stay there? that results in either a genocidal cleansing, or an eternal slaughter of our finest to no long-term gain.
They won’t ever stop their insanity. Not ever. We can’t “build” a nation there. We can’t kill the dangerous tribal ideology short of an extinction level event.
So we either squander ourselves pointlessly, or try something else, and elsewhere.
18 years kinda prove our methods do not -pacify- the current threat.
Even if we conquer the region, it is still full of folks who have been playing the tribal warfare game for millennia. What is the game plan to end -that-?
Lots of folks have a stake in a never-ending war. They give advice to match. And yes, some of them really are that fucking evil.
18 years…. 18 decades of the current methods won’t solve this mess.
Time to change the game. And Congress went along with that change.
“Time to change the game.”
Trump’s been changing the game since he got into town. So far it’s worked pretty good, especially where “the experts” all said he was wrong.
If they could do their damn jobs, legislate, then they can complain. The CRs instead of budgets and that whole GWOT-AMF is STILL going on.
Of course if this iteration of f**kleheads started to do something the pitchforks and torches would probably come out.
Quoting the above article ,‘The resolution, [House Freedom Caucus Chairman Rep. Mark Meadows, D-N.C] said, “is taking on a political tinge, which disappoints me.” He challenged House Democrats to introduce an authorization of the use of military force for Syria if it they are serious about maintaining a troop presence there.’
That Congresscritter gets it.
You’ll be happy to note the article has it wrong, as if the Freedom Caucus didn’t already give it away – Mark Meadows is a Republican, not a Democrat.
And while I do think the Democrats in Congress would oppose President Trump on anything simply because it’s their raison d’etre, it’s worth pointing out that this particular opposition likely has a lot to do with the majority of national security experts thinking the pull-out was the wrong move. If you don’t believe me, one only needs to note that even the majority of Republicans in the House voted for the resolution.
And more to Ex-PH2:
I agree, though it can’t be any worse than the reports that he found the President’s letter laughable and threw it in the trash. The entire US government seems essentially impotent in terms of influence on Turkey right now, which isn’t good.
LC, are you saying that We the People have to start checking on political designations by the press because they’re making mistakes?
Say it ain’t so!!!
Trump is good at annoying people because he is so direct as well as and independent thinker. That’s what annoys them the most. He did this deliberately and without asking their permission, and you know it just as well as I do.
I think the President has the mentality of a child, and he did this because he operates solely on impulse, without any real thought. That is a type of deliberate action, much in the same way a child may deliberately throw a temper-tantrum, and sure, it’s a perk that it annoys them, so we’re sort of in superficial agreement but with vastly different understandings of the situation.
If you believe that Trump has “the mentality of a child”, you might have a problem with reality.
I’m sure that many so called “security experts” can be called upon to support the perpetual warfare policies that have failed so spectacularly the past 25 years. Why not throw in some “intel community” experts who have lied so literally to get us into such failures too?
The truth is that both parties in congress and their idiot supporters are displaying “the mentality of a child” and only Trump is doing anything adult in the room.
Syria = not a problem
Kurds = not a nation
Turkey = problem.
To deal with Turkey what must happen first?
Hint: it involves disengaging elsewhere…
LC,
Absolute bullshit. You don’t think the Joint Chiefs and the other military advisors aren’t giving the President some good advice? YOu think he makes decisions just to piss off the Democrats? Turkey is A NATO country, same as us, and we have a treaty with them.
Also, all that was pulled out was the SF guys, who don’t need to be put in the middle of this dispute as their skill set is making allies of the people on the ground, while the main problem is the heads of the two states. Erdogan has shown that he is the one that has inflexible thinking.
Of course I think the Joint Chiefs and other military advisors give the President some good advice. And I think he routinely ignores it. How else would you explain what has widely been characterized as a disorderly, chaotic retreat? If this was carefully planned with advice from military planners, there’d have been an orderly withdrawal and commanders wouldn’t have been caught off-guard by the decision.
This isn’t surprising given President Trump claims to know more than the generals anyway, and hey, he’s tougher than Mattis too. This is not a man who takes advice – time and time again has proven that, in and outside of national security issues.
And I don’t think he makes decisions just to piss off the Democrats, no, but I think he enjoys when it does – hence, a perk.
“How else would you explain what has widely been characterized as a disorderly, chaotic retreat?”
Wow, LC.
Are you now using weasel words like “has widely been”?
Come on. Who has charatzied the retreat as disorderly and chaotic?
The media?
The analysts with a vested interest in continues warfare in the ME?
You have outed yourself in this thread.
You like to portrait yourself as a high rung thinker who uses Objective Reasoning, but in reality you use Obligated Reasoning, by choosing your position first and then finding the arguments to support your position, regardless of objectivity or truthfulness.
You are another drone, another NPC. With better arguments, granted, but not one original thought.
Well, as someone else indicates above, they are only upset because he did not ask their permission, but they have previously said they want the troops out.
So he gets the troops out and they’re upset with not being asked about it, and 300++ spoiled brats throw a fit over it.
It does not require any use of the War Powers Act, or any other subsequent legislation, to remove US troops from an area if the President deems it viable.
You can argue that all day long if you want to, LC, but THEY wanted the troops withdrawn and he jumped the gun on them. That is what has them upset.
Sometimes it’s about how you get what you’re asking for more than just getting it. I can want to see an end to world hunger, but I’m not exactly in favor of, say, murdering a few billion people to ensure plenty of food for the remaining sorts to get it. Yes, that would achieve the stated ‘goal’, but not in an acceptable way.
Similarly, isn’t one of the criticisms the Right levels at Obama that his drawdown of troops was too soon, despite being widely supported, and this helped lead to the growth of ISIS in the first place? Doesn’t that parallel what people are saying about their resurgence now? If it was wrong for Obama, why is it right for Trump?
And I can’t speak for the people in Congress, but in that corner of the world we don’t have a lot of allies. Keeping the ones we do have seems of strategic value to me, so if I were in Congress, I wouldn’t care one whit that I wasn’t asked about a drawdown.. but I’d still have supported the resolution, because while I do want our soldiers home, I don’t want that done without any consideration of the strategic losses an immediate and unplanned withdrawal incurs.
You can try to dismiss this as people being upset that they weren’t asked, but you’re missing the bigger picture.
Like I told the commie cuttlefish the other day, if you want to help the Kurds, ruck up and get your ass over there. You wouldn’t be the first American to fight with them. A handful of spec-ops people on the ground could not effectively fight several conventional divisions of invading Turkish troops. Even Gen. Milley wants them out of Syria.
Obama made a poor choice, as part of his failed Iran effort. Trump is getting us out of something in to which we should never have placed troops.
https://nypost.com/2019/10/08/how-obamas-team-set-up-trumps-syrian-dilemma/?
A better explanation of “next”.
https://mobile.twitter.com/BryanDeanWright/status/1183875052443525123?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
Both linkys spot on. Thanks!
Didn’t those same people foul their britches when he said we would send folks in there?
No, we have ALWAYS been at war with Eastasia. 😉
Nice “1984” reference.
George O would be proud.
If the D-rats were for something but now Trump is doing it, now they are against it. It is a given, just like the sun rising in the East.
Get the phuque out and stay the phuque out. And yes, there are enough RINO congress critters to go along with the demon rat congress critters to sign off on any thing that they think will help them all maintain their stangle hold on power. After all, they are ALL congress critters. Oh, and btw, drain the phuqueing swamp.
And yes, MiLady, anything that the engineers build, the Artillery can blow hell out of. I’m unpleasantly surprised that the FOB was not blown when the troops pulled out. No time? Place should have been a smoking crater 5 minutes after the last one left.
Flypaper. We have exact GPS coordinates on anything we built.
Homing pigeons, with one really loud deep-bass “coo”.
Didn’t we leave them for the Russians to use? If they want to help the Kurds, that’s fine with me.
Not sure about the turncoat establishment republicans, but all the socialist democrats were up until now, screaming that we needed to get out of the middle east. Interesting. Also, did anyone notice that now the socialist democrat orchestrated mass shootings have stopped? They must be too busy with impeachment stuff.
Yes. Yes, I have noticed that, too.
There is something strange going on, with idjits in the UK climbing on commuter railcars and being pulled down and beaten by pissed-off commuters before the police can stop them.
Like the guy on the CTA train car stopping a gun-toting robber from robbing people, things are changing. Wouldn’t that be a symptom of taking back what is “ours”?
“John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!”
President Andrew Jackson
To paraphrase:
The House has made their decision, now let them enforce it!
Quite the opposite. They didn’t oppose the withdrawal at all. No vote in any meaningful way ti order or declare war, AUMF, or Letter of Reprisal.
They could have changed this in and afternoon. They didn’t.
Because they will shortly be taking credit for this withdrawal.
Why am I not surprised:
“Dems Who Praised Obama For Troop Withdrawal Now Highly Critical of Trump”:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dems-who-praised-obama-for-troop-withdrawal-now-highly-critical-of-trump
“….California Democrats Rep. Maxine Waters and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, for example, have been vocal opponents of Trump’s troop withdrawal, after supporting Obama’s efforts almost exactly eight years later.”
They change their minds (what’s left of them) more often than they change their underwear.
Let’s see. They want our military out, then they don’t. They want a discussion about the deal, then they walk out on the meeting. Hmmm. Sure looks like nothing will satisfy them, so why would any sane person try?
Meanwhile, does anyone know how many troops are there, how many were planned to be withdrawn, and how many have actually been withdrawn? Until we know that sort of data, can any of us speak intelligently to the issue?
Have members of Congress read the letter Trump sent to Erdogan or did they purposefully refuse to read it when given the opportunity?
Reports of “somebody said that something happened” are beyond tiresome. What we need are facts. Opinions of opinions get us nowhere.
“can any of us speak intelligently to the issue?”
Hey, hey now. If our politicians can’t speak on the topic with any intelligence or expertise, then why should we limit ourselves? 🙂
The “meeting” was a Pelosi setup.
Show up. Wag finger. Walk out.
She has done it before.
Hold the vote, Nancy. Why not hold the vote?
“Trump Celebrates ‘Great Day For Civilization’ as Pence, Pompeo Secure Syria Cease-Fire Agreement”:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pence-pompeo-secure-cease-fire-agreement-in-syria-after-meeting-with-turkish-president
Can anyone please explain to me why the United Nations still exists other than trying to enforce “Climate Change” as well as what NATO does these days?
Why does it seem as if it is the United States responsibilty to be the World’s Policeman?
I plead ignorance on the role and responsibilty of the United Nations and NATO.
When I see the conduit of Europeans on the internet (mainly from Brits who I have lost all of my respect and sympathy for because of this) makes me wonder if we should have pulled out of there years ago (I am going to be generous here and say maybe after the collapse of the Soviet Union). Many people always say the US should mind its own business and I agree which also means that I believe they are responsible for fixing their own problems and defending their country (I absolutely love it when they criticize the US for having the largest military budget until you do the actual math and it’s not as much as it seems). I wonder what the countries that have US bases in their borders will say when the US tells them “Okay fine. But you’re on your own from this point forward.” I have no problem giving our allies support, but that doesn’t mean they get to sit back and do nothing. They are going to have to pull their own weight too if they want help. It’s not going to be Uncle Sam doing all the work.
Turkey isn’t anywhere near the North Atlantic.
Just sayin.
Our notional ally there was the Turkish military, the sane secular folks who kept the crazies out of the shadows driver’s seat.
They had a constitutionally mandated role to keep Turkey secular. Thank you for that, Kemal Attaturk.
And zer0 helped end that. Helped the crazies break the military. Helped create a Sunni version of Iran, that intends to re-form the Ottoman fucking empire.
Way to go zer0. We can forget Carter now. You are the greatest FlusterCluck ever to sit in the Oval office.
The Turkish Army was the only consistent firebreak against Islamic reconquest of secular Turkey. Arabs didn’t conquer much of Europe. Persians didn’t. The Ottoman Turks did.
Brilliant, zer0. Brilliant.
There is no way you all would have been ok with all this nonsense if a dem was in office
Makes me sick how sycophantic so many of you all are.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/17/politics/william-mcraven-trump-cnntv/index.html
OH, here we go! And it isn’t even 8:30AM in Snowflakeland!!!
I have to say that I am SO DISAPPOINTED in your lack of timing about this, Taylor. You really know how to make an ass of yourself in public, but you usually wait until we’ve had some caffeine ingested.
Rattle on, Silly. Rattle on.
Obama did it in Iraq
I was not surprised
Here’s a look at one of our outpost we left for the
Russians or gave absolutely amazing how we wast money isn’t it
https://www.funker530.com/russian-mercenary-manbij/