Politico: Trump’s Plan to Fight ISIS With Putin Isn’t Just Futile. It’s Dangerous.

[TomSea]

Trump’s Plan to Fight ISIS With Putin Isn’t Just Futile. It’s Dangerous.
There's no way to go to war alongside the Russian army without dragging American troops down.
By Molly K. McKew   February 05, 2017

America and Russia fighting on the same side against ISIS: This is the radical realignment that President Trump has been dangling as the linchpin of his promised reboot of the global war on terror. In one of his first executive actions, Trump signed a presidential memorandum on Jan. 28 giving the Secretary of Defense until the end of February to present a “new plan to defeat ISIS,” calling for the “identification of new coalition partners in the fight against ISIS.” Trump has made it clear that he expects Russia to top that list. In an interview this weekend, the President made the case that if the US can work with Russia “in the fight against ISIS, which is a major fight, and Islamic terrorism all over the world…that’s a good thing.”

Pressed on the wisdom of working with Russia, Trump defended the idea not by denying that Putin is “a killer” and a potentially problematic partner for this fight, but by saying that we should work with Russia because America is not “so innocent” and has “a lot of killers around,” too.

The President’s statement drew immediate bipartisan fire, with voices from both sides of the aisle calling Putin a thug and pointing out that journalists and political opponents alike often end up dead in Russia. But Trump’s broader plan is no less fraught than the casual moral equivalency he drew. The differences between our wars on terror run as deep as those between our nations.

Continued: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/02/trumps-plan-to-fight-isis-with-putin-isnt-just-futile-its-dangerous-214743

[TomSea]

First, Russia didn’t enter the war in Syria to fight ISIS; it entered the war to defend their ally, Bashar al Assad, from a popular uprising that threatened his autocratic regime, and to expand the Russian footprint in the Middle East while they were at it.

Second, Russia provides material support to ISIS to manipulate the war. Credible reporting from Russia suggests that Russian security forces helped recruit for ISIS, which now has thousands of Russian-speaking jihadis in its ranks. The arrival of the first group of several hundred Russian-speaking fighters was a key turning point in the Syrian war — turning the war away from Assad and toward Iraq.

http://yalibnan.com/2017/02/06/trumps-plan-to-fight-isis-with-putin-isnt-just-futile-its-dangerous/

[truth_seeker]

With Russia (USSR) we defeated fascism. We should be willing to join with them against islamic terrorism.

[Suppressed]

With Russia (USSR) we defeated fascism. We should be willing to join with them against islamic terrorism.

Not if Russia views Islamic terrorism as a tool in foreign affairs.

[txradioguy]

With Russia (USSR) we defeated fascism. We should be willing to join with them against islamic terrorism.

Only if we have a death wish.

Russia is working hand in glove with the biggest sponsor of Terrorism in the Middle East...Iran. It's utterly stupid to think we should work with them.

[Cripplecreek]

Only if we have a death wish.

Russia is working hand in glove with the biggest sponsor of Terrorism in the Middle East...Iran. It's utterly stupid to think we should work with them.

For people who spend so much time trying to claim the mantle of the next Reagan these Trumpers sure don't seem very interested in hearing what he had to say.

'' because they sometimes speak in soothing tones of brotherhood and peace, because, like other dictators before them, they're always making ``their final territorial demand,'' some would have us accept them at their word and accommodate ourselves to their aggressive impulses. But if history teaches anything, it teaches that simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly. It means the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom.
So, I urge you to speak out against those who would place the United States in a position of military and moral inferiority.[/b]


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0NXs_uWPgg

[Oceander]

With Russia (USSR) we defeated fascism. We should be willing to join with them against islamic terrorism.

No, with the Soviet Union we reached a modus vivendi in which we agreed on how the corpse would be divvied up before we completed killing it.  The race to Berlin was not a matter of cooperation but of competition.  Had we not worked out a detente with the USSR prior to the end of WWII regarding the partition of Germany, the Russians would almost certainly have driven as hard as they could to take all of Germany and the Allies would have ended up fighting the Soviets. 

[Cyber Liberty]

Only if we have a death wish.

Russia is working hand in glove with the biggest sponsor of Terrorism in the Middle East...Iran. It's utterly stupid to think we should work with them.

Case in point:

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,247917.0.html

@txradioguy
@HonestJohn

OMG...you two agree about something.  A red-letter day!   

[Cyber Liberty]

No, with the Soviet Union we reached a modus vivendi in which we agreed on how the corpse would be divvied up before we completed killing it.  The race to Berlin was not a matter of cooperation but of competition.  Had we not worked out a detente with the USSR prior to the end of WWII regarding the partition of Germany, the Russians would almost certainly have driven as hard as they could to take all of Germany and the Allies would have ended up fighting the Soviets.

The alliance between the US and Stalin was a match made in Hell.

[XenaLee]

No, with the Soviet Union we reached a modus vivendi in which we agreed on how the corpse would be divvied up before we completed killing it.  The race to Berlin was not a matter of cooperation but of competition.  Had we not worked out a detente with the USSR prior to the end of WWII regarding the partition of Germany, the Russians would almost certainly have driven as hard as they could to take all of Germany and the Allies would have ended up fighting the Soviets.

Which is exactly what Patton advocated for.  He was right.  We should have gone after Russia then.  It's too late now.  They're too powerful.

[Cyber Liberty]

Which is exactly what Patton advocated for.  He was right.  We should have gone after Russia then.  It's too late now.  They're too powerful.

I don't think it was possible to sell the American public on a war after all that.  besides, nobody had any way of knowing we were out of A-bombs.

[Oceander]

The alliance between the US and Stalin was a match made in Hell.

To call it an alliance stretches that word almost to the point of nonrecognition, IMHO.  I tend to think of it as more of a preemptive ceasefire between two enemies in order to first finish off a common enemy. 

I wonder what would have happened if we had dropped the bombs on Japan before Germany surrendered rather than after.  I rather think that Stalin would effectively drop the agreements and push his troops to the point of collapse in order to take as much of Europe as possible, beyond what he got, in order to deny the US ground in Europe from which it could threaten to drop nukes on the USSR.  As it was, by the time we nuked Japan the facts on the ground in Germany were sufficiently set that Stalin couldn't really risk trying to restart the offensive.  Aside from the logistics issues, he would have had the risk that the US had more nukes and would have used them on the Soviet Union itself if he ramped up his machine again and repudiated the terms of surrender. 

[Oceander]

Which is exactly what Patton advocated for.  He was right.  We should have gone after Russia then.  It's too late now.  They're too powerful.

Then Patton did not fully appreciate what the Soviets were still capable of.  If the US had possessed a third nuke that might have been possible; as it was, that would most likely have given the Soviets all of Germany. 

[DCPatriot]

With Russia (USSR) we defeated fascism. We should be willing to join with them against islamic terrorism.

 

[Cyber Liberty]

To call it an alliance stretches that word almost to the point of nonrecognition, IMHO.  I tend to think of it as more of a preemptive ceasefire between two enemies in order to first finish off a common enemy. 

I wonder what would have happened if we had dropped the bombs on Japan before Germany surrendered rather than after.  I rather think that Stalin would effectively drop the agreements and push his troops to the point of collapse in order to take as much of Europe as possible, beyond what he got, in order to deny the US ground in Europe from which it could threaten to drop nukes on the USSR.  As it was, by the time we nuked Japan the facts on the ground in Germany were sufficiently set that Stalin couldn't really risk trying to restart the offensive.  Aside from the logistics issues, he would have had the risk that the US had more nukes and would have used them on the Soviet Union itself if he ramped up his machine again and repudiated the terms of surrender.

We were out of bombs, yes, and it was 11 months until the first tests at Bikini.  That said, we'd have had more a lot sooner if there was still a shooting war going on.

This seems like a good place to mention, if both the US and Russia are going to be making airstrikes in the same area, we should at the very least set up some sort of mutually agreed upon air traffic control system, or it's only a matter of time before somebody shoots down the wrong target.

[Oceander]

I don't think it was possible to sell the American public on a war after all that.  besides, nobody had any way of knowing we were out of A-bombs.

Yes, but being out of nukes, the US would have been crazy to think it could easily defeat the Soviets.  Look at what they did to their own troops and yet they still beat us to Berlin.  To me, the detente with Stalin was as much for the benefit of the Allies as for the Soviets, and also for the French and other European states that might have been overrun by the Soviets. 

[XenaLee]

I don't think it was possible to sell the American public on a war after all that.  besides, nobody had any way of knowing we were out of A-bombs.

Yeah, but in hindsight....it's kind of a shame that we didn't follow Patton's advice and deal with the Soviets back then.  Think about how many lives would have been saved and how different our world and reality would be right now if we had.

[Cyber Liberty]

Yes, but being out of nukes, the US would have been crazy to think it could easily defeat the Soviets.  Look at what they did to their own troops and yet they still beat us to Berlin.  To me, the detente with Stalin was as much for the benefit of the Allies as for the Soviets, and also for the French and other European states that might have been overrun by the Soviets.

  Ayup.  The few people who knew at the time agree with you, and Patton was not, as good as he was, in the know.

[Cripplecreek]

The alliance between the US and Stalin was a match made in Hell.

Most of the Russians I know have a pretty twisted view of the history of WWII. Granted they bled a lot more for a lot longer but it was also Stalin's fault. After all, Stalin first made deals with Hitler. Our "alliance" with Stalin was more about preventing them from seizing more of Europe.

A Russian friend told me that she was taught that America attacked Japan unprovoked and that the only reason Japan surrendered was because after Russia won the war in Europe, Japan was afraid the Russians were coming. She said that she was taught that the atomic bombs were just to punish and already defeated Japan and to threaten Russia.

[Cyber Liberty]

Most of the Russians I know have a pretty twisted view of the history of WWII. Granted they bled a lot more for a lot longer but it was also Stalin's fault. After all, Stalin first made deals with Hitler. Our "alliance" with Stalin was more about preventing them from seizing more of Europe.

A Russian friend told me that she was taught that America attacked Japan unprovoked and that the only reason Japan surrendered was because after Russia won the war in Europe, Japan was afraid the Russians were coming. She said that she was taught that the atomic bombs were just to punish and already defeated Japan and to threaten Russia.

The Japanese view is almost as twisted.  They have no idea what Pearl Harbor was about.  They were just sitting around, folding paper dragons when this mean old B-29 lit them up like a Roman Candle.

[Norm Lenhart]

Always entertaining to watch people that argued for things like "lesser evil" and "pragmatism" suddenly do a 180 degree turn and suddenly talk about the evils of the lesser evil option and pragmatism when those things interfere with their personal opinion on a given situation.

Or maybe it's just that they prefer sharia/muslim terrorism and having their women in burkas so no one calls them a genocidal bigot.

Or maybe they don't really know what they want or what they are talking about and just like virtue signaling.

Probably a bit of each.