Author Topic: The Danger of Abandoning Our Partners  (Read 151 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,534
  • Gender: Male
  • Rule #39
The Danger of Abandoning Our Partners
« on: October 10, 2019, 02:25:10 pm »
The abrupt policy decision to seemingly abandon our Kurdish partners could not come at a worse time. The decision was made without consulting U.S. allies or senior U.S. military leadership and threatens to affect future partnerships at precisely the time we need them most, given the war-weariness of the American public coupled with ever more sophisticated enemies determined to come after us.

In northeastern Syria, we had one of the most successful partnerships. The Islamic State was using Syria as a sanctuary to support its operations in Iraq and globally, including by hosting and training foreign fighters. We had to go after ISIS quickly and effectively. The answer came in the form of a small band of Kurdish forces pinned up against the Turkish border and fighting for their lives against ISIS militants in the Syrian town of Kobane in 2014.

We had tried many other options first. The U.S. initially worked to partner with moderate Syrian rebel groups, investing $500 million in a train-and-equip program to build their capabilities to fight against ISIS in Syria. That endeavor failed, save for a small force in southeastern Syria near the American al-Tanf base, which began as a U.S. outpost to fight ISIS and remains today as a deterrent against Iran. So we turned to Turkey to identify alternative groups, but the Pentagon found that the force Turkey had trained was simply inadequate and would require tens of thousands of U.S. troops to bolster it in battle. With no public appetite for a full-scale U.S. ground invasion, we were forced to look elsewhere.

I (Joseph Votel) first met General Mazloum Abdi at a base in northern Syria in May 2016. From the start, it was obvious he was not only an impressive and thoughtful man, but a fighter who was clearly thinking about the strategic aspects of the campaign against ISIS and aware of the challenges of fighting a formidable enemy. He could see the long-term perils from the civil war, but recognized that the most immediate threat to his people was ISIS. After a fitful start in Syria, I concluded that we had finally found the right partner who could help us defeat ISIS without getting drawn into the murkier conflict against Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

<snip>

Over four years, the SDF freed tens of thousands of square miles and millions of people from the grip of ISIS. Throughout the fight, it sustained nearly 11,000 casualties. By comparison, six U.S. service members, as well as two civilians, have been killed in the anti-ISIS campaign. Key to this effective relationship was mutual trust, constant communication, and clear expectations. The partnership was not without its difficulties. That included working through the December 2018 announcement of our sudden departure and our subsequent agreement with Turkey to pursue a security mechanism for the border areas. But each time, the strong mutual trust built on the ground between our military members and the SDF preserved our momentum. The sudden policy change this week breaks that trust at the most crucial juncture and leaves our partners with very limited options.

It didn’t have to be this way. The U.S. worked endlessly to placate our Turkish allies.

<snip>

A possible invasion from Turkey against the Kurdish elements of the SDF, coupled with a hasty U.S. departure, now threaten to rapidly destabilize an already fragile security situation in Syria’s northeast, where ISIS’s physical caliphate was only recently defeated. Nearly 2,000 foreign fighters, about 9,000 Iraqi and Syrian fighters, and tens of thousands of ISIS family members are being held in detention facilities and displaced-persons camps in areas under SDF control. What happens if we leave? The SDF has already stated that it will have to fortify defense mechanisms along the Syrian-Turkish border, leaving ISIS detention facilities and encampments with little to no security. This is particularly troubling, given that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the self-proclaimed caliph of ISIS, recently called on supporters to break fighters out of these facilities. There have also been violent attacks in the al-Hol refugee camp, where tens of thousands of women and children are housed and where ISIS sympathy runs rampant.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/10/danger-abandoning-our-partners/599632/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share&utm_term=Editorial+-+Early+Bird+Brief&fbclid=IwAR0ep9owkgQj4jG9HqHkxdDdtSXJym5ahxI3S3ULe1D_JC9nh9T9X72lYW0

Quote
General JOSEPH VOTEL served as commander of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) from March 2016 to March 2019. As commander of CENTCOM, Votel oversaw military operations across the region, including the campaign against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. Before CENTCOM, he was the commander of the U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) and the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC). General Votel is a non-resident Distinguished Senior Fellow on National Security at the Middle East Institute (MEI).
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Offline Absalom

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,375
Re: The Danger of Abandoning Our Partners
« Reply #1 on: October 10, 2019, 04:28:19 pm »
Votel is surely entitled to his opinion yet a wise Irish Whig had another,
some two centuries past.
Prime Minister Lord Palmerston (Henry Temple) asserted:
"Great Nations have neither allies nor friends; they simply have interests and
as time changes those circumstances, their interests also change."
The likes of Palmerston are non-existent in out time, yet his wisdom endures.
Were we wise, we would heed it!!!
« Last Edit: October 10, 2019, 07:38:23 pm by Absalom »

Offline Sanguine

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,986
  • Gender: Female
  • Ex-member
Re: The Danger of Abandoning Our Partners
« Reply #2 on: October 10, 2019, 05:11:36 pm »
I would like to see a more America-first, pragmatic foreign policy.  There are a few, very few, countries with whom we have long-term close relationships because they generally are in alignment with an American world view.  Countries like the Five Eyes.  But, keeping in mind that the Five Eyes helped 0bama subvert the American system, so even that should be limited.

For every other country or "ethnic group" in the world, I would like to see adoption of a "as long as our alliance is useful, productive and needed we will honor the terms of our alliance".  That's it. When the alliance is not useful, productive and/or needed, it is over.  That doesn't make us enemies but we are no longer obligated by counterproductive claims on our blood and treasure.

Offline Absalom

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,375
Re: The Danger of Abandoning Our Partners
« Reply #3 on: October 10, 2019, 06:23:08 pm »
I would like to see a more America-first, pragmatic foreign policy.  There are a few, very few, countries with whom we have long-term close relationships because they generally are in alignment with an American world view.  Countries like the Five Eyes.  But, keeping in mind that the Five Eyes helped 0bama subvert the American system, so even that should be limited.
For every other country or "ethnic group" in the world, I would like to see adoption of a "as long as our alliance is useful, productive and needed we will honor the terms of our alliance".  That's it. When the alliance is not useful, productive and/or needed, it is over.  That doesn't make us enemies but we are no longer obligated by counterproductive claims on our blood and treasure.
------------------------------------
The history of Europe since Clovis in 500 AD was marked by constant war for the next
1400 years culminating in the Great War of 1914, which was none of our damn business.
At that time, while we were an economically powerful nation, we were largely insular.
Woodrow Wilson's fateful decision to enter that conflict changed us drastically by
internationalizing our politics, as is obvious by the attitude/behavior of our
Defense and State Departments, each and every day.
We are hardly better for this and sadly you will never get your "America First" wish.