President Trump is 100% Correct on Syria Withdrawal – Here’s Why…

[thackney]

There might be a way.  Turkey has not honored the terms of the agreement.

I think it far more likely Nato treats them like Portugal in 1974.  This isn't the first time there have been major disagreement.

[Cyber Liberty]

There might be a way.  Turkey has not honored the terms of the agreement.

What can be done short of "kicking them out of NATO?"  Withdraw all NATO men and materiel from Turkey, perhaps?  Economic sanctions (that hurt the people more than the regime)?

At bare minimum we should be looking at removing any nuclear assets NATO may or may not have based there.  I thought this happened years ago, but I guess it was just an empty threat.

[Sanguine]

What can be done short of "kicking them out of NATO?"  Withdraw all NATO men and materiel from Turkey, perhaps?  Economic sanctions (that hurt the people more than the regime)?

At bare minimum we should be looking at removing any nuclear assets NATO may or may not have based there.  I thought this happened years ago, but I guess it was just an empty threat.

That and cutting Turkey off from shared intel.

[XenaLee]

I wonder how many times this issue will be brought up (harped on) by the rats tonite.   

And by the way, is anyone going to start a Live thread on tonites's debate?   Also, to post some questions that we only 'wished' would be asked of them.

[txradioguy]

What is your solution? Placing US fforces permanently between Turkey and "good" Kurds?

There's other ways of marginalizing them until the come to their senses.  Someone else mentioned the way NATO handled Portugal when they started to wander off the reservation.  The only other way would be that @thackney posted...amend the charter to allow member nations to be removed...which would require a unanimous vote by all member nations...including Turkey.

Most of the European nations won't vote for that because they are a) afraid of Turkey aligning with Russia (we're worried about that too) and b) Erdogan's threat to send a flood of Turkish refugees into Europe.

Turkey knows it's got NATO by the short hairs on this one and they are going to exploit that fact for all they can.

[txradioguy]

What can be done short of "kicking them out of NATO?"  Withdraw all NATO men and materiel from Turkey, perhaps?  Economic sanctions (that hurt the people more than the regime)?

At bare minimum we should be looking at removing any nuclear assets NATO may or may not have based there.  I thought this happened years ago, but I guess it was just an empty threat.

We've already removed the family members of the Airmen assigned to the 39th Air Base Wing at Incirlik.  The next step would be for 3rd Air Force to evacuate the uniformed personnel.

But again if we withdraw from there it again puts our forces in the region between a rock and a hard place because of it's strategic location.

[Fishrrman]

txradio wrote:
"There is no privision in the NATO charter for ejecting a member nation.  None."

OK, my propositions:

1. Kick Turkey out of NATO, provision or no provision. Let them pound sand.

2. Add a provision to the NATO charter that makes it possible to remove a member nation "for cause" with... say... a 3/4 vote of the other members. Then expel Turkey.

3. DISBAND NATO, and immediately create a new organization to take its place -- sans Turkey. All it would take is for the USA to say "we're leaving", and NATO is done, anyway.

That was easy.

[txradioguy]

1. Kick Turkey out of NATO, provision or no provision. Let them pound sand.

@Fishrrman

Actually there would be several NATO members telling us to pound sand if we tried that.

[Fishrrman]

"Actually there would be several NATO members telling us to pound sand if we tried that."

See the last sentence of "option 3" above...

One other thought:
Suppose... just suppose, that Turkey got taken over by islamic radicals, perhaps even isis. Would it be in NATO's best interests to keep it as a member then?

It just seems fundamentally unwise to create an organization (which is composed of members) that CANNOT eject or expel a member "for cause".

[aligncare]

Yes, it is.  The media/political complex has it out for Trump...duh.  Trump said or did something, therefore it must be wrong.  In what has become standard practice, the MSM is flooding the air waves with "Orange man bad, chaotic, evil, stupid, dangerous, etc."  Unfortunately many on "our side" are fine with that, and fine with being emotionally manipulated and used to further the aims of the bad guys.

Completely agree. It’s crystal clear what’s happening here and any American who is a traditionalist, who reveres our founding and the constitution, who supports the law and LEO’s, who respects our traditions of individualism and liberty should be angry at what’s happening to Trump, and especially alarmed by the actions of top level Obama intelligence officials, who literally attempted a coup against the president of the United States.

Yet some still stand on the sidelines and even criticize the president, like barking seals at Jeff Zucker’s command, just because they don’t like Trump’s language or his personality or his demeanor—or, is it perhaps because of his policies or that he’s not an ideological conservative? What?

I can’t figure what continues to motivate these people after three years of Trump fighting for conservative governance and after witnessing every underhanded thing the democrats have done and every orchestrated lie the media has told to tarnish this great, patriotic American, Donald Trump.

It sickens me.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

There's other ways of marginalizing them until the come to their senses.  Someone else mentioned the way NATO handled Portugal when they started to wander off the reservation.  The only other way would be that @thackney posted...amend the charter to allow member nations to be removed...which would require a unanimous vote by all member nations...including Turkey.

Most of the European nations won't vote for that because they are a) afraid of Turkey aligning with Russia (we're worried about that too) and b) Erdogan's threat to send a flood of Turkish refugees into Europe.

Turkey knows it's got NATO by the short hairs on this one and they are going to exploit that fact for all they can.

Everybody pull out of the treaty, then make a new one w/o Turkey?

[roamer_1]

Ho hum..... just another saga, another chapter in the ongoing Trump Wars.   

I posit that, had Trump decided to leave the troops (50 ?) there and/or maybe even sent more in....

these same folks that are using this against him would probably be bitching that he was putting US soldiers in harms' way for a foreign entity that had, literally, been fighting for centuries.

Sooooo predictable.

That ain't right. That he wanted to get out ain't the problem.
It's HOW he got out that's the problem.
and @txradioguy is right.

[roamer_1]

I can’t figure what continues to motivate these people after three years of Trump fighting for conservative governance and after witnessing every underhanded thing the democrats have done and every orchestrated lie the media has told to tarnish this great, patriotic American, Donald Trump.

It sickens me.

What sickens me is calling this conservative governance.

[jafo2010]

From my view, Trump has done many things that make him a great leader.  His approach in withdrawing from Syria however is in question.  While the Kurds were part of the forces that fought ISIS side by side with our men on the ground, the fact remains that the Kurds have no long standing friends.

If the Kurds were our friends, we would be pushing for an independent Kurd state.  However, no one is pushing that!  The simple UGLY TRUTH is that the Kurds have been at the mercy of forces greater than they are, whether Turkey, Iraq, or Syria for many years, and the USA is NOT going to change that any time soon, staying there or not!!!!

But to the heart of this article.  If what was written in this article is exact, and some of it was new to me, then Turkey is in fact an enemy state.  And that being the case, NATO should immediately remove Turkey from NATO.  They could be put on double secret probation.  Of course I am joking, but perhaps Trump is right on the money to bring everything to a head.

If Europe is not assisting in the effort in Syria, then WHY should the USA be there alone to be a peacekeeper?  Frankly, I am tired of putting our human capital at risk to protect OTHER nations, particularly f#*&ing Europe.  I think the share of NATO cost carried by England, France and Germany alone should be double what the USA is paying.  Germany is only contributing about half of what they are supposed to contribute.  Pure nonsense.  And the majority of European countries are not paying their allocations.   Trump was decried when he forced Europe to cough up more funds for NATO, but he did get them paying more.  TRUMP IS PRODUCING RESULTS.

Trump is not a fool.  Perhaps this is one more strategy to force Europe to get off their DEAD *SS and getting them engaged.  If that is the case, then once again, I say a brilliant move. 

One final thought, the actions taken by Obama would strongly reflect his support for political islam/terrorism, and for that, he should be indicted for crimes against humanity.  Political islam, which is nothing more than a quaint way of semantically saying islamic terrorism should result in only one outcome for all involved...a firing squad.

And if the muslim brotherhood is political islam, then every organization active in the USA should be shutdown.

And if Erdogan is the leader of the muslim brotherhood effort, then as I said, he is an enemy and should be dealt with accordingly.

[txradioguy]

Everybody pull out of the treaty, then make a new one w/o Turkey?

Again that would take some kind of unanimous decision by all the member nations.

[txradioguy]

So for all the people cheerleading the U.S. abandoning the Kurds...couple questions for you.

1) Since the Turkey/Kurd conflict “isn’t our problem...400 year war” etc...will you also oppose any sanctions the President imposes on Turkey since as you all claim...”it’s none of our business”?

2) Syria is now gearing up their military to stop any further incursion into their country by Turkey...Russia and Iran are backing Syria. If Turkey invokes Article 5 should we come to their defense?  I mean we have an agreement of collective defense with Turkey and no such agreement with the Kurds.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

Again that would take some kind of unanimous decision by all the member nations.

Almost unanimous, except one notable exception.

[berdie]

So for all the people cheerleading the U.S. abandoning the Kurds...couple questions for you.

1) Since the Turkey/Kurd conflict “isn’t our problem...400 year war” etc...will you also oppose any sanctions the President imposes on Turkey since as you all claim...”it’s none of our business”?

2) Syria is now gearing up their military to stop any further incursion into their country by Turkey...Russia and Iran are backing Syria. If Turkey invokes Article 5 should we come to their defense?  I mean we have an agreement of collective defense with Turkey and no such agreement with the Kurds.

Two very thought provoking questions.

At first blush I would say no to the first and yes to the second. But I'll have to research it a little more before I set those answers in stone.

Can Turkey invoke Article 5, when they are an invading force?

[txradioguy]

Two very thought provoking questions.

At first blush I would say no to the first and yes to the second. But I'll have to research it a little more before I set those answers in stone.

@berdie works for me.

Can Turkey invoke Article 5, when they are an invading force?

If they are attacked by Syria and say Russia they'd invoke in a hearbeat.  From what I've been able to find there isn't any limitations on the how's or why's a member nation can invoke Article 5.

“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all…”

That's all it states.

But if you say yes to the second...how can you then (and I'm not saying you specifically) turn around and say "I want us out of endless wars".  People can't have it both ways no matter how hard they try.

[berdie]

@berdie works for me.

If they are attacked by Syria and say Russia they'd invoke in a hearbeat.  From what I've been able to find there isn't any limitations on the how's or why's a member nation can invoke Article 5.

That's all it states.

But if you say yes to the second...how can you then (and I'm not saying you specifically) turn around and say "I want us out of endless wars".  People can't have it both ways no matter how hard they try.

Dang ! You ask some hard questions @txradioguy .

Re: Turkey invoking Article 5...if they are in their own country and are attacked, I get it and NATO (and the US by association) should respond. But they seem to be an invading force in another country. By their own choice. So if there is no provision in the NATO treaty for member nations to say "You are on your own in this endeavor, buddy" then we need to think about reworking that charter. As well as adding in a provision to boot nations out.

I hate the idea of endless wars. But that seems to be the norm in the ME with no end in sight. I liked Colin Powell at one time (emphasis on "one time"). I read the "Powell Doctrine" that stated (annotated) go in with a goal, complete that goal with the least amount of casualties and leave. That makes sense to me. Being a career military (thank you for your service) I'm sure you will disagree with me and that's o.k.

I don't disagree with pulling troops from Syria...but the method disturbs me.

[txradioguy]

I hate the idea of endless wars. But that seems to be the norm in the ME with no end in sight.

@berdie

The tough questions I'm posing are the ones that get lost in the cheers and hosanna's of the people giving Trump a standing ovation for retreating in Northern Syria and abandoning an ally.  It's alo ones taht they won't answer because of the uncomfortable truth's it confronts them with.

Two things that make the "endless wars" talking point just a lot of hot air eminating from the WH and from Rand Paul...

1) Sending 1,800 troops to Saudia Arabia at the same time he's saying he wants to get us out of "endless wars"

2) Rand Paul just 4 short years ago wanting to arm these very same Kurds to fight ISIS and dangle the carrot of their own country in frint of them for helping us.


It's really fuuny not in a "haha" way either that the very same people on TBR that are cheerleading Trump's retreat from Syria have swallowed their tongues or are White Knighting his deployemnt of troops to Saudi Arabia at the same time.


As a side note...Trump is now trashing Jim Mattis as "the "world's most overrated general" during the meeting with congressional leaders on Syria," and that he wasn't "tough enough" when it came to getting rid of ISIS.  Once again proving how quickly Trump will throw anyone under the bus who says something counter to what he and his outsized ego believe at the moment.

All because mattis...the guy who predicted the original rise of ISIS...said Trumps withdrawl from Northern Turkey and abandoning the Kurds will allow the rise of ISIS 2.0.

Get ready for certain people here to repeat Trump's words on Mattis...people who once praised him.