Syrian Conflict News Updates

[Bigun]

@Cyber Liberty

Iraq wasn't a "misadventure."  There was a purpose for being there...oddly enough it had to do not only with numerous violations of the original cease fire agreement but allowing AQ camps to operate freely within his borders and his harboring of known wanted terrorists.

Which tied in with Bush saying on Sept. 20th:
 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/sep/21/september11.usa13


The honest truth is that in the 8 years of Clinton and 8 years of Obama nothing was done to continue to suppress terrorism.  Saddam was allowed to flourish and rebuild under Clinton...in addition to his administration refusing to use one of the many opportunities they had to get Bin Laden.

Obama completely erased the gains we made in Afghanistan Iraq and elsewhere by befriending our enemies and shunning our allies and friends.

It never fails...a Republican always has to clean up the mess of the Progressive Democrat he succeeds and seems to always get the blame for his predecessors lack of action.  Every.single.time.

You'll get no argument from me on that @txradioguy.  IMHO the blunder, if you want to call it that, was in calling off  General Schwarzkopf before he was ready.

[txradioguy]

@txradioguy  The problem I had with Dubya, and others who set about toppling regimes, is that as bad as these characters were, they kept a lid on the worse parts of the Muslim Brotherhood.  The Soldiers did their jobs flawlessly.

That "well we don't know how bad the next guy is gonna be" excuse is just that.  Do we jsut turn a blind eye to what's going on?  That's how we got the effing Taliban and 9/11.  Because Clinton turned a blind eye and willfully ignored  what was developing in Afghanistan during his 8 years in office.  His feckless response to the Cole bombing and Blackhawk down just gave the terrorists inspiration that their plans would work.

We wouldn't even be having this discussion if Clinton had gotten off his ass and taken a phone call to give the OK to take out OBL in IIRC 98 or 99.  Instead he kept sipping mint juleps at a horse race.

We wouldn't be having any of these coulda shoulda woulda conversations if Clinton had taken to task the "allies" he knew were buying black market oil from Saddam.

We wouldn't have people stupidly calling Iraq a blunder if Obama and Biden had done the right thing and hammered out a damn SOFA agreement with the Iraqi government that was BEGGING us to get the deal done.  That allowed the rise of ISIS.

People like to toss out these Populist/Ron Paul/antiwar.com platitudes about what we did and are doing over there without remembering who and what got us there in the first place.

And what sickens me even more is it's usually people that have never had boots on the ground over there and seen the ground truth.

[txradioguy]

You'll get no argument from me on that @txradioguy.  IMHO the blunder, if you want to call it that, was in calling off  General Schwarzkopf before he was ready.

Bush 43 knew that to keep the coalition together (which included IIRC 3 muslim countries) he had to stick to the U.N. mandate...and that was to kick Saddam out of Kuwait.  I know for a fact we were within 150 miles of Baghdad with nothing between coalition forces but sand and camels when they called the halt.

The "blunder" there happened in the cease fire agreement when we allowed the Iraqi military to fly rotary winged aircraft instead of grounding them like they did the fixed wing assets.

[Cyber Liberty]

That "well we don't know how bad the next guy is gonna be" excuse is just that.  Do we jsut turn a blind eye to what's going on?  That's how we got the effing Taliban and 9/11.  Because Clinton turned a blind eye and willfully ignored  what was developing in Afghanistan during his 8 years in office.  His feckless response to the Cole bombing and Blackhawk down just gave the terrorists inspiration that their plans would work.

We wouldn't even be having this discussion if Clinton had gotten off his ass and taken a phone call to give the OK to take out OBL in IIRC 98 or 99.  Instead he kept sipping mint juleps at a horse race.

We wouldn't be having any of these coulda shoulda woulda conversations if Clinton had taken to task the "allies" he knew were buying black market oil from Saddam.

We wouldn't have people stupidly calling Iraq a blunder if Obama and Biden had done the right thing and hammered out a damn SOFA agreement with the Iraqi government that was BEGGING us to get the deal done.  That allowed the rise of ISIS.

People like to toss out these Populist/Ron Paul/antiwar.com platitudes about what we did and are doing over there without remembering who and what got us there in the first place.

And what sickens me even more is it's usually people that have never had boots on the ground over there and seen the ground truth.

@txradioguy  I don't pretend to be a scholar of these things, just a casual observer who saw regime after regime get toppled in the vaunted "Muslim Spring," only to see each one replaced by something worse.  One would think that over time, the law of averages would have demonstrated the correctness of the strategy with some success, but I don't know of a single success story of this regime toppling business.  As @Bigun correctly notes, Carter's Iran fiasco was probably the worst, but far from the latest failure in this regard.

[Bigun]

Bush 43 knew that to keep the coalition together (which included IIRC 3 muslim countries) he had to stick to the U.N. mandate...and that was to kick Saddam out of Kuwait.  I know for a fact we were within 150 miles of Baghdad with nothing between coalition forces but sand and camels when they called the halt.

The "blunder" there happened in the cease fire agreement when we allowed the Iraqi military to fly rotary winged aircraft instead of grounding them like they did the fixed wing assets.

Yes @txradioguy but he could have been a lot less quick on the trigger if you get my drift.

[TomSea]

@TomSea, I noticed this comment had been deleted.  I'm assuming that was a mistake and have restored it.

Maybe so, I don't recall that. Anyway, I'd pay attention to what Cruz said UP ABOVE in the Senate.  Cruz's appearance was posted in the GOP TV room area.  Is there some point to this? It's clear what Cruz said less than 2 weeks ago.

[TomSea]

Here is a speech by Cruz, less than 2 weeks ago:

Sen. Cruz Issues Statement on President Trump’s Announcement of Halt of the Turkish Offensive in Northeast Syria
October 23, 2019

"Any halt to hostilities in Syria is welcome news. I have said before that Turkey's incursion is totally unacceptable, and Turkey needs to cooperate with the United States to address its security interests in northeast Syria. This invasion endangered our Kurdish partners, and unfortunately now risks a resurgence of ISIS. The United States should stand by our Kurdish allies, who have a long history of standing with America against our enemies, and try to stop the chaos that ISIS fighters are taking advantage of by escaping prison."

Yesterday, during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Sen. Cruz praised the administration for its defeat of ISIS:

"I think it is worth pausing to recognize that the defeat of ISIS, taking away their so-called caliphate is an extraordinary national security victory for the United States and something for which the Trump administration and the brave men and women in our armed services deserve enormous credit for winning that victory. I also agree with the president's ultimate objective of bringing our soldiers home. I think the American people have a limited time and patience for our sons and daughters being in harm's way."

He continued, noting the need for an effective counterterrorism strategy to ensure ISIS does not return and praising the Kurds for standing with the United States against our enemies:

"That being said, I think the way this decision was executed was precipitous and risked very serious negative consequences. The two that are most problematic in terms of how this decision was executed is number one; I am concerned there is a substantial possibility of ISIS returning. There are right now some 15,000 ISIS fighters who remain in Iraq and Syria. And pulling out without an effective counterterrorism strategy, presence, and platform to combat those fighters, risks those fighters ultimately attacking United States citizens and endangering our national security.

"Secondly, I think the way we announced the withdrawal, risked abandoning the Kurds to military onslaught and potentially even the threat of a genocide. I think the Kurds have a long history of standing with America against our enemies, of risking their lives to stand with America against our enemies, and were the United States to sit back while Turkey attempted to slaughter the Kurds; I think that would be nothing short of disgraceful."


https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=4725&fbclid=IwAR1IjkLl9QWwH5vmBvsvnhyV5uPGdz7EGxmoKTcyCrP2ebzyD6Ay1nnr8dg

So, let's not forget the above:

Excerpt from a recent correspondence that I have ongoing, discussing excerpts of a Ted Cruz speech:

(Text from Senator Cruz' speech in blue.)


Politicians who had been associated with this brand of foreign policy include my late colleague Senator John McCain and current colleagues like Marco Rubio and Tom Cotton.

My view has been described as that of a noninterventionist hawk. Now, what does that mean? What it means is that I believe the overarching objective of U.S. foreign policy, the touchstone for any military involvement, should be defending the vital national security interests of the United States.


Just a couple of comments....  he is correct, Rubio and Cotton are indeed current versions of McCain..... both are despicable curs.

So, here is the crux of a lot of thought and reflection....  just what are the "vital national security interests of the United States?"  We all, politicians and the citizenry, tend to use this phrase in a manner that suggests that there is some universal and all encompassing definition!  There isn't.  And unfortunately for us, this phrase has been used to justify unspeakable horrors against ALL of us....  the citizens of this great nation, and much of the rest of the world!!

Now, I am not accusing Cruz of anything nefarious here....  just want to point out that that phrase, needs to be very carefully dissected, analyzed, placed into context, and validated, almost every time it is used in a substantive manner.


But on the other side, a question that I asked repeatedly both in public briefings and in classified briefings is, if a military strike is successful, if Assad is toppled - and let me be clear. Assad is a monster and a butcher who has murdered hundreds of thousands of his own citizens. I have no illusions about what kind of man Bashar Assad is.

And at each of those briefings, I couldn't get a coherent answer from the administration, how you prevent chemical weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists who would use them, who would want to use them both against Americans and our allies - an unequivocally worse situation than the status quo.

When the administration couldn't answer that question, I came out publicly opposing military intervention in Syria. In that - agreed with me on that policy issue was Rand Paul, although for very different reasons. Likewise, in Libya, the Obama administration led a coalition of nations to topple Gadhafi - Gadhafi, like Assad, a bad, bad man with a horrible human rights record. And yet we topple Gadhafi, creating a vacuum into which stepped warlords, radical Islamic warlords that made Libya, by any measure, more dangerous and a greater threat to U.S. national security interests.


OK, a lot to unpack here....  I am glad that Cruz was against the interventions in both Syria and Libya....  though for somewhat different reasons than I hold....

Syria: two main things:

1.  Assad being a "monster and butcher" is more recent Western propaganda than fact....  but more importantly,

2.  What goes on in Syria is the business of the Syrian people....  I don't now believe in, nor support, the whole "Responsibility to Protect (R2P)" (https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/about-responsibility-to-protect.shtml) doctrine....  I am sure that you have heard of it....  a Soros-constructed doctrine willed into existence by good old Samantha Power....  All that it is, and ever was, is a ginned up justification for the spread of globalism buttressed by support ginned up at a purely emotional level....  (Recall also that it was originally named "Right to Protect," when that just didn't get enough traction, it was converted to "Responsibility!!!"

Look, either one believes in national sovereignty, or one doesn't.....  it isn't a "flexible" concept in which "we" get to choose which nation's sovereignty we will respect, and which nation's sovereignty we won't.....

Libya: much the same.... 

While Cruz is correct that the toppling of these leaders led directly into chaos resulting from the power vacuum, my point is that it would have been wrong even if our approved "replacements" were in place.....  how many times in our history have we seen the folly (and resultant destruction that follows) from that course of action?  Think Persia and the Shah.....  think of the Satellite Wars....

Now if you recall......  R2P came about just before these interventions....  convenient, no?  What were they up to?  In short (very short) it was part of the path to create the caliphate....  as part of the path to creating chaos in a significant part of the globe, and drawing in the US (and other Western "allies") into regional conflict, and ultimately much more....  (Shudder at the thought of HRC winning in 2016.)  Oh, and never forget the "side benefit" of hundreds of billions of dollars (repayable by future generations) that gets into the hands of certain actors....   to "defend" against this!!



And then there is, of course, Iraq. Saddam Hussein was yet another monster, and yet, in hindsight, it is hard to dispute that toppling that strongman opened the door for ISIS, opened the door for radical Islamic terrorists who had as an even greater objective of carrying out acts of terrorism and murder targeting American citizens. In all of those situations, I believed U.S. military force and the use of military force did not further our national security interests. So what is the counterpoint to that?


Kudos to Cruz for speaking the truth about that....  I am sickened by those that would continue to attempt to justify the Iraq intervention....

(Question: do you believe this was just an inadvertent "blunder?")


And the counterpoint to that I would point to is Iran. I believe the threat of a nuclear Iran poses the single greatest national security threat to the United States of America. The Ayatollah Khomenei, when he chants death to America, when he chants death to Israel, I believe it. I don't believe that is mere empty rhetoric, but rather it is a radical religious commitment, a zealotry, that, if backed by nuclear weapons, could result in the annihilation of millions. I believe we should use every tool we have to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Now, what does that mean? That means diplomatic tools. That means economic tools. That means sanctions. And that means, yes, military force if necessary.

Some time recently, a reporter asked me a question that he thought was a gotcha question, which is he said, would you be willing to use military force against Iran? I said, absolutely. That's a gotcha question. That one is easily - if Iran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons, we should not hesitate to use military force to prevent them from doing so. Now, let me be very clear. When I talk about that potential, I mean bombing their nuclear facilities into absolute rubble. I have zero desire to see an invading ground force that tries to turn Iran into a democratic utopia. If our objective is to turn Iran into Switzerland, that in all likelihood will prove a mirage - an impossible objective. If our objective is to stop a radical theocrat from acquiring weapons to be used, potentially, to murder millions of Americans or millions of our allies, that is an achievable and direct military outcome.


Here is where it gets a bit dicey for me.....  in Iran, we introduce the complication of theocracy (totally unlike Syria & Libya)....  theocracy of an insanely radical flavor....  so, it seems that we need to be "practical" here.....  yet for me, none of what I said above about national sovereignty is fundamentally different...  so what to do?

In my mind (and tell me where I am going wrong) I need to do two things.  Number one, I have to recognize that the reason that the Ayyatollahs are in control is because of us, and our prior intervention (thanks Jimmy!!  but again, not an accidental blunder by any means)....  so nutty as it may sound, I can actually justify further intervention to rectify the "mistake" of the prior one....

Yet how shall this be done?   My preference in much of life is always to seek the most organic solutions possible....  we should have been assisting the people of Iran (whom are in the whole, no enemies of ours) to affect the needed changes.... that "assistance" should have taken many forms....  are we too late?  perhaps, but just recently so....  maybe we aren't.....  too late....   it would take a lot of objective (unfiltered) evidence (that I will surely never see) to convince me that we are indeed too late.....  for this type of organic solution....

Still an open issue for me, would love to know what others think....


The latter, I believe, are the most important words uttered by any leader in modern times. If any of you come to my office here in D.C., the dominant feature is an enormous painting - larger than this backdrop - of President Reagan standing before the Brandenburg Gate and, above him, the words, tear down this wall, in German in the style of the graffiti. And many don't know the backstory of that speech. Three times the State Department edited those words out of the speech, and three times President Reagan handwrote them back in. And the State Department argued to him, Mr. President, you don't understand. You can't say this. This is too belligerent. This is too provocative. This is too hostile. And Mr. President - this is our kicker - this is too unrealistic. It will never, ever, ever happen. The Berlin Wall will stand for all eternity. And Reagan, with a twinkle in his eye, he said, you don't understand. This is the whole point of the speech.

When President Reagan gave those remarks, within less than three years, the Berlin Wall was torn to the ground. And if you value peace, if you value liberty, that moment should stand as a pivotal and transformational fork in the road because it wasn't American tanks that knocked down that Berlin Wall. It wasn't Minuteman missiles that bombed the wall to the ground. It was instead the incredible battering ram of truth. It was the battering ram of ideas. And because President Reagan understood the moral clarity, the bully pulpit of the presidency, because he spoke without fear and called out evil by its name, we won the Cold War without firing a shot.


Agree totally with Cruz here....  a joy to read this....  I believe that Trump is attempting to use his own personal flavor of this approach on many fronts.... I pray that he succeeds....  Another important point is his calling out of the State Department....  for decades (some date it to the Wilson administration) it has been in Star Wars terms, "a more wretched hive of scum and villainy" unlike any other...

Look. I understand that free and independent Kurdistan drives the Iraqis crazy. It drives the Turks crazy, doesn't thrill the Iranians. Going back to the principle I laid out, our focus on foreign policy should be focused directly on protecting U.S. national security. The Kurds have bled and fought and died to stand with America. And I think it is right not because we're in the business of promoting democratic utopias but because our objective should be keeping America safe and standing with those allies who fight with us against our enemies that we should support a free and independent Kurdistan. And I hope that we see that.


While I agree in theory..... the devil is in the details as to how this is accomplished....  again I argue for the "organic" approach.....  a people that fights for their independence and territory are more apt to guard and cherish it in the long run..... (at least for several generations!).....  we can't be involved in "carving up" the territory and creating a nation....

Back at the end of WWI when the French & British divyed up the land of the Ottoman Empire to create the mess that is there now (Sykes-Picot Agreement) it was a total screw up that exists to this day....  let's not make the same mistake again.....

===

Here is the link (button) to download the PDF of the subject Cruz speech, if you are interested in reading it: https://www.hudson.org/research/15291-transcript-interventionism-vs-isolationism-a-conversation-with-u-s-sen-ted-cruz


@Bigun @Cyber Liberty @Sanguine @skeeter @Right_in_Virginia

@EdJames @Sanguine  @ everyone else.

[TomSea]

1.  Assad being a "monster and butcher" is more recent Western propaganda than fact....  but more importantly,

2.  What goes on in Syria is the business of the Syrian people....  I don't now believe in, nor support, the whole "Responsibility to Protect (R2P)" (https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/about-responsibility-to-protect.shtml) doctrine....  I am sure that you have heard of it....  a Soros-constructed doctrine willed into existence by good old Samantha Power....  All that it is, and ever was, is a ginned up justification for the spread of globalism buttressed by support ginned up at a purely emotional level....  (Recall also that it was originally named "Right to Protect," when that just didn't get enough traction, it was converted to "Responsibility!!!"

George Soros and "Western propaganda", facts are, those people are refugees from Syria, it certainly IS not only about ISIS, in fact, educated guess and experts would say most are fleeing from Assad.  By experts I'm not meaning Alex Jones and the year is 2019 not 2012.

We really are starting from square one here, going back to Obama, and so on.

One of the graphs posted in one of these threads showed per some sources, Assad as much more responsible for killing in Syria.

US Judge Rules Assad Helped Al-Qaeda Kill Americans
https://clarionproject.org/us-judge-rules-assad-helped-al-qaeda-kill-americans/

We are really starting from square one here, without the USA, ISIS would not have been, we'll call it beaten back, without the Kurds, ditto.

Also, aided just like Iran, likely aided the murderers of US servicemen:

Bush almost went into Syria as well, because so many terrorists were using Syria to launch their attacks.

Syria has been a US designated sponsor of terrorism since 1979; but yeah, we'll say it's propaganda to make him the bad guy.  1979 is a very long time.

[Bigun]

@TomSea

I personally HATE the situation the Kurds are in but the fact remains that Turkey IS a country and we do have formal treaties with them and there is nothing you or I can do about that.

[TomSea]

@TomSea

I personally HATE the situation the Kurds are in but the fact remains that Turkey IS a country and we do have formal treaties with them and there is nothing you or I can do about that.

@Bigun

Well, it wasn't me, it was you who agreed with Cruz per what he said at a think tank experience, so now, maybe this on the Senate floor isn't as significant? And ditto to you, there is nothing you or I can do about it if one is just talking about a discussion forum.

REPEAT:

Sen. Cruz Issues Statement on President Trump’s Announcement of Halt of the Turkish Offensive in Northeast Syria
October 23, 2019

"Any halt to hostilities in Syria is welcome news. I have said before that Turkey's incursion is totally unacceptable, and Turkey needs to cooperate with the United States to address its security interests in northeast Syria. This invasion endangered our Kurdish partners, and unfortunately now risks a resurgence of ISIS. The United States should stand by our Kurdish allies, who have a long history of standing with America against our enemies, and try to stop the chaos that ISIS fighters are taking advantage of by escaping prison."

Yesterday, during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Sen. Cruz praised the administration for its defeat of ISIS:

"I think it is worth pausing to recognize that the defeat of ISIS, taking away their so-called caliphate is an extraordinary national security victory for the United States and something for which the Trump administration and the brave men and women in our armed services deserve enormous credit for winning that victory. I also agree with the president's ultimate objective of bringing our soldiers home. I think the American people have a limited time and patience for our sons and daughters being in harm's way."

He continued, noting the need for an effective counterterrorism strategy to ensure ISIS does not return and praising the Kurds for standing with the United States against our enemies:

"That being said, I think the way this decision was executed was precipitous and risked very serious negative consequences. The two that are most problematic in terms of how this decision was executed is number one; I am concerned there is a substantial possibility of ISIS returning. There are right now some 15,000 ISIS fighters who remain in Iraq and Syria. And pulling out without an effective counterterrorism strategy, presence, and platform to combat those fighters, risks those fighters ultimately attacking United States citizens and endangering our national security.

"Secondly, I think the way we announced the withdrawal, risked abandoning the Kurds to military onslaught and potentially even the threat of a genocide. I think the Kurds have a long history of standing with America against our enemies, of risking their lives to stand with America against our enemies, and were the United States to sit back while Turkey attempted to slaughter the Kurds; I think that would be nothing short of disgraceful."


https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=4725&fbclid=IwAR1IjkLl9QWwH5vmBvsvnhyV5uPGdz7EGxmoKTcyCrP2ebzyD6Ay1nnr8dg

SO, where does that lead your argument?

He said the above, and there is nothing you or I can do about it! Is he just talking to the wind?

[txradioguy]

Yes @txradioguy but he could have been a lot less quick on the trigger if you get my drift.

Not with the massacre that was happening to the retreating troops on Highway 7.

[Cyber Liberty]

Not with the massacre that was happening to the retreating troops on Highway 7.

The "Highway of Death?"

[Bigun]

Not with the massacre that was happening to the retreating troops on Highway 7.

So you say.  I continue to disagree.

[TomSea]

Assad isn't even the one in question now. In fact,  this move has been of benefit to Russia, Iran, Turkey and Syria.

So, now, we really aren't even discussing the current situation.

Also, since we didn't really withdraw from there, it's almost a "moot" point... we did and we certainly didn't as well. 

So, great if one argues to withdraw because there definitely has not been any full withdrawal and at the most, troops shifted around the region, going back in to camps we abandoned, sending in tanks.

[TomSea]

Well, I'm glad ISIS was beaten back,  I don't believe allies that aided us doing that should not be abandoned as Senator Cruz said..

No, Assad is not the enemy here, apparently arguing non-existing talking points can score big with some.  Nor bringing in George Soros into the conversation.  Really makes the forum classy.

"Oh, excellent points" @EdJames     Are we talking about the same war?

@Bigun  ISIS was beaten back, nothing you nor I do, can change that. All we can try is to do the best thing going forward. 

[sneakypete]

@Bigun what a bullshit question to ask.  There was plenty of of justification.  JHFC this is like arguing with the Lib trolls that would invade TOS back in 2003 and spew the same crap.

And you spit on every single grave of the soldiers that sacrificed in Iraq when you use that Liberal "blunder" crap.

@txradioguy

No,you spit on their graves as well as the future graves of US military members when you try to justify the damnfool invasion of Iraq. The ONLY people it benefited were fundie Muslims,like Boy Jorge's main squeeze,the King of Saudi Arabia.

I also believe the prime reason we did this is Boy Jorge was tanking in the polls with an election coming up,so they started the war to pump up his polling numbers.

[sneakypete]

Maybe so, I don't recall that. Anyway, I'd pay attention to what Cruz said UP ABOVE in the Senate.  Cruz's appearance was posted in the GOP TV room area.  Is there some point to this? It's clear what Cruz said less than 2 weeks ago.

@TomSea

Seems to me the only logical cause for this is to kick off the "Cruz for President Campaign of 2020".

[TomSea]

It's pretty simple, ISIS was not a power until 2012 or so, they arose through a power vacuum...after Obama withdrew troops against the advice of all of his advisors including Leon Pineda.

ISIS, on a smaller scale but about as bad as the Nazis, we "beat them back" greatly, busted the Caliphate, we means, the US, mainly in airstrikes, coalition partners in airstrikes as well and forces on the ground, meaning the SDF. Kurds, Christians, others.  Our allies.... we, together, defeated this great evil. Some from other nations even volunteered to fight against this evil.

US forces heading towards oil fields to guard ... hardly sounds like an end to the "endless wars" mantra.... "We are working with the SDF" today....

https://twitter.com/KonstantinKlug/status/1191338655610294272

Maybe we need a primer on this.

[Chosen Daughter]

Yes, that's a great tragedy. We have to hope the Christians and others are not suffering from great persecution. It's hard to say.

I have watched a few of those video's.  Totally ignored by our government and Donald Trump.

[TomSea]

Brett McGurk
@brett_mcgurk
This larger US deployment comes in addition to the 14,000 US personnel deployed to the Middle East since May. So when Trump says he’s bringing troops home, he’s either ignorant of what’s happening under his command — or he’s lying.

Quote Tweet
PolitiFact
@PolitiFact
 Â· Oct 24
.@brett_mcgurk is correct that @realDonaldTrump has sent 14,000 American troops to the Middle East since May. http://bit.ly/2PbUbAI

https://twitter.com/brett_mcgurk/status/1190004125976551425

14,000 troops to the ME since May. Sounds like we are really pulling out of those forever wars. Admittedly, some of that is to Saudi Arabia who despite congressional actions, we are still arming to the hilt. That sounds like getting out of those forever wars too.   

[TomSea]

The US Might Have Warded Off Turkey’s Syria Invasion, Says DOD’s Outgoing Mideast Policy Chief

The US Might Have Warded Off Turkey’s Syria Invasion, Says DOD’s Outgoing Mideast Policy Chief

In this Monday, Oct. 28, 2019 photo, U.S. forces patrol Syrian oil fields. Pentagon is increasing U.S. efforts to protect Syria's oil fields from the extremist group as well as from Syria itself and the country's Russian allies.

    By Katie Bo Williams Senior National Security Correspondent Read bio

November 4, 2019

U.S. and Turkish officials were shoring up a joint-patrol deal when Trump scuttled it.

The Turkish attack on U.S.-backed Kurds in the northeastern reaches of Syria might have been headed off, the Pentagon’s top Middle East policy official said in an exclusive exit interview with Defense One.

Just days before Trump announced that he would clear Turkey’s path by withdrawing 50 troops who were helping to patrol a border zone between the two countries, Deputy Assistant Defense Secretary for the Middle East Mick Mulroy and a team of officials across government were working to shore up a fragile deal with Turkey to prevent just such an incursion.

More at: https://www.defenseone.com/news/2019/11/us-might-have-warded-turkeys-syria-invasion-says-dods-outgoing-mideast-policy-chief/161064/?oref=d-topstory

Sam Dagher Book: "Assad or We Burn the Country"
November 1, 2019 06:30 PM

... Dagher tells VOA that he was astonished to discover that the international focus on the war had shifted from defeating Bashar al Assad to combating ISIS, especially since Assad helped to foster the rise of that bloodthirsty Islamist group.

https://www.voanews.com/episode/sam-dagher-book-assad-or-we-burn-country-4064591

Agree or not, many journalists and experts say that above. Gee, let's just listen to Alex Jones who is just disseminating Russian propaganda.  One for the Assad fans.

[Elderberry]

Military Times by  Lolita C. Baldor 11/5/2019

President Donald Trump has approved an expanded military mission to secure an expanse of oil fields across eastern Syria, raising a number of difficult legal questions about whether U.S. troops can launch strikes against Syrian, Russian or other forces if they threaten the oil, U.S. officials said.

The decision, coming after a meeting Friday between Trump and his defense leaders, locks hundreds of U.S. troops into a more complicated presence in Syria, despite the president’s vow to get America out of the war. Under the new plan, troops would protect a large swath of land controlled by Syrian Kurdish fighters that stretches nearly 90 miles (150 kilometers) from Deir el-Zour to al-Hassakeh, but its exact size is still being determined.

Officials said many details still have to be worked out. But, Trump’s decision hands commanders a victory in their push to remain in the country to prevent any resurgence of the Islamic State group, counter Iran and partner with the Kurds, who battled IS alongside the U.S. for several years. But it also forces lawyers in the Pentagon to craft orders for the troops that could see them firing on Syrian government or Russian fighters trying to take back oil facilities that sit within the sovereign nation of Syria.

More: https://www.militarytimes.com/flashpoints/2019/11/05/trump-oks-wider-syria-oil-mission-raising-legal-questions/

[TomSea]

It is being reported that they took his wife (does he have multiple ones?) into custody: 

Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi's brother travelled in and out of Istanbul as his courier for months

Exclusive: Iraqi intelligence officials say ISIS leader’s sibling Juma made regular trips to Europe’s largest city from northern Syria earlier this year on his behalf, Jack Moore reports from Iraq

A brother of ISIS leader Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi travelled several times to Istanbul, Europe’s largest city, from northern Syria in the months before the terror chief's death, acting as one of his most trusted messengers to deliver and retrieve information about the group’s operations in Syria, Iraq and Turkey, according to two Iraqi intelligence officials.

Read more at: https://www.thenational.ae/world/mena/abu-bakr-al-baghdadi-s-brother-travelled-in-and-out-of-istanbul-as-his-courier-for-months-1.933814

[sneakypete]

It is being reported that they took his wife (does he have multiple ones?) into custody: 

@TomSea

OK,so they know who he is,what he looks like,where he was going,and what he was going there for.

So why didn't they snatch his ass up on his way back home,use drugs to interrogate him,and then drop him off somewhere in the deep sea with something heavy attached to his ankles once they had wrung him out?

WHY is this goober still free to be running around?

[TomSea]

Israel aiding Syria’s Kurds, advocating for them with US: Official
Reuters, Jerusalem Wednesday, 6 November 2019

Israel is assisting Syrian Kurds battered by a month-old Turkish incursion, seeing them as a counterweight to Iranian influence and advocating for them in talks with the United States, the deputy Israeli foreign minister said on Wednesday.

Ankara launched its assault targeting the Kurdish YPG militia after the abrupt withdrawal of 1,000 US troops from northern Syria in early October, a move Kurds deemed a betrayal by Washington, their partner in fighting ISIS.

In a rare public dissent with US President Donald Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu offered humanitarian aid to the “gallant Kurdish people” on Oct. 10, saying they faced possible “ethnic cleansing” by Turkey and its Syrian allies.

https://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2019/11/07/US-says-Egypt-Ethiopia-and-Sudan-reaffirm-joint-efforts-to-reach-deal-on-dam.html

Tzipi Hotovely working on this.  I've come across her in the news before. See link for picture.