Sociopath Community

Inquirer said: 

AliceInWonderland said: 

Inquirer said: 

So with his customary deft strategic touch Trump has:

• managed to anger his own party and Nato allies

To avoid 1000 soldiers from being caught in the cross-fire of a conflict they cannot manage because everyone in the fight is in 'allie' - that is if we are to consider the standard being our relationship with the kurds.

The risk of being caught in the cross-fire wouldn't be there if Trump hadn't caved to Erdogan and instead planned his exit a little better.

What would be a good exit strategy look like in a region consumed by civil war and regional interests? 

Also, I'd say most nations and people will consider it a backstab regardless of the technicalities of the relationship.

Sure, but technicalities out way the opinion of your average citizen who just began paying attention to this conflict. 

• backstabbed his own Kurdish allies, making the US seem less trustworthy

Back stab the Kurds, or back stab Turkey a Nato member and key allie in the region.

Or backstab neither by taking an active part in negotiating a solution?

Negotiations have been going on for close to a year but neither side (those sides being Turkey and Kurds) will not give into one anothers demands. Hence, Turkey made a choice and so did the U.S.

• allowed a wannabe dictator to relaunch the Ottoman empire

The relaunching of the Ottomon Empire began before the Syrian civil war.

So we should then just let it run its course?

The course is running itself, we all saw to that. 

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and the Muslims have a very good memory.   

• greatly risked the resurgence of Daesh

Daesh is the least of anyone's worries now. 

The paradigm has shifted away from the terror narrative, regional conflicts between states on borders of influence are back in fashion do to necessity, i.e. Russia/Ukraine, India/Pakistan, Japan/China/Taiwan/PacificIslands,  EU/Russia, Turkey/Syria/Isreal/Iran/Arabia, Turkey/Russia, U.S./China, etc

It could easily become a relevant issue again if the war in Syria turns hot and messy.

If Turkey returns in force against Syria -and armor divisions have just been moved into the region on a larger scale- then what is to come is far more terrifying.  

• wasted billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives and years of meddling

Yes, U.S. and several E.U. states did this.

So why no try to make sure the exit is clean?

What does a clean exit look like...? 

• let his geopolitical enemies Russia/Syria/Iran take home the middle east

The contentions with these nations began before Trump came into office and the meddling in Syria is the thing that forces Russia, Iran, and Syria to respond. Why? Because if they do not respond with force the literal existence of their states is at risk. 

Geopolitical enemies are far more likely to involve themselves in your affairs if you are involving yourself in assets that dictate their survival.

I'm not blaming the meddling in the middle east on Trump. I'm saying the US, regardless of president, has a responsibility to handle its own mess and Trump is not doing nearly enough.

"So with his customary deft strategic touch Trump has:" followed by bullet points alludes to you perceiving all of those bullet points as a consequence of Trump. 

Hysteria corrodes objectivity and analysis and your statement is seemingly hysterical. 

I agree we must be responsible but what is a responsible decision atm is very hard to say. Funding more rebels in the region -which got us all into this mess in the first place- or supporting Assad against a NATO member seems irresponsible to me. 

Inquirer said:

So you don't think the US had any way of forcing some kind of settlement, even a short-term one, between Turkey and the Kurds? Such as, for instance, tell the Kurds they'd have to give up that thin strip of safe-zone land in return for continued support.

No, I've been following the negotiations on this for roughly 5 months what your stating here is really what we tried to do but relationship between the Kurds/Turks destroyed the possibility. The Turks have a way stronger hand then we do to the nature of our established relationship over the past two decades and their willingness to do what they have to. 

We essentially do not have the will to manage this fight and Turkey sees this invasion as necessary. 

They look desperate to me, even striking a deal with Assad despite knowing they'd probably be fucked over at the earliest convenience.

Yes, they are in a desperate situation and are 100% viewed as an expendable by Assad. 

There best hope to survive is this deal with Assad which is essentially an exchange of key cities for support. 

Now this may seem confusing because because I stated the Kurds will not give up land. The reality is they will not give up land they consider to be theirs which are regions of Northeast syria. The territories they are conceding are in North Western Syria. 

Syria is under threat by this Turkish invasion and so is Russia, hence the logical move for Syrians is to use the Kurdish North Eastern territory as a buffer zone to corrode down Turkish momentum. 

Again, no one is blaming Trump for everything. But it's not unreasonable to criticize him for shirking responsibility and allowing negative developments to take place without (seemingly) trying to hinder it.

 

 That is very fair. 

AliceInWonderland said: 

What would be a good exit strategy look like in a region consumed by civil war and regional interests?

I don't know exactly. Preferably the US would leave after Syria was stabilized enough that the risk for another round of war/insurgency was low.

The US' counter-terrorism strategy in the Middle East has never been very successful and Trump has inherited this mess. So while that is not his fault the way he goes about it causes much more confusion and uncertainty than is necessary, which only really serves 'bad' forces and their agendas.

Also, I'd say most nations and people will consider it a backstab regardless of the technicalities of the relationship.

Sure, but technicalities out way the opinion of your average citizen who just began paying attention to this conflict.

It's not about the opinion of the average citizen. This move is negatively affecting the credibility and image of the US as a reliable ally or partner for all players in the conflict. And in the world at large.

The course is running itself, we all saw to that. 

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and the Muslims have a very good memory.

Exactly, actions have consequences. What Trump just did is going to lead to consequences. What happened wasn't inevitable.

"So with his customary deft strategic touch Trump has:" followed by bullet points alludes to you perceiving all of those bullet points as a consequence of Trump. 

Hysteria corrodes objectivity and analysis and your statement is seemingly hysterical. 

I agree we must be responsible but what is a responsible decision atm is very hard to say. Funding more rebels in the region -which got us all into this mess in the first place- or supporting Assad against a NATO member seems irresponsible to me.

I don't think my statement was wrong or hysterical, though it was somewhat hyperbolical. Trump's decision does, in my eyes, cause or risk cause those consequences I listed. The responsible action would've been to stay and try to mediate between the Kurds and Turkey, while making sure Daesh doesn't resurface. It was Obama's attempt at pulling out that created it in the first place after all.

No, I've been following the negotiations on this for roughly 5 months what your stating here is really what we tried to do but relationship between the Kurds/Turks destroyed the possibility. The Turks have a way stronger hand then we do to the nature of our established relationship over the past two decades and their willingness to do what they have to. 

We essentially do not have the will to manage this fight and Turkey sees this invasion as necessary.

They did agree to a "security mechanism" last month. The Kurds would let the Turks and the Americans patrol a thin safe zone while they promised to move back their fortifications a couple of miles. Obviously Turkey wasn't really satisfied by this but it was a good first step in an attempt to ease tensions and could've been built on going forward. Instead it was all thrown away.

Bossroach said: 

 The WW2 order was built upon Hiroshima and alliance with powers much larger than Syria and the powerless arab shitholes. Trump, by showing a lack of interest in playing global power and pulling out of the proxy game, seems to be deescalating global tension and also strengthening position against Russia by pulling Turkey closer. In case of WW3, Kurds might not be of much help but Turkey might.

Pulling out doesn't automatically mean deescalation. I think the opposite will happen in this case.

Im not sure what you mean by the mistake part, are you moralizing or talking strategically?

I think it's a strategic mistake if seen through the moral lens the west has had (or tried to have) since WW2.

Inquirer said: 

AliceInWonderland said: 

What would be a good exit strategy look like in a region consumed by civil war and regional interests?

I don't know exactly. Preferably the US would leave after Syria was stabilized enough that the risk for another round of war/inssurgency was low.

So for the sake of future stabilization we should have kept 50 soldiers in a Invasion area - an invasion was inevitable. 

And now that the inevitable has occurred we should keep 1000 soldiers in a region full of hardcore nationalists who now see us as back stabbers? 

What do you consider stability? 

Syria 10/7/2019:

 Syria 10/7/2015:

As you can see the region is far more stable now and has three major victors, two of which are Governments the UN acknowledges as actually existing. Our military presence on the ground is really small (~2000 men) and they are mostly located in Kurdish controlled territories, Iraq, or in the very Southern part Syria at Al-Tanf base. The presence of these troops do nothing but risk American lives at the moment and we've discussed leaving for over a year - which was a part of the Turkish negotiations. 

What is stability and how do we add to it with ~2000 men in a hot war between states? 

The US' counter-terrorism strategy in the Middle East has never been very successful and Trump has inherited this mess. So while that is not his fault the way he goes about it causes much more confusion and uncertainty than is necessary, which only really serves 'bad' forces and their agendas.

Who are the bad forces and what is their agenda? 

Also, I'd say most nations and people will consider it a backstab regardless of the technicalities of the relationship.

Sure, but technicalities out way the opinion of your average citizen who just began paying attention to this conflict.

It's not about the opinion of the average citizen. This move is negatively affecting the credibility and image of the US as a reliable ally or partner for all players in the conflict. And in the world at large.

No major partnership has been threatened. 

We are consistent in Europe, we just committed ~3000 soldiers to Saudi Arabia, and our commitment to in the South China Sea is being met (American troops begin annual military exercise with Philippine, Japan forces, India-US Joint Military Exercise To Be Conducted In Seattle From Today)

The U.S. is tending to her interests. 

The course is running itself, we all saw to that. 

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and the Muslims have a very good memory.

Exactly, actions have consequences. What Trump just did is going to lead to consequences. What happened wasn't inevitable.

It wasn't inevitable until it was, and it became inevitable the moment the the U.S. and EU states started supporting the Kurds. 

None of this is surprising. 

The Turks have been speaking out for five years on this issue. 

It was discussed during the Siege of Amirli.  

It was discussed during the Siege of Kobani

It was discussed during the Siege of Mosul

"So with his customary deft strategic touch Trump has:" followed by bullet points alludes to you perceiving all of those bullet points as a consequence of Trump. 

Hysteria corrodes objectivity and analysis and your statement is seemingly hysterical. 

I agree we must be responsible but what is a responsible decision atm is very hard to say. Funding more rebels in the region -which got us all into this mess in the first place- or supporting Assad against a NATO member seems irresponsible to me.

I don't think my statement was wrong or hysterical, though it was somewhat hyperbolical. Trump's decision does, in my eyes, cause or risk cause those consequences I listed. The responsible action would've been to stay and try to mediate between the Kurds and Turkey, while making sure Daesh doesn't resurface. It was Obama's attempt at pulling out that created it in the first place after all.

Okay.

No, I've been following the negotiations on this for roughly 5 months what your stating here is really what we tried to do but relationship between the Kurds/Turks destroyed the possibility. The Turks have a way stronger hand then we do to the nature of our established relationship over the past two decades and their willingness to do what they have to. 

We essentially do not have the will to manage this fight and Turkey sees this invasion as necessary.

They did agree to a "security mechanism" last month. The Kurds would let the Turks and the Americans patrol a thin safe zone while they promised to move back their fortifications a couple of miles. Obviously Turkey wasn't really satisfied by this but it was a good first step in an attempt to ease tensions and could've been built on going forward. Instead it was all thrown away.

Turkey has no interest in patrols, they need to end the Kurds and their current momentum and now that the region has stabilized they are in the position to do just that. 

why is Turkey's lack of restraint the fault of the US? blame Turkey.

why is Turkey attacking on Syria's sovereign soil? is this not a declaration of war from Turkey to Syria?

what is the EU's position for future action? your neighbors are being bad.

i bet they let the refugees into the EU anyway.

blaming the US for past actions does not fix any problems, get over the emo reactions :)

Here's a pretty good video describing other elements of this conflict not widely reported and/or forgotten about. 

Inquirer said: 

AliceInWonderland said: 

What would be a good exit strategy look like in a region consumed by civil war and regional interests?

I don't know exactly. Preferably the US would leave after Syria was stabilized enough that the risk for another round of war/insurgency was low.

The US' counter-terrorism strategy in the Middle East has never been very successful and Trump has inherited this mess. So while that is not his fault the way he goes about it causes much more confusion and uncertainty than is necessary, which only really serves 'bad' forces and their agendas.

Also, I'd say most nations and people will consider it a backstab regardless of the technicalities of the relationship.

Sure, but technicalities out way the opinion of your average citizen who just began paying attention to this conflict.

It's not about the opinion of the average citizen. This move is negatively affecting the credibility and image of the US as a reliable ally or partner for all players in the conflict. And in the world at large.

The course is running itself, we all saw to that. 

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and the Muslims have a very good memory.

Exactly, actions have consequences. What Trump just did is going to lead to consequences. What happened wasn't inevitable.

"So with his customary deft strategic touch Trump has:" followed by bullet points alludes to you perceiving all of those bullet points as a consequence of Trump. 

Hysteria corrodes objectivity and analysis and your statement is seemingly hysterical. 

I agree we must be responsible but what is a responsible decision atm is very hard to say. Funding more rebels in the region -which got us all into this mess in the first place- or supporting Assad against a NATO member seems irresponsible to me.

I don't think my statement was wrong or hysterical, though it was somewhat hyperbolical. Trump's decision does, in my eyes, cause or risk cause those consequences I listed. The responsible action would've been to stay and try to mediate between the Kurds and Turkey, while making sure Daesh doesn't resurface. It was Obama's attempt at pulling out that created it in the first place after all.

No, I've been following the negotiations on this for roughly 5 months what your stating here is really what we tried to do but relationship between the Kurds/Turks destroyed the possibility. The Turks have a way stronger hand then we do to the nature of our established relationship over the past two decades and their willingness to do what they have to. 

We essentially do not have the will to manage this fight and Turkey sees this invasion as necessary.

They did agree to a "security mechanism" last month. The Kurds would let the Turks and the Americans patrol a thin safe zone while they promised to move back their fortifications a couple of miles. Obviously Turkey wasn't really satisfied by this but it was a good first step in an attempt to ease tensions and could've been built on going forward. Instead it was all thrown away.

"So while that is not his fault the way he goes about it causes much more confusion and uncertainty than is necessary, which only really serves 'bad' forces and their agendas."

positive foreign diplomacy is definitely not his strong area. hes pretty good a pissing everyone off. people are aware of this. we have a very poor selection of democratic candidates for the upcoming election. i suspect he will win again.

what is Sweden doing to help? i saw they wanted a weapons embargo. not a bad idea for 10 years into the future. im sure they have plenty of stores of weapons and ammo to kill people with. we need action right now.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-security-turkey-sweden/sweden-to-push-for-eu-weapons-embargo-against-turkey-idUSKBN1WQ1BQ

i like how Jim was active in the political thread. being so close to home, i bet hes got a few opinions.

AliceInWonderland said: 

Here's a pretty good video describing other elements of this conflict not widely reported and/or forgotten about. 

 Turkey is pissed, hahahahaaaa. still no reason to kill people off. couple of watch towers WTF, hahahaaaa

The US army is preventing the Syrian army from advancing to the North of the country to repel the Turkish invasion. It is reported by the Arab newspaper al-Minaa. According to the source, on the night of October 14, US warplanes bombed a convoy of the Syrian army, moving towards the cities of Raqqa and Tabqa, and earlier, three us military vehicles blocked the path of the column of the Syrian army, which was moving to the Western outskirts of the city of Manbij. The newspaper believes that the US army is trying to prevent the SAA from reaching the prisons located between Tabqa and Raqqa, which contain ISIS militants . The newspaper believes that the US will try to arrange a mass escape of terrorists from prisons, as happened in 2013 in Iraq.

they did not provide video of the bombed column. no video of blocking the road. maybe it's fake.

The U.S. sanctions Turkey and the EU suspends weapons exports.

EU finds agreement on Turkey

Politico said:

The bloc's foreign ministers pledged to suspend weapons exports to Turkey in response to an incursion into northern Syria, but stopped short of implementing a formal EU-wide arms embargo. They also condemned Turkey's "military action" in Syria and Ankara's drilling for oil and gas off the coast of Cyprus.

But the consensus was delayed by Turkey's old ally, the U.K., which wanted softer language, much to the annoyance of Federica Mogherini, the EU's outgoing foreign policy chief, and her successor Josep Borrell, according to three diplomats.

All other EU countries backed the tougher stance, with Dutch Foreign Minister Stef Blok saying that “without condemnation this paper will be useless," one of the diplomats said.

But in the end, London caved and the condemnation was made public, as was an extra line of text stressing that “Turkey is a key partner of the European Union.”

Some diplomats from EU member states were surprised that the often divided Foreign Affairs Council found any sort of unity and was able to agree that EU countries will “commit to strong national positions regarding their arms export policy to Turkey.” That's not quite an EU-wide arms embargo. “We have left to member states the commitment to do it because this can be done with immediate effect,” Luigi Di Maio, the foreign minister of Italy, told reporters at the end of the meeting.

The impact is expected to be the same as a ban. Member states will no longer sell weapons to Turkey and there will be no need for long, technical meetings at EU level in order to put in place an embargo, diplomats say. Germany, France, Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands have already brought in their own bans.

The move came after Turkey launched an incursion into northern Syria last week in a bid to drive Syrian Kurdish fighters, whom Ankara considers to be terrorists, away from the Syrian-Turkish border. The operation has already displaced some 100,000 people, according to the United Nations.

It is also a reaction to criticism that the EU has little leverage when dealing with Turkey — the bloc relies on Ankara to help manage migration — and that without military power, the EU cannot properly defend its interests.

“The U.S withdrawal from Syria and the Turkish offensive have once again demonstrated Europe’s geopolitical weakness,” liberal MEP Guy Verhofstadt said in a tweet. Turkey and Russia “decide on our safety. Europe must take its destiny into its own hands by building a real Defense Union.”

Drilling decision
The EU foreign ministers also agreed that “a framework regime" of "restrictive measures" targeting those "responsible for or involved in the illegal drilling activity of hydrocarbons in the Eastern Mediterranean is put in place,” inviting Mogherini and the Commission “to swiftly present proposals to this effect.”

Turkey responded late on Monday, with its foreign ministry issuing a statement condemning the EU's decisions on both the drilling activity and the Syria incursion.

"It is unacceptable that the EU displays a protective approach towards terrorist elements," the foreign ministry said, adding: "We invite the EU ... to self-criticism and common sense regarding their responsibilities on the course of today’s events."

The foreign ministry also called EU plans to draw up a sanctions framework over Turkey's drilling off Cyprus "totally unacceptable," adding that the EU had become a "hostage of the Greek side on the Cyprus issue" and was "disregarding" Turkish Cypriots.

The statement concluded: "We will seriously reconsider our cooperation with the EU on certain areas due to its unlawful and biased stance."

EU leaders are expected to discuss Turkey at a summit in Brussels on Thursday, where they will debate the overall line to take with Ankara.

On Sunday, the Syrian Kurds struck a deal with the Moscow-backed Syrian regime of President Bashar al-Assad, handing over control of several towns in exchange for protection from Turkey.

That's prompted concern among Ankara's allies over a potential confrontation between Syrian forces and Turkey, a NATO member.

“Turkey is part of NATO and since this morning there is a coalition between Assad and the Kurds. This means that a NATO member [Turkey] will stand against Assad who is still the de facto president of Syria,” said Luxembourg's Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn on his way into Monday's meeting.

Ankara, for its part, has shrugged off any concerns, with President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan saying that Russia has shown a "positive approach."

Asselborn also criticized the U.S. decision to withdraw its troops from the area, which in effect green-lighted the Turkish military operation. “We are facing a phenomenon that has appeared following Erdoğan's talks with [U.S. President Donald] Trump and [Russian President Vladimir] Putin and was given the green light,” he said.

On the insistence of France, the EU ministers urged Washington to call for “a ministerial meeting of the International Coalition against Daesh [the Arabic acronym for Islamic State] in order to address how to pursue its efforts in the current context.”

The U.S., meanwhile, issued sanctions on Turkey on Monday, doubling steel tariffs and canceling negotiations for a trade deal. It also slapped sanctions on the Turkish defense and energy ministries, as well as the ministers for defense, energy and interior.

NATO unease
The situation along the Turkish-Syrian border poses real problems for NATO, which finds itself obligated to support Turkey, as a member of the alliance, even as other allies, including the European Union, criticize Ankara.

In her final press conference in Luxembourg, Mogherini pointed out NATO's discomfort. She said that being part of the alliance is not a problem for the EU members who are also part of NATO but “that it might be complicated for NATO to handle a situation like this.”

And it is.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said Monday that he recognizes Turkey’s “legitimate security concerns” but also called on Erdoğan “to act with restraint and in coordination with other allies” to avoid undermining NATO’s efforts in recent years to fight the Islamic State.

“Turkey has legitimate security concerns,” Stoltenberg said in London, where he addressed a meeting of the NATO parliamentary assembly. “No other ally has suffered more terrorist attacks. No other ally is more exposed to the instability, violence and turmoil from the Middle East. And no other ally hosts so many refugees from Syria.”

“Nevertheless,” he continued, “I expect Turkey to act with restraint and in coordination with other allies so that we can preserve the gains we have made against our common enemy — Daesh [ISIS]. A few years ago, Daesh controlled significant territory in Iraq and Syria. Working together in the Global Coalition, we have liberated all this territory and millions of people. These gains must not be jeopardized.”