• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Has 'Begun The Process' Of Withdrawing From Syria, Pentagon Says

Rogue Valley

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
94,129
Reaction score
82,396
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
U.S. Has 'Begun The Process' Of Withdrawing From Syria, Pentagon Says

684550866.jpg


1/11/19
The Pentagon says U.S. military personnel in Syria are moving ahead with President Trump's order to pull out of the war-torn country. The U.S. force in Syria has "begun the process of our deliberate withdrawal from Syria," said Col. Sean Ryan, spokesman for the for Combined Joint Task Force - Operation Inherent Resolve. More than 2,000 U.S. troops are currently deployed in Syria. According to a statement on Friday night by Pentagon spokesman Cmdr. Sean Robertson, no U.S. personnel have left. The issue of personnel was not addressed in the statement Friday morning by Ryan, spokesman for the anti-ISIS coalition. He said, "Out of concern for operational security, we will not discuss specific timelines, locations or troops movements."
Click to expand...

Yesterday the US pulled out of Rmelan military base in far northeastern Syria. This was ~150 personnel. My sources tell me that equipment will be withdrawn first and then personnel, so US force-size in Syria may actually temporarily increase before it starts decreasing.

Erdogan is still promising to attack the Syrian Kurds - steadfast US allies in Syria. Possibly as soon as next week.
 
Trump Warns Turkey Over Attacking Kurdish Forces In Syria

313

US Special Forces and the Kurdish YPG in Syria.

1/14/19
U.S. President Donald Trump has warned that the United States will "devastate Turkey economically" if Ankara attacks U.S.-backed Kurdish forces in Syria. Turkey has threatened to attack the United States' Kurdish allies fighting Islamic State (IS) militants. Ankara views them as terrorists with ties to insurgents within Turkey. In a tweet on January 13, Trump also warned the Kurdish forces not to "provoke Turkey." Trump said the United States had started what he called the "long, overdue pullout" from Syria while going after IS militants in the remaining territory they hold. AP quoted unnamed U.S. defense officials as saying they had begun withdrawing shipments of military equipment. In coming weeks, the contingent of about 2,000 troops is expected to depart.

A spokesman for Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan tweeted that Turkey expected the United States "to honor our strategic partnership" and didn't want the United States "to be shadowed by terrorist propaganda." Ibrahim Kalin said that "there is no difference" between IS militants, Turkey-based militants in the banned Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), the U.S.-backed Syrian Kurdish opposition Democratic Union Party (PYD), and U.S.-backed Syrian Kurdish militants in the so-called People's Protection Units (YPG). "We will continue to fight against them all," Kalin said. Trump's decision to leave Syria shocked U.S. allies and angered the Kurds in Syria. It also prompted the resignation of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and drew criticism in Congress.
Click to expand...

The ball now seems to be in Erdogan's court. Then again, what does Trump consider a Turkish attack worthy of blow-back? One incident? Three? Twenty?

Erdogan can, of course, always use his Syrian militia ally Ahrar al-Sharqiya (Islamist/Salafist) to attack the Kurds. Then what? We'll see how all this plays out.

Related: Trump threatens to 'devastate Turkey economically' if it attacks Kurds in Syria
 
Rogue Valley said:
U.S. Has 'Begun The Process' Of Withdrawing From Syria, Pentagon Says

684550866.jpg




Yesterday the US pulled out of Rmelan military base in far northeastern Syria. This was ~150 personnel. My sources tell me that equipment will be withdrawn first and then personnel, so US force-size in Syria may actually temporarily increase before it starts decreasing.

Erdogan is still promising to attack the Syrian Kurds - steadfast US allies in Syria. Possibly as soon as next week.
Click to expand...


US withdrawing from Syria? How about Afghanistan now? Or "some" of the other 130 countries America has military in. There've been comics actually mocking Trump for wanting to protect the US border rather than fight in meaningless MidEast wars. It is insane. No one can ever explain even why America's in Afghanistan.
 
US withdrawing from Syria? How about Afghanistan now? Or "some" of the other 130 countries America has military in. There've been comics actually mocking Trump for wanting to protect the US border rather than fight in meaningless MidEast wars. It is insane. No one can ever explain even why America's in Afghanistan.
 
We never should've gone there in the first place. It has been one foreign policy disaster after another. I hope this isn't the first withdrawal. These forever wars that benefit a few billionaires are ruining our economy and needlessly killing our soldiers.
 
Northern Light said:
We never should've gone there in the first place. It has been one foreign policy disaster after another. I hope this isn't the first withdrawal. These forever wars that benefit a few billionaires are ruining our economy and needlessly killing our soldiers.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Eliminating ISIS in Syria required boots on the ground. In addition, it is one thing to intelligently withdraw with a well-thought out operational plan and logistics timetable, and quite another thing to withdraw suddenly on a whim without consulting with the Defense/State Secretaries, the JCOS, the designate combatant commander, and the intelligence community. It also harms the reputation of the US to back-stab a close ME ally, and leave them surrounded by enemy forces on three sides. No one in that neighborhood would ever again truly trust in a US alliance.

I suspect many people from the White House, the Pentagon, Congress, and Langley talked some sense into Donald Trump and explained the serious consequences of his rash and ill-considered decision. Hence, his back-tracking and conditions.
 
Withdrawal too late for these Americans. Ironic that RV, as usual, advocates leaving US personnel exposed, un-welcome, and far from the ability of Washington to protect them. More deaths the inevitable result of wherever US forces stay:

https://www.rt.com/news/448935-manbij-blast-us-patrol-reports/


An apparent suicide bombing hit the Kurdish-controlled northern Syrian city of Manbij during a “routine” US-led coalition patrol, killing several US troops and civilians. Islamic State has claimed responsibility for the attack.

Two members of the US military, as well as a civilian and a contractor, were killed in the attack, while three more US service members were hurt, US Central Command (CENTCOM) confirmed on Wednesday.
 
Mounting pressure for Trump to reconsider Syria withdrawal

170208104050-01-donald-trump-police-chiefs-speech-0208-large-169.jpg


1/18/19
President Trump is hearing renewed calls to rethink his Syria withdrawal following an ISIS-claimed suicide bombing that represented the single-deadliest attack on Americans in Syria since U.S. troops were deployed in 2015. The defense and foreign policy establishment is pointing to the recent attack as being indicative of its warnings last month that the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) was on the ropes, but not knocked out, and would get a second wind with a U.S. pullout. “The history in that region has been that the minute you take pressure off these groups, they grow, and they begin to strike,” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said. “And if in a year from now, they’re waving black flags and cutting heads again on YouTube, we may have to go back in, which would be the worst possible outcome for the president, for the country.” Rubio was among a handful of senators who met with Trump at the White House after the attack. The Florida Republican said he left the meeting believing Trump is “very open to keeping his promise to disengage from foreign conflicts in a way that doesn’t undermine our counter-terror mission.” But there is no indication that Trump will heed calls to reconsider the withdrawal as he seeks to fulfill his campaign promise to bring troops home from the Middle East. And supporters of the president’s decision say the attack shows exactly why it's time to pull out.

The attack further undermined Trump’s initial claim that ISIS was defeated, an assertion he made when announcing the withdrawal. Administration officials have since tempered that characterization. On Thursday, in his first public comments on the attack, Trump offered his condolences but did not address the withdrawal plans. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), who after a briefing last week indicated Trump would base the withdrawal on conditions on the ground, said Wednesday’s incident is the type of condition that calls for Trump to reverse course. The administration, Inhofe said, “made it very clear that conditions on the ground could be changing, could change [Trump’s] position in terms of withdrawal. I think this is the type of tragedy that can take place that could change that.” “I personally believe it should” reverse the withdrawal, Inhofe added. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who’s often considered a Trump ally but has been among the most vocal critics of the Syrian decision, took time out of chairing an unrelated Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday to say that he “would hope the president would look long and hard of where he’s headed in Syria.”
Click to expand...

The bombing in Manbij should be a wake-up call to Trump. Whether he reconsiders is an unknown at this juncture.
 
I'm not sure why the Kurds continue to trust us.
 
CaughtInThe said:
I'm not sure why the Kurds continue to trust us.
Click to expand...

The Kurds have enemies on all sides so they take what gives to them. The enmity that exists is between faiths and can never cease, so peace is a lost cause and also the mission of America.
 
Rogue Valley said:
U.S. Has 'Begun The Process' Of Withdrawing From Syria, Pentagon Says

684550866.jpg




Yesterday the US pulled out of Rmelan military base in far northeastern Syria. This was ~150 personnel. My sources tell me that equipment will be withdrawn first and then personnel, so US force-size in Syria may actually temporarily increase before it starts decreasing.

Erdogan is still promising to attack the Syrian Kurds - steadfast US allies in Syria. Possibly as soon as next week.
Click to expand...

A terrible mistake.


[h=3]Why winning and losing are irrelevant in Syria and Afghanistan[/h]
Why the United States needs to get over its big war mind-set.







 
Get a congressional declaration of war on Syria and then have at it with the Assad regime and the Russians. Until then get the hell out as the AUMF only applies to al-Qaeda and not to ISIS. US forces are there unlawfully as the US military deployment in Syria is in breach of both US and international law. It breaks my heart to say this but in this one instance President Trump's first instincts were right, but I take solace in the realisation that when faced with real pressure he immediately caved, abandoned the one right thing he might have done and back-peddled to the screeches of the war-Hawks around him. What a man!

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Evilroddy said:
. . . US forces are there unlawfully as the US military deployment in Syria is in breach of both US and international law. . . .
Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

When Does the Legal Basis for U.S. Forces in Syria Expire? | Just ...


https://www.justsecurity.org/53810/legal-basis-u-s-forces-syria-expire/



Mar 14, 2018 - The State Department's response addressed the international legal basis for U.S.actions in Syria, but once again made the rather conclusory ...

The Public U.S. Articulation of the “Unable or Unwilling” Standard
A state may use force in self-defense when subject to an armed attack or an imminent threat of armed attack, so long as it meets the international law requirements of necessity, proportionality, and immediacy. The question of where force may be used must also be addressed, when the state acting in self-defense (the “victim state”) wants to conduct military operations against non-state actors (like ISIL) in another state (the “territorial state”). Absent UN Security Council authorization, if the territorial state is not itself willing or able to effectively address the threat posed to the victim state and does not provide consent to the victim state to operate within its borders, a clash of interests arises. The victim state’s inherent right of self-defense (Article 51 of the UN Charter) is pitted against the bedrock prohibition on the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state (Article 2(4) of the UN Charter).
In justifying the use of force against ISIL and al-Qa-ida in Syria, the Obama and Trump administrations have both publicly relied on a controversial theory. The theory holds that a victim state (the United States, on behalf of itself and Iraq) can use force in self-defense against non-state actors (ISIL, al-Qa-ida) in a territorial state (Syria) without that state’s consent, so long as the victim state determines that the territorial state is “unable or unwilling” to effectively address the threat posed by the non-state actors. The scope and content of this self-defense theory, and even its existence as a rule of customary international law, remain deeply contested. The New York Times’ Charlie Savage explainedthe legal controversy at the time the United States asserted the theory in opening operations in Syria in 2014, and a March 2, 2018 article discusses its controversial acceptance by U.S. ally Australia.
The Obama administration consistently articulated the “unable or unwilling” doctrine as an element of the necessity prong of the jus ad bellum – the branch of international law governing the resort to force. Thus, the administration invoked the doctrine prior to using force in self-defense in a non-consenting state. (Professor Ashley Deeks explained this approach in detail in a law review article, and Professor Marty Lederman has put forward arguments consistent with this approach in Just Security essays.) The Trump administration has not signaled a departure from this analysis. . . .
 
What's going to happen is AQ and ISIS will metastasize in Afghanistan and Syria with Trumps "cut and run" policy.

An attack on the US will then probably occur during the term of the Democrat that succeeds Trump.

And Congressional Republicans will howl at that but hush up about Trumps cut and run orders.
 
Withdrawing U.S. troops from Syria is proving easier said than done
President Trump’s announcement has outside powers scrambling to figure out how to fill a dangerous vacuum. Turkey, Russia, the United States’ Syrian Kurdish allies and the Syrian government all have a strategic interest in any arrangement for the future of northern Syria, yet most of their demands are diametrically opposed.

 
What about Yemen and Afghanistan, Trump? What about the illegal war of genocide against the Yemeni people perpetuated by a ruthless medieval monarchy that funds terrorists the world over and violates virtually every single human rights imaginable day by day? Yet he goes with SYRIA fuuuuck me now because of this assholes stupidity the efforts to undo George W. Bush's neo-imperialist psychosis that has reduced the Middle-East to hellfire on Earth will be set back DECADES because of this idiocy. I mean, it's better than nothing... but SYRIA of ALL PLACES?
 
Abbazorkzog said:
What about Yemen and Afghanistan, Trump?
Click to expand...

Yemen is the war of MBS, one of the Trump/Kushner favorite dictators.

Trump gave orders to halve the US military forces in Afghanistan. Taliban (AQ/ISIS/Pakistan) victory.
 
Sarah Sanders stated in Fox that Trump will leave 200 US troops in Syria. Trump has taken a beating from the Pentagon, Congress, the Anti-ISIS Alliance, and Kurds that have fought with US forces on the ground since 2014.

Lat week Britain and France said that if the US pulls its troops out of Syria, so will they leaving nothing between the Kurds and mass-slaughter/ethnic-cleansing at the hands of Erdogan and his Turk military.

The 200 US troops may be part of a blocking force in northern Syria to dissuade Erdogan from attacking the Kurd Rojava homeland. What is clear is that Trump’s plan for a full withdrawal is temporarily dead.
 
Today a senior administration official doubled the 200 troop level for Syria that Sarah Sanders yesterday to Fox to 400 troops indefinitely.

I assume the 400 refers to "boots on the ground" rather than the total US Syria package.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom