President defends allowing Turkish offensive against Kurds: "They didn't help us in WWII"

Does anyone seriously think the Kurds fought against ISIS for the good of global humanity? Political & military forces are alway about self interest first. Now Turkey is taking action to protect their interests because no one else seems to give a fig about the 3.6 million Syrian refugees in their country, or the future of the detained ISIS criminals, or the terrorist elements among the Kurds.

As a UK citizen and at present a member of the EU I'm concerned about the threat of Turkey sending 3.6 million Syrian refugees our way
how would we cope?

Erik Nelson said:

One article I read said 3.6M Syrian refugees reside in Turkey, who plans to repatriate 2M of them into the safe zone

Click to expand...

I'm sure Turkey says lots of things. I just don't take them at face value.

According to the NYT:

The Kurdish presence, abutting the Turkish border, enraged the Turkish government, which considers the Kurdish-led militia an enemy because of its ties to a Kurdish guerrilla force inside Turkey.​

Click to expand...

So it's not just a refugee buffer as you previously said. Exactly. It's a military operation against [what's perceived as] Kurdish insurgents.

So, you acknowledge, that the US risks being seen as undermining sovereign Middle Eastern countries, if it is perceived as unilaterally siding with those who are (allegedly) subverting the same?

Click to expand...

We've already sided with the Kurdish fighters in N. Syria and N. Iraq and have been for years. The main purpose of this was a shared goal of fighting ISIS. This shared goal led us to using Kurdish fighters - the very ones Turkey thinks are terrorists - as a proxy force on the ground while we provide command & control and air support. This led the Kurdish fighters to position themselves in certain ways they would not have otherwise positioned themselves without US support (they would probably be positioned much more defensively). This also led to certain expectations and behavior in the civilian population in Kurdish controlled areas (such as perhaps staying home rather than evacuating since they were secure from invasion). By abruptly and unexpectedly withdrawing support, it has exposed both the fighters and the civilians to an advancing military force. Perhaps a better way to back out would have been to give them time to prepare, give them time to re-position, time to evacuate, and give them a fighter's chance rather than exposing them to sudden and decisive defeat, death, imprisonment, etc... It really is throwing them under the bus.

The US is already involved. This isn't a decision to "get involved" or not. That decision was made years ago - probably primarily with the decision to invade and topple Iraq (and maybe you could even say back to the first Gulf War). It's years too late to make a decision on whether or not to be involved. The reality is the US is already involved.

So, if the US does get involved, it is decried for playing the role of Global Cop

If the US does not get involved, it is decried for not playing the role of Global Cop

Which way is it?

Click to expand...

The US is already involved and has been for years. This isn't a matter of deciding to get involved or not. If the US wants to withdraw involvement, then it should be done smartly rather than rashly.

This will result in ISIS returning and plundering the Christians and Yazidis again. Trumps decision will cause many people to be slaughtered.
Don't know if I can ever consider voting for him again.

creslaw said:

(snip) because no one else seems to give a fig about the 3.6 million Syrian refugees in their country, (snip)

Click to expand...

...so they're helping the refugees fleeing the conflict by...creating more refugees?
tulc(isn't really sure that's how it works)

tulc said:

...so they're helping the refugees fleeing the conflict by...creating more refugees?
tulc(isn't really sure that's how it works)

Click to expand...

Turkey claims it will repatriate 2M Syrian refugees back into that "safe zone" strip of Syria along its border

Yekcidmij said:

I'm sure Turkey says lots of things. I just don't take them at face value.

Click to expand...

Your doubts won't make Turkey bear them out

We'll find out

So it's not just a refugee buffer as you previously said. Exactly. It's a military operation against [what's perceived as] Kurdish insurgents.

Click to expand...

Turkey claims it will repatriate 2M Syrian refugees into the "safe zone" once it's secured from the "Kurdish terrorists" (as I suppose they might say)

It really is throwing them under the bus.

Click to expand...

Hasn't Turkey been pressuring for this campaign for quite some time now?

The US is already involved

Click to expand...

Not as of yesterday

If the US wants to withdraw involvement, then it should be done smartly rather than rashly.

Click to expand...

Meaning what? Gradually reduce troops on the ground, one at a time, down to zero?

What happens to the last (say) thousand or hundred or dozen US troops on the ground -- are they left exposed & vulnerable?

How many casualties did US forces suffer on withdrawing from the region this week?

Technical point: WW2 wasn't US v Germany. There were many other countries involved e.g. the Soviet Union. Hence the first "W".

Anyone spot that Turkey has invaded another sovereign nation i.e. Syria. Maybe the bad guy/good guy id is not so clear here.

Trump is right about wanting to bring US troops home but not precipitately so that the Kurdish allies (former or otherwise) are sold out to the more powerful Turks. So all this big talk about economic warfare v Turkey should have been said before the US troop withdrawal. Could the UN had played a role? Is there oil involved?

Erik Nelson said:

Not as of yesterday

Click to expand...

I don't think you understand my point.

Meaning what? Gradually reduce troops on the ground, one at a time, down to zero?

Click to expand...

Meaning what I said, smartly rather than rashly. I mean, don't expose your [up to this point] proxy force to a decisive, tactical disadvantage. Pretty simple. I mean, if you want to withdraw, do so in a way that doesn't throw your proxy force under the bus. A general rule of social behavior is to not be a jerk.

What happens to the last (say) thousand or hundred or dozen US troops on the ground -- are they left exposed & vulnerable?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what your point is.

How many casualties did US forces suffer on withdrawing from the region this week?

Click to expand...

Has the US "withdrawn from the region this week?"

Yekcidmij said:

Has the US "withdrawn from the region this week?"

Click to expand...

The US has withdrawn from the "safe zone", but not from the rest of Syria

Thereby, the US is avoiding getting entangled into issues of (Turkish) national sovereignty, since (allegedly) Kurds in Syria are aiding & abetting Kurds in Turkey so as to break away part of Turkey and join it to Kurdish held territories in Syria to create a sovereign & independent Kurdish state carved out of both of those countries

Understandable desire of Kurds, who see themselves as having been oppressed & marginalized for a long long time

Also would embroil the US in sovereignty issues with both Turkey & Syria

Apparently, the President has chosen not to take such an extreme stance -- the US has withdrawn 20 miles back away from the Turkish border "safe zone", but has not otherwise abandoned the region or the Kurds therein, correct?

Cimorene said:

View attachment 264926

Click to expand...

And they actually did fight on the side of the Allies in WWII (unlike Turkey who signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler)

History of the Kurds - Wikipedia

History of the Republic of Turkey - Wikipedia,
German–Turkish Treaty of Friendship - Wikipedia

.

I won't begin to claim I understand all the complexities of the middle east. I will say this though Trump did campaign that eventually he'd go this direction. He got the nod of leadership from the American people albeit through the electoral college .

With everything there are pros and cons to every action. Trump even acknowledged that and says he understands and respects the opinions of those who differ on this issue. He is however the President and the buck stops with him. He's the one who ultimately is blamed or praised in how things ultimately play out not his critics. So it's called the one elected to make the hard choices. If he backed away from even doing that his critics would say he's not up to the job.

Cimorene said:

I would not even be surprised if Donald Trump doesn't know when World War 2 took place....

Click to expand...

Sorry but your extreme thought doesn't serve you well.

Yekcidmij said:

And they actually did fight on the side of the Allies in WWII (unlike Turkey who signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler)

History of the Kurds - Wikipedia

History of the Republic of Turkey - Wikipedia,
German–Turkish Treaty of Friendship - Wikipedia

.

Click to expand...

They did fight alongside the British & Soviets

Bobber said:

Sorry but your extreme thought doesn't serve you well.

Click to expand...

Why extreme? “The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge,..." Boorstin. It has been noted quite often his ignorance of history... Andrew Jackson/Civil war - According to trump Jackson was furious about the Civil War...though he died 16 years before, Fredrick Douglas -"doing an amazing job", Trump's Pershing story - 50 bullets/pig's blood, trump's infamous 4th of July speech where we learned that "Our (Revolutionary) army manned the air, it rammed the ramparts, it took over the airports, it did everything it had to do, and at Fort McHenry, under the rockets’ red glare, it had nothing but victory.” (need this be explained?), and of course most recently the Kurds/WWII...so again why extreme?

Erik Nelson said:

They did fight alongside the British & Soviets

Click to expand...

So the Allies, as I said.