Why isn't NATO working in Syria to protect the Kurds? Why is it always the US?

[kyzr]

The US spends about $24b a year keeping US troops in the EU apparently in case Putin decides to take another country or two. I object to spending borrowed US taxpayer dollars defending the EU when they can pay the cost.

Then after Trump uses the US military to defeat ISIS and keep the Caliphate from spreading thru the EU, there is no NATO in Syria helping to keep a lid on things. Now the US had the choice of risking a war with Turkey, or a war with Russia if we stayed in Syria. Now if Turkey and Russia get into a shooting war because of Turkey's invasion of Syria, will the US be expected to defend Turkey and fight Russia?

I think Trump is right getting our guys out of the way of Turkey's invasion. But, I'm wondering why there aren't other NATO troops there to stop Turkey?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...087baa-edbb-11e9-b2da-606ba1ef30e3_story.html

Lets take a poll on Syria and Turkey. NATO is not worth the $24b if they can't help the US in Syria, so I support Trump's pulling US troops out of harm's way.

 

[Obiwan]

Since you have involvement from a NATO nation (Turkey), Syria, Iran, and Russia (along with possible genocide), why not put the Useless Nitwits' troops in to keep the peace (and take any incoming fire)???

Isn't that what the UN's for???

 

[cnm]

I love the way deplorables dis any collective agreement to which the US is signatory and recommend unilateral action then moan when it blows up in their face, whining for allies.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Why isn't NATO working in Syria to protect the Kurds? Why is it always the US?

 

[Hossfly]

Syria is not a member of NATO and if NATO sent troops, they would side with Turkey who is a NATO member. Who would NATO troops be fighting? Surely not the Kurds as they are US allies as is Turkey. If NATO troops went to Syria they would be bogged down for years. Besides the NATO countries wouldn't be willing to spend lives and treasure in another endless war. It's a complicated situation made by the unwanted presence of Turkey and Russia. This has turned into a matter that the UN was created to handle. Let the UN handle it and bring US troops home.

 

[Ricky LIbtardo]

I love the way deplorables dis any collective agreement to which the US is signatory and recommend unilateral action then moan when it blows up in their face, whining for allies.

Where was you when Ukraine bought missile defense systems from Russia?

 

[kyzr]

I love the way deplorables dis any collective agreement to which the US is signatory and recommend unilateral action then moan when it blows up in their face, whining for allies.

Duh...Trump's problem isn't with NATO, its with the NATO deadbeats that don't follow thru on financial commitments/obligations.
Please tell me that defeating ISIS, as Trump did, without serious help from NATO, and then defending the Kurds from an invasion from Turkey, again without any help from NATO, is worth the $24b the US borrows to defend the EU from Putin, again while Germany funds the Russian military with gas purchases.

In summary:
1. No one "dissed" the NATO agreement
2. Tell me that defeating ISIS was not in NATO's interest.
3. You also need to opine on the Turk invasion and the genocide of the Kurds. Hint: its not a US problem.

 

[ReinyDays]

The other NATO countries used up all their bullets in Libya? ...

 

[Yarddog]

Syria is not a member of NATO and if NATO sent troops, they would side with Turkey who is a NATO member. Who would NATO troops be fighting? Surely not the Kurds as they are US allies as is Turkey. If NATO troops went to Syria they would be bogged down for years. Besides the NATO countries wouldn't be willing to spend lives and treasure in another endless war. It's a complicated situation made by the unwanted presence of Turkey and Russia. This has turned into a matter that the UN was created to handle. Let the UN handle it and bring US troops home.

Yes, that is where it becomes complicated. Turkey never should have been allowed as a NATO member, they are no ally, and that was a hell of a mistake. If Russia gets involved now backing Syria it could cause a wider war and NATO technically would have to fight against Russia.

 

[kiwiman127]

The US asked the Kurds to help them defeat ISIS, which cost the Kurds over 10,000 fighters, The US would probably still fighting ISIS and their causalities would of been more than eight Americans who lost their lives., Isn't that enough of a reason to protect the Kurds?

 

[Yarddog]

The US spends about $24b a year keeping US troops in the EU apparently in case Putin decides to take another country or two. I object to spending borrowed US taxpayer dollars defending the EU when they can pay the cost.

Then after Trump uses the US military to defeat ISIS and keep the Caliphate from spreading thru the EU, there is no NATO in Syria helping to keep a lid on things. Now the US had the choice of risking a war with Turkey, or a war with Russia if we stayed in Syria. Now if Turkey and Russia get into a shooting war because of Turkey's invasion of Syria, will the US be expected to defend Turkey and fight Russia?

I think Trump is right getting our guys out of the way of Turkey's invasion. But, I'm wondering why there aren't other NATO troops there to stop Turkey?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...087baa-edbb-11e9-b2da-606ba1ef30e3_story.html

Lets take a poll on Syria and Turkey. NATO is not worth the $24b if they can't help the US in Syria, so I support Trump's pulling US troops out of harm's way.

Turkey should be thrown out of NATO immediately for destabilizing the region and for going after the Kurds who they know were our ally as well.

 

[kyzr]

Syria is not a member of NATO and if NATO sent troops, they would side with Turkey who is a NATO member. Who would NATO troops be fighting? Surely not the Kurds as they are US allies as is Turkey. If NATO troops went to Syria they would be bogged down for years. Besides the NATO countries wouldn't be willing to spend lives and treasure in another endless war. It's a complicated situation made by the unwanted presence of Turkey and Russia. This has turned into a matter that the UN was created to handle. Let the UN handle it and bring US troops home.

If NATO sent troops to Syria they would be fighting ISIS and keeping Turkey out of Syria, as well as keeping Assad and Russia out of the Kurdish areas. Isn't preventing a genocide of Kurds a worthy NATO mission?

If NATO won't do "endless wars" why should the US send troops to the ME to do "endless wars"? Trump is right to us pull out of Syria. I hope pulling US troops home from the EU and saving $24b a year is next on the agenda.

The UN can't do anything, never could. Talk is cheap. Turkey would just stonewall like Baghdad Bob in the old days.
Nothing is ever accomplished except by military force. In this case the extermination of Kurds.

 

[kyzr]

The US asked the Kurds to help them defeat ISIS, which cost the Kurds over 10,000 fighters, The US would probably still fighting ISIS and their causalities would of been more than eight Americans who lost their lives., Isn't that enough of a reason to protect the Kurds?

The short answer is, NO. I'm not going to risk US lives to protect Kurds.
My OP is about, why isn't NATO involved in "peace-keeping" in Syria and preventing genocide?
Trump stepped up and defeated ISIS, w/o NATO. Its a matter of "hold my coat", or thanks for the help keeping the peace.
NATO should at least condemn Turkey for invading Syria and the genocide of the Kurds.

 

[U2Edge]

The US spends about $24b a year keeping US troops in the EU apparently in case Putin decides to take another country or two. I object to spending borrowed US taxpayer dollars defending the EU when they can pay the cost.

Then after Trump uses the US military to defeat ISIS and keep the Caliphate from spreading thru the EU, there is no NATO in Syria helping to keep a lid on things. Now the US had the choice of risking a war with Turkey, or a war with Russia if we stayed in Syria. Now if Turkey and Russia get into a shooting war because of Turkey's invasion of Syria, will the US be expected to defend Turkey and fight Russia?

I think Trump is right getting our guys out of the way of Turkey's invasion. But, I'm wondering why there aren't other NATO troops there to stop Turkey?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...087baa-edbb-11e9-b2da-606ba1ef30e3_story.html

Lets take a poll on Syria and Turkey. NATO is not worth the $24b if they can't help the US in Syria, so I support Trump's pulling US troops out of harm's way.

NATO is an ALLIANCE based on COLLECTIVE SECURITY. Each NATO member pays for its own military forces regardless of where they are deployed in the world. That is how it has been for decades. U.S. forces in Europe along with other NATO forces contribute to the defense and deterrence of a Russian invasion of Europe. The United States defense of Europe is NOT a matter of charity. That United States does it because it is in the NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST of the United States to defend Europe, the same as it would be South Korea or the U.S. mainland. Its been that way for over 70 years now.

The United States, Kurdish Allies, and other NATO forces have taken all territory held by ISIS and destroyed the Caliphate. But ISIS is still a force like Al Quada, hiding where it can, and trying to rebuild itself. NATO forces have rotated in and out of Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. So have Australian forces. It only happens to be in the past year that there have only been U.S. troops on the ground in Syria. NATO and other coalition aircraft have been apart of patrolling the skies over Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. NATO does have ground troops on the ground in Afghanistan at the moment.

There was no risk to war with Turkey or Russia by staying in North Eastern Syria. Neither Russia, Syria, nor Turkey viewed it as worth it to risk war with the United States. Russia even tested the idea in 2018 by sending a large non-official group of Russian mercenary's to try and take over a Kurdish base. The Kurdish base happened to have a few members of the U.S. special forces. Together with the Kurds, they called in airstrikes on the attacking forces and killed over 300 Russian mercenary's in catch in the attack. Only one Kurdish soldier was wounded, non killed.

Its that type of firepower in coordination with Coalition Aircraft flying in the region and Kurdish and U.S. special forces on the ground which have kept Turkey, Syria and Russia from daring to challenge the U.S. position in northeastern Syria.

ISIS had been crushed and its remaining members were being chased down. The United States and the Kurds had a established a relatively stable area in North Eastern Syria, north of the Eurphrates River and south of the Turkey/Syria border. Now Trump has ruined that entirely by pulling U.S. forces from their positions and giving Turkey a green light to enter the area.

The NATO charter only goes into effect if there is an attack on the mainland territories in Europe and North America of the countries that are members. For example, in 1982 when Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands, it did bring about a NATO response because it was British territory in the far southern hemisphere. As long as any fighting between Turkey and Russia is in Syria, it would not legally bring in the NATO response. Russian airstrikes on Turkish land though would bring about a NATO response.

The probability of a Turkish/Russian fighting has increased though with the withdrawal of U.S. forces. Again, there were multiple reasons why keeping U.S. forces where they were was good for the entire region at the given time.

The Turkish invasion happened after the U.S. pullback and Trump giving the green light to Turkey. There would be no Turkish invasion right now if Trump had kept U.S. forces where they were and not given Turkey a green light to enter this party of Syria.

Other NATO forces have played a role in Syria in years past.

U.S. troops in Syria were not in harms way except in their mission to track down ISIS.

 

[kyzr]

The US spends about $24b a year keeping US troops in the EU apparently in case Putin decides to take another country or two. I object to spending borrowed US taxpayer dollars defending the EU when they can pay the cost.

Then after Trump uses the US military to defeat ISIS and keep the Caliphate from spreading thru the EU, there is no NATO in Syria helping to keep a lid on things. Now the US had the choice of risking a war with Turkey, or a war with Russia if we stayed in Syria. Now if Turkey and Russia get into a shooting war because of Turkey's invasion of Syria, will the US be expected to defend Turkey and fight Russia?

I think Trump is right getting our guys out of the way of Turkey's invasion. But, I'm wondering why there aren't other NATO troops there to stop Turkey?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...087baa-edbb-11e9-b2da-606ba1ef30e3_story.html

Lets take a poll on Syria and Turkey. NATO is not worth the $24b if they can't help the US in Syria, so I support Trump's pulling US troops out of harm's way.

Turkey should be thrown out of NATO immediately for destabilizing the region and for going after the Kurds who they know were our ally as well.

I agree that NATO should do something to punish Turkey, maybe throw them out of NATO and support the US sanctions against Turkey as long as Turkey is in Syria. Shouldn't NATO have already had troops in Syria helping the US eliminate ISIS?

 

[U2Edge]

Syria is not a member of NATO and if NATO sent troops, they would side with Turkey who is a NATO member. Who would NATO troops be fighting? Surely not the Kurds as they are US allies as is Turkey. If NATO troops went to Syria they would be bogged down for years. Besides the NATO countries wouldn't be willing to spend lives and treasure in another endless war. It's a complicated situation made by the unwanted presence of Turkey and Russia. This has turned into a matter that the UN was created to handle. Let the UN handle it and bring US troops home.

If NATO sent troops to Syria they would be fighting ISIS and keeping Turkey out of Syria, as well as keeping Assad and Russia out of the Kurdish areas. Isn't preventing a genocide of Kurds a worthy NATO mission?

If NATO won't do "endless wars" why should the US send troops to the ME to do "endless wars"? Trump is right to us pull out of Syria. I hope pulling US troops home from the EU and saving $24b a year is next on the agenda.

The UN can't do anything, never could. Talk is cheap. Turkey would just stonewall like Baghdad Bob in the old days.
Nothing is ever accomplished except by military force. In this case the extermination of Kurds.

NATO has troops on the ground in Afghanistan. They also have some troops in Iraq and are apart of the air component that provides air-support to U.S. ground troops in Syria. The United States has the largest and most capable ground forces and are sometimes the only forces that can reliably respond to various crisis around the world. Crisis that impact U.S. national security interest. The United States has no choice but to be there to defend its interest whether or not other country's choose to participate or not.

 

[U2Edge]

The US asked the Kurds to help them defeat ISIS, which cost the Kurds over 10,000 fighters, The US would probably still fighting ISIS and their causalities would of been more than eight Americans who lost their lives., Isn't that enough of a reason to protect the Kurds?

The short answer is, NO. I'm not going to risk US lives to protect Kurds.
My OP is about, why isn't NATO involved in "peace-keeping" in Syria and preventing genocide?
Trump stepped up and defeated ISIS, w/o NATO. Its a matter of "hold my coat", or thanks for the help keeping the peace.
NATO should at least condemn Turkey for invading Syria and the genocide of the Kurds.

The U.S. #1 mission in Syria was not protecting the Kurds but killing and capturing ISIS who threaten all Americans worldwide. NATO forces were involved in defeating ISIS over the past several years in both Iraq and Syria. NATO has condemned Syria for its actions on the Kurds. Germany for example refused to upgrade German supplied Leopard IIA4 tanks to the A7 standard after Turkey requested it be done, because of their actions against Kurds in Turkey and Syria in the past.

 

[U2Edge]

The US spends about $24b a year keeping US troops in the EU apparently in case Putin decides to take another country or two. I object to spending borrowed US taxpayer dollars defending the EU when they can pay the cost.

Then after Trump uses the US military to defeat ISIS and keep the Caliphate from spreading thru the EU, there is no NATO in Syria helping to keep a lid on things. Now the US had the choice of risking a war with Turkey, or a war with Russia if we stayed in Syria. Now if Turkey and Russia get into a shooting war because of Turkey's invasion of Syria, will the US be expected to defend Turkey and fight Russia?

I think Trump is right getting our guys out of the way of Turkey's invasion. But, I'm wondering why there aren't other NATO troops there to stop Turkey?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...087baa-edbb-11e9-b2da-606ba1ef30e3_story.html

Lets take a poll on Syria and Turkey. NATO is not worth the $24b if they can't help the US in Syria, so I support Trump's pulling US troops out of harm's way.

Turkey should be thrown out of NATO immediately for destabilizing the region and for going after the Kurds who they know were our ally as well.

I agree that NATO should do something to punish Turkey, maybe throw them out of NATO and support the US sanctions against Turkey as long as Turkey is in Syria. Shouldn't NATO have already had troops in Syria helping the US eliminate ISIS?

NATO has had troops on the ground in Syria participating in operations against ISIS in past years.

 

[B. Kidd]

Since you have involvement from a NATO nation (Turkey), Syria, Iran, and Russia (along with possible genocide), why not put the Useless Nitwits' troops in to keep the peace (and take any incoming fire)???

Isn't that what the UN's for???

U.N. troops only go anymore where they can do nothing but eventually fold and flee like a bad Broadway play; OR have license to rape and pillage like they did in the Congo.

U.N. should've been dissolved already as they are useless as bull tits.
All they are good for is to hand out protein bars and erect refugee tents, which is something, but not for the price that they do even that for!

 

[Oddball]

Why isn't NATO working in Syria to protect the Kurds? Why is it always the US?