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

[Hossfly]

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.

Erdogan made sure "our guys" were out of the way BEFORE the invasion, so just end that lie right there.

But more to the point, Syria was not of Natos making. It was ours. We destabilized Iraq under W, and left the morass under Obama, who stood mutely by while the neocons urged the Syrians to revolt, only to belatedly return to Syria for Isis, whom the Syrian Kurds killed for us. And Trump loudly procrailmed HE would win the war, which neither he personally or many US troops took part in, letting the Kurds win his magnificent military victory. All Hail the Warrior Trump.

But the question remained what to do next? Tens of thousands of Syrian Arabs were in Turkey. Kurds were raiding into Turkey and causing unrest. Trump's solution was … not my job. yet the US created the morass.

If you're making a movie can I have a part?

 

[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 Kurds would have been fighting ISIS whether we were involved or not.

But not with the success that they have enjoyed. U.S. aid and support has been crucial in defeating ISIS in many places throughout Syria.

 

[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.

Erdogan made sure "our guys" were out of the way BEFORE the invasion, so just end that lie right there.

But more to the point, Syria was not of Natos making. It was ours. We destabilized Iraq under W, and left the morass under Obama, who stood mutely by while the neocons urged the Syrians to revolt, only to belatedly return to Syria for Isis, whom the Syrian Kurds killed for us. And Trump loudly proclaimed HE would win the war, which neither he personally or many US troops took part in, letting the Kurds win his magnificent military victory. All Hail the Warrior Trump.

But the question remained what to do next? Tens of thousands of Syrian Arabs were in Turkey. Kurds were raiding into Turkey and causing unrest. Trump's solution was … not my job. yet the US created the morass.

1. Erdogan said Turkey Warns the U.S. Not to Interfere With Syria Invasion: 'No Power Can Stop Us'
Turkey Warns the U.S. Not to Interfere With Syria Invasion: 'No Power Can Stop Us'

2. See my post #38 above, it shows the timeline for Syria and ISIS. Syria wasn't our fault

3. What to do next? GTF out of Syria. If NATO doesn't want to get involved in the Syrian civil war, neither does the US. Trump stopped the gassing of civilians by Assad. Trump defeated ISIS with the help of the Kurds and NATO. Turkey has skin in the game and is protecting its border. Hopefully the Turks stop at their proclaimed 35 km buffer area and stop the genocide. The US is simply not involved in the Syrian civil war.

 

[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.

Thank you for your usual thoughtful response. I'll address your comments paragraph by paragraph:
p1: Agree that NATO is an alliance, that has successfully defended the EU for 70 years or so. However, NATO does do occasional away games, such as in AFG when needed. My points are, that the US borrows and spends about $24b a year to keep troops in the EU. The US can no longer afford to keep those troops there. The US defeated ISIS in Syria without significant help from NATO. I don't know why NATO wouldn't help in Syria, or why NATO won't help stop Turkey from invading Syria and killing Kurds. NATO members do have financial commitments to NATO, only 7 are meeting them.
NATO report: Only 7 members meeting defense spending targets - CNNPolitics
In the last (70) years Russia's economy has slowed such that it is now the size of Italy's or NY state's economy. It is being helped by gas purchases by Germany. So as Trump notes, we are borrowing money to defend the EU, and the EU is buying gas from Russia to fund their military, how stupid are we?

p2: no comment

p3: agree that the US killed about 300 Russian mercs, but disagree that there was no risk of war. If Erdogan attacked Syria, and the US troops were still there, after Erdogan warned them to get out, that could have risked a shooting war with Turkey. You assume that Turkey would not attack Syria if US troops are present. That is a very bad assumption. Erdogan is unpredictable.

p4: You're suggesting that Trump and Erdogan should have a steely-eyed showdown over Syria and the Kurds, knowing that Trump ran on getting us out of ME "endless wars". Erdogan would have attacked, and Trump would have been forced to respond. Who knows where that would end up? Turkey has a modern military, and has a home field advantage in Syria.

p5: Trump didn't give Turkey a green light. Erdogan said "we are invading Syria, please get out or risk casualties."

p6: use the same NATO Charter that allowed NATO to work collectively in AFG to keep the peace, to also keep the peace in Syria.

p7: Assad and the Kurds have an agreement to fight the Turks. The Russians might get into it as well, who knows? Complicating things is the cozy relationship between Russia and Turkey, such as buying Russian S-400 anti-aircraft missiles to defeat NATO planes.
Turkey bought Russian S-400 missiles designed to down NATO planes. For the US, that's a problem - CNN
Whose side is Turkey on? Are you sure?

p8: Turkey was going to invade Syria with or without the presence of 1,000 US "speed-bump" troops. Erdogan would say, I warned the Americans to leave, they very unwisely chose not to.

Trump saved US lives by leaving. If NATO wanted to get into that Syrian mess they would have, so NATO countries have no right to criticize Trump. He defeated ISIS, mission accomplished. No thanks to NATO.

PART 1:

The United States cannot afford to not have troops in Europe. In fact, in light of Russia's actions in the previous 5 years, the United States at a minimum should double the number of troops it has in Europe. The United States does not defend Europe as an act of charity. It defends Europe because the survival of the United States is dependent on it. It is not true that the United States defeated ISIS in Syria without significant help from other NATO countries. Other NATO countries currently fly air missions over Syria and NATO troops, particular French troops have had presence in Syria on the ground in past years.

NATO won't commit troops on the ground in Syria or in the air absent of U.S. involvement. The United States is by far the most powerful military in NATO and has resources, particular in logistics that are key to sustaining any other NATO country's intervention there. So Trump's foolish decision to withdraw the 2,000 U.S. troops in Syria essentially prevents any NATO involvement.

Your statement about the Russian economy is FALSE. When adjusting for purchasing power parity, the Russian economy is the 6th largest in the world.

1 China $23,210,000,000,000
2 United States $19,490,000,000,000
3 India $9,474,000,000,000
4 Japan $5,443,000,000,000
5 Germany $4,199,000,000,000
6 Russia $4,016,000,000,000
7 Indonesia $3,250,000,000,000
8 Brazil $3,248,000,000,000
9 United Kingdom $2,925,000,000,000
10 France $2,856,000,000,000
11 Mexico $2,463,000,000,000
12 Italy $2,317,000,000,000
13 Turkey $2,186,000,000,000
14 Korea, South $2,035,000,000,000
15 Spain $1,778,000,000,000
16 Saudi Arabia $1,775,000,000,000
17 Canada $1,774,000,000,000
18 Iran $1,640,000,000,000
19 Australia $1,248,000,000,000
20 Thailand $1,236,000,000,000

As you can see, Russia's economy is nearly twice the size of Italy's and nearly as large as Germany's economy. In any event, raw military capabilities matter far more than economic size has history has so often shown in the past.

PART 2/3: Erdogan is predictable based on his past years of experience and refusal to move Turkish troops into areas where U.S. troops are located. No other country in NATO would support Turkey foolishly attacking U.S. troops in Syria. Turkish troops would be thrown back with heavy losses and then face isolation and economic sanctions from the rest of Europe. Erdogan is not that dumb. Any Turkish operation against the Kurds with U.S. troops in place would FAIL, do heavy damage to the Turkish armed forces and extensive damage to the Turkish economy. In fact, such a move would probably bring about Erdogan removal from power through a coup afterwards.

PART 4: For nearly 3 years, Trump has kept to nearly all of the United States prior middle east commitments, which is good despite his isolationist statements during the campaign and after the campaign. TRUMP and Erdogan have already had the showdown and the Turks wisely blinked. If Trump had kept U.S. troops there, there would be no Turkish invasion of northeastern Syria.

Most of the Turkish military uses outdated equipment by U.S. standards. They do have some modern equipment in some areas, but not in large numbers. Their most modern Tank, the German LeopardIIA4 is not considered modern enough for them which is why they wanted Germany to upgrade the tank to LeopardIIA7 standards but Germany refused. Turkey has a modern economy and society, but that makes it vulnerable to U.S. attacks on water systems and electricity. When the United States turned off the water and electricity in Serbia during the 1999, Kosovo War, it generated popular resentment among Serbians against their own leaders which led to the conclusion of the conflict, and not to long later to Slobondon Milisovic being removed from power internally.

PART 5: Not true, Donald Trump green lighted the Syrian operation and agreed to pull out U.S. troops. If Erdogan did not care, he would have invaded north eastern Syria years ago.

PART 6: the NATO charter was invoked with respect to Afghanistan because New York City and Washington D.C. were attacked by forces within Afghanistan.

PART 7: There would not be any agreement by the Kurds with the Russians and Assad if Trump had kept the troops in place. The Kurds only turned to Assad and the Russians after Trump green lighted the Turkish invasion and pulled U.S. troops out.

PART 8: No evidence of this at all. No attacks by Turkey at all for years when U.S. troops were in place in north eastern Syria. Its not just the 2,000 U.S. troops on the ground in Syria, but also the Kurdish forces, U.S. airpower, plus what the United States could bring to the region rather quickly in terms of more Air Power and ground troops. There is also the weakness in the ability of the Turks to defend their country from U.S. Air and Missile attacks and well as cyber attacks on the country's water and electricity systems. Then there is the threat of a coup to unseat Erdogan from power.

PART 9: As Linsey Graham said today, Trump has let ISIS out of its prisons and if any American citizens are killed anywhere in the world by ISIS forces from Syria, it will be Trump's fault. ISIS is a group that is trying to launch a 9/11 scale attack on the United States mainland and Trump's actions in Syria over the past week just made that more likely. The United States with the Kurds and help of other NATO countries retook all of the Syrian territory that was controlled by ISIS. But ISIS was not totally destroyed yet. It now has a chance to make a comeback because of Trump's actions. This has put Americans lives far more at risk. Trump has in just one week, created a huge mess and serious threat to the United States by pulling out U.S. troops.

 

[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.

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.

Thank you for your usual thoughtful response. I'll address your comments paragraph by paragraph:
p1: Agree that NATO is an alliance, that has successfully defended the EU for 70 years or so. However, NATO does do occasional away games, such as in AFG when needed. My points are, that the US borrows and spends about $24b a year to keep troops in the EU. The US can no longer afford to keep those troops there. The US defeated ISIS in Syria without significant help from NATO. I don't know why NATO wouldn't help in Syria, or why NATO won't help stop Turkey from invading Syria and killing Kurds. NATO members do have financial commitments to NATO, only 7 are meeting them.
NATO report: Only 7 members meeting defense spending targets - CNNPolitics
In the last (70) years Russia's economy has slowed such that it is now the size of Italy's or NY state's economy. It is being helped by gas purchases by Germany. So as Trump notes, we are borrowing money to defend the EU, and the EU is buying gas from Russia to fund their military, how stupid are we?

p2: no comment

p3: agree that the US killed about 300 Russian mercs, but disagree that there was no risk of war. If Erdogan attacked Syria, and the US troops were still there, after Erdogan warned them to get out, that could have risked a shooting war with Turkey. You assume that Turkey would not attack Syria if US troops are present. That is a very bad assumption. Erdogan is unpredictable.

p4: You're suggesting that Trump and Erdogan should have a steely-eyed showdown over Syria and the Kurds, knowing that Trump ran on getting us out of ME "endless wars". Erdogan would have attacked, and Trump would have been forced to respond. Who knows where that would end up? Turkey has a modern military, and has a home field advantage in Syria.

p5: Trump didn't give Turkey a green light. Erdogan said "we are invading Syria, please get out or risk casualties."

p6: use the same NATO Charter that allowed NATO to work collectively in AFG to keep the peace, to also keep the peace in Syria.

p7: Assad and the Kurds have an agreement to fight the Turks. The Russians might get into it as well, who knows? Complicating things is the cozy relationship between Russia and Turkey, such as buying Russian S-400 anti-aircraft missiles to defeat NATO planes.
Turkey bought Russian S-400 missiles designed to down NATO planes. For the US, that's a problem - CNN
Whose side is Turkey on? Are you sure?

p8: Turkey was going to invade Syria with or without the presence of 1,000 US "speed-bump" troops. Erdogan would say, I warned the Americans to leave, they very unwisely chose not to.

Trump saved US lives by leaving. If NATO wanted to get into that Syrian mess they would have, so NATO countries have no right to criticize Trump. He defeated ISIS, mission accomplished. No thanks to NATO.

PART 1:

The United States cannot afford to not have troops in Europe. In fact, in light of Russia's actions in the previous 5 years, the United States at a minimum should double the number of troops it has in Europe. The United States does not defend Europe as an act of charity. It defends Europe because the survival of the United States is dependent on it. It is not true that the United States defeated ISIS in Syria without significant help from other NATO countries. Other NATO countries currently fly air missions over Syria and NATO troops, particular French troops have had presence in Syria on the ground in past years.

NATO won't commit troops on the ground in Syria or in the air absent of U.S. involvement. The United States is by far the most powerful military in NATO and has resources, particular in logistics that are key to sustaining any other NATO country's intervention there. So Trump's foolish decision to withdraw the 2,000 U.S. troops in Syria essentially prevents any NATO involvement.

Your statement about the Russian economy is FALSE. When adjusting for purchasing power parity, the Russian economy is the 6th largest in the world.

1 China $23,210,000,000,000
2 United States $19,490,000,000,000
3 India $9,474,000,000,000
4 Japan $5,443,000,000,000
5 Germany $4,199,000,000,000
6 Russia $4,016,000,000,000
7 Indonesia $3,250,000,000,000
8 Brazil $3,248,000,000,000
9 United Kingdom $2,925,000,000,000
10 France $2,856,000,000,000
11 Mexico $2,463,000,000,000
12 Italy $2,317,000,000,000
13 Turkey $2,186,000,000,000
14 Korea, South $2,035,000,000,000
15 Spain $1,778,000,000,000
16 Saudi Arabia $1,775,000,000,000
17 Canada $1,774,000,000,000
18 Iran $1,640,000,000,000
19 Australia $1,248,000,000,000
20 Thailand $1,236,000,000,000

As you can see, Russia's economy is nearly twice the size of Italy's and nearly as large as Germany's economy. In any event, raw military capabilities matter far more than economic size has history has so often shown in the past.

PART 2/3: Erdogan is predictable based on his past years of experience and refusal to move Turkish troops into areas where U.S. troops are located. No other country in NATO would support Turkey foolishly attacking U.S. troops in Syria. Turkish troops would be thrown back with heavy losses and then face isolation and economic sanctions from the rest of Europe. Erdogan is not that dumb. Any Turkish operation against the Kurds with U.S. troops in place would FAIL, do heavy damage to the Turkish armed forces and extensive damage to the Turkish economy. In fact, such a move would probably bring about Erdogan removal from power through a coup afterwards.

PART 4: For nearly 3 years, Trump has kept to nearly all of the United States prior middle east commitments, which is good despite his isolationist statements during the campaign and after the campaign. TRUMP and Erdogan have already had the showdown and the Turks wisely blinked. If Trump had kept U.S. troops there, there would be no Turkish invasion of northeastern Syria.

Most of the Turkish military uses outdated equipment by U.S. standards. They do have some modern equipment in some areas, but not in large numbers. Their most modern Tank, the German LeopardIIA4 is not considered modern enough for them which is why they wanted Germany to upgrade the tank to LeopardIIA7 standards but Germany refused. Turkey has a modern economy and society, but that makes it vulnerable to U.S. attacks on water systems and electricity. When the United States turned off the water and electricity in Serbia during the 1999, Kosovo War, it generated popular resentment among Serbians against their own leaders which led to the conclusion of the conflict, and not to long later to Slobondon Milisovic being removed from power internally.

PART 5: Not true, Donald Trump green lighted the Syrian operation and agreed to pull out U.S. troops. If Erdogan did not care, he would have invaded north eastern Syria years ago.

PART 6: the NATO charter was invoked with respect to Afghanistan because New York City and Washington D.C. were attacked by forces within Afghanistan.

PART 7: There would not be any agreement by the Kurds with the Russians and Assad if Trump had kept the troops in place. The Kurds only turned to Assad and the Russians after Trump green lighted the Turkish invasion and pulled U.S. troops out.

PART 8: No evidence of this at all. No attacks by Turkey at all for years when U.S. troops were in place in north eastern Syria. Its not just the 2,000 U.S. troops on the ground in Syria, but also the Kurdish forces, U.S. airpower, plus what the United States could bring to the region rather quickly in terms of more Air Power and ground troops. There is also the weakness in the ability of the Turks to defend their country from U.S. Air and Missile attacks and well as cyber attacks on the country's water and electricity systems. Then there is the threat of a coup to unseat Erdogan from power.

PART 9: As Linsey Graham said today, Trump has let ISIS out of its prisons and if any American citizens are killed anywhere in the world by ISIS forces from Syria, it will be Trump's fault. ISIS is a group that is trying to launch a 9/11 scale attack on the United States mainland and Trump's actions in Syria over the past week just made that more likely. The United States with the Kurds and help of other NATO countries retook all of the Syrian territory that was controlled by ISIS. But ISIS was not totally destroyed yet. It now has a chance to make a comeback because of Trump's actions. This has put Americans lives far more at risk. Trump has in just one week, created a huge mess and serious threat to the United States by pulling out U.S. troops.

Responding paragraph by paragraph:
p1: The largest threat to the US is the National Debt of $22T, so says the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Defense.gov News Article: Debt is Biggest Threat to National Security, Chairman Says
So saving $24b a year for keeping US troops in the EU is what the US needs to do.
Agree NATO helped defeat ISIS, but left Syria to its fate in 2018.

p2. NATO withdrew from Syria about 1-year ago to leave about 1,000 US troops there with the Kurds. Why didn't NATO keep forces there? Did they know that Erdogan was planning an invasion of Syria? If Erdogan stops the invasion at 35km, to create his border "buffer zone" is that enough to create stability? Erdogan said that he was invading Syria with or without US troops present:
Turkey Warns the U.S. Not to Interfere With Syria Invasion: 'No Power Can Stop Us'

p3: I base my opinion of the Russian economy on its GDP, not "purchasing power" you need to compare apples to apples.
Russia GDP | 2019 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast | News
Russia's economy is between Canada's and South Korea's. About 12th in the world if you call the EU as one economy.

p4: Agree that military power is a different metric. Russia's military is way better than its economy, but not a match for NATO.

p5: Trump is not taking US casualties for the Kurds. If NATO was present in some force Erdogan might have 2nd thoughts, but who knows?

p6 to end: Trump said today that the US is not involved in the Syrian civil war. The US will not go to war over Turkey's border issues with the Kurds. Trump was elected to get the US out of the ME and save $Trillions and thousands of US lives. The days of the US trying to be the world's cop are over.

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

Because the Kurds aren't members of NATO. That said, there were 70 nations to defeat ISIS, and many are still there. You don't hear about them because you only hear about Americans in the American media. There are currently 580 NATO members in Iraq and northern Syria. Or at least there were before this latest frivolitiy.

Operation IMPACT - Canada.ca

 

[g5000]

I think Trump is right getting our guys out of the way of Turkey's invasion.

Trump surrendered. There would be no invasion if he had not moved our troops.

He's weak and let's the US literally be pushed around.

 

[g5000]

Remember when Trump said Obama "created ISIS" by drawing down our troops in the Middle East? Now he has you all howling that Obama didn't withdraw enough troops, and he has you not giving a shit that ISIS is back on the loose!

You pseudocons have gone full retard. You've gone full Obama Democrat.

 

[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.

We disagree (again). If NATO can send troops to AFG, they can send troops to Syria. The 1,000 US troops in Syria were not fighting, they were coordinating the fighting, air support, and artillery support. If NATO troops were sent in they could have protected secured areas and helped the US keep a lid on things. As it is now Turkey is invading Syria and NATO is allowing the genocide of the Kurds to happen.
We can't keep troops in the EU and borrowing money to do it, while other NATO countries don't properly fund and arm their militaries.

Its inaccurate to say that NATO countries don't properly fund and arm their militaries to the degree that has been suggested. In the 70 year history of NATO, NATO countries reached their largest and most heavily equipped levels and states of readiness when the United States component on the ground in Europe was at its largest. The United States needs to put more forces into Europe and you'll see a rise in the size and strength of NATO's military forces. That is what the history shows.

NATO has sent ground troops to Syria in past years and are still apart of the air component that patrols Iraqi and Syrian airspace. NATO would send more troops to help the United States in Syria if that was needed. But a total U.S. pullout without consulting allies makes a sudden NATO intervention on their own impossible.

 

[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.

Thank you for your usual thoughtful response. I'll address your comments paragraph by paragraph:
p1: Agree that NATO is an alliance, that has successfully defended the EU for 70 years or so. However, NATO does do occasional away games, such as in AFG when needed. My points are, that the US borrows and spends about $24b a year to keep troops in the EU. The US can no longer afford to keep those troops there. The US defeated ISIS in Syria without significant help from NATO. I don't know why NATO wouldn't help in Syria, or why NATO won't help stop Turkey from invading Syria and killing Kurds. NATO members do have financial commitments to NATO, only 7 are meeting them.
NATO report: Only 7 members meeting defense spending targets - CNNPolitics
In the last (70) years Russia's economy has slowed such that it is now the size of Italy's or NY state's economy. It is being helped by gas purchases by Germany. So as Trump notes, we are borrowing money to defend the EU, and the EU is buying gas from Russia to fund their military, how stupid are we?

p2: no comment

p3: agree that the US killed about 300 Russian mercs, but disagree that there was no risk of war. If Erdogan attacked Syria, and the US troops were still there, after Erdogan warned them to get out, that could have risked a shooting war with Turkey. You assume that Turkey would not attack Syria if US troops are present. That is a very bad assumption. Erdogan is unpredictable.

p4: You're suggesting that Trump and Erdogan should have a steely-eyed showdown over Syria and the Kurds, knowing that Trump ran on getting us out of ME "endless wars". Erdogan would have attacked, and Trump would have been forced to respond. Who knows where that would end up? Turkey has a modern military, and has a home field advantage in Syria.

p5: Trump didn't give Turkey a green light. Erdogan said "we are invading Syria, please get out or risk casualties."

p6: use the same NATO Charter that allowed NATO to work collectively in AFG to keep the peace, to also keep the peace in Syria.

p7: Assad and the Kurds have an agreement to fight the Turks. The Russians might get into it as well, who knows? Complicating things is the cozy relationship between Russia and Turkey, such as buying Russian S-400 anti-aircraft missiles to defeat NATO planes.
Turkey bought Russian S-400 missiles designed to down NATO planes. For the US, that's a problem - CNN
Whose side is Turkey on? Are you sure?

p8: Turkey was going to invade Syria with or without the presence of 1,000 US "speed-bump" troops. Erdogan would say, I warned the Americans to leave, they very unwisely chose not to.

Trump saved US lives by leaving. If NATO wanted to get into that Syrian mess they would have, so NATO countries have no right to criticize Trump. He defeated ISIS, mission accomplished. No thanks to NATO.

PART 1:

The United States cannot afford to not have troops in Europe. In fact, in light of Russia's actions in the previous 5 years, the United States at a minimum should double the number of troops it has in Europe. The United States does not defend Europe as an act of charity. It defends Europe because the survival of the United States is dependent on it. It is not true that the United States defeated ISIS in Syria without significant help from other NATO countries. Other NATO countries currently fly air missions over Syria and NATO troops, particular French troops have had presence in Syria on the ground in past years.

NATO won't commit troops on the ground in Syria or in the air absent of U.S. involvement. The United States is by far the most powerful military in NATO and has resources, particular in logistics that are key to sustaining any other NATO country's intervention there. So Trump's foolish decision to withdraw the 2,000 U.S. troops in Syria essentially prevents any NATO involvement.

Your statement about the Russian economy is FALSE. When adjusting for purchasing power parity, the Russian economy is the 6th largest in the world.

1 China $23,210,000,000,000
2 United States $19,490,000,000,000
3 India $9,474,000,000,000
4 Japan $5,443,000,000,000
5 Germany $4,199,000,000,000
6 Russia $4,016,000,000,000
7 Indonesia $3,250,000,000,000
8 Brazil $3,248,000,000,000
9 United Kingdom $2,925,000,000,000
10 France $2,856,000,000,000
11 Mexico $2,463,000,000,000
12 Italy $2,317,000,000,000
13 Turkey $2,186,000,000,000
14 Korea, South $2,035,000,000,000
15 Spain $1,778,000,000,000
16 Saudi Arabia $1,775,000,000,000
17 Canada $1,774,000,000,000
18 Iran $1,640,000,000,000
19 Australia $1,248,000,000,000
20 Thailand $1,236,000,000,000

As you can see, Russia's economy is nearly twice the size of Italy's and nearly as large as Germany's economy. In any event, raw military capabilities matter far more than economic size has history has so often shown in the past.

PART 2/3: Erdogan is predictable based on his past years of experience and refusal to move Turkish troops into areas where U.S. troops are located. No other country in NATO would support Turkey foolishly attacking U.S. troops in Syria. Turkish troops would be thrown back with heavy losses and then face isolation and economic sanctions from the rest of Europe. Erdogan is not that dumb. Any Turkish operation against the Kurds with U.S. troops in place would FAIL, do heavy damage to the Turkish armed forces and extensive damage to the Turkish economy. In fact, such a move would probably bring about Erdogan removal from power through a coup afterwards.

PART 4: For nearly 3 years, Trump has kept to nearly all of the United States prior middle east commitments, which is good despite his isolationist statements during the campaign and after the campaign. TRUMP and Erdogan have already had the showdown and the Turks wisely blinked. If Trump had kept U.S. troops there, there would be no Turkish invasion of northeastern Syria.

Most of the Turkish military uses outdated equipment by U.S. standards. They do have some modern equipment in some areas, but not in large numbers. Their most modern Tank, the German LeopardIIA4 is not considered modern enough for them which is why they wanted Germany to upgrade the tank to LeopardIIA7 standards but Germany refused. Turkey has a modern economy and society, but that makes it vulnerable to U.S. attacks on water systems and electricity. When the United States turned off the water and electricity in Serbia during the 1999, Kosovo War, it generated popular resentment among Serbians against their own leaders which led to the conclusion of the conflict, and not to long later to Slobondon Milisovic being removed from power internally.

PART 5: Not true, Donald Trump green lighted the Syrian operation and agreed to pull out U.S. troops. If Erdogan did not care, he would have invaded north eastern Syria years ago.

PART 6: the NATO charter was invoked with respect to Afghanistan because New York City and Washington D.C. were attacked by forces within Afghanistan.

PART 7: There would not be any agreement by the Kurds with the Russians and Assad if Trump had kept the troops in place. The Kurds only turned to Assad and the Russians after Trump green lighted the Turkish invasion and pulled U.S. troops out.

PART 8: No evidence of this at all. No attacks by Turkey at all for years when U.S. troops were in place in north eastern Syria. Its not just the 2,000 U.S. troops on the ground in Syria, but also the Kurdish forces, U.S. airpower, plus what the United States could bring to the region rather quickly in terms of more Air Power and ground troops. There is also the weakness in the ability of the Turks to defend their country from U.S. Air and Missile attacks and well as cyber attacks on the country's water and electricity systems. Then there is the threat of a coup to unseat Erdogan from power.

PART 9: As Linsey Graham said today, Trump has let ISIS out of its prisons and if any American citizens are killed anywhere in the world by ISIS forces from Syria, it will be Trump's fault. ISIS is a group that is trying to launch a 9/11 scale attack on the United States mainland and Trump's actions in Syria over the past week just made that more likely. The United States with the Kurds and help of other NATO countries retook all of the Syrian territory that was controlled by ISIS. But ISIS was not totally destroyed yet. It now has a chance to make a comeback because of Trump's actions. This has put Americans lives far more at risk. Trump has in just one week, created a huge mess and serious threat to the United States by pulling out U.S. troops.

Responding paragraph by paragraph:
p1: The largest threat to the US is the National Debt of $22T, so says the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Defense.gov News Article: Debt is Biggest Threat to National Security, Chairman Says
So saving $24b a year for keeping US troops in the EU is what the US needs to do.
Agree NATO helped defeat ISIS, but left Syria to its fate in 2018.

p2. NATO withdrew from Syria about 1-year ago to leave about 1,000 US troops there with the Kurds. Why didn't NATO keep forces there? Did they know that Erdogan was planning an invasion of Syria? If Erdogan stops the invasion at 35km, to create his border "buffer zone" is that enough to create stability? Erdogan said that he was invading Syria with or without US troops present:
Turkey Warns the U.S. Not to Interfere With Syria Invasion: 'No Power Can Stop Us'

p3: I base my opinion of the Russian economy on its GDP, not "purchasing power" you need to compare apples to apples.
Russia GDP | 2019 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast | News
Russia's economy is between Canada's and South Korea's. About 12th in the world if you call the EU as one economy.

p4: Agree that military power is a different metric. Russia's military is way better than its economy, but not a match for NATO.

p5: Trump is not taking US casualties for the Kurds. If NATO was present in some force Erdogan might have 2nd thoughts, but who knows?

p6 to end: Trump said today that the US is not involved in the Syrian civil war. The US will not go to war over Turkey's border issues with the Kurds. Trump was elected to get the US out of the ME and save $Trillions and thousands of US lives. The days of the US trying to be the world's cop are over.

PART: 1. The National debt as a percentage of GDP was much higher at the end of the World War II than it is now. As in World War II, United States national security is far more important than the National Debt. So this General is wrong. Successfully defending Europe is vital to the survival of the United States and has been for over 75 years now. The United States troop levels in Europe must at least be doubled if not tripled in order to deter a possible Russian invasion of the Baltic States in the future.

PART: 2 Erdogan was saying such things before Trump even ran for President. Turkey on its own would be unsuccessful in any invasion of Syria with U.S. troops on the ground and air power there. As long as the United States said no to Turkey and kept the right complement of troops air assets nearby, there is no way in hell Turkey would have risked an invasion, no matter what comes out of Instanbul BOB's mouth.

PART 3. To correctly estimate GDP, you must adjust for purchasing power parity, otherwise the figure is NOT accurate. Russia has the 6th largest economy on the planet and an economy almost the size of Germany and nearly double the size of Italy. You can look the figures for all countries at the CIA WORLD FACTBOOK online. The vast majority of Economist use the GDP figures that are adjusted for purchasing power. It is the most accurate estimate of the size of the economy. Otherwise, your pretending that the same $10 dollar haircut in the United States is worth 5 times as much as the same $2 dollar haircut in India. Both haircuts are the same value from a TRUE productivity standpoint. That's what GDP is estimating, productivity within a given year. In order to do that accurately, you must adjust for purchasing power parity.

PART 4. NATO cannot adequately defend against a Russian invasion of the Baltic States currently. Its estimate that 7 Brigades, most of them heavy armor, need to be deployed there or nearby in addition to Polish forces in order to successfully defend against a Russian invasion.

Russia has nuclear parity with NATO with its huge arsenal. It also has very large conventional forces and is introducing new modern Tanks, Armored Personal Carriers, Artillery and Anti-Aircraft missiles and artillery that are either better or equivalent to NATO's equipment in these areas. Russia has more troops concentrated in areas that are near the Baltic States. They have performed training exercises recently with up to 100,000 troops involved. NATO training exercises since the Cold War have only involved at most 5,000 to 10,000 troops.

Another weakness of NATO is that most of the United States forces are stationed across the ocean back home and other important NATO forces are stationed in places that are far from where the Baltic States are along Russia's border.

Defending the 3 Baltic States is a challenging task made more difficult because of Russia's Kaliningrad region separated from Russia by the Baltic States. Russian forces in Belarus and Kaliningrad could easily cut off the only NATO land route to the Baltic States through Poland into Lithuania.

NATO has serious problems when it comes to defending the Baltic States, and awareness of these problems took on heightened concerned after the Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014. As well as covert Russian military actions in Eastern Ukraine that has resulted in essentially the annexation of half of Ukraine's Donetsk region and half of its Lugansk region in eastern Ukraine.

PART 5. If TRUMP had said no to any Turkish invasion and kept U.S. troops in place, the north eastern area of Syria where the Kurds live would still be a stable area right now. ISIS would still be locked up or hiding with Kurdish and American forces pursuing those individuals not captured yet. There would be no Turkish invasion, no killing of innocent civilians that has been seen the last few days either.

PART 6. The United States still had vital national security interest in North East Syria because of ISIS members still being the run there as well as large detention camps containing ISIS fighters and their families. Trump just let ISIS out of its box and now there the risk that ISIS will return in force. The United States was not involved in the Syrian civil War. It was helping the Kurds defeat ISIS and preventing other forces from entering the area and doing so successfully.

Turkey would NOT go to war with the United States over its alleged border issues with the Kurds in Syria. We know this given what has happened for the past several years. MATTIS resigned because Trump wanted to get out. GENERAL MATTIS knew it was a stupid thing to do, and he is being proved right at the moment.

The overwhelming majority of the United States House of Representatives, U.S. Senate and U.S. military is AGAINST what Trump has done in Syria. Most Republicans in the House and Senate are against what Trump has done in Syria.

 

[Olde Europe]

Its inaccurate to say that NATO countries don't properly fund and arm their militaries to the degree that has been suggested. In the 70 year history of NATO, NATO countries reached their largest and most heavily equipped levels and states of readiness when the United States component on the ground in Europe was at its largest. The United States needs to put more forces into Europe and you'll see a rise in the size and strength of NATO's military forces. That is what the history shows.

That argument makes European military funding a function of U.S. deployment to Europe. I don't think that is accurate, or even reasonable. Europeans ramped up their spending, while U.S. European deployment rose, as the Cold War was heating up during the 70s and 80s, and they reduced it (also U.S. deployment) after the collapse of the USSR, as one might expect.

New challenges in an increasingly multi-polar world compelled NATO states during President Obama's second term to declare they aim gradually to increase their defense spending to 2% of GDP - certainly, additional U.S. troop deployments to Europe were and are not envisioned.

Whatever... NATO's strength emerged not primarily because of some level of spending, but because they stood united, and, however half-heartedly and inconsistently, FOR something. Bush's criminal war of aggression, and his efforts to drag the entirety of NATO into it, destroyed that in large part, and Trump is currently finishing off even the pretense of it. I abhor the very thought of a NATO that is, along with the American empire, being looked at as a threat by the rest of the world, to be guarded against, resulting in multi-party arms races in all realms of weaponry - conventional, nuclear, and cyber-warfare - while modern, "intelligent" weaponry (like armed drones or cruise missiles, like the ones we've seen destroying Saudi's oil infrastructure) filters down to rag-tag terrorist groups enabled to lay waste to entire blocks.

The modern military has always been, and will forever be, the single-most horribly expensive and the single-most inhumane tool to solve not a single one of humankind's problems. The U.S. has ample occasion to review the wider Middle East and to digest that lesson, after almost two decades, and chances are, both Turkey and Russia will make the same experience in Syria. All they are likely going to breed is the next, even more atrocious generation of terrorists, with ever more sophisticated weaponry at their disposal. All Erdogan's incursion is solving, for the time being, is his dwindling domestic support, for nothing unites Turks more than going after Kurds. The only question left to answer is, what's going to come next after the very predictable backlash?

 

[U2Edge]

Its inaccurate to say that NATO countries don't properly fund and arm their militaries to the degree that has been suggested. In the 70 year history of NATO, NATO countries reached their largest and most heavily equipped levels and states of readiness when the United States component on the ground in Europe was at its largest. The United States needs to put more forces into Europe and you'll see a rise in the size and strength of NATO's military forces. That is what the history shows.

That argument makes European military funding a function of U.S. deployment to Europe. I don't think that is accurate, or even reasonable. Europeans ramped up their spending, while U.S. European deployment rose, as the Cold War was heating up during the 70s and 80s, and they reduced it (also U.S. deployment) after the collapse of the USSR, as one might expect.

New challenges in an increasingly multi-polar world compelled NATO states during President Obama's second term to declare they aim gradually to increase their defense spending to 2% of GDP - certainly, additional U.S. troop deployments to Europe were and are not envisioned.

Whatever... NATO's strength emerged not primarily because of some level of spending, but because they stood united, and, however half-heartedly and inconsistently, FOR something. Bush's criminal war of aggression, and his efforts to drag the entirety of NATO into it, destroyed that in large part, and Trump is currently finishing off even the pretense of it. I abhor the very thought of a NATO that is, along with the American empire, being looked at as a threat by the rest of the world, to be guarded against, resulting in multi-party arms races in all realms of weaponry - conventional, nuclear, and cyber-warfare - while modern, "intelligent" weaponry (like armed drones or cruise missiles, like the ones we've seen destroying Saudi's oil infrastructure) filters down to rag-tag terrorist groups enabled to lay waste to entire blocks.

The modern military has always been, and will forever be, the single-most horribly expensive and the single-most inhumane tool to solve not a single one of humankind's problems. The U.S. has ample occasion to review the wider Middle East and to digest that lesson, after almost two decades, and chances are, both Turkey and Russia will make the same experience in Syria. All they are likely going to breed is the next, even more atrocious generation of terrorists, with ever more sophisticated weaponry at their disposal. All Erdogan's incursion is solving, for the time being, is his dwindling domestic support, for nothing unites Turks more than going after Kurds. The only question left to answer is, what's going to come next after the very predictable backlash?

U.S. direction and leadership by example led to European countries joining the United States and increasing the size and strength of their military forces. Without U.S. engagement in this area it, never would have happened. The Europeans have always failed when it comes to security over the last century without the aid and support of the United States.

In 2013, the United States withdrew its last tank Units from Europe. It was the first time in over 70 years that there were no U.S. tank units in Europe. Then Russian invaded Ukraine and annexed the Crimea and parts of Eastern Ukraine. Since, then the United States has moved an entire Armored Brigade back to Europe and also positioned all the equipment for a second armored Brigade in Europe. So your wrong, there have been new U.S. troop deployments too Europe and more deployments are being studied and envisioned at the moment.

Bush never damaged NATO's unity. He in fact increased it with the Alliance performing its first out of Europe operations in its history which continue to this day.

There has NEVER been nor is there any such thing now, as an American Empire. The only people in the world to look at NATO as a threat are the Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, Iranians and non-state terrorist groups around the world. NATO threatens their ability to harass and take over various parts of the world and create havoc and instability everywhere.

The United States military and NATO military have been far more effective than any other military forces or other entities in solving the worlds problems and saving lives. Keeping the peace in Europe, preventing and deterring a Soviet/Warsaw Pact invasion, preventing World War III, saving Bosnia and Kosovo from genocide, giving Afghanistan its best government and highest standard of living in its history are just a few of the things they have accomplished.

 

[Olde Europe]

U.S. direction and leadership by example led to European countries joining the United States and increasing the size and strength of their military forces. Without U.S. engagement in this area it, never would have happened. The Europeans have always failed when it comes to security over the last century without the aid and support of the United States.

In 2013, the United States withdrew its last tank Units from Europe. It was the first time in over 70 years that there were no U.S. tank units in Europe. Then Russian invaded Ukraine and annexed the Crimea and parts of Eastern Ukraine. Since, then the United States has moved an entire Armored Brigade back to Europe and also positioned all the equipment for a second armored Brigade in Europe. So your wrong, there have been new U.S. troop deployments too Europe and more deployments are being studied and envisioned at the moment.

Bush never damaged NATO's unity. He in fact increased it with the Alliance performing its first out of Europe operations in its history which continue to this day.

There has NEVER been nor is there any such thing now, as an American Empire. The only people in the world to look at NATO as a threat are the Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, Iranians and non-state terrorist groups around the world. NATO threatens their ability to harass and take over various parts of the world and create havoc and instability everywhere.

The United States military and NATO military have been far more effective than any other military forces or other entities in solving the worlds problems and saving lives. Keeping the peace in Europe, preventing and deterring a Soviet/Warsaw Pact invasion, preventing World War III, saving Bosnia and Kosovo from genocide, giving Afghanistan its best government and highest standard of living in its history are just a few of the things they have accomplished.

I found you quite regularly to propose positions that are reasonable, at least defensible. The above, however, are the musings of a militaristic subject of empire - sorry to say.

Just in short to correct your misstatement on U.S. troops in Europe. I spoke about "additional troops", which would obviously mean rising troop numbers. Here's what happened during the last three decades or so:

Pointing to an armored brigade rotated in to replace other kinds of troops doesn't counter my point. Whatever, at a time when isolationism is on the rise in the U.S., and all eyes are on Europeans buckling up, expectations rise they provide for their own defense, expecting rising U.S. troop numbers in Europe would be illogical. At most, I see some legislators hinting at countering further draw-downs.

 

[iceberg]

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.

Erdogan made sure "our guys" were out of the way BEFORE the invasion, so just end that lie right there.

But more to the point, Syria was not of Natos making. It was ours. We destabilized Iraq under W, and left the morass under Obama, who stood mutely by while the neocons urged the Syrians to revolt, only to belatedly return to Syria for Isis, whom the Syrian Kurds killed for us. And Trump loudly proclaimed HE would win the war, which neither he personally or many US troops took part in, letting the Kurds win his magnificent military victory. All Hail the Warrior Trump.

But the question remained what to do next? Tens of thousands of Syrian Arabs were in Turkey. Kurds were raiding into Turkey and causing unrest. Trump's solution was … not my job. yet the US created the morass.

1. Erdogan said Turkey Warns the U.S. Not to Interfere With Syria Invasion: 'No Power Can Stop Us'
Turkey Warns the U.S. Not to Interfere With Syria Invasion: 'No Power Can Stop Us'

2. See my post #38 above, it shows the timeline for Syria and ISIS. Syria wasn't our fault

3. What to do next? GTF out of Syria. If NATO doesn't want to get involved in the Syrian civil war, neither does the US. Trump stopped the gassing of civilians by Assad. Trump defeated ISIS with the help of the Kurds and NATO. Turkey has skin in the game and is protecting its border. Hopefully the Turks stop at their proclaimed 35 km buffer area and stop the genocide. The US is simply not involved in the Syrian civil war.

if no power can stop them, what difference would our "interference" make?

 

[kyzr]

I think Trump is right getting our guys out of the way of Turkey's invasion.

Trump surrendered. There would be no invasion if he had not moved our troops.

He's weak and let's the US literally be pushed around.

Trump saved US lives. He did not surrender anything.
Turkey was invading with or without US troops present:
Turkey Warns the U.S. Not to Interfere With Syria Invasion: 'No Power Can Stop Us'

So if Erdogan said get your guys out or they might get hurt, Trump had no alternative, we don't have a dog in the Syrian civil war, so we're done there. If ISIS reemerges then Turkey, Iraq, the Kurds, and Assad have to deal with them, not the US. I have active duty military in my family. There is no reason to keep them in Syria, none. If you want to volunteer to deploy to Syria, go for it.

 

[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.

Erdogan made sure "our guys" were out of the way BEFORE the invasion, so just end that lie right there.

But more to the point, Syria was not of Natos making. It was ours. We destabilized Iraq under W, and left the morass under Obama, who stood mutely by while the neocons urged the Syrians to revolt, only to belatedly return to Syria for Isis, whom the Syrian Kurds killed for us. And Trump loudly proclaimed HE would win the war, which neither he personally or many US troops took part in, letting the Kurds win his magnificent military victory. All Hail the Warrior Trump.

But the question remained what to do next? Tens of thousands of Syrian Arabs were in Turkey. Kurds were raiding into Turkey and causing unrest. Trump's solution was … not my job. yet the US created the morass.

1. Erdogan said Turkey Warns the U.S. Not to Interfere With Syria Invasion: 'No Power Can Stop Us'
Turkey Warns the U.S. Not to Interfere With Syria Invasion: 'No Power Can Stop Us'

2. See my post #38 above, it shows the timeline for Syria and ISIS. Syria wasn't our fault

3. What to do next? GTF out of Syria. If NATO doesn't want to get involved in the Syrian civil war, neither does the US. Trump stopped the gassing of civilians by Assad. Trump defeated ISIS with the help of the Kurds and NATO. Turkey has skin in the game and is protecting its border. Hopefully the Turks stop at their proclaimed 35 km buffer area and stop the genocide. The US is simply not involved in the Syrian civil war.

if no power can stop them, what difference would our "interference" make?

What difference would wasting US lives make? Spoken like an asshole who doesn't have anyone to serve and die as a "speed bump".
US voters are done wasting US lives and treasure on the ME. The "endless wars" can continue, but the US isn't involved.

 

[iceberg]

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.

Erdogan made sure "our guys" were out of the way BEFORE the invasion, so just end that lie right there.

But more to the point, Syria was not of Natos making. It was ours. We destabilized Iraq under W, and left the morass under Obama, who stood mutely by while the neocons urged the Syrians to revolt, only to belatedly return to Syria for Isis, whom the Syrian Kurds killed for us. And Trump loudly proclaimed HE would win the war, which neither he personally or many US troops took part in, letting the Kurds win his magnificent military victory. All Hail the Warrior Trump.

But the question remained what to do next? Tens of thousands of Syrian Arabs were in Turkey. Kurds were raiding into Turkey and causing unrest. Trump's solution was … not my job. yet the US created the morass.

1. Erdogan said Turkey Warns the U.S. Not to Interfere With Syria Invasion: 'No Power Can Stop Us'
Turkey Warns the U.S. Not to Interfere With Syria Invasion: 'No Power Can Stop Us'

2. See my post #38 above, it shows the timeline for Syria and ISIS. Syria wasn't our fault

3. What to do next? GTF out of Syria. If NATO doesn't want to get involved in the Syrian civil war, neither does the US. Trump stopped the gassing of civilians by Assad. Trump defeated ISIS with the help of the Kurds and NATO. Turkey has skin in the game and is protecting its border. Hopefully the Turks stop at their proclaimed 35 km buffer area and stop the genocide. The US is simply not involved in the Syrian civil war.

if no power can stop them, what difference would our "interference" make?

What difference would wasting US lives make? Spoken like an asshole who doesn't have anyone to serve and die as a "speed bump".
US voters are done wasting US lives and treasure on the ME. The "endless wars" can continue, but the US isn't involved.

calm down, beavis.

in no way am i saying we should be over there. im not much into caring what other countries do and/or putting our soliders out there for idiotic reasons.

all i was saying was if they are unstoppable then stop warning people from trying to stop them. huge contradiction but hey - tee off on me man. it's all good.

 

[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.

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.

Thank you for your usual thoughtful response. I'll address your comments paragraph by paragraph:
p1: Agree that NATO is an alliance, that has successfully defended the EU for 70 years or so. However, NATO does do occasional away games, such as in AFG when needed. My points are, that the US borrows and spends about $24b a year to keep troops in the EU. The US can no longer afford to keep those troops there. The US defeated ISIS in Syria without significant help from NATO. I don't know why NATO wouldn't help in Syria, or why NATO won't help stop Turkey from invading Syria and killing Kurds. NATO members do have financial commitments to NATO, only 7 are meeting them.
NATO report: Only 7 members meeting defense spending targets - CNNPolitics
In the last (70) years Russia's economy has slowed such that it is now the size of Italy's or NY state's economy. It is being helped by gas purchases by Germany. So as Trump notes, we are borrowing money to defend the EU, and the EU is buying gas from Russia to fund their military, how stupid are we?

p2: no comment

p3: agree that the US killed about 300 Russian mercs, but disagree that there was no risk of war. If Erdogan attacked Syria, and the US troops were still there, after Erdogan warned them to get out, that could have risked a shooting war with Turkey. You assume that Turkey would not attack Syria if US troops are present. That is a very bad assumption. Erdogan is unpredictable.

p4: You're suggesting that Trump and Erdogan should have a steely-eyed showdown over Syria and the Kurds, knowing that Trump ran on getting us out of ME "endless wars". Erdogan would have attacked, and Trump would have been forced to respond. Who knows where that would end up? Turkey has a modern military, and has a home field advantage in Syria.

p5: Trump didn't give Turkey a green light. Erdogan said "we are invading Syria, please get out or risk casualties."

p6: use the same NATO Charter that allowed NATO to work collectively in AFG to keep the peace, to also keep the peace in Syria.

p7: Assad and the Kurds have an agreement to fight the Turks. The Russians might get into it as well, who knows? Complicating things is the cozy relationship between Russia and Turkey, such as buying Russian S-400 anti-aircraft missiles to defeat NATO planes.
Turkey bought Russian S-400 missiles designed to down NATO planes. For the US, that's a problem - CNN
Whose side is Turkey on? Are you sure?

p8: Turkey was going to invade Syria with or without the presence of 1,000 US "speed-bump" troops. Erdogan would say, I warned the Americans to leave, they very unwisely chose not to.

Trump saved US lives by leaving. If NATO wanted to get into that Syrian mess they would have, so NATO countries have no right to criticize Trump. He defeated ISIS, mission accomplished. No thanks to NATO.

PART 1:

The United States cannot afford to not have troops in Europe. In fact, in light of Russia's actions in the previous 5 years, the United States at a minimum should double the number of troops it has in Europe. The United States does not defend Europe as an act of charity. It defends Europe because the survival of the United States is dependent on it. It is not true that the United States defeated ISIS in Syria without significant help from other NATO countries. Other NATO countries currently fly air missions over Syria and NATO troops, particular French troops have had presence in Syria on the ground in past years.

NATO won't commit troops on the ground in Syria or in the air absent of U.S. involvement. The United States is by far the most powerful military in NATO and has resources, particular in logistics that are key to sustaining any other NATO country's intervention there. So Trump's foolish decision to withdraw the 2,000 U.S. troops in Syria essentially prevents any NATO involvement.

Your statement about the Russian economy is FALSE. When adjusting for purchasing power parity, the Russian economy is the 6th largest in the world.

1 China $23,210,000,000,000
2 United States $19,490,000,000,000
3 India $9,474,000,000,000
4 Japan $5,443,000,000,000
5 Germany $4,199,000,000,000
6 Russia $4,016,000,000,000
7 Indonesia $3,250,000,000,000
8 Brazil $3,248,000,000,000
9 United Kingdom $2,925,000,000,000
10 France $2,856,000,000,000
11 Mexico $2,463,000,000,000
12 Italy $2,317,000,000,000
13 Turkey $2,186,000,000,000
14 Korea, South $2,035,000,000,000
15 Spain $1,778,000,000,000
16 Saudi Arabia $1,775,000,000,000
17 Canada $1,774,000,000,000
18 Iran $1,640,000,000,000
19 Australia $1,248,000,000,000
20 Thailand $1,236,000,000,000

As you can see, Russia's economy is nearly twice the size of Italy's and nearly as large as Germany's economy. In any event, raw military capabilities matter far more than economic size has history has so often shown in the past.

PART 2/3: Erdogan is predictable based on his past years of experience and refusal to move Turkish troops into areas where U.S. troops are located. No other country in NATO would support Turkey foolishly attacking U.S. troops in Syria. Turkish troops would be thrown back with heavy losses and then face isolation and economic sanctions from the rest of Europe. Erdogan is not that dumb. Any Turkish operation against the Kurds with U.S. troops in place would FAIL, do heavy damage to the Turkish armed forces and extensive damage to the Turkish economy. In fact, such a move would probably bring about Erdogan removal from power through a coup afterwards.

PART 4: For nearly 3 years, Trump has kept to nearly all of the United States prior middle east commitments, which is good despite his isolationist statements during the campaign and after the campaign. TRUMP and Erdogan have already had the showdown and the Turks wisely blinked. If Trump had kept U.S. troops there, there would be no Turkish invasion of northeastern Syria.

Most of the Turkish military uses outdated equipment by U.S. standards. They do have some modern equipment in some areas, but not in large numbers. Their most modern Tank, the German LeopardIIA4 is not considered modern enough for them which is why they wanted Germany to upgrade the tank to LeopardIIA7 standards but Germany refused. Turkey has a modern economy and society, but that makes it vulnerable to U.S. attacks on water systems and electricity. When the United States turned off the water and electricity in Serbia during the 1999, Kosovo War, it generated popular resentment among Serbians against their own leaders which led to the conclusion of the conflict, and not to long later to Slobondon Milisovic being removed from power internally.

PART 5: Not true, Donald Trump green lighted the Syrian operation and agreed to pull out U.S. troops. If Erdogan did not care, he would have invaded north eastern Syria years ago.

PART 6: the NATO charter was invoked with respect to Afghanistan because New York City and Washington D.C. were attacked by forces within Afghanistan.

PART 7: There would not be any agreement by the Kurds with the Russians and Assad if Trump had kept the troops in place. The Kurds only turned to Assad and the Russians after Trump green lighted the Turkish invasion and pulled U.S. troops out.

PART 8: No evidence of this at all. No attacks by Turkey at all for years when U.S. troops were in place in north eastern Syria. Its not just the 2,000 U.S. troops on the ground in Syria, but also the Kurdish forces, U.S. airpower, plus what the United States could bring to the region rather quickly in terms of more Air Power and ground troops. There is also the weakness in the ability of the Turks to defend their country from U.S. Air and Missile attacks and well as cyber attacks on the country's water and electricity systems. Then there is the threat of a coup to unseat Erdogan from power.

PART 9: As Linsey Graham said today, Trump has let ISIS out of its prisons and if any American citizens are killed anywhere in the world by ISIS forces from Syria, it will be Trump's fault. ISIS is a group that is trying to launch a 9/11 scale attack on the United States mainland and Trump's actions in Syria over the past week just made that more likely. The United States with the Kurds and help of other NATO countries retook all of the Syrian territory that was controlled by ISIS. But ISIS was not totally destroyed yet. It now has a chance to make a comeback because of Trump's actions. This has put Americans lives far more at risk. Trump has in just one week, created a huge mess and serious threat to the United States by pulling out U.S. troops.

Responding paragraph by paragraph:
p1: The largest threat to the US is the National Debt of $22T, so says the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Defense.gov News Article: Debt is Biggest Threat to National Security, Chairman Says
So saving $24b a year for keeping US troops in the EU is what the US needs to do.
Agree NATO helped defeat ISIS, but left Syria to its fate in 2018.

p2. NATO withdrew from Syria about 1-year ago to leave about 1,000 US troops there with the Kurds. Why didn't NATO keep forces there? Did they know that Erdogan was planning an invasion of Syria? If Erdogan stops the invasion at 35km, to create his border "buffer zone" is that enough to create stability? Erdogan said that he was invading Syria with or without US troops present:
Turkey Warns the U.S. Not to Interfere With Syria Invasion: 'No Power Can Stop Us'

p3: I base my opinion of the Russian economy on its GDP, not "purchasing power" you need to compare apples to apples.
Russia GDP | 2019 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast | News
Russia's economy is between Canada's and South Korea's. About 12th in the world if you call the EU as one economy.

p4: Agree that military power is a different metric. Russia's military is way better than its economy, but not a match for NATO.

p5: Trump is not taking US casualties for the Kurds. If NATO was present in some force Erdogan might have 2nd thoughts, but who knows?

p6 to end: Trump said today that the US is not involved in the Syrian civil war. The US will not go to war over Turkey's border issues with the Kurds. Trump was elected to get the US out of the ME and save $Trillions and thousands of US lives. The days of the US trying to be the world's cop are over.

PART: 1. The National debt as a percentage of GDP was much higher at the end of the World War II than it is now. As in World War II, United States national security is far more important than the National Debt. So this General is wrong. Successfully defending Europe is vital to the survival of the United States and has been for over 75 years now. The United States troop levels in Europe must at least be doubled if not tripled in order to deter a possible Russian invasion of the Baltic States in the future.

PART: 2 Erdogan was saying such things before Trump even ran for President. Turkey on its own would be unsuccessful in any invasion of Syria with U.S. troops on the ground and air power there. As long as the United States said no to Turkey and kept the right complement of troops air assets nearby, there is no way in hell Turkey would have risked an invasion, no matter what comes out of Istanbul BOB's mouth.

PART 3. To correctly estimate GDP, you must adjust for purchasing power parity, otherwise the figure is NOT accurate. Russia has the 6th largest economy on the planet and an economy almost the size of Germany and nearly double the size of Italy. You can look the figures for all countries at the CIA WORLD FACTBOOK online. The vast majority of Economist use the GDP figures that are adjusted for purchasing power. It is the most accurate estimate of the size of the economy. Otherwise, your pretending that the same $10 dollar haircut in the United States is worth 5 times as much as the same $2 dollar haircut in India. Both haircuts are the same value from a TRUE productivity standpoint. That's what GDP is estimating, productivity within a given year. In order to do that accurately, you must adjust for purchasing power parity.

PART 4. NATO cannot adequately defend against a Russian invasion of the Baltic States currently. Its estimate that 7 Brigades, most of them heavy armor, need to be deployed there or nearby in addition to Polish forces in order to successfully defend against a Russian invasion.

Russia has nuclear parity with NATO with its huge arsenal. It also has very large conventional forces and is introducing new modern Tanks, Armored Personal Carriers, Artillery and Anti-Aircraft missiles and artillery that are either better or equivalent to NATO's equipment in these areas. Russia has more troops concentrated in areas that are near the Baltic States. They have performed training exercises recently with up to 100,000 troops involved. NATO training exercises since the Cold War have only involved at most 5,000 to 10,000 troops.

Another weakness of NATO is that most of the United States forces are stationed across the ocean back home and other important NATO forces are stationed in places that are far from where the Baltic States are along Russia's border.

Defending the 3 Baltic States is a challenging task made more difficult because of Russia's Kaliningrad region separated from Russia by the Baltic States. Russian forces in Belarus and Kaliningrad could easily cut off the only NATO land route to the Baltic States through Poland into Lithuania.

NATO has serious problems when it comes to defending the Baltic States, and awareness of these problems took on heightened concerned after the Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014. As well as covert Russian military actions in Eastern Ukraine that has resulted in essentially the annexation of half of Ukraine's Donetsk region and half of its Lugansk region in eastern Ukraine.

PART 5. If TRUMP had said no to any Turkish invasion and kept U.S. troops in place, the north eastern area of Syria where the Kurds live would still be a stable area right now. ISIS would still be locked up or hiding with Kurdish and American forces pursuing those individuals not captured yet. There would be no Turkish invasion, no killing of innocent civilians that has been seen the last few days either.

PART 6. The United States still had vital national security interest in North East Syria because of ISIS members still being the run there as well as large detention camps containing ISIS fighters and their families. Trump just let ISIS out of its box and now there the risk that ISIS will return in force. The United States was not involved in the Syrian civil War. It was helping the Kurds defeat ISIS and preventing other forces from entering the area and doing so successfully.

Turkey would NOT go to war with the United States over its alleged border issues with the Kurds in Syria. We know this given what has happened for the past several years. MATTIS resigned because Trump wanted to get out. GENERAL MATTIS knew it was a stupid thing to do, and he is being proved right at the moment.

The overwhelming majority of the United States House of Representatives, U.S. Senate and U.S. military is AGAINST what Trump has done in Syria. Most Republicans in the House and Senate are against what Trump has done in Syria.

Responding paragraph by paragraph:
p1: The "Chiefs of Staff" are the top US military commanders, not one "general". The $22T Debt is a danger that we can't ignore. The military knows that their budget will be slashed if we don't get our finances in order. We can't afford to defend the EU, the EU needs to step up and defend itself. The US is there via NATO if ever needed.

p2: The US had 1000 troops there, but were not battle troops but coordinators, Turkey invaded with a massive force that was massing for months. The 1,000 US troops there could not stop that big a force of modern military hardware.
2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria - Wikipedia

p3: We disagree on Russia's economy. If the EU keeps buying Russian gas, they can deal with the Russian hardware.

p4: If the EU can't stop a Russian invasion now, then they better spend more on their militaries. Only 7 EU countries are meeting their NATO military spending commitments.

p5: Wrong. Ergdogan said the invasion was on with or without US troops present. Trump doesn't waste US lives.

p6: ISIS is now officially the problem of Turkey, the Kurds, Assad, Iraq and the EU. The US withdrew from Syria. Good luck!
Congress is just sucking for shekels, the PACs are lobbying frantically to keep a lid on Syria. Trump wisely said, "we're done in Syria"

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

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

Because Syria is not a member nation of NATO, retard.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

Stop. Just stop, dope.
You obviously have no understanding of NATO or their mission.