Syria Thread

[Brill]

The only reason we care, or any nation would care, about Turkey is location, location, location. Their overt hostility to the US is starting to match their covert hostility. They are the definition of frienemies.

Turkey & ISIS are like Pakistan &Talib@n but without the boy sex.

 

[AWP]

without the boy sex.

I just lost interest in this thread.

 

[Florida173]

The Kurds...the US has a history of dumping locals who helped it, so this isn't a shock. The Kurds are on the hook for the hoopla as well for being naive enough to think we'd side with them against Turkey, Iraq, and Iran. Yeah, nah. I hate to break it to y'all, but we sold the Kurds out years ago as part of the deal to involve Turkey in the fight against ISIS.

There was a time that Barzani was just a proxy for Iran.. Wait, that's still the case and we're the ones that switched sides.

 

[Marauder06]

Clearly this is another one of those dart-board style strategic decisions that the President has been known to employ - but I just cant seem to make myself feel emotional about it.

We didnt go there to help the Kurds. We went there to curb-stomp ISIS. If the Kurds in that region had chosen NOT to partner with us, then they'd have gotten stomped as well. I also don't believe for an instant that the Kurds partnered with us to fight ISIS. The Kurds partnered because they are always on the hook for the idea that the US might finally help them establish a permanent Kurdistan if they help us shoot a few bad guys.
We are not IN Syria for the Kurds - we should not STAY in Syria because of the Kurds.
The Kurds are a partner force they are not formal allies. Turkey is a NATO ally.

The Kurds are ONLY a partner forces because it benefits them - Kurds in Iraq dont want to be Iraqi - Kurds in Syria dont want to be Syria - Kurds in Turkey dont want to be Turkish. Kurds in Iran dont want to be Iranian. They just want to live in Kurdistan and they'll get in bed with anyone that they think will help them push a Kurdistan narrative. I got pretty tired of listening to mumbo jumbo about Kurdistan by a group of Iraqi soldiers that really didnt give two shits about Iraq. We are not in the middle east to fight for Kurdistan. Kurds dont want to assimilate to any country - they just want to claim their own space and their only loyalty is to the notion of a Kurdistan.
I worked with Kurds in Iraq and they were only interested in one thing - Kurdistan. Wear an Iraqi uniform, collect an Iraqi paycheck - refuse to be Iraqi. Not all that impressed.

I dont really care how congress OR the Pentagon frame this. Congress loves to arm everyone but American citizens - and they love doing it for all of the same reasons that Americans SHOULD be armed.
...and the Pentagon has never met an armed conflict they didn't like.

I've mentioned my thoughts on these same issues in other places - so I'll share them here since it is germane to the topic. I like to consider congressional policy wonks and talking heads in the defense department along the lines of simple physics. Quite honestly, the physics of DoD foreign policy, supported by the usual suspects in congress is quite easy to understand so I'll break it down for everyone by extrapolating Newtons Laws of Motion.
-Newton's First Law suggests that a General Officer at war will remain at war until acted upon by an external force.
-Newton's Second Law suggests that escalation of war is dependent on the forces acting upon the General Officer and the General Officers support in congress. For any given General Officer, when the net support in congress is increased, the escalation of war is increased.
-Newtons third Law suggests that for every action (force) in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction. The president can commit troops - congress will shit. The president can withdraw troops and congress will still shit a gold brick.
Equal and Opposite.

It isn't just Trump or Bush or Obama or Bush or Clinton or Reagan or Carter or Nixon or Johnson or Kennedy - this line of thinking applies to any other president that has ever had to bear the weight of responsibility for American blood. Otherwise, its just business as usual inside the beltway. In their natural state - defense policy wonks will always find some reason to "stay at war" as long as they are being funded. There will always be a milestone that we haven't reached. There will always be a condition that hasn't been set. It doesn't matter how much bullshit they parade in front of the troops that they are worried about dwell time or 'POTFF' issues.
We still have US troops in Germany, Italy, and Japan and THAT war ended 75 years ago.

I cant force myself to romanticize any type of relationship with the Kurds. First off- one thing SF guys are taught (or used to be taught) was never fall in love with your "G's". Just like under-cover cops cant get in too deep with the criminal component - SF guys working with host nation or surrogate forces are NEVER supposed to make it personal.
Get in - make friends - organize them - train them - equip them - combat advise them as they fight on behalf of US interests. Then when the fight for US interests is over - demobilize them.
Yes - demobilize them.

At least we are letting the Kurds keep all the shit we gave them.


**edited to add**
- its also disingenuous for folks to feign surprise considering that this "overnight development" has been on the table for quite some time now.
Didn't every ones favorite Mad-Dog Marine General leave his job as the SECDEF earlier this year because the POTUS said he wanted troops pulled out of Syria? Again - the laws of physics apply - a General Officer at war will remain at war until acted upon by an external force - and as far as the part of Newtons Law that states "for every action (force) in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction" - well, when Trump said no more war in Syria WAAAY back in 2018 - the retired Marine G.O. decided it was time to move on - equal and opposite reaction.








"Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong."

That was an amazing post.

 

[Gordus]

This is my take on the situation.

IIRC Trump had announced a full withdrawal in 2018, but revised that if I'm not mistaken. Erdoğan kept expressing the possibility and will for an invasion intervention for quite some time now, so it was more or less expected to happen at any given point.

So when it is finaly going down, what happens when there are still U.S. troops deployed at the Syria-Turkey border, and there is the risk of confrontation between two (NATO) allies ? compromise and sacrifice. In this case, the Kurds are the sacrifice. What else would the U.S. do in that situation - start a war with Turkey ?

Clearly the Turkish president wouldn't back off, and I think a huge part of it has to do with domestic policy. Erdoğan did actualy genuinely try to find a compromise with the PKK in 2013-2015, but because of those efforts, he lost popularity, and it strenghtened the opposition. His AKP party did also not do as well as expected in the recent 2019 local election, losing the absolute majority, and most importantly losing Istanbul. Twice. His best bet was to resume the Turkish tradition of zero negotiation and violent resolution in the "Kurdish question". Starting a military operation against the Kurds would ease the pressure against the AKP, and force the opposition to support the cause and his decision. Otherwise they'd lose voters.

So in regards to internal policy, that was possibly the smartest move Erdoğan could have done.

In terms to foreign policy, proper military foothold in Syria could prove a very strong political card to play in the future, at the conclusion of the conflict.
Lastly, besides the destruction of Kurdish autonomy in Syria, Turkey would be able to .... well, for lack of a better word, rid itself of the domestic Syrian refugee problem aka send those people back. At least a very large number of them.

AFAIK the U.S. ( and no other entity ), ever gave the Kurds any type of assurance that would guarantee their autonomy in Syria. The U.S. also never tried to make their case and pressure Assad to recognize the Kurds' status or have the regime impute collective rights and political representation. Correct me if I'm wrong.

So there never was a formal and thus there is currently no principal obligation. At least not that I'm aware of.

It seems both Russia and Iran are expressing quiet acceptance of the intervention, probably hoping it will further increase chances of a complete withdrawal of the United States from Syria.

Strategicaly, that would make sense because they probably reckon Turkey is much easier to 'deal' with and pressure, than the United States.
So this might indeed be not a minor victory for them.

Just my 0,02 cents.

 

[Brill]

Critique on Congressional abdication of Constitutional authorities. I don’t think the author is wrong here.

If you want to stop Donald Trump from making unilateral decisions regarding war and peace, then stop letting all presidents make unilateral decisions about war and peace. It’s really quite simple. Trump can abruptly pull back U.S. troops from northern Syria because Congress, having abdicated its foreign policy responsibilities long ago, has no leverage to stop him.
...
Presidents have been ignoring this arrangement, abuse authorizations for the use of military force (AUMFs), and imbue themselves with the power to engage in conflicts wherever they like, without any coherent endgame, and without any buy-in from Congress.

Hey Congress: Take Back Your War Powers, Or Shut Up About Syria

 

[benroliver]

I’m not understanding the defense of this. How is allowing Turkey to wipe out the Kurds beneficial to us in any way? We knew exactly what Erdogan’s response would be, politically it’s a must for him . Indifference to the Kurds or not romanticizing our relationship isn’t a logical defense

 

[Gunz]

I’m not understanding the defense of this. How is allowing Turkey to wipe out the Kurds beneficial to us in any way? We knew exactly what Erdogan’s response would be, politically it’s a must for him . Indifference to the Kurds or not romanticizing our relationship isn’t a logical defense

I've taken the liberty of editing & copying some of the salient points in @Box 's post in reference to your question.

...We didnt go there to help the Kurds. We went there to curb-stomp ISIS...

...The Kurds are ONLY a partner forces because it benefits them - Kurds in Iraq dont want to be Iraqi - Kurds in Syria dont want to be Syria - Kurds in Turkey dont want to be Turkish. Kurds in Iran dont want to be Iranian. They just want to live in Kurdistan and they'll get in bed with anyone that they think will help them push a Kurdistan narrative...

The Kurds have been unofficial allies of convenience. Because they are a stateless ethnic group, we have no defense agreement with them. We had a defense pact with S. Vietnam under SEATO; we have a Strategic Partnership Agreement and Bilateral Security Agreement with Afghanistan. In Iraq there's the Status of Forces Agreement and the Strategic Framework Agreement.

All that sounds very legal and official and binding, but nothing--not SEATO, not the ESPA, not the BSA, not the SoFA or the SFA--prevents us from bugging the fuck out whenever we want. And if we can bug out on a sovereign nation that we were bound by treaty to defend, and fight alongside that country's armed forces for the better part of ten years and lose 56,000 people in the process...what then binds us to the Kurds?

The dilemma is merely a moral one. And moral dilemmas are not only entirely subjective, but in the tectonics of power often used as national ass wipe.

 

[AWP]

The dilemma is merely a moral one. And moral dilemmas are not only entirely subjective, but in the tectonics of power often used as national ass wipe.

One of Tom Clancy's novels stuck with me. I don't recall the exact quote, but it was something like international relations is just countries screwing over other countries. I think it came from Domingo Chavez initially, maybe in a convo to John Clark.

 

[Kaldak]

One of Tom Clancy's novels stuck with me. I don't recall the exact quote, but it was something like international relations is just countries screwing over other countries. I think it came from Domingo Chavez initially, maybe in a convo to John Clark.

Love me some Clancy and Rainbow Six.

 

[Box]

Just for shits and giggles - I am not "defending" a position. I am simply offering an opinion on the situation that is based on the facts as I know them. Like I said before "dart board diplomacy" normally doesn't make a lot of sense so I am going off of my own opinions and experiences.

This current development is not a current development - the decision was made public a year ago. If military experts want to pretend to be caught off guard, it is because they ignored what the POTUS said a year ago when he said he wanted troops out of Syria.
If troops in the region continued to tell the Kurds - "don't worry buddy, we will always have your back" - well, then they blew it.

Fact: Turkey is a NATO ally
Fact: There is no such place as Kurdistan.
Fact: Kurdish people are a heterogeneous ethnic group that can be found throughout Western Asia.
Fact: In the past the UN Security Council has OPPOSED Kurdish Independence because of their destabilizing effect on the region.
Fact: There is no internationally recognized political infrastructure associated with the Kurds.

There are countless opinions and assumption that can be gleaned from those five (relatively) indisputable facts, so how do we determine if any of this is beneficial to the foreign policy success of the USA?
Well, if you put up a SITMAP with some correctly drawn overlays - you would see that the Turkish military is conducting unilateral operations inside of Syria.
Let that sink in for a second......







The Turkish military is conducting unilateral operations inside of Syria !!!


That may not seem like a big deal, but even the USA goes to great lengths to build a "coalition of the willing" before we go attacking shit inside of someone else's borders. Turkey just sort of said 'fuck it' we're doing this. Add that to the fact that not too long ago, the Turks shot down a Russian SU-24 over an "accidental" excursion that lasted less than a minute.
Syria is held up by Russia - they have ALWAYS been held up by Russia and no NATO member has shot down a Russian jet since the Korean war.
...you'd have to have balls the size of the Ottoman Empire to do some outlandish shit like that in the current global political climate.

So - now for the down side - some ethnic Kurds are going to get pretty fucked up during this little soirée.

Coincidentally, those ethnic Kurds that are worried about Turkish aggression are also SYRIAN nationals that lived in that region when ISIS first started gaining a foothold. Those Syrian nationals (aka poor innocent ethnic Kurds) did NOTHING to stop ISIS - at least not until the USA showed up and gave them a bunch of free shit.

The United States desperately needs a country in that region of the world to step up and establish themselves as the big-man-on-campus. We are tiptoeing around the birth of a nuclear armed Iran that is doing their level best to become the number one tough guy in the region and guess what - we have a nuke sharing agreement with Turkey.
That's right Iran - Turkey is flexing their muscles on the international stage AND they have a few of our nukes in case shit gets too crazy. Iran may have shot down a superpower drone but Turkey shot down a superpower jet. If someone in that region can help keep Iran in line, it would be Turkey.
Or we could side with our long time allies from the great and powerful nation of Kurdistan.

Whether intentionally, or as a complete fluke based on the wildly irresponsible use of dart-board diplomacy, Turkey is now moving to establish themselves as a relevant unilateral presence in the region. Iran, Iraq, and Syria all have "Kurd" problems that no one likes to talk about - but Turkey is dealing with theirs.
...and for once, the USA is on the sidelines - watching the battlefield instead of bleeding on the battlefield.

Syria and Iran have made us look like punks on the global stage for decades and we have kept mostly quiet because we didn't want to start another cold war style proxy fight with the Russians. Now, we have a NATO member that is for all practical purposes, openly killing Syrians inside of Syria and we are "staying out of it". Our actions may mean one thing to an American observing via satellite from the USA but it means something completely different to middle-eastern folks living in the region.
Now - if I am to believe the media hype and we don't save these Kurds, they are going to side with ISIS and turn into our enemies - no problem - the Turks are going to kill them off anyway.

Personally, I dont think all Kurds are created equal - some really do just want to be left alone - some only partnered with us because they expect a little quid pro quo in the shape of a map with Kurdistan on it. Well - DOUBLEPLUSGOOD. That means we did EXACTLY the bestest ever SF guy switcharoo possible - we got one group of Syrians to like us - then we got them to attack OTHER Syrians that didnt like us - annd now we have other folks in the region cleaning up the stragglers. The Turks are just demobilizing our partner force for us.
...with prejudice

I would willingly and publicly agree that the situation is 'sub-optimal' and purely based on dart-board diplomacy, but when do we say "enough is enough" ?? Do we continue to deploy troops into harms way until all of our milestones are reached and all of our conditions have been set and all of our friends are dead??

What if we just take a knee, face out, drink water, and call for extract and let someone lese clean up the mess for a change?

 

[Gunz]

One of Tom Clancy's novels stuck with me. I don't recall the exact quote, but it was something like international relations is just countries screwing over other countries. I think it came from Domingo Chavez initially, maybe in a convo to John Clark.

Clear and Present Danger IIRC.

 

[Brill]

I’m not understanding the defense of this. How is allowing Turkey to wipe out the Kurds beneficial to us in any way? We knew exactly what Erdogan’s response would be, politically it’s a must for him . Indifference to the Kurds or not romanticizing our relationship isn’t a logical defense

So far the action appears to be very limited and do not yet support estimates of “wiping out” the Kurds. It’s definitely concerning, no doubt, but I also think if PKK bombs were to kick off in Ankara and Istanbul, Erdogan would have a different kettle of fish entirely.

Turkey Interactive News Map - incidents reports from Turkey - turkey.liveuamap.com

 

[ThunderHorse]

I've been tired of wasting Blood and Treasure in Syria since day one.

 

[Kheenbish]

I can only speak from my interactions with Kurds in a 2015-16 deployment, but from my understand talking to guys in Erbil the Kurds in Northern Iraq want an independent sovereign nation of Kurdistan. The Kurds in Syria/Rojava want to have a sort of Kurdish state that still falls under Syrian rule.

These two groups, even though they share a culture or same ethnicity to identify as Kurds, have very different end game goals. We have provided more than enough to give them some sort of fighting chance.

With this understanding we set up a coalition with the YPG to help destroy ISIS and that's it, we never had intentions to hand Syria over to them afterwards. We aren't allied with Assad, but are with Turkey (to an extent). We haven't to my knowledge given Turkey the right to destroy the Kurds, in my mind they are attacking Syria the country which I could care less. If Assad wants to step in to defend his people go ahead, we should be done with that country once and for all. We had one job to do and completed it.

People want to cry world police all day during the GWOT until America goes it's time to take a backseat and say not my fight.

 

[amlove21]

Obama did this EXACT thing IRT Syria and that led to ISIS. Remember that? Same country? Red lines? All that? No?

But now we are all good with a non-interventionist stance leading to the ethnic cleansing of a people that have fought with us for decades by a NATO ‘ally’ ran by a despotic dictator that’s turned his country to a theocratic regime that’s killing people?

Oh, ok. Tracking. International geopolitics is fun!

 

[Kraut783]

A worrisome thing is.....Turkey goes after Kurds, Kurds search for any allies and gets support from the Syrian government, which is turn gets support from Russia and Iran

 

[Gunz]

Obama did this EXACT thing IRT Syria and that led to ISIS. Remember that? Same country? Red lines? All that? No?

But now we are all good with a non-interventionist stance leading to the ethnic cleansing of a people that have fought with us for decades by a NATO ‘ally’ ran by a despotic dictator that’s turned his country to a theocratic regime that’s killing people?

Oh, ok. Tracking. International geopolitics is fun!

I still haven't got over leaving our counterparts in Southeast Asia with their dicks in their hands 44 years ago. So I'm not "good" with it. I've never been good handling the moral dilemma of bugging out on people who face possible annihilation because of our departure. But I'm not a politician or a power-broker.

The politicians who make these decisions deal with other politicians who are equally detached from the human element. There's no contradiction in what I wrote above and what I'm writing now. It's historically inevitable that those who lead nations sometimes choose national or international political interests at the expense of their allies or partisan groups to whom they've pledged support.

A soldier can spend a lifetime looking into his bourbon wondering about it, but the decision to leave or stay was never his.

 

[Florida173]

PKK is a maoist separatist group. Even when KRG/PDK Barzani offered to help mediate Turkey and PKK negotiations, the PKK refused.

But Barzani is pretty much a mobster... Remember the whole 1974 Barzani rebellion that led to the Iran-Iraq war where we were supporting efforts against the Kurds/Iranians?

 

[Kheenbish]

Obama did this EXACT thing IRT Syria and that led to ISIS. Remember that? Same country? Red lines? All that? No?

But now we are all good with a non-interventionist stance leading to the ethnic cleansing of a people that have fought with us for decades by a NATO ‘ally’ ran by a despotic dictator that’s turned his country to a theocratic regime that’s killing people?

Oh, ok. Tracking. International geopolitics is fun!

Come on now, "an ethnic cleansing of a people?". That's quite a stretch and a bit out of context. I don't remember seeing that Turkey is attacking the kurds based off their ethnicity.

If ethnic cleansing is the case, then where is the crazy outcry for attacking China based on the actual ethnic cleansing they are doing against the Uyghurs?

This is an ugly scene and there is no perfect answer, but I believe at some point America can't be involved everywhere considering we have bigger enemies to combat in the world.