Let’s Get Out of There

It blows my mind, too:

But what’s astonishing this time is how the Democrats and much of the liberal Establishment now supports an unending occupation of yet another Middle Eastern country.

Something is very wrong with people if they call themselves liberal (progressive, leftist, whatever, God, I’m tired of these vapid disclaimers) and don’t see the news of US withdrawal from Syria and Afghanistan as a wonderful Christmas present.

The Syrian occupation is not a minor thing. The Washington Post reported a week ago, long before Trump’s tweet, that “US troops will now stay in Syria indefinitely, controlling a third of the country, and facing peril on many fronts.” A third of an entire country! How many Americans knew or know this? Very, very few.

And I can absolutely guarantee that the number of Americans who’d love this idea if they knew about it is minuscule. The idiotic establishment that is opposing the withdrawal is not even remotely in touch with what people want.

We should not be asking why Trump has decided to nip this in the bud, following his clear and popular mandate to get us out of the region. We should be asking how on earth did the Establishment find a way to occupy yet another Middle Eastern country.

Exactly! Why on Earth would Trump do it? Hmm, what a mystery. It’s not like this might be popular with voters or anything.

Advertisements

14 thoughts on “Let’s Get Out of There”

  1. What Trump is doing is simple. He wants a wall and needs money and troops to build it. So he’s taking funds and troops from the deployments in Syria and Afghanistan (50% of what we have in Afghanistan). Guess where they’re going? If the dots were farther apart, this might not be a compelling theory. But they’re not. Trump is only able to focus on one thought at a time. Let the Taliban have whatever they want. Let the Russians have whatever they want. He’ll get his obsession, which is the wall.

    If Putin were smart, he would have offered to pay for the wall in return for the US breaking its commitments to Ukraine. Maybe that’s next.

    Like

    1. “He wants a wall and needs money and troops to build it.”

      He is (after many delays) trying to deliver on the campaign promise that got him elected and which a majority of Americans either support or don’t mind against an establishment that thinks that elections cannot be allowed to change (the establishment’s) policy.

      It’s obvious that’s what he’s doing. The fact that it might help deliver on another campaign promise (to uninvolve the US in mideast messes) is a nice bonus.

      Like

      1. I don’t understand why people are so stunned that a politician is actually trying to deliver on a major campaign promise. It’s kind of sad that this is so shocking to so many of us.

        This is what his voters want. He’s trying to give them what they want. Which is his duty, actually. This is a good thing even for those of us who, for reasons they can’t explain, hate the wall.

        Like

        1. “why people are so stunned that a politician is actually trying to deliver on a major campaign promise”

          Maybe they’ve internalized the idea that elections aren’t intended to affect policy? If ideas can’t be discussed (note the proliferation of “can we finally stop discussing X?” articles) then ultimately elections don’t matter because elites and their technocrats have colonized discourse so that no other option is possible…

          Like

  2. The military and political situation in Syria is complex and I will never come anywhere close to understanding the complexities. I am generally opposed to the U.S. meddling in the affairs of other countries. In this case, it does appear that U.S. efforts have been successful in nearly eliminating the Islamic State in Syria. From what I read, there are valid arguments for a continued U.S. presence, not so much to be involved in internal Syrian affairs, but to counterbalance the aggressive intentions of Turkey and Russia and others. And there are certainly valid arguments for us to disengage. I always tend to support peace and oppose war.

    Like

    1. I’m against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, for instance. But if the US decided to bring troops into Ukraine to battle Russian aggression, it would be the worst thing possible. It would be an absolute disaster.

      Like

      1. Thank you, that’s an interesting comparison. Meddling in the internal affairs of any country seems unwise and dangerous. At the other extreme, I would certainly expect and support the United States to come to the aid of nations with which it has fundamental treaty agreements for mutual security, most especially NATO. If Ukraine had been able to join NATO prior to its troubles with Russia, we would be talking about an entirely different situation. Probably, Russia would not have attempted to intrude on Ukraine. And if it did, the U.S. and other NATO members would have been obligated to defend Ukraine. This helps me put the Syrian situation in clearer perspective.

        Like

        1. Putin specifically stated right after the occupation of Crimea that he had decided to take Crimea then because he feared that the newly pro-Western Ukrainian government would join NATO.

          Like

  3. G.W. Bush, in arguing for the invasion of Afghanistan, ignored warnings that it would be a “quagmire” like Vietnam. He ignored historical precedents — that invading Afghanistan had been, at least in part, responsible for the downfall of the Soviet Union. So why do the people who were most opposed to the invasion want to continue it? Perhaps they didn’t think it was a bad idea after all, they were just miffed that they hadn’t thought of it first.

    Like

    1. “Afghanistan had been, at least in part, responsible for the downfall of the Soviet Union”
      Afghanistan has always been a quagmire for any outside power trying to impose civilization on their central asian violent hillbilly culture. They don’t want to change. so leave them be.

      Like

  4. I’m for getting out, but concerned that Trumpy may just hire Blackwater / KBR / other mercenaries and run the thing that way. There’s at least some degree of transparency / information / etc. when it’s official US forces doing this stuff, as opposed to covert action / mercenaries. ALSO drones / airstrikes are to be watched for, and large-yield bombs.

    I’m for getting out, but don’t take getting out as a sign that Trump is a peacenik — he isn’t.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.