On the campaign trail, candidates will often say things they don’t mean or make promises they don’t intend to keep, but sometimes you should believe them even when they say outlandish things. That appears to be the case with something Donald Trump said about Syria back in September 2015.
Donald Trump wants to flip the U.S. strategy against ISIS on its head, drawing down the America’s involvement in fighting the militant group in Syria in favor of a greater Russian presence.
While most of his fellow Republican presidential hopefuls are calling for a bigger military effort to destroy the group, Trump said the U.S. should reduce its already small footprint in Syria. And in Iraq, Trump said he would be willing to send round forces to fight the radical militant group.
“Now let me just say this: ISIS in Syria, (Syrian President Bashar el) Assad in Syria, Assad and ISIS are mortal enemies. We go in to fight ISIS. Why aren’t we letting ISIS go and fight Assad and then we pick up the remnants?” Trump said in a “60 Minutes” interview that aired Sunday on CBS.
Alternatively, the GOP front-runner said the U.S. should let Russia take the lead in battling ISIS in Syria, where the Russian government is allied with the Assad regime.
“Russia wants to get rid of ISIS. We want to get rid of ISIS. Maybe let Russia do it. Let them get rid of ISIS. What the hell do we care?” Trump said.
That was rightfully seen at the time as a severely unorthodox take on American foreign policy in the Middle East. And, as I pointed out in my May 2018 piece Trump’s Lies About Moscow Tower are Impeachable, there were other red flags going up in September 2015. On September 29, Trump went on Bill O’Reilly’s show and made some astonishing statements.
“I will tell you that I think in terms of leadership, [Putin] is getting an ‘A,’ and our president is not doing so well.”
“Putin is now taking over what we started and he’s going into Syria, and he frankly wants to fight ISIS, and I think that’s a wonderful thing,” Trump told Fox News Tuesday, after ending his boycott against the network. “If he wants to fight ISIS, let him fight ISIS. Why do we always have to do everything?”
It was at this point that people first began to question whether Trump had some kind of business ties to Russia that might explain his positions because they certainly did not seem designed to appeal to the typical Republican primary voter. According to his testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS was hired in September or October 2015 by the conservative Washington Free Beacon to look into Trump’s business practices. The first thing he did was look into possible ties Trump might have to Russia. He was curious that Trump was saying “weird things about Putin” and had made a number of trips to Russia without ever consummating a deal.
Simpson testified that he began his research by focusing on Trump’s relationship with Felix Sater. That was certainly prescient considering that Sater was at that very moment negotiating a deal on a potential Moscow Trump Tower. In fact, on October 28, 2015 the deal was complete and Trump signed a letter of intent to begin the project. On Wednesday, CNN obtained an actual copy of this letter which, despite Rudy Giuliani’s previous denials, bears the future president’s signature.
There can no question anymore that in the September 2015 time period, Trump was simultaneously in negotiations to build the tallest building in Europe in Moscow and praising Putin as a better leader than Obama who should be given a free hand to deal with Syria without American interference.
He is now making the same argument.
We can’t say that we weren’t warned.
In Masha Gessen’s piece this morning in the New Yorker she uses the word ‘cacophonous’ to describe Russian propaganda and the Trump way of governing. It’s a way of saying that we’re being bombarded with so much news that we can’t think straight.
But never has there been a time where we needed to focus more on what’s happening because Trump’s version of noise is beyond dangerous, he has so many Syrian type decision balls in the air right now there’s no reason to think that only one will drop. Instead, there’s every reason to think that all of them are going to drop.
Syria will blow up. The N Koreans have announced they won’t denuclearize until the US extinguishes its threat. Trump is clearly blowing up the CR today over the wall. And these are just today’s news.
Take a look again at his campaign promises he’s so hell bent on bring to fruition and none of them are any less dangerous than the door he just opened to disaster in Syria.
What vital interest do we have in Syria?
Progressives used to oppose the Forever War. Now we are as bloodthirsty and conquest mad as W.
Policy right or wrong should not depend on which party is in power.
If Trump proposed a fracking ban, I suppose Democrats would oppose it.
Then make the argument on those lines, which includes almost certain genocide for Kurdish people in those regions, and another flood of refugees with nowhere to go as the consequence. Maybe that’s a consequence that should happen, maybe it’s the right course of action. But argue in reality.
That’s not the same argument as “Turkey, KSA, and Russia have blackmail on the president and are guiding our country’s FP according to their interests through payoffs and threats on the president, personally.”
It’s also possibly part of the quid pro quo for election help, which Nancy Pelosi alluded to her in letter to the president.
Syria’s Kurds Feel Trapped Between Threats From Assad and Turkey
I’m genuinely curious;
Whom are the innocents, here?
Trump has the intellect and attention span of a fruit fly. The situation is fraught with complications and infighting and bad actors and terrorism on all sides that would try the patience of the best of men…which Trump is not. Every single ME briefing probably had a variation of Kurd vs Turk vs Russia vs Syria vs Iran vs Israel vs Kurd vs Iraq vs America vs Oil vs Cost. ISIS attacks the Kurds, whom flee to Iraq and then cross to Turkey and set off bombs then flee to Iran to raise a generation to go back to Syria to fight ISIS then ask for American protection then use that to set off bombs in Iran who then send commandos to attack Kurds in Iraq who then flee to ……
.
wat
Yep!
As you said, there are bad actors everywhere. But who is “bad” changes depending on what the context is. Assad is never good. ISIS is never good. US leveling cities to fight ISIS is arguably bad, Turkey’s efforts in Afrin are arguably bad. But US is good in holding the line on Turkish invasion or Assad recouping land. Turkey is good in taking in millions of refugees. Turkey is good in opposing Assad. YPG is good for fighting ISIS, they were bad to work with Assad in opposing Turkey, as Turkey was bad in working with Assad against them. Not even getting to Iran and Russia.
No one has been able to sufficiently untie those knots of conflicting interests. But letting it burn and fester hasn’t really worked either. And since Trump has no plan, and might be blackmailed over the withdrawal, I’m content to have the policy be on “autopilot” until we have someone in his place to actually put forth a strategy.
I suspect this is not what you want to hear, but we have troops all over the world. NK immediately comes to mind and lil Kim would like nothing better than to have us leave, never mind those missile bases since he will promise to dismantle them immediately once we are gone, and Putin will also give us assurances about our troops in Germany and whatever we want to hear about Ukraine, if only we cut back on Nato. It seems to me those 2000 Americans in Kurdistan may be there a long time, or at least until that someone works out the exit strategy that leaves them alive and well or maybe even never.
“But US is good in holding the line on Turkish invasion or Assad recouping land.”
You mean Assad regaining control of land inside of Syrian borders?
As far as Turkey…what would America do if a group was crossing the border from Mexico and setting off bombs? We would cross that border with overwhelming force and stomp the whole area into dust. We actually have a history of that (Pancho Villa).
Look at this quote from your Haaretz article;
———–
On the one hand, there is the threat of the return of the Syrian regime to the Kurdish region; on the other, there is the threat from the Turkish army. “They are not different from one another,” he said. “Either way, we face a real danger. People are scared to death. They fear a loss of security and immediate threats,” he said.
———-
Yes, there is very well the chance that Syria will want to regain control over…..Syrian sovereign territory!
and
Yes, it is quite possible the Turks are tired of chasing Kurd terrorists over the border.
and
Yes, they are not different from one another in that they are (as well as Iran, Russia, and Iraq, and apparently America) tired of Kurdish shit.
seabe, I actually agree with virtually all of what you say (except quoting Haaretz and Israeli propaganda). But is it really a surprise that Trump would listen to my list above and get confused? Then Russia and Sawdi Arabia whisper in his ear (think about that disgusting ear!) `we will give you a billion dollars in a Luxembourg bank account if you just go home’. It makes it the only thing he understands…a transaction. With the added benefit of more Executive Time!.
The Kurds have been playing a dangerous game for many years. They have been trying to play all sides against each other. Or at least using whatever cracks they can find in the international order to try to carve out their own country in what is without a doubt the most dangerous region in the world.
.
There are no Syrian borders. Syria the state does not exist anymore. Assad controls nothing without Russian and Iranian help. As far as Haaretz, the author (Elizabeth Tsurkov) is an Israeli dissident who has been reporting on Gaza and Syria for years, and is one of the best sources for what’s happening on the ground. It’d be like quoting WaPo and Louisa Loveluck for the same situation. Although Elizabeth’s personal politics (left wing) are more out in the open.
There’s a difference between putting down a rebellion from cross-border terrorists, and marching in to the territory they hold and declaring anyone belonging to an organization (PKK/YPG) and/or ethnically Mexican (Kurdish) will be driven from the area with state force, ethnically cleaning it so you can transport refugees and/or Americans (Turkish/Arabs) in their place. Yes we did it, it’s how we were founded. But there’s something called Geneva, and facilitating this by ceding land to authoritarian states bent on ethnically cleaning the region from “terrorists” (everyone loves the War on Terror, don’t they?) isn’t “anti-war”.
Yes, they did themselves no favors, but anyone trying to survive that region can’t be picky with their options. The US isn’t boxed in the same way, and we have more options and leverage.
I think going cold turkey on all the consumables I’ve been imbibing has made me ornery.
.
Ah, well, it’s damned hard to watch the shitfest in our country and not drink.
Whom are the innocents here ?
Perhaps they are the Kurds whom flee to Iraq.
But certainly not those whom commit crimes against the English language.
U.K.; We call it autumn, from the French word “autompne” and later, the Latin “autumnus”.
U.S.; WE CALL IT FALL BECAUSE LEAF FALL DOWN!
.
The only significant strategic (and coincidentally humanitarian) objective is the end of the refugee crisis and exodus from Syria. But we are not going to be able to achieve our strategic aims and the interests of the neighboring countries, never mind the extant Syrian government, are always going to supersede ours.
Not to be a smart aleck but the time to end this forever war was before we took on the Kurds as an ally to fight ISIS, as recently as 2016. Leave now and the Kurds get to take on Assad, Erdogan, ISIS, and Iran. It would seem we have an obligation to stand by them. And unless you really believe what the Orange Turd says it is estimated there are 20000 to 30000 ISIS laying low there in Syria. And Erdogan would like nothing better than a little genocide to clean out those pesky Kurds. He may even like a little help from his ISIS friends. Don’t get me wrong. I’d like nothing better than to end this war but pleasing Putin while abandoning our ally is not doing it for me.
I think it is long past time we had a strategic actionable discussion about our mission in Syria and whether our troops should still be there, factoring how it will affect our promises to the Kurds (newsflash we will screw them over again as we have been since WWI) versus our strategic relationship with Turkey.
All while also thinking that isn’t what is driving Trump’s decision to leave Syria. Rather it seems very obvious to me that Trump made a hasty decision based on who last talked to him on the telephone (in this case Erdogan) and also based on his desire to change the subject from the numerous investigations surrounding his administration.
Getting him out is arguably the only thing we can concentrate on. Everything, everything is distraction.
He’s pretty hopelessly incompetent but can still cause a huge amount of trouble, like a bad wisdom tooth, until it’s removed. And he will take everyone down with him if and where he can.
I wasn’t in favor of removal & I am not at all sure it’s possible given the Senate we are going to have but there’s a good chance things will go very very badly if we leave this person in power.
Republicans in the senate (and Ryan) are going to have to weigh in the balance their standing in the way of removing a clearly dangerous and incompetent president for continued political support of the base, and risk Trump doing something that ends up with truly devastating consequences. If that happens they will own it along with Trump, and go down as a party with him, having been the one body that could have, justifiably, removed him long before.
There’s a lot less upside now in their current path. Trump just showed with Syria that letting him continue on is an even bigger, riskier gamble for republicans.
Here is a précis of most of the above comments and Booman’s piece.
Also known as:
It was stupid…and morally indefensible as well…when it began, and it is that much more stupid now that we have belatedly awakened to the plain fact that the continued use of oil at current rates threatens the ecology of the entire planet.
It’s not about “Russia,” no matter what they may have tried to do.
It’s about us!!!
WTFU.
AG
I don’t disagree with you as far as the permanent state of the blood for oil war.
I don’t even (completely) disagree with you that that “it’s not about Russia.”
However for you to continue to hedge about the Russians CLEAR ratfucking of our election by saying “no matter what they MAY have tried to do” (emphasis mine) is truly, willfully, stupendously ignorant and incorrect and makes it much harder to judge your analysis in a favorable light (despite your obvious skill with words).
See my latest post for a respectful but lengthy answer to this reply, Akamaiguy.
Thank you…
AG
Mattis was said to be livid about the pull out from Syria and upon hearing Erdogan was readying an attack on the Kurds plus the possibility of also abandoning our allies in Afghanistan. All per CNN.
And now Mattis has resigned. This scares the shit outta me.
Yes, he was the sane person there to talk sense to Trump.,
The last sane person. They guy who got his job because he had a crazy nickname rather than because he was a grifting lunatic. There’s nobody competent left.