Trump Preparing to Withdraw Troops from Syria
#169008
12/19/2018 05:49 PM
12/19/2018 05:49 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,912
Tulsa
airforce
OP
Administrator
|
OP
Administrator
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,912
Tulsa
|
And not a moment too soon. It's not yet a done deal, of course. And there are plenty of people, inside and outside his administration. who are against this withdrawal. For sure, it's easier to start a war than end it, but let's hope he's serious about this and stands firm. Onward and upward, airforce
|
|
|
Re: Trump Preparing to Withdraw Troops from Syria
[Re: airforce]
#169010
12/20/2018 02:04 PM
12/20/2018 02:04 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,912
Tulsa
airforce
OP
Administrator
|
OP
Administrator
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,912
Tulsa
|
Trump is still insisting he's bringing the troops home from Syria. If you listen to everyone else in Washington, it's a gift to Iran, or a Christmas present to Islamic militants, or proof that he's beholden to Putin, or that he's acting too much like Obama, or that he's lying about ISIS, or that this is some backdoor deal with Turkey, or...
Sen. Rand Paul is right. President Trump is doing a very good thing.
Onward and upward,
airforce
|
|
|
Re: Trump Preparing to Withdraw Troops from Syria
[Re: airforce]
#169012
12/20/2018 06:58 PM
12/20/2018 06:58 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,731
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
ConSigCor
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,731
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
|
All the usual suspects, the globalist rino neocons and democrats, are raising hell.
"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861
|
|
|
Re: Trump Preparing to Withdraw Troops from Syria
[Re: ConSigCor]
#169015
12/20/2018 08:09 PM
12/20/2018 08:09 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,912
Tulsa
airforce
OP
Administrator
|
OP
Administrator
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,912
Tulsa
|
All the usual suspects, the globalist rino neocons and democrats, are raising hell. For a while there, I was worried that Lindsey Graham had actually become intelligent. I'm glad to see he's back to his old warmongering self.  Onward and upward, airforce
|
|
|
Re: Trump Preparing to Withdraw Troops from Syria
[Re: airforce]
#169016
12/20/2018 08:57 PM
12/20/2018 08:57 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,912
Tulsa
airforce
OP
Administrator
|
OP
Administrator
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,912
Tulsa
|
Trump may be thinking about pulling out of Afghanistan, too. If he's not careful, someone may give him that Nobel Peace Prize. ...Officials throughout the Trump administration are bracing themselves for the President to make an announcement about the US presence in Afghanistan, similar to his declaration Wednesday that the US will withdraw the military from Syria, informed administration sources tell CNN.
The sources cautioned that President has not yet made a final decision, but officials are concerned and convinced that he might do so, and soon.
The US has about 14,000 troops in Afghanistan, most of which are present as part of a larger NATO-led mission to train, advise and assist Afghan forces. Any withdrawal would be complicated by the fact that the United States is part of NATO's Resolute Support mission.... Onward and upward, airforce
|
|
|
Re: Trump Preparing to Withdraw Troops from Syria
[Re: airforce]
#169019
12/21/2018 12:22 PM
12/21/2018 12:22 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,731
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
ConSigCor
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,731
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
|
Trump Orders Major Afghan Drawdown: 7,000 Troops To Return Home In Coming Weeks
Trump has pulled the trigger and "ordered the start of a reduction of American forces in Afghanistan."
By Zero Hedge Friday, December 21, 2018
CNN warns “officials brace for Trump announcement on Afghanistan” after Trump’s Wednesday bombshell Syria troop pullout announcement.
He’s now initiated “a major drawdown” of forces in Afghanistan too, and while inside the beltway neocon heads might continue to explode, the broader public for which the seventeen year long Afghan war is deeply unpopular will no doubt cheer the move. And already NBC reports Thursday evening based on defense sources the White House has asked the Pentagon to draw up plans presenting “multiple options” including a “complete withdrawal”. Following the “options” order it now appears Trump has pulled the trigger and “ordered the start of a reduction of American forces in Afghanistan” according to a breaking WSJ report:
More than 7,000 American troops will begin to return home from Afghanistan in the coming weeks, a U.S. official said. The move will come as the first stage of a phased drawdown and the start of a conclusion to the 17-year war that officials say could take at least many months. There now are more than 14,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
U.S. soldiers in Bagram, north of Kabul, Afghanistan, via AP
Further the WSJ reports it marks “the start of a total pullout that could take at least many months.”
The major reduction of U.S. troops in the country will begin as soon as within several weeks, according to sources cited in The Wall Street Journal. Currently there are about 14,000 troops in Afghanistan in continuation of a NATO advise, train and assist mission as part of the longest running war in United States history.
Trump reportedly stoked “anger and confusion” among some lawmakers and Pentagon officials over his Syria pullout decision; however, he appears to be sticking to his prior “bring the troops home” promises made on the campaign trail in 2016. In a series of Tweets, the president defended the 180 degree shift in Syria policy, which as of only less than a week ago was was expressed by US special envoy for Syria, Ambassador James Jeffrey, as “countering Iran”.
In a Thursday Tweet that could have just as well been about Afghanistan, Trump stated: “So hard to believe that Lindsey Graham would be against saving soldier lives & billions of $$$.” And added, “Time to focus on our Country & bring our youth back home where they belong!”
So hard to believe that Lindsey Graham would be against saving soldier lives & billions of $$$. Why are we fighting for our enemy, Syria, by staying & killing ISIS for them, Russia, Iran & other locals? Time to focus on our Country & bring our youth back home where they belong!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 20, 2018
Meanwhile it shouldn’t be forgotten that even the generals responsible for executing the Afghan war have been critics of late, including the commander of NATO’s Resolute Support Mission and U.S. Forces in Afghanistan.
Speaking to NBC News in early November, Gen. Austin Scott Miller made deeply pessimistic public statements after taking charge of American operations, and shocked with his frank assessment that that the Afghan war cannot be won militarily and peace will only be achieved through direct engagement and negotiations with the Taliban — the very terror group which US forces sought to defeat when it first invaded in 2001. “This is not going to be won militarily,” Gen. Miller said. “This is going to a political solution.”
He explained further to NBC at the time:
My assessment is the Taliban also realizes they cannot win militarily. So if you realize you can’t win militarily at some point, fighting is just, people start asking why. So you do not necessarily wait us out, but I think now is the time to start working through the political piece of this conflict.
So it appears Trump is actually heeding his general’s assessment in ordering the significant drawdown.
Currently the State Department is conducting on-again off-again shaky negotiations (since last summer) with Taliban officials with the help of intermediary countries Pakistan and Qatar.
The United States has spent well over $840 billion fighting the Taliban insurgency while also paying for relief and reconstruction in an “endless war” that has become more expensive, in current dollars, than the Marshall Plan, which was the reconstruction effort to rebuild Europe after World War II.
"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861
|
|
|
Re: Trump Preparing to Withdraw Troops from Syria
[Re: airforce]
#169023
12/21/2018 02:45 PM
12/21/2018 02:45 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,912
Tulsa
airforce
OP
Administrator
|
OP
Administrator
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,912
Tulsa
|
You will never guess who else opposes Trump's pulling out of Afghanistan: ![[Linked Image]](https://i.imgur.com/6KbetW7.png) Heads are exploding. Onward and upward, airforce
|
|
|
Re: Trump Preparing to Withdraw Troops from Syria
[Re: airforce]
#169026
12/21/2018 03:44 PM
12/21/2018 03:44 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,731
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
ConSigCor
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,731
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
|
Rand, Ron Paul Praise Trump’s Syria Withdrawal
President fulfilling promises to bring troops home
.
By Dan Lyman Friday, December 21, 2018
Rand and Ron Paul have both commended President Trump on his decision to withdraw troops from Syria.
Both father and son are known for their positions of non-interventionism, often denouncing aggressive U.S. foreign policy driven by the military-industrial complex for decades.
“This is a very bold move for President Trump,” Rand Paul said during an appearance on ‘America’s Newsroom.’ “It is exactly what he promised the American people. In fact, it is one of the reasons he won the election — because he is different from so many Republicans who want us to be everywhere all the time around the world. They want us to be the world policeman, that every war on the planet we have to have our soldiers involved with.”
“President Trump said he was going to treat America first. I think bringing some of that money home, whether it goes towards border security or building bridges or roads in our country.”
Rand acknowledged that while the President’s move will be unpopular with the Washington establishment, the American people will overwhelmingly support bringing the troops home.
Correspondingly, in an interview with RT, Ron Paul was asked his opinion on the Syria withdrawal.
“I think it is very good because I don’t think that we have a moral or a constitutional justification to declare that our national security depends on us having troops and interfering in how this problem in Syria is settled,” Ron said.
“And Trump, although he has his ups and downs, I think that he has taken a good position, he said he wanted to get out of Syria, he said in the campaign, he said that ISIS is not a threat there and it’s time to come home. And I just want it to be complete.”
Ron also called for a complete pullout of U.S. intelligence agencies and Special Forces, while also not imposing sanctions on the Assad government or offering any foreign aid — a clean break from the war-torn region.
“Yes, move the troops out, a couple thousand troops,” Ron said. “But I want to make sure that the CIA’s out and the special forces are out and that we don’t use sanctions. And that we move in that direction where we just have hands off and deal with diplomacy in getting along with people.”
“But in that philosophy that I just spoke, it also means no foreign aid. Our problem is if we dominate and militarize a country, then we finance all that.”
Dan Lyman: Follow @CitizenAnalyst
"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861
|
|
|
Re: Trump Preparing to Withdraw Troops from Syria
[Re: airforce]
#169027
12/21/2018 05:54 PM
12/21/2018 05:54 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,912
Tulsa
airforce
OP
Administrator
|
OP
Administrator
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,912
Tulsa
|
All in all, this has been a great week for Libertarians. troops are being pulled out of Syria and Afghanistan, hemp got legalized, First Step was officially passed, the government is shutting down (maybe, possibly, a little bit), and the Wall is now the Slats. I'm actually having a hard time feeling bad right now - unless I look at my 401k.
Onward and upward,
airforce
|
|
|
Re: Trump Preparing to Withdraw Troops from Syria
[Re: airforce]
#169044
12/24/2018 11:53 AM
12/24/2018 11:53 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,731
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
ConSigCor
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,731
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
|
Rand Paul: 'Armchair Generals Want to Keep Us At War Forever'
By Cathy Burke | Sunday, 23 December 2018 12:40 PM
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., on Sunday praised President Donald Trump for doing “exactly what he promised” by withdrawing U.S. troops from Syria — and derided the “armchair generals” in Washington who “want to keep us at war forever.”
In an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Paul said he’s “very proud” of Trump’s determination to get troops out of the Middle East.
“This is exactly what he promised ... I think people believe that we’ve been at war too long and too many places and that we do need to turn attention to problems we have at home,” he said.
In a separate interview on CBS News’ “Face The Nation,” Paul also lauded the drawdown in Afghanistan — saying savings from that could be the source of wall funding that’s stymied Congress, and triggered a partial government shutdown.
"It's only the people in Washington, the arm chair generals, that want to keep us at war forever and Americans are tired of it,” Paul asserted. “We want that money here at home and we want to create jobs, roads, bridges here at home, not in Afghanistan."
Paul said he won’t vote for funding for building a wall on the southern border unless there’s “cuts somewhere,” but that an easier solution would be to use what he said would be $50 billion in savings by bringing home U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
“I think we should have declared victory [in Afghanistan] years ago, I think we should come home and of that $50 billion in savings we would have enough for a border wall and security,” he said.
“The Taliban are going to wait us out they know we will eventually leave and leave we must,” he added. “I don't think we have enough money to be paying to build and rebuild Afghanistan. The president's right, I think the people agree with him, let's rebuild America. Let's spend that money here at home.”
"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861
|
|
|
Re: Trump Preparing to Withdraw Troops from Syria
[Re: airforce]
#169080
12/28/2018 08:46 PM
12/28/2018 08:46 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,912
Tulsa
airforce
OP
Administrator
|
OP
Administrator
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,912
Tulsa
|
is sen. Rand Paul influencing President Trump on foreign policy? That's a frightening prospect to some people, though even they can't bring themselves to say why. Josh Rogin, writing at the Washington Post, contemplates the supposedly frightening shadow of Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) hovering over some of President Donald Trump's recent foreign policy decisions. Rogin's piece adds to some unsourced musings from Beltway types that the most influential adviser to Trump on foreign policy right now is not anyone on his staff or a member of the Pentagon brass, but the Kentucky senator known for his skepticism about endless foreign adventuring.
Rogin thinks it fair to say that Paul, via informal communication with golfing buddy Trump, "is quietly steering U.S. foreign policy in a new direction." Among the public evidence for this is Trump tweet-quoting Paul after announcing his intention to pull U.S. troops from Syria on how "[it]t should not be the job of America to replace regimes around the world."
Paul's influence is bad, Rogin maintains, because "Trump may be taking Paul's word over that of his own advisers. Moreover, Paul has a history of pushing false claims and theories."
The implication, against all evidence, is that government foreign policy experts somehow do not "push...false claims and theories," even though their beliefs about such matters as Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction, and the supposedly positive aftereffects of toppling Middle Eastern dictators such as Saddam and Libyan Colonel Muammar Gadafi, have been disastrously wrong.
Paul is specifically accused of not quickly accepting claims that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime was definitively responsible for poison gas attacks in Syria. This is a hollow criticism considering that former Defense Secretary James Mattis publicly accused Assad while "the intelligence community was still assessing the evidence." To Rogin and the foreign policy establishment he speaks for, it's always better to err on the side of intervening first and getting answers later.
Rogin further falls back on a linkless assertion that "Trump should realize that most Republicans — and most Americans — favor a robust U.S. foreign policy. Most voters recognize that worldwide threats to our country are growing and believe now is a time for American leadership, not American retreat." This claim totally ignores strong recent evidence to the contrary. What we know about public sentiment in the last election says that foreign policy is a motivating issue mostly to people like Rogin and the Washingtonians responsible for decades of insanely ineffectual and destructive foreign interventionism; barring attacks, the American people are mostly (and rightly) concerned with domestic business.
Rogin chooses not to address any actual reason why Trump pulling back the troops, possibly under Paul's influence, should be alarming. He treats it as self-evident that American troops must stay indefinitely wherever we send them, and he ignores the dangers of overthrowing dictators in favor of Islamic revolutionaries. He also fails to acknowledges that America has failed many times over the last century to bring conflicts in other countries to permanent and happy ends.
It's not that I don't feel for Rogin. The reflexive defense of U.S. intervention everywhere and always is a hard game; merely asserting that it's a self-evident good because "expert advisers" said so is the best they can do. If Rand Paul's influence is, as the unnamed sources seem to believe, pushing Trump to actually make good on campaign promises to shrink America's military footprint overseas, then that is definitely for the good. Rogin fails to make the case that it's not. Onward and upward, airforce
|
|
|
Re: Trump Preparing to Withdraw Troops from Syria
[Re: airforce]
#169103
01/02/2019 05:29 PM
01/02/2019 05:29 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,912
Tulsa
airforce
OP
Administrator
|
OP
Administrator
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,912
Tulsa
|
Sen. Rand Paul is downplaying his influence on President Trump, saying that both he and trump see eye-to-eye on criminal justice reform and withdrawing troops. And, quite deservedly, he deplored Sen. Romney's attack on Trump, saying it is not helpful. In a phone press conference today dedicated to decrying new Utah Sen. Mitt Romney's op-ed attacking President Donald Trump's character, Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) also downplayed reports that he, Paul, was a prime influence on some of Trump's policies.
"I look at it slightly differently," Paul said. "It's not so much me influencing him as that I tend to agree with his policies." When it comes to Paul's credited influence on Trump's stated desire to unwind aspects of American military involvement overseas, the senator said, Trump "expressed himself the same way throughout his campaign."
Paul also refused to identify himself as a prime influence when it comes to criminal justice reform, arguing that both presidential advisor/son-in-law Jared Kushner and Trump himself believe that "people have been unfairly in prison for decade after decade, many of them minorities, and we need to have a better way," again declaring that "it's not so much me pushing [Trump] in one direction as that we see eye-to-eye" on those policies.
As for Romney, Paul argues that for senators in the president's own party to attack Trump's character is "not useful" and can harm "any ability to work together in the Senate to get things done." While stating that he, Paul, according to his voting record has "opposed the president more than any other Republican in the Senate" (and singling out tariffs as a prime area of disagreement with Trump), he believes other senators should emulate him in treating Trump "with dignity and with respect."
When a questioner confronted him with Trump's tendency to insult and name-call, Paul said that while he doesn't want to say "I give the president a pass" on such behavior, he thinks it is "more important to look at what we have in common, policy-wise, legislation-wise, what we can get accomplished" and that it doesn't "serve any purpose other than gratifying oneself to criticize the president's character."
Paul says politics should be the art of looking for agreement, and that—unlike differences on policy, where common ground can be found on other issues and opinions can shift—"disagreement on character is not fixable" and "if you say someone has terrible character, you can't say next week their character has changed."
Paul said he doesn't think many other senators agree with Romney's critiques of Trump, which Paul wrote off as unproductive "virtue signaling." Paul stressed how much the president campaigned for and helped other Republican senators, and compared the Never-Trump movement that he sees Romney as identifying himself with to the hawkish neocons who also attacked Ronald Reagan for negotiating with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev.
Paul suggests it would be more productive for Republicans in the legislature to focus on the parts of Trump's policies he sees as positive, such as tax cuts, criminal justice reform, regulatory reform, and Supreme Court justices who are "libertarian-leaning and conservative."
Asked about the possibility that Romney intends to run against Trump in 2020, Paul pointed out that Trump was able to win some states, such as Michigan and Pennsylvania, that Romney was not. (Romney did, however, get a larger percentage of the national popular vote in 2012, at 47.2 percent, than Trump did in 2016, with 46.1 percent.) Paul wrote off Romney in general as standing for a sort of "establishment big government Republicanism" that is "not popular enough to win a general election." Why did Romney attack Trump the way he did? It certainly seems like an odd way for Romney to thank the President for supporting him in his Senate race. Personally, I think Romney is trying to position himself for 2020. It's not as far-fetched as it may seem. If trump is impeached, or so weakened politically that it's impossible for him to win in 2020, Romney may try to pick up the pieces and try to run for the presidency again. He has nothing to lose by doing so, he'll be in the Senate for six years anyway. I still think it's a pretty chump move, but that's just me. Onward and upward, airforce
|
|
|
Re: Trump Preparing to Withdraw Troops from Syria
[Re: airforce]
#169104
01/02/2019 07:54 PM
01/02/2019 07:54 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,731
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
ConSigCor
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,731
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
|
Screw Romney. He could win a race for dog catcher.
"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861
|
|
|
Re: Trump Preparing to Withdraw Troops from Syria
[Re: airforce]
#169126
01/07/2019 05:58 PM
01/07/2019 05:58 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,912
Tulsa
airforce
OP
Administrator
|
OP
Administrator
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,912
Tulsa
|
John Bolton and others in Trump's administration are, not surprisingly, trying to derail his plan to withdraw from Syria. Maybe Trump should clean house again. President Donald Trump's abrupt announcement in late December that the United States would be ending its involvement in Syria's long-running, bloody civil war received cheers from non-interventionists, but subsequent comments from senior administration officials have cast doubt on the chances that U.S. troops will be out of the country anytime soon.
During a trip to Israel on Sunday, National Security Advisor John Bolton said that any withdrawal of military forces was conditioned on the total defeat of ISIS, plus assurances from Turkey that they would not attack U.S.-allied Kurdish militias.
"We don't think the Turks ought to undertake military action that's not fully coordinated with and agreed to by the United States, at a minimum so they don't endanger our troops," said Bolton, according to The New York Times.
Trump's secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, is also headed to the Middle East this week, where he will, according to comments from a senior administration official, try to persuade America's Arab allies that "the United States is not leaving the Middle East. Despite reports to the contrary and false narratives surrounding the Syria decision, we are not going anywhere."
All of this stands in marked contrast to statements from Trump himself.
On December 19, Trump announced that the U.S.'s goal of defeating ISIS in Syria was complete, ending the need for American forces to be in the country.
"We have won against ISIS. We have beaten them and beaten them badly," said Trump in a video message posted to Twitter. "It's time for our troops to come back home."
The timetable for this withdrawal was initially 30 days, which the traditionally hawkish Washington commentariat criticized as a reckless gift to Russian President Vladimir Putin and other American rivals in the region. The decision reportedly prompted Defense Secretary James Mattis to resign.
Trump later pushed back that 30-day window to four months. Comments from Bolton and other officials now suggest that any fixed schedule for withdrawal is toast.
This kind of walkback is hardly unprecedented. Back in Spring 2018, Trump announced at a rally that U.S. forces would be pulling out of Syria "very soon"; he even froze reconstruction funding for the country. The president was eventually persuaded to change course by his National Security Council.
The conditions Bolton is demanding are not the kind of things that can be completed overnight, says Emma Ashford, a foreign policy expert at the Cato Institute.
"Some of these things like protecting the Kurds, might be possible working with Turkey," says Ashford. A permanent defeat of ISIS, she tells Reason, would be a "very long-term commitment." Bolton has also said that U.S. troops would remain in Syria until Iranian forces had left, a goal Ashford described as "a generational effort."
All that said, statements from Bolton or Pompeo should not be read as definitive U.S. policy, but rather as what they want U.S. policy to be. Ashford notes that these pronouncements to the press may well be an attempt by two particularly hawkish members of the administration to publicly commit the ever-mercurial Trump to a course of action he instinctively opposes.
All this confusion only adds uncertainty to what is ultimately a wise decision to wind down U.S. involvement in Syria, says Ashford.
"Trump's instinct is absolutely right, withdrawing the troops makes sense," Ashford says. But "with U.S. policy so confused, it makes harder for every other actor in this conflict to figure out what they want to do." Onward and upward, airforce
|
|
|
Re: Trump Preparing to Withdraw Troops from Syria
[Re: airforce]
#169186
01/17/2019 12:50 PM
01/17/2019 12:50 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,912
Tulsa
airforce
OP
Administrator
|
OP
Administrator
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,912
Tulsa
|
Sen. Rand paul has never been prouder of President Trump. The White House has confirmed that withdrawal from Syria is still going on, despite the many people in Congress - and his own administration - who are against it. Onward and upward, airforce
|
|
|
Re: Trump Preparing to Withdraw Troops from Syria
[Re: airforce]
#169333
02/01/2019 01:39 PM
02/01/2019 01:39 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,912
Tulsa
airforce
OP
Administrator
|
OP
Administrator
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,912
Tulsa
|
The Senate has voted to condemn President Trump for withdrawing troops from Syria and Afghanistan. I guess I'll leave the commentary to Rep. Justin Amash (R - Mich): What an embarrassing move for the Senate—condemning "the precipitous withdrawal" from one war that is the longest in U.S. history and another war that Congress never authorized. It doesn't get much more pathetic. Do your jobs and vote *for* war if that's what you want. https://t.co/qPV9qxEFL0 — Justin Amash (@justinamash) February 1, 2019 Onward and upward, airforce
|
|
|
Re: Trump Preparing to Withdraw Troops from Syria
[Re: airforce]
#169361
02/05/2019 04:42 PM
02/05/2019 04:42 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,912
Tulsa
airforce
OP
Administrator
|
OP
Administrator
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,912
Tulsa
|
Sigh. Sometime this afternoon, the Senate will pass a bipartisan bill that condemns Trump for his plans to pull out of Syria. The bill is S.1, introduced by Marco Rubio, and it will likely have overwhelming support. Today, the Senate is expected to pass a major piece of foreign policy legislation that awards billions in military assistance to our allies in the Middle East, imposes new sanctions on rivals, and condemns President Donald Trump's plans to start pulling troops out of the region.
Last night, the Senate voted 72-24 to end debate on the Strengthening America's Security in the Middle East Act of 2019 or simply S.1, and move it to the Senate floor for a final vote.
The bill, originally introduced by Sen. Marco Rubio (R–Fla.), is a grab bag of Middle East-related policies, including stepped-up sanctions on the Syrian government, authorization for $38 billion in military assistance to Israel, and federal authorization for states and localities to refuse to contract with businesses that boycott Israel.
There is wide bipartisan support for S.1, as demonstrated by yesterday's lopsided vote to advance the bill. Critics include liberal Democrats, and the libertarian-leaning Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.), who took particular issue with the language condemning Trump's plans for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan and Syria.
"I'm tired of America always doing everybody else's fighting. I'm tired of America always paying for everybody else's war," said Paul in an impassioned floor speech yesterday. "What is the one thing that brings Republicans and Democrats together? War! They love it. The more the better," said the visibly exasperated Paul.
The Kentucky senator suggested that the Senate strip out S. 1's condemnation of the troop withdrawals and replace it with a resolution lauding the president's decision to bring military personnel home.
In addition to the anti-withdrawal language, the bill also makes good on a 2016 Obama administration promise to provide Israel with $38 billion in military assistance and missile defense funding over the next 10 years.
This money is "the largest single pledge of military assistance ever and a reiteration of the seven-decade, unshakeable, bipartisan commitment of the United States to Israel's security," reads the text of the bill.
Versions of this military assistance were passed by both the House and Senate during the last Congress, but had been blocked in the Senate by Paul, who demanded that any increase in foreign aid to Israel be offset by ending financial support to other foreign governments, including Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Paul introduced an amendment to that effect yesterday, which was rejected.
Also included in S.B. 1 were enhanced sanctions against the Syrian government and those doing business with it. The bill gives the president the authority to sanction any foreign person who "provides significant financial, material, or technological support," to the Syrian government, senior Syrian government officials, or the country's oil and gas sector.
Selling military aircraft parts to the country is expressly forbidden as well, as is providing construction or engineering services to the Syrian government.
Also incorporated into S.1 is legislation that gives a federal green light for states and localities to refuse to contract with businesses that boycott Israel.
Laws and executive orders forbidding local and state governments from contracting with companies that participate in the movement to boycott, divest, and sanction (BDS) Israel have passed everywhere from New York to Texas, much to the chagrin of free speech advocates. The ACLU, for example, is currently suing Texas over its anti-BDS law.
Aside from its domestically controversial anti-BDS provisions, S. 1 is largely a continuation of long-running U.S. policy towards the Middle East, says Emma Ashford, a foreign policy scholar at the Cato Institute.
"The bill itself is largely status quo. It maintains an active U.S. military presence in the region, and bolsters funding for allies," Ashford tells Reason, saying that it "does nothing to change or alter America's Middle East strategy."
Significant sanctions have been in place against the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria for years now, she notes. There's obviously nothing new about military assistance to Israel.
Still, says Ashford, there is some specific causes for concern in the bill.
The new Syrian sanctions could end up penalizing organizations trying to aid in reconstruction efforts in the country. The Senate's condemnation of the president's decision to pull troops out of a conflict that was never authorized by Congress to begin with, while non-binding, is nevertheless "another step towards abdicating their responsibilities on questions of war and peace," says Ashford.
In short, while the bill that the Senate will likely pass today does not do much to escalate America's role in the Middle East, it also does absolutely nothing to scale it back. That alone makes it a major disappointment for critics of our seemingly endless involvement in the region.
The Senate is expected to vote on S.1 sometime this afternoon, after which it will go to the House for a vote. Onward and upward, airforce
|
|
|
|
|
![[Linked Image]](https://i.imgur.com/MgtaUSd.png)