TrumpThrows Kurds Under the Bus After They Take on IS

[Steve James]

If he were worried about casualties, he wouldn't have sent them. I also remember how people here said about the Khan's son who was killed: it was his job.

Anyway, the victory dance is great for rallies. The reality is that it was a loss. I saw a clip of the rally last night. He said "Ya gotta let them fight sometimes. Then they see how bad it is.". Well, they've been fighting for a long time and know much better than him. And, btw, the fighting hasn't stopped. Turkey has just given the Kurds 5 days to leave or be slaughtered.

Besides, there are not going to be sanctions and Turkey will get what it wanted. Yep, it's a Trumpian victory, without losing a single person. Don't bother to read the comments of retired generals and admirals.

[windwalker]

In the last Administration those generals who did not agree with the president Obama s views were all dismissed from their post.

President Barack Obama fired General James Mattis, the head of Central Command, without even calling the general to let him know he was being replaced.

One of the same generals now retired commenting about this administration.

.Supporters of President Donald Trump chanted “Bring them home!” and “USA!” after he spoke about his foreign policy views.

“American combat troops should not be at the center of ancient sectarian conflicts all over the world; bring our soldiers back home!” he said.

Agree, with the policy.
much better than what was called " regime change"
Implemented by the last two administrations.

[Steve James]

The soldiers weren't brought home. In fact, more were deployed. Whataboutisms don't work.

[windwalker]

The soldiers weren't brought home. In fact, more were deployed. Whataboutisms don't work.

Says the king of "whataboutisms"
Got it.


Troops are relined as needed.

Some may not grasp the overall policy.
goal of not getting the u.s. involved anymore than it already is.

All the things suggested have been tried. Apparently there is no real way to stop another NATO member from protecting its borders, short of direct action, never done before, or sanctions which in this case we're not used.

The prudent thing would have been and was done to remove troops from harms way supporting a function that did not serve a clear policy objective.

Generals serve the commander and chief whoever it may be. If there's a conflict between their view and Administration policies they're asked to leave, or they resign.

The real question is whether the policies they may disagree with are ones related to political ideology or combative ability.

Generals who could not comment while in uniform often feel free to do so while out. There are other retired generals that support the policies being implemented now.

Often they don't get the same play as what they say does not support the narrative.



There seem to be factions within both parties that want and like war. They seem to like it until they are the ones having to make the decision or sending their kids to implement it.

[Ian C. Kuzushi]

2+2=5.

I learned it real good on the internet!

[Steve James]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_sG7N7pJ6g

[GrahamB]

THIS:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMrL2LGzJuQ

"Who gives a shit?"

Exactly.

[Steve James]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com ... f=1&nofb=1

[windwalker]

Regarding the retired general.


It is interesting.

Of course those generals saying what the media wants to hear get a lot of play.

Knew people during that time who also had bad feet and we're not drafted.

What we called draft dodgers were either those who did not register or those who did register and left for Canada when their numbers were called.

I should mention I have a relative in Canada who left before his number was called. Still there. Oddly enough his number was not called before the war ended.

If one registered for the draft and was not called or had a deferrement we didn't call them draft dodgers.

CO, conscientious objectors also had a hard time. We had a medic who claimed that status in a infantry unit I was in, in the mid-70s just after the war.

Eventually he was moved to a hospital unit. Good duty but probably a killer career move.

Some crazy times with many veterans from the war in the units, offcers, ncos and enlisted.

At that time a person could stay pretty much at what ever rank they made and retired from service. The policy was later changed to up or out.

[Ian C. Kuzushi]

Of course those generals saying what the media wants to hear get a lot of play.

This is an interesting talking point that I have been hearing for the past decade or more. Of course, Fox News is the most watched and most popular news network in the US and has been for 15 years. So, what do you really mean? And, is it accurate?

[windwalker]

I also remember how people here said about the Khan's son who was killed: it was his job.

Having been an NCOIC of funeral details
For anyone who loses a son or daughter in service of country it's very hard. More so if the objectives are not clear.

Units have survivability ratings, and expected casualty ratings. Those in the units all know what the chances are and what the outcomes could be. Why anyone continues to act knowing this, is a personal choice, but for those of us in the units we all know the risks and dangers.

An outlook that may not make sense or sound callous to those not in the military.

[Steve James]

Yeah, the generals who actually served in combat and led men and women in combat are always appreciated by the media. Other generals, not so much.

If you notice, Trump supporters shift their views on the people who have served as whimsically as he does. They call it leadership; it's really followshit. Trump screwed the Kurds in the ass and didn't use vaseline or give a reach around. Yes, no Americans were killed in the process. If no Kurds are saved, that's just unfortunate for them. Trump doesn't give a shit, obviously.

Well, one thing. At least it's honest. It's better, imo, to admit that he's abandoned the Kurds aopt to claiming that he's not. I mean, it's like saying that there was no quid pro quo; and then later saying it's done all the time; what's wrong with it. We've actually been done this rhetorical road before, haven't we? It's like saying that the next G8 (?) meeting will be held at his resort because it's convenient.

[windwalker]

.It's like saying that the next G8 (?) meeting will be held at his resort because it's convenient.

And cheaper.

If it wasn't so, the argument would be made that it should not be held there

[Steve James]

Cheaper than Mar a Lago or the White House? Is he paying or something? Though, cheap may be the right word. Reports are that Doral was bedbug infested. That'd probably get a rate reduction for a room. Then again, wasn't Doral one of the places cited for using undocumented laborers? And, wasn't Doral where that video of the prez committing mass murder shown? Yep, seems like the right spot.

[Michael]