Re: TrumpThrows Kurds Under the Bus After They Take on IS
Posted: Wed Oct 09, 2019 9:04 pm
Was Erdogan making an ultimatum? EIther let us attack the Kurds or we will attack your (NATO) troops?
Putting troops in with the Kurds annoyed the Turks from the start. However, It was considered worthwhile in order to combat IS in Syria. What changed now for this sudden tactical decision to be made? The Pentagon is/was well aware of troop dispositions --that existed before this administration. Did they agree with this in terms of strategy or tactics? If this was merely his whim, then I don't trust it.
Anyway, Trump promises to destroy the Turkish economy if he thinks they act inappropriately. Does that mean he expects them to do something he thinks is wrong? Well, the attacks on the Kurds (including civilians) have begun. Are we going to have another trade war? How does he think the Turks will respond? Will they demand that US troops leave? Yep, Erdogan nows that if he doesn't attack US troops, they can't fire first. Well, they "Could," but they'd be breaking loads of international rules and essentially be declaring war.
Though, I think it'd be worthwhile in terms of American prestige and leadership for him to protect the Kurds. I don't think it's like policing the world. It's helping a proven friend. Moreover, unpleasant as the situation is, and a military resolution might be, this is a situation or Trump's making. Turkey wasn't going to attack embedded US troops anywhere.
Anyway, another alternative that is not forthcoming is a simple admission like "it was my mistake." If he just blames history, etc., then it just goes back to the underlying question of leadership. One reason you don't leave your friends out to dry is that it tells everyone on the team that nobody really has their back. If you treat your friends that way, you'll treat everyone that way. I dunno. I'm totally idealistic about that team stuff. I
Putting troops in with the Kurds annoyed the Turks from the start. However, It was considered worthwhile in order to combat IS in Syria. What changed now for this sudden tactical decision to be made? The Pentagon is/was well aware of troop dispositions --that existed before this administration. Did they agree with this in terms of strategy or tactics? If this was merely his whim, then I don't trust it.
Anyway, Trump promises to destroy the Turkish economy if he thinks they act inappropriately. Does that mean he expects them to do something he thinks is wrong? Well, the attacks on the Kurds (including civilians) have begun. Are we going to have another trade war? How does he think the Turks will respond? Will they demand that US troops leave? Yep, Erdogan nows that if he doesn't attack US troops, they can't fire first. Well, they "Could," but they'd be breaking loads of international rules and essentially be declaring war.
Though, I think it'd be worthwhile in terms of American prestige and leadership for him to protect the Kurds. I don't think it's like policing the world. It's helping a proven friend. Moreover, unpleasant as the situation is, and a military resolution might be, this is a situation or Trump's making. Turkey wasn't going to attack embedded US troops anywhere.
Anyway, another alternative that is not forthcoming is a simple admission like "it was my mistake." If he just blames history, etc., then it just goes back to the underlying question of leadership. One reason you don't leave your friends out to dry is that it tells everyone on the team that nobody really has their back. If you treat your friends that way, you'll treat everyone that way. I dunno. I'm totally idealistic about that team stuff. I