Was the American Decision to Abandon the Kurds a Surprise?

T. Belman. Just as I have been saying, the US and Russia have been working to find a solution to the “Kurdish problem” for at least a year and they appear to have found one via “Decentralized Democratic Syria” instead of a federal solution. The Kurds had no objection to cutting a deal with Syria and Russia so long as they were protected from the Turks and retained their ethnic identity.

All this was agreed to before Trump announced his withdrawal. A few days later everything was resolved between all parties.

By Col. (ret.) Dr. Jacques Neriah, JCPA

Was the American Decision to Abandon the Kurds a Surprise?
U.S. Forces’ ammunition loaded onto an American C-130 at the Kobani Landing Zone, Syria, Oct. 21, 2019. (U.S. Army Reserve photo by Staff Sgt. Joshua Hammock)1

  • The withdrawal of American troops ordered by President Donald Trump from Kurdish-held territories in northeastern Syria was no surprise to the Kurds.
  • The Kurds were deeply concerned by Turkish President Erdogan’s declarations that he intended to resettle the three million Syrian refugees currently dwelling in Turkey in the territories “liberated” by the Turkish army. His vow could mean only one thing to the Kurds: a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing.
  • Therefore, to ensure Kurdish survival as a nation and as a political power in the reconstruction of the future Syrian state in the aftermath of the civil war, the only logical alternative open to the Kurds was to reach an agreement with the Bashar Assad regime.
  • Trump’s decision to abandon the Kurds has reshaped the Middle East, politically and geographically, with profound negative implications on America’s allies in the region.

Map situation report, October 23, 2019

Map situation report, October 23, 2019, Islamic World News2

The withdrawal of American troops ordered by President Donald Trump from Kurdish-held territories in northeastern Syria was no surprise to the Kurds. The Kurds had been expecting this move since mid-summer 2019 and were preparing their options in case of such a prospect. The only surprise came from the timing of Trump’s announcement.

According to sources close to the Syrian opposition, the Syrian-Kurds prepared themselves based on their conviction that Turkey’s goal was to take over the Kurdish-held territories along its southern border under the pretext of combating and eradicating terrorism. Turkey further sought to declare the Syrian city of Aleppo as the capital and headquarters of the Free Syrian Army, a Turkish proxy armed, financed, and trained by Turkey.3

Moreover, the Kurds were deeply concerned by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdo?an’s declarations that he intended to resettle the three million Syrian refugees currently dwelling in Turkey in the territories “liberated” by the Turkish army. His vow could mean only one thing to the Kurds: a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing.

The entire Kurdish population in Syria is estimated at 27–3.5 million located mainly in the big cities, with a minority residing in towns and villages bordering Turkey, such as Afrin, Kobani, and Manbij. An influx of almost three million refugees (Arab Sunnis) with no connection at all to the Kurdish ethnicity would mean the disappearance of the Kurdish majority in the areas bordering Turkey (which definitely is a high Turkish interest). The zone would disconnect the Syrian Kurds from their Kurdish “brothers” in Turkey and transform the border belt into a Turkish security buffer, including a “no-fly zone,” heralded by the Turks.

The writing was on the wall: considering the complexity of U.S.-Turkish relations, U.S. interests in its NATO ally, U.S. bases in Turkey, American indifference to the collapse of the Kurdish autonomy in Iraq in 2017, and multiple American declarations about a possible withdrawal from the area “after defeating ISIS,” the Kurds could have easily concluded that the Americans might consider them as an unneeded ally. One day, the United States could abandon them to open confrontations with the Turks, the remnants of the Islamic State, and the recovered Syrian regime.

Therefore, to ensure Kurdish survival as a nation and as a political power in the reconstruction of the future Syrian state after the civil war, the only logical alternative open to the Kurds was to reach an agreement with the Bashar Assad regime. The deal was needed to preserve the special status of the Kurdish territories, which represent almost 30 percent of Syria, since the region was abandoned by the retreating Syrian regime forces in 2012.  In the aftermath, the territories were declared to be under self-rule and operated as an independent federal state.

The February 2019 Turkish military operation nicknamed “Olive Branch,” supported by units of the Syrian Free Army, targeted the town of Afrin, a Kurdish-populated town in the northwestern part of Syria bordering Turkey. According to Kurdish sources, the operation had American and Russian acquiescence. The action convinced the Kurds and the Syrian regime that it was time to mend fences and counter the Turkish threat. In fact, during the operation, the Kurdish units positioned in the eastern parts of Aleppo handed over their positions to the forces of the Syrian regime for the first time since the beginning of the conflict.4

Although contact had been initiated in the past between representatives of the Kurds and the Syrian regime and meetings had been taking place in Qamishli and Damascus, these meetings never resulted in a solution between the parties. The situation changed in mid-2019. The Kurds initiated contact with the Assad regime, and five months later, the first publicized meeting took place in Damascus on July 26, 2019, between a Kurdish delegation composed of the political wing of the Syrian Democratic Forces.  The meeting ended with a joint statement calling for the establishment of a joint committee “to elaborate the negotiations and the exchange of ideas and draw a road map that would ultimately lead to a democratic, decentralized Syria.”

Kurdish-Syrian Contacts in July 2019

For the Syrian regime, the stakes were very high since there was a real opportunity to recover territory without fighting the Kurds, who controlled almost 30 percent of the Syrian territory. With the knowledge that the United States, Russia, and Turkey were following the situation very carefully, the two sides convened to discuss the future of the autonomous areas held by the Kurds. Ideas were put on the table, to find a common ground between the Kurdish demands and the Syrian regime who had just recovered control of its southern areas that were lost at the beginning of the civil war to the rebels (the Yarmuk Basin, Quneitra, and the Suweyda districts).5

The task of finding a compromise had already been presented by the Kurds at the Third Conference of the Syrian Democratic Council in July 2018. The Kurds adopted a formula for a “Decentralized Democratic Syria” instead of a federal solution, a solution that a-priori was better received by Damascus. The Kurds predicted a positive outcome regarding negotiations on the future of the Kurdish areas bordering Turkey. According to Riad Darar, the co-chair of the Syrian Democratic Council, the United States was well aware of the negotiations with Damascus, but they did not interfere with the decision of the Council. The Russians, meanwhile, served on several occasions as hosts of the meetings, especially on their military base of Hmeimim.6

The fact that the Syrian regime troops, accompanied by Russian tanks, entered the Kurdish areas less than three days after the beginning of the Turkish offensive means that the Russians and Syrians prepared themselves logistically for such an event. They were ready in a matter of hours to deploy and counter the Turkish incursions, which means that the Kurds and Syrians under the auspices of Russia had finally, far from the limelight of the media, reached an agreement on a solution to the Kurdish question in Syria.

The Kurds definitely were not surprised by the American decision.

It is noteworthy that without Trump’s decision and the Turkish offensive, the Syrian regime would have spent considerable time and effort to recover the totality of its territory. Now it was delivered on a silver platter to Bashar Assad by the two foes who would have liked Assad to disappear from the public and political scene. In fact, Trump’s decision to abandon the Kurds has reshaped the Middle East, politically and geographically, with profound negative implications for America’s allies in the region.

* * *

Notes

October 24, 2019 | 38 Comments »

Leave a Reply

38 Comments / 38 Comments

  1. Adam Dalgliesh Said:

    I don’t think that Trump dislikes the Kurds, but he doesn’t feel that gratitude towards them is an adequate reason for the u.S. to keep troops in Syria indefinitely.

    Adam Dalgliesh Said:

    I don’t think that Trump dislikes the Kurds, but he doesn’t feel that gratitude towards them is an adequate reason for the u.S. to keep troops in Syria indefinitely. He fears that a small American force in Syria will be attacked by someone or other sooner or later and suffer heavy casualties. If that happens, he will suffer greater blame from Congress and the public than he is getting as a result of the pullout. Despite all the carping about his deserting the Kurds, he seems to think he would have had to threaten to go to war with Turkey to deter Erdogan from invading, and maybe actually go to war with Turkey if Erdogan called his bluff. And clearly, Congress would not fund or support such a war.

    I sure wish he had expressed gratitude to the Kurds for all their help and sacrifices to help with ISIS. He should have been more gracious to them in his words. But he could have said he had to prioritize the lives of the American servicemen in the region, and that he didn’t have the necessary political support at home to send in enough troops to protect the Kurds indefinitely from their numerous and ruthless enemies. It was the insensitivity of his remarks regarding his recent decisions about Syria that I found objectionable and offensive, not the actions themselves. The pressures on him from the Pentagon to preserve the Turkish alliance at all costs, the lack of Congessional and public support for an increase in U.S. troop strength in Syria or deeper U.S. involvement in combat operations there, the risk of possible direct U.S. Russian military confrontations in Syria, etc., all made it difficult for Trump to do more (or at least acknwledge that he was doing more) for the Kurds than he had already done. But he certainly could have expressed sympathy for their desire for a homland of their own, the preservation of their culture, etc., and of course thanked them for all their help in dealing with ISIS. He didn’t do this.. As is usual with Trump, his words get him into more trouble than his actions, which are usually sensible. But he rarely explains them skillfully.

    Trump only likes himself, his kids, those who kiss his ass and Xi, Kim, Erdogan, and Putin not necessarily in that order. Most of all they must flatter his ego and be yesmen. Everything in his world must be about Trump and revolve around Trump. Very tiring after 3 years.
    Adam Dalgliesh Said:

    he seems to think he would have had to threaten to go to war with Turkey to deter Erdogan from invading, and maybe actually go to war with Turkey if Erdogan called his bluff. And clearly, Congress would not fund or support such a war.

    Trump can bring Turkey and Erdogan down in a nanosecond without firing a shot… Most of Turkey’s military is dependent on the American supply chain. Most of his economy is $$$ linked. etc. Russia can’t help him even if he wanted to. Turkey can’t go to war against America for many reasons but above all else, they would lose big time. Syrian moves stupid and will come back to kick him and America in the ass.

    Erdogan is one of his best buds and this…… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Towers_Istanbul

    The Purge of John Bolton

    https://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/purge-john-bolton/?fbclid=IwAR3mI1c97SjyZHlt8I1MMw_HM6X63eWonlA_lFP-0RJEf_KTS-bbOO1obdM

  2. I don’t think that Trump dislikes the Kurds, but he doesn’t feel that gratitude towards them is an adequate reason for the u.S. to keep troops in Syria indefinitely. He fears that a small American force in Syria will be attacked by someone or other sooner or later and suffer heavy casualties. If that happens, he will suffer greater blame from Congress and the public than he is getting as a result of the pullout. Despite all the carping about his deserting the Kurds, he seems to think he would have had to threaten to go to war with Turkey to deter Erdogan from invading, and maybe actually go to war with Turkey if Erdogan called his bluff. And clearly, Congress would not fund or support such a war.

    I sure wish he had expressed gratitude to the Kurds for all their help and sacrifices to help with ISIS. He should have been more gracious to them in his words. But he could have said he had to prioritize the lives of the American servicemen in the region, and that he didn’t have the necessary political support at home to send in enough troops to protect the Kurds indefinitely from their numerous and ruthless enemies. It was the insensitivity of his remarks regarding his recent decisions about Syria that I found objectionable and offensive, not the actions themselves. The pressures on him from the Pentagon to preserve the Turkish alliance at all costs, the lack of Congessional and public support for an increase in U.S. troop strength in Syria or deeper U.S. involvement in combat operations there, the risk of possible direct U.S. Russian military confrontations in Syria, etc., all made it difficult for Trump to do more (or at least acknwledge that he was doing more) for the Kurds than he had already done. But he certainly could have expressed sympathy for their desire for a homland of their own, the preservation of their culture, etc., and of course thanked them for all their help in dealing with ISIS. He didn’t do this.. As is usual with Trump, his words get him into more trouble than his actions, which are usually sensible. But he rarely explains them skillfully.

  3. @ Ted Belman: I agree with your approach to this issue, Ted. At this point, we don’t know if things are going to get better or worse in Syria as a result of his recent decisions. What we do know is that Israel will be in deep doodoo if a Democrat wins the 2020 elections, or if the impeachment drive succeeds, while Israel has a loyal friend in the White House as long as Donald Trump is there. It therefore makes since for a pro-Israel Jew to give Trump the benefit of the doubt.

  4. @ Ted Belman:
    The PKK was NOT in Syria. That is Turkish propaganda. The YPG which are freedom fighters and are not tied into the PKK were the main group in Syria. By the way of the SDF 40% were Assyrian Christians and moderate Arab Muslims. There were also Iraqi Kurish Pershmaga becsides the YPG and other Kurds.

  5. @ Bear Klein: If I have a complaint with his policies, I should express it privately. If his policy, at first blush, looks ill conceived as the Syrian withdrawal appeared to be,I publically announced that I didn’t know enough and preferred to wait till events unfolded. In this case, the number of articles supporting his decision kept increasing vindicating my position. His policies should be viewed through the eves of an American rather than an Israeli..

    I think he is still supporting Kurdish safety but did not want to support the PKK ‘s (whom American considers to be a terrorist organization.) fight against the Turks.

    Thus he agreed to support the removal of the PKK from the 10 mile corridor and he got Russia ahnd Assad to partner with the Kurds.

    I don’t think I supported him blindly. I kept reserving my judgement until I knew more.. As it was I knew much more thanks to Mudar who is kept informed.

  6. @ Ted Belman:
    Ted, I am pro Trump and will vote for him again with the assumption that he will be on the GOP candidate. The Dems are all bad for the USA & Israel.

    If Trump makes an error such as in Syria (as viewed by many including many supporters, US military, his advisors) why would you blindly just say he is right when (if you do) think he has made an error. That is not supporting a politician but sort of hail to the King right or wrong.

    When one stretches themselves backwards to support a politician blindly that means in my view that their future arguments on subjects maybe suspect. Blind faith not intelligent reasoned support.

    Clearly you may disagree!

  7. yamit82 Said:

    Not so for those sycophant Trump groupies who defend Trump at all costs…..

    I am one of those who defends Trump at all costs. I prefer to be Trump’s advocate rather than his judge. From my point of view, Trump is good for both America and Israel. It is incumbant on his supporters to stand by him and protect him rather than to simply pile on.

    And chances are that Trump is right and his detractors wrong. So I stick with Trump.

  8. @ Bear Klein:

    I agree 100%. I pray Israel comprehends who and what we are dealing with in Trump. You don’t need tanks and armor to protect low yielding oil wells. You need them to fight conventional national armies. This might be the first phase of mission creep?? Israel should take advantage of election year and begin to make moves Trump will halt if he is elected to second term. His evangelical pro -Israel base wil not allow him to double-cross Israel in election runup.

  9. Trump just redeployed the USA military to guard oil areas. He simply does NOT care about the Kurds and said they have attacked the Turks. Talk about being upside down. Then Trump owns some very very large properties in Turkey. Did this have anything to do with his decision?

    In December 2015, Trump stated in a radio interview that he had a “conflict of interest” in dealing with Turkey because of his property, saying “I have a little conflict of interest, because I have a major, major building in Istanbul … It’s called Trump Towers. Two towers, instead of one. Not the usual one, it’s two. And I’ve gotten to know Turkey very well.

    The Kurds information helped kill Bagdadi the ISIS leader. Kurds act like an ally but they have no money. So Trump picked the Turks as his buddies, never mind they are Islamist and ally with, out and out terrorists. Turkey would never have attacked the USA soldiers.

  10. Adam Dalgliesh Said:

    If Trump had explained the troop redeployment as a necessity to protect American soldiers from possible attack on them by the Turks,

    What a load of BS!! If anyone believes Turkey would have attacked American troops needs to have his head examined… Erdogan may be many things but stupid is not one of them… Not so for those sycophant Trump groupies who defend Trump at all costs….. A little unemotional intellectual honesty is in order. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

  11. I think that Trump’s decision to withdraw the U.S. troops from the area where Turkey intended to invade was in and of itself reasonable. Many sources report that Erdogan was adamant in his intention to invade, and that the efforts of the U.S. Department of Defense, including generals who knew Erdogan, had failed. Erdogan more or less openly threatened to attack U.S. troops if they blocked his way, going so far as to publish the exact locations of American troops in Syria (highly classified information) in the Turkish press. And Turkish artillery did fire at least one salvo at American forces as they were preparing to evacuate the area, in order to speed them on their way. Realistically, what else could he do put reposition the soldiers? (some of whom, it turns out, are still in Syria)?

    The real “problem” with Trump’s actions has been his foolish explanations of them. He has adopted a pro-Turkish line, representing the Kurds as the bad guys in the Turkish-Kurdish war, and the Turks as the good guys. This is both innaccurate and unfair. He said that the Syrian Kurds had attacked the Turks fro m Syria, which is untrue. At least USG officials as well as the Syrian Kurds have stoutly denied it. He said that Turkey needed a defense corridor in Syria to protect them from Kurdish attacks, which is false. Turkey reconquered the all of the areas once held by the PKK Kurdish-Turkish rebels several months ago, which makes it unlikely that the Kurdish rebellion in Turkey made the Syria invasion as neccessary step to crush Kurdish resistence within Turkey.

    If Trump had explained the troop redeployment as a necessity to protect American soldiers from possible attack on them by the Turks, and issued a ringing denunciation of the Turkish invasion as inconsistent with Turkey’s treaty obligations to the U.S. and nATO. I doubt if his action would have raised a firestorm at home, at least not among his fellow Republicans. As always, it is not Trump’s actions as President, but his “trash talk” in public, that gets him into trouble.

  12. @ Bear Klein: Film clips of alleged atrocities on foxiness extremely brief and disconnected. No source given for who took the shots or when. Recently there have been a spate of exposes of news media showing filming clips purporting to show one thing when they actually show something that occurred at an unrelated time and place. For example, one media agency (CNN) showed a film clip of people engaging in target practice in a gun range in Tennessee, and claimed it showed Tiurkish troops firing at Kurds in northeast Syria!

    All we really know at this point is that Mr. Gerald Feierstein believes the film clips and whatever other reports he may have heard (not identified) are authentic.

  13. @ yamit82:

    I don’t see it exactly or s damning as you do. However at least the beginning of your comment is something I thoroughly agree with. Because I said almost exactly the same thing a few months ago. I used the line in the sand analogy. You know , when the Roman Senator drew a line in the sand when he met Antiochus in Egypt…

    In my opinion Ttump is not the impulsive character you believe. He is a very deep thinker, like a chess player, He makes quick-seeming decisions, because his thoughts work quickly, and….out of the usual box. His whole life has been a contest against time, in his building and I suppose, by now it’s completely part of his character.

    We can agree to partly agree and partly differ.

  14. Why did Trump move 28 troops and the US air-force out of the way for the Turks to slaughter Turks? What did the USA gain?

    Why did Trump go against the advice of every advisor he had past and present?

    We know what the Russians gained. What benefit was it to the USA to betray an ally?

  15. Jonathan Spyer on Fox News.

    Russia New Power Broker, Russia, Syria and Iran Big Winners in Syria with US leaving Kurds. Israel views this as a loss because this had been block of Iranian Land Bridge. Why Tanks for oil fields? Some oil fields actually bigger ones had been in Kurdish Zone.

    See Video:
    https://video.foxnews.com/v/6098113302001/?fbclid=IwAR2aEkloBvUVd06i3HuDie_kESuZPDG4

    By the way to commentators the USA have not sent the 1000 troops home they are only redeployed in the area plus the air-force gave up some of the air-space they were controlling. Russia is now in charge.

  16. @ yamit82: I disagree, Yamit, as you know. I have shown that Trump did give the Kurds a year’s notice as to what he was going to do. He announced the withdrawal last year, in 2018. A year notice is different from no notice at all. No one has produced a letter or even a record of an oral conversation with a senior American leader in which they promised the kurds permanent protection from their enemies.

    Several reports say that the U.S. has provided the Kurds with some heavy weapons, over the year, mainly artillery. The Kurds announced when the Turkish invasion began that they had moved all of their heavy weapons out of the area that the Turks announced they intended to occupy. That means that the Kurds do have some heavy weapons of some sort.

    The U.S. miliatary had been in constant communication with Trump before he announced the withdrawal. They disapproved of his decision to withdraw, but his Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs said in several press conferences that they were aware of what Trump had decided to do. He also gave Esper and several high-ranking American Generals time to talk with Erdogan and try to talk him out of his planned invasion, but failed. Only when they informed Trump of their failure to change Erdogan’s mind did he give the final order for the withdrawal of the u.S. troops, and give Erdogan the “green light” he had demanding for over a year.

    Trump has been very open for the past three years that he intends to withdraw U.S. forces from the countries where they have been in combat for a number of years, but without accomplishing the defeat of America’ enemies in those countries. He did his best to let everyone know that that was his policy. I think that the policy is very flawed. But I respect the fact that Trump has been very up front about it. I find it difficult to believe that the Kurds had received assurances from Trump or other senior U.S. officials that U.S aid to them would continue indefinitely.

  17. @ Edgar G.: “You said US had only 28 soldiers.”

    That is what Trump and those who are spinning his betrayal of the Kurds would have believe. First they now refused to use its air power which which prior to ditching the Kurds and opening their enclave to ethnic cleansing owned the air space. Also there were about a 1000 US Troops in the area including the 28 which have been redeployed in the area.

    In addition backing up the US Troops were French and British Special Forces. This plus the infantry and artillery of the Kurds (110,000 soldiers. The USA also had artillery it used.

    When the US pulled out so did the French and Brits.

    Trump simply allowed Erodgan to run over the USA allies. If Trump had said to Erodgan in the phone call you are not coming in we own the air. Erodgan would have backed off. That is the view of many including Turks and General Jack Keane plus other US military experts. I also believe this based on Erdogan’s past actions.

    Sounds like it is okay with you. Not to me.

  18. @ Edgar G.:
    Wrong total spin and BS on the part of Trump…. Troops have been redeployed to either Southern Syria, Iraq, or other ME regional American bases. The numbers of troops he withdrew are irrelevant. They represented the USA. Any attack against them should draw massive military and economic response against those who attacked and harmed American troops. It’s known as a deterrent. America has 28,000 troops in S-Korea on the DMZ. N-Korea has 1.5 million troops and tens of thousands of heavy artillery & Tanks aimed at all of S-Korea but especially in the DMZ zone and American Troops. There have been no invasions or serious attacks against S-Korea since the war because American troops are stationed there but if N-Korea did attack they would wipe out all 28000 Americans stationed there before America could react to blunt such an attack. If people and Herr Trump don’t understand this basic principle then he is obtuse if not stupid as are those who blindly support his inane knee jerk reactions to Tin-pot Caliph Islamist dictator Erdogan… Trump caved, betrayed a fighting ally and rewarded obvious enemies…Turkey, Russia, Syria, Iran. I see no upside to his stupidity… Campaign promises? Screw reality he made a campaign pledge Huh? Who does Trump call his closest foreign friends? Xi, Putin, Kim, Erdogan. Hmmm, what’s wrong with that picture? He liked BB too until he proved to be a weak liability and threw him under the bus as disposable old junk… Same with his staff all hired and fired after for the most part brief stays. He makes lousy choices for hires and positions then blames them for his own failures. I have never heard Trump take personal responsibility for any failure or misstep and calculation. They say “old dogs can’t learn new tricks” and I don’t think Trump is capable of learning. To do that you must first admit you were wrong and take responsibility…

  19. @ Edgar G.:

    While Trump has done many things right and has numerous successes in his three years he also has many mostly self-inflicted failures or fuck-ups. Praise and give credit for his successes but don’t paper over his screw-ups. When I see his policies falling in line and in lockstep with his political mentors like (Rand Paul, Tucker Carlson, and Lou Dobbs) I am very concerned for the future of America and wonder if Trump should be replaced? Rhetorical musing on my part. The only thing IMO worse than far-left ideologues is ideological isolationists and libertarians.

  20. Adam Dalgliesh Said:

    The U.S. never promised the Kurds permanent protection from their enemies. At least it provided them with some weapons and military training, which they may be able to use to resist the Turkish aggressors.

    That’s a lie and Trumpian Spin. Primitive and basic weapons given to the Kurds may have been sufficient to fight ISIS but not a modern military that has planes, tanks, heavy artillery, etc. Whatever one may think of the Kurds they deserved at least an advanced heads-up max amt of coordination of American troop withdrawal and a clear idea of where they stood and what if anything to expect from Trump after the fact of American troops withdrawal. The least they might expect is American protection in the air (No Fly Zone). Looks very bad for Trump WRT his decision making or lack of. There was no consultation with the appropriate parties, no input from advisers, none from the Pentagon, none from commanders in the region and units on the ground. Certainly none with the Kurds. His quick impulsive ad-hoc move helped Assad, Turkey, Russia, and Iran. He fucked the Kurds (again) and Israel. China, NOKO, Russia and Iran are taking notes from Erdogan how to play and roll over Trump in the future and every ally and potential ally of America, especially Israel must adjust their views, positions, and alliances in the future. Trump and America have shown to be unreliable allies and everything coming out of Trump and his staunchest acolytes are mostly political spin vs the reality. If his moves prove to be a disaster after the fact it will all be laid on Trump’s door and could cost him the election.

    What Israel and the Kurds have learned is “It’s better to be Herod’s pig than his sons”

  21. @ Bear Klein:

    Are not the “troops” you mention ust a handful, ….I’ve heard 28, and as many as 50. .Also a couple of hundred somewhere else. The rest have been withdrawn to home graduslly over the past 6 months. Or so I’ve read.

  22. @ Bear Klein:

    Trump says very many things many times over….that is the fate of a politician, always on a platform…He speaks to many different audiences and at a multitude of locations, and he has only so many things that he wants to talk about. So naturally he says the same thing many times. You read it or hear it many times but each time it’s to a different group of listeners. With all his problems he needs to keep “blowing his own trumpet”., because otherwise, he gets no credit.

  23. @ Bear Klein:

    You’re sort of “pin-pricking”….. We have no idea what Trump really arranged with the Kurds or anyone else. He supplied them with plenty of money and heavy weaponry. At that time their goals were similar. What his commanders are reported to have said is also hearsay and would not stand in a court of law. They can’t be regarded as committing Trump to their attitudes. The Kurds, including their 11,000 regrettable deaths, had their own reasons for fighting, and it was not just to “help” the Americans. Americans need no help. Thy have a strategic concept for the whole large area and this is only a small part of it.

    It has been reliably reported that Trump declared many times , beginning over a year ago, that they would not be staying past a specific time, which he actually passed over.. But the writing was on the wall, and it was clear he was to be drawn into committing himself to a never-ending conflict in which the US has no very deep interest. Their interest was concluded when the ISIS forces were heavily defeated time after time, and their “caliphate” truncated to nothing. They now likely will move
    into a guerrilla/terrorist style, as they are basically outlaws.

    I answered Bear as soon as I saw it. Now, on going back up to see other posts , I find that my own wonderful composition nearly exactly mirrors yours. Please excuse me, no plagiarism was intended.

  24. Whatever else may be said about the U.S. withdrawal from northeast Syria and the “green light” he gave for the Turkish occupation of the area, it came as no surprise to anyone. Trump had announced his decision more than a year ago. He delayed executing it for a year because of Congressional and Defense department objections. But everyone knew he would implement the withdrawal eventually.

    The U.S. never promised the Kurds permanent protection from their enemies. At least it provided them with some weapons and military training, which they may be able to use to resist the Turkish aggressors.

  25. @ Ted Belman</b Said:

    When Trump says ISIS, he means the caliphate.

    Not so he, when pressed, he differentiates between the two. Pls stop making excuses for him when he screws up, it is not helpful to his supporters nor Trump himself.

  26. Trump Said That ISIS Has Been Defeated. Local Forces in Syria and Iraq Tell Us Otherwise

    Special report from Syrian-Iraq border: ‘For sure, the Islamic State will take this opportunity to come back,’ warns one Kurdish fighter, while U.S. coalition commander says: ‘The mission against ISIS has been undermined’

    FAYSH KHABUR, Iraq — The Iraqi-Syrian border is not visible to the naked eye on this moonless night, but the locals don’t see it as a perimeter anymore anyway. “It is no longer a border but a front line,” says an Iraqi-Kurdish fighter, Maj. Sardar Saleh, from the Peshmerga military forces.

    Sitting in his office in northwestern Iraq, Saleh and his men are chain-smoking, their eyes locked on the TV news channels streaming images from neighboring Syria. Images of wounded Kurds and refugees have been dominating their screens since the beginning of the Turkish military offensive against Syrian Kurdish forces on October 9.

    But Saleh does not fear the Turks. The chaos across the border has resurrected the specter of another enemy: the Islamic State. Thousands of jihadists are currently being detained in Kurdish Syria, and there are regular reports of prison breaks, with Kurdish authorities and Ankara accusing each other of being responsible for the escapes.

    >> On the ground in Syria: Desperate Kurds see only enemies around them. A special report from Qamishli, Syria ? Fleeing Kurds vow never to return to Syria as NGOs warn of looming humanitarian disaster

    Though Trump said Wednesday that “100%” of ISIS had been defeated, forces on the ground suggest otherwise. An August report by the Pentagon estimates that ISIS is “resurging” in Syria and has as many as 18,000 militants there and in Iraq. And although its threat had dissipated in recent times, it has not disappeared. On October 11, the group claimed responsibility for a car bomb attack on a popular restaurant in the Syrian-Kurdish city of Qamishli, which killed at least three civilians.

    Some 8,000 Syrian Kurdish refugees have clandestinely crossed the border through rocky roads to find refuge in Iraqi Kurdistan since the start of the Turkish offensive, according to aid groups. Now on high alert, the Peshmerga fear ISIS members infiltrating through the same crossing points, or further south in Iraq’s Rabia region.

    The crisis in northern Syria, Peshmerga fighters say, raises the prospect of an Islamic State resurgence in both countries. That view is seemingly mirrored by Col. Myles B. Caggins III, a spokesperson for the U.S.-led Operation Inherent Resolve against the terror organization. He tells Haaretz that “the coalition’s mission against ISIS has been undermined because of the [Turkish] incursion.” Although he adds that “our fight against ISIS continues,” those plans were thrown into confusion Tuesday when Iraq’s military said the 1,000 U.S. troops looking to gather in neighboring Western Iraq did not have permission to be stationed there.

  27. Military Commanders told the Kurds over and over the USA would not abandon them. Yet that did not happen. That is called betrayal of a promise for those who fought along side the USA and lost 11,000 soldiers. The Kurds unlike the Saudis are poor so expendable in a world were money comes first and foremost. The oil fields are still being guarded.

    Fox News national security correspondent Jennifer Griffin, 50, two weeks ago declared a war of sorts on President Donald Trump, when she began to respond in a distinctly un-Fox News like manner to his tweets on US troops withdrawal from northeastern Syria, including his recent declaration: “We never gave a commitment to the Kurds.

    Griffin tweeted in response: “Not true, according to a former top senior military adviser to President Trump, ‘We told them over and over, We are your friends. We will never leave you.’”

    Reporting on the betrayal may cost her job. Honest reporting apparently is also a victim here. She is NOT anti-Trump but doing her job to some this is not acceptable.