Politics All Things Trump

[Musashi]

This guy has 0 understanding about the consequences of his decisions at geostrategical. Not even a risk lite level....

The Turks are not a kind of people who will take it lightly. Anyway, Putin will love his tweet.

 

[UNiOnJaCk]

This guy has 0 understanding about the consequences of his decisions at geostrategical. Not even a risk lite level....

Ehh, I mean, I sort of accept that the US isn't trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak, in terms of its relationship with Turkey - or, at least, the US doesn't want to appear responsible for driving them away - but this policy is just illiterate on so many levels, strategically and ethically. In certain respects, it smacks of the geostrategic shafting received by Poland at the start of the Second World War.

Even if we accept that the US is trying to save face in light of rapidly deteriorating relations with Turkey, there must be some better form of balance between appeasing Erdogan's belligerence (though I suppose there are some legitimate security concerns too) and allowing the Kurds to determine their own, hard fought for future?

Not only will Trump's exercise further degrade regional, perhaps even global, trust in the US at a point when it is already pretty much at an all time low, but it also will expose the free world to greater risk from terrorism and will introduce renewed conflict to what is perhaps one of the only semi-stable provinces in the Syrian region at the moment.

From an ethical point of view, it also entails shafting a people who have sacrificed much to our direct benefit and who have proven themselves to be one of the only reliable, moderate partners (relatively speaking) to be found in a region notorious for lacking both, aforementioned qualities. Hell, the Kurds have done a better job than many of our official "friends" in the Middle East. The very least owed to them is a little loyalty I should wager.

 

[Ivan le Fou]

Well, one must ask oneself: what is the mission carried out by the US in Syria?

Is it counter terrorism? Is it nation building? Because these are two different missions that are, each, carried out in different ways. You either do one, or the other, but not both. Otherwise you end up with another Afghanistan, but in this case with even more actors.
Which is why the US abandoned the nation-building thing in Afghanistan (well, also because the Afghan central government is corrupted beyond repair) to focus on anti-terror operations.

As to "Trump knowing 0 about what he is doing, the consequences and such"... Well... for starter he probably knows more about what is happening here than some random weekend geopolitician. He may be a buffoon, a clown, a stupid orange baby, and so on, but he still has access to much more intel and information than anybody here. Does one agree with his move or not, that's another question; but an irrelevant one. Unless you are part of the decision making system and you opinion can weigh in. But I doubt anybody here can claim such a thing.

And concerning the consequences? Hypothesis. If there is one thing the recent conflicts carried out in the Middle East, by Western countries among others, have taught us is that: the "consequences" are merely hypothesis based on wild guesses. There is no way to predict what the consequences will be. How will the region react? Who knows? Maybe it will, maybe it won't. Is it likely to react? Or not? Who knows.
Will the Kurd start (it would be about time though, considering the amount of times they got back-stabbed and/or thrown under the bus by the US) regarding the US with suspicion? Probably. But as far as I know, no pledges, contracts, or anything got signed with them. Supporting them as a mean to an end against ISIS/Daesh/etc...? Yes. But nowhere and never has it been said, implied, promised that it would be in exchange of anything.

So... yeah.

 

[riderboy]

B: if somebody is a stable genius, his wisdom is supposed to be great and unmatched.

Compared to the people the Democrats are running he certainly does have great and unmatched wisdom. You guys are free to send your boys there to die if you like, but Trump's comments about "ridiculous and endless wars" are what he campaigned on, even though I know for the PKK it totally sucks. I realize Trump can do nothing right for some of you, but getting between a Turkish PKK conflict really wouldn't play well here.

 

[colin traveller]

ISIS are Sunni ......

Who are mercs hired / funded by the KSA /Qatar /Kuwait / UAE to expand the sunni domain in Syria .. then when established onto Iran ...

Biggest Mystery of all is .. Why did they not invade Israel ??? What with all the nonsense in the region Instead they soley concentrated in Syria .. .and portions of Iraq .. I guess they would have got there sandys kicked ..

 

[Ivan le Fou]

ISIS are Sunni ......

Who are mercs hired / funded by the KSA /Qatar /Kuwait / UAE to expand the sunni domain in Syria .. then when established onto Iran ...

Biggest Mystery of all is .. Why did they not invade Israel ??? What with all the nonsense in the region Instead they soley concentrated in Syria .. .and portions of Iraq .. I guess they would have got there sandys kicked ..

Why would they invade Israel?

That being said... I would have loved to see that.

 

[Mordoror]

Well, one must ask oneself: what is the mission carried out by the US in Syria?

Is it counter terrorism? Is it nation building? Because these are two different missions that are, each, carried out in different ways. You either do one, or the other, but not both. Otherwise you end up with another Afghanistan, but in this case with even more actors.
Which is why the US abandoned the nation-building thing in Afghanistan (well, also because the Afghan central government is corrupted beyond repair) to focus on anti-terror operations.

As to "Trump knowing 0 about what he is doing, the consequences and such"... Well... for starter he probably knows more about what is happening here than some random weekend geopolitician. He may be a buffoon, a clown, a stupid orange baby, and so on, but he still has access to much more intel and information than anybody here. Does one agree with his move or not, that's another question; but an irrelevant one. Unless you are part of the decision making system and you opinion can weigh in. But I doubt anybody here can claim such a thing.

And concerning the consequences? Hypothesis. If there is one thing the recent conflicts carried out in the Middle East, by Western countries among others, have taught us is that: the "consequences" are merely hypothesis based on wild guesses. There is no way to predict what the consequences will be. How will the region react? Who knows? Maybe it will, maybe it won't. Is it likely to react? Or not? Who knows.
Will the Kurd start (it would be about time though, considering the amount of times they got back-stabbed and/or thrown under the bus by the US) regarding the US with suspicion? Probably. But as far as I know, no pledges, contracts, or anything got signed with them. Supporting them as a mean to an end against ISIS/Daesh/etc...? Yes. But nowhere and never has it been said, implied, promised that it would be in exchange of anything.

So... yeah.

Trump has indeed access to intel et al. Thing is that people has to be wired to understand the Intel reports presented, listen advisors and understand situations. He doesn't seem to be in that group. The stunt he is pulling now was already tried and aborted because his advisors convinced him to backpedal.
Now you should hear the yellings of foreign affairs and military advisors about his decision.
Let's sum it up :
Trump is a dogmatic guy with zero understanding/formation about international diplomacy and relationships. He is considering relationships between nations like trade deals (which they are not). He has no patience to read long reports or memos and everything has to be simplified for him. This not the way complex geostrategical situations can be solved.
What he is doing right now is hurting USA credibility at international level all way arounds, be it with the North Korea stunt, the trade wars, the ME /NE situation, the way he treats european allies etc etc
It is not for nothing that Japan and Germany (two of the most pro Atlantic countries) are looking for alternative counter weights
These are only a few examples

This Time Is Different

It is tempting to pin the degradation of U.S. foreign policy on Trump, but the erosion of American power predated him by a good long while.

www.foreignaffairs.com

The Erratic State of U.S. Foreign Policy Under Trump

U.S. foreign policy under Trump does not appear to have a consistent logic. Trump has promised to put "America First" in a variety of ways. At the same time, he has stocked his Cabinet with hawkish interventionists. While adopting a more unilateralist approach, Trump has neglected the...

www.worldpoliticsreview.com

PS : well, backpedaling again, the Pentagon just declared that they ARE NOT removing their troops from Syria
Trump is rolling on one side, the Foreign policy organs on another.....

 

[Mordoror]

Ehh, I mean, I sort of accept that the US isn't trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak, in terms of its relationship with Turkey - or, at least, the US doesn't want to appear responsible for driving them away - but this policy is just illiterate on so many levels, strategically and ethically. In certain respects, it smacks of the geostrategic shafting received by Poland at the start of the Second World War.

Even if we accept that the US is trying to save face in light of rapidly deteriorating relations with Turkey, there must be some better form of balance between appeasing Erdogan's belligerence (though I suppose there are some legitimate security concerns too) and allowing the Kurds to determine their own, hard fought for future?

Not only will Trump's exercise further degrade regional, perhaps even global, trust in the US at a point when it is already pretty much at an all time low, but it also will expose the free world to greater risk from terrorism and will introduce renewed conflict to what is perhaps one of the only semi-stable provinces in the Syrian region at the moment.

From an ethical point of view, it also entails shafting a people who have sacrificed much to our direct benefit and who have proven themselves to be one of the only reliable, moderate partners (relatively speaking) to be found in a region notorious for lacking both, aforementioned qualities. Hell, the Kurds have done a better job than many of our official "friends" in the Middle East. The very least owed to them is a little loyalty I should wager.

I don't even think it is a way to save the relationships with Turkey. I mean if it was the case, the last tweet which is sounding like a direct threat is counter productive at leat.
I rather see it as a way for Trump to do what he has promised : remove US troops from ME. That's all. He is, from the beginning, trying hard to fullfil his campaign promises and pander his voting base. And the Hell with geostrategical consequences.
Others will have to wipe the floor after him.

 

[Ivan le Fou]

Saying Trump is hurting the US credibility may be fair. As to define if his actions are more damaging to the US than his predecessors, this is not something that can be answered objectively, though the US reputation was already damaged way beyond repair before he even got elected.


They way he treats relations between nations is his way of doing things, and his unique approach. The more conventional ones have been tried by, again, his predecessors, and have not achieved any significant nor positive results. Up until the Trump administration got into office, the US were still waging two wars in Afghanistan, none of them being carried out efficiently and successfully because of their different approaches. Which are different now, since the US will be giving up on the nation-building endeavor to focus on anti-terror and counter-insurrection operations.
As for him having him having 0 patience, needing to have everything simplified as if explained to a toddler, etc... these are gratuitous attacks on character assassination that have little value and relevance. Trump bashing is fun, Orange man bad, we know. He is ridiculous, his voice is obnoxious, his air cut is ridiculous, his tan makes him look live a cheeto, he has small hands, and the such... but it does not achieve anything, nor does it really represent reality either.

Surely the way things are being carried may not be the prime and best example of "how to 101" in term of dealing with complex geostrategical situations. But it is still a better alternative than all the things that got presented by all the hawks either in his administrations or among the ranks of his opponents. That being said there is no proper way either. Academics are still trying to figure out the proper way to fight previous wars, the way they should have been waged or if they should have been waged to begin with.

Blaming Trump for all the bad things happening everywhere is, at best, deeply dishonnest and, possibly, out of touch with reality.


And here I am, defending Trump again...

 

[BravoZulu]

^^ Well put @Ivan le Fou

 

[Mordoror]

Saying Trump is hurting the US credibility may be fair. As to define if his actions are more damaging to the US than his predecessors, this is not something that can be answered objectively, though the US reputation was already damaged way beyond repair before he even got elected.


They way he treats relations between nations is his way of doing things, and his unique approach. The more conventional ones have been tried by, again, his predecessors, and have not achieved any significant nor positive results. Up until the Trump administration got into office, the US were still waging two wars in Afghanistan, none of them being carried out efficiently and successfully because of their different approaches. Which are different now, since the US will be giving up on the nation-building endeavor to focus on anti-terror and counter-insurrection operations.
As for him having him having 0 patience, needing to have everything simplified as if explained to a toddler, etc... these are gratuitous attacks on character assassination that have little value and relevance. Trump bashing is fun, Orange man bad, we know. He is ridiculous, his voice is obnoxious, his air cut is ridiculous, his tan makes him look live a cheeto, he has small hands, and the such... but it does not achieve anything, nor does it really represent reality either.

Surely the way things are being carried may not be the prime and best example of "how to 101" in term of dealing with complex geostrategical situations. But it is still a better alternative than all the things that got presented by all the hawks either in his administrations or among the ranks of his opponents. That being said there is no proper way either. Academics are still trying to figure out the proper way to fight previous wars, the way they should have been waged or if they should have been waged to begin with.

Blaming Trump for all the bad things happening everywhere is, at best, deeply dishonnest and, possibly, out of touch with reality.


And here I am, defending Trump again...

I cannot say i disagree completely with what you wrote. However, there is hurting .... and ... hurting
If you prefer, he is undermining confidence of a bunch of allies and tat is not something that can be gained rapidly again. Confidence is something that has to be build on the long term and is easy to lose.
So yes, before Trump, US credibility was already hurt (GW mainly) but confidence was still somewhat here. What we see is not confidence anymore but defiance and this is not sounding good.

As for his character, maybe it is gratuitous bashing, maybe it is not. It is not a free criticism to say that several advisors observed that he couldn't focus on complex tasks and situations, the ones that emerge regularly when you involve yourself in international policy, and furthermore when you are the main superpower in charge. And yes, he is not really helped by some hawks in his administration.

The result is however what i described above. Dichotomy in speeches between POTUS and various agencies (Pentagon and Department of Foreign Affairs) is generating a white noise that doesn't help to have a clear speech and position. Which, in return, doesn't help to keep confidence.
He is certainly not the only one to blame. But his way to perform international policy through tweets is not helping either.
Plus drifting left and right (i.e changing decisions every second day) or taking decisions on a single finger snap because he was influenced by strong personalities (see Qatar affair, one day best ally, next day because MBS said so, terror support - which is not entirely false but doesn't help the US personal there-) is not helping either.

It is like when your ship captain doesn't know where he is going -or rather gives the feeling that he doesn't know where he is going-. That's what Trump and his administation leave as feeling. Oh i guess that he is mostly interested by US internal affairs and that foreign policy is just a side file that help him to pander his voter base. That could be understandable from internal US policy pov. Yet, that doesn't help to stabilize world situation that is pretty volatile all ways around.

 

[Ivan le Fou]

I agree that his tweeting habit, though at first kind of "refreshing", tends to get concerning to say the least.

It is great in term of communication, and it the impact is vast on anybody who is listening. It circumvents the traditional political ways of communication.

That being said, the way Trumps uses his tweeter feed is both good and bad.
Good in the sense that, and from the point of view of US internal politics (and probably international politics as well to some extent), him bashing and taunting the opposition is made in order to have them react and expose their own hypocrisy. Some of his tweets are borderline shitposting and unnecessary, we can all agree on that. But it is still an interesting tool.
Bad in the sense that, as I mentioned earlier, it circumvents traditional ways. His firing of Bolton, though we can all agree that firing Bolton was a good thing, via tweeter was probably not the best thing to do. Just like voicing his opinion on every matter via tweeter. Calling out, in public, that leader or that country for this or that reason may not be the best thing to do, it can have negative effects but also positive ones.

 

[Ivan le Fou]

PS : well, backpedaling again, the Pentagon just declared that they ARE NOT removing their troops from Syria
Trump is rolling on one side, the Foreign policy organs on another.....

This is not being reported by anybody.

Also, as it appears, troops are not withdrawing from Syria. A small number of troops are merely being redeployed. The media apparently lied again, or twisted words, and the White House has been forced to clarify.

US troops start pullout in Syria as Turkey prepares operation

American troops ‘will no longer be in the immediate area’ casting uncertainty on the fate of their Kurdish allies.

www.aljazeera.com

The US has approximately 1,000 troops on the ground in Syria. About two dozen of those troops on the Turkish-Syria border are being redeployed. The Kurds have over 60,000 troops on the ground.

President Trump is attempting to get the US out of Syria but as long as the US government funds/supplies the Kurds, we can't do so.

Americans say they are sick of the US being enmeshed in these endless middle eastern wars - and Trump agrees, thus, the redeployment.

Trump has warned Erdogan that he will not tolerate Turkey going beyond it's stated mission to develop a so-called 'safe zone' for the two million Turks living in Syria and will 'destroy' Turkey's (vulnerable) economy if Erdogan violates his word. Trump is essentially telling the Turks, Kurds, Syrians and others involved in the middle eastern mess to 'figure it out' on their own without help- and funding from the US.

Because Trump recently praised the Kurds for their fighting ability against Turkish government forces, he is being pilloried by both Democrats and Republicans for 'stabbing the Kurds in the back'.

This must have been a tough decision for the president - and the criticism from both Democrats and Republicans seems overdone since so many politicians - and the American people - claim to want the US out of the middle east and it's interminable wars, especially those that are essentially tribal in nature.

 

[Mordoror]

Also, as it appears, troops are not withdrawing from Syria. A small number of troops are merely being redeployed. The media apparently lied again, or twisted words, and the White House has been forced to clarify.

That's the point. They are not withdrawing, a small amount is just "redeployed"

The timing being this one :
one day ago :

Today, President Donald J. Trump spoke with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey by telephone. Turkey will soon be moving forward with its long-planned operation into Northern Syria. The United States Armed Forces will not support or be involved in the operation, and United States forces, having defeated the ISIS territorial “Caliphate,” will no longer be in the immediate area.

source: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-press-secretary-85/

Defying Pentagon, Trump Endorses Turkish Operation in Syria

Defying Pentagon, Trump Endorses Turkish Operation in Syria

The move caught senior defense officials by surprise.

foreignpolicy.com

The decision to move U.S. troops out of the way is broadly seen as Trump giving Erdogan a green light to move into Northern Syria. But administration officials pushed back on the characterization that the White House statement endorses Turkish military action.

“The Department of Defense made clear to Turkey–as did the President–that we do not endorse a Turkish operation in Northern Syria,” said Chief Pentagon Spokesman Jonathan Hoffman, noting that Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley “reiterated to their respective Turkish counterparts that unilateral action creates risks for Turkey.”

But officials say the decision caught the Pentagon by surprise. Just last week, Esper told reporters the U.S. and Turkish militaries were making progress setting up a security mechanism on Turkey’s border with northeast Syria, continuing joint patrols that began last month.

Senior Pentagon leaders were unanimous in opposing the move, said one senior administration official who requested anonymity to discuss sensitive discussions.

Then came this :
Turkey-Syria border: Trump threatens to 'obliterate' Turkish economy

Turkey-Syria border: Trump threatens to 'obliterate' Turkish economy

The president responds to political fallout over fears Turkey may target US-allied Kurdish fighters.

www.bbc.com

Then comes the "limited redeployement" after several people moaned "a bit" (including Nikki Halley, James Matthis, Lindsay Graham and a bunch of republicans in the Chamber or Senate)

We must always have the backs of our allies, if we expect them to have our back. The Kurds were instrumental in our successful fight against ISIS in Syria. Leaving them to die is a big mistake. #TurkeyIsNotOurFriend
— Nikki Haley (@NikkiHaley) October 7, 2019

GOP Allies Criticize President Trump's Syria Withdrawal Announcement

Kurdish fighters would essentially be abandoned to face a likely Turkish assault

time.com

Which means that on the contrary to what was understated in the initial stage of the exchanges, there will still be US troops in the buffer zone.
You can feel it as a media twisting but everybody understood the quacks the way they were meant, including in the GOP party and expressed their concerns.

And for the record, it is the second stunt of that kind. Trum wants to remove the boys from Syria.

¨PS :i forgot to quote the series of tweets that lighted the whole thing

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Mordoror]

[B]Donald J. Trump[/B]‏Compte certifié @[B]realDonaldTrump[/B] 19 hil y a 19 heures



We may be in the process of leaving Syria, but in no way have we Abandoned the Kurds, who are special people and wonderful fighters. Likewise our relationship with Turkey, a NATO and Trading partner, has been very good. Turkey already has a large Kurdish population and fully....

[B]Donald J. Trump[/B]‏Compte certifié @[B]realDonaldTrump[/B]






....understands that while we only had 50 soldiers remaining in that section of Syria, and they have been removed, any unforced or unnecessary fighting by Turkey will be devastating to their economy and to their very fragile currency. We are helping the Kurds financially/weapons!


which contradicts a bunch of previous tweets which contradict another bunch of previous tweet and so on and so on.
The lack of consistency is mindblowing.
He should really stop do international policy through twatter .....

 

[primer]

I like that its coming from the person than the press. His presidency has uncovered alot of agencies like the BBC and CNN as fake and really fake.

 

[Ivan le Fou]

Or people should wait a few days before reacting to Trump tweets.

We have seen this on many occasions: the media jumping on the pie right out of the oven, burning themselves, looking like fools and forcing other to explain why it all happened.

 

[Mordoror]

Or people should wait a few days before reacting to Trump tweets.

We have seen this on many occasions: the media jumping on the pie right out of the oven, burning themselves, looking like fools and forcing other to explain why it all happened.

People and Press is one thing and i 'd agree with you on the principle.
Issue is that (like for the stock market that reacts to mere rumors) international balances of powers and relationships are also immediately impacted by his tweets.
140 words is not enough to express clearly a complex file. And in diplomacy and international policy, what is not expressed clearly is open to interpretations that may lead to disastrous effects.

 

[primer]

China thing seems to be having most effect but really that's now down to the negotiating teams. Impeachment aswell. You'd have thought the way they rated his ability to run an economy before he was elected that the thought of impeachment would create a bull run. Why then is that the reverse?

 

[Gaz]

Just as a heads up, I went looking for those articles because I wanted to see what had changed his mind.

The first is here - https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...32c7e4-03ae-11e9-b6a9-0aa5c2fcc9e4_story.html

I can't find the second. It's either been pulled or someone has photoshopped this one which starts off with "Trump can't do anything right" but then follows up with "even his coverups are incompetent".

Also, Max Boot wears a stupid hat.