Kenneth Timmerman’s article below is eminently reasonable, and he is right: the political and media elites that are howling over Trump’s “betrayal” of the Kurds will keep howling no matter what evidence is presented in defense of the withdrawal, because “none of them truly care about the Kurds.” All they want is a stick they can use to beat Trump.
“Trump didn’t sell out the Kurds by pulling out of Syria,” by Kenneth R. Timmerman, New York Post, October 19, 2019:
The national media blasted President Trump’s withdrawal of 50 US military advisors from the Syrian border with Turkey as a “sellout,” a “betrayal” and a “huge strategic blunder.”
Let’s be clear: None of them truly care about the Kurds. Otherwise, they would have been sending correspondents and camera crews to Rojava, as the Kurds call northern Syria, on a regular basis.
Let’s also be clear about the goals of Turkish president Tayyip Recep [sic] Erdogan. While he attempted to stylize his military invasion of Rojava as a counterterrorism operation, few international observers bought into it. Why? Because there have been no terror attacks against Turkey from Syrian territory since the Syrian Kurds established their self-governing entity in 2012. None.
Erdogan is not even remotely interested in fighting ISIS, or in taking responsibility for the estimated 12,000 ISIS fighters currently in Kurdish custody at the al-Hol refugee camp. What actually happens to those ISIS prisoners, and the fate of Christian and Yazidi minorities, will be key measures of the agreement hammered out by Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo with Erdogan on Thursday.
The humanitarian disaster that unfolded this past week helped to paint Erdogan as notorious a mass murderer as Saddam Hussein. And it was to Erdogan’s legacy that the president appealed in his private, and now public, letter to the Turkish president as the crisis unfolded.
Erdogan’s real goal with this invasion was to smash Kurdish self-government, and those 50 US advisors were the last thing in his way.
But let’s be clear about US goals, too. Our advisors were not in northern Syria to defend a Kurdish government but to fight ISIS. The fight to smash the ISIS caliphate is over, and we won….
I have met with Kurdish political and military leaders in the region, including the PYD, the political arm of the Kurdish YPG militia. And while they were thrilled to have US backing in the fight against ISIS, none of them had any illusions about the US coming to their aid should Turkey attack.
Did the president’s critics really believe he should have considered those 50 US soldiers as a “tripwire” that would trigger a massive US military invasion of Syria to fight against Turkey — our NATO ally?…
The Kurds are paying a heavy price in this battle — not because of a US betrayal — but because they remain stateless and thus powerless. By targeting Erdogan financially, legally and undermining his legitimacy, President Trump has done more to help the Kurds than his critics with their crocodile tears. And for now, he is winning.
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
“Trump approves $4.5 million in aid to ‘White Helmets’ in Syria”
https://www.rt.com/news/471560-trump-funds-white-helmets/
gravenimage says
Oh, not a good idea–the “White Helmets” have links to Jihad.
Infidel says
Another great headline about internecine Muslim rifts:
Turkey’s Erdogan Insults Iran Before ‘Long and Complicated’ Putin Talks on Syria
Alien vs Predator #90210
revereridesagain says
Oh good, Timmerman got through an article on the Syrian conflict this time without inserting hopes for The Rapture into the discussion as he has done previously. Restores my hope that religious fanatics posing as respected commentators are not lurking under the bed hoping for Armageddon.
Kepha says
Religious fanatic here, but not Dispensational Premillennialist.
Kepha says
The irony of ironies here is that there was scarcely a peep from these liberal outlets on how back in the day they were perfectly happy to sell our the South Vietnam, the Hmong, the Degar, anti-Communist Cambodians (and even good, progressive Communist Cambodian on the wrong side of Hun Sen’s and Pol Pot’s personal spat), or Taiwan.
A couple of years back, when I was checking out in the grocery store, the news was on, and there was mention of “Kurdish fighters”. The checkout lady muttered in a noticeable Middle Eastern accent “the most treacherous people there are.” It turned out she was an Assyrian whose family had fled from the Hakkari to northern Iraq to Iran and then to the USA.
I always wondered what the O maladministration was doing getting us into Syria on the side of the Sunni rebels (another Muslim Brotherhood clone, and allies of Qaida), all while talking loudly and carrying no stick. It seems that Trump is trying to keep us from going deeper into a likely quagmire.
BTW, as a Bible-believing Christian, I am of the mind that whether all this is or is not a harbinger of the en of days is an open question. As for the “rapture”, the most I can make out of I Thessalonians 4:15-18 is that a very-unsecret “rapture” is what the Lord will do with believers who are alive at the time of his very loud and public 2d advent and raising of the dead.
Demsci says
Excellent point Kepha! About the left not so much being concerned with abandoning allies when there were wars in Vietnam, SE Asia. As I take it, the choice then and now was: Get us out of those wars, in order not to waste American lives and resources. Or stick with allies in the war zone through thick and thin.
Back then leftists chose preserving AMERICAN lives and resources, withdrawal asap. Without regard for alliances with people in the war zone. Or maybe they saw America’s allies as bad people.
This time around, while it is obvious that there indeed could be American casualties and huge costs, leftists now suddenly do care about alliances with people in the war zone.
What changed, why the double standards? Or were the old allies bad and the new allies much better?
gravenimage says
None of these leftists said anything in support of the Kurds until Trump decided to pull out of Syria, either.
Terry Gain says
“Did the president’s critics really believe he should have considered those 50 US soldiers as a “tripwire” that would trigger a massive US military invasion of Syria to fight against Turkey — our NATO ally?…”
……….
Does Timmerman believe Erdogan has a death wish? Erdogan would have not risked provoking an American attack on Turkey. He in fact did not attack the Kurds until given the green light. If only all deployments of 50 troops were so successful.
…………………….
“Kenneth Timmerman’s article below is eminently reasonable, and he is right: the political and media elites that are howling over Trump’s “betrayal” of the Kurds will keep howling no matter what evidence is presented in defense of the withdrawal, because “none of them truly care about the Kurds.” All they want is a stick they can use to beat Trump”
………..
How disappointing. Not only are we wrong, we don’t care about the Kurds and all we want is a stick to beat. Presumably this applies even to those of us who have defended President Trump throughout his presidency. How do you know we don’t care about the Kurds?
Infidel says
On the first point, Erdogan would have been perfectly happy to send Turkish troops in, even if it meant massacring the 50 US soldiers. And he knows perfectly well that after 18 years, the US is war weary, particularly since the region has none of America’s interests at stake. Had Trump not pulled out the US troops, Erdogan would still have gone in – that’s what he warned President Trump about
The GOP, as it is today, is a 4 legged stool. One leg is the Neocons – the people who think we ought to be the world’s policemen, and have troops in every country. Another leg is the private equity class, who think that tax cuts to them is all that matters, but in return, they should be allowed to deploy their operations in the cheapest sweatshops in the world, where US law doesn’t apply (like the slave factories in China). The third leg is the religious conservatives, who are pro Life, pro second Amendment, pro traditional marriage and opposed to things like gender-fluidity, pronoun proclamations and the like (I’d say Mike Pence heads this faction). Finally, there is the MAGA/KAG populist faction, which is opposed to endless wars (thereby going head to head w/ the Neocons), opposed to open borders and unfair trade (hence their butting heads w/ the private equity class as well as the Wall Street backed GOP establishment), and opposed to identity politics and race baiting.
Even though Trump is the president and has 97% approval from the rank and file GOP, he does not have that sort of support w/ the GOP leadership – the senators and the grand poohbahs and doubting Thomases in the Heritage Foundation, the CATO institute and the other ‘think tanks’ in DC (who do more posturing and less thinking in their day to day operations, as they have lobbyists paying them to say what they wanna hear)
If the Neocons really cared about the Kurds, Iraq would have been 3 countries today, not 1. If the Neocons really cared about the Kurds, either the US or Turkey would have been out of NATO by now. If the Neocons really cared about the Kurds, there would have been calls to carve out a Kurdistan from ALL the 4 countries that Kurdistan occupies – Iraq, Syria, Iran and Turkey – none of which are America’s friends. They’ve never bothered to address the repercussions of how any policy towards the Kurds would affect other things, like the US-Turkey alliance within NATO, but we’re expected to listen to them and support keeping US troops indefinitely in Syria, against the wishes of both Damascus and Ankara
Terry Gain says
It would have been suicidal for Turkey to kill American troops. There is no way Trump would have allowed Erdogan to make him look both foolish and weak.
Terry Gain says
A partitioned Iraq was Biden’s loopy idea. That would have required American forces in Iraq permanently. For what purpose? I don’t know anyone who has argued that it’s America’s responsibility to maintain peace between Sunnis and Shiites.
And the attack on Turkey have been quick and surgical. It would have been over before the war weary woke up.
Infidel says
No, under the Bush/Paul Bremmer regime, Iraq could have been partitioned, 3 standing armies – Arab Shi’ite, Arab Sunni and Kurd – could have been created, and the US could have assigned their protection backup to Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel respectively, and then left. This is one of the few places where Biden has it right.
Your statement that any attack on Turkey would have been quick and surgical shows how little you know of war. Once a war starts, there’s no telling where it will go. Only time it succeeds is when the mission has a no-holds bar: like the attack on Iraq in 2003 was allowed to get rid of Saddam, just like the attack on Afghanistan had the go ahead to get rid of the Taliban. But anything else – like an attack on Turkey, which as a frontier country to the former Soviet Union, is armed to the teeth – would have unpredictable consequences
Demsci says
Infidel, on the role of policeman of the world of the US; I am swayed by your arguments against it if this role is exaggerated and misused, due to the Military Industrial Complex and a war lobby. And US IS war-weary, esp. For the war in Afghanistan. And it seems hopeless to defend devout Muslims against other devout Muslims.
But I was thinking of policing for safe trade against piracy and preventing strong states to conquer weak states and the like. And only in dire emergencies. And before that the US acting as deterrence, which might indeed have worked quite well, albeit not perfectly. Ever since WWII and Breton Woods economic conference and more so since the collapse of the SU.
Infidel says
The only reason that shipping lanes need to be kept open is oil. If iPhones or garments or toys or exotic foods are what are being transported b/w Asia, Europe and the Americas, you don’t need Hormuz or Suez: those things, after being manufactured in Vietnam or Thailand or India can be flown to Europe or the Americas. Or even by sea, you have trans-Pacific shipments as far as the Americas go: Europe would normally get their heavy goods trans-Atlantic from the Americas. Or if it’s from Japan or Korea or China, overland via Russia
Preventing strong countries from conquering weak countries – except in some rare strategic cases, like preventing China from conquering Taiwan, it’s not our job when our interests are not involved. If Saudi Arabia or Iran wants to conquer Bahrein, go at it. The Trump doctine is that we should be paid to defend such countries, which may be fine, but I prefer not getting involved in the first place.
Linde Barrera says
To Infidel-Thank you for your excellent comment (Oct. 22, 2019, 9:58 pm) and how well you pinpoint the factions of the Republican Party. I will use your points in letters I write to the Republican leaders of these groups:
Republican National Committee, National Republican Senatorial Committee,
National Republican Congressional Committee,
Secure America Now, and
Make America Great Again.
In my opinion “NEOCON” is too nice a word to describe the “Military Industrial Complex” that has pushed their agenda for far too long on the American people, hiding and disguising their real goals to Americans by “trying to establish democracy” in many countries who vomit at the thought of democracy anywhere; Sharia’h is their goal for everywhere. .
I am also very grateful for this excellent article from Mr. Timmerman. More reasons to love JihadWatch.org and donate as often as possible.
Infidel says
Thank you Linde. Just for my edification, which factions are each of these groups?
For me,
Neocons would be the likes of Lindsay Graham, Marco Rubio, Mitt Romney, Max Boot, Bill Krystol
Private equity faction would be those GOP members who come up w/ the mantra, ‘We’re fans of tariffs’. People like Rob Portman, Larry Kudlow, Neil Cavuto, Dagen McDowell, Karl Rove, Paul Ryan, Anthony Scaramucci
Social conservatives would be people like Mike Pence, Ted Cruz, Marsha Blackburn, Ron Johnson
MAGA/KAG supporters would be people like Rand Paul, Kris Kobach, Ken Cuccinelli, Tucker Carlson, Ann Coulter
Demsci says
Perhaps it would not have been Turkish regular soldiers that would deadly target the 50 American soldiers, but some Jihadist Syrian allies of Turkey. In a vague, false flag manner, With deniability from Turkey. The Americans perhaps saw this coming and assessed that they would lose soldiers without being able to strike back with a war. And Erdogan would have defied sanctions. So in a way Timmerman is right in his assessment that Turkey would have become agressive, with the 50 US soldiers, albeit only with proxies.
Infidel says
Pretty good point. Just like the ‘Houthi’ attack on Saudi Arabia – not just the last one which probably came from Iran, but previous ones from Yemen that shelled Riyadh airport. Turkey too has its stooges in Syria that could have pulled off anything
buzzard says
Tripwire ? Shouldhave just used the old ‘ Line in the Sand ” ?
Mike Perloff says
Without making judgment and just asking for historically accurate background information, why are today’s Kurdish areas of eastern Turkey and western Syria exactly the same areas that until 1915-1923 was populated by over one and a half million Armenians and several hundred thousand Assyrians? Did the Kurds have anything to do with the Turkish Holocaust level genocide of Armenians and Assyrians less than a hundred years ago? If so, doesn’t that mean that they are on land their grandparents stole after participating in the bloodthirsty genocidal ethnic cleansing of the rightful owners?
gravenimage says
Yes, they did. While oppressed themselves, the Kurds took part in the Armenian Genocide.
sidney penny says
Excellent article by Caroline Glick
http://carolineglick.com/trump-did-not-betray-the-kurds/
Trump did not betray the Kurds
10/11/2019
“The near consensus view of President Donald Trump’s decision to remove US special forces from the Syrian border with Turkey is that Trump is enabling a Turkish invasion and double crossing the Syrian Kurds who have fought with the Americans for five years against ISIS. Trump’s move, the thinking goes, harms US credibility and undermines US power in the region and throughout the world.”
Ginny says
Good article, but I disagree that we should strike Iran on behalf of the Saudis, who backed Obama all the way and continue with their heinous human rights crimes. They would love to have us fight their Muslim vs Muslim war with Iran. No thanks!
gravenimage says
Yes–the Saudis are not our allies any more than the Mullahs are.
Angemon says
Indeed.
Mike says
Trump without shouting it on the roofs everywhere , is undermining every authorities on the planet that doesn’t go according for the better of their peoples. That’s why we see “troubles” in Chile ,Darfour ,Italy ,Ukraine named it . Peoples of these countries know US Deep State is not anymore running the show on their soil .Check it out by yourself. Trump said to India authorities : ” Take back YOUR Cachemire . It’s yours . we will sustaine you as much as we can .” Same thing elsewhere .
janwog says
For granting Kurds independance, you have to dismember the genocidal state of Turkey. No one at the Leftist scene and even less the Neo Cons are ready to do it .. Then they have to shut up- The best Kurds can hope is to be protected by Assad.
Infidel says
Precisely! A Kurdistan would have to be carved out of all the 4 countries where they live – Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey. Anything short of that will create instability in the other countries that haven’t ceded their Kurdish areas
Mario Alexis Portella says
Trump just said the entire outcome of this mess was created by his decision to pull out https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-50157439
Demsci says
After clicking the link and listen wat pres. Trump said I did not hear that he said that “the entire outcome of this mess was created by his decision to pull out”. Not even the BBC man Marcus wrote that.
Saying that he said that, is at best twisting his words, omitting essential parts of his explanation and the context in which he spoke. A typical example of what enemy propagandists, and also many reporters and commenters on the MSM do.
At worst you are one of those, at best you have been deceived by very biased enemies of the president. It seems to me. I say this not to hammer you, but in defense of pres. Trump.
Mario Alexis Portella says
I stand corrected in saying “entire outcome”, but that’s how I perceived it since. When you say outcome, the definition is: a final product or end result; consequence; issue.
I thought he was clear in accepting responsibility.
Second, it was not, as you’ve indicated that I’m slamming the president but rather highlighting his honesty in admitting it. And no, I’m not one of those who’s been deceived.
Again, I thank you for pointing out that I wet over with words, yet as per the word “outcome” it does mean the “final product”, i.e., everything that resulted from his pullout.
gravenimage says
Keep in mind that Mr. Portella, while generally anti-Jihad, frequently blames the West for terrorism.
Demsci says
And anyway, such a statement as yours is a typical case of “discrimination of lesser expectation”. As if pres. Trump, or America, was the entire only cause of this outcome or mess. And not pres. Erdogan. Or Turkey.
That would mean that de facto you consider pres. Erdogan an “ape or child” who cannot be held accountable because he is not capable of choosing wiser And so it would be foolish to even try. But you do seem to imply that pres. Trump COULD have acted wiser.
Mario Alexis Portella says
Did I ever say that? My goodness, talk about twisting words. Read this https://thegreatarchitect.blog/2019/10/13/2310/
…and try not to misplace words, nor lose your temper.
Demsci says
I apologize for being clumsy with words. To my defense; I can do better, but this is the “smartphone-twitter-age” and I try not to use too many words and to cram my points in short outbursts. The president has that same problem by the way. And you, also.
Ah, now I understand you better; OK, you meant that pres. Trump accepted responsibility. But I don;t think he meant “for this whole mess”. Rather, for “this whole complex situation”.
OK, you did not say all these things. If I was more careful with words I could say that OTHERS, who say that, do have bias, and do twist others words, some foreigners to malign him, some MSM at any rate doing this so approx. 91 % of the time (that they cover news about the president). And I say that in practice a lot of people exhibit double standards and “discrimination of lower expectation”.
And I did click open your 2nd link and read a very good article, with which content I largely agree. It’s just that Pres. Trump had a very tough choice to make and that foreign leaders are much more to blame if they do not want to be considered like apes or children.
At no time did I lose my temper this morning, but at times I do show emotions.
Mario Alexis Portella says
I, too, apologize. I’ve been guilty of misinterpreting people’s thinking, emotions, and the like on social media, which can be very easy. It’s also easier said than done in critiquing those who have much more to deal with than us. Not making any excuses for my own lack of judgement, of course. You may find this piece interesting; Robert Spence did a piece on me after my return from Iraq last year. https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/11/catholic-priest-islam-is-not-a-religion-of-peace-dialogue-is-useless-unless-the-quran-changes
God bless!
Mario Alexis Portella says
Btw, I did vote twice for a Trump. 🙂 To have had Any other GOP or Hillary in the White House would’ve already been the end of America, I think.