Professor Fate wrote: Learn to read, Fordama. He did not say "this guy." He said "...experts like this guy..."
Thank you, Professor, for pointing out the way some here continue to act in bad faith--or just plain error--in their compulsive need to justify their disdain for the President and anyone who might support him. I stated in an earlier post on this thread that there is a legitimate debate about whether withdrawing these troops from Syria is wise or not. Many on the conservative side, indeed, are dismayed by Trump's decision and think it will come back to haunt us. While I generally support the move, it is a complex situation, but my major contention is that--like all things Trump--the knee-jerk reaction that this must be a stupid decision simply because Trump made it is pretty shallow and hypocritical. My original post that spurred Fordama's intemperate, yet typical, reaction was made in response to the following post:
John Q. Public wrote: “Mattis is the last brake on a president that makes major life-and-death decisions by whim without reading, deliberation, or any thought as to consequences and risks,” said a senior U.S. national-security official on Thursday, who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to talk freely. “The saving grace is that this president has not been tested by a major national-security crisis. But it will come, and when it does, we are ****ed.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... on/569746/
What we have here is a cherry-picked quote from an anonymous source that places the President in the worst possible light. We have no idea who this person is, or if the quote is even accurate. It is essentially worthless and I called it out for what it is--cowardly. If this "senior U.S. national-security official" is that opposed to his boss, he should do the honorable thing and resign--publicly and by name. My response to this quote was thus....
Credo ut intelligam wrote: When America was tested by a major national security crisis after 9/11, experts like this guy gave us Afghanistan (17 years going on now), the debacle of Iraq, and the bombing of Libya.
I also quoted an
L.A. Times article which showed some of the FUBAR actions of our engagement in Syrian. My post invited the following....
Fordama wrote: He was a frikkin' Colonel then.
Idiotic Trump supporters--every day they say something even more stupid.
I went back and read the original
Atlantic article. Nowhere else is this anonymous "national-security official" quoted or mentioned. How in the world does Fordama assert that he was a "Colonel" back in 2001 (Afghanistan) or 2003 (Iraq)? The guy could be a civilian for all we know. So not only does he misconstrue or deliberately mischaracterize my view, he just
makes up something of of thin air to bash me, thinking he's scored some point. But I'm the "idiotic" one.
Fordama wrote: Colonels didn't decide to go into Afghanistan--a Republican President did, and he was probably right to do so. The statement was multiple layers of stupid.
There is the "Colonels" reference again (???). I'll say that taking out Bin Laden was necessary, but if someone wants to defend 17 years and $1 trillion in Afghanistan with little to show for it, be my guest.
Fordama wrote: And as far as Iraq goes, that was a political decision that was wildly popular with people of Cui's ilk. It wasn't that popular with the military. You know, people "like this guy."
Yes, ultimately decisions to go to war are made by the President and the Senate; the founders desired civilian control of the military. But who is this "Cui"--is it a typo for "Credo?" If it was, he should know that I opposed the war in Iraq from the get-go. People like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Robert Mueller, and their "ilk", who lent the credibility of their offices to push a false or mistaken narrative that spurred the invasion of Iraq (another $1.4 trillion) should have no credibility in the public eye.
Trump consistently campaigned on getting the U.S. out of these unnecessary foreign adventures. The Syria decision, as well as the decision to bring home half the troops in Afghanistan, is refreshing in the fact that a promise made on the campaign is actually being kept. Time will tell whether these were the right moves to make. As far as concern for the Kurds, it looks like Saudi Arabia and the UAE will be taking over some of the U.S. role in this respect:
[blockquote]
Saudi Arabia, UAE send troops to support Kurds in Syria
Saudi Arabia and the UAE have sent military forces to areas controlled by the Kurdish YPG group in north-east Syria, Turkey’s Yenisafak newspaper reported.
The paper said the forces will be stationed with US-led coalition troops and will support its tasks with huge military enforcements as well as heavy and light weapons.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20181 ... -in-syria/[/blockquote]