I'm glad we're withdrawing from Syria, and I honestly don't care it's a republican administration doing it
doesn't make me think any better of Trump and his ilk, but at least we're probably not gonna be directly killing people in Syria for a while?
This stance worked really well in North Korea. Who is implementing policy and why matters.
I'm certain those among the "collateral damage" and their grieving families don't particularly care about US reasoning and the identity of whichever president gave the green light. Same goes for the people who otherwise would be collateral damage but aren't because Trump happened to make the right choice for once, poorly executed though it may be.
In this situation, American weapons are either currently killing people or they aren't--a dichotomy not in place in North Korea, which is why it fails as an analogy.
Nah, because you are assuming a withdrawal would happen exactly the same regardless of who was President. Which is just wrong. I mean, there's literally an election for President because this idea is wrong.
The two situations are the in the respect that some people are thinking "I should support this because it's vaguely the policy I want to happen" and ignoring that it's Donald Trump running the show so why would you ever think it would be done well.
I am not assuming that a withdrawal would happen the same regardless of who is president. I said the opposite. See bolded.
That reasserted, since Trump is actually the president right now, I'd prefer no bombs dropping to bombs continuing to drop because his handling of the withdrawal would be subpar. What's your preference? Continue strikes apace until the next president is sworn in? That would seem to pile up a lot more bodies at American hands unnecessarily.
US forces don't have to drop any bombs to discourage Turkey from attacking the Kurds. The mere presence of US forces in Kurdish held areas as a peacekeeping force would have been enough.
Just have a token amount of ground forces and impose a 90s era no fly zone like we had in Iraq, should head off most trouble before it begins.
But you have to be ready to put a jet or two in the dirt.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
The State Department has lashed out at Brett McGurk, who resigned in protest at President Trump's Syria pull-out, accusing him of failing in his role as top U.S. diplomat for the coalition to defeat the Islamic State and lying about the timing of and reasons for his departure.
A senior State Department official derided McGurk, who was appointed by President Obama and has been in place since 2015, as ineffective. “The conflict in Syria has been ongoing for six years,” the senior State Department official said sarcastically. "Good job, Brett.”
Another source close to the circumstances surrounding McGurk’s resignation bitterly accused him of twisting the truth to increase the amount he could earn in speaking fees despite being treated “graciously” by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
The targeted gossip coming from the state department is kind of just pathetic.
The State Department has lashed out at Brett McGurk, who resigned in protest at President Trump's Syria pull-out, accusing him of failing in his role as top U.S. diplomat for the coalition to defeat the Islamic State and lying about the timing of and reasons for his departure.
A senior State Department official derided McGurk, who was appointed by President Obama and has been in place since 2015, as ineffective. “The conflict in Syria has been ongoing for six years,” the senior State Department official said sarcastically. "Good job, Brett.”
Another source close to the circumstances surrounding McGurk’s resignation bitterly accused him of twisting the truth to increase the amount he could earn in speaking fees despite being treated “graciously” by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
The targeted gossip coming from the state department is kind of just pathetic.
But I thought Trump just said we defeated ISIS for all time?
+6
Options
Blackhawk1313Demon Hunter for HireTime RiftRegistered Userregular
The State Department has lashed out at Brett McGurk, who resigned in protest at President Trump's Syria pull-out, accusing him of failing in his role as top U.S. diplomat for the coalition to defeat the Islamic State and lying about the timing of and reasons for his departure.
A senior State Department official derided McGurk, who was appointed by President Obama and has been in place since 2015, as ineffective. “The conflict in Syria has been ongoing for six years,” the senior State Department official said sarcastically. "Good job, Brett.”
Another source close to the circumstances surrounding McGurk’s resignation bitterly accused him of twisting the truth to increase the amount he could earn in speaking fees despite being treated “graciously” by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
The targeted gossip coming from the state department is kind of just pathetic.
But I thought Trump just said we defeated ISIS for all time?
Porque no los dos? Shroedinger’s Diplomacy if you will.
The State Department has lashed out at Brett McGurk, who resigned in protest at President Trump's Syria pull-out, accusing him of failing in his role as top U.S. diplomat for the coalition to defeat the Islamic State and lying about the timing of and reasons for his departure.
A senior State Department official derided McGurk, who was appointed by President Obama and has been in place since 2015, as ineffective. “The conflict in Syria has been ongoing for six years,” the senior State Department official said sarcastically. "Good job, Brett.”
Another source close to the circumstances surrounding McGurk’s resignation bitterly accused him of twisting the truth to increase the amount he could earn in speaking fees despite being treated “graciously” by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
The targeted gossip coming from the state department is kind of just pathetic.
Shouldn't expect more from the Examiner, but the granting of anonymity to trash a guy is embarrassing.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+4
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
I feel like, again, the situation is that while those of us here are very very aware of the humanitarian issues at play in Syria, at a national level the US has not made a particularly measurable effort to provide stability and protection for the civilians caught in the midst of a civil war that turned into a larger proxy conflict.
And so now, we're pulling out, but not because of any real moral or ethical motivation but because the president is... well, Donald Trump.
And we're doing it in a manner equivalent to yanking a piece of rebar out of an impaled person's gut and then, oh hey, turns out now they're bleeding out because that's not how you fix a problem if you don't want the geopolitical equivalent of sepsis and hemorrhaging.
Like... maybe I'm just being cynical and tired but I don't know how else to view this entire clusterfuck at this point. We went in half-assed, focused on the wrong shit if we wanted to actually promote a humanitarian cause in the middle of a foreign civil war and now we're half-assedly pulling out and a shitton of people are going to get hurt because of it.
I don't want to speak for the people there, but I think the abrupt withdrawal is preferable to endlessly negotiated policy over in what way to withdraw for the good.
"Mission Accomplished" happened 15 years ago. It is naive to expect the US to withdraw in a normal way. Cautioning against too soon or too quick withdrawal comes across as excuses for staying there for years to come. The humanitarian responsibilities of withdrawal are quickly conflated with the assumed "USA is world police!" responsibilities. It is almost instantly not about the opinions of people who actually live there any more. The actual costs are abstracted away into geopolitical goals, allies and adversaries .
I feel like, again, the situation is that while those of us here are very very aware of the humanitarian issues at play in Syria, at a national level the US has not made a particularly measurable effort to provide stability and protection for the civilians caught in the midst of a civil war that turned into a larger proxy conflict.
And so now, we're pulling out, but not because of any real moral or ethical motivation but because the president is... well, Donald Trump.
And we're doing it in a manner equivalent to yanking a piece of rebar out of an impaled person's gut and then, oh hey, turns out now they're bleeding out because that's not how you fix a problem if you don't want the geopolitical equivalent of sepsis and hemorrhaging.
Like... maybe I'm just being cynical and tired but I don't know how else to view this entire clusterfuck at this point. We went in half-assed, focused on the wrong shit if we wanted to actually promote a humanitarian cause in the middle of a foreign civil war and now we're half-assedly pulling out and a shitton of people are going to get hurt because of it.
I don't want to speak for the people there, but I think the abrupt withdrawal is preferable to endlessly negotiated policy over in what way to withdraw for the good.
"Mission Accomplished" happened 15 years ago. It is naive to expect the US to withdraw in a normal way. Cautioning against too soon or too quick withdrawal comes across as excuses for staying there for years to come. The humanitarian responsibilities of withdrawal are quickly conflated with the assumed "USA is world police!" responsibilities. It is almost instantly not about the opinions of people who actually live there any more. The actual costs are abstracted away into geopolitical goals, allies and adversaries .
I'm pretty sure the Kurds vehemently disagree with the bolded.
The Syrian Army on the other hand probably vehemently agrees. And anybody in IS territory who had to worry about a drone strike is probably hoping the air coverage goes too.
That hasn't been cleared up yet, as far as I know.
Does anybody know if the air campaign will continue apace?
I feel like, again, the situation is that while those of us here are very very aware of the humanitarian issues at play in Syria, at a national level the US has not made a particularly measurable effort to provide stability and protection for the civilians caught in the midst of a civil war that turned into a larger proxy conflict.
And so now, we're pulling out, but not because of any real moral or ethical motivation but because the president is... well, Donald Trump.
And we're doing it in a manner equivalent to yanking a piece of rebar out of an impaled person's gut and then, oh hey, turns out now they're bleeding out because that's not how you fix a problem if you don't want the geopolitical equivalent of sepsis and hemorrhaging.
Like... maybe I'm just being cynical and tired but I don't know how else to view this entire clusterfuck at this point. We went in half-assed, focused on the wrong shit if we wanted to actually promote a humanitarian cause in the middle of a foreign civil war and now we're half-assedly pulling out and a shitton of people are going to get hurt because of it.
I don't want to speak for the people there, but I think the abrupt withdrawal is preferable to endlessly negotiated policy over in what way to withdraw for the good.
"Mission Accomplished" happened 15 years ago. It is naive to expect the US to withdraw in a normal way. Cautioning against too soon or too quick withdrawal comes across as excuses for staying there for years to come. The humanitarian responsibilities of withdrawal are quickly conflated with the assumed "USA is world police!" responsibilities. It is almost instantly not about the opinions of people who actually live there any more. The actual costs are abstracted away into geopolitical goals, allies and adversaries .
I'm pretty sure the Kurds vehemently disagree with the bolded.
The Syrian Army on the other hand probably vehemently agrees. And anybody in IS territory who had to worry about a drone strike is probably hoping the air coverage goes too.
That hasn't been cleared up yet, as far as I know.
Does anybody know if the air campaign will continue apace?
I read on AP just after the first Trump tweet was made that the air campaign was also totally halting. But that means nothing-- there's clearly no plan, and Trump's statements have already made big changes, so who knows. I would bet the aircraft are the last to leave, whenever that happens.
I feel like, again, the situation is that while those of us here are very very aware of the humanitarian issues at play in Syria, at a national level the US has not made a particularly measurable effort to provide stability and protection for the civilians caught in the midst of a civil war that turned into a larger proxy conflict.
And so now, we're pulling out, but not because of any real moral or ethical motivation but because the president is... well, Donald Trump.
And we're doing it in a manner equivalent to yanking a piece of rebar out of an impaled person's gut and then, oh hey, turns out now they're bleeding out because that's not how you fix a problem if you don't want the geopolitical equivalent of sepsis and hemorrhaging.
Like... maybe I'm just being cynical and tired but I don't know how else to view this entire clusterfuck at this point. We went in half-assed, focused on the wrong shit if we wanted to actually promote a humanitarian cause in the middle of a foreign civil war and now we're half-assedly pulling out and a shitton of people are going to get hurt because of it.
I don't want to speak for the people there, but I think the abrupt withdrawal is preferable to endlessly negotiated policy over in what way to withdraw for the good.
"Mission Accomplished" happened 15 years ago. It is naive to expect the US to withdraw in a normal way. Cautioning against too soon or too quick withdrawal comes across as excuses for staying there for years to come. The humanitarian responsibilities of withdrawal are quickly conflated with the assumed "USA is world police!" responsibilities. It is almost instantly not about the opinions of people who actually live there any more. The actual costs are abstracted away into geopolitical goals, allies and adversaries .
I'm pretty sure the Kurds vehemently disagree with the bolded.
The Syrian Army on the other hand probably vehemently agrees. And anybody in IS territory who had to worry about a drone strike is probably hoping the air coverage goes too.
That hasn't been cleared up yet, as far as I know.
Does anybody know if the air campaign will continue apace?
I read on AP just after the first Trump tweet was made that the air campaign was also totally halting. But that means nothing-- there's clearly no plan, and Trump's statements have already made big changes, so who knows. I would bet the aircraft are the last to leave, whenever that happens.
We should bury them in the desert so that when he orders us back there, we don't have pay UPS to ship them.
This is going to result in some very silly demands for tribute.
Unless he's following this up with massive cuts to military spending dude is completely full of shit.
No. He's completely full of shit no matter what he does.
Well sure, but his argument right now is that the US is wasting money on protection for other countries that could reasonably spend more on their own militaries. Which isn't an unreasonable argument per se, but the natural conclusion to this train of thought (especially following the pullouts on the two wars the US is currently in) is that the goal is to reduce spending and that means taking a bat to the military budget.
This is going to result in some very silly demands for tribute.
Unless he's following this up with massive cuts to military spending dude is completely full of shit.
No. He's completely full of shit no matter what he does.
Well sure, but his argument right now is that the US is wasting money on protection for other countries that could reasonably spend more on their own militaries. Which isn't an unreasonable argument per se, but the natural conclusion to this train of thought (especially following the pullouts on the two wars the US is currently in) is that the goal is to reduce spending and that means taking a bat to the military budget.
If you have an accurate understanding of international relationships and alliances, sure. If you're Donald Trump you get a fake invoice made up to give to the Chancellor of Germany.
This is going to result in some very silly demands for tribute.
Unless he's following this up with massive cuts to military spending dude is completely full of shit.
No. He's completely full of shit no matter what he does.
Well sure, but his argument right now is that the US is wasting money on protection for other countries that could reasonably spend more on their own militaries. Which isn't an unreasonable argument per se, but the natural conclusion to this train of thought (especially following the pullouts on the two wars the US is currently in) is that the goal is to reduce spending and that means taking a bat to the military budget.
He's literally just got over his last tantrum from finding out that other countries wont continue to do whatever the US wants if the US isnt going to back them up.
This is going to result in some very silly demands for tribute.
Unless he's following this up with massive cuts to military spending dude is completely full of shit.
No. He's completely full of shit no matter what he does.
Well sure, but his argument right now is that the US is wasting money on protection for other countries that could reasonably spend more on their own militaries. Which isn't an unreasonable argument per se, but the natural conclusion to this train of thought (especially following the pullouts on the two wars the US is currently in) is that the goal is to reduce spending and that means taking a bat to the military budget.
Not necessarily. It could be that he thinks that Europe and Asia should do their own defense, leaving America's full military might to be laser-focused on smashing countries Trump doesn't like. Obviously, this is stupid.
This is going to result in some very silly demands for tribute.
Unless he's following this up with massive cuts to military spending dude is completely full of shit.
Step 1: Hey, Europe and Canada, you guys should spend way more on your military, you freeloading leeches. You can get fucked if you think we'll support you against Russia. Why should we spend so much on our military just to support our hegemony?!
Step 2: Shit, now Europe and Canada are heavily armed and don't like us. Better spend more on our military, I guess.
Well,the whole trade part is also shit. And the US does not subsidize the military of very rich countries. The US does guarantee some defence to very rich countries, but that's because it's very much in the interests of the US.
Unless the US is now OK with Canada having nukes pointed at the greatest threat to our sovereignty and safety, of course.
Well,the whole trade part is also shit. And the US does not subsidize the military of very rich countries. The US does guarantee some defence to very rich countries, but that's because it's very much in the interests of the US.
Unless the US is now OK with Canada having nukes pointed at the greatest threat to our sovereignty and safety, of course.
Those countries also guarantee our defence, and we are the only Nation to have ever actually called upon that obligation. Mutual defense pacts are mutual.
Well,the whole trade part is also shit. And the US does not subsidize the military of very rich countries. The US does guarantee some defence to very rich countries, but that's because it's very much in the interests of the US.
Unless the US is now OK with Canada having nukes pointed at the greatest threat to our sovereignty and safety, of course.
That's actually a really good point that trump hasn't likely considered; if the US is going to pull back on defending it's allies and those allies need to come up with some sure fire solutions then Nuclear weapons are going to look really attractive really quickly.
Well,the whole trade part is also shit. And the US does not subsidize the military of very rich countries. The US does guarantee some defence to very rich countries, but that's because it's very much in the interests of the US.
Unless the US is now OK with Canada having nukes pointed at the greatest threat to our sovereignty and safety, of course.
That's actually a really good point that trump hasn't likely considered; if the US is going to pull back on defending it's allies and those allies need to come up with some sure fire solutions then Nuclear weapons are going to look really attractive really quickly.
Didn't we go over this in 2017 when Trump was like "yeah sure Japan should have nukes"
Essentially, Trump and the Republicans are looking at the post-WWII world, where most of the winners and the losers realized that they could get more done by cooperating and formed a large scale alliance, including overlapping mutual defence treaties centred on the US, which in turn gave the US a disproportionate influence on the foreign policy of the entire alliance, as something that should be destroyed.
This is literally a system that was created by and for the US. Sure, it's also very advantageous to the other members of the alliance; that's why they signed up for it in the first place.
The only group who get any advantages out of the dismantlement of this structure are countries who have goals that conflict with those of the alliance, and are unwilling to do the bare minimum required to get in: be wealthy, willing to trade, and have a vaguely nominally democratic system of governance.
This whole administration reeks of when, in Civilization, Ghengis Khan visits you and has nothing to actually say except how much he values your friendship, and then on the very next turn he angrily declares war on you
Every military decision made gives me massive whiplash
"I very deeply regret the decision made on Syria," Macron said while at a press conference in Chad on Sunday.
"To be allies is to fight shoulder to shoulder. It's the most important thing for a head of state and head of the military. An ally should be dependable," he said, according to Reuters.
When he finally managed to visit troops in Iraq after two years, Trump just straight lied to them about their pay raise by 5x the actual amount. Then inadvertently revealed the identity of some members of SEAL Team 5 for good measure. Also, that SEAL Team 5 is in Iraq.
It was also a diplomatic incident since he didn't inform the Iraqi government or get their approval for the visit first. So he inadvertently treated them like a subject nation instead of a sovereign equal.
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
+4
Options
OrcaAlso known as EspressosaurusWrexRegistered Userregular
It was also a diplomatic incident since he didn't inform the Iraqi government or get their approval for the visit first. So he inadvertently treated them like a subject nation instead of a sovereign equal.
To be fair, I'm pretty sure he does that to every country.
It was also a diplomatic incident since he didn't inform the Iraqi government or get their approval for the visit first. So he inadvertently treated them like a subject nation instead of a sovereign equal.
To be fair, I'm pretty sure he does that to every country.
When he finally managed to visit troops in Iraq after two years, Trump just straight lied to them about their pay raise by 5x the actual amount. Then inadvertently revealed the identity of some members of SEAL Team 5 for good measure. Also, that SEAL Team 5 is in Iraq.
Contacted by Newsweek, the Pentagon referred questions to the White House communications team.
This also seems like it might be bad. Could be organized, but given this communications team, it could also just be, "Fuck it, we don't know, ask them."
It was also a diplomatic incident since he didn't inform the Iraqi government or get their approval for the visit first. So he inadvertently treated them like a subject nation instead of a sovereign equal.
To be fair, I'm pretty sure he does that to every country.
Yeah, but the Iraqi government was making actual noise about it. They seemed pretty pissed off and maybe willing to make a fuss about it.
+1
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
It was also a diplomatic incident since he didn't inform the Iraqi government or get their approval for the visit first. So he inadvertently treated them like a subject nation instead of a sovereign equal.
To be fair, I'm pretty sure he does that to every country.
Yeah, but the Iraqi government was making actual noise about it. They seemed pretty pissed off and maybe willing to make a fuss about it.
This was also the time when he just sort of mentioned that he might decide to use the bases in Iraq to attack (the totally defeated) ISIS up in Syria, again with no mention about asking the Iraqis about anything. So there's all sorts of stuff for the Iraqi government to be pissed about.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Ouch. Is a continuation of the visit, where Trump got a lot of selfies with the troops (which were freely given so don't get all the "it was a secret operation" thing), but was scathing to the generals:
Earlier, Trump took questions from reporters. He described how he gave “the generals” multiple six-month “extensions” to get out of Syria. Trump said of the generals: “They said again, recently, can we have more time? I said: ‘Nope.’ You can’t have any more time. You’ve had enough time. We’ve knocked them out. We’ve knocked them silly.”
That article does confirm that the plan is to let Syria to Edrogan and the Sauds.
Second is some free swipes to the press:
Ouch. Is a continuation of the visit, where Trump got a lot of selfies with the troops (which were freely given so don't get all the "it was a secret operation" thing), but was scathing to the generals:
Earlier, Trump took questions from reporters. He described how he gave “the generals” multiple six-month “extensions” to get out of Syria. Trump said of the generals: “They said again, recently, can we have more time? I said: ‘Nope.’ You can’t have any more time. You’ve had enough time. We’ve knocked them out. We’ve knocked them silly.”
That article does confirm that the plan is to let Syria to Edrogan and the Sauds.
Second is some free swipes to the press:
That article does confirm that the plan is to let Syria to Edrogan and the Sauds.
Plan is generous word, but the Saudi part is Trump bringing up old things as new solutions. From the article you linked.
The US cannot continue to be the policeman of the world, he added. “In Syria, [Recep Tayyip] Erdoğan said he wants to knock out Isis, whatever’s left, the remnants of Isis. And Saudi Arabia just came out and said they are going to pay for some economic development. Which is great, that means we don’t have to pay.
That did not happen. The Kingdom, previously, pledged the modest sum of a few hundred million dollars for reconstruction. Now, as he intends to pullout, he is citing Saudi Arabia’s previous commitment to pay for some of the reconstruction costs as a new development happening as the US withdraws. He’s just counting old money as new money. Now so much of a plan as a bunch of BS.
+10
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
It was also a diplomatic incident since he didn't inform the Iraqi government or get their approval for the visit first. So he inadvertently treated them like a subject nation instead of a sovereign equal.
It was also a diplomatic incident since he didn't inform the Iraqi government or get their approval for the visit first. So he inadvertently treated them like a subject nation instead of a sovereign equal.
To be fair, it pretty much is.
Choo choo all aboard the naked imperialism express to eternal military occupation!
It was also a diplomatic incident since he didn't inform the Iraqi government or get their approval for the visit first. So he inadvertently treated them like a subject nation instead of a sovereign equal.
To be fair, it pretty much is.
Its pretty debatable how much influence the US has left in Iraq. We left the door open for Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and Iran to peddle influence within it, and no elected official is going to win by sucking up to the US.
Iran probably has more troops under its control in Iraq than we do at this point.
The lack of US influence in Iraq is another reason why the Iraq War was completely pointless though. I don't think the Bush admin thought beyond "it'll be a capitalist democracy, and we're the biggest baddest capitalist democracy, so we'll pull the strings."
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Posts
Just have a token amount of ground forces and impose a 90s era no fly zone like we had in Iraq, should head off most trouble before it begins.
But you have to be ready to put a jet or two in the dirt.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
But I thought Trump just said we defeated ISIS for all time?
Porque no los dos? Shroedinger’s Diplomacy if you will.
Shouldn't expect more from the Examiner, but the granting of anonymity to trash a guy is embarrassing.
I don't want to speak for the people there, but I think the abrupt withdrawal is preferable to endlessly negotiated policy over in what way to withdraw for the good.
"Mission Accomplished" happened 15 years ago. It is naive to expect the US to withdraw in a normal way. Cautioning against too soon or too quick withdrawal comes across as excuses for staying there for years to come. The humanitarian responsibilities of withdrawal are quickly conflated with the assumed "USA is world police!" responsibilities. It is almost instantly not about the opinions of people who actually live there any more. The actual costs are abstracted away into geopolitical goals, allies and adversaries .
I'm pretty sure the Kurds vehemently disagree with the bolded.
The Syrian Army on the other hand probably vehemently agrees. And anybody in IS territory who had to worry about a drone strike is probably hoping the air coverage goes too.
That hasn't been cleared up yet, as far as I know.
Does anybody know if the air campaign will continue apace?
I read on AP just after the first Trump tweet was made that the air campaign was also totally halting. But that means nothing-- there's clearly no plan, and Trump's statements have already made big changes, so who knows. I would bet the aircraft are the last to leave, whenever that happens.
We should bury them in the desert so that when he orders us back there, we don't have pay UPS to ship them.
This is going to result in some very silly demands for tribute.
Unless he's following this up with massive cuts to military spending dude is completely full of shit.
Well sure, but his argument right now is that the US is wasting money on protection for other countries that could reasonably spend more on their own militaries. Which isn't an unreasonable argument per se, but the natural conclusion to this train of thought (especially following the pullouts on the two wars the US is currently in) is that the goal is to reduce spending and that means taking a bat to the military budget.
If you have an accurate understanding of international relationships and alliances, sure. If you're Donald Trump you get a fake invoice made up to give to the Chancellor of Germany.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/325847-donald-trump-printed-out-made-up-ps300bn-nato-invoice-and-handed-it
He's literally just got over his last tantrum from finding out that other countries wont continue to do whatever the US wants if the US isnt going to back them up.
Not necessarily. It could be that he thinks that Europe and Asia should do their own defense, leaving America's full military might to be laser-focused on smashing countries Trump doesn't like. Obviously, this is stupid.
Step 1: Hey, Europe and Canada, you guys should spend way more on your military, you freeloading leeches. You can get fucked if you think we'll support you against Russia. Why should we spend so much on our military just to support our hegemony?!
Step 2: Shit, now Europe and Canada are heavily armed and don't like us. Better spend more on our military, I guess.
Unless the US is now OK with Canada having nukes pointed at the greatest threat to our sovereignty and safety, of course.
Those countries also guarantee our defence, and we are the only Nation to have ever actually called upon that obligation. Mutual defense pacts are mutual.
That's actually a really good point that trump hasn't likely considered; if the US is going to pull back on defending it's allies and those allies need to come up with some sure fire solutions then Nuclear weapons are going to look really attractive really quickly.
Didn't we go over this in 2017 when Trump was like "yeah sure Japan should have nukes"
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
This is literally a system that was created by and for the US. Sure, it's also very advantageous to the other members of the alliance; that's why they signed up for it in the first place.
The only group who get any advantages out of the dismantlement of this structure are countries who have goals that conflict with those of the alliance, and are unwilling to do the bare minimum required to get in: be wealthy, willing to trade, and have a vaguely nominally democratic system of governance.
In other words, China and Russia.
Except for the 'bad guys', whoever they are supposed to be. But that Kim guy is a cool dude.
Every military decision made gives me massive whiplash
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-navy-seal-iraq-video-1272102
He really is the anti-Midas.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
To be fair, I'm pretty sure he does that to every country.
Including his own.
This also seems like it might be bad. Could be organized, but given this communications team, it could also just be, "Fuck it, we don't know, ask them."
Yeah, but the Iraqi government was making actual noise about it. They seemed pretty pissed off and maybe willing to make a fuss about it.
This was also the time when he just sort of mentioned that he might decide to use the bases in Iraq to attack (the totally defeated) ISIS up in Syria, again with no mention about asking the Iraqis about anything. So there's all sorts of stuff for the Iraqi government to be pissed about.
Ouch. Is a continuation of the visit, where Trump got a lot of selfies with the troops (which were freely given so don't get all the "it was a secret operation" thing), but was scathing to the generals: That article does confirm that the plan is to let Syria to Edrogan and the Sauds.
Second is some free swipes to the press:
Yeah it's funny how people are concerned with methodology and not merely the end result.
Plan is generous word, but the Saudi part is Trump bringing up old things as new solutions. From the article you linked.
That did not happen. The Kingdom, previously, pledged the modest sum of a few hundred million dollars for reconstruction. Now, as he intends to pullout, he is citing Saudi Arabia’s previous commitment to pay for some of the reconstruction costs as a new development happening as the US withdraws. He’s just counting old money as new money. Now so much of a plan as a bunch of BS.
To be fair, it pretty much is.
Choo choo all aboard the naked imperialism express to eternal military occupation!
Its pretty debatable how much influence the US has left in Iraq. We left the door open for Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and Iran to peddle influence within it, and no elected official is going to win by sucking up to the US.
Iran probably has more troops under its control in Iraq than we do at this point.
The lack of US influence in Iraq is another reason why the Iraq War was completely pointless though. I don't think the Bush admin thought beyond "it'll be a capitalist democracy, and we're the biggest baddest capitalist democracy, so we'll pull the strings."
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".