BBC: US 'planning immediate withdrawal of troops' from Syria

EssKayZee

Member
Nov 20, 2018
273
321
280
From BBC:

The US is preparing to withdraw all its troops from Syria, US media are quoting defence officials as saying.

CBS said it was told the White House had ordered the Pentagon to "begin planning for an immediate withdrawal".

President Donald Trump tweeted that the Islamic State (IS) group - also known as ISIS - had been defeated in Syria, his "only reason for being there".

The Pentagon has so far refused to comment.

Details at link.
 

Sub_Level

wants to fuck an Asian grill.
Apr 9, 2009
27,532
2,151
1,015
This is fantastic. Unlike what happened when the US pulled out of Iraq, Syria's Assad regime has a grip on much of the territory. There won't be as much of a power vacuum when the US leaves this time.

I'm sure over the next few years there will be insurgents still doing what they do, but this is the correct move. We have no reason to be there.
 

diablos991

Can’t stump the diablos
Jun 15, 2013
8,434
541
525
So long as we maintain quick reaction capabilities nearby it would be a workable decision.
 

Zangiefy360

Member
Aug 30, 2018
523
815
230
This is GREAT news! We need to get out of the middle east as soon as we can. Trump continues to prove through his actions he's the most peaceful President we've had in decades.
 

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
4,273
3,740
410
As long as Iran is kept at bay through Israel/Russia/US deterence its fine.

US doesn't really have a reason to be there involved in this fight between islamists. The fact that they let Russia have hegemony in the area makes US troops even less usefull.

So in the end after all these years of fighting its just going back to what it was before and Assad wins, well what a waste. I guess Assad is happy that he kill 500 000 (4000 of them Palestinians) and managed to spread 5 Million Syrians across the EU and Arab world.
 

appaws

Gold Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,348
769
1,040
Taylorsville, Ky!
Good news. Hopefully we can get going on bringing them home from the other 150 odd countries, and slashing that imperialism budget.
 
Dec 3, 2018
2,362
4,443
230
Now that the US has committed to removing troops from Syria, I expect an unprovoked chemical attack against civilians to be blamed on Assad any day now. Happens every time, like clockwork.
 

Blood Borne

Member
Oct 30, 2017
993
905
225
Now that the US has committed to removing troops from Syria, I expect an unprovoked chemical attack against civilians to be blamed on Assad any day now. Happens every time, like clockwork.
I’m not one for conspiracy theories but it seems like there are some people who really like war and unrest, probably profiting from it.

I’ll always support withdrawal. Interference, despite good intentions seldom nets good results.
 
Dec 3, 2018
2,362
4,443
230
I’m not one for conspiracy theories but it seems like there are some people who really like war and unrest, probably profiting from it.
It is a conspiracy when President Eisenhower literally warned against the military-industrial complex gaining unwarranted power within the US government?
 
Dec 3, 2018
2,362
4,443
230
Lol. Fair enough but correct me if I’m wrong, there hasn’t been any hard evidence for it.
Personally, I'm just curious why we invaded Iraq when they didn't have any weapons of mass destruction and weren't involved in 9/11. If that wasn't the military-industrial complex, then it was something far worse.
 

TheShadowLord

Member
Jan 7, 2018
2,314
967
320
Afghanistan next please?
That would undermine the talks the US is having with the Taliban if we to just leave now with no compromise between the two. The Afghan government might be bad, but have the Taliban controlling Afganistan again would be far worse as it would send the whole country backward.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
8,860
14,906
665
USA
dunpachi.com
Yay! Warmongering is bad. Warmongering on behalf of the colonial European states because they can't clean up their own problems is especially bad.

Glad that we're (probably) getting out of there. Hopefully it isn't to bomb someone else.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
8,860
14,906
665
USA
dunpachi.com
We're not in Syria because of Europe. We're in Syria because of the oil pipeline, and because it is on "the list":

Why is the Middle East unstable to begin with? Who divvied up the region following WW1?

Hint: it is the same reason why the USA went over to clean up Vietnam.

Also, "why does the USA continue to disrespect its allies" is convenient to shame us into doing the hard work, then it gets turned around and we're the warmongers.

I mean, we do love war, but there are reasons we're over there beyond US-driven greed. Just because we're taking our cut doesn't mean we own all the blame.
 

Dude Abides

Banned
Apr 8, 2009
20,196
855
405
That would undermine the talks the US is having with the Taliban if we to just leave now with no compromise between the two. The Afghan government might be bad, but have the Taliban controlling Afganistan again would be far worse as it would send the whole country backward.
Yeah but we’ve been trying to ensure someone other than the Taliban controls the country for 17 years with no success. May be time to cut our losses and stop throwing good money after bad.
 

infinitys_7th

Member
Oct 1, 2006
3,608
3,206
1,090
Not really sure how to feel about it. We never had a great plan to fix anything there, and Russia’s involvement makes it hard to do anything substantive
How would we have fixed anything? The last country the US saved from an "evil dictator", Libya, has roving cannibal gangs hanging people in meat lockers and ISIS tossing women and children into mixing vats.

The Syrians are way better off under Assad than they would be under a regime change.
 

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
3,872
2,457
415
Has there ever been a western driven regime change in the middle east that did not result in religious extremists running amok?
 

Sub_Level

wants to fuck an Asian grill.
Apr 9, 2009
27,532
2,151
1,015
Now that the US has committed to removing troops from Syria, I expect an unprovoked chemical attack against civilians to be blamed on Assad any day now. Happens every time, like clockwork.
I don't understand why some people think Assad was incapable of such an action. Did he not kill scores of civilians in the civil war through other methods? The distinction between a barrel bomb and sarin gas is pretty inconsequential to those who lose their families.

We can recognize that Syria would be better off under Assad while also recognizing Assad as a monster. Both of these things can be true at once. No need to paint a pretty picture of him. Same goes for Iraq and Saddam Hussein.
 

Madonis

Member
Oct 21, 2018
542
274
180
On the one hand, part of me wants to treat this as good news. Which it could be, purely at face value.

On the other hand, ISIS has not been defeated and is still quite active in Syria. Look up recent news. Thus there's a real risk of the U.S. leaving now and having to come back in a few years when things get worse than Trump ever expected.

In other words, this might end up as another "Mission Accomplished" moment. We've already seen that movie before and it can happen again. The probability certainly isn't low. Also, I thought it was unwise to publicly announce major military-related moves in advance? My memory recalls Trump saying that.

Furthermore, this will likely make things very difficult for the Kurds, who have been U.S. allies for decades. I believe Turkey is planning an intervention that will hurt them. On the "bright" side, if you can call it that, such an outcome will probably make at least three authoritarian governments happy (no prize for guessing which ones).
 
Last edited:

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
3,872
2,457
415
On the one hand, part of me wants to treat this as good news. Which it could be, purely at face value.

On the other hand, ISIS has not been defeated and is still quite active in Syria. Look up recent news. Thus there's a real risk of the U.S. leaving now and having to come back in a few years when things get worse than Trump ever expected.

In other words, this might end up as another "Mission Accomplished" moment. We've already seen that movie before and it can happen again. The probability certainly isn't low. Also, I thought it was unwise to publicly announce major military-related moves in advance? My memory recalls Trump saying that.

Furthermore, this will likely make things very difficult for the Kurds, who have been U.S. allies for decades. I believe Turkey is planning an intervention that will hurt them. On the "bright" side, such an outcome will probably make at least three authoritarian governments happy (no prize for guessing which ones).
Don't worry. The great almighty UN that everyone says is so great when it shits on the US will restore peace if violence breaks out again.

If not them Canada, France or Germany can do it. According to everyone who disagrees with me politically, their leaders are the new leaders of the free world after all.
 
Last edited:

Madonis

Member
Oct 21, 2018
542
274
180
Don't worry. The great almighty UN that everyone says is so great when it shits on the US will restore peace if violence breaks out again.
Let's cut to the point. The UN can do absolutely nothing without the entire Security Council agreeing to act.

It shouldn't work that way, but that's how things are (and, sadly, it's an intentional part of the original design).

If not them Canada, France or Germany can do it. According to everyone who disagrees with me politically, their leaders are the new leaders of the free world after all.
That's a gross simplification, in both directions, but I will say one key thing right now: if the ISIS or another similar organization gains power in the region again, the consequences will not be something that the U.S. can (or would even want to) afford to simply ignore through isolationism.

Whether we like it or not, the U.S. is still involved in this mess, both directly and indirectly. Evidently, the U.S. continues to have a presence elsewhere in the Middle East even after this withdrawal. Just leaving Syria and believing it'll be enough to let other people "sort things out" is, at best, wishful thinking.
 
Last edited:

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
3,872
2,457
415
Let's cut to the point. The UN can do absolutely nothing without the entire Security Council agreeing to act.

It shouldn't work that way, but that's how things are (and, sadly, it's an intentional part of the original design).
HA. I beat you to the reply with an edit. Got this covered.
 

Zangiefy360

Member
Aug 30, 2018
523
815
230
On the one hand, part of me wants to treat this as good news. Which it could be, purely at face value.

On the other hand, ISIS has not been defeated and is still quite active in Syria. Look up recent news. Thus there's a real risk of the U.S. leaving now and having to come back in a few years when things get worse than Trump ever expected.

In other words, this might end up as another "Mission Accomplished" moment. We've already seen that movie before and it can happen again. The probability certainly isn't low. Also, I thought it was unwise to publicly announce major military-related moves in advance? My memory recalls Trump saying that.

Furthermore, this will likely make things very difficult for the Kurds, who have been U.S. allies for decades. I believe Turkey is planning an intervention that will hurt them. On the "bright" side, if you can call it that, such an outcome will probably make at least three authoritarian governments happy (no prize for guessing which ones).
Withdrawing from any military conflict has risks. But the good far outweighs the bad, in my opinion. Our troops are coming home and are out of harm's way. Plus we're saving approximately $15 BILLION a year (3 walls a year, FYI) by getting out of there.
 

Madonis

Member
Oct 21, 2018
542
274
180
Withdrawing from any military conflict has risks. But the good far outweighs the bad, in my opinion. Our troops are coming home and are out of harm's way. Plus we're saving approximately $15 BILLION a year (3 walls a year, FYI) by getting out of there.
Frankly, nobody knows for sure whether the outcome will be a net positive or net negative at this point. I am simply taking into account some of the risks involved. I prefer to keep in mind that reality is more complex than either of us can imagine. Trump is portraying this as "ISIS was defeated, we won!" and that's objectively inaccurate.
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2018
2,036
1,453
230
Don't worry.

Pretty sure the US will find another war somewhere in the world to shuffle troops and station their aircraft carriers.

Got to make use of those weapons maker contracts somehow.
 

MrTickles

Member
Feb 22, 2018
2,042
2,453
325
Major promise by Trump fulfilled. The Kurds are essentially going to be crushed by Turkey. Erdogan announced a pending all out invasion of SDF territories. It was always their fate.

Well it was just a matter of time.

Russia praises US decision to pull troops out of Syria, saying move creates hopes for "a political solution."
https://thehill.com/policy/international/middle-east-north-africa/422145-russia-praises-us-decision-to-pull-out-of-syria

Kurds have been punk'd. Punk'd to death. Used and abused by the US, as usual.

Syrian Army will also use this opportunity to take Kurdish areas. Turkey and Russia are in this plan together.
 
Last edited:

Madonis

Member
Oct 21, 2018
542
274
180
Being an ally/enemy of the US is a revolving door for any small group in the middle east.
Those double-faced Kurds! They will learn not to mess with the U.S. ever again! Oh wait, I think that's....wrong.

Actually, they will probably learn not to trust the U.S. again. Turns out Uncle Sam will leave them hanging once more.
 
Last edited:

ChuckeRearmed

Member
Jan 31, 2018
638
263
200
Those double-faced Kurds! They will learn not to mess with the U.S. ever again! Oh wait, I think that's....wrong.

Actually, they will probably learn not to trust the U.S. again. Turns out Uncle Sam will leave them hanging once more.
Kurds just wasn't that strong enough to deal with turks. They were just a tool to use against Turkey.

Iran have too big influence now in Syria and USA decide to withdraw and leave to deal with Iran to Russia and Turkey. (While Turkey will indirectly deal with Russia). Not to mention Sudan's president visited Assad. And considering that he used his mercenaries (aka military) to help Gulf coaltion we can expect his involvement in Syria too.
 
Last edited:
Nov 23, 2010
4,296
227
625
Those double-faced Kurds! They will learn not to mess with the U.S. ever again! Oh wait, I think that's....wrong.

Actually, they will probably learn not to trust the U.S. again. Turns out Uncle Sam will leave them hanging once more.
Why should anyone care about their trust? So what. Their trust doesn't do anything significant net for the US.

Pres. Trump was elected because tens of millions of Americans don't want the US indefinitely in foreign countries. Other Americans want people's sons and daughters fighting terrorist orgs for 30 years in the Middle East, creating power vacuums by disposing of dictators, promoting American values to cultures that reject it, and fighting proxy wars against countries like Iran and Russia that the US cannot steamroll. But a lot of people across the spectrum say no thanks.

So, warmongers and freedom hawks can jump up and down all they want to.

However, the truth is staying in Syria doesn't impede human rights abuses, Russia and Iran will not fold if folks just give it more time, and the US cannot eradicate terrorist orgs 100%. America cannot remain in Syria indefinitely for the reasons given so far.

Congress didn't authorize it. Therefore, Pres. Trump makes the final call. If critics don't like it, then once they become POTUS or vote someone in that wants the US to play the world police, then they can send troops back.
 

MisterFalcon

Member
Mar 12, 2013
2,898
112
410
Now that the US has committed to removing troops from Syria, I expect an unprovoked chemical attack against civilians to be blamed on Assad any day now. Happens every time, like clockwork.
Those wacky rebels, they have all those chemical weapons and just keep using them on themselves ! You would think at some point they would use them on Assad's troops but somehow this never occurs to them.
 

haxan7

Member
May 9, 2016
1,711
1,695
295
He's doing the right thing. The worst thing a US president can do is unleash war on the world. Trump has not created any new wars, and is reducing the wars that already exist.

The social media generation kids can cry all they want. The rights of hundreds of thousands or millions of people to have some semblance of a normal life - and not to die - is greater than their right to have a president that doesn't offend them.
 

sahlberg

Gold Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,606
1,811
350
Moore Park Beach
He is attacked from the far-left. Who knew the far-left were against bringing the boys home and exiting from conflicts :

(Jimmy Dore, he is obviously alt-rigth but I follow him)
 
Last edited:

Dunki

Member
Oct 24, 2017
6,819
5,978
335
This is not a good thing. For America maybe but for the Region and the res of the world no. Assad needs to o and now with the US gone Turkey can eleminate every Kurdish person there and maye even take Syria. IS is not the danger there anymore. But Assad and Erdogan are even worse.
 

Mohonky

Member
Jan 19, 2007
11,074
590
1,135
He is attacked from the far-left. Who knew the far-left were against bringing the boys home and exiting from conflicts :

(Jimmy Dore, he is obviously alt-rigth but I follow him)
This is a naïve view, after all was it not the Republicans blaming Obama for creating ISIS because of a similar decision to this? Bush Jnr made the mistake his Fathers party saw coming back during the Gulf war by leaving the area in a power vacuum and it's been a non-stop mess ever since.

I don't know whether this is a good or bad thing at this point. I gave Trump the benefit of the doubt when it came to refusing to arm rebel groups and it was something I was critical of the Obama administration for doing but pulling out too early could see an ISIS resurgence, or spawning another group.....and that's before considering what plans Turkey and Assad have.

I'm conflicted on the whole thing, like Afghanistan and Iraq, they can't stay there forever but....yeh the area is hardly stable and even the other Republican members are dubious of this decision. The US weren't even there is big numbers, they were largely just providing long range support and ensuring Kurdish forces weren't being pushed back or as they were initially, just providing cover while civilians fled, the US forces weren't exactly providing the same level of support and forward operations like they were in Afghan and Iraq.