bellisarius
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2017
- Posts
- 16,761
Bunch of related threads on the subject, such as'
Turkey-Syria
Disaster
But the thread that triggered this thread was;
Tulsi the Russian
Starting with the obvious question, "What would our mission be in N. Syria?" And the follow on would be, "How would we know we achieved our goals so we could pull our troops out?" The use of military force anywhere should be goal oriented with a national purpose in mind and a defined end point. I can see none of those criteria associated with staying in N. Syria. So why do so many in DC want to be there?
Switching gears somewhat, why in the world would Clinton come out and call Gabbard a Russian plant? Merely because she, like Trump, wants our troops out of there? What has that to do with the Russians (rhetorical question here)?" It's because of the fear of the Russian gaining influence in the region. That would imply that the real reason hasn't a damn thing to do with the welfare of the Kurds. And that my friends is a Cold War mind set, a relic of the past. Who cares if the Russians gain some semblance of influence in the region? Their track record in the region isn't all that stellar for one, and if they can bring some sort of peace and stability to the region is it all that bad? Or is DC locked in NIH syndrome?
Russia is NOT a military threat to anyone. Like Western Europe, they're a dying nation. By 2020 they won't have enough active military to secure their own borders let alone invade or occupy some other nation. Oh, they'll still have their nukes but unless they're invaded, by, oh say, the Chinese, they aren't insane enough to use them.
This DC fixation on Russia as an enemy is serving no one any sound purpose. A little accommodation might go a long way to reaping rewards in the future. Putin isn't going to live forever and the opposition to his policies are growing daily.
In summary I contend that our mission in N. Syria is NOT what the press and the Cold War Cadre in DC are telling us it is. Saving the Kurds is not the mission and never was. There is no exit plan and given the circumstances no one can come up with one. A mission built on a false premise with no end in sight. If you're all that paranoid about the Russians let them spend their blood and treasure, after all that worked out so well for them in Afghanistan.
Turkey-Syria
Disaster
But the thread that triggered this thread was;
Tulsi the Russian
Starting with the obvious question, "What would our mission be in N. Syria?" And the follow on would be, "How would we know we achieved our goals so we could pull our troops out?" The use of military force anywhere should be goal oriented with a national purpose in mind and a defined end point. I can see none of those criteria associated with staying in N. Syria. So why do so many in DC want to be there?
Switching gears somewhat, why in the world would Clinton come out and call Gabbard a Russian plant? Merely because she, like Trump, wants our troops out of there? What has that to do with the Russians (rhetorical question here)?" It's because of the fear of the Russian gaining influence in the region. That would imply that the real reason hasn't a damn thing to do with the welfare of the Kurds. And that my friends is a Cold War mind set, a relic of the past. Who cares if the Russians gain some semblance of influence in the region? Their track record in the region isn't all that stellar for one, and if they can bring some sort of peace and stability to the region is it all that bad? Or is DC locked in NIH syndrome?
Russia is NOT a military threat to anyone. Like Western Europe, they're a dying nation. By 2020 they won't have enough active military to secure their own borders let alone invade or occupy some other nation. Oh, they'll still have their nukes but unless they're invaded, by, oh say, the Chinese, they aren't insane enough to use them.
This DC fixation on Russia as an enemy is serving no one any sound purpose. A little accommodation might go a long way to reaping rewards in the future. Putin isn't going to live forever and the opposition to his policies are growing daily.
In summary I contend that our mission in N. Syria is NOT what the press and the Cold War Cadre in DC are telling us it is. Saving the Kurds is not the mission and never was. There is no exit plan and given the circumstances no one can come up with one. A mission built on a false premise with no end in sight. If you're all that paranoid about the Russians let them spend their blood and treasure, after all that worked out so well for them in Afghanistan.
