Why isn't NATO working in Syria to protect the Kurds? Why is it always the US?

[kyzr]

Syria is not a member of NATO and if NATO sent troops, they would side with Turkey who is a NATO member. Who would NATO troops be fighting? Surely not the Kurds as they are US allies as is Turkey. If NATO troops went to Syria they would be bogged down for years. Besides the NATO countries wouldn't be willing to spend lives and treasure in another endless war. It's a complicated situation made by the unwanted presence of Turkey and Russia. This has turned into a matter that the UN was created to handle. Let the UN handle it and bring US troops home.

If NATO sent troops to Syria they would be fighting ISIS and keeping Turkey out of Syria, as well as keeping Assad and Russia out of the Kurdish areas. Isn't preventing a genocide of Kurds a worthy NATO mission?

If NATO won't do "endless wars" why should the US send troops to the ME to do "endless wars"? Trump is right to us pull out of Syria. I hope pulling US troops home from the EU and saving $24b a year is next on the agenda.

The UN can't do anything, never could. Talk is cheap. Turkey would just stonewall like Baghdad Bob in the old days.
Nothing is ever accomplished except by military force. In this case the extermination of Kurds.

Stop. Just stop, dope.
You obviously have no understanding of NATO or their mission.

NATO missions??
How about that NATO mission in Afghanistan?
International Security Assistance Force - Wikipedia

How about that "NATO" mission in Syria? aka UK & France in Syria? Call it NATO or not?
Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War - Wikipedia

IMHO the EU NATO members have more skin in the game in Syria than the US military does. We wanted to eliminate the ISIS caliphate, mission accomplished, until Turkey and Erdogan upset the apple-cart.
Who gets to clean up the ISIS and migrant mess now? Hint: not the USA.

 

[kyzr]

U.S. direction and leadership by example led to European countries joining the United States and increasing the size and strength of their military forces. Without U.S. engagement in this area it, never would have happened. The Europeans have always failed when it comes to security over the last century without the aid and support of the United States.

In 2013, the United States withdrew its last tank Units from Europe. It was the first time in over 70 years that there were no U.S. tank units in Europe. Then Russian invaded Ukraine and annexed the Crimea and parts of Eastern Ukraine. Since, then the United States has moved an entire Armored Brigade back to Europe and also positioned all the equipment for a second armored Brigade in Europe. So your wrong, there have been new U.S. troop deployments too Europe and more deployments are being studied and envisioned at the moment.

Bush never damaged NATO's unity. He in fact increased it with the Alliance performing its first out of Europe operations in its history which continue to this day.

There has NEVER been nor is there any such thing now, as an American Empire. The only people in the world to look at NATO as a threat are the Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, Iranians and non-state terrorist groups around the world. NATO threatens their ability to harass and take over various parts of the world and create havoc and instability everywhere.

The United States military and NATO military have been far more effective than any other military forces or other entities in solving the worlds problems and saving lives. Keeping the peace in Europe, preventing and deterring a Soviet/Warsaw Pact invasion, preventing World War III, saving Bosnia and Kosovo from genocide, giving Afghanistan its best government and highest standard of living in its history are just a few of the things they have accomplished.

I found you quite regularly to propose positions that are reasonable, at least defensible. The above, however, are the musings of a militaristic subject of empire - sorry to say.

Just in short to correct your misstatement on U.S. troops in Europe. I spoke about "additional troops", which would obviously mean rising troop numbers. Here's what happened during the last three decades or so:

Pointing to an armored brigade rotated in to replace other kinds of troops doesn't counter my point. Whatever, at a time when isolationism is on the rise in the U.S., and all eyes are on Europeans buckling up, expectations rise they provide for their own defense, expecting rising U.S. troop numbers in Europe would be illogical. At most, I see some legislators hinting at countering further draw-downs.

Its not about bean counting the number of military personal in Europe, but RELEVANT combat troops. The United States Armored Brigade that was sent to Europe following the Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea was not sent to replace other troops. It moved into Eastern Europe with most of its elements stationed in Poland. It was significant in that it marked the return of the first U.S. armored force to Europe since the last tank unit was foolishly withdrawn in 2013. There were only two U.S. combat brigades left in Europe at the end of 2013. A medium weight brigade with Stryker armored vehicles considered too light for heavy armored combat, stationed in southern Germany. The only other combat brigade was a light infantry airborne combat brigade stationed at Vicenza Italy. Another Armored Brigade's equipment has been pre-positioned in Eastern Europe so its troops can be moved from the United States and ready for combat on the ground in Europe within days. An armored battalion has been deployed to the Baltic States and another armored battalion has been deployed to Romania. So the number of U.S. ground combat troops in Europe has nearly doubled since the end of 2013, and more than doubled if you include the Brigade that has its pre-positioned equipment stored in Eastern Europe.

As stated before, it has been estimated that there needs to be at least 7 Brigades, most of them armored, in addition to Polish forces, to counter a Russian invasion of the Baltic States. This is NOT a time of retreat from Europe as it was prior to Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2014. Russia's invasion of Ukraine reversed everything. Failure to deter a Russian invasion of the Baltic States, which since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, has become more likely, would lead to World War III. That is why it is imperative to increase the number of U.S. ground combat troops in Europe, in positions, where they could quickly respond to Russian aggression. The only way an adequate force will be deployed to defend the Baltic states is if the United States increases the number of ground combat brigades it has stationed in Europe. What has been done since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014 is a start, but it is not enough.

The Russian threat is not at all being deemphasized in congress. There is far more support in congress today for increasing the number of ground combat brigades in Europe than at any time in the last five years.

Its far easier to defeat the Russian military if we keep the sanctions on Russia instead of helping them re-build and develop new classes of weapons, such as hyper-sonic missiles. Don't fight the last war. A quick first strike can eliminate a lot of ground forces (Maginot Line Redux?). Retaliation is always the name of the game with Russia. What part of "we can't afford to keep troops in the EU don't you understand?" The EU needs to step up, 70 years of the US paying to protect the EU is over.

An ‘Arms Race in Speed’: Hypersonic Weapons and the Changing Calculus of Battle | Arms Control Association

 

[kyzr]

Thank you for your usual thoughtful response. I'll address your comments paragraph by paragraph:
p1: Agree that NATO is an alliance, that has successfully defended the EU for 70 years or so. However, NATO does do occasional away games, such as in AFG when needed. My points are, that the US borrows and spends about $24b a year to keep troops in the EU. The US can no longer afford to keep those troops there. The US defeated ISIS in Syria without significant help from NATO. I don't know why NATO wouldn't help in Syria, or why NATO won't help stop Turkey from invading Syria and killing Kurds. NATO members do have financial commitments to NATO, only 7 are meeting them.
NATO report: Only 7 members meeting defense spending targets - CNNPolitics
In the last (70) years Russia's economy has slowed such that it is now the size of Italy's or NY state's economy. It is being helped by gas purchases by Germany. So as Trump notes, we are borrowing money to defend the EU, and the EU is buying gas from Russia to fund their military, how stupid are we?

p2: no comment

p3: agree that the US killed about 300 Russian mercs, but disagree that there was no risk of war. If Erdogan attacked Syria, and the US troops were still there, after Erdogan warned them to get out, that could have risked a shooting war with Turkey. You assume that Turkey would not attack Syria if US troops are present. That is a very bad assumption. Erdogan is unpredictable.

p4: You're suggesting that Trump and Erdogan should have a steely-eyed showdown over Syria and the Kurds, knowing that Trump ran on getting us out of ME "endless wars". Erdogan would have attacked, and Trump would have been forced to respond. Who knows where that would end up? Turkey has a modern military, and has a home field advantage in Syria.

p5: Trump didn't give Turkey a green light. Erdogan said "we are invading Syria, please get out or risk casualties."

p6: use the same NATO Charter that allowed NATO to work collectively in AFG to keep the peace, to also keep the peace in Syria.

p7: Assad and the Kurds have an agreement to fight the Turks. The Russians might get into it as well, who knows? Complicating things is the cozy relationship between Russia and Turkey, such as buying Russian S-400 anti-aircraft missiles to defeat NATO planes.
Turkey bought Russian S-400 missiles designed to down NATO planes. For the US, that's a problem - CNN
Whose side is Turkey on? Are you sure?

p8: Turkey was going to invade Syria with or without the presence of 1,000 US "speed-bump" troops. Erdogan would say, I warned the Americans to leave, they very unwisely chose not to.

Trump saved US lives by leaving. If NATO wanted to get into that Syrian mess they would have, so NATO countries have no right to criticize Trump. He defeated ISIS, mission accomplished. No thanks to NATO.

PART 1:

The United States cannot afford to not have troops in Europe. In fact, in light of Russia's actions in the previous 5 years, the United States at a minimum should double the number of troops it has in Europe. The United States does not defend Europe as an act of charity. It defends Europe because the survival of the United States is dependent on it. It is not true that the United States defeated ISIS in Syria without significant help from other NATO countries. Other NATO countries currently fly air missions over Syria and NATO troops, particular French troops have had presence in Syria on the ground in past years.

NATO won't commit troops on the ground in Syria or in the air absent of U.S. involvement. The United States is by far the most powerful military in NATO and has resources, particular in logistics that are key to sustaining any other NATO country's intervention there. So Trump's foolish decision to withdraw the 2,000 U.S. troops in Syria essentially prevents any NATO involvement.

Your statement about the Russian economy is FALSE. When adjusting for purchasing power parity, the Russian economy is the 6th largest in the world.

1 China $23,210,000,000,000
2 United States $19,490,000,000,000
3 India $9,474,000,000,000
4 Japan $5,443,000,000,000
5 Germany $4,199,000,000,000
6 Russia $4,016,000,000,000
7 Indonesia $3,250,000,000,000
8 Brazil $3,248,000,000,000
9 United Kingdom $2,925,000,000,000
10 France $2,856,000,000,000
11 Mexico $2,463,000,000,000
12 Italy $2,317,000,000,000
13 Turkey $2,186,000,000,000
14 Korea, South $2,035,000,000,000
15 Spain $1,778,000,000,000
16 Saudi Arabia $1,775,000,000,000
17 Canada $1,774,000,000,000
18 Iran $1,640,000,000,000
19 Australia $1,248,000,000,000
20 Thailand $1,236,000,000,000

As you can see, Russia's economy is nearly twice the size of Italy's and nearly as large as Germany's economy. In any event, raw military capabilities matter far more than economic size has history has so often shown in the past.

PART 2/3: Erdogan is predictable based on his past years of experience and refusal to move Turkish troops into areas where U.S. troops are located. No other country in NATO would support Turkey foolishly attacking U.S. troops in Syria. Turkish troops would be thrown back with heavy losses and then face isolation and economic sanctions from the rest of Europe. Erdogan is not that dumb. Any Turkish operation against the Kurds with U.S. troops in place would FAIL, do heavy damage to the Turkish armed forces and extensive damage to the Turkish economy. In fact, such a move would probably bring about Erdogan removal from power through a coup afterwards.

PART 4: For nearly 3 years, Trump has kept to nearly all of the United States prior middle east commitments, which is good despite his isolationist statements during the campaign and after the campaign. TRUMP and Erdogan have already had the showdown and the Turks wisely blinked. If Trump had kept U.S. troops there, there would be no Turkish invasion of northeastern Syria.

Most of the Turkish military uses outdated equipment by U.S. standards. They do have some modern equipment in some areas, but not in large numbers. Their most modern Tank, the German LeopardIIA4 is not considered modern enough for them which is why they wanted Germany to upgrade the tank to LeopardIIA7 standards but Germany refused. Turkey has a modern economy and society, but that makes it vulnerable to U.S. attacks on water systems and electricity. When the United States turned off the water and electricity in Serbia during the 1999, Kosovo War, it generated popular resentment among Serbians against their own leaders which led to the conclusion of the conflict, and not to long later to Slobondon Milisovic being removed from power internally.

PART 5: Not true, Donald Trump green lighted the Syrian operation and agreed to pull out U.S. troops. If Erdogan did not care, he would have invaded north eastern Syria years ago.

PART 6: the NATO charter was invoked with respect to Afghanistan because New York City and Washington D.C. were attacked by forces within Afghanistan.

PART 7: There would not be any agreement by the Kurds with the Russians and Assad if Trump had kept the troops in place. The Kurds only turned to Assad and the Russians after Trump green lighted the Turkish invasion and pulled U.S. troops out.

PART 8: No evidence of this at all. No attacks by Turkey at all for years when U.S. troops were in place in north eastern Syria. Its not just the 2,000 U.S. troops on the ground in Syria, but also the Kurdish forces, U.S. airpower, plus what the United States could bring to the region rather quickly in terms of more Air Power and ground troops. There is also the weakness in the ability of the Turks to defend their country from U.S. Air and Missile attacks and well as cyber attacks on the country's water and electricity systems. Then there is the threat of a coup to unseat Erdogan from power.

PART 9: As Linsey Graham said today, Trump has let ISIS out of its prisons and if any American citizens are killed anywhere in the world by ISIS forces from Syria, it will be Trump's fault. ISIS is a group that is trying to launch a 9/11 scale attack on the United States mainland and Trump's actions in Syria over the past week just made that more likely. The United States with the Kurds and help of other NATO countries retook all of the Syrian territory that was controlled by ISIS. But ISIS was not totally destroyed yet. It now has a chance to make a comeback because of Trump's actions. This has put Americans lives far more at risk. Trump has in just one week, created a huge mess and serious threat to the United States by pulling out U.S. troops.

Responding paragraph by paragraph:
p1: The largest threat to the US is the National Debt of $22T, so says the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Defense.gov News Article: Debt is Biggest Threat to National Security, Chairman Says
So saving $24b a year for keeping US troops in the EU is what the US needs to do.
Agree NATO helped defeat ISIS, but left Syria to its fate in 2018.

p2. NATO withdrew from Syria about 1-year ago to leave about 1,000 US troops there with the Kurds. Why didn't NATO keep forces there? Did they know that Erdogan was planning an invasion of Syria? If Erdogan stops the invasion at 35km, to create his border "buffer zone" is that enough to create stability? Erdogan said that he was invading Syria with or without US troops present:
Turkey Warns the U.S. Not to Interfere With Syria Invasion: 'No Power Can Stop Us'

p3: I base my opinion of the Russian economy on its GDP, not "purchasing power" you need to compare apples to apples.
Russia GDP | 2019 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast | News
Russia's economy is between Canada's and South Korea's. About 12th in the world if you call the EU as one economy.

p4: Agree that military power is a different metric. Russia's military is way better than its economy, but not a match for NATO.

p5: Trump is not taking US casualties for the Kurds. If NATO was present in some force Erdogan might have 2nd thoughts, but who knows?

p6 to end: Trump said today that the US is not involved in the Syrian civil war. The US will not go to war over Turkey's border issues with the Kurds. Trump was elected to get the US out of the ME and save $Trillions and thousands of US lives. The days of the US trying to be the world's cop are over.

PART: 1. The National debt as a percentage of GDP was much higher at the end of the World War II than it is now. As in World War II, United States national security is far more important than the National Debt. So this General is wrong. Successfully defending Europe is vital to the survival of the United States and has been for over 75 years now. The United States troop levels in Europe must at least be doubled if not tripled in order to deter a possible Russian invasion of the Baltic States in the future.

PART: 2 Erdogan was saying such things before Trump even ran for President. Turkey on its own would be unsuccessful in any invasion of Syria with U.S. troops on the ground and air power there. As long as the United States said no to Turkey and kept the right complement of troops air assets nearby, there is no way in hell Turkey would have risked an invasion, no matter what comes out of Istanbul BOB's mouth.

PART 3. To correctly estimate GDP, you must adjust for purchasing power parity, otherwise the figure is NOT accurate. Russia has the 6th largest economy on the planet and an economy almost the size of Germany and nearly double the size of Italy. You can look the figures for all countries at the CIA WORLD FACTBOOK online. The vast majority of Economist use the GDP figures that are adjusted for purchasing power. It is the most accurate estimate of the size of the economy. Otherwise, your pretending that the same $10 dollar haircut in the United States is worth 5 times as much as the same $2 dollar haircut in India. Both haircuts are the same value from a TRUE productivity standpoint. That's what GDP is estimating, productivity within a given year. In order to do that accurately, you must adjust for purchasing power parity.

PART 4. NATO cannot adequately defend against a Russian invasion of the Baltic States currently. Its estimate that 7 Brigades, most of them heavy armor, need to be deployed there or nearby in addition to Polish forces in order to successfully defend against a Russian invasion.

Russia has nuclear parity with NATO with its huge arsenal. It also has very large conventional forces and is introducing new modern Tanks, Armored Personal Carriers, Artillery and Anti-Aircraft missiles and artillery that are either better or equivalent to NATO's equipment in these areas. Russia has more troops concentrated in areas that are near the Baltic States. They have performed training exercises recently with up to 100,000 troops involved. NATO training exercises since the Cold War have only involved at most 5,000 to 10,000 troops.

Another weakness of NATO is that most of the United States forces are stationed across the ocean back home and other important NATO forces are stationed in places that are far from where the Baltic States are along Russia's border.

Defending the 3 Baltic States is a challenging task made more difficult because of Russia's Kaliningrad region separated from Russia by the Baltic States. Russian forces in Belarus and Kaliningrad could easily cut off the only NATO land route to the Baltic States through Poland into Lithuania.

NATO has serious problems when it comes to defending the Baltic States, and awareness of these problems took on heightened concerned after the Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014. As well as covert Russian military actions in Eastern Ukraine that has resulted in essentially the annexation of half of Ukraine's Donetsk region and half of its Lugansk region in eastern Ukraine.

PART 5. If TRUMP had said no to any Turkish invasion and kept U.S. troops in place, the north eastern area of Syria where the Kurds live would still be a stable area right now. ISIS would still be locked up or hiding with Kurdish and American forces pursuing those individuals not captured yet. There would be no Turkish invasion, no killing of innocent civilians that has been seen the last few days either.

PART 6. The United States still had vital national security interest in North East Syria because of ISIS members still being the run there as well as large detention camps containing ISIS fighters and their families. Trump just let ISIS out of its box and now there the risk that ISIS will return in force. The United States was not involved in the Syrian civil War. It was helping the Kurds defeat ISIS and preventing other forces from entering the area and doing so successfully.

Turkey would NOT go to war with the United States over its alleged border issues with the Kurds in Syria. We know this given what has happened for the past several years. MATTIS resigned because Trump wanted to get out. GENERAL MATTIS knew it was a stupid thing to do, and he is being proved right at the moment.

The overwhelming majority of the United States House of Representatives, U.S. Senate and U.S. military is AGAINST what Trump has done in Syria. Most Republicans in the House and Senate are against what Trump has done in Syria.

Responding paragraph by paragraph:
p1: The "Chiefs of Staff" are the top US military commanders, not one "general". The $22T Debt is a danger that we can't ignore. The military knows that their budget will be slashed if we don't get our finances in order. We can't afford to defend the EU, the EU needs to step up and defend itself. The US is there via NATO if ever needed.

p2: The US had 1000 troops there, but were not battle troops but coordinators, Turkey invaded with a massive force that was massing for months. The 1,000 US troops there could not stop that big a force of modern military hardware.
2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria - Wikipedia

p3: We disagree on Russia's economy. If the EU keeps buying Russian gas, they can deal with the Russian hardware.

p4: If the EU can't stop a Russian invasion now, then they better spend more on their militaries. Only 7 EU countries are meeting their NATO military spending commitments.

p5: Wrong. Ergdogan said the invasion was on with or without US troops present. Trump doesn't waste US lives.

p6: ISIS is now officially the problem of Turkey, the Kurds, Assad, Iraq and the EU. The US withdrew from Syria. Good luck!
Congress is just sucking for shekels, the PACs are lobbying frantically to keep a lid on Syria. Trump wisely said, "we're done in Syria"

PART 1: As stated before, U.S. National debt as a percentage of GDP is lower than it was at the end of World War II. The national debt although a problem then, did not endanger the United States in 1945 and nor does it now. We know this based on economic history. Again, National Security comes BEFORE anything else. Defending Europe is vital to the Survival of the United States. The breakout of war in Europe with Russia could potentially destroy the entire planet within hours. The national debt while a problem, is light years away from being as serious as that.

PART 2: Your forgetting Kurdish troops that would be fighting with U.S. troops. Your also forgetting that the United States has several ground assets that it could deploy into Syria within days. There is an entire Airborne Combat Brigade in Vicenza Italy, 15,000 U.S. combat troops, that could be deployed by air to north eastern Syria within 72 hours.

Oh and the mighty Turkish invasion that you talk of has only been able to advance at its deepest, 15 kilometers into Syria at this point. Plus, half of the forces that Turkey sent in are not even Turkish troops, but Arab militias. So the idea that the United States could not stop Turkey is laughably false.

PART 3: Sorry, but you'll never understand the real economic situation in various countries around the world, until you stop using inaccurate statistics that don't adjust for purchasing power parity.

PART 4: The EU will only increase its force levels when the U.S. increases its forces levels in Europe. Without U.S. leadership and support, Europe will fall apart as it did in World War I and World War II. The United States can't afford to let that happen again. The United States is the glue that holds the European alliance and defense of Europe together.

PART 5: Ergdogan has being saying that for years. The Turkish military would still be sitting north of the Turkish border in the Kurdish area if Trump had not given the green light and pulled out U.S. troops. That's why 90% of congress has condemned what Trump has done. That's why the U.S. military is not supportive of Trump's policy. General Mattis new this was a stupid idea which is why he resigned. TRUMPS actions have endangered U.S. lives EVERYWHERE. ISIS fighters have escaped the prisons they were contained in and are regrouping with other ISIS forces that were in hiding.

PART 6: ISIS is a international terrorist organization. The idea that they are someone elses problem is part of the stupidity that help to KILL 3,000 U.S. citizens on September 11, 2001.

p1: Defending the EU is vital to the survival of the EU. So they better get busy beefing up their militaries. The National Debt is an immediate problem that needs attention, Medicare will be bankrupt in 2026, and SS will be insolvent in 2034. Russia is the EU's problem, China is the USA's problem.

p2: What part of Trump is not putting US lives into the Syrian civil war, or in front of the Turkish invasion don't you understand?
Just not happening, period. Deal with Trump's decision.

p3. GDP in dollars is a base level econometric metric, purchasing power varies all over the world, its anything you want it to be. Point being that Russia's economy is not as powerful as China's.

p4: The US has bigger fish to fry than Russia. The EU needs to sink or swim on its own. NATO is a powerful deterrent if its kept modern and fully mission capable, so get busy.

p5.We disagree on Erdogan's actions. He said he's attacking Syria, get the US troops out of the way. Not to remove US troops would have been negligence. The US has done more than enough in Syria to defeat ISIS. Now it's up to others to deal with that situation.

p6. The US has much better security now than before 9/11. Vetting is better, borders are better. Facial recognition, voice recognition, DNA matching, Homeland Security, the NSA, the FBI, ICE, and nationwide security cameras help keep the US safe.
How Surveillance Cameras Evolved from Curiosity to Ubiquity

 

[Olde Europe]

ISIS started in Syria after 2011 when the Civil War began there. The old Sunni insurgency in the 00s in Iraq was not ISIS. That Sunni insurgency was also largely defeated by 2009. Had the U.S. not withdrawn from Iraq at the end of 2011, ISIS would not even exist today.

I put the relevant statements in bold so as to highlight your error. Of course, Da'esh would exist, whether the U.S. exited Iraq or not. Why would events in Iraq determine what happened in Syria? Doesn't make any sense, does it?

Moreover, the U.S. did not withdraw from Iraq - the troops were thrown out of the country. Also, the Sunni insurgency was not "defeated", largely or otherwise. The Sons of Anbar threw many of the insurgents out of the country, and they migrated to Syria for a while. That, too, is a salient distinction, without which Da'esh's re-entering Iraq (after Baghdad failed properly to address Sunni grievances) cannot be properly understood.

 

[U2Edge]

ISIS started in Syria after 2011 when the Civil War began there. The old Sunni insurgency in the 00s in Iraq was not ISIS. That Sunni insurgency was also largely defeated by 2009. Had the U.S. not withdrawn from Iraq at the end of 2011, ISIS would not even exist today.

I put the relevant statements in bold so as to highlight your error. Of course, Da'esh would exist, whether the U.S. exited Iraq or not. Why would events in Iraq determine what happened in Syria? Doesn't make any sense, does it?

Moreover, the U.S. did not withdraw from Iraq - the troops were thrown out of the country. Also, the Sunni insurgency was not "defeated", largely or otherwise. The Sons of Anbar threw many of the insurgents out of the country, and they migrated to Syria for a while. That, too, is a salient distinction, without which Da'esh's re-entering Iraq (after Baghdad failed properly to address Sunni grievances) cannot be properly understood.

There is no error. Much of ISIS rise and power resulted from their incursion into Iraq from Syria in 2014. From June 9, 2014, to June 13, 2014, ISIS took approximately 1/3 of Iraqi territory. This action put ISIS on steroids and super charged the movement. ISIS was able to do that because of the impact of the United States complete withdrawal from Iraq at the end of 2011. After that, Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, foolishly replaced Sunni military officers throughout the Iraqi military with political appointees were in incompetent but loyal to Maliki. This slowly weakened the Iraqi military throughout 2012 and 2013, so that by 2014, they were easily crushed by invading ISIS forces from Syria.

If Obama had kept US troops there, none of the above would have happened. As soon as the Syrian Civil War created a vacuum in North Eastern Syria for ISIS to start forming, U.S. troops across the border in Iraq would have been well positioned to crush in the cradle where it was forming with the help of Kurds in Syria. This would have all taken place long before 2014. No one in the media today would even be using the word ISIS.

There was not anything that threw US troops out of Iraq in 2011. They were withdrawn by Obama when they could have easily stayed. There was NO military force, militant force, or police force that could move United States forces one inch from where they were stationed! NONE! There were no U.S. forces retreating from some battle that had forced them out of the country. Never happened.

The Sunni insurgency was largely crushed by the end of 2007. Some mopping up in 2008. You can see it in the violence levels, from coalition casualties, Iraqi military casualties and civilians casualties. The huge drop in all casualties explicitly shows how the Surge in Iraq crushed the Sunni insurgency. Starting in 2009, you have relative calm throughout much of Iraq relative to the situation in previous years. That calm extended through 2011 and even held up during 2012 and 2013. The Sons of Anbar played little role in defeating the Sunni insurgency. The Sons of Anbar were only good at helping to guard some of their towns and prevent a power vacuum from being created in some areas. But the vast majority of the hard anti-insurgent fighting was done by the U.S. military. Its what all the records show, and there are all the battles and towns retaken that show that.

If the Sons Of Anbar were any type of powerful entity, ISIS would never have been able to do what it did in 2014. Because Obama refused to send large U.S. ground forces back to Iraq, it would take over 3 years to take out ISIS from all the territory they had conquered in 2014. It was done with the support and advice of 5,000 U.S. ground troops, what was left of the Iraqi Army, in particular the golden special forces division, Shia militia's from the south, and Overwhelming use of U.S. Airpower. Tens of thousands of Iraq' civilians were slaughtered during the long process, the Yazidi were almost eliminated from the earth, and the risk of international Terrorist action from ISIS territory against Europe and North America escalated dramatically. But finally after three years ISIS was defeated with this strategy despite the lives that it cost and the risk it put Europe and North America under while it slowly moved to accomplish its objectives.

So the Saddam and militant Sunni elements in Iraq have been crushed 3 times now, 2003, 2007, and 2017. Not just once. Its unlikely there will be a 4th resurgence. Iraq today has a murder rate the same as California.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The US spends about $24b a year keeping US troops in the EU apparently in case Putin decides to take another country or two. I object to spending borrowed US taxpayer dollars defending the EU when they can pay the cost.

Then after Trump uses the US military to defeat ISIS and keep the Caliphate from spreading thru the EU, there is no NATO in Syria helping to keep a lid on things. Now the US had the choice of risking a war with Turkey, or a war with Russia if we stayed in Syria. Now if Turkey and Russia get into a shooting war because of Turkey's invasion of Syria, will the US be expected to defend Turkey and fight Russia?

I think Trump is right getting our guys out of the way of Turkey's invasion. But, I'm wondering why there aren't other NATO troops there to stop Turkey?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...087baa-edbb-11e9-b2da-606ba1ef30e3_story.html

Lets take a poll on Syria and Turkey. NATO is not worth the $24b if they can't help the US in Syria, so I support Trump's pulling US troops out of harm's way.

Why isn't NATO working in Syria to protect the Kurds? Why is it always the US?

Because Syria is not a member nation of NATO, retard.

Yes. It begs the question, why the fuck are we interested in Syria? It is so wholly disconnected from our country that it cannot be justified.

ISIS, dope. Not Syria.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

SIS fighters have escaped the prisons they were contained in and are regrouping with other ISIS forces that were in hiding.

So blow up the fucking prisons before they do. Is there a problem here?

That would be genocide, dope.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Syria is not a member of NATO and if NATO sent troops, they would side with Turkey who is a NATO member. Who would NATO troops be fighting? Surely not the Kurds as they are US allies as is Turkey. If NATO troops went to Syria they would be bogged down for years. Besides the NATO countries wouldn't be willing to spend lives and treasure in another endless war. It's a complicated situation made by the unwanted presence of Turkey and Russia. This has turned into a matter that the UN was created to handle. Let the UN handle it and bring US troops home.

If NATO sent troops to Syria they would be fighting ISIS and keeping Turkey out of Syria, as well as keeping Assad and Russia out of the Kurdish areas. Isn't preventing a genocide of Kurds a worthy NATO mission?

If NATO won't do "endless wars" why should the US send troops to the ME to do "endless wars"? Trump is right to us pull out of Syria. I hope pulling US troops home from the EU and saving $24b a year is next on the agenda.

The UN can't do anything, never could. Talk is cheap. Turkey would just stonewall like Baghdad Bob in the old days.
Nothing is ever accomplished except by military force. In this case the extermination of Kurds.

Stop. Just stop, dope.
You obviously have no understanding of NATO or their mission.

NATO missions??
How about that NATO mission in Afghanistan?
International Security Assistance Force - Wikipedia

How about that "NATO" mission in Syria? aka UK & France in Syria? Call it NATO or not?
Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War - Wikipedia

IMHO the EU NATO members have more skin in the game in Syria than the US military does. We wanted to eliminate the ISIS caliphate, mission accomplished, until Turkey and Erdogan upset the apple-cart.
Who gets to clean up the ISIS and migrant mess now? Hint: not the USA.

NATO is a strategic alliance for the common defense of it's members. They are not a humanitarian or peacekeeping force.

Syria is not a member, dope.

 

[Muhammed]

Syria is not a member of NATO and if NATO sent troops, they would side with Turkey who is a NATO member. Who would NATO troops be fighting? Surely not the Kurds as they are US allies as is Turkey.

The Kurds that Turkey is fighting are the PKK. Not our allies.

PKK Terrorism

"The Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) is an armed terrorist organization, listed as such by the United States and the European Union. Founded in 1974 and assuming paramilitary functions in 1984, the Marxist-Leninist and separatist PKK has used violence and terrorism in pursuit of Kurdish secession from the Republic of Turkey. PKK actions and terror tactics have led to tens of thousands of military and civilian deaths over the past decades and have prevented lasting stability in southeastern Turkey.

The U.S. and Europe have given cooperation and assistance to Turkey in its anti-PKK efforts. U.S. intelligence enabled the capture of PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan in 1999. In 2007, collaboration between Turkey, the U.S., and Iraq led to multiple airstrikes against the PKK in northern Iraq. In 2012, Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut sponsored a Senate Resolution condemning the PKK’s terrorist attacks, propaganda, and drug smuggling activities and reaffirmed the United States’ commitment to helping Turkey put an end to PKK terrorism. The U.S. and the EU both continue to classify the PKK as a terrorist organization."

The reason the LWNJs on this board are so upset is that Turkey is killing their comrade commie scum.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

U.S. direction and leadership by example led to European countries joining the United States and increasing the size and strength of their military forces. Without U.S. engagement in this area it, never would have happened. The Europeans have always failed when it comes to security over the last century without the aid and support of the United States.

In 2013, the United States withdrew its last tank Units from Europe. It was the first time in over 70 years that there were no U.S. tank units in Europe. Then Russian invaded Ukraine and annexed the Crimea and parts of Eastern Ukraine. Since, then the United States has moved an entire Armored Brigade back to Europe and also positioned all the equipment for a second armored Brigade in Europe. So your wrong, there have been new U.S. troop deployments too Europe and more deployments are being studied and envisioned at the moment.

Bush never damaged NATO's unity. He in fact increased it with the Alliance performing its first out of Europe operations in its history which continue to this day.

There has NEVER been nor is there any such thing now, as an American Empire. The only people in the world to look at NATO as a threat are the Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, Iranians and non-state terrorist groups around the world. NATO threatens their ability to harass and take over various parts of the world and create havoc and instability everywhere.

The United States military and NATO military have been far more effective than any other military forces or other entities in solving the worlds problems and saving lives. Keeping the peace in Europe, preventing and deterring a Soviet/Warsaw Pact invasion, preventing World War III, saving Bosnia and Kosovo from genocide, giving Afghanistan its best government and highest standard of living in its history are just a few of the things they have accomplished.

I found you quite regularly to propose positions that are reasonable, at least defensible. The above, however, are the musings of a militaristic subject of empire - sorry to say.

Just in short to correct your misstatement on U.S. troops in Europe. I spoke about "additional troops", which would obviously mean rising troop numbers. Here's what happened during the last three decades or so:

Pointing to an armored brigade rotated in to replace other kinds of troops doesn't counter my point. Whatever, at a time when isolationism is on the rise in the U.S., and all eyes are on Europeans buckling up, expectations rise they provide for their own defense, expecting rising U.S. troop numbers in Europe would be illogical. At most, I see some legislators hinting at countering further draw-downs.

Its not about bean counting the number of military personal in Europe, but RELEVANT combat troops. The United States Armored Brigade that was sent to Europe following the Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea was not sent to replace other troops. It moved into Eastern Europe with most of its elements stationed in Poland. It was significant in that it marked the return of the first U.S. armored force to Europe since the last tank unit was foolishly withdrawn in 2013. There were only two U.S. combat brigades left in Europe at the end of 2013. A medium weight brigade with Stryker armored vehicles considered too light for heavy armored combat, stationed in southern Germany. The only other combat brigade was a light infantry airborne combat brigade stationed at Vicenza Italy. Another Armored Brigade's equipment has been pre-positioned in Eastern Europe so its troops can be moved from the United States and ready for combat on the ground in Europe within days. An armored battalion has been deployed to the Baltic States and another armored battalion has been deployed to Romania. So the number of U.S. ground combat troops in Europe has nearly doubled since the end of 2013, and more than doubled if you include the Brigade that has its pre-positioned equipment stored in Eastern Europe.

As stated before, it has been estimated that there needs to be at least 7 Brigades, most of them armored, in addition to Polish forces, to counter a Russian invasion of the Baltic States. This is NOT a time of retreat from Europe as it was prior to Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2014. Russia's invasion of Ukraine reversed everything. Failure to deter a Russian invasion of the Baltic States, which since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, has become more likely, would lead to World War III. That is why it is imperative to increase the number of U.S. ground combat troops in Europe, in positions, where they could quickly respond to Russian aggression. The only way an adequate force will be deployed to defend the Baltic states is if the United States increases the number of ground combat brigades it has stationed in Europe. What has been done since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014 is a start, but it is not enough.

The Russian threat is not at all being deemphasized in congress. There is far more support in congress today for increasing the number of ground combat brigades in Europe than at any time in the last five years.

Its far easier to defeat the Russian military if we keep the sanctions on Russia instead of helping them re-build and develop new classes of weapons, such as hyper-sonic missiles. Don't fight the last war. A quick first strike can eliminate a lot of ground forces (Maginot Line Redux?). Retaliation is always the name of the game with Russia. What part of "we can't afford to keep troops in the EU don't you understand?" The EU needs to step up, 70 years of the US paying to protect the EU is over.

An ‘Arms Race in Speed’: Hypersonic Weapons and the Changing Calculus of Battle | Arms Control Association

A strong and growing NATO alliance has kept Russia in check for 70 years.
It's worked great until you dopes elected a Russian agent who is sowing discord and ceding that power to his handlers in Moscow.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Retarded thread.

 

[U2Edge]

U.S. direction and leadership by example led to European countries joining the United States and increasing the size and strength of their military forces. Without U.S. engagement in this area it, never would have happened. The Europeans have always failed when it comes to security over the last century without the aid and support of the United States.

In 2013, the United States withdrew its last tank Units from Europe. It was the first time in over 70 years that there were no U.S. tank units in Europe. Then Russian invaded Ukraine and annexed the Crimea and parts of Eastern Ukraine. Since, then the United States has moved an entire Armored Brigade back to Europe and also positioned all the equipment for a second armored Brigade in Europe. So your wrong, there have been new U.S. troop deployments too Europe and more deployments are being studied and envisioned at the moment.

Bush never damaged NATO's unity. He in fact increased it with the Alliance performing its first out of Europe operations in its history which continue to this day.

There has NEVER been nor is there any such thing now, as an American Empire. The only people in the world to look at NATO as a threat are the Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, Iranians and non-state terrorist groups around the world. NATO threatens their ability to harass and take over various parts of the world and create havoc and instability everywhere.

The United States military and NATO military have been far more effective than any other military forces or other entities in solving the worlds problems and saving lives. Keeping the peace in Europe, preventing and deterring a Soviet/Warsaw Pact invasion, preventing World War III, saving Bosnia and Kosovo from genocide, giving Afghanistan its best government and highest standard of living in its history are just a few of the things they have accomplished.

I found you quite regularly to propose positions that are reasonable, at least defensible. The above, however, are the musings of a militaristic subject of empire - sorry to say.

Just in short to correct your misstatement on U.S. troops in Europe. I spoke about "additional troops", which would obviously mean rising troop numbers. Here's what happened during the last three decades or so:

Pointing to an armored brigade rotated in to replace other kinds of troops doesn't counter my point. Whatever, at a time when isolationism is on the rise in the U.S., and all eyes are on Europeans buckling up, expectations rise they provide for their own defense, expecting rising U.S. troop numbers in Europe would be illogical. At most, I see some legislators hinting at countering further draw-downs.

Its not about bean counting the number of military personal in Europe, but RELEVANT combat troops. The United States Armored Brigade that was sent to Europe following the Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea was not sent to replace other troops. It moved into Eastern Europe with most of its elements stationed in Poland. It was significant in that it marked the return of the first U.S. armored force to Europe since the last tank unit was foolishly withdrawn in 2013. There were only two U.S. combat brigades left in Europe at the end of 2013. A medium weight brigade with Stryker armored vehicles considered too light for heavy armored combat, stationed in southern Germany. The only other combat brigade was a light infantry airborne combat brigade stationed at Vicenza Italy. Another Armored Brigade's equipment has been pre-positioned in Eastern Europe so its troops can be moved from the United States and ready for combat on the ground in Europe within days. An armored battalion has been deployed to the Baltic States and another armored battalion has been deployed to Romania. So the number of U.S. ground combat troops in Europe has nearly doubled since the end of 2013, and more than doubled if you include the Brigade that has its pre-positioned equipment stored in Eastern Europe.

As stated before, it has been estimated that there needs to be at least 7 Brigades, most of them armored, in addition to Polish forces, to counter a Russian invasion of the Baltic States. This is NOT a time of retreat from Europe as it was prior to Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2014. Russia's invasion of Ukraine reversed everything. Failure to deter a Russian invasion of the Baltic States, which since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, has become more likely, would lead to World War III. That is why it is imperative to increase the number of U.S. ground combat troops in Europe, in positions, where they could quickly respond to Russian aggression. The only way an adequate force will be deployed to defend the Baltic states is if the United States increases the number of ground combat brigades it has stationed in Europe. What has been done since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014 is a start, but it is not enough.

The Russian threat is not at all being deemphasized in congress. There is far more support in congress today for increasing the number of ground combat brigades in Europe than at any time in the last five years.

Its far easier to defeat the Russian military if we keep the sanctions on Russia instead of helping them re-build and develop new classes of weapons, such as hyper-sonic missiles. Don't fight the last war. A quick first strike can eliminate a lot of ground forces (Maginot Line Redux?). Retaliation is always the name of the game with Russia. What part of "we can't afford to keep troops in the EU don't you understand?" The EU needs to step up, 70 years of the US paying to protect the EU is over.

An ‘Arms Race in Speed’: Hypersonic Weapons and the Changing Calculus of Battle | Arms Control Association

What the United States cannot afford to have happen is World War III. Every last dime must be spent preventing that from happening. There are no short cuts, or super weapons that will do that. Trumps stupid tax cut for the rich would have been more than enough to pay for U.S. defense spending related to Europe. The fucking rich don't need a trillion dollar tax cut. Those taxes can and should be used to deploy more U.S. combat Brigades to Europe.

 

[The Original Tree]

Where is the Do Nothing UN?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

SIS fighters have escaped the prisons they were contained in and are regrouping with other ISIS forces that were in hiding.

So blow up the fucking prisons before they do. Is there a problem here?

That would be genocide, dope.

Ummm ... no.

 

[Olde Europe]

There is no error. Much of ISIS rise and power resulted from their incursion into Iraq from Syria in 2014.

The question was, would Da'esh exist were it not for the U.S. troops being thrown out of Iraq.

Of course, Da'esh would exist - it formed and gained followers and power in Syria regardless of a U.S. presence in neighboring Iraq.

The rest of the posting is otherworldly, besides the point, and from UpIsDownistan. Sorry.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

SIS fighters have escaped the prisons they were contained in and are regrouping with other ISIS forces that were in hiding.

So blow up the fucking prisons before they do. Is there a problem here?

That would be genocide, dope.

Ummm ... no.

Sure, dope.

Explain why. We're all waiting.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I think Trump is right getting our guys out of the way of Turkey's invasion.

Trump surrendered. There would be no invasion if he had not moved our troops.

He's weak and let's the US literally be pushed around.

Trump saved US lives. He did not surrender anything.
Turkey was invading with or without US troops present:
Turkey Warns the U.S. Not to Interfere With Syria Invasion: 'No Power Can Stop Us'

So if Erdogan said get your guys out or they might get hurt, Trump had no alternative, we don't have a dog in the Syrian civil war, so we're done there. If ISIS reemerges then Turkey, Iraq, the Kurds, and Assad have to deal with them, not the US. I have active duty military in my family. There is no reason to keep them in Syria, none. If you want to volunteer to deploy to Syria, go for it.

Not of that is true. 90% of the House Of Representatives and 90% of the U.S. Senate are against what Trump did in Syria. The U.S. military is also against what Trump did in Syria. General Mattis resigned because of Trump's policy ideas on Syria. As long as U.S. troops were there, there was NO Turkish invasion and the area was relatively stable.

The United States does not let other countries handle a grave threat to the United States such as ISIS.

Ri-iiiiight.

So why, as we have failed to do in all such involvements these last few decades, have we not simply blistered them back to the pre-Cambrian period and come home?

Counter insurgency is not a video game. Your trying to capture and kill people that hide among innocent civilians, before they successfully carry out a plot that kills thousands of your citizens. There is NO such thing as "coming home" anymore. Its as foolish as believing your local police force has solved the last crime or arrested the last criminal, or that your local fire department has put out the last fire it will ever have to.

And, people say that armed citizens have NO HOPE of challenging the U.S. Military if government becomes tyrannical.


I guess we settled that little dispute in this thread.

.

 

[Muhammed]

U.S. direction and leadership by example led to European countries joining the United States and increasing the size and strength of their military forces. Without U.S. engagement in this area it, never would have happened. The Europeans have always failed when it comes to security over the last century without the aid and support of the United States.

In 2013, the United States withdrew its last tank Units from Europe. It was the first time in over 70 years that there were no U.S. tank units in Europe. Then Russian invaded Ukraine and annexed the Crimea and parts of Eastern Ukraine. Since, then the United States has moved an entire Armored Brigade back to Europe and also positioned all the equipment for a second armored Brigade in Europe. So your wrong, there have been new U.S. troop deployments too Europe and more deployments are being studied and envisioned at the moment.

Bush never damaged NATO's unity. He in fact increased it with the Alliance performing its first out of Europe operations in its history which continue to this day.

There has NEVER been nor is there any such thing now, as an American Empire. The only people in the world to look at NATO as a threat are the Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, Iranians and non-state terrorist groups around the world. NATO threatens their ability to harass and take over various parts of the world and create havoc and instability everywhere.

The United States military and NATO military have been far more effective than any other military forces or other entities in solving the worlds problems and saving lives. Keeping the peace in Europe, preventing and deterring a Soviet/Warsaw Pact invasion, preventing World War III, saving Bosnia and Kosovo from genocide, giving Afghanistan its best government and highest standard of living in its history are just a few of the things they have accomplished.

I found you quite regularly to propose positions that are reasonable, at least defensible. The above, however, are the musings of a militaristic subject of empire - sorry to say.

Just in short to correct your misstatement on U.S. troops in Europe. I spoke about "additional troops", which would obviously mean rising troop numbers. Here's what happened during the last three decades or so:

Pointing to an armored brigade rotated in to replace other kinds of troops doesn't counter my point. Whatever, at a time when isolationism is on the rise in the U.S., and all eyes are on Europeans buckling up, expectations rise they provide for their own defense, expecting rising U.S. troop numbers in Europe would be illogical. At most, I see some legislators hinting at countering further draw-downs.

Its not about bean counting the number of military personal in Europe, but RELEVANT combat troops. The United States Armored Brigade that was sent to Europe following the Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea was not sent to replace other troops. It moved into Eastern Europe with most of its elements stationed in Poland. It was significant in that it marked the return of the first U.S. armored force to Europe since the last tank unit was foolishly withdrawn in 2013. There were only two U.S. combat brigades left in Europe at the end of 2013. A medium weight brigade with Stryker armored vehicles considered too light for heavy armored combat, stationed in southern Germany. The only other combat brigade was a light infantry airborne combat brigade stationed at Vicenza Italy. Another Armored Brigade's equipment has been pre-positioned in Eastern Europe so its troops can be moved from the United States and ready for combat on the ground in Europe within days. An armored battalion has been deployed to the Baltic States and another armored battalion has been deployed to Romania. So the number of U.S. ground combat troops in Europe has nearly doubled since the end of 2013, and more than doubled if you include the Brigade that has its pre-positioned equipment stored in Eastern Europe.

As stated before, it has been estimated that there needs to be at least 7 Brigades, most of them armored, in addition to Polish forces, to counter a Russian invasion of the Baltic States. This is NOT a time of retreat from Europe as it was prior to Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2014. Russia's invasion of Ukraine reversed everything. Failure to deter a Russian invasion of the Baltic States, which since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, has become more likely, would lead to World War III. That is why it is imperative to increase the number of U.S. ground combat troops in Europe, in positions, where they could quickly respond to Russian aggression. The only way an adequate force will be deployed to defend the Baltic states is if the United States increases the number of ground combat brigades it has stationed in Europe. What has been done since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014 is a start, but it is not enough.

The Russian threat is not at all being deemphasized in congress. There is far more support in congress today for increasing the number of ground combat brigades in Europe than at any time in the last five years.

Its far easier to defeat the Russian military if we keep the sanctions on Russia instead of helping them re-build and develop new classes of weapons, such as hyper-sonic missiles. Don't fight the last war. A quick first strike can eliminate a lot of ground forces (Maginot Line Redux?). Retaliation is always the name of the game with Russia. What part of "we can't afford to keep troops in the EU don't you understand?" The EU needs to step up, 70 years of the US paying to protect the EU is over.

An ‘Arms Race in Speed’: Hypersonic Weapons and the Changing Calculus of Battle | Arms Control Association

What the United States cannot afford to have happen is World War III. Every last dime must be spent preventing that from happening. There are no short cuts, or super weapons that will do that. Trumps stupid tax cut for the rich would have been more than enough to pay for U.S. defense spending related to Europe. The fucking rich don't need a trillion dollar tax cut. Those taxes can and should be used to deploy more U.S. combat Brigades to Europe.

Why would we invade Europe?

 

[Desperado]

I support the US leaving the Middle East altogether, Plus I would support the US leaving NATO and the UN too

 

[U2Edge]

PART 1:

The United States cannot afford to not have troops in Europe. In fact, in light of Russia's actions in the previous 5 years, the United States at a minimum should double the number of troops it has in Europe. The United States does not defend Europe as an act of charity. It defends Europe because the survival of the United States is dependent on it. It is not true that the United States defeated ISIS in Syria without significant help from other NATO countries. Other NATO countries currently fly air missions over Syria and NATO troops, particular French troops have had presence in Syria on the ground in past years.

NATO won't commit troops on the ground in Syria or in the air absent of U.S. involvement. The United States is by far the most powerful military in NATO and has resources, particular in logistics that are key to sustaining any other NATO country's intervention there. So Trump's foolish decision to withdraw the 2,000 U.S. troops in Syria essentially prevents any NATO involvement.

Your statement about the Russian economy is FALSE. When adjusting for purchasing power parity, the Russian economy is the 6th largest in the world.

1 China $23,210,000,000,000
2 United States $19,490,000,000,000
3 India $9,474,000,000,000
4 Japan $5,443,000,000,000
5 Germany $4,199,000,000,000
6 Russia $4,016,000,000,000
7 Indonesia $3,250,000,000,000
8 Brazil $3,248,000,000,000
9 United Kingdom $2,925,000,000,000
10 France $2,856,000,000,000
11 Mexico $2,463,000,000,000
12 Italy $2,317,000,000,000
13 Turkey $2,186,000,000,000
14 Korea, South $2,035,000,000,000
15 Spain $1,778,000,000,000
16 Saudi Arabia $1,775,000,000,000
17 Canada $1,774,000,000,000
18 Iran $1,640,000,000,000
19 Australia $1,248,000,000,000
20 Thailand $1,236,000,000,000

As you can see, Russia's economy is nearly twice the size of Italy's and nearly as large as Germany's economy. In any event, raw military capabilities matter far more than economic size has history has so often shown in the past.

PART 2/3: Erdogan is predictable based on his past years of experience and refusal to move Turkish troops into areas where U.S. troops are located. No other country in NATO would support Turkey foolishly attacking U.S. troops in Syria. Turkish troops would be thrown back with heavy losses and then face isolation and economic sanctions from the rest of Europe. Erdogan is not that dumb. Any Turkish operation against the Kurds with U.S. troops in place would FAIL, do heavy damage to the Turkish armed forces and extensive damage to the Turkish economy. In fact, such a move would probably bring about Erdogan removal from power through a coup afterwards.

PART 4: For nearly 3 years, Trump has kept to nearly all of the United States prior middle east commitments, which is good despite his isolationist statements during the campaign and after the campaign. TRUMP and Erdogan have already had the showdown and the Turks wisely blinked. If Trump had kept U.S. troops there, there would be no Turkish invasion of northeastern Syria.

Most of the Turkish military uses outdated equipment by U.S. standards. They do have some modern equipment in some areas, but not in large numbers. Their most modern Tank, the German LeopardIIA4 is not considered modern enough for them which is why they wanted Germany to upgrade the tank to LeopardIIA7 standards but Germany refused. Turkey has a modern economy and society, but that makes it vulnerable to U.S. attacks on water systems and electricity. When the United States turned off the water and electricity in Serbia during the 1999, Kosovo War, it generated popular resentment among Serbians against their own leaders which led to the conclusion of the conflict, and not to long later to Slobondon Milisovic being removed from power internally.

PART 5: Not true, Donald Trump green lighted the Syrian operation and agreed to pull out U.S. troops. If Erdogan did not care, he would have invaded north eastern Syria years ago.

PART 6: the NATO charter was invoked with respect to Afghanistan because New York City and Washington D.C. were attacked by forces within Afghanistan.

PART 7: There would not be any agreement by the Kurds with the Russians and Assad if Trump had kept the troops in place. The Kurds only turned to Assad and the Russians after Trump green lighted the Turkish invasion and pulled U.S. troops out.

PART 8: No evidence of this at all. No attacks by Turkey at all for years when U.S. troops were in place in north eastern Syria. Its not just the 2,000 U.S. troops on the ground in Syria, but also the Kurdish forces, U.S. airpower, plus what the United States could bring to the region rather quickly in terms of more Air Power and ground troops. There is also the weakness in the ability of the Turks to defend their country from U.S. Air and Missile attacks and well as cyber attacks on the country's water and electricity systems. Then there is the threat of a coup to unseat Erdogan from power.

PART 9: As Linsey Graham said today, Trump has let ISIS out of its prisons and if any American citizens are killed anywhere in the world by ISIS forces from Syria, it will be Trump's fault. ISIS is a group that is trying to launch a 9/11 scale attack on the United States mainland and Trump's actions in Syria over the past week just made that more likely. The United States with the Kurds and help of other NATO countries retook all of the Syrian territory that was controlled by ISIS. But ISIS was not totally destroyed yet. It now has a chance to make a comeback because of Trump's actions. This has put Americans lives far more at risk. Trump has in just one week, created a huge mess and serious threat to the United States by pulling out U.S. troops.

Responding paragraph by paragraph:
p1: The largest threat to the US is the National Debt of $22T, so says the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Defense.gov News Article: Debt is Biggest Threat to National Security, Chairman Says
So saving $24b a year for keeping US troops in the EU is what the US needs to do.
Agree NATO helped defeat ISIS, but left Syria to its fate in 2018.

p2. NATO withdrew from Syria about 1-year ago to leave about 1,000 US troops there with the Kurds. Why didn't NATO keep forces there? Did they know that Erdogan was planning an invasion of Syria? If Erdogan stops the invasion at 35km, to create his border "buffer zone" is that enough to create stability? Erdogan said that he was invading Syria with or without US troops present:
Turkey Warns the U.S. Not to Interfere With Syria Invasion: 'No Power Can Stop Us'

p3: I base my opinion of the Russian economy on its GDP, not "purchasing power" you need to compare apples to apples.
Russia GDP | 2019 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast | News
Russia's economy is between Canada's and South Korea's. About 12th in the world if you call the EU as one economy.

p4: Agree that military power is a different metric. Russia's military is way better than its economy, but not a match for NATO.

p5: Trump is not taking US casualties for the Kurds. If NATO was present in some force Erdogan might have 2nd thoughts, but who knows?

p6 to end: Trump said today that the US is not involved in the Syrian civil war. The US will not go to war over Turkey's border issues with the Kurds. Trump was elected to get the US out of the ME and save $Trillions and thousands of US lives. The days of the US trying to be the world's cop are over.

PART: 1. The National debt as a percentage of GDP was much higher at the end of the World War II than it is now. As in World War II, United States national security is far more important than the National Debt. So this General is wrong. Successfully defending Europe is vital to the survival of the United States and has been for over 75 years now. The United States troop levels in Europe must at least be doubled if not tripled in order to deter a possible Russian invasion of the Baltic States in the future.

PART: 2 Erdogan was saying such things before Trump even ran for President. Turkey on its own would be unsuccessful in any invasion of Syria with U.S. troops on the ground and air power there. As long as the United States said no to Turkey and kept the right complement of troops air assets nearby, there is no way in hell Turkey would have risked an invasion, no matter what comes out of Istanbul BOB's mouth.

PART 3. To correctly estimate GDP, you must adjust for purchasing power parity, otherwise the figure is NOT accurate. Russia has the 6th largest economy on the planet and an economy almost the size of Germany and nearly double the size of Italy. You can look the figures for all countries at the CIA WORLD FACTBOOK online. The vast majority of Economist use the GDP figures that are adjusted for purchasing power. It is the most accurate estimate of the size of the economy. Otherwise, your pretending that the same $10 dollar haircut in the United States is worth 5 times as much as the same $2 dollar haircut in India. Both haircuts are the same value from a TRUE productivity standpoint. That's what GDP is estimating, productivity within a given year. In order to do that accurately, you must adjust for purchasing power parity.

PART 4. NATO cannot adequately defend against a Russian invasion of the Baltic States currently. Its estimate that 7 Brigades, most of them heavy armor, need to be deployed there or nearby in addition to Polish forces in order to successfully defend against a Russian invasion.

Russia has nuclear parity with NATO with its huge arsenal. It also has very large conventional forces and is introducing new modern Tanks, Armored Personal Carriers, Artillery and Anti-Aircraft missiles and artillery that are either better or equivalent to NATO's equipment in these areas. Russia has more troops concentrated in areas that are near the Baltic States. They have performed training exercises recently with up to 100,000 troops involved. NATO training exercises since the Cold War have only involved at most 5,000 to 10,000 troops.

Another weakness of NATO is that most of the United States forces are stationed across the ocean back home and other important NATO forces are stationed in places that are far from where the Baltic States are along Russia's border.

Defending the 3 Baltic States is a challenging task made more difficult because of Russia's Kaliningrad region separated from Russia by the Baltic States. Russian forces in Belarus and Kaliningrad could easily cut off the only NATO land route to the Baltic States through Poland into Lithuania.

NATO has serious problems when it comes to defending the Baltic States, and awareness of these problems took on heightened concerned after the Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014. As well as covert Russian military actions in Eastern Ukraine that has resulted in essentially the annexation of half of Ukraine's Donetsk region and half of its Lugansk region in eastern Ukraine.

PART 5. If TRUMP had said no to any Turkish invasion and kept U.S. troops in place, the north eastern area of Syria where the Kurds live would still be a stable area right now. ISIS would still be locked up or hiding with Kurdish and American forces pursuing those individuals not captured yet. There would be no Turkish invasion, no killing of innocent civilians that has been seen the last few days either.

PART 6. The United States still had vital national security interest in North East Syria because of ISIS members still being the run there as well as large detention camps containing ISIS fighters and their families. Trump just let ISIS out of its box and now there the risk that ISIS will return in force. The United States was not involved in the Syrian civil War. It was helping the Kurds defeat ISIS and preventing other forces from entering the area and doing so successfully.

Turkey would NOT go to war with the United States over its alleged border issues with the Kurds in Syria. We know this given what has happened for the past several years. MATTIS resigned because Trump wanted to get out. GENERAL MATTIS knew it was a stupid thing to do, and he is being proved right at the moment.

The overwhelming majority of the United States House of Representatives, U.S. Senate and U.S. military is AGAINST what Trump has done in Syria. Most Republicans in the House and Senate are against what Trump has done in Syria.

Responding paragraph by paragraph:
p1: The "Chiefs of Staff" are the top US military commanders, not one "general". The $22T Debt is a danger that we can't ignore. The military knows that their budget will be slashed if we don't get our finances in order. We can't afford to defend the EU, the EU needs to step up and defend itself. The US is there via NATO if ever needed.

p2: The US had 1000 troops there, but were not battle troops but coordinators, Turkey invaded with a massive force that was massing for months. The 1,000 US troops there could not stop that big a force of modern military hardware.
2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria - Wikipedia

p3: We disagree on Russia's economy. If the EU keeps buying Russian gas, they can deal with the Russian hardware.

p4: If the EU can't stop a Russian invasion now, then they better spend more on their militaries. Only 7 EU countries are meeting their NATO military spending commitments.

p5: Wrong. Ergdogan said the invasion was on with or without US troops present. Trump doesn't waste US lives.

p6: ISIS is now officially the problem of Turkey, the Kurds, Assad, Iraq and the EU. The US withdrew from Syria. Good luck!
Congress is just sucking for shekels, the PACs are lobbying frantically to keep a lid on Syria. Trump wisely said, "we're done in Syria"

PART 1: As stated before, U.S. National debt as a percentage of GDP is lower than it was at the end of World War II. The national debt although a problem then, did not endanger the United States in 1945 and nor does it now. We know this based on economic history. Again, National Security comes BEFORE anything else. Defending Europe is vital to the Survival of the United States. The breakout of war in Europe with Russia could potentially destroy the entire planet within hours. The national debt while a problem, is light years away from being as serious as that.

PART 2: Your forgetting Kurdish troops that would be fighting with U.S. troops. Your also forgetting that the United States has several ground assets that it could deploy into Syria within days. There is an entire Airborne Combat Brigade in Vicenza Italy, 15,000 U.S. combat troops, that could be deployed by air to north eastern Syria within 72 hours.

Oh and the mighty Turkish invasion that you talk of has only been able to advance at its deepest, 15 kilometers into Syria at this point. Plus, half of the forces that Turkey sent in are not even Turkish troops, but Arab militias. So the idea that the United States could not stop Turkey is laughably false.

PART 3: Sorry, but you'll never understand the real economic situation in various countries around the world, until you stop using inaccurate statistics that don't adjust for purchasing power parity.

PART 4: The EU will only increase its force levels when the U.S. increases its forces levels in Europe. Without U.S. leadership and support, Europe will fall apart as it did in World War I and World War II. The United States can't afford to let that happen again. The United States is the glue that holds the European alliance and defense of Europe together.

PART 5: Ergdogan has being saying that for years. The Turkish military would still be sitting north of the Turkish border in the Kurdish area if Trump had not given the green light and pulled out U.S. troops. That's why 90% of congress has condemned what Trump has done. That's why the U.S. military is not supportive of Trump's policy. General Mattis new this was a stupid idea which is why he resigned. TRUMPS actions have endangered U.S. lives EVERYWHERE. ISIS fighters have escaped the prisons they were contained in and are regrouping with other ISIS forces that were in hiding.

PART 6: ISIS is a international terrorist organization. The idea that they are someone elses problem is part of the stupidity that help to KILL 3,000 U.S. citizens on September 11, 2001.

p1: Defending the EU is vital to the survival of the EU. So they better get busy beefing up their militaries. The National Debt is an immediate problem that needs attention, Medicare will be bankrupt in 2026, and SS will be insolvent in 2034. Russia is the EU's problem, China is the USA's problem.

p2: What part of Trump is not putting US lives into the Syrian civil war, or in front of the Turkish invasion don't you understand?
Just not happening, period. Deal with Trump's decision.

p3. GDP in dollars is a base level econometric metric, purchasing power varies all over the world, its anything you want it to be. Point being that Russia's economy is not as powerful as China's.

p4: The US has bigger fish to fry than Russia. The EU needs to sink or swim on its own. NATO is a powerful deterrent if its kept modern and fully mission capable, so get busy.

p5.We disagree on Erdogan's actions. He said he's attacking Syria, get the US troops out of the way. Not to remove US troops would have been negligence. The US has done more than enough in Syria to defeat ISIS. Now it's up to others to deal with that situation.

p6. The US has much better security now than before 9/11. Vetting is better, borders are better. Facial recognition, voice recognition, DNA matching, Homeland Security, the NSA, the FBI, ICE, and nationwide security cameras help keep the US safe.
How Surveillance Cameras Evolved from Curiosity to Ubiquity

P1. Sorry, but Europe is also vital to the survival of the United States. That's why the United State fought two world wars in Europe and has spent the past 75 years helping to defend it. Its not an either or proposition. You obviously don't understand the concept of COLLECTIVE DEFENSE. When Europe and the United States pool their resources together, it allows us to achieve a higher level of security at a lower cost while preventing the horror of another World War. If the Russians step across the border into Estonia, its just the same as if they landed in Mississippi as far as the United States is concerned. Its been that way for 70 years now, and TRUMP or any other bullshit isolationist is not going to change that.

P2. Oh, all Americans are dealing with the danger of now having a higher probability of being Killed by escaped or on the run ISIS fighters thanks to Trumps decision. There was no Civil War in the Kurdish area of Syria. Oh and if as you claim the Turks were so determined about their offensive, why did they just agree to a ceacefire. They have only taken one pocket which is 45 miles wide and 14 miles deep, and another that is 5 miles wide and 12 miles deep. After 10 days, they have yet to reach the M4 road which runs across the length of North Eastern Syria. More evidence that if the United States had just kept their troops in place, NONE OF THIS WOULD HAVE HAPPENED.

P3. No, adjusting for purchasing power parity is how you accurately measure a country's productivity, or GDP. The Cow that produces milk in China is no different than the Cow that produces milk in the United States. The REAL VALUE is the same, regardless of what someone at the local store pays for it. Your not accurately measuring GDP if you don't adjust for purchasing power parity.

P4. Europe is actually more important to the United States in 2019 than it was in 1945. Economic interdependence between North America and Europe is far greater today than it was in 1945. So its even more important today to keep U.S. troops in Europe to help defend it. Cutting or pulling away from Europe will only lead to war and possibly World War. Thats the lesson of the first Two World Wars and the United States is not about to repeat that again. The only places that are as important as defending Europe are the Persian Gulf states of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, and United Arab Emirates, as well as Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan in East Asia.

P5 Turkey's dictator has been saying he was going to invade Kurdish Syria for years. He only did it now because Trump gave him the GREEN LIGHT and removed U.S. troops. THATS WHY 90% of CONGRESS voted to condemn Trumps actions. Even Republicans voted 2 to 1 to condemn what Trump did in Syria. If Trump had just listened to Mattis, we wouldn't have the problems of the past two weeks in Northern Syria.

P6 The United States is not an Island and can't Isolate itself from the world. ISIS also has capabilities through technology that terrorist groups did not have 20 years ago. So although homeland security has made improvements terrorist have developed ways thanks to technology to continue to penetrate and target modern societies through a variety of methods.