Trump pulls out of Syria, forces "Mad Dog" Mattis to resign.

[odeon]

This makes me think of something recently said, about the possible future path of the US taking a more passive role in world leadership, and how that makes some countries nervous because they might have to take on more responsibility instead of privately supporting the US while publicly sneering about how the US should mind its own business. Trump didn't make this decision on his own, and it's hopefully the direction the US will be taking with or without him.

I have mixed views on this. Selfishly, yes. I wish the US could get off the world center stage. Ideologically too.
Unfortunately, reality creeps in. When the US (or leading power) has withdrawn, things get much much worse
historically. This was the great lesson of two world wars. Superpowers are likely to do terrible things - but that price
might be necessary.

Also, in the case of both Syria and Afghanistan, the US were part of creating, or at least enabling, the mess to begin with and shouldn't expect someone else to clean it up for them. But I guess Trump realises there are no Trump Tower prospects to be had in either place.

Meh. No one cares much about culpability. It does't come into realpolitik.

This will come back to bite them in the ass, though, which is why they shouldn't quit now. It is realpolitik.

[Calandale]

No, Russiagate was bullshit and cooked up by Hillary

Funny how Don Jr., Manafort, and others in the campaign were so willing to help her.
Even more so Putin, who really has a bone to pick with her.

But yeah, I'm sure you're right. Hell, maybe even cheeto boi himself is in on Hillary's plot.
Remember, he called slick willie for advice, before running. 

[Jack]

The US doesn't have to bow out completely. It can be a silent financial backer in the cleanup, while someone else stands up front for a change, taking the blame or credit or whatever people want to call it.

Really? Who? Russia? Iran? They're not going to work as our proxies, I think.

Recall saying here years ago, European countries will eventually have to step up to the plate.

They ain't stupid enough to fix our problem here. It means way less to them than to us.

If the US's final play as the badguy is to step back, then it seems so much better than what was anticipated.

Let's see if we're willing to fade into the background like Spain and Portugal - or if there will be death
throes as there were with the disintegration of the British Empire.

Yes, Russia and Iran; what's the alternative to avoid that? They have a stronger hold, and would seriously hope US intentions in Syria never involve battling either of them. While my views are also a bit selfish and ideological, that's where reality creeps in. US involvement in Syria was a mistake. US withdrawal is an excellent humanitarian and diplomacy opportunity for countries which are already carrying the burden of relief. If they step up and do something about it remains to be seen. It may not appear important to them to clean up the mess, but seems a smart thing to do if they're interested in sending refugees home.

[Jack]

This makes me think of something recently said, about the possible future path of the US taking a more passive role in world leadership, and how that makes some countries nervous because they might have to take on more responsibility instead of privately supporting the US while publicly sneering about how the US should mind its own business. Trump didn't make this decision on his own, and it's hopefully the direction the US will be taking with or without him.

I have mixed views on this. Selfishly, yes. I wish the US could get off the world center stage. Ideologically too.
Unfortunately, reality creeps in. When the US (or leading power) has withdrawn, things get much much worse
historically. This was the great lesson of two world wars. Superpowers are likely to do terrible things - but that price
might be necessary.

Like you said, there's no good way out. Will settle for a bad way out.

Yeah? Let's hope it's no worse than Vietnam. We haven't dared leave Europe or Korea.
I suspect the Near East is more important than any of these except Europe.

The withdrawal from Afghanistan (as did the cost of being there) helped take the USSR down.
Collapse of the US wouldn't be the worst case scenario here. But hey, at least we know we have
the 'best people ' and a 'very very large brain' working on this, so I'm sure it will work out well.

To the point of the very large brain, it strikes as ironic trump is criticized as simple minded and unstable, yet wish him to continue leading the US military in long term engagements with such complicated geopolitical factors at play.

[odeon]

ISIS is not yet gone, Jack, and Russia is not particularly interested in making it so unless it helps them. They are there to help their ally, the president who had no problems with gassing his citizens, and to make sure that their interests in the region remain protected.

Iran, of course, is interested in defeating what remains of ISIS, but they're not the best of friends with the US as you know, and few others are interested in them taking any kind of active military role in the region. Quite the opposite.

I think pretty much everybody but Russia would prefer someone else - anyone else - than Trump to lead the US, and they would all like to see someone a bit more predictable and stable to do the leading.

The US can certainly retreat from the region but don't fool yourself by thinking that it will help anything.

[Calandale]

Yes, Russia and Iran; what's the alternative to avoid that? They have a stronger hold, and would seriously hope US intentions in Syria never involve battling either of them. While my views are also a bit selfish and ideological, that's where reality creeps in. US involvement in Syria was a mistake. US withdrawal is an excellent humanitarian and diplomacy opportunity for countries which are already carrying the burden of relief. If they step up and do something about it remains to be seen. It may not appear important to them to clean up the mess, but seems a smart thing to do if they're interested in sending refugees home.

Oh, ok. Yes, I'm sure if we surrender the Near East to Russian dominance, that's a great plan.

Was Syria a mistake? If we hadn't fucked it all up in Iraq, it wouldn't have been necessary.
Given that  though, there really were no 'good' options. The best (realpolitik) probably would
have been supporting Isis covertly. But boy, what a tightrope to keep that from blowing up
in our faces.

The nation couldn't stand for a real robust reaction in the region.

Injecting ourselves was probably the best feasible option, dealt a terrible hand.
Unfortunately, it meant long term, low grade involvement. Something we could
have maintained. The really sad thing is that the one ally we're pleasing with pulling
out - is the one which our presence in the region is perhaps the only long-term bulwark
against them being forced to align with Russia, in the long run.

Putin hit the jackpot with this joker.

[Calandale]

ISIS is not yet gone, Jack, and Russia is not particularly interested in making it so unless it helps them. They are there to help their ally, the president who had no problems with gassing his citizens, and to make sure that their interests in the region remain protected.

Iran, of course, is interested in defeating what remains of ISIS, but they're not the best of friends with the US as you know, and few others are interested in them taking any kind of active military role in the region. Quite the opposite.

Don't forget, Russia is one of Iran's closest supporters now. The fall of Saddam, and the complete mismanagement
has opened up opportunities to those willing to actually do deeds. You have Russian-dominated Syria, Iranian influenced
Iraq, Iran itself, and potentially Turkey (Erdogan has been moving closer to Russia - as the policy there is more stable
AND won't incite problems with the PKK, given their other alignments).

I really don't know if the balancing act that was being attempted was useful though. It wasn't enough to tax Russia,
and as soon as it was not sustained, there would be a price to pay. It strikes me as a 'cross your fingers' delaying
action, just hoping something came out of nowhere. It's just that cutting loses, and writing that bad debt off
is just too dangerous.

[benjimanbreeg]

Early Christmas present for Putin.

Money well spent.

Enough of the 'Russiagate' conspiracy theory.  If you think that Russia affected the result via $4700 of Google ads then just    There's zero evidence that Putin gave Trump money. 

But just prepare to look very silly

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/19/mueller-investigation-findings-914754

Benji dear, you still have reading comprehension issues. I didn't say Putin gave Trump money.

Deflecting.  You say that about everyone.  I was just covering both options to counter your conspiracy theory.

[benjimanbreeg]

This makes me think of something recently said, about the possible future path of the US taking a more passive role in world leadership, and how that makes some countries nervous because they might have to take on more responsibility instead of privately supporting the US while publicly sneering about how the US should mind its own business. Trump didn't make this decision on his own, and it's hopefully the direction the US will be taking with or without him.

I have mixed views on this. Selfishly, yes. I wish the US could get off the world center stage. Ideologically too.
Unfortunately, reality creeps in. When the US (or leading power) has withdrawn, things get much much worse
historically. This was the great lesson of two world wars. Superpowers are likely to do terrible things - but that price
might be necessary.

Also, in the case of both Syria and Afghanistan, the US were part of creating, or at least enabling, the mess to begin with and shouldn't expect someone else to clean it up for them. But I guess Trump realises there are no Trump Tower prospects to be had in either place.

Amazing that anyone is dumb enough to think they want to clean it up.  Luckily the retard John Bolton admitted the US's goal is not to win but to create divides.  It is Israel's war and when an Israeli official was asked what their ideal outcome was for Syria they said "no outcome".  Just endless war.  A weak and destablised neighbour is good for Israel. 

[benjimanbreeg]

The US doesn't have to bow out completely. It can be a silent financial backer in the cleanup, while someone else stands up front for a change, taking the blame or credit or whatever people want to call it.

Really? Who? Russia? Iran? They're not going to work as our proxies, I think.

Recall saying here years ago, European countries will eventually have to step up to the plate.

They ain't stupid enough to fix our problem here. It means way less to them than to us.

If the US's final play as the badguy is to step back, then it seems so much better than what was anticipated.

Let's see if we're willing to fade into the background like Spain and Portugal - or if there will be death
throes as there were with the disintegration of the British Empire.

Iran are out.  Russia and Syria will clear things up.  Syria will now have to negotiate with Turkey and the Kurds will have to negotiate with Syria. 

[benjimanbreeg]

Great how the lying establishment liberal media is holding up trash like Mattis as some kind of moral hero.  Here's one of his quotes about shooting Afghans

‘It’s quite fun to shoot them, you know. It’s a hell of a hoot. It’s fun to shoot some people.’

[benjimanbreeg]

ISIS is not yet gone, Jack, and Russia is not particularly interested in making it so unless it helps them. They are there to help their ally, the president who had no problems with gassing his citizens, and to make sure that their interests in the region remain protected.

Iran, of course, is interested in defeating what remains of ISIS, but they're not the best of friends with the US as you know, and few others are interested in them taking any kind of active military role in the region. Quite the opposite.

I think pretty much everybody but Russia would prefer someone else - anyone else - than Trump to lead the US, and they would all like to see someone a bit more predictable and stable to do the leading.

The US can certainly retreat from the region but don't fool yourself by thinking that it will help anything.

When did Assad gas civilians? 

[benjimanbreeg]

Yes, Russia and Iran; what's the alternative to avoid that? They have a stronger hold, and would seriously hope US intentions in Syria never involve battling either of them. While my views are also a bit selfish and ideological, that's where reality creeps in. US involvement in Syria was a mistake. US withdrawal is an excellent humanitarian and diplomacy opportunity for countries which are already carrying the burden of relief. If they step up and do something about it remains to be seen. It may not appear important to them to clean up the mess, but seems a smart thing to do if they're interested in sending refugees home.

Oh, ok. Yes, I'm sure if we surrender the Near East to Russian dominance, that's a great plan.

Was Syria a mistake? If we hadn't fucked it all up in Iraq, it wouldn't have been necessary.
Given that  though, there really were no 'good' options. The best (realpolitik) probably would
have been supporting Isis covertly. But boy, what a tightrope to keep that from blowing up
in our faces.

The nation couldn't stand for a real robust reaction in the region.

Injecting ourselves was probably the best feasible option, dealt a terrible hand.
Unfortunately, it meant long term, low grade involvement. Something we could
have maintained. The really sad thing is that the one ally we're pleasing with pulling
out - is the one which our presence in the region is perhaps the only long-term bulwark
against them being forced to align with Russia, in the long run.

Putin hit the jackpot with this joker.

Um....  The wars were planned before 9/11. 

[DirtDawg]

Not sure I agree with that, but the logic makes sense.
 

[Calandale]

Iran are out.  Russia and Syria will clear things up.  Syria will now have to negotiate with Turkey and the Kurds will have to negotiate with Syria.

You're obviously missing (at least) half the story here.