Turkish Incursion into Syria

[TiroFijo]

We did not mind our own business with Japan. We objected to their actions in China. We cut off oil and steel supplies necessary for their industrial and military complexes. They had wanted the Chinese territory as resources were so limited in Japan proper. They saw the Western powers being imperialist and did not see why they could not do the same. Thus, the Dutch East Indies offered the petrochemical resources. We would probably oppose their takeover and the Philippines stood over their supply lines. Before the war, they debate whether to go for military conquest or pure economic competition. For cultural reasons they went for military.
......

Glenn, this is truly an excellent post.

GardoneVT

"So long as we have to trade with other countries, we risk military involvement. Whether by choice or not."

The US took the Philippines, Hawaiii, etc., Perry entered Japan by force, western countries had major territorial and commercial control in northern China in the 1900's, the US had control over banana republics in central america, the largely artificial creation of Saudi Arabia to get its oil, the list goes on and on...

"Trade" is a misnomer in so many cases. "Domination" would perhaps be more accurate.

Things are what they are. The US didn't end up as the world's policeman by accident.

[YVK]

Proximate cause for 9/11 was the US putting troops on scacred Saudi soil during Gulf War part one.

Proximate cause of US troops deploying in Saudi Arabia was the Gulf War that the US didn't start, and the request of Saudi government. Good enough reasons for me; besides, killing 3000 civilians due to proximate cause of US troops being a whole 400 km from Medina seems, should we say, somewhat exaggerated?

I have very little interest in establishing a chicken or egg relationship in this instance, or others of such kind, for that matter. I find a significant satisfaction in knowing that groups or factions who fly airplanes into buildings, behead civilians, burn captured enemies alive, use rape as a systemic weapon, destroy schools, etc etc, etc get pounded by us all around the world, whatever shithole they might be in.

[GardoneVT]

Glenn, this is truly an excellent post.

GardoneVT

"So long as we have to trade with other countries, we risk military involvement. Whether by choice or not."

The US took the Philippines, Hawaiii, etc., Perry entered Japan by force, western countries had major territorial and commercial control in northern China in the 1900's, the US had control over banana republics in central america, the largely artificial creation of Saudi Arabia to get its oil, the list goes on and on...

"Trade" is a misnomer in so many cases. "Domination" would perhaps be more accurate.

Things are what they are. The US didn't end up as the world's policeman by accident.

Trade or domination. What is done is done, and we stand here with the pluses and minuses of those decisions. There is no opt out of the global policeman role even if it’s an intellectually better policy.

[Baldanders]

Proximate cause of US troops deploying in Saudi Arabia was the Gulf War that the US didn't start, and the request of Saudi government. Good enough reasons for me; besides, killing 3000 civilians due to proximate cause of US troops being a whole 400 km from Medina seems, should we say, somewhat exaggerated?

I have very little interest in establishing a chicken or egg relationship in this instance, or others of such kind, for that matter. I find a significant satisfaction in knowing that groups or factions who fly airplanes into buildings, behead civilians, burn captured enemies alive, use rape as a systemic weapon, destroy schools, etc etc, etc get pounded by us all around the world, whatever shithole they might be in.

And most of the American public is with you, not wanting to see the eggs that we plant around the world that will hatch into far worse than chickens, and that will likely come to roost with us one day. And most folks seem fine with being servants to the Saudis, to the point that that role is now tied up with patriotism for many.

Saudi investments in our ruling class have paid off handsomely for them. And decades of propaganda from our ruling classes has made us good servants to them, and to the concept of the Forvever War.

Indeed, as far as our elites are concerned, there is no opting out of the global policeman role, for it would mean abandoning their rationale for why they need to be in control in the first place.

[YVK]

We will never know what would've have hatched or whether it was going to be better of worse than what we have now. History doesn't have a redo options, and often times whatever we do falls under damned if you do, and damned if you don't. We can always critique powers in retrospect and wish things would have been done better, it is easy. I don't have much illusions about post-modern imperialism, military influence over economic areas of interest, power plays of riches etc. However, on this one bit of a conversation that you engaged me in, I would like to paraphrase Mr. Freud: sometimes evil is just evil. That we have military presence in every corner of the world, whether needed or not, or have gotten into shit that we may have been better off staying out doesn't cross talk with us fucking up those who deserve that.

[Joe in PNG]

This brings us back to the question of "what do we do then for the Kurds?"
What concrete action should the US take?

[Jeep]

Trade or domination. What is done is done, and we stand here with the pluses and minuses of those decisions. There is no opt out of the global policeman role even if it’s an intellectually better policy.

I'm afraid you are right. As far as I can tell, Plato didn't say that "only the dead have seen the end of war," but he should have. No matter how much we want to pull all our troops home, it is never going to happen. The zoomies and the Special Forces (including all the SOFs) are going to be operating in countless foreign countries for the rest of our lives and the lives of our grandkids.

It kills me that our elites, who never serve themselves, make fortunes out of this; and it kills me that our tax burdens keep increasing on average Americans, in part because of it. But like it or not, we became an accidental empire in World War 2 and have been fighting imperial wars ever since. As a result, both parties have created an imperial presidency that is a far cry from the modest office of a very modest federal government envisioned in the Constitution--a document we stopped following about the same time we became an accidental empire.

As for the Syrian Kurds all our options are bad.

[GardoneVT]

This brings us back to the question of "what do we do then for the Kurds?"
What concrete action should the US take?

The one we’re taking, sadly. Standing up for the Kurds means war with Turkey. Setting aside the NATO issue, removing Erdogan from power risks another Libya incident. Last thing we need is a pro- Russian or pro-ISIL state where Turkey used to be.

Leaving the Kurds to their fate with Turkey is abandoning a steadfast ally to an autocratic regime with the loyalty of a meth dealer.

[Borderland]

This brings us back to the question of "what do we do then for the Kurds?"
What concrete action should the US take?

There isn't a lot you can do for them at this stage in the game. The lines are being redrawn in Syria as Turkey says it will be. You have a very potent military power there just like Iraq did under Saddam. When he invaded Kuwait that was seen as a major threat to US oil interests. He got stomped.

The US isn't going to confront a NATO member who wants to control a little more real estate in Syria. It's the middle east for crying out loud. Does anyone give a shit about the Palestinians. Maybe Israel because they keep firing rockets at their civilian population but nobody really cares about their problems. Does the US really give a shit about Syria or the Kurds? Not really.

My take on all of this is the US is trying to maintain a military presence. The US is doing that in Turkey and Syria. I get flummoxed by people who say we're nation building. Doesn't have a damned thing to do with nation building. As long as we have some military presence in the area and the local authority says we can stay there and doesn't try to throw you out with military force, that's all that matters.

The US has it's fingers in a lot of pies. Been doing it for a long time. It's what we do. Even Jefferson was smart enough to send a military expedition across the continent to see what we should endeavor to control. Trumps a rookie making rookie moves. Where's Stormy Daniels when you need her?

[Joe in PNG]

The one we’re taking, sadly. Standing up for the Kurds means war with Turkey. Setting aside the NATO issue, removing Erdogan from power risks another Libya incident. Last thing we need is a pro- Russian or pro-ISIL state where Turkey used to be.

Leaving the Kurds to their fate with Turkey is abandoning a steadfast ally to an autocratic regime with the loyalty of a meth dealer.

Sadly, we're not all that different on the "loyalty of a meth dealer" thing.
In some ways, better to abandon now then to spend years, thousands of American and Kurdish lives, billions of dollars, political capital, ect, and then abandon them because the war has become politically unpopular.

The bigger problem is not that the US interferes with the affairs of other countries, or that the USA should or should not. It's that we start interfering, lose political will, and leave things worse than they were. We don't seen to be able to follow through long term, or go with measures that aren't half-arsed and temporary.