![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
asthfghl posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsMany of Trump's supporters, as well as opponents to US interventionism in general who don't pay attention to details would gladly welcome his decision for the Syrian withdrawal as a promise kept, and probably even a step towards peace. But that's the last thing that it is. Now that large parts of Syria have finally been freed of the barbaric rule of the Islamist extremists and have slowly started to return to normalcy, it seems all that horror is about to return, this time the Jihadist hordes ravaging the whole area with Turkey's blessing. NATO's Turkey, if I may add. The world is about to stay a silent witness to another bloodbath that, on top of all, will likely destroy a unique political project in Rojava. It may not be perfect, but it does try to establish values such as democracy, the supremacy of law, and civil liberties in a much more authentic way than many countries claiming to espouse them.
The moment and the circumstances in which Trump announced his decision also cast some doubt on the claim that he's merely fulfilling a campaign promise that he made a couple of years ago. Since he's been in power, the US has actually spent record budgets on "defense", and the US drones, bombings, and spec ops have murdered more civilians than before, which is a remarkable achievement, given the high "standard" that his two predecessors had set. The "awesome young people" in the US military won't really be coming back home - they'll be sent to some of the dozens of US bases in other parts of the world, including places like Africa and Asia.
Let's face it, as much as he may be bashed by his many opponents, Trump is practically maintaining the old US foreign-policy tradition of generating chaos and death in lands far abroad - including through occasional "withdrawals" that in most cases happen in the worst and most chaotic way possible, resulting in the respective administration conveniently washing its hands from any consequences of their previous actions. In fact, the achievement of a state of permanent chaos (the Divide and Rule principle) has been a feature so persistent in US foreign policy that whether it'd be viewed as total fiasco or complete success mostly depends on the point of view you'd choose. One thing remains, though: the amount of chaos and violence that it causes, whether directly or indirectly.
After they occupied Iraq for years and completely dismantled the state structures there, the US created perfect conditions for ethnic and religious conflict, and the flourishing of extremism. Al Qaeda, the supposed main target in the "War on Terror" got the opportunity to expand into areas never before accessible to it, and the Pentagon and CIA-sponsored secret prisons became a breeding ground for new monsters, including those of ISIS. When president Obama finally decided to move out of Iraq, the conditions that had been created by the US occupation finally allowed the horrific "Caliphate" to quickly spread from Aleppo to Baghdad, which again created the "need" of yet another US intervention, and the resulting leveling of a few large cities to the ground.
Probably under the pressure of all the criticism, and in an attempt to appear principled, Trump listened to his ego and announced he'd be significantly cutting the US presence in Afghanistan, too. If that really happens (although it looks a bit less likely than the Syrian withdrawal), it'll put immense pressure on all the minor allies in the so called Afghan coalition (which is held, maintained, dominated and practically sustained by the US). That whole operation for "creating statehood", though being the longest post-war operation in history, has achieved nothing constructive for all those years, and the whole structure is bound to crumble right away, under the tiniest pressure. And it'll inevitably come, once the "statehood"'s enemies sense that the pressure on them is diminishing.
Here's the thing. When you're getting out of a place you weren't supposed to enter in the first place, you should at least make sure you've put out the fires you've lit, or at least refrain from handing a bucket of oil to a renown pyromaniac. The "withdrawal" merely looks like a fake last act in a recurring theatrical play of suffering and destruction. In Syria's case, it's also a death sentence to countless innocent people, a dirty bargain in the interest of blood-thirsty butchers, and a re-inflaming of a fire that had just begun to die out. In this sense, all the Trump detractors who are concerned that he could suddenly put an end to their beloved perpetual warfare, better sleep well, because it seems for the time being that he's about to do the exact opposite.
Of course, one could argue that the Kurds would be too naive to expect that they'd get anything better in return for their sacrifices. History abounds of examples to the validity of the Kurdish proverb that the people's only true friend is the mountain. America's lack of a true political commitment to the Kurds at the international stage, the US passiveness to the Turkish invasion of Afrin, and the refusal to arm the Kurdish militias with heavy equipment are all clear signals that the proverb is sooner or later going to be proven right yet again. But it's also naive to believe that the Kurds had a significantly varied choice of action, and they could've merely switched sides, guaranteeing themselves better results depending on the outcome of the conflict. It's also naive to believe that the Russian concessions to Turkey would somehow lead to a complete and lasting Turkish exit from the American sphere of influence. Erdogan is not that stupid.
There's still a slim chance that the worst scenario could be averted. But the political realities, historical tendencies and personal character of the individuals in position of importance who are involved in all this, do not give any reasons for optimism.
The moment and the circumstances in which Trump announced his decision also cast some doubt on the claim that he's merely fulfilling a campaign promise that he made a couple of years ago. Since he's been in power, the US has actually spent record budgets on "defense", and the US drones, bombings, and spec ops have murdered more civilians than before, which is a remarkable achievement, given the high "standard" that his two predecessors had set. The "awesome young people" in the US military won't really be coming back home - they'll be sent to some of the dozens of US bases in other parts of the world, including places like Africa and Asia.
Let's face it, as much as he may be bashed by his many opponents, Trump is practically maintaining the old US foreign-policy tradition of generating chaos and death in lands far abroad - including through occasional "withdrawals" that in most cases happen in the worst and most chaotic way possible, resulting in the respective administration conveniently washing its hands from any consequences of their previous actions. In fact, the achievement of a state of permanent chaos (the Divide and Rule principle) has been a feature so persistent in US foreign policy that whether it'd be viewed as total fiasco or complete success mostly depends on the point of view you'd choose. One thing remains, though: the amount of chaos and violence that it causes, whether directly or indirectly.
After they occupied Iraq for years and completely dismantled the state structures there, the US created perfect conditions for ethnic and religious conflict, and the flourishing of extremism. Al Qaeda, the supposed main target in the "War on Terror" got the opportunity to expand into areas never before accessible to it, and the Pentagon and CIA-sponsored secret prisons became a breeding ground for new monsters, including those of ISIS. When president Obama finally decided to move out of Iraq, the conditions that had been created by the US occupation finally allowed the horrific "Caliphate" to quickly spread from Aleppo to Baghdad, which again created the "need" of yet another US intervention, and the resulting leveling of a few large cities to the ground.
Probably under the pressure of all the criticism, and in an attempt to appear principled, Trump listened to his ego and announced he'd be significantly cutting the US presence in Afghanistan, too. If that really happens (although it looks a bit less likely than the Syrian withdrawal), it'll put immense pressure on all the minor allies in the so called Afghan coalition (which is held, maintained, dominated and practically sustained by the US). That whole operation for "creating statehood", though being the longest post-war operation in history, has achieved nothing constructive for all those years, and the whole structure is bound to crumble right away, under the tiniest pressure. And it'll inevitably come, once the "statehood"'s enemies sense that the pressure on them is diminishing.
Here's the thing. When you're getting out of a place you weren't supposed to enter in the first place, you should at least make sure you've put out the fires you've lit, or at least refrain from handing a bucket of oil to a renown pyromaniac. The "withdrawal" merely looks like a fake last act in a recurring theatrical play of suffering and destruction. In Syria's case, it's also a death sentence to countless innocent people, a dirty bargain in the interest of blood-thirsty butchers, and a re-inflaming of a fire that had just begun to die out. In this sense, all the Trump detractors who are concerned that he could suddenly put an end to their beloved perpetual warfare, better sleep well, because it seems for the time being that he's about to do the exact opposite.
Of course, one could argue that the Kurds would be too naive to expect that they'd get anything better in return for their sacrifices. History abounds of examples to the validity of the Kurdish proverb that the people's only true friend is the mountain. America's lack of a true political commitment to the Kurds at the international stage, the US passiveness to the Turkish invasion of Afrin, and the refusal to arm the Kurdish militias with heavy equipment are all clear signals that the proverb is sooner or later going to be proven right yet again. But it's also naive to believe that the Kurds had a significantly varied choice of action, and they could've merely switched sides, guaranteeing themselves better results depending on the outcome of the conflict. It's also naive to believe that the Russian concessions to Turkey would somehow lead to a complete and lasting Turkish exit from the American sphere of influence. Erdogan is not that stupid.
There's still a slim chance that the worst scenario could be averted. But the political realities, historical tendencies and personal character of the individuals in position of importance who are involved in all this, do not give any reasons for optimism.
(no subject)
Date: 22/1/19 07:21 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 22/1/19 11:47 (UTC)I didn't take a poll - this is just my observation - but I'd guess around 90% of Americans, and closer to 100% of non-Americans here have said something along the lines of - the US should mind it's own business/the US should stop policing the world/the US shouldn't be here or there.
If I'm mistaken, and that didn't happen at all - just say so - I won't bother digging through years of posts and comments, I'll simply admit I am mistaken. But....am I?
(no subject)
Date: 23/1/19 06:12 (UTC)You want me to prove a negative? Hmmm. Doesn't sound like something one could expect from You Smart People.
Look, let's cut through all the claptrap. Should America be in Syria or not? Just say it.
(no subject)
Date: 23/1/19 14:23 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23/1/19 15:14 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23/1/19 15:19 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23/1/19 15:34 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23/1/19 16:05 (UTC)I would rather have good results with bad intentions instead of the other way around.
(no subject)
Date: 23/1/19 16:19 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23/1/19 16:25 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23/1/19 17:20 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23/1/19 06:31 (UTC)Yours is a unusually simplistic interpretation of the rather complex dynamics of a group of people who each have their personal opinions and stances, which, while they may generally converge somewhat on certain issues, still abound of nuances, especially when you look closely on a specific case-by-case principle. My point is, I've seen opinions on the issue, from "America should stay out of international affairs altogether", to "America didn't do things quite right in this occasion, so it better get out as soon as possible and leave matters to more competent folks to handle", to "America screwed up here, but it should stay now, and try to fix this because that's the right thing to do". And all minor nuances inbetween all of these.
The devil is in the details, as usual.
As for this particular case, I'm prone to gravitate towards the third option. I've seen a guy or two argue for the first and second options as well. Which % out of these imaginary 90% that you cited above these are exactly, I wouldn't venture to guess. I suppose it's just your fun way to goad people into responding. You know, the comment count... well, counts. Or something.
(no subject)
Date: 23/1/19 14:26 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23/1/19 15:16 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23/1/19 16:26 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23/1/19 17:27 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23/1/19 15:36 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23/1/19 14:27 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23/1/19 15:23 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23/1/19 16:40 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23/1/19 17:14 (UTC)No matter how I worded it though, my point still would've been - 'I thought most of you were against US intervention?'.
I expected some backlash. I didn't expect 40 or 50 or more comments.
And I sure as hell didn't expect multiple people here telling me that the US presence in a middle eastern country is righteous, needed, and wanted.
But, since I said I'd admit it, here it is - I read the room wrong.