First it was RUSSIA! RUSSIA! RUSSIA! The Mueller report, and his disastrous congressional testimony, killed that. Then it was “RECESSION! RECESSION! RECESSION! That one was weak anyway, and if there is going to be a recession–there will be someday; it’s a cycle–it’s likely not going to be in time to be politically useful to the D/S/Cs. Now it’s UKRAINE! UKRAINE! UKRAINE! and KURDS! KURDS! KURDS!
Keep in mind, gentle readers, these are the same people who, from the moment Donald Trump was inaugurated, screamed that he was a war-mongering lunatic who was likely to nuc pretty much anything anywhere at any second, unlike CA Dem. Eric Swalwell who wants to nuc American gun owners. Now Trump’s a traitorous, mean Kurd hater who is destroying national security because he kept his campaign promise and is drawing down our military presence in Syria. And that’s not all. Now he’s a war-mongering lunatic because he’s sending a token force to Saudi Arabia!
Don’t pull ‘em out; don’t send ‘em in. I dunno. Seems like a pattern to me. No matter what President Trump does or doesn’t do, D/S/Cs hate him, and it’s not only impeachable evidence, but treason, and betrayal, and evidence of ultimate evil, even more evil than normal Americans that don’t praise self-imagined elite leftists, and that’s awfully evil.
Where’s Hunter? Inquiring minds want to know. The D/S/C media has been aggressively suppressing any news about Joe and Hunter Biden, but Hunter has–sort of–surfaced, as Fox New reports:
Earlier Sunday morning, Hunter Biden’s attorney George Mesires published an online statement on his client’s behalf, providing detailed explanations for Biden’s ties to Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings and the Chinese firm BHR (Shanghai) Equity Investment Fund Management Company.
“Despite extensive scrutiny, at no time has any law enforcement agency, either domestic or foreign, alleged that Hunter engaged in wrongdoing at any point during his five-year term,” Mesires said about Hunter Biden’s work with Burisma, where Biden was a board member until April 2019.
Mesires said that Biden was “a non-executive director” of Burisma, for which he was compensated, but was not part of the management team.
Yeah, about that law enforcement investigation business…
Burisma was the subject of an investigation by Ukrainian authorities, but the case was dropped. The prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin, was fired after then-Vice President Joe Biden threatened to withhold money from Ukraine unless Shokin was removed. Joe Biden denies that this had anything to do with his son, as Shokin was accused of corruption.
And now, infamous liar Adam Schiff announces “we don’ need no stinking whistleblower testimony”:
Well our primary interest right now is making sure that that person is protected. Indeed, now there’s more than one whistleblower, that they are protected. And given that we already have the call record, we don’t need the whistleblower who wasn’t on the call to tell us what took place during the call. We have the best evidence of that. We do want to make sure that we identify other evidence that is pertinent to the withholding of the military support, the effort to cover this up by hiding this in a classified computer system. We want to make sure that we uncover the full details about the conditionality of either the military aid or that meeting with Ukraine’s president. It may not be necessary to take steps that might reveal the whistleblower’s identity to do that. And we’re going to make sure we protect that whistleblower.
Not only that, since the quid pro quo D/S/Cs have been proclaiming is plain for all to see turns out to be as viable as RUSSIA! RUSSIA! RUSSIA!, Schiff has also proclaimed: “we don’ need no stinking quid pro quo”:
First of all, there doesn’t need to be a quid pro quo, but it is clear already I think from the text messages that this meeting that the Ukraine president sought was being conditioned on their willingness to interfere in the U.S. election to help the president. That is a terrible abuse of the president’s power. Now whether that abuse goes further that is the withholding of military aid also as leverage. There’s certainly strong indications that that is true as well. And we’re going to get to the bottom of it. But here you have a president of the United States abusing his power to the detriment of our national security and doing so to get yet another foreign country to intervene in our election it’s hard to imagine more of a corruption of his office than that.
America breathlessly awaits Schiff’s latest parody. But let us return, gentle readers, to the Kurds. Rational Americans know they cannot trust virtually anything the D/S/C media tells them, and the media is telling them Trump has evilly betrayed the Kurds, and sided with Turkey, which is slaughtering them. Even some congressional Republicans, who ought to know better, are jumping on the bandwagon.
I admit I don’t know enough about this specific controversy to have a great deal of value to say. I do know, however, that the Middle East is, and always has been, a cesspool of tribal blood lust, even Sunni/Shite hatreds, that have drenched the land with blood for millennia. I also know Barack Obama left President Trump with a horrific mess in that part of the world and elsewhere. Above all, I know America cannot be the world’s policemen. We are at once reviled as colonialist imperialists when we involve ourselves overseas, and as cold-hearted scoundrels when we try to withdraw. They love our money and military hardware, even as they hate us. Like President Trump, we can’t win.
The D/S/C position, of course, is about 98% another ploy to get Trump, and perhaps 1% actual concern for Kurds. The other 1% is merely confusion.
Fortunately, Caroline Glick, who lives in the neighborhood, does know a great deal about everything going on, including this particular controversy:
The near consensus view of President Donald Trump’s decision to remove US special forces from the Syrian border with Turkey is that Trump is enabling a Turkish invasion and double crossing the Syrian Kurds who have fought with the Americans for five years against ISIS. Trump’s move, the thinking goes, harms US credibility and undermines US power in the region and throughout the world.
Right. These are the people who thought Barack Obama a messiah, and ignored his love for America’s enemies–particularly Iran–and his disdain for her allies, particularly Israel.
There are several problems with this narrative. The first is that it assumes that until this week, the US had power and influence in Syria when in fact, by design, the US went to great lengths to limit its ability to influence events in Syria. [skip]
Given its goal of embracing Iran, the Obama administration had no interest in harming Assad, Iran’s Syrian factotum. It had no interest in blocking Iran’s ally Russia from using the war in Syria as a means to reassert Moscow’s power in the Middle East.
But it’s Trump that is supposedly soft on Russia.
Obama deployed around a thousand forces to Syria. Their limited numbers and radically constrained mandate made it impossible for the Americans to have a major effect on events in the country. They weren’t allowed to act against Assad or Iran. They were tasked solely with fighting ISIS. Obama instituted draconian rules of engagement that made achieving even that limited goal all but impossible.
That sounds like the messiah, doesn’t it?
This brings us to the second flaw in the narrative about Trump’s removal of US forces from the Syrian border with Turkey.
The underlying assumption of the criticism is that America has an interest in confronting Turkey to protect the Kurds.
This misconception like the misconception regarding US power and influence in Syria is borne of a misunderstanding of Obama’s Middle East policies. Aside from ISIS’s direct victims, the major casualty of Obama’s deliberately feckless anti-ISIS campaign was the US alliance with Turkey. Whereas the US chose to work with the Kurds because they were supportive of Assad and Iran, the Turks view the Syrian Kurdish YPG as a sister militia to the Turkish PKK. The Marxist PKK has been fighting a guerilla war against Turkey for decades. The State Department designates the PKK as a terrorist organization responsible for the death of thousands of Turkish nationals. Not surprisingly then, the Turks viewed the US-Kurdish collaboration against ISIS as an anti-Turkish campaign. [skip]
Under Erdogan, Turkey has stood against the US and its interests far more often than it has stood with it. Across a spectrum of issues, from Israel to human rights, Hamas and ISIS to Turkish aggression against Cyprus, Greece and Israel in the Eastern Mediterranean, to upholding US economic sanctions against Iran and beyond, for nearly twenty years, Erdogan’s Turkey has distinguished itself as a strategic threat to America’s core interests and policies and those of its closest allies in the Middle East.
Glick observes that our strategic interests, including air and naval bases, and the fact Turkey is member of NATO, make it far from simple to military oppose Turkey. But what of the Kurds?
The Kurds are a tragic people. The Kurds, who live as persecuted minorities in Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran have been denied the right of self-determination for the past hundred years. But then, the Kurds have squandered every opportunity they have had to assert independence. The closest they came to achieving self-determination was in Iraq in 2017. In Iraqi Kurdistan, the Kurds have governed themselves effectively since 1992. In 2017, they overwhelmingly passed a referendum calling for Iraqi Kurdistan to secede from Iraq and form an independent state. Instead of joining forces to achieve their long-held dream, the Kurdish leaders in Iraq worked against one another. One faction, in alliance with Iran, blocked implementation of the referendum and then did nothing as Kurdish-controlled Kirkuk was overrun by Iraqi government forces. [skip]
The hard truth is that the fifty US soldiers along the Syrian-Turkish border were a fake trip wire. Neither Trump nor the US military had any intention of sacrificing US forces to either block a Turkish invasion of Syria or foment deeper US involvement in the event of a Turkish invasion.
Here’s where the crocodile tears come in:
The final assumption of the narrative regarding Trump’s moves in Syria is that by moving its forces away from the border ahead of the Turkish invasion, Trump harmed regional stability and America’s reputation as a trustworthy ally.
On the latter issue, Trump has spent the better part of his term in office rebuilding America’s credibility as an ally after Obama effectively abandoned the Sunnis and Israel in favor of Iran. To the extent that Trump has harmed US credibility, he didn’t do it in Syria this week by rejecting war with Turkey. He did it last month by failing to retaliate militarily against Iran’s brazen military attack on Saudi Arabia’s oil installations. Whereas the US has no commitment to protect the Kurds, the US’s central commitment in the Middle East for the past 70 years has been the protection of Saudi oil installations and maintaining the safety of maritime routes in and around the Persian Gulf.
I tend to agree with Glick regarding Iran, but there is nothing stopping Mr. Trump from striking Iran given the correct provocation. She concludes:
As for Syria, it is impossible to known what the future holds for the Kurds, the Turks, the Iranians, Assad or anyone else. But what is clear enough is that Trump avoided war with Turkey this week. And he began extracting America from an open-ended commitment to the Kurds it never made and never intended to fulfill.
Michael Doran, writing in The New York Post, adds more:
Over the last few days, a host of former Obama officials have been repeating this story, which is highly misleading, to say the least. Rice and her colleagues would have us believe that Team Obama created a highly effective plan for stabilizing the Middle East by working through groups like the YPG [a Kurd faction], and Trump, mercurial and impulsive, is throwing it all away by seeking a rapprochement with Ankara. That’s nonsense.
In fact, the close relationship with the YPG was a quick fix that bequeathed to Trump profound strategic dilemmas. Trump inherited from Obama a dysfunctional strategy for countering ISIS, one that ensured ever-greater turmoil in the region and placed American forces in an impossible position.
Any rational, non-D/S/C should understand the dog’s breakfast Obama made of American foreign policy.
So, no, Trump is not betraying the YPG. He is seeking to restore balance to American foreign policy.
The YPG knew from the beginning that its relationship with Washington was temporary and transactional. It didn’t fight as a favor to the United States. America armed, trained, equipped and funded the YPG. We gave it strong military support, including aerial bombardment, which allowed it to vanquish all foes in its neighborhood. Thanks to this assistance, the power, influence and territorial reach of the group expanded beyond its wildest dreams. In the meantime, America also held Turkey at bay.
The YPG benefitted enormously from the effort, and the Turkish-American relationship suffered in equal measure. To paraphrase Susan Rice, this was a bats- -t crazy way to solve the ISIS challenge. If she and her Team Obama colleagues want to blame anyone for this mess, they might consider looking in the mirror.
When they do, they see only virtue and indescribable beauty. By all means, take the links and read the entirety of Glick and Doran’s articles. It’s always a good thing to be armed with the truth, and the truth is, the D/S/Cs and their media, propaganda organs are not to be trusted.
But Kurds are dying! Putting America first, which is the responsibility of any president, means we care more about American men and women serving in our military dying. But ISIS prisoners are being freed! Each and every one of them would gleefully kill Americans. Perhaps we ought to take the logical step and kill them–unlawful combatants/terrorists–before they have a chance? Americans are kind-hearted, generous people who want to fight for the underdog, but we don’t have a dog in every fight, we can’t, and as the brokest nation in history, we can’t afford to spill our blood and burn our treasure in places where our strategic interests are not directly implicated.
Where was D/S/C concern for the Kurds, or anyone else, before it became politically useful to wave that particular bloody flag in Donald Trump’s–and normal Americans’s–face?