Trump just announced that he will be pulling all troops out of Syria, and reducing troops in Afghanistan as well. Predictably, this has earned him strong condemnation from both corporate duopoly parties that are invested in the military-industrial complex. The truth, however, is more nuanced than that, even if Trump doesn't really do nuance.
It is obvious now that Trump is clearly Putin’s puppet and is pulling out of Syria for the very basest of ulterior motives: to appease Putin and Erdogan, to “wag the dog” and distract from his mounting scandals, and of course to nurture his own fat relentless ego. And he is doing it as abruptly and chaotically as possible, without so much as a heads-up beforehand to our allies, especially the Kurds who he seems to have no qualms about selling down the river to Turkey. Very base and cowardly indeed.
That said, sometimes even a stopped clock is right twice a day. As we have noted time and time again, we need to get the hell out of out of not just Syria, but also the decades-long quagmires of Iraq and Afghanistan, the latter of which is longer than Vietnam at this point. ISIL, though still in existence as a terrorist group (kinda like al-Qaeda and the Taliban, etc.) is nonetheless defeated territorially compared to 2014. Time for other countries/actors to step up to the plate and do whatever remains of the heavy lifting now. Long past time for that, in fact.
And we also need to stop suborning Saudi Arabia’s unconscionable mass-murdering proxy war in Yemen as well (though Trump seems cool with that for now).
"Endless war" is NOT a sustainable strategy. In fact, it is not even a strategy at all, but a concept, and an absurd one at that. The only people who benefit from it are the oligarchs and the military-industrial complex, as the late Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler once famously noted in his 1935 book War Is A Racket. (Of course, WWII was the exception that proves the rule.)
That said, sometimes even a stopped clock is right twice a day. As we have noted time and time again, we need to get the hell out of out of not just Syria, but also the decades-long quagmires of Iraq and Afghanistan, the latter of which is longer than Vietnam at this point. ISIL, though still in existence as a terrorist group (kinda like al-Qaeda and the Taliban, etc.) is nonetheless defeated territorially compared to 2014. Time for other countries/actors to step up to the plate and do whatever remains of the heavy lifting now. Long past time for that, in fact.
And we also need to stop suborning Saudi Arabia’s unconscionable mass-murdering proxy war in Yemen as well (though Trump seems cool with that for now).
"Endless war" is NOT a sustainable strategy. In fact, it is not even a strategy at all, but a concept, and an absurd one at that. The only people who benefit from it are the oligarchs and the military-industrial complex, as the late Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler once famously noted in his 1935 book War Is A Racket. (Of course, WWII was the exception that proves the rule.)
Whether a war is a “wham, bam, thank you ma’am” kind of war like Libya or a decade(s)-long quagmire like Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan, the end result is essentially ultimately the same sort of disastrous failed state that becomes a magnet for extremists. And once it becomes Quagmire Accomplished like it is currently, whether we leave now, a year from now, ten years from now, or 100 years from now, the result on the affected nation(s) we invade and subsequently leave is basically the same. Quick withdrawal is thus the lesser evil on balance.
In fact, Tom Englehardt (Tom Dispatch) and Peter van Buren had the best idea of all--quick withdrawal, after getting ISIL where it really hurts by taking out their OIL. Such targets--wellheads and oil trucks--are not at all hard to find, and are fairly easy to take out from the air. And put diplomatic and economic pressure on Turkey and other so-called "allies" to stem the flow of Daesh oil as well. Because oil is their primary source of funding, and removing that will cause them to quickly collapse of their own weight, and when they are seen as a failure then few would want to join them. And once we take it out, then GTFO and let Daesh fall on their own sword. (And apparently, we ended up doing a modest version of exactly that sort of oil campaign, with a fair amount of success, albeit late in the game and minus the withdrawal.)
The TSAP agrees with that idea, and we would also like to add to that. We have said it before, and we will say it again. Before withdrawing, we should give every *woman* over there an AK-47 and tell them to take over their country and mow down anyone who stands in their way. Let Allah sort it out. Problem solved. But of course, the mostly-male powers that be would not be too keen on that idea. After all, they wouldn't want women in THIS country getting any ideas, now would they? (Of course, the TSAP believes that women should indeed take over the world in order to save it, so that wouldn't really be a bad idea, come to think of it.) Honestly, it is certainly a better idea than arming questionable male "rebels" who end up turning traitor. Seriously, think about it.
Look, we dig why the generals don't want to pull out anytime soon, especially not abruptly, and it's not just about job security either (though that is likely part of it too). No one wants it on their conscience if things go horribly wrong afterwards, and such consequences can in any way be linked (however tangentially and speciously) to such a withdrawal. But Trump clearly has no conscience, and it was his decision, so we now get to let any potential adverse consequences weigh on his nonexistent conscience. Thus, the generals should really see this as a golden window of opportunity to finally extricate ourselves from the quagmire of the Middle East wars--and even in a worst case scenario, everyone's hands will be clean but Trump's either way. So what are we waiting for?
Like the song says, if we go it will be trouble, if we stay it will be double. And those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
JANUARY 2019 UPDATE: Looks like the other notorious loose cannon of foreign policy, neocon John Bolton, is trying to delay the Syria pullout by "months or years". So much for that. In the meantime, is always fun for genuine progressives like us to watch neocons, neoliberals, neoconfederates, and Trump supporters fighting against each other.
Look, we dig why the generals don't want to pull out anytime soon, especially not abruptly, and it's not just about job security either (though that is likely part of it too). No one wants it on their conscience if things go horribly wrong afterwards, and such consequences can in any way be linked (however tangentially and speciously) to such a withdrawal. But Trump clearly has no conscience, and it was his decision, so we now get to let any potential adverse consequences weigh on his nonexistent conscience. Thus, the generals should really see this as a golden window of opportunity to finally extricate ourselves from the quagmire of the Middle East wars--and even in a worst case scenario, everyone's hands will be clean but Trump's either way. So what are we waiting for?
Like the song says, if we go it will be trouble, if we stay it will be double. And those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
JANUARY 2019 UPDATE: Looks like the other notorious loose cannon of foreign policy, neocon John Bolton, is trying to delay the Syria pullout by "months or years". So much for that. In the meantime, is always fun for genuine progressives like us to watch neocons, neoliberals, neoconfederates, and Trump supporters fighting against each other.
No comments:
Post a Comment