Leaderboard

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi Killed or Captured in US Raid in Syria/Northwestern Idlib Province (Take with a grain of salt);

Sure, talk is cheap. The corollary is “influence is expensive.” In this case, in particular, given the relatively small footprint to sustain a relationship that provided outsized influence, IMO we’ve made a strategic error. Afghanistan, Iraq, Iranian deterrence, and Syria writ large is a different question.

AFPAK Hands absolutely was cheap talk. It was another in an endless line of pulling on your "service before self" chain to get you to invest yourself in something that top level leadership wasn't willing to materially back. The "incentives", what little they were, turned out to be hollow, and they were clearly not substantial to begin with.

Exactly. You've paid more than your fair share of the bill and I've paid mine, as well as most of the people on this forum. When I read "we" should be staying continuously engaged in Syria, it seems "you" is implied. Some people are tired of being threatened with the worst possible outcome being realized if we suddenly end our 18+ year subscription to the Middle East Clusterf^&* Vacation Club. There's war when we're present, there will be war when we're absent. If Russia and Turkey want to wear that anchor around their neck for a change, good.

Good / tough words here from the SDF commander Mazloum Abdi: https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/13/kurds-assad-syria-russia-putin-turkey-genocide/?fbclid=IwAR3g1yRISC71Ao951AwmjFS3fq9W67CIXVaF8Qz2kFmSY6Dtv04BI-LBoFI

Not advocating for this but if I were at the Puzzle Palace / Congressional Liaison and asked to make a slide(s) on how to do this (a national policy / mission to intervene in multiple long term humanitarian security/stabilization missions simultaneously): 1. Reinstate the draft but not implemented thru random selection and not necessarily skewed to only very young adults (18-21). If this is to be an enduring national mission then it is an enduring national responsibility for all socio-economic, cultural, racial, regional groups. Would recommend 1/5 of main ground combat forces be conscript members to balance mission objectives with human cost calculations by political & military leaders. 2. Establish military objectives and strategies that will be honored/adhered to over any changes in administration. No legal mechanism to do this so it would have to be informal and understood by all relevant parties. 3.. Levy dedicated taxes as required to pay for these operations. Funding vehicle authorized over multiple FYs to lessen administrative/political risk to sustained operations with likely political/administration changes. 4. Expand the size of the US military to accommodate high operational utilization. 30-50% expansion sounds about right/expensive. 4a. Reorganize the US military to execute these protracted / permanent missions. Delete / Curtail some conventional military capabilities to allow for further expansion of COIN-LIC-Stabilization forces (infantry, light armor, ISR, etc...). 5. Reduce deterrence presence in militarily / economically capable allied nations. Europe except for Poland, Batic countries and GB would have no significant US forces, only logistical ports/airfields. SK & Japan would also have a reduction in garrisoned forces. 6. Expand agencies for rebuilding, establishing civil societies & economies. Local populations engaged in productive labor with subsidized industries likely. 7. Temper expectations, tolerate some cultural practices that would be unacceptable in our country. 8. Begin education, cultural exchange and information programs to promote values that would increase the probability of an end state after several generations that is acceptable. 9. Massive expansion of refugee resettlement. Some situations would be impossible to stabilize, large scale resettlement would be required in some cases into the US homeland. Laundry list of things, some military some not but what I would say is required and again to my earlier posts, for leaders to be honest about what is it that we are trying to do in this conflicts, what it will likely cost and how long it will take. I am not advocating for this necessarily but IMHO what would be required if the US decided that as country it was a national priority to intervene when it deemed necessary into conflicts for primarily humanitarian and not national interests. I did not even list attempting to cajole allies into this endeavor, no other country in the modern world as it is would even think about doing this.

"Groundhog Day" and I have absolutely no clue what the answer is to this Turk/Kurd dilemma. Turks invading Kurdish Turf (Syria/Iraq)/US Caught in the Middle/Permanent Turkish Bases on Kurdish Turf (Syria- see west of the Euphrates River/Iraqi Kurdistan to many to count)/Safe Zones/Safe Corridors/ etc, etc - has been going on for decades. I imagine this is what Northeast Syria will look like in a few years (some of these Turkish bases have been in Iraqi Kurdistan for decades); https://iraq.liveuamap.com/en/2018/13-february-there-are-14-turkish-military-bases-and-4-turkish Short history on some of this crap; Here's a few examples of the large scale operations/invasions the Turks have conducted in Iraq and Syria since 1991 (Note; there's to many small Turkish operations/incursions/etc to count, basically they have been ongoing almost continuously since 1984); 1. Operation "Shit" Sandwich; 1992/US Forces were on the ground in Iraqi Kurdistan. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-11-09-mn-162-story.html 2. Operation Steel; 1995/US Forces were on the ground in Iraqi Kurdistan. 35,000 Turkish troops invaded Northern Iraq. 3. Operation Hammer; 1997/No US Forces were on the ground because Clinton pulled US Forces out of Iraqi Kurdistan in 1996 (Note; this was the largest Turkish invasion of Iraqi turf since the Ottoman Turks invaded Iraq in 1533); Up to 50,000 Turkish Forces invaded Northern Iraq. 4. Operation Dawn; 1997/No US Forces on the ground; 15,000 Turkish Forces invaded Northern Iraq. 5. Operation Sun; 2007/8 - US Forces on the ground in Northern Iraq; Lots of Turkish airstrikes against Kurdish targets in Northern Iraq followed by lots more airstrike in 2008 and a Cross-Border invasion by 10,000 Turkish Armed Forces into Northern Iraq. 6. 2011; US Forces were still in Northern Iraq at this time but preparing to withdraw; Lots of Turkish airstrikes against Kurdish targets in Northern Iraq. The first six days of air raids, the Turkish Air Force attacked 132 PKK targets in northern Iraq which hit 73 shelters, eight stores and nine anti-aircraft positions. In addition to the 132 PKK locations targeted by the Turkish Air Force, 349 targets in Qandil, Hakurk, Avasin-Basyan, Zap and Metina regions were destroyed by artillery fire. 7. Operation Claw; Started on 28 May 2019 and it's still ongoing today and yes we have US Forces on the ground. 8. Turkish Operations/Invasions in Northern Syria (you can look them up and yes US Forces have been on the ground in Northern Syria during all these Turkish invasions); Operation Euphrates Shield (2016/2017), Operation Olive Branch (2018), and now (today/2019) Operation Peace Spring.

Nsplayer answered this above pretty well. It doesn’t have to be thousands of troops or continuous rotations of airplanes. It does have to be stable for our allies, consistent for our adversaries, and give the diplomats something to work with. It can even be assurances and threats. But what it cannot be is ceding the negotiating space to those who do not share our interests. Assurances are now worthless with that particular group and threats toward Turkey, Russia, or the Syrian Regime (Russia) don’t hold the same weight when we’ve taken our skin in the game elsewhere. “Your actions put American lives at risk” and “Your actions put our relationship at risk” are very different with regard to their implicit teeth.

Say what you will about endless land wars in Asia (and having participated in several I'm not a big fan!), but the small SOF footprint we previously held in north east Syria was absolutely critical to maintaining the somewhat stable situation that was to our advantage. The SDF fought and died for us against ISIS and we quite literally cut and ran on a whim. How long to stay? Will there ever be an independent Kurdistan? What happens to the thousands of ISIS prisoners in the long-term? How do we deal with the reality that Assad is here to stay? How do we handle a dictatorial & increasingly oppositional NATO "ally" in Erdogon's Turkey? Great questions all around and I don't have great answers. But we literally chose the worst possibly path that answers none of those questions. The path we chose, with little to no planning or interagency process, forfeits all of our leverage in the region, cosigns the slaughter of some of best allies on the ground, potentially re-starts ISIS, and threatens our long-held forward-deployed nuclear forces posture. And for what? Great job everyone, hit the showers!

Spot on, bro. Furthermore! They’re not fending for themselves; as it turns out survival instinct has kicked in and they appear to have aligned themselves with the Syrian regime and Russia to attempt to prevent annihilation. (Just as they said they would under these circumstances.) Now Russia and Turkey are in the driver’s seat where Europe meets the Middle-East and we’ve got the diplomatically envied position of “it’s too difficult so we quit” from which to negotiate. Do we really want Russia and Turkey to be the primary voices in the endgame of this misadventure? 20 years? 30 years? On 9-12 any of us would have volunteered personally to go for 100; the long game is worth winning, considering the alternatives.