Various Opinions on the Syria Withdrawal

Sean Davis has a good thread arguing in favor of the withdrawal, and demanding that diehard interventionists begin actually defining their goals and the success states they seek.

If you are clamoring for a never-ending U.S. military presence in Syria and Afghanistan, the burden is on you to specifically define what military and political victory looks like in each country, when/how it will be achieved, and the costs in lives and dollars it will require.

The complete inability to define the specific goals and account for the resultant costs to attain them in Afghanistan has led to 17 years of war, tens of thousands of American lives lost or permanently scarred, and to what end? A down payment on another 17 years?

The failure of politicians to accept reality in Iraq didn’t just lead to thousands of American lives lost or permanently scarred, it created a far more volatile and dangerous region for us and our allies, and significantly damaged our security and standing globally.

Short-sighted intervention in Libya was similarly disastrous, leading to American deaths that never should have happened all because politicians apparently decided a vicious Islamic theocracy that loathed America was preferable to a brutal yet kept tyrant who feared it.

And then we get to the mess in Syria, the rise of ISIS, and the emergence of Iran—the largest state sponsor of terror on earth for close to five decades now—as the dominant political force in the Middle East, all made possible by U.S. intervention in Iraq 15 years ago.

One would think that kind of disastrous record, which has failed across the board to make America and its allies safer or the Middle East more stable, would lead to some soul-searching and humility from those who enabled it. Unfortunately, we’ve seen the exact opposite reaction.

Just as Marxists will tell you that their own failures are no such thing because true communism has never really been tried, so, too will the unyielding interventionists swear that Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria et. al. only went sideways because we didn’t intervene enough.

If you want the U.S. to invade Syria, depose Assad, take control of the country, and then fight Iran (and Hezbollah) and Russia in a proxy war there—and it’s been obvious for years that Iraq 2.0 in Syria is exactly what many seem to want for some insane reason—then make the case.

I wrote this piece over a year and a half ago imploring Syria interventionists to specifically define the terms of victory in Syria, account for the costs and risks, and provide a concrete timeline to achieve their stated goals. They won’t do it. https://t.co/YldNDBQwXj

— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) December 21, 2018

Erick Erickson, 7:16 pm last night: We need a military coup to destroy the constitutionally elected government

Erick Erickson, 8:24 pm last night: #MuhRussianBots are attacking me because I dared to tell the truth about the need for a coup to sweep away the democratically elected American government

Erick Erickson, 11 am today: There won't be a coup but really there should be.

Bear in mind, this is the same guy who will fulminate against a wall as being unchristian and then propose, it its stead, a massive US operation to fund literal Pinochet-type murderous dictators along with helicopter rides to keep these filthy Latin types under control.

The New York Times has of course flip-flopped from objecting to American troops in Syria, and worrying they'd be there forever, to now attacking Trump for deciding to not keep them there forever:

Opportunistic coward and worm Max Boot flip-flopped from saying we didn't need troops in Syria to now saying we need troops in Syria so badly the world will catch fire if we withdraw them: Correction! I am told the below tweet is a complete photoshop. RUSSIAN BOTS tricked me. But seriously, apologies; I should not have permitted myself to be fooled by this, nor passed on this forgery to you.

Correction, in case you missed it: The above "tweet" is a photoshop.

Proof of the left's vile political opportunism on matters of life and death is diehard pacifist/Communist apologist/anti-Iraq War agitator Noam Chomsky now declaring that US troops must remain in Syria to protect Kurdish forces.

I'm not saying that point of view is wrong, but I am saying it is preposterous for Noam Chomsky, millionaire socialist and bitter opponent of Bush's military actions and military actions in general, to suddenly be cheerleading for US troops occupying a precious Muslim land.

posted by Ace of Spades at 01:53 PM

| Access Comments