***********************************************************
DING-DONG!
What no war? Intolerable! Thru all the shutdown nonsense… Trump removes troops from Syria, and all of official (Right, Left, Center, Media) DeeCee goes nutzoid! The neo-cons and neo-Libs just love war tis seems!
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/what-the-neocon-chickenhawks-have-wrought/
Neocons would still have us in every Middle East armpit hole forever.
Let ‘em all resign. They’re bureaucrats, and they’re being exposed. We’re either going to stay there forever, or get out sometime. If not now, when?
Oh the horror! President Trump had the nerve to end Obama’s support of terrorists.
Yeah, it’s so much better to sacrifice worthless American lives so Wall Street can make money.
Done with perpetual war and deep state mischief.
Gee, I wonder when the next chem attack happens in Syria?
Arming terrorists is disgusting.
Did the neo-cons at the execrable WSJ get upset about this?
Obama’s Military Coup Purges 197 Officers In Five Years
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/197-military-officers-purged-by-obama/
The last time I looked at a map of ISIS territory in Syria, it was obvious to me that “troops” ain’t the problem.
What we need is an easement.
In the end, the President is COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF.
Not the Secretary of Defense, not the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, etc., etc.
The liberals loved it when Truman fired McArthur. In hind sight, I think McArthur was correct, Korea was a stalemate, either destroy the enemy or stop the war, but Truman was the boss.
Only the President has the ultimate authority, but even that is tempered, rejected or accepted by the voters every four years.
I do believe Syria is a sovereign nation and they did not invite us in. Now, as long as ISIS had de facto control over Syrian territory could we “almost” make the case to be there anyway, in fighting them, but that is over—ISIS lost.
So what legal justification actually keeps us in Syria, is what I’d ask Mattis?
The President has a DUTY to make the overall policy decisions.
The WSJ is simply off base here.
Coulter retweeted a quote, sorry I don’t know who it was: “How is Mattis going to look those families in the eye and tell them “your son/daughter is coming home?” lolol
The editorial board of the WSJ needs a one way trip to one of these Muslim shiite holes to help in their perceived necessary war efforts.
Everyone should remember that the above miscreants were peeing and moaning when the troops were originally inserted into John McCain's Syrian civil war.
The US Forces are / were operating in a Russian kill zone” If Putin decided to “snuff” these forces just imagine the reactions form again many posters here and again the above mentioned miscreants!
***********************************************************
DING-DONG!
Surgery is damaging. Ask any skin layer that gets cut.
So let’s see,
1. Our policy is to want removal of the existing unhumanitarian regime - Basher Assad.
2. That unhumanitarian regime, the one we despise, is fighting ISIS.
3. We are fighting ISIS.
4. So we are helping our enemy, the unumanitarian regime, stay in power.
Perhaps the above is why no one bothers trying to explain to us why we should be there.
If a pussy cat gets run over in Syria after we leave, you’re going to hear about it from a howling press.
If the no Wall Street Urinal says it was a bad play then President Trump made the right move.
Oh, I get it. When Trump acts unilaterally to keep a campaign promise, that’s “damaging.” When a Supreme Court Justice sides with judicial activists or a RINO Senator acts unilaterally and votes against their campaign pledge, that’s “bold leadership.”
Trump has not been shy about his intent to leave Syria as soon as he could.
The generals must not listen at their meetings
This is stupid. France, UAE and SA are replacing our troops, what’s the problem??
All this criticism is nothing but Trump hate.