Donald Trump made a ‘deal’ with the Turkish leader….
He’d remove American troops from their positions as advisors one part of Syria that abutted Turkey ….
That would make Turkey happy…
They really worried MORE about the Kurds than ISIS which America and NATO troops had worked with the Kurds to break down in Iraq and Syria…
Trump’s move
A personal one for him?
Donald Trump doesn’t worry or trust his Defense and State Department’s….
He runs his own show…
Result?
A YUGE outrage from EVERYBODY against leaving the Kurds, who help America , left to the mercy of the Turk’s….Worst?…The Russian military has dropped into the vacuum while some ISIS captive have slipped out the back door…
Result?
Today we find out that the Pentagon has managed to figure out a middle ground solution it seems ….
Using something Donald Trump CAN understand…
It seems that the Pentagon has got Trump to ok troops to ‘protect’ something that he would equate with $$$$….Oil….
So?
We have American troops leaving Syria….
But only going next door to Iraq….
We ALSO find American troops coming INTO Syria from Iraq to protect the oil and keep Russian and other troops away….
But also might provide a safe zone around those oil fields?…. That will pave sanctuary for Kurds, who will STILL work with American troops to hunt down ISIS….
As with almost ALL things Trump….
People gotta work to get around his ineptness…
After his phone call with Mr. Erdogan, Mr. Trump ordered the American troops fighting alongside the Kurds in northeastern Syria to withdraw, lest they get in the way of the Turkish incursion. Defense Department officials pulled out about 50 American service members.
On Oct. 9, Turkish warplanes launched strikes on Kurdish positions in border towns in northeast Syria. On Oct. 10, the ground invasion began. On Oct. 11, Turkish forces shelled Kobani, a city close to an American Special Operations base. The American troops did not fire back, but they began withdrawing from the base a few days later, as Syrian and Russian troops entered to defend the town from advancing Turkish-backed forces.
On Oct. 13, Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper told CBS’s “Face the Nation” that Mr. Trump was ordering the remaining American forces out of northern Syria. “We have American forces likely caught between two opposing, advancing armies, and it’s a very untenable situation,” he said. The president, Mr. Esper added, had directed a withdrawal from northern Syria, which, he said, “is where most of our forces are.”
Mr. Trump affirmed his order on Twitter. “Others may want to come in and fight for one side or the other,” he tweeted. “Let them!”
By Oct. 14, the sentiment started to shift. Republican allies expressed outrage over Mr. Trump’s withdrawal order. Hundreds of Islamic State prisoners either escaped or were freed from detention in northern Syria, as Kurds turned their attention to fighting for their own survival. And Pentagon officials continued to argue to the president that the victory of the Islamic State was in danger of being reversed.
Mr. Trump, in a statement, said American troops “coming out of Syria will now redeploy and remain in the region to monitor the situation and prevent a repeat of 2014, when the neglected threat of ISIS raged across Syria and Iraq.” More significantly, Mr. Trump also announced that the American troops in the south, at Al-Tanf, would remain “to continue to disrupt remnants of ISIS.”
By Oct. 20, things were shifting again. Mr. Trump was talking about the need to protect the oil fields in eastern Syria. Pentagon officials began working on a plan to send additional American troops to guard oil fields.
image…..Delil Souleiman/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
The AP poll ,taken After Trumps moves in Syria ,show that,among Republicans,his actions had little effect on his approvals,despite the wailing of Republicans in Congress and elsewhere.
Apparently ,Republican voters actually supported Trumps moves, which would indicate a fundamental shift in Republicans foreign policy attitudes, or they disapprove of his actions but don’t attach any great importance to it.
What are the survey dates?
It says that only 77% of Republicans agreed with Trump on foreign policy. That definitely seems like a low historical number.
Also keep in mind that the number of people who identify as “Republicans” is far lower than it used to be.
The Republican lawmakers almost UNIFORMLY came out AGAINST the Trump Kurdish abandonment….
And Trump has backtracked ….
Sure it’s face saving and a half a loaf….
But Republicans tdid NOT support his action on this and THAT has allowed the military to continue in country.,.
I don’t see it as a low number for a Party that afew short years ago would have labeled aDemocrat who did what Trump did,a “cut and runner.”
Three fourths of the Republican Party now is adopting attitudes formerly identified with Leftist Democrats and you find nothing unusual about that?
As I’ve said before, your party is changing right before your eyes yet you seem more intent is engaging in futile arguments here over peripheral matters as to “when the poll was conducted” than facing that simple reality.
It’s all unusual. I just think you are assuming too much about how rigid this support is or that it is a “permanent change.” For now, people think they have to stick by Trump. One day, they won’t. Such a shift could easily happen quickly since it shifted quickly before as you noted.
There is far more discontent in what had been the Republican Party than is typically the case for any party in which an incumbent is seeking reelection.
No there isn’t.
You don’t remember 1980 I guess when Teddy Kennedy challenged Jimmy Carter.He was initially leading but faded in the end.
The Democratic Party was “discontented “ in the extreme.
In 1976.Gerald Ford, although not technically an incumbent, was still President Of the United States and barely was renominated over Ronald Reagan while losing a number of primaries.
Trump?Well he’s got pa few NeverTrumper Republicans writing nasty things about him and three joke candidates “opposing” him for renomination and Mitt Romney calling him to account ocassionally
You want to believe there is all this “discontent but the evidence on the contrary shows a party firmly united behind its Leader.
Seems to me you are trying to channel your personal “discontent “ onto others while they are cheerily shouting ReElect Trump!
1980 was a long time ago and a “Kennedy” dynasty does not exist in the Republican Party.
But yes, division in the party was obviously a bad sign for Carter and it’s a bad sign for Trump.
Do the Democrats have a Reagan?
The other point I have been making is that there is a difference in offering public support, which includes polls, and being genuinely enthusiastic about it.
Trump has more hostages than true believers.
In your opinion,not mine, and not a whole lot of other people.
In my view, you are refusing to acknowledge some profound changes that have taken place in the Republican Party.
Your view seems to be that with Trump gone, everything will simply revert to the way it was about five or six years ago.
I believe Trumpism will outlast Trump himself with some present Republican politicos seizing his mantle and running with it .Trumpism will remain a force within the Republican Party for years to come.
It was certainly the case that when Bill Clinton left the scene, his party reverted back to where they were beforehand.
I would want the Republican Party to have learned the lessons for the problems they had *before* five or six years ago in terms of being considered unwelcoming to immigrants, etc, or not inclusive. I’ve been saying this about the Republican Party for as long as you “known me.” (15 years?)
Results often bring about dramatic shifts in the parties. This is very well established throughout history.
I think you are overreaching into this though. What I am saying is that people “on the right” tolerate or abide Trump more than they truly believe in him. For them it’s a matter of survival of the moment. That does not mean that they want the party or country permanently etched in his image.
Jack is NOT a ‘greys’ person….
it’s ALL OR NONE….
arguing with him is wasting ur time….
he has views and that’s fine but GOPer’s do NOT all like Trump…..
It’s FEAR
Straight up!
I never said they ALL like Trump so quit lying.I said the vast majority approve of him and that is borne out by thecpolls that you are so enamored of.
As for as arguing with me ?At least I can coherently make an argument.You?nothing but a litany Of indecipherable mishmash that you can neither articulate or one can even understand what point you are making.
Indeed, you cant even explain what exactly you mean by “grey,” rather it is simply a word you throw around to attempt to end a discussion that you neither understand nor can participate in with any degree of coherence,
My…My…MY🙄?
U know….
ALLL Republicans follow lock step with Trump…
ALL GOPer lawmaker ‘s
will support Trump….
I could be wrong?
But i don’t think so….
Well one would think that if this “discontent “ is as pervasive as you seem to think someone more substantial than Joe ,Bill ot Mark would have stepped forward to challenge the source of such.
The fact that such hasn’t occurred indicates to me that the “discontent “ you speak of is not at the level you seem to believe.
Indeed ,except notably for Romney, no Republican presently in Congress has stepped forward to directly challenge Trump as to his basic conduct in office.
That is remarkable for a party supposedly in the throes of “discontent.”
No, because they realize it would be a kamikaze mission.
The concept was always going to be that Trump would either lose or quit or be thrown out of office or something else before the party can say “well, that’s over with now.”
Defeating an incumbent President in a primary, let alone a thoroughly rigged process such as present, is nearly impossible.
After he is gone, all these timid politicians will have lots to say about how bad he was. Just wait.
Half a century (to mangle Harold Wilson’s phrase) is a long time in politics, but both Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson withdrew from running after poor results in the New Hampshire primary.
William Howard Taft (who unlike HST & LBJ, was elected directly to the Presidency) might have faced a similar challenge if more states in 1912 had had primary elections.
And between Van Buren in 1840 and Cleveland in 1888 only a couple of sitting Presidents were nominated (Lincoln 1864 and Grant 1872) because either they had too little support in party conventions or that they’d lost hope or interest before competing.
There is starting to be much consternation about the fact that Sean Spicer has continued to survive on “Dancing With the Stars”, as far more talented B and C list celebrity dancers go home in his wake. This is according to my mother and the boos from the studio audience.
MAGA nation is certainly flexing their muscles in voting to keep Sean Spicer on reality tv. That is identity politics at its finest. How long can it last?