� Aww: Couple Ties Knot in Matching Jerseys... of a WNBA Team | Main | Rowan Farrow: NBC News Chief Andy Lack Was "Unrelenting" -- That Is, Pressuring, Harassing -- When Pursuing Subordinates to Sleep With His Ugly Fat Ass � Andy McCarthy: Pace My Glib, Shallow Associates at National Review, The Turkey Situation Is Much More Complicated Than Black Hat/White Hat Neocon War Theory Would Suggest Worth a read. Some U.S. military officials went public with complaints about being "blindsided." The policy cannot have been a surprise, though. The president has made no secret that he wants out of Syria, where we now have about 1,000 troops (down from over 2,000 last year). More broadly, he wants our forces out of the Middle East. He ran on that position. I've argued against his "endless wars" tropes, but his stance is popular. As for Syria specifically, many of the president�s advisers think we should stay, but he has not been persuaded... All that said, the president at least has a cogent position that is consistent with the Constitution and public opinion. He wants U.S. forces out of a conflict in which America�s interests have never been clear, and for which Congress has never approved military intervention. I find that sensible -- no surprise, given that I have opposed intervention in Syria from the start (see, e.g., here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). The stridency of the counterarguments is matched only by their selectiveness in reciting relevant facts. I thus respectfully dissent from our National Review editorial. ...

Barbaric jihadist groups such as ISIS (an offshoot of al-Qaeda) come into existence because of Islamic fundamentalism. But saying so remains de trop ["too controversial to say"] in Washington. Instead, we tell ourselves that terrorism emerges due to "vacuums" created in the absence of U.S. forces. On this logic, there should always and forever be U.S. forces and involvement in places where hostility to America vastly outweighs American interests.

... Those of us opposed to intervention in Syria wanted Congress to think through these quite predictable outcomes before authorizing any further U.S. military involvement in this wretched region. Congress, however, much prefers to lay low in the tall grass, wait for presidents to act, and then complain when things go awry. And so they have: The easily foreseeable conflict between Turkey and the Kurds is at hand. We are supposed to see the problem as Trump�s abandoning of U.S. commitments. But why did we make commitments to the Kurds that undermined preexisting commitments to Turkey? The debate is strictly framed as "How can we leave the Kurds to the tender mercies of the Turks?" No one is supposed to ask "What did we expect would happen when we backed a militant organization that is tightly linked to U.S.-designated terrorists and that is the bitter enemy of a NATO ally we knew would not abide its presence on the ally�s border?" No one is supposed to ask "What is the end game here? Are we endorsing the partition of Syria? Did we see a Kurdish autonomous zone as the next Kosovo?" ... It is true, as the editors observe, that "there are no easy answers in Syria." That is no excuse for offering an answer that makes no sense: "The United States should have an exit strategy, but one that neither squanders our tactical gains against ISIS nor exposes our allies to unacceptable retribution." Put aside that our arming of the Kurds has already exposed our allies in Turkey to unacceptable risk. What the editorial poses is not an"�exit strategy" but its opposite. In effect, it would keep U.S. forces in Syria interminably, permanently interposed between the Kurds and the Turks. The untidy questions of how that would be justifiable legally or politically go unaddressed.



My own feelings here are, unlike the Genius Bar at National Review, mixed and inchoate. While I still support interventionism in the appropriate case -- at least theoretically -- I suffer from the burden of having re-examined my previous support of rampant interventionism, none of which seems to have solved the problems we intended to solve, and which in total has taken the lives and limbs of 10,000 or so Americans. I feel happy that National Review feels entirely unburdened and unchastened by their legacy. You can really save a lot of mental and bodily energy if you never once re-examine your beliefs and weigh the consequences of your past policy imperatives.

posted by Ace of Spades at



| Access Comments posted by Ace of Spades at 03:15 PM









Recent Comments Recent Entries Search Polls! Polls! Polls! Frequently Asked Questions The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick Top Top Tens Greatest Hitjobs