|
Post by michaelw on Jan 7, 2019 21:00:34 GMT -5
To be clear: I'm certain you're not happy. That was a mild bit of sarcasm. Ah, gotcha. Yep. Although to be fair (to me), I don't think I was really crediting this as something Trump "did", as though it had already happened, as opposed to something that had been announced as a future intention. Obviously I agree Trump has a pattern of reversing himself. Yes, I think we are largely on the same page here, with regard to Trump. (Some of what you're saying here is similar to what I had said about Trump earlier in this thread). It seems to me that where we diverge is mainly on what the implications are for trying to navigate such a complex situation as Syria. If we had a surgery ward overseen by a head surgeon who never went to medical school, who doesn't understand which surgeries need to be performed or how they work, I'd say don't go through with the surgeries. Obviously, in the case of withdrawing from Syria, it's more delicate and difficult than simply canceling a surgery, and you want to have a well thought-out plan. But you need a plan even more if you're going to plow ahead. The risks involved for US personnel working in Syria are significant, as shown here. If things play out a little bit differently and US forces start racking up casualties, how does one justify having kept them in harm's way?
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Jan 7, 2019 19:38:54 GMT -5
The "I want out of Syria" people -- are you happy? Happy that Trump is backtracking? Seems like an odd question, but maybe I'm not following. Well, I guess that means we'd be staying indefinitely. Sigh.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Dec 25, 2018 21:59:11 GMT -5
What's not okay is for us to act in an erratic, abrupt, irrational fashion, ignoring our own intelligence, military strategists and leaders, allies, etc., and instead seem to be dancing to the tune of Erdogan and Putin. This perfectly illustrates the absurdity of the position we're in, IMO. On the one hand, you have our allies, and then on the other hand, there's Erdogan (and Putin). Yet, Turkey is also our ally. Even Obama called them an ally. And apparently, we have to stay in Syria for an indeterminate length of time, at an indeterminate cost, in order to keep our allies from killing our other allies. What a mess. I agree. Of course, that was clear to me long before this particular action. In my view, the lack of justification for being there was a good enough reason for leaving. I get all the arguments about staying the course, you're already pregnant, you can't unring that bell, etc. But you still needed a clear vision from the top (that being the commander in chief), in order to justify a continued presence there. I'm not sure Mattis or other military people had a clear vision, either. And the soldiers who are putting their lives on the line are owed that, IMO. Instead, we're told by people who supposedly know better that it doesn't matter that there was no clear vision for moving forward. We're told by people who know better that it doesn't matter if the American public opposes intervention by a wide margin. We're told it doesn't matter that Congress hasn't given authorization, even though they could have done so at any time, not just before the start of involvement. We're told it doesn't matter that we can't be told how much time we would have to invest, or at what cost. Ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Dec 25, 2018 19:37:03 GMT -5
And MichaelW, even taking aside our immediate allies involved in this particular mission, this is further proof to ALL of our allies that we can't be relied on. I don't know about you, but when I see a friend fuck over another friend, my thought isn't "oh, well, nothing to do with me", it's "yeah, if she did it to him, she'll do it to me; she cannot be trusted." I cannot see why ANY ally would trust us at this point. I couldn't agree more. But I was going much farther than that (hence my brief history lesson on the Kurds.) Trust is a word that should hardly ever get thrown around when talking about international relations, lest the user be thought overly naive. It's all about shared interests, real or perceived. If our relations w/ the Kurds had been rooted in trust, that partnership would've ended years ago, long before Trump showed up. Same for our relations w/ many other countries, as well. Maybe even all of them, since as you noted, the ones who don't suffer mistreatment have the examples of others. I couldn't agree more. But of course, that should mean we have much greater obligations elsewhere. Take what you just said. That applies much more to Iraq than it does to Syria, right? Iraq was a stable--if highly autocratic--state which descended into chaos following the US invasion. Syria on the other hand was already in chaos when we went in. If we tore up the kitchen, so to speak, then what did others do there? Not in Syria, specifically. ISIS, while they might gain back territory in some pockets, isn't going to take over the country. Russia has made it very clear that Asad is going to stay in power.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Dec 24, 2018 21:02:41 GMT -5
All it does is strip away the illusion some people had that there was a backstop to Trump's impulsiveness. That's a good way of putting it. And when you put it like that, it makes me think Mattis leaving might be a good thing, in a sense. Or at least, it's a good thing to the extent that holding onto illusions is a bad thing.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Dec 24, 2018 19:55:35 GMT -5
But you might ask yourself why our allies are freaking our and our military is freaking out and middle east experts are freaking out if in fact those troops don't matter and we can just yank 'em out any time without a problem. I think they're right to freak out. Middle East experts. Ay yay yay. I cannot believe that after Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and Syria, people are still listening to the war-hawks. Thank god most Americans seem to have become exhausted by it all. I dunno if the US presence in Syria was really having much effect on ISIS, one way or the other. It certainly did in Iraq, though. Just not the way we wanted. Who are our allies in this area? Al Nusra? (We did give them weapons at one point.) Turkey? (They are part of NATO, after all.) Saudi Arabia? (They might carry out mass murder in Yemen, murder journalists, etc, but hey, they're against Assad, so I'm really aggrieved that they're not happy.) Israel? (That one is more plausible, but they don't seem to be as fazed by this as others.) the Kurds? (They are the real losers here, but to say they will trust us less is to insult their intelligence, IMO. They could not possibly have really trusted us, given their history with the US. As I said, I'd still support a Kurdish state, so I'm much more on their side than pretty much any US president to date.) Putin already won, in case that wasn't clear. Does it have to be a a non-danger? Surely we're not so unfamiliar with either/or fallacies at this point, no?
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Dec 23, 2018 23:00:18 GMT -5
I mean, yeah, because who needs an orderly transition, especially right as yyyyuuggge military actions are being made whose consequences will be felt for decades to come? Yes. The removal of 2,000 troops from a (mostly) non-combat role is a historical event the likes of which we may never see again. It's practically a modern day Dunkirk. I feel badly for Mattis (not being sarcastic this time). Trump is treating him almost as badly as Obama treated him. I dunno if he (Mattis) is as much of a brilliant mind as some might make him out to be, but he was (I believe) doing the best he could in a difficult position. That said, I agree with Mikey on this. Too much friction between a president and defense secretary can easily lead to more problems. And the main upside that Mattis was supposed to offer--being an actual adult who was capable of thinking things through and who could act as a kind of restraint on Trump's impulsiveness --seemed to me to have always been more (wasted) potential than actual. Some key examples: --Mattis thought leaving the Paris Agreement was a bad move, but Trump did it anyway. --Mattis thought decertifying the Iran deal was a bad move, but Trump did it anyway. --Mattis thought moving the US embassy to Jerusalem was a bad move, but Trump did it anyway. --Mattis thought Trump's policy on transgenders in the military was a bad move, but Trump did it anyway. And now there's Syria, which quite possibly was the straw that broke the camel's back. If Mattis was actually having an influence on Trump's decision-making, then there might be a strong case to be made that his absence is going to really make things worse. But that's not what was happening. The real problem with Trump is that he doesn't know how to listen, doesn't know how to expand his knowledge base because he thinks he already knows everything. Mattis probably recognized that, and eventually he couldn't take it anymore. But I think if I were going to be persuaded that Mattis' departure is some kind of big deal w/ major consequences, I would have to be persuaded that Trump was capable of utilizing Mattis in a way that was going to have some positive effects. If a brick wall has an advisor who drops dead, what's more important: the genius of the advisor, or the fact that the advisee was a brick wall?
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Dec 23, 2018 0:36:46 GMT -5
And taking all that aside, you aren't actually kidding yourself that Trump is making this decision for carefully considered reasons, are you? Of course not. I'm happily willing to concede that Trump doesn't know jack shit about the Middle East in general or Syria specifically. All the more reason to leave, as I noted earlier.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Dec 22, 2018 19:42:04 GMT -5
I hardly ever support the same things as Trump, but this is a case where I do.
I happen to believe the US presence in Syria was/is unconstitutional, and that getting out is required unless Congress gives authorization.
On top of that, you have another protracted conflict without clear, achievable objectives, in a country where we're not wanted, where the most emotive reason for staying (don't abandon the Kurds) created an absurdity where the US would be helping a group (the PKK) that was designated a terrorist organization by--wait for it, wait for it--the US government. (Not that the US was ever going to support a Kurdish state, which I would've been open to supporting.)
And you know, it's kind of amusing to me that Trump's ignorance of the Middle East could be cited as a reason for staying. Fact is, Trump is the commander in chief, so he's the one responsible for overseeing this whole thing. Bush and Obama, who at least tried listening to people who were supposed to know a lot about the Middle East, both got bogged down in protracted conflicts that ruined entire countries because of unintended consequences. But the guy who can't find Syria on the map is going to make sure the mission in Syria--whatever that happens to be at this point--goes smoothly? LOL.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Dec 17, 2018 21:07:17 GMT -5
Besides, has anyone stopped to think about how a question like this makes other crooks feel? You think they want to be associated with Trump? Richard Nixon must be turning over in his grave.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Dec 13, 2018 19:09:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Dec 5, 2018 20:10:48 GMT -5
One could argue that "Kill two birds with one stone" and "Beat a dead horse" are different beasts (not funny?), insofar as the former has a positive connotation while the latter has a negative one. Funnily enough, I'm seeing some point out on Twitter that feeding a bird a scone is actually bad for their health and can give them intestinal problems. Go figure.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Dec 5, 2018 20:01:43 GMT -5
I stand for and believe in 1. Peace on Earth 2. An end to all wars. 3. No more violent crime in the US. 4. Racial and religious harmony in all nations. 5. Free and immediate access to high level health care for all citizens of planet Earth. I support your number one but I'm not completely sold on number two.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Dec 3, 2018 16:32:28 GMT -5
I'm sure I would enjoy Finding George Orwell in Burma, as I've read a lot of Orwell and also visited Burma last year. Apparently in the days of the military junta, Burmese intellectuals had a bit of a joke about Orwell: that he wrote a whole trilogy of novels about their country: Burmese Days followed by Animal Farm and Nineteen-Eighty-Four.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Dec 3, 2018 0:00:40 GMT -5
I've spoken/argued with a few DSA supporters recently and none of them seem to have a coherent idea of what it is they stand for other than some lame, ludicrous, completely-idealistic-but-totally-unrealistic talking points (e.g., open borders, "everyone should give their money away," free education, free healthcare, abolish ICE, etc.). Can anyone here offer a coherent steelman position of Democratic Socialism as well as your best arguments against it? I'm not looking to debate anyone, just generally looking to be better informed. Thanks in advance. IMO, the best Democratic Socialist writer of all time was George Orwell. He used the actual term a number of times in his writings and I think had a generally cohesive idea of what it meant to him. Orwell wrote in Homage to Catalonia: "Socialism means a classless society, or it means nothing at all." That's at least pretty straightforward, if nothing else, right? The "democratic" part, I think, Orwell mainly saw through the lens of opposition to totalitarianism. Obviously Orwell had no love for Marxist-Leninist regimes, as they tended to oppose the values Orwell cherished the most (free speech, etc). The best arguments against it? Probably Hayek's book The Road to Serfdom. It's a brilliant take-down of socialist central planning, tightly argued, and quite passionate without losing its levelheadedness, IMO. (Interestingly, Orwell actually published a book review of The Road to Serfdom, which wasn't actually that negative, all in all.) Getting back to the specific policies you mentioned (open borders, free healthcare, etc.), I don't think I would see those things as defining characteristics. Not that Democratic Socialists don't support them, but one can be a hardcore libertarian and support open borders just as easily, and lots of countries in the world today offer free healthcare without being labeled as socialist (Israel offers free healthcare and they are generally seen as right-wing, if anything.) Even the Scandinavian countries might be thought of as more social democracies, rather than Democratic Socialist. I think I would articulate the distinction in this way: that social democrats still operate within a framework that's essentially capitalist, while seeking to check what they see as the worst aspects of capitalism (mainly via labor laws and social safety-net policies). Whereas Democratic Socialists (consistent with Orwell) actually seek to challenge capitalism itself, which they see as the ultimate source of class differences. Anyway, those are my thoughts on it, fwiw. Unfortunately, I think nowadays we no longer have advocates for or against Democratic Socialism with nearly the same level of acuity and intellectual integrity as people like Orwell and Hayek. Which is probably why you're so frustrated with modern day advocates, who can't articulate what it is because they're less focused on the larger ideological picture and more focused on specific pet policies they want (like free healthcare). (And to be fair, I think you'll find a lot of people in the US who claim to oppose socialism who would also struggle to define it, for the same reason.)
|
|