Tag Archives: Kurds

Democrats to blame for Turkish slaughter of Kurds?

U.S. Rep. Liz Cheney said the following, in part, during an interview with Fox News: “It was not an accident that the Turks chose this moment to roll across the border,” she claimed. “And I think the Democrats have got to pay very careful attention to the damage that they’re doing with the impeachment proceedings.”

OK, do you follow that? The Wyoming Republican — who happens to be former VP Dick Cheney’s daughter — believes the threat of impeachment has prompted the Turks to launch their invasion of northern Syria. Impeachment has prompted Turkey to slaughter Kurdish allies who have fought and died in the battle against the Islamic State.

My head is spinning. My jaw has dropped. I cannot grasp what Liz Cheney has posited to her pals at Fox News.

Here’s my take. The Turks launched their attack because Donald Trump talked to Turkish President Recep Erdogan and then decided to pull all U.S. troops off the battlefield; the Turks now have attacked Kurdish positions in Syria, killing Kurds on sight. We have abandoned a valuable ally in the ISIS fight and the Turks are taking full advantage. Trump acted without any input from his national security team; the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs of Staff were blindsided.

That, I believe, is the sole reason for the Turkish incursion. The threat of impeachment has not a damn thing to do with this foreign policy disaster in the making.

Oh, why is the reference to VP Cheney worth mentioning? I guess it’s because Daddy Dick Cheney was known as a partisan creature, too, meaning that the fruit didn’t fall far from the Cheney tree.

‘You are leaving us to be slaughtered’

I am baffled, confused and at some level heartbroken over what Donald Trump has done to one of this nation’s more faithful military allies.

We are pulling our forces out of northern Syria, leaving the Kurds — many of whom have died fighting the Islamic State terrorists in the region — at the mercy of Turkey, which has launched sustained air and artillery bombardments against Kurdish positions.

The Turks hate the Kurds. The Kurds have told U.S. military officials that they have left the Kurds “to be slaughtered” by the Turks.

Indeed, I’ve seen some video of Turkish soldiers executing Kurds captured in the field.

What in the world is going on here?

Trump made the decision to pull out after talking by phone with Turkish President Recep Erdogan. He apparently got no assurance from Erdogan that the Kurds would be protected. He also surprised his national security team with the decision he made with reportedly no consultation with the experts who know what’s happening on the field of battle.

I am so very torn by this development. I endorse Trump’s view that we shouldn’t be involved in “endless wars.” However, the manner in which this decision has come about and the seeming resurgence of ISIS fighters in the region means that all of our sacrifice and effort in ridding the area of the terrorist monsters has gone for naught.

And it is likely to cost the Kurds thousands more lives as they are left to fight a superior military force invading their territory from Turkey.

What in the world have we done to our allies? And can we be trusted in the short or medium term to stand by other allies’ sides as they fight the terrorists networks intent on doing us harm?

‘They didn’t help us’ during World War II

Are you fu**ing kidding me, Mr. President?

You justify abandoning our allies in the fight against the Islamic State because they didn’t “help us” during World War II.” You said, “They didn’t help us in the Second World War; they didn’t help us with Normandy. With all of that being said, we like the Kurds.”

Oh, brother. The stupidity of your comments simply defies understanding.

Kurdistan is a region that sprawls across several countries: Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Armenia and Syria. The Kurds comprise about 30 million people. They do not function under a formal government. Kurdistan also is a long way from Normandy, France.

However, Mr. President, they are a proud and sophisticated people. They have been devoted allies of ours in the fight to eliminate the Islamic State. Thousands of them have died fighting ISIS alongside our military personnel.

But you have left them to fight not only ISIS, but apparently the Turks, who have launched attacks in northern Syria. The Turks hate the Kurds. How this tragic circumstance plays out is anyone’s guess.

You have incurred the wrath of politicians in both parties here, Mr. President.

And now you add to it all by speaking stupidly about Kurds’ absence from the beaches at Normandy.

That is idiotic, Mr. President. Oh, wait! I shouldn’t be surprised.

Here is how dangerous POTUS can be

So, just how much danger can the president of the United States put this country?

Consider how he concluded that it is time for the country to pull out of Syria and effectively abandon the Kurds, with whom our troops have been battling the Islamic State.

Donald Trump says otherwise, but he announced his decision to leave Syria without consulting the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Pentagon, the CIA, the director of national intelligence. He acted on a phone call with Turkish strongman/tyrant President Recep Erdogan (pictured), who hates the Kurds and who well might move to obliterate our allies in the region.

Trump’s impulse was to pull out. It was to abandon our allies. He says he is keeping a “campaign promise” he made during the 2016 campaign. That is pure crap! He is not more interested in keeping that promise than he is in forcing Mexico to build The Wall, or to cutting the budget deficit.

At one level, I don’t necessarily oppose the decision to pull our troops out of harm’s way. Except that our nation already has committed to assisting the Kurds, who have done the bulk of the fighting — and suffered the bulk of the deaths — against ISIS.

How does the president plan to execute this strategy? Will he change his mind once again?

Our foreign policy lacks coherence. It is fueled by chaos and confusion, all of which comes from the Twitter account run by the president of the United States.

Do you feel safer now? Neither do I.

Up next? A ‘pitiless’ response to terror

epa05024278 French president Francois Hollande speaks in Paris, France, 14 November 2015, following a series of coordinated attacks in and around Paris late 13 November 2015, which left more than 120 people dead. Hollande blamed the Islamic State group for the attacks in Paris that left at least 128 dead, calling them an 'act of war'.  EPA/STEPHANE DE SAKUTIN / POOL MAXPPP OUT

There can be nothing good to come from the Paris attacks this week that killed at least 120 French citizens.

However, the response from French President Francois Hollande gives one hope that the civilized world has gained another full-time participant in the world war against terrorism.

Hollande has vowed a “pitiless” response to the coordinated, well-planned attacks at several locations throughout the City of Lights. And from across the English Channel, British Prime Minister David Cameron told the French that “their fight is our fight.”

France brings considerable muscle to this global effort. The country has a significant military force capable of bringing great harm to whomever it engages. Its intelligence network ranks as one of the more sophisticated on the planet.

Meanwhile, the United States has been waging its own brand of warfare against the Islamic State — which has taken “credit,” if you want to call it that — for the horrifying act it committed in Paris.

Air strikes are continuing. President Obama has decided to send in a small cadre of special operations forces to help train the Kurds in their fight against ISIS in Syria. The British continue to provide air support for the air strikes against terror targets. And, yes, the Russians have joined the fight, too — although it remains an open question whether the MiG fighter jets are actually hitting ISIS targets or merely going after rebel forces fighting the brutal regime of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, who remains a sworn enemy of the United States.

What will it take to defeat the Islamic State? Perhaps it will take more acts of brutality by the monstrous organization against more of our allies throughout the world.

We should continue to accept and welcome all the help we can get.

 

Should the president return that Peace Prize?

barack obama

Barack H. Obama campaigned for the presidency vowing to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

His election in 2008 prompted the Nobel Committee to award him the Peace Prize the following year with the hope of a peaceful future in those two countries. The new president accepted the prize while acknowledging the unusual context in which the committee awarded it.

I never thought I’d say this, but I have to wonder if President Obama has ever considered giving the award back.

Why? Well, consider that that he vowed to end both wars. They haven’t ended. Now he’s about to commit a handful of U.S. troops into a third country to engage in the battle against the Islamic State.

Obama faces dilemma

The president recently announced that he would keep troops fighting in Afghanistan past the time he leaves office in January 2017; our commitment in Iraq remains, despite the pullout of frontline combat troops. Now this, the deployment of Special Forces to assist the Kurds fighting ISIS in northern Syria.

He took office while the country was fighting in two countries. He likely will leave office with the nation fighting in three countries.

This is not the legacy that Barack Obama ever wanted, but it’s part of the legacy he will leave the next president of the United States.

I get that circumstances have changed since he took office as the so-called “transformational” president. The Islamic State has exploded onto the scene. Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad has brutalized and murdered hundreds of thousands of his people. The Iraqi military has fallen far short of its mission to defend the country against Islamic State murderers. The Taliban has fought back in Afghanistan.

Yes, we killed Osama bin Laden. We’ve continued to hunt down and kill terrorists all across the Middle East and South Asia. And we’ve known all along that the Global War on Terror would not end in the conventional way, with one side signing a peace treaty to end the hostilities. We are fighting an elusive and cunning enemy.

However, all that hope that Barack Obama brought to the presidency has dissipated as he heads for the final turn of his two terms in office.

I’m not going to say President Obama should give back the Nobel Peace Prize, although I wouldn’t complain out loud if he did.

 

Air strikes 'authorized'

Here we go once more.

The commander in chief “authorizes” the use of military force but leaves the door open to possibly not actually using it.

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2014/08/07/obama_authorizes_renewed_airstrikes_in_iraq_107354.html

The enemy this time is in Iraq, the Sunni Muslim extremists seeking to overthrow the Shiite government. President Obama today announced a humanitarian mission to help those who are stranded in northern Iraq by the onslaught of the Sunni fighters.

What’s next? The president said he has “authorized” the launching of targeted air strikes against those who would threaten a small detachment of U.S. forces sent to protect American consulate officials in Irbil.

A part of me wants the president to make good on the threat. However, a bigger part of me hopes the Iraqi government can push the insurgents back, defeat them on the battlefield and forgo the use of U.S. military might in a conflict our ground forces ended more than a year ago.

As RealClearPolitics.com reported: “‘As commander in chief, I will not allow the United States to be dragged into fighting another war in Iraq,’ Obama said.

“Even so, he outlined a rationale for airstrikes if the Islamic State militants advance on American troops in the northern city of Irbil and the U.S. consulate there in the Kurdish region of Iraq. The troops were sent to Iraq earlier this year as part of the White House response to the extremist group’s swift movement across the border with Syria and into Iraq.”

No one should want the United States to re-enter the fight in Iraq. However, the United States, with its investment in lives and money already deposited in Iraq, needs to protect its interests in that country.

If air strikes are needed, then we must not be reluctant to exert our considerable force.