Blowback is Killing Us. Just Come Home.

[pineapplemike]

is this gonna be another obama ended the war! meme where trump has ended the afghanistan war! but we simultaneously still have regular drone strikes and thousands of troops stationed there? i'll give trump credit for syria but i never bought that he was a peacenik either

[C-Mag]

is this gonna be another obama ended the war! meme where trump has ended the afghanistan war! but we simultaneously still have regular drone strikes and thousands of troops stationed there? i'll give trump credit for syria but i never bought that he was a peacenik either

+1
Fortress America !

Trump needs to force Congress to Re-Authorize these wars. Pelosi, Rubio and Schummer leading the charge as War hawks would be fantastic

[pineapplemike]

Bolton Says U.S. Withdrawal From Syria Is Conditional
https://www.wsj.com/articles/bolton-say ... 1546777230
The Trump administration won’t withdraw U.S. forces from northern Syria unless Turkey offers a firm commitment not to target America’s Kurdish allies, White House national-security adviser John Bolton said, underscoring the challenges in executing the president’s wishes to put an end to the military campaign.

Speaking to reporters in Jerusalem on Sunday, Mr. Bolton said President Trump’s order to withdraw U.S. troops is a “cause and effect mission” that requires certain assurances from various players in the region before it can be executed.

Mr. Bolton’s comments marked the first public acknowledgment from the White House that the safety of Kurdish allies is being considered as part of its pending withdrawal plan, but it also indicates that a quick withdrawal was unlikely given challenging regional dynamics.

did you all get your christmas card from the kurds? mine must still be in the mail

https://mobile.twitter.com/mtracey
Not that this would've been hard to guess, but there is strong evidence that Bolton, Pompeo, and others have been pursuing their own agendas without Trump's approval. (Although Trump bears ultimate responsibility for appointing them in the first place)

Trump said today the Syria withdrawal is "going quickly" (whatever that may mean) while Bolton declared "conditions" that could make it go exceedingly slowly or never happen at all.

[pineapplemike]

As Democratic Elites Reunite With Neocons, The Party’s Voters Are Becoming Far More Militaristic and Pro-War than Republicans
https://theintercept.com/2019/01/11/as- ... publicans/

President Trump's December 18 announcement that he intends to withdraw all U.S. troops from Syria produced some isolated support in the anti-war wings of both parties, but largely provoked bipartisan outrage among in Washington’s reflexively pro-war establishment.

Both GOP Senator Lindsey Graham, one of the country’s most reliable war supporters, and Hillary Clinton, who repeatedly criticized President Obama for insufficient hawkishness, condemned Trump’s decision in very similar terms, invoking standard War on Terror jargon.

But while official Washington united in opposition, new polling data from Morning Consult/Politico shows a large plurality of Americans support Trump’s Syria withdraw announcement: 49% support to 33% opposition.
...
But what is remarkable about the new polling data on Syria is that the vast bulk of support for keeping troops in that Middle Eastern country come from Democratic Party voters, while Republicans and independents overwhelming favor their removal. The numbers are stark: of people who voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, only 26% support the withdraw of troops from Syria, while 59% oppose it. Trump voters overwhelmingly support withdraw by 76%-14%.

fascinating

...
This is, of course, not the first time that Democratic voters have wildly shifted “beliefs” based on the party affiliation of the person occupying the Oval Office. The party’s base spent the Bush/Cheney years denouncing War on Terror policies such as assassinations, drones and Guantanamo as moral atrocities and war crimes, only to suddenly support those policies once they became hallmarks of the Obama presidency.

But what’s happening here is far more insidious. A core ethos of the anti-Trump #Resistance has become militarism, jingoism, and neoconservatism. Trump is frequently attacked by Democrats using long-standing Cold War scripts wielded for decades against them by the Far Right: Trump is insufficiently belligerent with U.S. enemies; he’s willing to allow the Bad Countries to take over by bringing home U.S. soldiers; his efforts to establish less hostile relations with adversary countries is indicative of weakness or even treason.

At the same time, Democratic policy elites in Washington are once again formally aligning with neoconservatives even to the point of creating joint foreign policy advocacy groups (a reunion that pre-dated Trump). The leading Democratic Party think tank, the Center for American Progress, donated $200,000 to the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute and has multi-level alliances with warmongering institutions. By far the most influential liberal media outlet, MSNBC, is stuffed full of former Bush/Cheney officials, security state operatives and agents, while even the liberal stars are notably hawkish (a decade ago, long before she went as far down the pro-war and Cold Warrior rabbit hole which she now occupies, Rachel Maddow heralded herself as a “national security liberal” who is “all about counterterrorism”).

All of this has resulted in a new generation of Democrats, politically engaged for the first time as a result of fears over Trump, being inculcated with values of militarism and imperialism, trained to view once-discredited, war-loving neocons such as Bill Kristol, Max Boot and David Frum and former CIA and FBI leaders as noble experts and trusted voices of conscience. It’s inevitable that all of these trends would produce a party that is increasingly pro-war and militaristic, and polling data now leaves little doubt that this transformation – which will endure long after Trump is gone – is well under way.

well put

[Speaker to Animals]

So the people who typically do not serve, laugh at those who do, and vote for more war in exchange for gibs and privileges... they want more war.

So surprising..

[Ph64]

So the people who typically do not serve, laugh at those who do, and vote for more war in exchange for gibs and privileges... they want more war.

So surprising..

There's an easy solution Trump could do tomorrow...

He announces that not only are we staying in Syria, but we're trip!ing our presence there, as well as doubling our troops in Iraq & Afghanistan, plus we're invading Iran and Turkey, and propose that Congress pass a 25 reauthorization for all of it.

...immediately the Dems will be calling him a war hawk, opposing it all, and clamoring to bring the troops home and get us out of all these wars... Because whatever Trump wants, they want the opposite.

[C-Mag]

@ Ph 64 - that's about right

Somewhat off subject......
Heres a real WTF, why are we bringing in thousands of child brides, as young as 12 ? You can thank the State Department for sponsoring this program.
https://lidblog.com/state-child-bride/

[nmoore63]

@ Ph 64 - that's about right

Somewhat off subject......
Heres a real WTF, why are we bringing in thousands of child brides, as young as 12 ? You can thank the State Department for sponsoring this program.
https://lidblog.com/state-child-bride/

................

[Fife]

WTF is Trump doing?

Pentagon Officials Fear Bolton’s Actions Could Provoke War With Iran

Having spent decades advocating a US attack on Iran, John Bolton’s position as National Security Adviser is allowing him to push the idea hard with President Trump. For those less enamored of that war, including Pentagon leadership, there is mounting concern that Bolton might provoke such a war.

So when Bolton came to the Pentagon asking them for military options for attacking Iran, nominally in retaliation for a Shi’ite Iraqi militia firing mortar shells in Baghdad, they were reticent.

The options they delivered were reportedly very limited. They involved little more than a show of force with limited airstrikes against some random Iranian military site. This was far short of what Bolton wanted, but former Defense Secretary James Mattis argued that even this was a bad idea, and no attack has happened yet.

But the National Security Council are still saying the attack plans are being considered, and Mattis is no longer around to argue against it. This potentially would allow Bolton to push for the symbolic attack and hope it escalates into more, or to push the Mattis-less Pentagon for even bigger plans for more ambitious wars.

[The Conservative]

WTF is Trump doing?

Pentagon Officials Fear Bolton’s Actions Could Provoke War With Iran

Having spent decades advocating a US attack on Iran, John Bolton’s position as National Security Adviser is allowing him to push the idea hard with President Trump. For those less enamored of that war, including Pentagon leadership, there is mounting concern that Bolton might provoke such a war.

So when Bolton came to the Pentagon asking them for military options for attacking Iran, nominally in retaliation for a Shi’ite Iraqi militia firing mortar shells in Baghdad, they were reticent.

The options they delivered were reportedly very limited. They involved little more than a show of force with limited airstrikes against some random Iranian military site. This was far short of what Bolton wanted, but former Defense Secretary James Mattis argued that even this was a bad idea, and no attack has happened yet.

But the National Security Council are still saying the attack plans are being considered, and Mattis is no longer around to argue against it. This potentially would allow Bolton to push for the symbolic attack and hope it escalates into more, or to push the Mattis-less Pentagon for even bigger plans for more ambitious wars.

Nothing, preparing for every situation.