I feel the same today about experts who keep arguing we should stay in #Syria. As a lawyer friend said one time to me when we were discussing another matter: “the evidence is screaming in your face! “
I never understood the argument in favor of the US withdrawing from Syria. I tried, but it sounds irrational. I understand it if made by pro-Assad/Russia/Iran folks or by those who don’t watch Syria closely (those screaming “Iraq” without context.) But never why experts make it.
-
-
-
Exactly that evidence is what I’ve been trying to see. Genuinely trying to see the point. The best argument I heard is that the means/tools at hand don’t match the stated objectives, so it won’t ultimately work even if it’s *working* now. But that’s unconvincing/besides the point
-
What is “working now”? If staying is abt “defeat of ISIS” evidence shows they are far from defeated. If it is about rolling back Iran evidence shows Iran entrenchment is stronger than ever. If it is about creating conditions for political process, that process has been long dead.
-
True but each one of these points would be many times worse if the US withdraws. Isis isn’t entirely defeated but imagine what happens if the US leaves (currently contained, and capabilities of going after Isis are improving with US help.) Third of Syria is a safe zone vs Assad.
-
See my follow up tweet. Let Moscow & Tehran fight ISIS. As for safe zone, how long do u think this is sustainable politically? BTW a Dem prez will not be better. It is immoral 4us 2stick 2policy when we know it is unsustainable politically. We are 1 tweet away from withdrawal
-
US presence is having demonstrably positive effects on local communities, and on the fight against ISIS (+US interests). Why rush out? What’s the price for staying vs leaving? The US shouldn’t leave just coz the policy can’t be permanent, nobody says the US will stay permanently.
-
The risks are minimal & the US will have to leave at some point. But there are clear benefits in sticking around until the mission is properly finished (since the US made a decision to start it in 2014) & a political settlement is reached. Not a single positive in the alternative
-
risks are not minimal. losing
#US soldiers in a suicide bombing engineered by ISIS or Assad-cum-Iran is never minimal. Assuming “mission is finished” a mission which keeps changing- who is going 2sustain “benefits”?Can locals do it alone against TR, Assad & Iran?Highly doubtful - 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Only an irrational president would want to withdraw from Syria. And the likes of Lister, Orton, and Weiss, nominally all anti-Trump Syria experts, are only happy to embrace that irrational position.
-
None of those observers want the US to withdraw, though.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The question is who convinced Trump?
-
That seems the motive for some, to oppose Trump/Bolton.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The fact that they have no business being in a foreign country may have something to do with it.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
15+ years of steady war.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
In addition to specifics there’s a big question about precedent. What distinguishes Syria from other places? What prevents movement of US forces into yet another country next crisis and then another? As it already did with Iraq. It’s a recipe for endless war and overstretch
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I believe they are pro-Iran if not the other categories; and these exist/ed.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The argument is that the group they are supporting attack the opposition and ally with the régime, exacerbating the problems of Syria rather than abating them.
-
The so called opposition has ethnically cleansed them and is proposing to do this across the length of north Syria.http://www.syriahr.com/en/?p=102951
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
you're a victim, you need to protect your people by any cost, but doesn't make US a force for good or intervention legal; in addition to US bad bad records of lies & disregard of people life make it defaults to sell them even in serious case like Syria
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The problem is the current US strategy has no real endgame, so either the US needs to reform and expand its current mission in Syria or it will continue to promote the status quo without an exit
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.