U.S. southern border versus Syrian northern border

by philg

Facebook is alive with outrage regarding Donald Trump’s scaling back of our military involvement what will soon be the 9th year of the Syrian Civil War.

The same people who demanded the abolition of ICE and the pulling back of armed U.S. forces patrolling the U.S. southern border are demanding that armed U.S. forces patrol the Syrian northern border. The people who advocate for a wave of migration from Central America into the U.S. are opposed to a wave of re-migration of Syrians currently in Turkey back across the northern border into their original home (map from the BBC, which says “Turkey launched the offensive in northern Syria a week ago to push back from its border members of a Syrian Kurdish militia called the People’s Protection Units (YPG) and create a ‘safe zone’ along the Syrian side of the border, where up to two million Syrian refugees can be resettled.”

Readers: Is Trump wrong? Should we spend the next 10-20 years patrolling the Syrian border and trying to keep our NATO ally Turkey (population 80 million) from doing what it deems prudent in its immediate neighborhood?

[If Elizabeth Warren prevails in 2020, will she solve both of these problems by relocating U.S. Border Patrol forces over to northern Syria?]

17 thoughts on “U.S. southern border versus Syrian northern border”

  1. “The same people who demanded the abolition of ICE and the pulling back of armed U.S. forces patrolling the U.S. southern border are demanding that armed U.S. forces patrol the Syrian northern border.”

    It’s almost like they’re totally different issues, weird.

    • Replacement of the draft with voluntary service has resulted in the ascendancy of a political cohort that are economically benefited rather than physically or politically harmed by the expansion of coercive and violent foreign policy.

      If you (not you, js290, but hi baz) think that Trump’s political success (he cut through the republican primary like a knife through butter) is unrelated to vast popular recognition of the dynamic, well.

      It’s bipartisan – Tulsi Gabbard gets attention for pointing out the same dynamic.

      We have no business in Syria, and we have no reason to be operating aircraft and soldiers inside the borders a sovereign country absent an invitation from the sovereign or a declaration of war.

      Interested parties seeking another round of US military intervention in the Mid east after 30+ years of experience in Lebanon, Kuwait, Iraq, Saudi, Afghanistan and Libya have gone so well are definitionally insane. What’s going to be different this time?

    • Anonymale, you’re exactly right, removing the draft has paradoxically made the USA more of a military menace.

    • Yup. The draft was an insurance policy; costly-in-time, inconvenient, unpopular, against exactly the horrible wasteful outcome we got. At war with everyone, and losing.

      The geographic scope of the ‘interventions’ are expanding, not contracting and victory apparently not an option (feature, not a bug don’t you know)

      Frustrating. Frustrating. Frustrating. Not the 21st century we hoped for, eh?

  3. LOL. Wut?!

    “
    The same people who demanded the abolition of ICE and the pulling back of armed U.S. forces patrolling the U.S. southern border are demanding that armed U.S. forces patrol the Syrian northern border. ”

    Where do you see this fact!?

  4. If congress wants troops in Syria so much, all they have to do is follow the constitution and sign a declaration of war (against who?), then Emperor Trump will be obliged to deploy them.

    • Imagine!

      Can you articulate what you find objectionable about the letter?

      Also, could you possibly articulate what you would have like the letter to say.

      And, skipping ahead a bit, if you wanted it to threaten violence against the Turks – what exactly is your present affiliation with the US armed forces (active, veteran, etc?)

      Thanks much

    • It is easy for my Facebook friends, Jack. If Trump is doing it, then by definition it is the wrong thing to do.

    • phil, your friends sound like real simpletons. Judging someone by their past actions, stated intentions and how they’re regarded by peers. Please tell them not to be fools!

  8. Well, the issue of warmongering can be fixed very easily: anyone advocating military action is automatically enlisted (and sent to the war he or she advocated in case the decision is made to start the war). The only problem I see is the burden of dealing with hordes of fat, stupid, and untrainable recruits it would place on the army. Nothing a good drill sergeant won’t be able to fix, though.

    • I tweeted similarly the other day: automatic enlistment to front line infantry. Either they die in the wars they advocate for, or they stop warmongering. Both are good options.

      “Unless warmongers are more exposed to dying than others it’s the equivalent of reckless drivers being isolated from the risks of reckless driving… [neocons] should have kept their mouths shut.” http://bit.ly/2DR28Cj

Comments are closed.