Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles
Title: Why Trump’s Syria 'Surge' Will Fail
Source:
Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity
URL Source: http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archive ... trump-s-syria-surge-will-fail/
Published: Mar 13, 2017
Author: Ron Paul
Post Date: 2017-03-13 14:53:51 by Hondo68
Ping List: *Neo-Lib Chickenhawk Wars* Subscribe to *Neo-Lib Chickenhawk Wars*
Keywords: Trumps neocon quagmire, Syrian Army winning, defeating ISIS in Syria
Views: 2228
Comments: 17
Poster Comment: The USA and Turkey are invaders. Russia is there with the permission of the Syrian government.
Last week President Trump significantly escalated the US military presence in Syria, sending some 400 Marines to the ISIS-controlled Raqqa, and several dozen Army Rangers to the contested area around Manbij. According to press reports he will also station some 2,500 more US troops in Kuwait to be used as he wishes in Iraq and Syria.
Not only is it illegal under international law to send troops into another country without permission, it is also against US law for President Trump to take the country to war without a declaration. But not only is Trump’s first big war illegal: it is doomed to failure because it makes no sense.
President Trump says the purpose of the escalation is to defeat ISIS in Raqqa, its headquarters in Syria. However the Syrian Army with its allies Russia and Iran are already close to defeating ISIS in Syria. Why must the US military be sent in when the Syrian army is already winning? Does Trump wish to occupy eastern Syria and put a Washington-backed rebel government in charge? Has anyone told President Trump what that would to cost in dollars and lives – including American lives? How would this US-backed rebel government respond to the approach of a Syrian army backed up by the Russian military?
Is Trump planning on handing eastern Syria over to the Kurds, who have been doing much of the fighting in the area? How does he think NATO-ally Turkey would take a de facto Kurdistan carved out of Syria with its eyes on Kurdish-inhabited southern Turkey?
And besides, by what rights would Washington carve up Syria or any other country?
Or is Trump going to give up on the US policy of “regime change” and hand conquered eastern Syria back to Assad? If that is the case, why waste American lives and money if the Syrians and their allies are already doing the job? Candidate Trump even said he was perfectly happy with Russia and Syria getting rid of ISIS. If US policy is shifting toward accepting an Assad victory, it could be achieved by ending arms supplies to the rebels and getting out of the way.
It does not appear that President Trump or his advisors have thought through what happens next if the US military takes possession of Raqqa, Syria. What is the endgame? Maybe the neocons told him it would be a “cakewalk” as they promised before the 2003 Iraq invasion.
Part of the problem is that President Trump’s advisors believe the myth that the US “surge” in Iraq and Afghanistan was a great success and repeating it would being the victory that eluded Obama with his reliance of drones and proxy military forces. A big show of US military force on the ground – like the 100,000 sent to Afghanistan by Obama in 2009 – is what is needed in Syria, these experts argue. Rarely is it asked that if the surge worked so well why are Afghanistan and Iraq still a disaster?
President Trump’s escalation in Syria is doomed to failure. He is being drawn into a quagmire by the neocons that will destroy scores of lives, cost us a fortune, and may well ruin his presidency. He must de-escalate immediately before it is too late.
Subscribe to *Neo-Lib Chickenhawk Wars*
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 17.
#5. To: hondo68 (#0)
Ron Paul thinks in terms of international law. What a dumb ass.
....it is also against US law for President Trump to take the country to war without a declaration. Or maybe you missed that part. The last thing this country needs is another invasion of a foreign country under the guise of fighting terrorism. Of course, I'm not surprised to see that Trump is caving to the neocons.
Truman claimed the Korean War was a “police action” and did not require congressional authorization….while Johnson exploited the vaguely worded Gulf of Tonkin Resolution as justification for pursuing the armed conflict in Vietnam. I point out to you these are two significant examples to show you how war powers have shifted toward the executive branch since the early days of American history….as I continue my relentless effort to educate you and all libertarians.
Both wars were based on lies then - I guess that makes it OK, right? Just like Dubya and his invasion of Iraq to go after non-existent weapons of mass destruction. The committee decided in the end to effectively conceal the truth, with Senator Church noting that if the committee came up with proof that an attack never occurred, “we have a case that will discredit the military in the United States, and discredit and quite possibly destroy the president.” He also noted that if the senators were to follow up on their skepticism over Tonkin, “The big forces in this country that have most of the influence and run most of the newspapers and are oriented toward the presidency will lose no opportunity to thoroughly discredit this committee.” The LBJ Presidential tapes, declassified and released in 2001, prove that LBJ knew the Tonkin incident never happened. After dressing down his Defence Secretary Robert McNamara for misleading him, Johnson then discussed how to politically spin the non-event and escalate it as justification for air strikes. “You just came in a few weeks ago and said they’re launching an attack on us – they’re firing at us,” Johnson tells McNamara in one conversation, “and we got through with the firing and concluded maybe they hadn’t fired at all.” The NSA also deliberately faked intelligence data to make it appear as if two US ships had been lost in the “attack”. Johnson used the 1964 false flag event to expand dramatically the scale of the Vietnam War by ushering in the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, as well as to rope in much needed domestic support with the Congress and public. *****
There are no replies to Comment # 17. End Trace Mode for Comment # 17.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#12. To: A K A Stone (#5)
Ron Paul thinks in terms of international law. What a dumb ass.
#14. To: Deckard, A K A Stone (#12)
....it is also against US law for President Trump to take the country to war without a declaration.
Side Bar –
Or maybe you missed that part. Hey, Bubba, maybe you missed the point that both the Korean and Vietnam Wars were notable exceptions of the “US law” to take the country to “war without a declaration.”
“Pay attention to what things are called and may not be called….because things need not be called what they really are to not be what be really are.” ~ Something Yogi Berra would have said …
#17. To: Gatlin (#14)
(Edited)
Truman claimed the Korean War was a “police action” and did not require congressional authorization….while Johnson exploited the vaguely worded Gulf of Tonkin Resolution as justification for pursuing the armed conflict in Vietnam.
Replies to Comment # 17.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]