1073 Gabbard calls Hillary "queen of warmongers"; says 'Russian asset' remarks are 'smear campaign'

Gabbard calls Hillary "queen of warmongers" says 'Russian asset'
remarks are 'smear campaign'

Newsletter published on November 11, 2019

(1) Gabbard calls Hillary "queen of warmongers" says 'Russian asset'
remarks are 'smear campaign'
(2) Gabbard Hammers Hillary
(3) Clinton and Gabbard exchange insults - WaPo
(4) Gabbard: Clinton 'personifies rot that has sickened Democratic party'
(5) Warren and Sanders Are Not the Same
(6) Trump’s Chaotic Syria Exit Puts Anti-War 2020 Democrats In A
Delicate Spot
(7) Economist protests US departure from Syria
(8) Democrats attack Trump for abandoning the Kurds—but want U.S. to
pull out of Afghanistan - Peter Beinart
(9) Democrats in an awkward position of defending U.S. forever wars
(10) Kurdish PKK/YPG troops join the Syrian army; MSM beatup Trump's
withdrawal

(1) Gabbard calls Hillary "queen of warmongers" says 'Russian asset'
remarks are 'smear campaign'
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tulsi-gabbard-2020-democrat-candidates-hillary-clinton

Gabbard says Clinton 'Russian asset' remarks are part of 'smear
campaign' as 2020 Dems voice support

By Julia Musto, Vandana Rambaran | Fox News

Tulsi Gabbard blasts Hillary Clinton for suggesting Russia is grooming
her to run as third-party candidate

Presidential hopeful Tulsi Gabbard says Hillary Clinton represents
warmongering and corruption.

Rep.Tulsi Gabbard, D-H.I. accused Hillary Clinton "and her proxies" of
starting a "smear campaign that has been waged against me and my
candidacy and my campaign from the very first day that we began,"
pushing back on accusations that she is a "Russian asset."

"This smear campaign is coming from people like Hillary Clinton and her
proxies, the foreign policy establishment, the military industrial
complex, who obviously feel threatened by my message and by my campaign
because they know that they can't control me," she told an NBC reporter
on Saturday.

When asked if she would disavow support from foreign entities, including
an official Twitter account of the Russian Embassy who has circulated
support for the candidate online, in order to quell American fear of
foreign interference in elections, Gabbard responded: "This is not about
Russia."

"Foreign interference in our election is not a good thing. But what
we're seeing, this is not about Russia," she said.

"I don't control them. I don't control what anyone else says or does.
All I can do is focus on the message that I am bringing to this
campaign," she added.

In a podcast with former Obama adviser David Plouffe, Clinton said she
wasn't "making any predictions, but [she thinks Russians] have got their
eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are
grooming her to be the third-party candidate."

"She's the favorite of the Russians" she added, saying they "have a
bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far."

Gabbard lashed out at Clinton on Twitter Friday calling her the "queen
of warmongers [and the] embodiment of corruption" in response to the
allegations.

She also told Fox News' Tucker Carlson on "Tucker Carlson Tonight" that
the former Secretary of State is waging a smear campaign against her
because "she knows she can't control me."

She accused Clinton of having "blood on her hands" after the Iraq war
she "championed."

"Their blood is on her hands. That's why she's smearing my character and
trying to undermine my campaign," Gabbard said.

Gabbard received an outpouring of support from fellow 2020 Democratic
candidates including  Marianne Williamson, Andrew Yang and Beto O'Rourke.

Yang wrote in a tweet: "Tulsi Gabbard deserves much more respect and
thanks than this. She literally just got back from serving our country
abroad."

  Andrew Yang?? @AndrewYang
Tulsi Gabbard deserves much more respect and thanks than this. She
literally just got back from serving our country abroad.

11:47 AM - Oct 19, 2019

Williamson chimed in: "The Democratic establishment has got to stop
smearing women it finds inconvenient!" Adding, "the character
assassination of women who don't toe the party line will backfire."

  Marianne Williamson @marwilliamson
The Democratic establishment has got to stop smearing women it finds
inconvenient! The character assassination of women who don’t toe the
party line will backfire. Stay strong @TulsiGabbard . You deserve
respect and you have mine.

2:08 PM - Oct 19, 2019

"You deserve respect and you have mine," she told Gabbard.

Meanwhile, New Jersey Senator Cory Booker posted a wide-eyed gif
reacting to Gabbard's rebuttal.

  Cory Booker @CoryBooker
https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1185289626409406464 …

Tulsi Gabbard @TulsiGabbard
Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers,
embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has
sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from
behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has
been a ...

6:53 AM - Oct 19, 2019

O'Rourke, a former Texas congressman, defended Gabbard as well telling
reporters "Tulsi is not being groomed by anyone. She is her own person.
Obviously has served this country, continues to serve this country in
uniform, in Congress, as a candidate for presidency so I think those
facts speak for themselves."

  The Hill @thehill  .@BetoORourke on @TulsiGabbard:
"Tulsi is not being groomed by anyone. She is her own person. Obviously
has served this country, continues to serve this country in uniform, in
Congress, as a candidate for presidency so I think those facts speak for
themselves."

Clinton has since backed out of a speaking appearance at Fortune's Most
Powerful Women Summit, where Gabbard was scheduled to speak.

Julia Musto is a reporter for Foxnews.com

(2) Gabbard Hammers Hillary

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/i-stand-against-everything-she-represents-gabbard-hammers-tired-sick-fragile-hillary

Sat, 10/19/2019 - 12:00

Authored by Tom Luongo via Gold, Goats, 'n Guns blog,

Tulsi Gabbard has stones. She has the kind of stones born of a life
dedicated to the cause of serving others.

She is the direct opposite of Hillary Clinton, for whom all causes serve
herself and her enormous narcissism and pathology.

So seeing Gabbard go directly after Hillary Clinton after her debate
performance the other evening where she explicitly called out both the
New York Times and CNN (the hosts of the debate) for the hit jobs on her
puts to rest any idea she’s someone else’s stalking horse.

Two weeks ago I asked if five tweets from President Trump changed U.S.
foreign policy for good, Gabbard does him two better with these three
tweets of absolute, Oscar Wilde-like beauty.

     Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers,
embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has
sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from
behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has
been a ...     — Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) October 18, 2019

     ... concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who
was behind it and why. Now we know — it was always you, through your
proxies and ...     — Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) October 18, 2019

     ... powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid
of the threat I pose.

     It’s now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don’t
cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly.     — Tulsi
Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) October 18, 2019

There is so much goodness to unpack in these tweets it is almost beyond
my ability to do so.

Clearly, Gabbard may have real problems with Donald Trump as president
but she’s learned very quickly from him that the best way to deal with
Hillary and her media quislings is to attack them without mercy.

Gabbard throws down the gauntlet here outing Hillary as the mastermind
behind the DNC strategy of allowing the current crop of future losers to
fall all over themselves to alienate as many centrist voters as possible.

This paves the way for Hillary to swoop in on her broom, pointed hat in
hand, and declare herself the savior of the Democratic Party’s chances
to defeat Donald Trump next November.

Remember that leading up to the debate Gabbard was going to boycott the
event because it was such a corrupted event and stage-managed to
showcase the chosen ‘front-runners’ — Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren.

It makes sense to me that she decided at the last minute to join the
debate after the Times piece just to ensure she got the national
platform to openly call out the corruption in the same breath as
attacking Trump for his, to this point, disastrous foreign policy mistakes.

She emerged from that debate as the only candidate with any moral
compass capable of pointing in a single direction. Warren made a fool of
herself responding with bromides about leaving in the ‘rightt way’
indistinguishable from any other presidential puppet of the last twenty
years.

This is two debates in a row where Gabbard came out blazing at the
front-runner, claiming a moral and ethical high ground on foreign policy
that, at just over half the age of her rivals, that shows a maturity
well beyond her years.

Her calling Hillary the "Queen of Warmongers" is so self-evidently true
that it will reverberate far beyond Twitter into votes.

And it tells Hillary that Gabbard has zero fear of her and her political
machine.

You can’t cow a person without fear who has nothing to lose.

[ZH: And Gabbard was not done - she ripped into Hillary's terrible
legacy in a Friday night "Tucker Carlson Tonight" interview.]

     During her discussion with Fox News host Tucker Carlson, Gabbard
framed Clinton’s opposition as being not only against her candidacy, but
against "every veteran in this country, every service member, every
American, anyone watching at home fighting for peace and who was calling
for an end to these regime change wars."

     "Ultimately she knows she can’t control me," Gabbard said,
responding to Carlson’s question about why Clinton is taking aim at her.
"I stand against everything that she represents and if I’m elected
president, if I’m the Democratic nominee and elected president she will
not be able to control me. She won’t be able to manipulate me. She won’t
be able to continue to work from behind the curtains, to continue these
regime change wars that have been so costly."

     The Democratic presidential candidate said the blood of her
"brothers and sisters in uniform" killed in Iraq, a "war she
championed," is "on her hands."

     "I am calling for an end to these regime change wars. This is why
she’s speaking out strongly and smearing my character and trying to
undermine my campaign," she said.

     "Just as she is doing this to me, this is what will happen to
anybody who is doing the same."

     Responding to a question from the Fox News host about the massive
media and political opposition from both parties to her foreign policy
positions, Gabbard noted that it happened as soon as she announced her
candidacy.

     " And now we know exactly why. It’s because I am standing up and
speaking out strongly against the Hillary Clinton legacy, the
warmongering legacy of waging these regime change wars, continuing to
escalate these tensions between the United States, nuclear armed
countries like Russia, China, this nuclear arms race bringing more
profits to the military-industrial complex. "

Bullies like Hillary never learn that lesson until they are humiliated
beyond recognition.

Moreover, when you look at this sequence of events it’s clear that the
DNC, Hillary and everyone else close to the corridors of power fear
Gabbard’s rise. If they weren’t they wouldn’t be putting out smears in
the New York Times.

They wouldn’t be spending millions on social media trolls to discredit
her in the public fora.

The first rule of politics is "You never attack down."

Well, Hillary attacked down. The Times attacked down. The DNC, by gaming
the debate rules, attacked down. And that spells disaster for anyone who
does it.

Just ask Rudy Guiliani.

(3) Clinton and Gabbard exchange insults - WaPo
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/battle-lines-drawn-after-clinton-and-gabbard-exchange-insults/2019/10/19/14e43e5c-f27a-11e9-b648-76bcf86eb67e_story.html

Battle lines drawn after Clinton and Gabbard exchange insults

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) reacted after 2016 Democratic presidential
nominee Hillary Clinton suggested Russia was grooming Gabbard to disrupt
the 2020 race. (Reuters)

By Colby Itkowitz

Oct. 20, 2019 at 6:13 a.m. GMT+10

There are fresh battles lines in the 2020 presidential campaign,
reflecting an unpredictable rivalry between two Democratic politicians —
one who isn’t even running this cycle and another who is polling at
barely 1 percent.

It began when former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton
suggested this week that current primary contender Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of
Hawaii is being used by the Russians, who could be plotting a third
party run to siphon votes from the eventual Democratic nominee. It’s a
scenario that Clinton is sensitive to, since she blames Russian election
interference and Green Party candidate Jill Stein for her loss to
President Trump.

Gabbard, in a scathing response, called Clinton "the queen of
warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot
that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long."

"It’s now clear that this primary is between you and me," Gabbard wrote
on Twitter. "Don’t cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race
directly."

Hillary Clinton compares Russian electoral 'attack' to 9/11 Hillary
Clinton said Russian election inference "altered the outcome in enough
places," and contrasted President Trump's response to Bush's reaction to
9/11. (The Washington Post) Clinton has not directly responded, but her
spokesman, Nick Merrill, told CNN, "If the nesting doll fits."

Merrill, in an interview Saturday, said Clinton was "not saying
Americans are Russian spies but that Russia has found ways to take
advantage and is not being held responsible by anyone in government."

Few outside Clinton’s immediate orbit defended her comments. The closest
anyone came was Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), who retweeted Gabbard’s
reaction to Clinton with a viral GIF from the June debate when he
glanced "side eyed" — a look that often conveys shock or disdain — at
another candidate. That garnered a reply from Clinton — a viral GIF of
her own from a 2016 debate where she exhales, says, "okay," smiles and
shimmies her shoulders.

Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, whose Iowa bus tour had been overshadowed
by the Gabbard-Clinton fight, told reporters on Friday that Clinton
could "defend herself, and will." Asked about the story again on
Saturday, she pivoted to talk about her election integrity legislation.

"This is something I’m not getting into right now," she said. "I will
talk about election security, because I think that’s much more
significant than any Twitter fight going on right now."

But two of the nonpoliticians in the Democratic primary, entrepreneur
Andrew Yang and author Marianne Williamson, sided with Gabbard.

Yang tweeted that Gabbard, a veteran, "deserves much more respect and
thanks than this." Williamson accused the Democratic establishment of
"smearing women it finds inconvenient."

"The character assassination of women who don’t toe the party line will
backfire. Stay strong @TulsiGabbard. You deserve respect and you have
mine," Williamson tweeted.

Notably, Clinton — who made the comments on a podcast hosted by David
Plouffe, a former adviser to President Barack Obama — never used
Gabbard’s name. But Gabbard is the only female candidate in the
Democratic primary who has been accused of having ties to Russia.

"I’m not making any predictions, but I think they’ve got their eye on
somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her
to be the third-party candidate," Clinton said.

Gabbard has repeatedly ruled out running as a third-party candidate. But
she has been courted to run in the general election outside the
Democratic Party by activists who believe the two-party system is
corrupt and should be cast aside.

Stein has suggested in the past that Gabbard "should become a Green"
because her comments were "similar to our message."

In the podcast interview, Clinton also accused Stein, who won more votes
in several states than Trump’s margin of victory over Clinton, of being
a tool of the Russians.

"Yes, she’s a Russian asset, I mean, totally," Clinton said. "They know
they can’t win without a third-party candidate."

President Trump weighed in on on the dispute Saturday afternoon, urging
a third party Green Party candidate to run in 2020, which would benefit
him by peeling off Democratic voters.

"Crooked Hillary Clinton just called the respected environmentalist and
Green Party candidate, Jill Stein, a ‘Russian Asset.’ They need a Green
Party more than ever after looking at the Democrats disastrous
environmental program!" Trump tweeted.

While it’s unclear why Clinton initiated this fight, the bad blood
between her and Gabbard goes back to 2016, when Gabbard quit her post as
a Democratic National Committee vice chair so she could endorse
Clinton’s primary opponent, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) of Vermont.

Gabbard is an unconventional Democrat, whose message of an isolationist
foreign policy and willingness to buck the party establishment has
gained her fans among the far right. She’s a frequent guest on Fox News,
often Tucker Carlson’s show. She went on Friday night to talk to Carlson
about her clash with Clinton.

She has also gained a following with some white nationalists. A neo-Nazi
website called Daily Stormer said it deserved credit for getting her the
support necessary to qualify for the first two debates.

But the main reason many Democrats, including Clinton, are wary of her
is because she’s a favorite topic on Russian websites and social media.

"Hillary is absolutely going to continue to call balls and strikes as
she sees them because while she knows she was on the receiving end of it
in 2016, our 2020 nominee will face the same threat," said Philippe
Reines, a former Clinton adviser.

Gabbard was back on the campaign trail Saturday, holding two town hall
meetings in Iowa, including one in the town of Clinton.

David Weigel in Ames, Iowa and Michael Scherer contributed to this story.

(4) Gabbard: Clinton 'personifies rot that has sickened Democratic party'

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/19/gabbard-clinton-rot-democratic-party

Gabbard: Clinton 'personifies rot that has sickened Democratic party'

2016 candidate implies 2020 hopeful ‘favorite of the Russians’
Congresswoman fires back in extraordinary intra-party spat Associated
Press in Washington

Sat 19 Oct 2019 23.21 AEDT Last modified on Sun 20 Oct 2019 04.55 AEDT

In an interview, Clinton said she believes the Russians have "got their
eye on somebody who’s currently in the Democratic primary and are
grooming her to be the third-party candidate".

The former senator, secretary of state and 2016 Democratic presidential
candidate did not name Gabbard directly.

But in tweets on Friday, Gabbard called Clinton the "personification of
the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long". Gabbard
also alleged there has been a "concerted campaign" to destroy her
reputation since she announced her presidential run in January.

"It’s now clear that this primary is between you and me," Gabbard
tweeted about Clinton. "Don’t cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join
the race directly."

There is lingering trepidation in the Democratic party of a repeat of
the 2016 race, when Russia interfered in an effort to help Donald Trump
defeat Clinton. US intelligence agencies have warned that Russia intends
to meddle in 2020. The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, has mocked
that possibility, joking earlier this month that Moscow would
"definitely intervene".

During a Democratic debate on Tuesday, Gabbard criticized a commentator
who she said called her "an asset of Russia". She called the comments
"completely despicable".

Clinton seemed to echo the commentator’s remark during a podcast
appearance this week on Campaign HQ with David Plouffe. Plouffe was
campaign manager for Barack Obama in 2008 and a senior adviser to the
president.

"She’s the favorite of the Russians," Clinton said, referring to the
person she had earlier identified as a woman "who’s currently in the
Democratic primary".

"They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so
far."

Clinton also called Trump "Vladimir Putin’s dream". She went on to say
Trump’s inauguration speech was "like a declaration of war on half of
America". Clinton also described the 2016 Green party presidential
candidate Jill Stein as "a Russian asset".

Gabbard said on CBSN she "will not be leaving the Democratic party. I
will not be running as an independent or a third-party candidate."

Stein, who ran against Trump and Clinton, received about 1% of the vote
in the 2016 election. But some Democrats said her candidacy syphoned
votes from Clinton and helped Trump win, particularly in states like
Wisconsin.

The Senate intelligence committee asked Stein for documents as part of
its inquiry into Russian interference in the election because she
attended a 2015 dinner in Moscow sponsored by the Russian television
network RT, with Putin. Stein has said she attended "with a message of
Middle East peace, diplomacy and cooperation".

In a tweet on Friday, Stein accused Clinton of "peddling conspiracy
theories to justify her failure instead of reflecting on real reasons
Dems lost in 2016".

(5) Warren and Sanders Are Not the Same

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/no-warren-and-sanders-are-not-the-same/

OCT 16, 2019

No, Warren and Sanders Are Not the Same

When Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., had two heart stents inserted into his
arteries in early October, media pundits were quick to foresee the end
of his pioneering, movement-based candidacy. Some questioned why it took
three days for his family and campaign to confirm the details of his
medical condition and others wondered whether age and health would be
important factors in his candidacy. Given the documented media bias
against Sanders, it is certainly not surprising to see Sanders’ health
scare exploited to undermine his candidacy. (Sanders, on the other hand,
in his typical fashion, exploited his situation to demand that health
care ought to be "a human right.")

Los Angeles Times opinion writer Rich Benjamin pushed the bias further
by saying, "any perception of fatigue and frailty can undercut his
effectiveness in competing for the nomination and in the dogfight
against Trump if he does beat the rest of the Democratic field."
Benjamin demanded that it was time for "Bernie and his bros"—using a
sexist, racist and discredited smear that assumes Sanders’ supporters
are mostly pig-headed white men—"to get behind Elizabeth Warren." In
fact, men and women are roughly evenly split among Sanders’ supporters,
and people of color are more likely than whites to back him.

Benjamin is echoing a sentiment that has been gaining traction: that
Warren is a good enough emulation of Sanders and has adopted enough of
his progressive policy proposals for Sanders’ supporters to unreservedly
support her. But while a Warren nomination would certainly be a strong
sign of progress, particularly in the era of Donald Trump, there are
serious distinctions between Sanders and Warren that should not be
dismissed.

For example, on health care, although they both back the idea of a
"Medicare for All" plan, Warren and Sanders do not take identical
positions. Health care is the most important issue for the American
electorate. During Tuesday’s Democratic presidential candidate debate,
Warren repeatedly avoided admitting that backing a Medicare for All plan
would mean that taxes would go up across the board. She sidestepped
questions twice, saying, "I will not sign a bill into law that raises
their costs, because costs are what people care about."

But in fact, people care about getting the health care they need more
than anything. According to a new poll released on the same day as the
debate, "Fifty-six percent of Americans think providing access to
affordable health care coverage for all Americans is the responsibility
of the federal government, and two-thirds favor the creation of a
national, government-administered health insurance plan similar to
Medicare that would be available to all Americans." Vox.com writer Tara
Golshan explained that although Warren has endorsed Sanders’ health care
plan, "she speaks about Medicare-for-all more in terms of expanding
public options for health care, rather than eliminating private
insurance altogether."

Sanders, on the other hand, was far more candid about the cost of his
plan during the debate, saying, "I do think it is appropriate to
acknowledge that taxes will go up. They’re going to go up significantly
for the wealthy. And for virtually everybody, the tax increase they pay
will be substantially less — substantially less than what they were
paying for premiums and out-of-pocket expenses." By acknowledging that
taxes will go up while premiums, co-payments, deductibles and "all
out-of-pocket expenses are gone," Sanders was far more honest about what
his bill to expand Medicare to every American would entail while also
demolishing the right-wing argument about high costs. Later in the
debate, he went further and slammed the Democratic Party, challenging it
to have "the guts to stand up to the health care industry, which made
$100 billion in profit."

There are differences in other policies too. For example, Sanders’ plan
to tax the wealthiest Americans goes much further than Warren’s. His tax
rate for billionaires is more than twice that of Warren’s, leading one
commentator to declare that Sanders’ plan to tax extreme wealth "makes
Warren’s wealth tax look moderate." Sanders has even said he doesn’t
think billionaires should exist.

It has become more and more apparent that Sanders is the only Democratic
candidate to have a lengthy track record on progressive politics,
compared to those who have discovered their progressive backbones more
recently, because they know it plays well to the party’s left-leaning
base. Seven years ago, Warren did not back Medicare for All, and 23
years ago she was a registered Republican. In fact, she maintains she is
an avowed capitalist. Meanwhile, Sanders has been backing the idea of a
Medicare plan expanded to all Americans for at least 10 years. He has
been calling himself a socialist for decades, and he most recently
distinguished himself from Warren’s self-proclaimed capitalist label in
an interview.

When Sanders ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016,
media outlets ignored him until he began winning primaries, and even
then, experts routinely underestimated his pull and popularity.
Progressives were thrilled to finally see a bona fide leftist candidate
on a national stage echoing the issues that we longed to hear about,
analyzed in ways that targeted corporate profiteers.

After the election ended, the movement that was borne from his candidacy
flourished and proliferated into multiple organizations determined to
challenge establishment politics from inside and outside the electoral
system. Among the successes of that movement was the 2018 election of
the outspoken and staunchly progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of
New York.

While recent polls show Sanders’ popularity as a candidate dipping a few
percentage points behind Warren, his performance this week during the
Democratic debate (including his characteristic dismissal of concern
over the state of his health, saying only that he was "healthy" and
"feeling great"), may bump his numbers up in the next poll. Perhaps even
more important is the announcement that Ocasio-Cortez will be endorsing
his candidacy. Both Warren and Sanders had sought the endorsement of the
young and very popular progressive Democrat, and now that Sanders has
clinched it, it may well boost his standing.

Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar and Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib, who are
considered part of the four-member "squad" of prominent progressive
congresswomen of color, have also decided to throw their weight behind
the Vermont senator. Sanders and Omar just co-sponsored a bill to feed
all schoolchildren three free meals a day regardless of income. Clearly
Ocasio-Cortez, Omar and Tlaib see a distinction between Warren and Sanders.

There is one thing Warren has going for her over Sanders: She’s far more
charismatic than he is. At a recent LGBTQ event in Los Angeles, Warren
won over the crowd when she was asked how she might respond to a
supporter who claimed that marriage should be between one man and one
woman. She replied, "I’m going to assume it is a guy who said that. And
I’m going to say, ‘Well, then just marry one woman. I’m cool with
that.'" With the perfect timing of an improv artist, she waited for
applause and added, "Assuming you can find one"—which of course resulted
in even more applause.

Yes, Warren’s candidacy would be huge step in the right direction for
the United States in the Trump era—especially if she were the most
progressive front-runner in the race. But she’s not. In fact, she is
arguably being pulled to the left by Sanders’ candidacy. CNBC’s Jim
Cramer suggested that if Sanders dropped out of the race, "she doesn’t
have to be worried about that [far-left] flank anymore." So, do
progressives want the candidate who may be feeling pressured to move to
the left or the person whose candidacy is setting the progressive standard?

(6) Trump’s Chaotic Syria Exit Puts Anti-War 2020 Democrats In A
Delicate Spot
https://theintercept.com/2019/10/15/syria-troop-withdrawal-trump-democrats/

Alex Emmons

October 16 2019, 5:31 a.m.

THE PENTAGON announced on Monday that the U.S. was pulling all of its
troops out of northeastern Syria at President Donald Trump’s direction,
completing a withdrawal he had started by Twitter declaration a week
earlier. The move further clears the way for a full-on invasion by
Turkey, whose soldiers have already been accused of executing
noncombatants. In the chaos, hundreds of Islamic State detainees have
reportedly escaped.

Trump defended his decision in a series of early-morning tweets on
Monday. "The same people who got us into the Middle East mess are the
people who most want to stay there!" he wrote. "Never ending wars will end!"

Trump’s abandonment of eastern Syria and the U.S. military’s Kurdish
allies has put progressive Democrats — many of whom also favor
withdrawing from overseas military operations — in a delicate spot. Over
the past week, they have been trying to thread the needle between
condemning Trump for recklessly abandoning an ally and emphasizing that
withdrawing U.S. troops should be an eventual policy goal.

Trump’s decision has showcased what a worst-case scenario for expedited
military withdrawal could look like, making it harder for progressive
Democratic presidential candidates like Sens. Bernie Sanders and
Elizabeth Warren to press their cases against "endless wars" on the
campaign trail. The question of how progressives can go about drawing
down U.S. military commitments without repeating Trump’s calamitous
actions would be an obvious pick for Tuesday night’s Democratic debate.

So far, the Democratic candidates have been critical of Trump but light
on specifics about what they would do differently. Last week, Sanders
condemned Trump’s withdrawal from Syria, telling reporters that "as
somebody who does not want to see American troops bogged down in
countries all over the world — you don’t turn your back on allies who
have fought and died alongside American troops. You just don’t do that."
But when George Stephanopoulos asked Sunday morning on ABC for Sanders
to explain the difference between his and Trump’s approaches, Sanders
responded simply that Trump "lies. I don’t."

Warren’s response was similarly vague. She tweeted that "Trump
recklessly betrayed our Kurdish partners" and that "we should bring our
troops home, but we need to do so in a way that respects our security."

Ro Khanna, a Democratic representative from California and co-chair of
Sanders’s 2020 campaign, told The Intercept that progressives urgently
need to make the case for a "doctrine of responsible withdrawal."

"I don’t believe that withdrawal from a progressive perspective means a
moral indifference to the lives of the places that we leave," Khanna
said in a phone interview. "It’s not an ‘America First’ approach that
says our interests and our American lives are the only things that have
moral worth. Rather, our withdrawal is based on an understanding of the
limitations of American power to shape and restructure societies. It
emphasizes the need for effective diplomacy and understands our moral
obligations in these places."

The U.S. should not have withdrawn troops without negotiating a deal
that would have kept Turkey from invading Syria, backed by a threat to
withhold future arms sales and economic assistance, Khanna told The
Intercept. "We could have used all those points of leverage to get their
commitment that they wouldn’t slaughter the Kurds."

Another key difference between Trump’s approach and that of progressives
is their level of trust for civil service expertise, Khanna said. "What
this shows is that it’s not enough to have a president with certain
instincts. Foreign policy requires great expertise. You need a
progressive president who understands the importance of military
restraint, but who also has the ability to put together an extraordinary
foreign policy team to implement the goals that they may have."

Far from admiring Trump’s approach to Syria, many anti-interventionists
and foreign policy experts in D.C. view it as a blueprint for how not to
withdraw from a conflict, according to Adam Wunische, a researcher with
the Quincy Institute, a new pro-diplomacy, noninterventionist, and
nonpartisan think tank.

"What we should have been doing from the very beginning is once we
achieved the limited objective of destroying ISIS territory, they should
have immediately begun contemplating what kind of peace or settlement
could come afterwards," Wunische told The Intercept. "To my knowledge,
the U.S. is one of the only actors that can effectively talk to both the
Turks and the Kurds. So they should have been trying to find an
acceptable political arrangement for all the parties involved that
doesn’t involve an endless, ill-defined military presence for the U.S."

The Quincy Institute is working on a report outlining a possible plan
for U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan that would avoid the type
of disorder on display in northeastern Syria, Wunische said, though the
timing of the report remains unclear.

Throughout the 2020 Democratic primary campaign, a number of candidates
have railed against "endless wars." But in a conversation that has been
defined by intricate domestic policy proposals and detailed outlines of
how to structure a wealth tax, candidates have said little about the
rest of the world and even less about how they would wind down overseas
conflicts.

Sanders, for example, has called for a withdrawal of U.S. forces from
Afghanistan "as expeditiously as possible." Warren has said "it’s long
past time to bring our troops home, and I would begin to do so
immediately." Joe Biden has said he would bring "American combat troops
in Afghanistan home during my first term," but left the door open for a
"residual U.S. military presence" that would be "focused on
counterterrorism operations." When asked during a July debate whether he
would withdraw from Afghanistan during the first year of his presidency,
Pete Buttigieg, the South Bend mayor and Navy Reserve veteran who spent
seven months in Afghanistan, answered emphatically in the affirmative.

But aside from seeking a diplomatic solution, candidates have said very
little about their policies for ending the war. And as in Syria, stakes
for U.S. allies in Afghanistan are high.

A January study by the Rand Corporation found that a "precipitous U.S.
withdrawal from Afghanistan" would have far-reaching consequences. The
legitimacy for the U.S.-backed Kabul government would plummet, the
report argued, and the Taliban would extend its control and influence.
People all across the country would turn to regional militias and rival
warlords for basic security.

"I don’t think that anyone, whether they promise it or not, is going to
get out of Afghanistan in a week," said Wuinsche. "What we need to focus
on is, what is the political solution that we think is possible, and how
do we get there? That requires marshaling all of these different tools
of foreign policy, not just the military."

Kate Kizer, policy director for the D.C.-based advocacy group Win
Without War, stressed that one of the most revealing differences between
progressives and Trump is how they would treat a conflict’s refugees.
Under Trump, the U.S. has accepted historically low numbers of refugees
and closed the door on future Syrian immigrants applying for Temporary
Protected Status.

"One of the cruelest parts of Trump’s policy is the fact that, in
addition to fueling more bloodshed with this decision, he’s also banning
any types of civilians who would be fleeing from the conflict," Kizer
said. "In a situation like Syria and even Afghanistan, there’s a way to
responsibly withdraw and then there’s a way to cut and run, which is
what Trump has shown he has a predilection for. But I’m not sitting here
saying that any type of military withdraw will necessarily be bloodless."

(7) Economist protests US departure from Syria

https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2019/10/14/turkeys-invasion-has-thrown-a-once-stable-corner-of-syria-into-chaos

Things fall apart Turkey’s invasion has thrown a once-stable corner of
Syria into chaos Less than a week after America removed its troops, a
Kurdish-run fief has collapsed

Oct 14th 2019 | ABU DHABI

ALL OF IT was foreseeable: the death and displacement, the atrocities,
the flight of jihadists and the return of a brutal regime. But it has
happened more quickly than almost anyone predicted. In the days since
Turkey invaded north-east Syria on October 9th, scores of people have
been killed and more than 100,000 displaced. A brief Syrian Kurdish
experiment in self-rule has come to a crashing halt. Their entity, known
as Rojava, is now a carcass to be picked over by the Turks and the
regime of Bashar al-Assad, Syria’s dictator. Hundreds of Islamic State
(IS) supporters, once held by the Kurds, have escaped into the desert scrub.

Small though it may seem, President Donald Trump’s abrupt decision to
withdraw some 100 troops from north-east Syria has reshaped the Levant.
It cleared the way for a long-threatened Turkish invasion meant to
dislodge the Kurdish-led militia in control of the region. Turkey views
the group, the People’s Protection Units (YPG), as a mortal foe because
of its ties to the militant Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which has
fought a long insurgency against the Turkish state.

With America gone the Turks, backed by Syrian rebels under their command
(mostly Sunni Arabs), swept across the border and quickly seized a
swathe of central Rojava. They control a stretch of the M4, the main
east-west highway about 30km south of the border, allowing them to
bisect the Kurdish enclave and cut the YPG’s supply lines. Advancing
Syrian rebels have already been accused of atrocities. One gruesome
video circulated on social media showed giddy militiamen executing a
bound Kurdish prisoner on the battlefield. "Photograph me," one rebel
urges the cameraman, before he turns a sniper rifle on the captive.

  Though known as fierce fighters, the Kurds lack armour or air power.
Their light infantry stands little chance against a modern Turkish army.
Instead of fighting to the death they have asked Mr Assad for
protection. For years the YPG, perhaps hedging its bets, tried to avoid
open conflict with the regime. And on October 13th the Kurds struck a
deal to bring the regime back to the north-east. "If we have to choose
between compromises and the genocide of our people, we will surely
choose life," the Kurdish commander, Mazloum Abdi, wrote in an op-ed for
Foreign Policy, an American magazine. Mr Assad wasted little time. His
troops are already fanning out into territory formerly under YPG control.

While his men moved in, America moved out. On October 13th the defence
secretary, Mark Esper, said America would withdraw all 1,000 troops
deployed across northern Syria, fearing they would be caught between the
Turkish and Syrian armies. Hopeful Pentagon officials still think they
might maintain a presence elsewhere. This is wishful thinking. It will
be hard to protect and resupply troops. One group of American soldiers
already had to flee under Turkish shelling. America does hope to
maintain its outpost at Tanf, in the badlands of south-east Syria, which
is meant (rather improbably) to constrain Iranian influence in the
region. Even that may be impossible, too.

Faced with a crisis of its own making, a flailing superpower has turned
to economic sanctions to pretend it is still relevant. Senators have
drafted a bill that takes aim at Turkey’s leadership and its armed
forces, with apparent support from the president. "There is great
consensus on this," Mr Trump tweeted. Set aside the hypocrisy of America
punishing Turkey for an offensive that Mr Trump himself acquiesced to
earlier this month. Sanctions will not compel Turkey to halt its
invasion. Nor will condemnations from European powers, some of which
have also restricted arms sales to Turkey, a fellow NATO member.

If anyone can stop the fighting, it is Vladimir Putin. The Russian
president finds himself in an awkward spot. Mr Assad is a client, and
Russia is happy for his regime to retake territory. On the other hand,
Turkey is a valued friend, and part of a Russian-led effort to find a
political agreement that ends Syria’s wider civil war. "Losing Turkey
means losing a solution to the Syrian problem," says a former Russian
diplomat. Mr Putin will try to push both sides towards a modus vivendi.
Having thrown away his last bit of leverage in Syria, Mr Trump will be a
mere bystander. Eight years after Barack Obama called for Mr Assad to
go, it is America that is ignominiously leaving Syria.

(8) Democrats attack Trump for abandoning the Kurds—but want U.S. to
pull out of Afghanistan - Peter Beinart

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/democrats-want-out-afghanistan-so-why-not-syria/600253/

Democrats Are Hypocrites for Condemning Trump Over Syria

Presidential hopefuls blasted Trump for abandoning the Kurds—but want
the U.S. to pull out of Afghanistan under similar conditions.

6:00 AM ET

Peter Beinart -  Professor of journalism at the City University of New York

On Tuesday night, the Democratic presidential candidates vied with one
another to offer the harshest condemnation of President Donald Trump’s
abrupt withdrawal of American troops from northern Syria. Joe Biden
called it "the most shameful thing that any president has done in modern
history … in terms of foreign policy." Elizabeth Warren said Trump "has
cut and run on our allies," and "created a bigger-than-ever humanitarian
crisis." Kamala Harris announced, "Yet again Donald Trump [is] selling
folks out."

Pete Buttigieg’s denunciation was the most personal. Recalling his
military service in Afghanistan, the South Bend, Indiana, mayor asked
whether America’s wartime allies would ever trust it again. "When I was
deployed," he declared, "not just the Afghan National Army forces but
the janitors put their lives on the line just by working with U.S.
forces. I would have a hard time today looking an Afghan civilian or
soldier in the eye after what just happened over there" in Syria.

It was a powerful statement—but also an ironic one. Because if Trump’s
unilateral, non-negotiated withdrawal from northern Syria makes it
harder for Buttigieg to look America’s Afghan allies in the eye, the
same might be said of the unilateral, non-negotiated withdrawal that
Buttigieg and the other leading Democratic candidates are proposing in
Afghanistan itself.

At this week’s debate, Warren explained that the United States should
only have withdrawn its troops from northern Syria "through a negotiated
solution." But speaking about Afghanistan last month in Houston, she
rejected that very same principle. ABC’s David Muir asked whether she
would "bring the [American] troops home starting right now with no deal
with the Taliban." Warren replied, "Yes."

In Houston, Warren’s rivals also refused to condition America’s
withdrawal from Afghanistan on a negotiated deal. When Muir asked
Buttigieg whether he would stick to his pledge to withdraw all U.S.
troops from Afghanistan in his first year despite warnings from top
American commanders, Buttigieg ducked the question and insisted that "we
have got to put an end to endless war." Turning to Biden, Muir cited
"concerns about any possible vacuum being created in Afghanistan." But
Biden brushed them off, declaring, "We don’t need those troops there. I
would bring them home."

What makes these statements so remarkable is that experts warn that if
the United States withdraws its troops from Afghanistan in the absence
of a peace agreement, Afghanistan will suffer a fate remarkably similar
to what is happening in northern Syria. In this week’s debate, Warren
denounced Trump for having "created a bigger-than-ever humanitarian
crisis." But earlier this month, the International Crisis Group warned
that, if American troops unilaterally leave Afghanistan, "Afghans could
pay a heavy price" as that country’s war "would likely intensify and
become more chaotic." A Rand Corporation report in January predicted
that following a unilateral American withdrawal, "civilian deaths will
spike, and refugee flows will increase significantly," and that "the
major advances that Afghans have achieved in democracy, press freedom,
human rights, women’s emancipation, literacy, longevity, and living
standards will be rolled back." In September, nine former American
diplomats with experience in Afghanistan pleaded, "A major withdrawal of
US forces should follow, not come in advance of [a] real peace
agreement," or else the United States might "betray all those who have
believed our promises or stepped forward with our encouragement to
promote democracy and human rights."

Peter Beinart: The two psychological tricks Trump is using to get away
with everything

Afghans themselves have offered equally ominous warnings. In February,
two Afghan women—Mariam Safi, who runs the Organization for Policy
Research and Development Studies in Kabul, and Muqaddesa Yourish, a
commissioner on Afghanistan’s Independent Administrative Reform and
Civil Service Commission—predicted that "a hasty American withdrawal
will jeopardize for Afghans the future of hard-won gains such as
constitutional rights, freedoms of citizens and democratic
institutions." In March, Palwasha Hassan, the executive director of the
Afghan Women’s Educational Center, urged "a responsible withdrawal that
is not at the expense of women’s rights." And in July, Akram Gizabi, a
leader of Afghanistan’s Hazaras, a Shia minority, noted that his people
had suffered under the Taliban in "brutal, vicious and unimaginable
ways" and that "women and Hazaras [had] thrived after the Taliban." Now,
Gizabi said, Taliban victims "watch with amazement that the United
States is busy finding the fastest way out of Afghanistan, while leaving
the Afghans to the wolves."

The parallels between Afghanistan and northern Syria aren’t merely
humanitarian. In condemning Trump’s actions in Syria, Warren accused him
of having "helped ISIS get another foothold, a new lease on life." But
experts forecast a similar terrorist resurgence if Warren carries out
her proposed Afghan withdrawal. Following a unilateral American
departure, the Rand report predicts, "extremist groups, including Al
Qaeda and the Islamic State, [will] gain additional scope to organize,
recruit, and initiate terrorist attacks against U.S. regional and
homeland targets." In their joint statement, the nine former American
diplomats envision "an Afghan civil war in which the Islamic State (IS)
presence could expand its already strong foothold" and "the Taliban
would maintain their alliance with al-Qaeda. All of this could prove
catastrophic for US national security as it relates to our fight against
both al-Qaeda and IS."

In Houston, Warren suggested that in the absence of American troops, the
United States and its allies could combat terrorism in Afghanistan
through "economic investment" and by "expanding our diplomatic efforts."
But Rand maintains that, if American troops leave Afghanistan before a
peace agreement, the resulting insecurity will spark "the departure of
foreign diplomats, aid agency officers, and other civilians," including
"many of Afghanistan’s most educated and capable citizens."

In another ugly echo of the current chaos in northern Syria, leaving
Afghanistan unilaterally could endanger American troops. The
International Crisis Group warns that if the U.S. leaves without a deal,
the Taliban "might then be unwilling to allow departing U.S. forces safe
passage. Those forces might end up fighting their way out." The thousand
or so personnel at the U.S. embassy in Kabul might have to be evacuated
from the building by air, as happened in South Vietnam.

There are, of course, differences between Afghanistan and northern
Syria. Afghanistan hosts about 14,000 American troops at an annual cost
of roughly $45 billion. And in each of the past five years, the Afghan
war has claimed roughly 20 American service members’ lives. In northern
Syria, where the United States stationed only 1,000 troops prior to
Trump’s recent withdrawal, the financial and human costs were lower. In
Afghanistan, U.S. forces are battling a homegrown Taliban rebellion
(aided by foreign support), whereas the recent bloodshed in northern
Syria is largely the result of a foreign invasion by Turkey (aided by
local Syrian allies). In Afghanistan, the United States is defending a
government it installed when it overthrew the Taliban in 2001. In Syria,
by contrast, the United States was, until Trump’s withdrawal, defending
an autonomous zone—known as Rojava—that the Kurds carved out themselves,
and then expanded with American help during the war against the Islamic
State.

Daniel Nexon: Trump’s a paper tiger, and everyone knows it

If pushed to distinguish their positions on Syria and Afghanistan
(which, sadly, didn’t happen at this week’s debate), Democratic
candidates might survey these differences and declare that America’s
presence in Rojava was sustainable in a way the Afghanistan mission is
not. The best argument for a rapid, unconditional American troop
withdrawal from Afghanistan is also the harshest. It’s that Afghanistan
is doomed either way. Rand, the International Crisis Group, and the
former diplomats all suggest that, if the United States makes a deal
with the Taliban that conditions America’s withdrawal on a peace
agreement between the Taliban and the Afghan government, then
Afghanistan might survive an eventual American troop departure without
collapsing into civil war and again becoming a terrorist sanctuary. At
least Americans won’t have to be ferried off the embassy roof via
helicopter.

But to the skeptic, all this sounds suspiciously like Henry Kissinger’s
request that the North Vietnamese allow a "decent interval" following
America’s departure before conquering Saigon. Since America won’t keep
its troops in Afghanistan indefinitely, and since the Afghan army will
likely crumble once they leave, neither Washington nor Kabul possesses
the leverage to make the Taliban keep its promises, even if there is a
peace deal. According to a recent report by the Institute for the Study
of War, Afghan warlords are already preparing for the civil war they now
expect. So why, leading Democratic presidential candidates might ask,
should the United States wait around for a negotiated agreement that is
unlikely to make a difference? It’s not worth sacrificing any more
American lives and spending tens of billions more dollars to delay for a
couple of years—and perhaps reduce from 95 percent to 85 percent—the
likelihood that Afghanistan descends into hell.

Intellectually, this is a defensible answer. But it’s not an answer the
Democratic candidates can easily give. They can’t give it because
Democrats aren’t comfortable with the brutal language of unvarnished
national interest. They aren’t comfortable acknowledging tragic
tradeoffs between the welfare of ordinary Americans and the welfare of
vulnerable people overseas. Donald Trump is. He genuinely doesn’t care
what happens to the Kurds or the Afghans—or any other group of people
who can’t offer him votes or money or project his image onto the side of
a luxury hotel. Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, and Joe Biden do care,
which is why they found it so easy to offer ferocious moral
denunciations of Trump’s Syria policy at this week’s debate. They just
don’t care enough to ask Americans to sacrifice to reduce the chances
that Syria’s horrors repeat themselves in Afghanistan.

The trauma of America’s post-9/11 wars, and the reduction in America’s
resources, are pushing Democrats toward policies of retrenchment that
can only be coherently defended in the language of realism, a language
few Democrats speak. And because they don’t speak it, the Democratic
candidates for president had better hope that no enterprising moderator
asks them about Afghanistan and Syria at the same time.

(9) Democrats in an awkward position of defending U.S. forever wars
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/democrats-have-no-answer-for-trumps-anti-war-posture/

Democrats Have No Answer for Trump's Anti-War Posture

OCT 17, 2019 OPINION |

I hate to say I told you so, but well … as predicted, in the wake of
Trump’s commanded military withdrawal from northeast Syria, the once
U.S.-backed Kurds cut a deal with the Assad regime. (And Vice President
Mike Pence has now brokered a five-day cease-fire.) Admittedly, Trump
the "dealmaker" ought to have brokered something similar before pulling
out and before the Turkish Army—and its Sunni Arab Islamist
proxies—invaded the region and inflicted significant civilian casualties.

One must admit that a single phone call between Trump and President
Erdogan of Turkey has turned the situation in Syria upside down in just
over a week. The Kurds have requested protection from Assad’s army,
Russian troops are now patrolling between the Kurds and invading Turks,
and the U.S. is (for once) watching from the sidelines.

The execution has been sloppy, of course—a Trumpian trademark—and the
human cost potentially heavy. Nonetheless, the U.S. withdrawal
represents a significant instance of the president actually following
through on campaign promises to end an endless American war in the
Mideast. The situation isn’t simple, of course, and for the Kurds it is
yet another fatalistic event in that people’s tragic history.

Still, while the situation in Northeast Syria constitutes a byzantine
mess, it’s increasingly unclear that a continued U.S. military role
there would be productive or strategic in the long term. After all, if
Washington’s endgame wasn’t to establish a lasting, U.S.-guaranteed
Kurdish nation-state of Rojava, and it hardly appeared that it ever was,
then what exactly could America expect to accomplish through an
all-risk, no-reward continued stalemate in Syria?

What’s truly striking, though, and increasingly apparent, is that
President Trump possesses—as a foreign policy autocrat, of sorts—the
power to derail the Democrats and place 2020 hopefuls in an awkward
position of defending U.S. forever wars. It’s already happening, at
least among mainstream "liberal" media and political personalities
who’ve flooded the networks with anti-Trump vitriol since the Syria
withdrawal.

Lest we confuse Donald Trump with a consistent antiwar dove, it’s
important to remember that his behavior is erratic and often turns on a
dime. Take, for example, his decision to impose sanctions on Turkey
right after greenlighting the very invasion he now seeks to punish. He’s
also prone to contradictory moves. Also, just as he pulled troops from
Syria, he added an even larger number to Saudi Arabia, justifying the
move on the grounds that the Saudis will foot the entire bill, making
rather official the U.S. military’s gradual transformation into a
mercenary force ready to serve the highest bidder. Trump has also
surpassed, in his first two years, the number of drone strikes his
predecessor Barack Obama launched overseas during the same phase of
Obama’s presidency.

Nonetheless, Trump’s Democratic opponents have bet big on using Syria to
attack the president without providing any real alternatives to
withdrawal. In doing so, they might just hand Trump a winning hand for
2020. In fact, I haven’t seen so much foreign policy coverage of a U.S.
war by the establishment media for over a decade, at least since
Democrats finally turned against Bush’s failing war in Iraq as a tool
for midterm electoral success.

The attention suddenly focused on Syria is rather cynical, of course,
with the country’s civil war only receiving notice now because it’s a
cudgel used to reflexively attack Trump. It’s not about Kurdish ethnic
rights or women’s, rights—and it never was. No, this is all about
partisan political advantage. And it might just backfire on the Dems.

Trump isn’t all that scared of criticism on Syria, even from the
establishment wing of his own party. Firing back at critics this week,
Trump tweeted: "Others may want to come in and fight for one side or the
other [in Syria]. Let them!"

See, this president knows what many congressional Republicans do not
appear to realize: that the old conservative coalition—which included a
powerful hawkish national security wing—is breaking down. The Republican
base, well, they’re just about as sick of endless war as is Trump
himself. Consider this remarkable turnaround: In recent polls, 56% of
Republicans supported Trump’s Syria withdrawal, while 60% of Democrats
opposed it.

Which brings us back to the mainstream Democratic machine and the
potentially awkward position of even the most progressive of the 2020
presidential hopefuls on the "left." By flipping the script and
demonstrating that Trump and his conservative backers constitute the
only serious antiwar coalition, he could expose that establishment
Dems—who’ve almost all stood tall with the neocon retreads against
Trump’s move—represent little more than Sen. Lindsey Graham lite. He
could show that they’re hawks too, opportunistic hawks at that, figures
mired in the Washington swamp. Disgust with that bipartisan beltway
elite is exactly what got Mr. Trump elected in 2016 (along with a
peculiar outdated Electoral College, of course), which is exactly why
responding to Trump’s (tentative) war-ending propensity will be
sensitive and awkward for Democratic leaders and presidential candidates.

Look, even America’s usually conservative, if (purportedly) apolitical,
soldiers and veterans are now against these forever wars that Trump
ostensibly seeks to end. A series of polls this summer indicated that
nearly two-thirds of post-9/11 vets say they believe the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan and the military engagement in Syria "were not worth
it." This should have been an alarm bell for both major parties, but
expect the Democrats to once again squander the opportunity presented by
these frustrated, alienated troopers.

By ignoring foreign policy—generally having ceded that political
territory to the Republicans since midway through the Cold War—the Dems
have ensured that most of these antiwar veterans won’t find a home, or
land in the Democratic Party.

I personally know dozens of these sorts of exhausted veterans. Almost
none have followed my own journey toward the left. In fact, the vast
majority tell me they trust Trump, warts and all, over figures like
Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden or any of the other Democratic elites that
they find even more corrupt than the reality-TV-star-in-chief. My
friends and colleagues may be wrong, may be off-base, but most truly
believe it, which ought to worry Democrats. Only it won’t, or at least
not in enough time.

So, while I’m cautious about giving sensible advice to Trump (luckily,
he doesn’t read Truthdig, or read much at all), I think there’s
potential for him to craft a winning strategy for 2020.

Here’s a modest proposal on just how it might go: He could end one of
America’s illegal wars, particularly those clearly not covered by the
post-9/11 AUMFs [Authorization for Use of Military Force], every three
months. Little-to-no warning, ignoring the complaints of senior generals
and national security officials; just pick an ill-advised military
intervention (there’re plenty to choose from) and announce its end.

Not only would this distract from impeachment, but it would force
Trump’s potential 2020 opponents to perform some awkward intellectual
gymnastics. They’d be obliged to double-down and promise to end even
more wars, even more quickly, than Trump. Or, more likely, they could
join the bipartisan swampy establishment and half-heartedly (and
disingenuously) defend continuing the very unwinnable wars with which
the American people have grown so tired.

I know all of that’s unlikely, but it’s not unthinkable. Trump could
even wrap himself in a new brand of patriotism and emphasize his concern
for America’s beloved troops. Now, this president isn’t known for his
sincerity, but he has previously claimed that signing condolence letters
for the families of fallen servicemen "is the hardest thing he does." So
in my fantasy, Trump would address the nation in prime time, and, noting
that 18-year-olds have begun to deploy to Afghanistan, assure the people
that he intends to end these wars before a kid born after 9/11 dies in
one of them.

————

Danny Sjursen is a retired U.S. Army Major and regular contributor to
Truthdig. His work has also appeared in Harper’s, The LA Times, The
Nation, Tom Dispatch, The Huffington Post and The Hill. He served combat
tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught
history at his alma mater, West Point. He is the author of a memoir and
critical analysis of the Iraq War, "Ghostriders of Baghdad: Soldiers,
Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge." He co-hosts the progressive
veterans’ podcast "Fortress on a Hill." Follow him on Twitter at
@SkepticalVet.

(10) Kurdish PKK/YPG troops join the Syrian army; MSM beatup Trump's
withdrawal

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/10/media-and-pundits-misread-the-everyone-wins-plan-for-syria.html

October 18, 2019

Media And Pundits Misread The 'Everyone Wins' Plan For Syria

The U.S. media get yesterday's talks between U.S. Vice President Mike
Pence and the Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan all wrong. Those
talks were just a show to soothe the criticism against President Donald
Trump's decision to withdraw U.S. troops from northeast Syria.

The fake negotiations did not change the larger win-win-win-win plan or
the facts on the ground. The Syrian Arab Army is replacing the Kurdish
PKK/YPG troops at the border with Turkey. The armed PKK/YPG forces,
which had deceivingly renamed themselves (vid) "Syrian Democratic
Forces" to win U.S. support, will be disbanded and integrated into the
Syrian army. Those moves are sufficient to give Turkey the security
guarantees it needs. They will prevent any further Turkish invasion.

The Washington Post reports:

Turkey agreed Thursday to a cease-fire that would suspend its march into
Syria and temporarily halt a week of vicious fighting with Kurdish
forces, while allowing President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government to
carve out a long-coveted buffer zone far beyond its borders.

The agreement, announced by Vice President Pence after hours of
negotiations, appeared to hand Turkey’s leader most of what he sought
when his military launched an assault on northeastern Syria just over a
week ago: the expulsion of Syrian Kurdish militias from the border and
the removal of a U.S. threat to impose sanctions on Turkey’s vulnerable
economy.

Pence said Turkey had agreed to pause its offensive for five days while
the United States helped facilitate the withdrawal of Kurdish-led
forces, called the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), from a large swath of
territory stretching from Turkey’s border nearly 20 miles south into
Syria. After the completion of the Kurdish withdrawal, Turkey’s military
operation, which began Oct. 9, would be "halted entirely," Pence said.

The New York Times falsely headlines: In ‘Cave-In,’ Trump Cease-Fire
Cements Turkey’s Gains in Syria

The cease-fire agreement reached with Turkey by Vice President Mike
Pence amounts to a near-total victory for Turkey’s president, Recep
Tayyip Erdogan, who gains territory, pays little in penalties and
appears to have outmaneuvered President Trump.

The best that can be said for the agreement is that it may stop the
killing in the Kurdish enclave in northern Syria. But the cost for
Kurds, longtime American allies in the fight against the Islamic State,
is severe: Even Pentagon officials were mystified about where tens of
thousands of displaced Kurds would go, as they moved south from the
Turkey-Syria border as required by the deal — if they agree to go at
all. ... Military officials said they were stunned that the agreement
essentially allowed Turkey to annex a portion of Syria, displace tens of
thousands of Kurdish residents and wipe away years of counterterrorism
gains against the Islamic State.

The U.S. can not "allow Turkey to annex a portion of Syria". The U.S.
does not own Syria. It is completely bollocks to think that it has the
power to allow Turkey to annex parts of it.

Turkey will not "gain territory". There will be no Turkish "security
corridor". The Kurdish civilians in Kobani, Ras al Ain and Qamishli
areas will not go anywhere. The Turks will not touch those Kurdish
majority areas because they are, or soon will be, under control of the
Syrian government and its army.

{photo}
The picture, taken yesterday, shows the Syrian-Turkish border crossing
north of Kobani. The Syrian army took control of it and raised the
Syrian flag. There are no longer any Kurdish forces there that could
threaten Turkey.

The Turkish Foreign Minister Cavusoglu confirmed that Turkey agrees with
the Syrian government moves:

Russia "promised that the PKK or YPG will not be on the other side of
the border," Cavusoglu said in an interview with the BBC. "If Russia,
accompanied by the Syrian army, removes YPG elements from the region, we
will not oppose this." Even partisan Syrians opposed to its government
recognize the ploy:

Rami Jarrah @RamiJarrah - 12:53 UTC · Oct 17, 2019 Turkey’s foreign
minister once again reiterates that if Russia and the Syrian regime take
over border areas they will not object, as long as the PYD are expelled.
This has to be the easiest land grab opportunity Assad has had since the
war started.

These moves have been planed all along. The Turkish invasion in
northeast Syria was designed to give Trump a reason to withdraw U.S.
troops. It was designed to push the Kurdish forces to finally submit to
the Syrian government. Behind the scene Russia had already organized the
replacement of the Kurdish forces with Syrian government troops. It has
coordinated the Syrian army moves with the U.S. military. Turkey had
agreed that Syrian government control would be sufficient to alleviate
its concern about a Kurdish guerilla and a Kurdish proto-state at its
border. Any further Turkish invasion of Syria is thereby unnecessary.

The plan has everyone winning. Turkey will be free of a Kurdish threat.
Syria regains its territory. The U.S. can leave without further trouble.
Russia and Iran gain standing. The Kurds get taken care of.

The 'ceasefire' and the retreat of the armed Kurdish groups from the
border, which is claimed to have been negotiated yesterday between Pence
and Erdogan, had already been decided on before the U.S. announced its
withdrawal from Syria.

As veteran reporter Elijah Magnier wrote yesterday, before the
Turkish-U.S. negotiations happened:

Assad trusts that Russia will succeed in halting the Turkish advance and
reduce its consequences, perhaps by asking the Kurds to pull back to a
30 km distance from the Turkish borders to satisfy President Erdogan’s
anxiety. That could also fit the Turkish-Syrian 1998 Adana agreement (5
km buffer zone rather than 30 km) and offer tranquillity to all parties
involved. Turkey wants to make sure the Kurdish YPG, the PKK Syrian
branch, is disarmed and contained. Nothing seems difficult for Russia to
manage, particularly when the most difficult objective has already been
graciously offered: the US forces’ withdrawal.

What Magnier describes is exactly what Pence and Erdogan agreed upon
after he wrote it because it was - all along - part of the larger common
plan.

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump - 20:13 UTC · Oct 17, 2019 This is a
great day for civilization. I am proud of the United States for sticking
by me in following a necessary, but somewhat unconventional, path.
People have been trying to make this "Deal" for many years. Millions of
lives will be saved. Congratulations to ALL! The question is now if the
U.S. will stick to the deal or if the pressure on President Trump will
get so heavy that he needs to retreat from the common deal. The U.S.
must move ALL its troops out of northeast Syria for the plot to succeed.
Any residual U.S. force, even an unsustainable small one, will make the
situation much more complicate.

That the U.S. media and pundits completely misread the situation is a
symptom of a wider failure. As Anatol Lieven describes the mess of U.S.
Middle Eastern strategy:

This pattern has its roots in the decay of the US political system and
political establishment at home, including the power of lobbies and
their money over US policy in key areas; the retreat of area studies in
academia and think tanks, leading to sheer ignorance of some of the key
countries with which the USA has to deal; the self-obsession,
self-satisfaction and ideological megalomania that in every dispute
leads so much of the US establishment and media to cast the USA as a
force of absolute good, and its opponents as absolutely evil; and the
failure – linked to these three syndromes – to identify vital and
secondary interests and choose between them .. Only a few realist in the
U.S. recognize reality. Stephen Walt:

The bottom line: The solution to the situation in Syria is to
acknowledge Assad’s victory and work with the other interested parties
to stabilize the situation there. Unfortunately, that sensible if
unsavory approach is anathema to the foreign-policy "Blob"—Democrats and
Republicans alike—and its members are marshaling the usual tired
arguments to explain why it’s all Trump’s fault and the United States
should never have withdrawn a single soldier.

I am confident for now that the blob will be held off by Trump and that
the Win4 plan will succeed. Erdogan will soon travel to Russia to
discuss the next steps towards peace in Syria. The talks will be about a
common plan to liberated the Jihadi controlled governorate of Idleb.
That step may require a summit between the Syrian President Bashar
al-Assad and Erdogan which Russia and Iran will help to facilitate.

With the U.S. removed from the Syria file such steps towards peace will
now be much easier.

Posted by b on October 18, 2019 at 6:43 UTC |

1