US Support for the Kurds

[JohnRoberts]

Turkey just agreed to a 120 hour cease fire with US (VP Pence just met with Erdogan in Turkey).

We have seen cease fires come and go in that region so this is just a temporary reprieve.

Good luck to them (us) all..

JR

 

[fazer]

Ambiguous wars need to cease.  These wars are extended for the military industrial complex at the expense of 6 trillion dollars for Iraq war and we accomplished a complete destabilization of the area.  How many dead Syrian, Iraq’s, Afghan and our solders the most important.  I blame Bush Cheney and Obama .  And our non intelligence community.   

 

[JohnRoberts]

Ambiguous wars need to cease. 

why not end all war?

These wars are extended for the military industrial complex at the expense of 6 trillion dollars for Iraq war and we accomplished a complete destabilization of the area. 

Stability at what price? In Iraq stability was under a brutal dictator who terrorized the Kurd minority (with poison gas), and oppressed the Shia majority.  Now that majority is trying to learn how to be fair to the sunni minority that previously oppressed them. Democracy is difficult and Iran is already injecting themselves into Iraq politics. Iraq is still an experiment that could easily fail without more support. The early years of our democracy were difficult and we did not have all their challenges.

Syria was another brutal dictatorship under Assad that suffered years of civil war as outside forces supported Assad's opposition. It looks like he is nearing the end of that civil war with Russia now supporting him, instead of the US and west supporting his opposition. This end game is likely to get brutal.

I am not a fan of Assad, but I dislike regime change even more. Pick your poison.

How many dead Syrian, Iraq’s, Afghan and our solders the most important.  I blame Bush Cheney and Obama .  And our non intelligence community. 

Blame all you want but don't forget Assad, Saddam, ISIS, Al Qaida and a rogues gallery of bad actors across the ME.

I find it interesting to see so much support in congress for continued fighting in the middle east, but these days it can be difficult to parse out good intentions, from bad politics.

President Eisenhower was prescient to warn about the military industrial complex but there are still active military confrontations around the world, so (IMO) better to have a strong hand than a weak one. It is fair to say in hindsight that the partitioning of the middle east into countries after past world wars has not worked out all that well. India and Pakistan are still disputing their 1947 separation and who gets Kashmir, with bullets.


JR

 

[dogears]

Consider this: US shale oil price to produce is now cheaper than  the OPEC average and near to Saudi Arabia's. Our reserves are nearly as large as KSA based only on shale oil. The US became a net exporter of oil in 2019.

Consider also that when unrest hit the Straits of Hormuz and KSA refineries, world oil prices collectively shrugged.

Consider third that the US has fewer troops stationed in the Middle East than any time since the 1960s, and fewer troops abroad globally than any time since the 1950s and possibly since the 1920s (I saw a source that said since the 1920s but I haven't been able to verify it).

The US basically has no more need of the oil of the ME. We are now an exporter and totally secure in our own energy demands for both liquid petroleum and natural gas for the next century and beyond. This is good for us. This is bad for Europeans who need oil.

Unrest in oil markets is now good for US interests.

 

[pucho812]

from weekend reading..

the u.s. entire purpose in syria was started by potus 44.  According to the war powers act of 1973, 44  was right to bring in troops there and he did do the 48 hour max of informing congress. However also in accordance with the war powers act, congress has 60 days in which to make a declaration of war.  If congress decides not to or fails to reach any conclusion, the troops must come back home.  That's the law.  Any other argument is moot.  Pelosi and her kind failed to meet that criteria so there for potus 45 was well with in right to send troops home.

which speaking of Pelosi her meeting with King abdullah of jordan over the weekend might be a violation of the logan act.  She cxan wag her finger and is a hero, others wagged their fingers at 44 and were called racists.  you can't make this up.

 

[dmp]

from weekend reading..

the u.s. entire purpose in syria was started by potus 44.  According to the war powers act of 1973, 44  was right to bring in troops there and he did do the 48 hour max of informing congress. However also in accordance with the war powers act, congress has 60 days in which to make a declaration of war.  If congress decides not to or fails to reach any conclusion, the troops must come back home.  That's the law.  Any other argument is moot. 

Where did you read that?
If that's true, what about Iraq, Afghanistan, not to mention Vietnam, N Korea???
The last official declaration of war was WWII

 

[pucho812]

Where did you read that?
If that's true, what about Iraq, Afghanistan, not to mention Vietnam, N Korea???
The last official declaration of war was WWII

that is correct.  And the war powers act was  passed in the 1070's. so that excludes Korea and Nam. Iraq and afganistan, although not a war action was approved by congress. As for u.s. intervention in syria, we started in 2014. which would be under potus 44.  However unlike previous actions congress never approved sending troops into syria.

 

[dmp]

Good point, the war powers act was passed after Vietnam to try to stop that kind of thing from happening again. Congress overroad Nixon's veto with a 2/3 vote (the executive doesn't like to give up power).  Imagine that happening today -

Also muddying the waters were the bills passed after 9/11 authorizing the use of military force :
(Obama actually asked Congress to repeal some of these powers as he felt they were to extreme)



    (a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

    (b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

        (1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

        (2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

 

[JohnRoberts]

At the risk of stating the obvious Turkey partnering with Russia in Syria makes then an odd couple as a NATO member.

Turkey purchased a s-400 Russian missile defense system (presumably to defend against Iran?) which is pretty inconsistent with them being a partner with the US F-35 jet fighter program... so bye-bye no mo F-35...

Russia could gain unacceptable specific intelligence about US F-35 by having access to same inside Turkey. 

Defending against Russia (former USSR) is pretty much the reason NATO exists, so Turkey's ongoing membership in NATO is surely in question as they buddy up with Putin. 

Check your dance cards... for changing partners. 

JR

 

[dogears]

ME basically doesn’t matter to the US any more. Russia isn’t an existential threat. As the US likely withdraws from the global order contentious points with Russia recede, and the need and usefulness for Turkey does as well. People are looking at this situation through a ten and twenty year old lens.

 

[JohnRoberts]

ME basically doesn’t matter to the US any more. Russia isn’t an existential threat. As the US likely withdraws from the global order contentious points with Russia recede, and the need and usefulness for Turkey does as well. People are looking at this situation through a ten and twenty year old lens.

That is an interesting take...  :

If you recall how the cold war was won, it was with economic power not missiles.

China is very much into building economic power (and battleships), Russia is doubling down on fossil fuel that may be OK for this century but not much more. They are buddying up with Iran for reported massive NG reserves under/around the Caspian sea. 

I don't consider President Trump a long term strategist but he has uncommon sense about basic economic power, or maybe he's just lucky.  8)

The next energy scrum is above the arctic circle (reportedly up to 1/4 of all undiscovered oil is there) with the major players already strategizing for a slice of that pie.

or not....

JR

 

[dogears]

It doesn’t matter to the US. We have enough oil and NG to last us more than  century even without counting improvements in recovery. We are an oil exporter. We’re going to be the largest net oil (liquids and gas equivalent) in the world.

Every other major world economy except France has a massive demographic challenge ahead. We don’t. Russia, too. They’re having state sponsored hookup camps. China is the worst of all in that regard, and their economy is anything but stable.

If I had to bet between China becoming an economic superpower and China destabilizing, I would pick the latter with no hesitation.

Again... you’re looking at this with a very old lens. The world of energy went upside down from 2012 to 2019. People are just now catching up.

 

[JohnRoberts]

It doesn’t matter to the US. We have enough oil and NG to last us more than  century even without counting improvements in recovery. We are an oil exporter. We’re going to be the largest net oil (liquids and gas equivalent) in the world.

It certainly doesn't matter as much to us as it did when we were importing oil and still filling a strategic reserve. I remember waiting in every other day gas lines back in the 70s (now that was a classic example of the benefit from letting markets decide prices).

I suspect the refineries on our gulf coast wouldn't mind getting some more heavy sour Venezuelan crude (again) that they were optimized to refine. It still matters to all the countries that must import energy (including China). It matters to Russia whose economy is based on energy exports.

The US military still in Iraq/Syria is to keep ISIS away from oil supplies that they can convert to money to fund more of their mischief.

Every other major world economy except France has a massive demographic challenge ahead.

except france? I thought they were in the same trend as most western nations. Even Japan is trying to encourage immigration to deal with an aging population and weak replacement birth rate (I think Japan tried robots, but robots don't pay taxes or have children). Angela Merkel opened the gates to like a million migrants to keep her factories humming with enough workers, but there were cultural issues with absorbing them into german life. All of europe has issues with absorbing migrants (france included AFAIK), while acknowledging the benefit of increased population of young adults with higher birth rate. 

We don’t. Russia, too. They’re having state sponsored hookup camps. China is the worst of all in that regard, and their economy is anything but stable.

If I had to bet between China becoming an economic superpower and China destabilizing, I would pick the latter with no hesitation.

or some mix of both... as the chinese population become wealthier and better educated it will be harder to keep them in the dark. Hong Kong is just the tip of the iceberg and the mainland chinese population will eventually figure it out. Unfortunately for HK China can't afford to give them full liberty, even though contractually obligated to by treaty. Won't be the first or last promise they break.

Again... you’re looking at this with a very old lens. The world of energy went upside down from 2012 to 2019. People are just now catching up.

I have been wearing reading glasses for decades so indeed very old lens.

Keeping the price of energy low serves to damp Russian adventurism... They are no longer bank rolling Cuba, who had to turn to Venezuela for support, and Venezuela is now struggling with doing that under US sanctions. Cuba is still supporting Maduro with secret police and tools of oppression, something they have a lot of experience with. Venezuela is still sending oil to Cuba while Venezuelans starve.

I am pleased with the recent shift in US policy away from aggressive military involvement but to preserve our ability to influence world matters for good outcomes we need to wield economic force and low cost energy seems part of that tool kit.

I am not so optimistic that I believe the world's problem areas would turn into a tea party without security and rule of law imposed from outside. That said we cannot be the only cop on the beat.

JR