Days after US pulls 1,000 troops away from allies in Syria, 3,000 are deployed to protect Saudi oil

[Xzi]

Yes, unfortunately you read that correctly. Within hours of US forces withdrawing away from the vicinity of our Kurdish allies, Turkey began bombing them, even resulting in a near miss on US forces themselves. Despite the White House trying to spin this as "time to bring our troops home," just a few days later 3,000 additional troops are being deployed to Saudi Arabia, three times the number who were serving as a deterrent from a Turkish incursion against our allies. This brings the deployment increase to Saudi Arabia to 14,000 since May of this year, and the total number of US troops there to 17,000.

US Secretary of Defence Mark Esper says he has authorised the deployment of additional forces, including fighter jets and a defence system. He said it was in response to "threats in the region", amid efforts to protect the kingdom from "Iranian aggression".

You would be forgiven for feeling confused about President Trump's attitude to US military deployments in the Middle East. At one point in the past few days he was tweeting about the "trillions of dollars" that America had wasted on "endless wars" in the region and vowing that the US would "back out" of Middle East conflicts. Yet here we are with a further 3,000 service personnel and a bunch of hardware heading for Saudi Arabia and the region - making a net 17,000 increase in troop numbers since May. So unquestionably the rhetoric and the reality are in conflict.

From my point of view, a show of force in these kinds of numbers hardly seems "precautionary." Making matters worse, the only concern the president appears to have amidst all this is how much the Saudis are willing to pay.



So I have to wonder what the dollar value is for the life of each Kurdish fighter and civilian that we've abandoned to the slaughter. Or each US soldier that will die as soon as we're inevitably ordered to war with Iran by Mohammad Bin Salman.

In case you're wondering, yes, this all makes me quite angry. The Saudis are not our allies. They tortured and murdered Jamal Khashoggi, and they funded and trained the 9/11 hijackers. The idea that we might further destabilize the Middle East and sacrifice more soldiers on their behalf is sickening, and would solidify this as the darkest possible timeline.

 

[IncredulousP]

W...w-witch hunt?
Good thing the Saudis helped us in WWII, amirite?

For reals though this is sickening

 

[Glyptofane]

So are we defending Saudi's democracy from starving Yemeni children or something? The Syria pullout seemed promising to me, but I should have known there would be a disgusting catch.

 

[Xzi]

So are we defending Saudi's democracy from starving Yemeni children or something? The Syria pullout seemed promising to me, but I should have known there would be a disgusting catch.

Perhaps the worst part is that the troops in Syria aren't being pulled out of the region and being brought home, they've just withdrawn to nearby bases and outposts. Which means the soldiers who fought side by side with the Kurds against ISIS are forced to watch those same allies be slaughtered little by little.

 

[morvoran]

"US Secretary of Defence Mark Esper says he has authorised the deployment of additional forces, including fighter jets and a defence system.

He said it was in response to "threats in the region", amid efforts to protect the kingdom from "Iranian aggression".

"The move comes after an attack on Saudi Arabia's oil facilities in September."
The attack on Saudi oil facilities knocked out 5% of global oil supply and sent oil prices soaring. Both Saudi Arabia and the US blame Iran for the incident.

Mohammed bin Salman said: "If the world does not take a strong and firm action to deter Iran, we will see further escalations that will threaten world interests.""

------------------------------
It seems from the article you posted, this is just another case of the US being called on to "police" the middle East for the rest of the world, while the UK, Canada, Germany, etc sit on their hands doing nothing to very little to protect their own interests while we send our soldiers to battle.
I would say we should be frustrated at the European nation's for allowing these things to happen. Don't forget that these countries suffer from terrorist attacks as well, but they also suffer when oil prices go skyhigh.

 

[Xzi]

It seems from the article you posted, this is just another case of the US being called on to "police" the middle East for the rest of the world, while the UK, Canada, Germany, etc sit on their hands doing nothing to very little to protect their own interests while we send our soldiers to battle.
I would say we should be frustrated at the European nation's for allowing these things to happen. Don't forget that these countries suffer from terrorist attacks as well, but they also suffer when oil prices go skyhigh.

The bottom line is that the US needs to invest in the future and end its dependence on foreign oil, just as the rest of the world does. Otherwise we end up beholden to dictators and authoritarians who are just as likely to turn against us at a moment's notice.

 

[Glyptofane]

Perhaps the worst part is that the troops in Syria aren't being pulled out of the region and being brought home, they've just withdrawn to nearby bases and outposts. Which means the soldiers who fought side by side with the Kurds against ISIS are forced to watch those same allies be slaughtered little by little.

Nothing against the Kurds, per se, but I suspect there is an ulterior motive behind our alliance with them, namely the borders of the nations shared by their presence. Then you have Netanyahu warning against an ethnic cleansing of "gallant Kurds". Not to say that he's wrong, but that's pretty rich coming from a guy who specializes in it.

 

[Xzi]

Nothing against the Kurds, per se, but I suspect there is an ulterior motive behind our alliance with them, namely the borders of the nations shared by their presence. Then you have Netanyahu warning against an ethnic cleansing of "gallant Kurds". Not to say that he's wrong, but that's pretty rich coming from a guy who specializes in it.

Well, the ulterior motive to our continued alliance was mostly their willingness fight against ISIS. Thousands of ISIS prisoners are likely to break free as a result of the US abandoning them in Syria.

However, the alliance can also be traced all the way back to 1971, or even back to reports of some Kurds fighting against the Nazis in WW2.

The Kurds don't have a state even today, and they never had an army to participate in World War II. But anecdotally, there were Kurdish soldiers who fought the Nazis in Germany alongside the British army, for example. But there were also Kurdish soldiers fighting the Nazi-supported Iraqi government.

The Iraqi-Kurdish Peshmerga was instrumental not only in the fight against ISIS but even 2003 - the northern front to the invasion of Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein was from Kurdistan and was in coordination, cooperation with the Kurdish Peshmerga. But if you're going for the - down to memory lane, in 1990, when President Bush 41 asked the Iraqi people to rise against Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, the Kurds responded to that. And unfortunately, once Saddam Hussein's tanks rolled into Kurdistan, the U.S. just stood by, and that resulted in a massive exodus of Kurds to the mountain.

And you can also go all the way back to 1971, 1974, where the Kurdish Peshmerga in Iraq were fighting Saddam Hussein's regime, and the United States was arming them and supporting them in order to dissuade Saddam Hussein from falling into the Soviet orbit at the time. But of course, when Saddam Hussein finally came through, that support was lifted.

 

[IncredulousP]

Well, the ulterior motive to our continued alliance was mostly their willingness fight against ISIS. Thousands of ISIS prisoners are likely to break free as a result of the US abandoning them in Syria.

However, the alliance can also be traced all the way back to 1971, or even back to reports of some Kurds fighting against the Nazis in WW2.

So basically friends-with-benefits, no official relationship?

 

[morvoran]

The bottom line is that the US needs to invest in the future and end its dependence on foreign oil, just as the rest of the world does. Otherwise we end up beholden to dictators and authoritarians who are just as likely to turn against us at a moment's notice

the problem with these "future visions" you believe in is that they do not take into account our present day issues. We cannot build this utopian perspective you have without fossil fuels to power the factories to build the green energy solutions, a world economy to pay for them, or countries to buy them.

This is why the US sends troops to these "enemy" lands to protect the interests of the world, not just our own. If we just sat back and did nothing like the rest of the world, we would have more 3rd world countries as well as being one ourselves.
The reason why democrats and even some Republicans are against Trump removing troops from Syria is that they feel like we need to protect everybody else all the time regardless of the benefits. I personally think we should choose our battles and, in this case, Saudi Arabia is where we need to focus right now.

We were only supposed to stay in Syria for 3 months, but ended up there for years. We can't protect everybody who won't defend themselves forever. Besides, we will eventually destroy Turkey's economy through sanctions since they can't seem to not invade Syria. No other country is going to do anything (except the UN will probably demand we do something while they sit on their thumbs as well).

 

[Xzi]

So basically friends-with-benefits, no official relationship?

Unfortunately it's mostly been a one-sided relationship, they've been there to fight on the US' behalf time and again, but we've abandoned them when they needed us most before, and now we're doing it again. At this rate, who knows how much longer we'll have any true allies left in the Middle East.

 

[DarkSeele]

I'm just going to leave this here:

 

[Xzi]

the problem with these "future visions" you believe in is that they do not take into account our present day issues. We cannot build this utopian perspective you have without fossil fuels to power the factories to build the green energy solutions, a world economy to pay for them, or countries to buy them.

Both solar and wind power are soon to become far cheaper per kilowatt hour than power produced from oil/coal. Regardless, we should be a lot closer to energy independence in 2019 than we actually are, even if that meant using some transitional energy source for a period, such as nuclear.

This is why Democrats and even Republicans are against Trump removing troops from Syria. They feel like we need to protect everybody else all the time. I personally think we should choose our battles and, in this case, Saudi Arabia is where we need to focus right now.

Absolute bull. 17,000 troops aren't going to accomplish anything that 14,000 troops couldn't, and there is no "battle" going in SA unless we decide to start one with Iran. 1,000 troops was enough to keep a battle from breaking out in Syria, and now that they've withdrawn, there's no easy fix. Whatever comes next in that conflict will be a lot harder and a lot more costly for us in the long run, both in terms of lives and money. The ISIS prisoners who are now freed as a result of that decision aren't going to go retire on a beach somewhere.

 

[IncredulousP]

The ISIS prisoners who are now freed as a result of that decision aren't going to go retire on a beach somewhere.

"Yay, Isis free from dis prison"

 

[Glyptofane]

Both solar and wind power are soon to become far cheaper per kilowatt hour than power produced from oil/coal. Regardless, we should be a lot closer to energy independence in 2019 than we actually are, even if that meant using some transitional energy source for a period, such as nuclear.

Current solar energy technology has the potential to create an environmental disaster in the coming decades. It's green only in the sense of the duration of the panels operational lifespan. Construction produces considerable emissions, but the real problem will become disposal and recycling of the old panels which produces considerably more waste than nuclear.

 

[IncredulousP]

Current solar energy technology has the potential to create an environmental disaster in the coming decades. It's green only in the sense of the duration of the panels operational lifespan. Construction produces considerable emissions, but the real problem will become disposal and recycling of the old panels which produces considerably more waste than nuclear.

Not too mention the displacement of ecosystems where they are located. They block out light and take up room that plants and animals otherwise use.
But I don't think it's fruitless, simply give and take. We should use solar everywhere it doesn't affect ecosystems, for instance on roofs, parking lot overheads, hell why not make the sidewalk solar panels? Disregarding cost, of course.

Concerning nuclear power, my issues are that there is no official disposal method of the toxic waste produced. This and that nuclear meltdowns are extremely hazardous and dangerous. Sure, there are many ways to prevent and contain meltdown, but all of that requires a corporation to not take the easy/cheap route, and firmly ensure the working condition of such systems. Additionally, this is ignoring the possibility of malicious, forced meltdown.

Btw that graph is extremely skewed, in that it's only comparing volume of waste per energy, and neither negative effects nor cost of disposable of the waste itself. Nuclear creates different waste with different negative impacts than solar waste.

 

[Clydefrosch]

short term, nuclear is certainly the solution, if we'd finally figure out fusion reaction, we'd be golden mid-term as that has a much better power to waste ratio.

and if we're lucky, we can find something beyond that. just, we're not gonna do any of it without putting money towards it. and before that, money towards education.

 

[aos10]

It's really saddens me what is happening to my country Syria, my family home got hit by a rocket but didn't exploded, however it made big open crack in the ceiling.
Most my relatives ran away from syria and i am living in Saudi Arabia, and the worst part is i can't travel to any other country except syria. Great.

Syria in wars for several years and no one want to help, yamen in war and every country want to help.
Yey.

 

[chrisrlink]

oh i cant wait til trumps out maybe we should drop him off in the middle of syria when he becomes ex president see what happens (yes I'm brazen for saying that but this shit has to end i'm not fucking scared of anyone at this point it's time to let loose my true opinion regardless of conciquence i'm sick and tired of hiding my true thoughts and feelins always hiding my true feelings my anger and rage at the current admin

 

[IncredulousP]

It's really saddens me what is happening to my country Syria, my family home got hit by a rocket but didn't exploded, however it made big open crack in the ceiling.
Most my relatives ran away from syria and i am living in Saudi Arabia, and the worst part is i can't travel to any other country except syria. Great.

Syria in wars for several years and no one want to help, yamen in war and every country want to help.
Yey.

Sorry to hear I hope you are safe and find some comfort