Mattis resigns - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By JohnRawls
#14974688
One Degree wrote:Right. The curious part is how does Russia or China do anything without causing conflict with the other? I can’t imagine them working together for long. I really can’t see much downside for the US withdrawing from the area.


Russia and China are natural allies at least for now. China needs Russia because it is a modern version of the Great Wall for them. If Russia exists and is friendly/Neutral to China then they do not have to worry about resources or incercilment in an emergency.

To a degree can be said about Russia, who is worried about Nato encirclement. They need a neutral/friendly China for economic and political reasons.
User avatar
By One Degree
#14974692
JohnRawls wrote:Russia and China are natural allies at least for now. China needs Russia because it is a modern version of the Great Wall for them. If Russia exists and is friendly/Neutral to China then they do not have to worry about resources or incercilment in an emergency.

To a degree can be said about Russia, who is worried about Nato encirclement. They need a neutral/friendly China for economic and political reasons.


Yes, but that is my point. Without the US in the Mideast to limit both possible Russian and Chinese influence, how do they each react to the influence of the other in the area? What if the Chinese go into Afghanistan? Will they both compete in Iran? The void created by the US will appeal to both Russia and China to expand their influence. It must result in conflict between them, imo.
User avatar
By JohnRawls
#14974715
One Degree wrote:Yes, but that is my point. Without the US in the Mideast to limit both possible Russian and Chinese influence, how do they each react to the influence of the other in the area? What if the Chinese go into Afghanistan? Will they both compete in Iran? The void created by the US will appeal to both Russia and China to expand their influence. It must result in conflict between them, imo.


I am pretty sure Russia is okay with China taking most of the influence in the ME besides some places honestly. For them it is better than the US nor do they have the capability to maintain a permanent presence/strugle in all of the ME. Better the big boss in some and be a kind of broker between local countries and China. I believe that this situation would suit Russia the best. I guess it is a kind of best possible outcome for them.
User avatar
By One Degree
#14974722
JohnRawls wrote:I am pretty sure Russia is okay with China taking most of the influence in the ME besides some places honestly. For them it is better than the US nor do they have the capability to maintain a permanent presence/strugle in all of the ME. Better the big boss in some and be a kind of broker between local countries and China. I believe that this situation would suit Russia the best. I guess it is a kind of best possible outcome for them.


Interesting, but I don’t agree. They have too large of a common border to want one to become even stronger than the other. Even though I understand how the Russians might accept this practically, I don’t think they could accept it emotionally. I think they would view any increase in Chinese influence as a potential threat to all their Eastern territory. I might be outdated in my thinking, but I believe only their common cause against the US in the area is preventing their border disputes from reigniting.
User avatar
By Rugoz
#14974921
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:Those who support interventions must start to make a coherent case. What's the objective, how can it be achieved and roughly in what time frame? And even more important for Americans perhaps, what are the vital US interests that necessitate the intervention? The main problem to my mind is that whatever is put forward is usually vague and nebulous as well as denying or skirting some truths that might be unpalatable. It's mostly the nature of the argument that leads to many in the general population questioning the wisdom of the interventionists. The right is seeing the start of a resurgence of non-interventionism, and those who think this is a bad idea need to put together an argument that doesn't predominantly rely on platitudes.


It's 2000 troops. I don't have to put together an argument because the idea that Trump is a non-interventionist purist is dumb as fuck.
User avatar
By Kaiserschmarrn
#14974924
Rugoz wrote:It's 2000 troops. I don't have to put together an argument because the idea that Trump is a non-interventionist purist is dumb as fuck.

Always a pleasure to have a civil debate with you, Rugoz. :lol:

If you had read my post you'd have noticed that I didn't say that Trump is a non-interventionist much less a very committed or purist one. For what it's worth, my personal view is that Trump isn't keen on long term military interventions overseas, especially if they are as murky and complex with little chance of a resolution or clearly defined victory as in Syria. In that context, he probably reckons that this is a high point - i.e. see his statement about having defeated ISIS - and it will only get worse from here.

Anyway, why not humour me and make a case (if you felt my post applied to you)?
By Istanbuller
#14974928
ISIS is an American proxy which was used to name a valid reason to intervene to Syria. It was about making Syria's bloody dictator Assad leave or murdering him. Later Obama abandoned Sunni Arabs who favour democracy against Assad. You see the US always sell out it allies.

Let's see what happens in coming days and months. I think we are going to back the original plan now. It will be all about FSA. It will be a good chance for Turkey to test its military functions.

Russia and China talks are irrelevant. China has no military power to intervene to anywhere. Russia equals to Turkey if you exclude nuclear capability.
User avatar
By Beren
#14974932
I'd believe pulling out of Syria and Afghanistan has more to do with Trump's own preference of a reduced US military presence abroad, which resonates with his base and large parts of the broader electorate too anyway, and winning Putin's approval than any grand geopolitical strategy. He'd also like to pull out of South Korea and would abandon Europe too if he could perhaps.
User avatar
By Ter
#14974934
A decision like pulling troops out of Syria and Afghanistan should not be made on a whim.
Mattis is right not to want to be part of this any more.
/trump is messing this up big time in my opinion.
By B0ycey
#14974938
To be fair, the West shouldn't be there anyway. Assad is the sovereign leader and he has allied with Putin to finish off what is left of ISIS in his own country. There is not much credit you can give Trump but at least he knows now there is not really anything left to 'win' in Syria and has one brain cell to pull Troops out now so he can waste US dollars in another way to fulfil the Capitalist interests.
User avatar
By colliric
#14974942
Ter wrote:A decision like pulling troops out of Syria and Afghanistan should not be made on a whim.
Mattis is right not to want to be part of this any more.
/trump is messing this up big time in my opinion.


He doesn't have to tow the Zionist line on everything.

He recognised Jerusalem as your capital.
User avatar
By One Degree
#14974948
I don’t know what Trump thinks, but my guess is he doesn’t believe in limited conflict. Withdrawing from Syria does not mean he won’t fully commit to the defense of Israel. He believes in aerial response, not a few troops on the ground.
Troops on the ground are a losing political strategy at home with current American sensationalism.
User avatar
By blackjack21
#14974976
JohnRawls wrote:Russia and China are natural allies at least for now. China needs Russia because it is a modern version of the Great Wall for them. If Russia exists and is friendly/Neutral to China then they do not have to worry about resources or incercilment in an emergency.

The Soviets thought pushing communist ideology into China would make them natural allies too. It didn't work. China is overpopulated. Russia is underpopulated, particularly in the East near China. The US was successful in opening China to trade with the West--effectively making China the power it is today. Russia, by contrast, has not reformed or opened up significantly and as a result is a commodity exporter in spite of its well-educated population. Russia should be a significant player in electronics and software much more than it is.

JohnRawls wrote:To a degree can be said about Russia, who is worried about Nato encirclement.

Yes, and Russia has humiliated NATO multiple times now--invading Georgia, annexing Crimea, stirring up shit in the Donbass, and sending troops to Syria. The reality of the situation is that NATO IS the United States with Britain able to defend itself. Nations like Poland legitimately need US help. Nations like Germany and France have been free riding and padding their welfare systems. That is no longer tenable.

One Degree wrote:Yes, but that is my point. Without the US in the Mideast to limit both possible Russian and Chinese influence, how do they each react to the influence of the other in the area? What if the Chinese go into Afghanistan? Will they both compete in Iran? The void created by the US will appeal to both Russia and China to expand their influence. It must result in conflict between them, imo.

It's not unlikely. The Sino-Soviet war could have been a real disaster had they not been ideologically intertwined, and they aren't at this time.

JohnRawls wrote:I am pretty sure Russia is okay with China taking most of the influence in the ME besides some places honestly. For them it is better than the US nor do they have the capability to maintain a permanent presence/strugle in all of the ME. Better the big boss in some and be a kind of broker between local countries and China. I believe that this situation would suit Russia the best. I guess it is a kind of best possible outcome for them.

Russia has long wanted strong influence in Central Asia. Nothing changes that. As Napolean said, you can tell a country's foreign policy by its borders. China taking the Middle East would be seen as no different from the Mongol Khanates that nearly wiped Russia out in the past. Russia will remain paranoid, because it has no other choice.

One Degree wrote:I think they would view any increase in Chinese influence as a potential threat to all their Eastern territory. I might be outdated in my thinking, but I believe only their common cause against the US in the area is preventing their border disputes from reigniting.

The US is simply too far away to project power into the Russian heartland, but it can thwart Russian ambition. So the US pisses Russia off. China, on the other hand, has enough man power and short enough supply lines to cause Russia some very real problems.

Rugoz wrote:It's 2000 troops. I don't have to put together an argument because the idea that Trump is a non-interventionist purist is dumb as fuck.

Nobody is saying that Trump is a non-interventionist purist. A lot of presidents have just gone along with deep state ambitions, but it has led to serious political fights. For example, Bill Clinton passed the "regime change" doctrine--making official US policy. George Bush implemented that in Iraq with Hillary Clinton voting for the Iraq War. Hillary then railed against Bush, as did John Kerry. When Obama won, he ceased ongoing interaction with Al-Maliki's government, whereas Bush was on the phone with him every day. Obama pulled troops out--arguably prematurely--because there was no SOFA agreement in place and he did not want to negotiate one. Anti-US powers--many of them in Europe--convinced the Iraqi government to let US troops stay only if US troops would be subject to Iraqi law and to not reward US companies with oil concessions. So the US left. Iran filled part of that vacuum, and ISIS filled the other part.

Obama's "regime change" policy included Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Syria. I've argued in the past that we could leave things unstable--which we could do effectively BUT barring the utterly stupid idea of open borders, that's likely to lead to new and multiple Hitlers in the future. Obama's moves in Syria were tragically stupid and probably a product of his own hubris. The deep state's covering his obvious failure by 2012 allowed him to be re-elected and continue his Syria adventure. It has led to the demise of the political consensus in the EU among other things.

Trump is calling the deep state on their bullshit, and they clearly don't have a coherent answer for him. As I said, I hold General Mattis in high regard, and I understand the thinking behind alliances. However, the number of countries supporting ISAF is somewhat meaningless if the fighting is done by the US, UK, and Canada with nominal help from NATO allies like Italy and Germany. France still acts like it's not a part of NATO. The "we'll do the cooking and hold down the fort while you are out engaging the enemy" is not exactly confidence inspiring considering the bloodshed the US and UK have endured in alliances. It's nice to have air support from the Dutch too, but combat troops would be nice too. In that context, I have to say that Trump is deserving of respect for calling NATO out and calling the deep state out--even though he may turn out to be wrong. We shall see.

Istanbuller wrote:ISIS is an American proxy which was used to name a valid reason to intervene to Syria. It was about making Syria's bloody dictator Assad leave or murdering him. Later Obama abandoned Sunni Arabs who favour democracy against Assad. You see the US always sell out it allies.

There is a big difference between a proxy and an ally. However, you are correct that Obama was in fact continuing the "regime change" policy enacted by Bill Clinton (Milosevic being his big act, before the regime change policy was formalized) and implemented by Bush. Obama's attempt to use Al Qaeda to arm the Free Syrian Army has to be one of the dumbest ideas in modern memory by people who considered themselves smarter than everyone else.

Istanbuller wrote:Let's see what happens in coming days and months. I think we are going to back the original plan now. It will be all about FSA.

Yes, but without Western support, they will be easily mowed down by Assad's forces if he gets help from Russia. The Syrian Army is pretty ramshackle, which is the real reason we see the use of barrel bombs.

Istanbuller wrote:It will be a good chance for Turkey to test its military functions.

Turkey has a bigger and arguably better military than Germany or France. It will be interesting to see if they use it outside of their borders. Back to the question of NATO, though, it is clear that the alliance against the Soviet Union made sense. The idea that all of these powers are simply going to take direction from Washington pols in the absence of a Soviet threat is deeply misguided in my opinion.

Istanbuller wrote:China has no military power to intervene to anywhere.

China doesn't have nearly as competent a blue water navy. Historically, it scuttled its own Navy in the era of Zheng Ha--perhaps some Muslim treachery? China could enter Afghanistan easily, but intervening in Syria is not an option for them.

Beren wrote:I'd believe pulling out of Syria and Afghanistan has more to do with Trump's own preference of a reduced US military presence abroad, which resonates with his base and large parts of the broader electorate too anyway, and winning Putin's approval than any grand geopolitical strategy.

I still find it amazing that people believe that Trump is Putin's puppet. The political problem is that nation-building is unpopular in the United States as there are plenty of areas in the US that could use those investment dollars. The US government is hostile to many areas and peoples within the United States--holding them generally in contempt as was evidenced by Hillary Clinton's "deplorable" remark, Mitt Romney's "47%" remark and Obama's "bitter clinger" speech. It's a bi-partisan contempt too. Trump has to keep those people in his coalition to win again, so he cannot go along with what the establishment wants to do around the world. He is also exposing the bi-partisan establishment around immigration too.

Beren wrote:He'd also like to pull out of South Korea and would abandon Europe too if he could perhaps.

Trump has increased the military presence in South Korea. If anything, he's ready to go to war with North Korea. That's why having Mattis leave now is an interesting development. Mattis is ultimately signalling to North Korea that it can rest easier, depending on who replaces Mattis.

Ter wrote:A decision like pulling troops out of Syria and Afghanistan should not be made on a whim.
Mattis is right not to want to be part of this any more.

I don't think it is a whim. Basically, the current world order is what dictates the rise of groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda. Until the current world order faces that fact, expensive global military operations with no end game is untenable. To get a glimpse of political thinking in Washington from officers and intel guys in the field, read Outlaw Platoon and Left of Boom. Contrast how someone from the regular army tells a story and how the CIA blacks out everything one of its officers says so you have to fill in "Pakistan" as though you couldn't figure out what they were trying to keep from you. When you see it from the standpoint of corporate culture or organizational behavior (the proverbial 50k foot view), you can see how ridiculous things got after WWII. If the enemy crosses the border into Pakistan, you have to go into Pakistan and kill the enemy. Today, we cannot do that because of politics. Our military leaders cannot make practical military decisions like that. During the Vietnam War too, the NVA just re-routed their supply lines into Laos and Cambodia. Hell, bin Laden's last hideout was a few miles from the Pakistani equivalent of West Point. Consider all the abuses of the NSA as revealed by Snowden and then watch Zero Dark Thirty. I spent a lot of time working in mass data storage, and the NSA used our stuff for the cloud systems (I don't work for them, by the way). What they depicted in Zero Dark Thirty is largely true. Yet, they still needed to bribe a lot of people to get the numbers they were looking for; otherwise, they are not looking for a needle in a haystack, but looking for a particular needle in a stack of needles. As it stands today, no military power can beat the US military in conventional battle. Unconventional warfare is another matter.

Building nations as in Afghanistan is expensive, and to do that with the military pisses people off because you aren't chasing the enemy. Read Hammerhead Six. As an exercise in denying territory to the enemy and stabilizing an area, it was a success. As far as getting bin Laden or other Taliban/Al Qaeda targets, they come up empty. Handing over the Pech Valley to a 20-something captain with 50 guys to run it (it's the size of Connecticut) brings Rudyard Kipling's The Man Who Would Be King. Sean Connery and Michael Caine depict it in The Man Who Would Be King.

Think all of our soldiers are war criminals? Read Level Zero Heroes and get a picture of what types of shit the Taliban will pull--deliberately killing a woman and child with the intent to blame it on US airstrikes, for example. Pacifists and anti-imperialists fall for that type of shit every single time. The media doesn't cover it either, so that they don't "demonize" Muslims. You also get a good idea of the problems of trying to involve local leadership when their cousins are the enemy in that book. 12 Strong depicts all of that too, if you would prefer to watch a movie. Want a special ops perspective of the whole thing from beginning to end--with a bunch of stuff in between that has nothing to do with it--read Zero Footprint: The True Story of a Private Military Contractor's Covert Assignments in Syria, Libya, And the World's Most Dangerous Places. Zero Footprint was the code meaning that Obama didn't want the FSA to look like a US-UK backed fighting force when in fact it was. The effort to purchase arms from Ansar Al Sharia, an Al Qaeda affiliate, led to the killing of Ambassador Stevens, which you can watch in 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi, leading to Hillary Clinton's efforts to hide what was going on from Congress--criminally deleting classified emails which were criminally negligently on her "secret" email server that was hacked by every US adversary.

If you read or watch all of that and more as I have, you don't come away with a great deal of confidence in the Washington establishment. We saw Barack Obama win re-election in 2012 by chiding Mitt Romney AFTER Russia had invaded Georgia, only to watch Russia annex Crimea without firing a shot, stir up shit in the Donbass, and put troops into Syria to confront American troops there. Then, when Trump won, the very same establishment cooked up a completely bullshit "Russian Meddling" scare for Donald Trump. I think it is fair to question Trump's actions, but we've had 17 years of this shit going sideways from establishment actors in both parties. They are arrogant, condescending and incompetent.

Again, I have a great deal of respect for James Mattis. However, Trump's hard-nosed approach shouldn't be dismissed either. He's right that there is a lot of bullshit going on in Washington that just needs to be called out and people who have performed badly need to get fired.

Kaiserschmarrn wrote:What Putin wouldn't like seems to be the new basis on which to make foreign policy.

Kaiserschmarrn wrote:Progressive respectable media's fever dream:

Russia did what they did, because the US elected Barack Obama. I'm surprised they didn't do much more. Yet, trying to warn us on Russia after ridiculing Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney and then getting completely schooled by Putin is par for the course.

One Degree wrote:I don’t know what Trump thinks, but my guess is he doesn’t believe in limited conflict.

Limited conflict--as I'm sure Trump has figured out--is that you are limited and your enemy is not. An alliance where you bear all the heavy lifting isn't a bi-directional alliance. Western Europe is an American Protectorate, not really an ally in the strict sense of the word.

Basically, Trump is president because the establishment has no clothes and Trump is the only one other than Russia calling them out on it. Why they don't want to clean up their act given their dismal performance for 25 years now is anyone's guess.
By annatar1914
#14974989
@blackjack21

Well Blackjack, generally my comments directed at what you write here on PoFo are positive, although years ago when I was more a Reactionary traditionalist I found your conservatism to be of a modern status quo sort that wasn't to my personal taste. When my critique of Capitalism grew to the proportions in which I found myself something of a Socialist, I had little to say to you because social conservatism (which I retained) and economic conservatism find themselves uneasy bedfellows at best.

There hasn't been an intersection of interests to spark a conversation except in mutual commentary on liberal madness.

So on what can this conversation start? On Geopolitics. Clearly, with your comments on Russia ''annexing'' the Crimea and ''meddling'' in the Donbass, or ''invading'' Georgia, you pretty much tow the line on the basic Atlanticist talking points, albeit a rational Atlanticism that doesn't partake of the ''Russia stole the 2016 elections for Trump'' lunacy. Nor is there a total lack of understanding on your part about why Russia has to do the things she does, historically speaking.

But what I suggest to you and to others in your type of intellectual circles, politically speaking, is that far more gain and mutual benefit could be gained, not just for Russia and America but for all mankind, if actual and genuine Alliance of these Great Powers could be worked out, because there is no real reason on Earth-save certain petty and selfish interests that don't deign to consider the needs of the common man anyway-that it shouldn't happen.

Mattis was by no means a good secretary of defense or even a good general, but a syncophantic political officer who rose through the ranks because he was a chameleon without a moral or ethical center. He was and is every bit a part of the Deep State/Military-Industrial-Financial-Scientific Complex that would be perfectly happy forcing America into the Global Hegemon role and crush Russia once and for all, as was planned in operational documents from well before the fall of the Soviet Union.

Surely, you do understand that this sort of Hubris leads to Nemesis?
User avatar
By jimjam
#14975012
President Trump said on Sunday that he would remove Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, who issued a stinging rebuke of the president when he announced his resignation last week, from his post by Jan. 1, two months before he had planned to depart. One aide said that although Mr. Trump had already seen the resignation letter when he praised Mr. Mattis, the president did not understand just how forceful a rejection of his strategy Mr. Mattis had issued.

The president has grown increasingly angry as the days have passed, the aide said. In all probability he learned from Fox and Friends that he had just been dissed.

Mr. Trump, in a Twitter post, said that Patrick M. Shanahan, Mr. Mattis’s deputy, would serve as the acting defense secretary.

At the rate Donald's cabinet secretaries are exiting I would not be surprised if, in 2 more years, he will have surrounded himself with a full cadre of yes men such as :

Image
User avatar
By One Degree
#14975022
Ah, you realize many consider them brilliant? :)
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

That's the problem though. People in general don'[…]

And if he had been an Israeli citizen, the usual […]

@Scamp Bombing Mexico is the STUPIDIEST idea I[…]

No one is more manly than me. We know there is […]