Abandoning the Wars Without End


President Trump is attempting to fulfill a campaign promise and is moving to get us out of Middle Eastern wars. But it’s complicated.

YPG was considered the most effective force against ISIS and they allied with us in the fight. ISIS is also their enemy. Now the Kurds want the U.S. to reward them by helping them carve out a country on the border of Turkey. Turkey and the Kurds are mortal enemies, and Turkey will destroy them if they don’t move on.

We never said we would intervene.

For all the anger coming from the U. N. and NATO allies over Turkey’s aggression, none are stepping up to help the Kurds in their fight. Most NATO allies don’t even pay their bills to NATO.

The President is prepared to level sanctions against Turkey if they go too far but should the U.S. step in and shoulder all the burden of prolonged war in a region that has been engaged in tribal warfare without resolution for an eternity?

After the Vietnam War,  U.S. Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger created a list of points governing when the United States could commit troops in military engagements.

The doctrine, as the media framed it, was presented in 1984 in a speech entitled, “The Uses of Military Power” and was delivered before the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.

The Weinberger doctrine:

  1. The United States should not commit forces to combat unless the vital national interests of the United States or its allies are involved.
  2. U.S. troops should only be committed wholeheartedly and with the clear intention of winning. Otherwise, troops should not be committed.
  3. U.S. combat troops should be committed only with clearly defined political and military objectives and with the capacity to accomplish those objectives.
  4. The relationship between the objectives and the size and composition of the forces committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.
  5. U.S. troops should not be committed to battle without a “reasonable assurance” of the support of U.S. public opinion and Congress.
  6. The commitment of U.S. troops should be considered only as a last resort.

War with a NATO ally to win a country for their enemy, albeit allies of ours against ISIS, doesn’t fit these criteria.

If Turkey attempts to annihilate the Kurds, that would alter the picture.

However, YPG is considered an arm of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which is designated as a terrorist group by the U.S. government. American Defense Secretary Ashton Carter confirmed “substantial ties” between the PYD/YPG and the PKK.

Testifying to the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee in Congress, Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats, the top intelligence official, explicitly defined the YPG as the “PKK’s militia force in Syria”.

They are allies but they are also allied with terror. Do we send soldiers to the region to win a country for them against a NATO ally?

The truth is we don’t really know what’s going on in the region. We can’t trust what we are being told.

President Trump tweeted about the situation.

“The United States was supposed to be in Syria for 30 days, that was many years ago. We stayed and got deeper and deeper into battle with no end in sight. When I arrived in Washington, ISIS was running rampant in the area. We quickly defeated 100% of the ISIS Caliphate including capturing thousands of ISIS fighters, mostly from Europe. But Europe did not want them back, they said you keep them USA! I said ‘NO, we did you a great favor and now you want us to hold them in U.S. prisons at tremendous cost. They are yours for trials.’

“They again said ‘NO,’ thinking, as usual, that the U.S. is always the ‘sucker,’ on NATO, on Trade, on everything. The Kurds fought with us, but were paid massive amounts of money and equipment to do so. They have been fighting Turkey for decades. I held off this fight for almost 3 years, but it is time for us to get out of these ridiculous Endless Wars, many of them tribal, and bring our soldiers home. WE WILL FIGHT WHERE IT IS TO OUR BENEFIT, AND ONLY FIGHT TO WIN.

“Turkey, Europe, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Russia and the Kurds will now have to figure the situation out, and what they want to do with the captured ISIS fighters in their ‘neighborhood.’ They all hate ISIS, have been enemies for years. We are 7,000 miles away and will crush ISIS again if they come anywhere near us!”

President Trump doesn’t want to nation build when it has failed so many times before.

Democrats oppose the President because they always oppose the President. Some Republicans call it a betrayal. Others worry ISIS will return, but Turkey says they will take over. The U.S. outsourced the job to Turkey.

The President said, “They must, with Europe and others, watch over the captured ISIS fighters and families. The U.S. has done far more than anyone could have ever expected, including the capture of 100% of the ISIS Caliphate. It is time now for others in the region, some of great wealth, to protect their own territory. THE USA IS GREAT!”

He is reinventing the way the U. S. handles wars without end, wars we can’t win, other peoples’ wars.

Wouldn’t it be better if we protected our own borders? We have Hezbollah criminal cartels in the U. S. as well as other transnational gangs. Why isn’t ignoring that a betrayal?

Maybe we should just leave all the arms and equipment for the Kurds and worry about our own borders?

What do you think?

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
2 years ago

Our enemy thinks that they can ‘weaken our military’ by keeping us involved in their “endless wars”. And, for their benefit, the enemy would love to see our patriotic citizen’s guns taken away.
Our commie Dems work with them because it’s all about ‘power for the leaders’ of their evil cults, baby!

2 years ago


herbert r richmond
herbert r richmond
2 years ago

Protect our own borders, self interest, rebuild Nationalism.

2 years ago

I like the way President Trump thinks, get the hell out of the Middle East. It’s not our fight.