So I am wanting to get a feel for what this community thinks of Trump's recent declarations to withdraw troops from Syria and cut the troops in Afghanistan in half. Are you against these moves or would you have preferred better communication and possible implementation of said plan? Are there those who like this sudden move, a ripping the band-aid off of sorts?

For my perspective, I am in agreement with Trump that we need to pull our troops, all two thousand from Syria. Maybe how Trump announced and the on-going plan was not thought out, then again how intricate of a plan is needed to withdraw two thousand troops? Two thousand troops will not win this civil war for the faction(s) that the U.S supports. After an ill-executed involvement in Iraq, Obama did not want to get the U.S. too heavily invested with thousands of boots on the ground. Another reason could have been that Bashar al-Assad is backed Iran who is backed by Russia which I do not think Iraq was backed by the Kremlin. This is understandable but by being quasi-involved I feel that this civil war has prolonged. It has been 7 1/2 years since this conflict has started with al-Assad has regained control of most of the country and ISIS losing an overwhelmingly majority of their former caliphate. What could our further presence in Syria hope to accomplish? Opponents of this withdrawal have come out said that the U.S must stay till Iran and Russia's influence of Syria which I find is moving the goal-line from our earlier goal of removing al-Assad. It could be argued that by removing al-Assad that it may reduce or cause Iran and Russia's influence of Syria to be dissolved but that was not articulated when the U.S first got involved in this civil war. The removal of al-Assad was the U.S's goal.

Now some pundits are saying that ISIS is not as defeated as the president proclaims. That while they have lost a lot of their territory they still have thousands more fighters than believed by the White House. Should we stay in Syria as well because of the threat of ISIS? I would disagree. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are still around after seventeen years of fighting. I would say it is impossible to defeat an ideal that is held by a non-state player. A country can be defeated, but an ideal that is not explicitly tied to a nation-state is more adapt at surviving. In regards to ISIS and Al-Qaeda, a friend of mine told me something a commander of his said when he was deployed - "Thinking in terms of basketball, Sept. 11 was a home game for the U.S., we are over to make sure that we don't have another home game and that all home games will be played here (Iraq/Afghanistan)". While I understand, I firmly believe we cannot be over in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and the Middle East in general to fight terrorism forever. At some point we have done all that we can and must come home. We spent years training Iraq's army and once we leave they capitulate, like the French in early WWII, against ISIS.

I've heard that we cannot let our Kurdish allies down after fighting so hard and being one of the main anti-Assad and anti-ISIS groups that were actually competent at fighting. Though Turkey says that the YPG Kurds have ties or support the PKK and deemed the YPG as a terrorist organization. I remember reading, months ago, the integrity of some Kurdish groups. From where I cannot recall but before this I remember there being some questionable Kurdish groups that aren't as "good" as have been reported in U.S. media. During ISIS's height, the Kurds were reliable and I would not have a problem of the U.S. supporting a Kurdish state. Interestingly I like how in the old world every ethnicity seems to want their own country (the Balkans being hot bed for this).

Another reason opponents don't want to leave Syria is because of al-Assad is a dictator who has committed atrocities such as the use of chemical weapons on his own people. I find this point to be ironic as some of these people may have been against going into Iraq back in 2003. While there were no W.M.D.s, I believe it was generally accepted that Saddam would use chemical weapons against his Kurdish population and would commit other human rights violations as well. There is no mention that while there were no W.M.D.s, Saddam needed to be removed because he was doing things similar to al-Assad thus justifying the Iraq Conflict in the minds of the Democrats who are against pulling out of Syria.


As for Afghanistan, after 17 years it is not time for half of the fourteen thousand to come home but all. As Senator Rand Paul said on Face the Nation, "can these countries not do anything on their own?". I largely agree with his sentiment. With all that we have invested in Afghanistan and Iraq, as I discussed earlier, they have to put on big boy or big girl pants and take care of business. I heard that either 2017 or 2018 was the deadliest year in Afghanistan since 2002 The Taliban are in another resurgence - again - controlling around forty percent of the country. Last year the Afghan government and the U.S. began talks with the Taliban. Our strategies for these conflicts, like in Vietnam were not the best and it seems history has repeated in Afghanistan; Iraq has yet to be determined. Next year will be the first year when children will enter the military that were born after Sept 11 and we are still deploying to Afghanistan.

We got Usama bin-Laden. We messed up Al-Qaeda's infrastructure and organization in Afghanistan and in the world. We largely defeated the Taliban a couple of times due to the U.S. focusing on Iraq which caused Afghanistan to be forgotten and allowed the Taliban to rise back up. There was a flow overall to this War on Terror. First Afghanistan, then the invasion of Iraq and after the surge in 2006 Iraq stabilized. But the U.S. neglected Afghanistan and we had to focus on that but then ISIS popped up in Iraq and Syria and we lost focus in Afghanistan again causing the current situation there.


I say we get out of those countries, plus whatever troops we have in Yemen because that has become the "silent war" and invest some of that money saved in our infrastructure, getting the Department of Veterans Affairs in order, and try to rein in the deficit. I think I got everything I wanted to highlight and am interested in hearing what TFF thinks.