Trump Dump: Foreign Policy (Thread I)

[The Romulan Republic]

I mean, I outright said that I support withdrawing troops (actually withdrawing them, not replacing them with mercenaries). All I ask is that people have the brains to recognize that a) the manner Trump did this was deeply unprofessional and destructive to any idea of responsible government and that b) his motives are not pure as the driven snow. But apparently that's too much nuance for some people.

[The Romulan Republic]

There's a group of so-called progressives who not-so-secretly want to be Good George W Bush and are always on the look out for a war that will be the mythical good American military intervention to make the world a better place and stop the bad men in charge of those foreign places without being an atrocity that burns wealth and lives and rips apart countries.

Get this through your head: There is no good imperialism. Anything that dismantles America's web of military alliances and foreign bases, anything that results in American troops getting the fuck out of the Middle East, anything that nips what would turn out to be yet another forever war is good news.

...I'm pretty sure TRR isn't arguing for more imperialism?

I'm quite sure TRR isn't though at a glance the above post may appear so; I admit it took me a couple of reads to get the just of it.

My summary (subject to TRR's correction):

Group of voters exist whose main issues are American military interventions + the "establishment".
Trump promises to withdraw American troops and puts himself out there as "anti-establishment".
Therefore this group votes for Trump in spite of all of other things that Trump does.

The second point is that this group is large enough to tip the balance in an election which is why Trump is willing to cater to them (or at least convince them that's he's not threatening enough to get out there and vote against him.)

Pretty much, yeah.

Ralin was then kind enough to give the board an excellent demonstration of the kind of person I'm talking about.

Decades of Middle Eastern diplomacy and 'development' got us 9/11 and two horrific wars of aggression. If Trump wants to burn it all to the ground than good for him. If countries in the region want to ally with Russia and China to fill the void that's a substantial improvement because neither of those countries have the largest economy or the most powerful military machine in history behind them when they decide to throw their weight around. They don't have nearly as much ability to inflict harm on the Middle East as we do.

He's basically openly rooting for the Russian/Chinese intervention in the Middle East, thus putting the lie to any claim that he is sincerely anti-Imperialist, as opposed to just anti-American (I will also note that for all its crimes, America has often been fairly restrained in its use of overwhelming force, by the standards of historical conquering empires- I very much doubt whether Russia and China will be so limited in how they are willing to use the force at their disposal).

I also challenge the implication that Afghanistan was a war of aggression. What, was America in Ralin's view supposed to just accept the murder of 3,000 people (mostly civilians) on 9/11 as its just desserts? The fact is that no country in history who had the means to respond to such an attack with force would fail to do so. That's not imperialism- that's self-defence. There is no excuse for the subsequent mismanaging and disregard for civilian lives in the war in Afghanistan, but the only way you can call it a war of aggression is if you believe that 9/11 was a false-flag operation. Is that the argument that Ralin wishes to make?

In other news, Mattis has resigned as Secretary of Defence:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46652862

The abrupt resignation of Defence Secretary Jim Mattis has alarmed an already tense Capitol Hill, causing lawmakers on both sides to speak out.
Democrats decried the latest Trump administration departure as a "crisis", but Republicans also voiced concern.
Senators Mitch McConnell and Marco Rubio called the move distressing and damaging to the US on the world stage.
Gen Mattis appeared to clash with Mr Trump over his decision to withdraw troops from Syria.
In his resignation letter, Gen Mattis, 68, said the president had the right to appoint someone "whose views are better aligned with yours".
The announcement of his departure came amid two major military decisions Gen Mattis had opposed: withdrawing troops from Syria and reducing US presence in Afghanistan.
US allies were not consulted or informed ahead of time about the president's decisions, US media reported.
The respected general will leave the job in February, though it remains unclear who President Donald Trump has in mind to replace him.
On Capitol Hill, Gen Mattis' resignation - and his reason for doing so - shocked lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.
ADVERTISEMENT

US Defence Secretary Mattis resigns
Read his resignation letter in full
The White House revolving door: Who's gone?
Democrats cry "crisis"
Democratic Senator Mark Warner, who is vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, labelled the development "scary".
"Secretary Mattis has been an island of stability amidst the chaos of the Trump administration," he said.
Skip Twitter post by @MarkWarner
Report
End of Twitter post by @MarkWarner
Presentational white space
Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy called Gen Mattis' apparent protest resignation "a national security crisis".
Skip Twitter post by @ChrisMurphyCT
Report
End of Twitter post by @ChrisMurphyCT
Presentational white space
Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, ranking member on the Armed Services committee, said, "President Trump is leading the country in the wrong direction and Secretary Mattis isn't willing to go along with it".
Skip Twitter post by @LeoShane
Report
End of Twitter post by @LeoShane
Presentational white space
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi also described Gen Mattis as a "comfort to many" who were concerned about the Trump presidency.
Skip Twitter post by @NancyPelosi
Report
End of Twitter post by @NancyPelosi
Presentational white space
And Representative Adam Schiff of California, ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, said the White House would "not see his like again while Trump remains in office".
Skip Twitter post by @RepAdamSchiff
Report
End of Twitter post by @RepAdamSchiff
Presentational white space
Former vice-president Joe Biden also weighed in, saying Gen Mattis' presence would be missed and his exit makes it "clear this administration has abandoned those core American beliefs".
Retired Army Gen Stanley McChrystal, the former top US commander in Afghanistan, told CNN: "The kind of leadership that causes a dedicated patriot like Jim Mattis to leave should give pause to every American."
Republicans distressed over departure
Even top lawmakers from Mr Trump's own Republican Party have criticised the administration over Gen Mattis' departure.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he was "distressed" to hear the resignation was reportedly due to "sharp differences" with the president on "key aspects of America's global leadership".
The Kentucky Republican also urged Mr Trump to choose a replacement "who shares Secretary Mattis' understanding" of American principles.
Skip Twitter post by @senatemajldr
Report
End of Twitter post by @senatemajldr
Presentational white space
Florida Senator Marco Rubio, who ran against Mr Trump for the Republican nomination in 2016, said the letter "makes it abundantly clear that we are headed towards a series of grave policy errors which will endanger our nation, damage our alliances & empower our adversaries".
Skip Twitter post by @marcorubio
Report
End of Twitter post by @marcorubio
Presentational white space
Senator Lindsey Graham, who has been a vocal critic of the administration's decisions to withdraw troops in Syria and Afghanistan, tweeted his "great sadness" about the news, saying Gen Mattis had "provided sound and ethical military advice to President Trump".
Illinois Representative Adam Kinzinger said of Gen Mattis' resignation: "That's what happens when you ignore sound military advice."
He added Gen Mattis' departure was "an act of patriotism, standing for our American principles above all else".
Skip Twitter post by @RepKinzinger
Report
End of Twitter post by @RepKinzinger
Presentational white space
And Nebraska Republican Senator Ben Sasse, who has criticised the president before, said it was a "sad day for America because Secretary Mattis was giving advice the president needs to hear", US media reported.
Other Republicans have not been as dire in their reactions, expressing disappointment while urging the president to find a capable replacement, US media reported.

Hmm, isn't this the first time that a member of Trump's cabinet has openly resigned in protest over a matter of principle?

I do find it deeply disturbing (though perhaps it should not be surprising) that the withdrawal of American troops elicits more outrage from certain powerful people than obstruction of justice or the caging of children. But I think Mattis was right to resign. Nonetheless, I also worry about what Mattis's departure will mean. He was one of the few checks on Trump's madness, and unlike Kelly, actually worked effectively to reign in some of his worst ideas. Without him, I fear that Trump will have much more freedom to use the military as a political tool to enforce his most fascistic agendas.

[K. A. Pital]

He's basically openly rooting for the Russian/Chinese intervention in the Middle East, thus putting the lie to any claim that he is sincerely anti-Imperialist, as opposed to just anti-American (I will also note that for all its crimes, America has often been fairly restrained in its use of overwhelming force, by the standards of historical conquering empires- I very much doubt whether Russia and China will be so limited in how they are willing to use the force at their disposal).

Russia and China haven't genocidally slaughtered the natives in territories they have occupied. People talk about "cultural repression" in Tibet, but the native population of the US was simply wiped out. The US has destroyed the natives. "Fairly restrained"? Are you serious? Here's an example for ya:

General Jacob H. Smith's infamous order "Kill Everyone Over Ten" was the caption in the New York Journal cartoon on May 5, 1902. The Old Glory draped an American shield on which a vulture replaced the bald eagle. The caption at the bottom proclaims, "Criminals Because They Were Born Ten Years Before We Took the Philippines"

What, was America in Ralin's view supposed to just accept the murder of 3,000 people (mostly civilians) on 9/11 as its just desserts? The fact is that no country in history who had the means to respond to such an attack with force would fail to do so. That's not imperialism- that's self-defence.

The difference between Russia's attack on Georgian troops in the Russian-Georgian war and the US response in Afghanistan is striking: Georgia is still independent and Russia hasn't occupied Tbilisi for several decades. The US has.

There is no excuse for the subsequent mismanaging and disregard for civilian lives in the war in Afghanistan

Is there an excuse for the drug empire that the US helped to forge in Afghanistan, controlled by Karzai's relatives?

[U.P. Cinnabar]

And, for the Taliban the US put in power after the Soviet withdrawal?

[K. A. Pital]

And, for the Taliban the US put in power after the Soviet withdrawal?

True. The idea of "fixing mistakes with benign interventions" itself requires examination here. Usually interventions just beget more mistakes necessitating - in the eyes of a public long-used to imperialism and violence as a solution to everything - more and more interventions.

Trump decides to move out, and people are more alarmed than they are at the prospects of running an endless war or occupation? That ain't right.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

And, this assumes Trump(or whoever) is moving out and not using PMCs and proxies to carry out American policies.

[The Romulan Republic]

He's basically openly rooting for the Russian/Chinese intervention in the Middle East, thus putting the lie to any claim that he is sincerely anti-Imperialist, as opposed to just anti-American (I will also note that for all its crimes, America has often been fairly restrained in its use of overwhelming force, by the standards of historical conquering empires- I very much doubt whether Russia and China will be so limited in how they are willing to use the force at their disposal).

Russia and China haven't genocidally slaughtered the natives in territories they have occupied. People talk about "cultural repression" in Tibet, but the native population of the US was simply wiped out. The US has destroyed the natives. "Fairly restrained"? Are you serious? Here's an example for ya:

General Jacob H. Smith's infamous order "Kill Everyone Over Ten" was the caption in the New York Journal cartoon on May 5, 1902. The Old Glory draped an American shield on which a vulture replaced the bald eagle. The caption at the bottom proclaims, "Criminals Because They Were Born Ten Years Before We Took the Philippines"

Ah, I see. You are going to prove that the US is the most evil nation in the world by comparing the United States of more than a hundred years ago with the Russia and China of today. Because as we all know, America has not changed at all in the last century, but Russia and China have. That's a totally consistent and fair standard of evidence. And in this case, its not only a double-standard, its actually libellous, as you are using these examples to falsely portray me as defending the genocides of the Indian wars and the Philippines.

If you're going to bring in the Indian Wars and the Philippines, I am going to cite the deaths under Stalin and Mao, which at least occurred within living memory. Or we can show some sanity, and confine ourselves to more contemporary examples, and a consistent standard of evidence for both sides.

I also expect you to retract and apologize for the libellous claim that I was calling the genocides of the Indian Wars and the Philippines "restrained".

The difference between Russia's attack on Georgian troops in the Russian-Georgian war and the US response in Afghanistan is striking: Georgia is still independent and Russia hasn't occupied Tbilisi for several decades. The US has.

Afghanistan is also still an independent nation, not a US territory.

The Crimea, on the other hand...

Is there an excuse for the drug empire that the US helped to forge in Afghanistan, controlled by Karzai's relatives?

Of course not, but that is a deflection which does not refute the point I am making here- which is that under any international norms or common sense, the initial invasion was not a "war of aggression", unless you are prepared to make the argument that 9/11 was a false-flag attack. Do you wish to do so?

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Of course not, but that is a deflection which does not refute the point I am making here- which is that under any international norms or common sense, the initial invasion was not a "war of aggression", unless you are prepared to make the argument that 9/11 was a false-flag attack. Do you wish to do so?

Actually, given the attack was masterminded by a known CIA asset, that could be argued, pure conjecture, though it is.

Aside from that, our intervention in Afghanistan was in self-defense...from a threats the United States itself made both by cultivating, arming and supporting bin Laden, and by putting the Taliban in power and keeping them there in the years between the Soviet withdrawal and 9/11.

[The Romulan Republic]

Of course not, but that is a deflection which does not refute the point I am making here- which is that under any international norms or common sense, the initial invasion was not a "war of aggression", unless you are prepared to make the argument that 9/11 was a false-flag attack. Do you wish to do so?

Actually, given the attack was masterminded by a known CIA asset, that could be argued, pure conjecture, though it is.

Former CIA asset or currently serving as one? There's a big difference between an enemy who was an ally of convenience in the past, and a current asset.

Aside from that, our intervention in Afghanistan was in self-defense...from a threats the United States itself made both by cultivating, arming and supporting bin Laden, and by putting the Taliban in power and keeping them there in the years between the Soviet withdrawal and 9/11.

I'm not denying that 9/11 was (partly-the causes of any major historical event are complex) due to prior US mistakes in backing some of the worst factions in the Middle East. But the fact remains that there was an attack, from a terrorist group being aided and sheltered by a country we were not at the time at war with, which resulted in the deaths of approximately 3,000 people, most of them civilians.

ANY COUNTRY ON EARTH with the means to do so would have responded militarily, it would be absurd to expect them not to, the initial military response had the nearly unanimous support of the international community (good will that Bush then pissed away with the Iraq debacle), and it cannot be described as a war of aggression in any reasonable terms. It seems to me that if you define that as a "war of aggression", you are essentially implying that the murder of those 3,000 civilians was justified, and that the US had no right to resist those attacks.

Essentially, I think that we need to separate the subsequent incompetence, lies, and crimes of the Bush administration in Afghanistan, and especially in Iraq, from the question of whether Amy military response to 9/11 was justified.

[Ralin]

He's basically openly rooting for the Russian/Chinese intervention in the Middle East, thus putting the lie to any claim that he is sincerely anti-Imperialist, as opposed to just anti-American

No. I’m rooting for an end to imperialism in the Middle East by removing the evil military machine that destroyed Iraq, started the ball rolling ISIS and has generally spent decades raping the region for fun and profit.

(I will also note that for all its crimes, America has often been fairly restrained in its use of overwhelming force, by the standards of historical conquering empires- I very much doubt whether Russia and China will be so limited in how they are willing to use the force at their disposal).

Ahaha, seriously? Hey TRR, quick question: how many wars has China started in the past half century or so? How many countries? How many Chinese military bases are there outside of China?

I also challenge the implication that Afghanistan was a war of aggression. What, was America in Ralin's view supposed to just accept the murder of 3,000 people (mostly civilians) on 9/11 as its just desserts?

Absolutely. There was nothing military about 9/11. It was a crime committed by private individuals (most of them from Saudi Arabia), not the Afghan military. It should have been handled by law enforcement and if they couldn’t apprehend the people responsible then the only moral thing to do would be not starting an evil decades-long forever war against a country that didn’t stand a chance in hell of ever attacking or invading us you racist little shit!

The fact is that no country in history who had the means to respond to such an attack with force would fail to do so.

That’s a lie. Many countries have suffered mass murders, even murders committed by foreigners, without immediately responding by invading an unrelated country as punishment.

That's not imperialism- that's self-defence.

Liar. Please TRR, show us the secret Afghan 747 training facilities or whatever that you think had to be destroyed before they could be used to attack America. Explain exactly what threat you think was in Afghanistan that the US military needed (and still needs) to stop?

There is no excuse for the subsequent mismanaging and disregard for civilian lives in the war in Afghanistan, but the only way you can call it a war of aggression is if you believe that 9/11 was a false-flag operation. Is that the argument that Ralin wishes to make?

You just don’t get it, do you? There was no ‘subsequent mismanaging’ because there was no good and correct way to manage a war of revenge like America’s rape of Afghanistan. The war was an atrocity start to finish and there is no amount of wise and restrained leadership that could have made it anything else. You cannot be George W Bush Only Good when you use the world’s most powerful military machine to crush other countries.

[The Romulan Republic]

You do not get to call me a liar or a racist because I hold a different view than you, and you do not get to play holier-than-thou when you directly condone the mass murder of 3,000 civilians, you worthless little cum bucket. Reported for libelling me, and for dishonest debating for claiming that Afghanistan was "unrelated" to support for Al Qaida.

I also want it noted for the record that when asked if he believed America should have accepted the murder of 3,000 of its citizens as its "just desserts", Ralin replied, and I quote: "Absolutely". I want it noted for the record that Ralin is in his own words an advocate and apologist for the mass murder of civilians, and that his pretences of caring about human rights are exactly that- pretences. He is entirely in support of the mass murder of innocents, as long as the victims are American and the killers aren't. And yet he has the fucking gall to call me a racist and an advocate for war crimes.

[The Romulan Republic]

So, you know how Trump was going to end American Imperialism (by handing the world to Russian Imperialism on a silver platter)? Well, he's already partially walked it back:

https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... low-highly

President Trump on Sunday said the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria will be "slow & highly coordinated" after facing criticism for what some have described as an abrupt decision to pull out of the war-torn nation.

"I just had a long and productive call with President @RT_Erdogan of Turkey. We discussed ISIS, our mutual involvement in Syria, & the slow & highly coordinated pullout of U.S. troops from the area. After many years they are coming home. We also discussed heavily expanded Trade," Trump wrote on Twitter.



Trump last week announced that the U.S. would withdraw its 2,000 troops from Syria. The decision prompted the resignation of Defense Secretary James Mattis, who reportedly attempted to dissuade Trump making the move before he resigned.

In announcing the withdrawal last week, Trump claimed that he was doing so because the U.S. had defeated the Islamic State (ISIS) in the region.

The decision has also been met with fierce bipartisan criticism from a number lawmakers, who have disputed Trump's assertion that ISIS has been defeated in Syria.

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), for example, said Sunday that Trump's decision to withdraw troops from Syria and possibly Afghanistan would "hand victories to our enemies."

"It's a very dangerous path to go down, and we shouldn't be going down it. We ought to make sure that we keep our troops there in order to prevent the establishment of safe havens from those groups that want to attack us," Cheney said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

Meanwhile, the special Presidential envoy for fighting ISIS has also resigned:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/22/worl ... gning.html

Excerpt:

Brett McGurk, the special presidential envoy to the coalition fighting the Islamic State, has accelerated his resignation, telling colleagues this weekend that he could not in good conscience carry out President Trump’s newly declared policy of withdrawing American troops from Syria.

Mr. McGurk, a seasoned diplomat who was considered by many to be the glue holding together the sprawling international coalition fighting the terrorist group, was supposed to retire in February. But according to an email he sent his staff, he decided to move his departure forward to Dec. 31 after Mr. Trump did not heed his own commanders and blindsided America’s allies in the region by abruptly ordering the withdrawal of the 2,000 troops.

[Ralin]

You do not get to call me a liar or a racist because I hold a different view than you,

If you support an American war of aggression against developing countries in the Middle East and Asia inhabited predominately by non-white people you are a fucking racist and deserve to be called as such. Hand-waving that sort of mass murder away by saying that obviously you don’t condone all the ‘mistakes’ that made the suffering from said war of aggression so much worse than it had be is the geopolitical equivalent of bragging that you don’t see race.

Reported for libelling me, and for dishonest debating for claiming that Afghanistan was "unrelated" to support for Al Qaida.

Go ahead, Little Lord Fauntleroy. I’m sure that this time the mods will side with you instead of telling you to shut up, again.

I also want it noted for the record that when asked if he believed America should have accepted the murder of 3,000 of its citizens as its "just desserts", Ralin replied, and I quote: "Absolutely". I want it noted for the record that Ralin is in his own words an advocate and apologist for the mass murder of civilians, and that his pretences of caring about human rights are exactly that- pretences. He is entirely in support of the mass murder of innocents, as long as the victims are American and the killers aren't. And yet he has the fucking gall to call me a racist and an advocate for war crimes.

Everyone, I want you to note that TRR believes that the murder of a few thousand Americans by a criminal organization warrants a decades-long war of revenge against a not-terribly strong or wealthy country on the other side of the world. He talks a lot about how he’s against how said war of revenge was mishandled, but the fact of the matter is that there was no way of handling America stomping on Afghanistan that wouldn’t have resulted in similar amounts of suffering on the parts of people who again, posed fuck all threat to America. There was and is no way that you could wage the War on Terror Only Good. A kinder, gentler war of revenge against Afghanistan would still be an atrocity.

Notice how he can’t give specifics on the Afghan government’s suicide bomber factories or whatever the hell else he thinks was such a threat to the United States that their people deserved to be bombed for it.

[The Romulan Republic]

If you support an American war of aggression against developing countries in the Middle East and Asia inhabited predominately by non-white people you are a fucking racist and deserve to be called as such. Hand-waving that sort of mass murder away by saying that obviously you don’t condone all the ‘mistakes’ that made the suffering from said war of aggression so much worse than it had be is the geopolitical equivalent of bragging that you don’t see race.

Whether or not it is in fact a war of aggression is one of the main points under debate.

But I should be more emphatic in my condemnation of what happened in Afghanistan subsequent to the invasion. So let me be clear: there were mistakes, on a grand scale. There were also crimes. People should have gone to prison who didn't. But that does not change the fact that some form of military response against Afghanistan was justified, and certainly not a war of aggression by any sane definition.

Go ahead, Little Lord Fauntleroy.

Ah, haven't seen that one in a while. Nice to know that the list of Stock Insults for Ad Homineming TRR is still in use on this board. I suppose the implication is that only a "privileged" white person could dare to disagree with your support for the murder of Americans?

I’m sure that this time the mods will side with you instead of telling you to shut up, again.

Why don't we let the mods speak for themselves.

Everyone, I want you to note that TRR believes that the murder of a few thousand Americans by a criminal organization warrants a decades-long war of revenge against a not-terribly strong or wealthy country on the other side of the world. He talks a lot about how he’s against how said war of revenge was mishandled, but the fact of the matter is that there was no way of handling America stomping on Afghanistan that wouldn’t have resulted in similar amounts of suffering on the parts of people who again, posed fuck all threat to America. There was and is no way that you could wage the War on Terror Only Good. A kinder, gentler war of revenge against Afghanistan would still be an atrocity.

Another lie. I have explicitly and repeatedly said that I do not condone the conduct of the subsequent war. I will also note that you have now switched goalposts from calling it a "war of aggression" to calling it a "war of revenge".

I am not, however, aware that relative lack of wealth or power is a reason why one should be allowed to murder with impunity. The police have more firepower than the average spree shooter. Does that mean that the police are engaging in a "war of aggression" or revenge if they arrest or kill the spree shooter? But then, they were just Americans, so evidently their murder (at least you acknowledge it as such) can be casually hand-waved away.

Notice how he can’t give specifics on the Afghan government’s suicide bomber factories or whatever the hell else he thinks was such a threat to the United States that their people deserved to be bombed for it.

Another lie. I have never said that the Afghani people deserve to be bombed, nor have I ever condoned the targeting of civilians of any nationality (something that cannot be said for you).

The fact that Afghanistan under the Taliban was harboring Al Qaida training camps is common public knowledge. I should not have to "prove" it to you or anyone at this point, especially when I know full-well that any source I site will be dismissed as Western propaganda, but I shall do so nonetheless:

https://www.britanica.com/event/Afghanistan-War

The hijacking and crashing of four U.S. jetliners on September 11, 2001, brought instant attention to Afghanistan. The plot had been hatched by al-Qaeda, and some of the 19 hijackers had been trained in Afghanistan. In the aftermath of the attacks, the administration of U.S. Pres. George W. Bush coalesced around a strategy of first ousting the Taliban from Afghanistan and dismantling al-Qaeda, though others contemplated actions in Iraq, including long-standing plans for toppling Pres. Saddam Hussein. Bush demanded that Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar "deliver to [the] United States authorities all the leaders of al-Qaeda who hide in your land," and when Omar refused, U.S. officials began implementing a plan for war.

For all your lies, the truth is this: I do not and will never condone the deliberate massacring of civilians, nor will I condone targeting people on the basis of nationality. You do. You do not get to claim the moral high ground here, or ever again.

[Rogue 9]

Ooookay.

Anyway: NPR

Trump Says Jim Mattis Will Leave By Jan. 1, Announces Acting Defense Secretary

December 23, 20181:06 PM ET

Francesca Paris

A replacement for Defense Secretary Jim Mattis will step in two months earlier than anticipated, President Trump announced Sunday.

Deputy Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan will take over as acting Pentagon chief starting Jan. 1.

"Patrick has a long list of accomplishments while serving as Deputy, & previously Boeing. He will be great!" wrote Trump on Twitter.

Trump had previously announced that Mattis would retire at the end of February. Mattis resigned Thursday over objections to the president's policies, following Trump's decision to withdraw American troops from Syria.

"Because you have the right to have a secretary of defense whose views are better aligned with yours ... I believe it is right for me to step down from my position," Mattis wrote in his letter of resignation.

Shanahan was confirmed by Congress as deputy secretary of defense in July 2017.

He has essentially served as chief operating officer for the Pentagon, as NPR reported in May.

The former Boeing executive told NPR's Steve Inskeep that new technology will shape the future of war.

"The investment in weapons systems is long term," Shanahan says. "So when we watch, whether it's the Chinese or the Russians or what extreme terrorist organizations are doing, we have to put an eye towards what are those capabilities where we want to extend our advantage."

He told Defense News in October that his job was to implement systemic change in the Department of Defense and focus the department on "output and outcomes." He said he would concentrate on "rewiring the organization to increase our performance on lethality, alliances, and reform."

According to Defense News, he has pushed the department to update its internal technology and measurably increase its efficiency.

Prior to this role, Shanahan served as Boeing senior vice president for supply chain and operations, according to the Department of Defense.

"You can't quit; you're fired!" You can't make this shit up.

[The Romulan Republic]

Petty vindictiveness is par for the course with this "President". And as per usual, he's too much of a spineless dip shit to fire someone face to face, so he does it over Twitter.

[Xisiqomelir]

Syrians and Americans are better off with America out. Tbh I don't really care about Trump's reasoning why or lack thereof (TRR feel free to take this as a chance to post a screed), since the results are good.

I'm curious about what happens with Israel next. They were flying over Syria with total impunity but since that IAF F-16 ducked behind the VVS IL-20 which then ate the missile hit and went down with 15 airmen in September everything I've read has suggested that the Russians are furious. Apparently there is a whole network of S-300s in Syria now and Bibi has been told that a Russian detachment has been posted to every Syrian base and installation and that Putin will take any attack on them as a direct attack on Russia.

No Israeli sorties since then.

[Broomstick]

He's basically openly rooting for the Russian/Chinese intervention in the Middle East, thus putting the lie to any claim that he is sincerely anti-Imperialist, as opposed to just anti-American

No. I’m rooting for an end to imperialism in the Middle East by removing the evil military machine that destroyed Iraq, started the ball rolling ISIS and has generally spent decades raping the region for fun and profit.

The notion that US withdrawal will end "imperialism" in the Middle East is laughable. Whatever vacuum is left by the US going home will be filled by Russia and China because all that petroleum is too valuable to ignore.

[Tribble]

He's basically openly rooting for the Russian/Chinese intervention in the Middle East, thus putting the lie to any claim that he is sincerely anti-Imperialist, as opposed to just anti-American

No. I’m rooting for an end to imperialism in the Middle East by removing the evil military machine that destroyed Iraq, started the ball rolling ISIS and has generally spent decades raping the region for fun and profit.

The notion that US withdrawal will end "imperialism" in the Middle East is laughable. Whatever vacuum is left by the US going home will be filled by Russia and China because all that petroleum is too valuable to ignore.

Not to worry, I'm sure that China and Russia are only there to save the Syrian population and have their best interests at heart. Once ISIS is defeated for good they will happily withdraw after ensuring that the Syrians are safe and secure with no fear of tyranny taking over again.

The thought that China and Russia might have ulterior motives is silly, the world knows that only the Americans and the British go into a country to control and steal its resources. I'm sure everything will be fine.

[The Romulan Republic]

He's basically openly rooting for the Russian/Chinese intervention in the Middle East, thus putting the lie to any claim that he is sincerely anti-Imperialist, as opposed to just anti-American

No. I’m rooting for an end to imperialism in the Middle East by removing the evil military machine that destroyed Iraq, started the ball rolling ISIS and has generally spent decades raping the region for fun and profit.

The notion that US withdrawal will end "imperialism" in the Middle East is laughable. Whatever vacuum is left by the US going home will be filled by Russia and China because all that petroleum is too valuable to ignore.

Haven't you heard? Its only imperialism if westerners do it. When a non-western dictator does it, they're just standing up to western imperialism, and anything to the contrary is racist western propaganda. And even if they are imperialists, the West did it to, so that makes it okay.

[Gandalf]

A lot of this reads like "someone's going to imperialise the place, it might as well be us."

[Broomstick]

More like "with all that wealth lying around it's inevitable some bully is going to come and try to take it". Truth is, Russia is already involved in the Middle East. Don't know about China, but it wouldn't be a surprise to me if they were also already there.

Which bully is better? Damifino. They're all bad in their own way.

[Ralin]

The notion that US withdrawal will end "imperialism" in the Middle East is laughable. Whatever vacuum is left by the US going home will be filled by Russia and China because all that petroleum is too valuable to ignore.

Leaving aside the fact that China doesn't have a history of imperialism, Russia and China don't have America's military and economic machine behind them. They don't have a web of military bases worldwide, they don't spend more on their military than the rest of the world combined or near enough. Any arrangements they make with various Middle Eastern countries are far more closer to actual peer to peer dealings than what the US has proven capable of bringing to bear.

Also, Russia and China didn't rape Iraq and create ISIS.

So yes. Non-western imperialism is better than American imperialism.

[FaxModem1]

The notion that US withdrawal will end "imperialism" in the Middle East is laughable. Whatever vacuum is left by the US going home will be filled by Russia and China because all that petroleum is too valuable to ignore.

Leaving aside the fact that China doesn't have a history of imperialism, Russia and China don't have America's military and economic machine behind them. They don't have a web of military bases worldwide, they don't spend more on their military than the rest of the world combined or near enough. Any arrangements they make with various Middle Eastern countries are far more closer to actual peer to peer dealings than what the US has proven capable of bringing to bear.

Also, Russia and China didn't rape Iraq and create ISIS.

So yes. Non-western imperialism is better than American imperialism.

Tell that to Ukraine and Tibet.

[Broomstick]

The notion that US withdrawal will end "imperialism" in the Middle East is laughable. Whatever vacuum is left by the US going home will be filled by Russia and China because all that petroleum is too valuable to ignore.

Leaving aside the fact that China doesn't have a history of imperialism, Russia and China don't have America's military and economic machine behind them.

They don't need that much military and economic might. Neither did the UK yet they had a history of being more imperialistic than the three of them combined, it's just that the British Empire is no longer a going concern.

Also, Russia and China didn't rape Iraq and create ISIS.

No, Russia has been too busy screwing with Eastern Europe these past seven decades, and as for China... might want to ask Tibet and the Uighurs about that...

So yes. Non-western imperialism is better than American imperialism.

Not a student of history, are you?

Yes, post-WWII the US was the top dog of imperialists, but they weren't the first and won't be the last. They only seem to be the worst because they've been the most active recently.

As I said - if the US leaves a vacuum in its wake someone will be along to fill it. Probably several contenders.