RUTHFULLY YOURS

While the following analysis was written several months ago, with President Trump’s recent decision regarding a premature Syrian withdrawal, and a 21st century, would-be Islamist Turkish sultan’s (Erdogan) aim to at least partially re-create the Asian part of the Ottoman Empire, this widely-published article is even more timely now than before rsk.

“….Seth Frantzman reported for the Jerusalem Post on September 9, 2018 about a precision Iranian ballistic missile attack on Kurds deep inside of Iraq which hit the exact building–some accounts say exact room–where Kurdish opposition leaders were meeting. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps was sending a message to others besides Kurds with this strike.

Like their otherwise centuries’ old rivals for regional hegemony–Turks and (mostly Sunni) Arabs as well–the one thing all three are in agreement about is the denial of political and even basic human rights to some forty million native people who pre-date at least the Turks and Arabs in their region by millennia. Both of the latter have outlawed Kurdish language and culture. The twenty two million Kurds in Turkey–about a fourth of the latter’s total population–have been renamed “Mountain Turks” by Ankara; and besides Saddam Hussein’s Anfal Campaign in “Arab” Iraq in the 1980s, which took some 200,000 Kurdish lives, the title of the Kurdish scholar, Ismet Cherif Vanly’s book, The Syrian ‘Mein Kampf ‘Against The Kurds (Amsterdam, 1968), says all you need to know about how Syrian Arabs have dealt with them as well.

The Iranians have continued hanging Kurdish dissidents again this week. All three nations have slaughtered either tens or hundreds of thousands of Kurds during the past century.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/12/mattis_was_no_good.html

American Thinker readers were warned about General Mattis over a year ago in this article. Briefly, Mattis was and remains a supporter of global warming.

The issue of global warming continues to be a reliable and simple litmus test. If someone believes in global warming, then you can be sure he is a globalist who loathes Western civilization.

Then there was his support for the Islamist Anne Patterson, loathed by the Egyptian people for her support for the Muslim Brotherhood.

Then there was the matter of allowing one of his underlings to throw Fox Company, of Task Force Spartan in Afghanistan in 2007, under bus so he could advance his own career.

Since that article, Mattis’s charge sheet has expanded somewhat. Trump wanted to get trannies out of the military simply because of the costs involved in having them. Mattis pushed back and slow-walked the order. Gender dysphoria is one of the worst mental illnesses, with a 50 percent suicide rate. Who in his right mind would leave people suffering from this condition near weapons or machinery? Someone who ranks ideology above effectiveness and unit cohesion would.

Mattis argued the case for staying in Afghanistan, overriding Trump’s gut instinct. There is no point in staying in Afghanistan. When someone stops paying for the imported grain that allows Afghanistan’s population to double every 25 years, then Afghanistan will collapse. Mattis’s reasoning for staying in Afghanistan is that we either fight them there or fight them here. The opposite is true. By continuing to feed them, we are creating more future terrorists. The way to keep this country safe is to forbid them to enter.

Mattis entered into a “suicide pact” with Steve Mnuchin and Rex Tillerson with the effect that if any one of them was fired, the other two would resign. Normally an employer, upon hearing that his employees have entered into such an undertaking, would fire all three straight away. The president didn’t do that, and Tillerson showed how ineffectual he was. Tillerson won’t be taking much of his time leading the Boy Scouts of America from now on; he allowed gay troop leaders, and now the venerable institution is considering bankruptcy in response to gay rape claims. Like Mattis, Tillerson rose through projecting an image. The reality fell far short of that.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/12/president_trump_is_right_about_syria.html

On the campaign trail in 2012, President Obama took credit for ending the war in Iraq and bringing all U.S. troops home from that country. Military leaders quietly decried the evacuation of troops from Iraq. To do so created a vacuum for hostiles, such as the displaced Baath Party members loyal to Saddam Hussein. In early 2014, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria appeared, rolling through the upper third of a largely unarmed and unprotected Iraq, setting the country ablaze.

Although removing U.S. forces from an unarmed Iraq was an obvious blunder, by September 2014, President Obama was dismissing complaints of his handling of the outbreak of hostilities. He declared that ISIS was the equivalent of “a jayvee team” and was nothing to worry about. In 2016, we learned from Secretary John Kerry that regime change in Syria, the removal of Bashar Assad, was the Obama administration’s goal. Focused on this agenda, the White House intentionally gave arms to ISIS, betting that ISIS’s success would force the Syrian president to acquiesce toward Obama’s terms and step down.

U.S. political and military leaders knew that Iraq was working to build up its military, but it had not been able to reconstitute its armed forces in effective numbers. They knew that Iraqi recruits and pilots were in schools run by Americans and taught by Americans. The timing was right for war, as Iraq was utterly defenseless if ISIS came to town.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/12/trump_declares_victory_in_syria_too_soon.html

In the midst of the Vietnam War, Sen. George Aiken is reported to have said, “Let’s just declare victory and get out.” In October, President Donald Trump did “declare victory” over ISIS. “I want to get out,” the president said. “I want to bring our troops back home. I want to start rebuilding our nation.”

This week, it was announced that our 2,000 or so troops would be pulled out. Job done, go home, right?

There was a bit of a hedge by the Pentagon. Chief spokesperson Dana White said the campaign against ISIS is “not over,” but “we have started the process of returning U.S. troops home from Syria as we transition to the next phase of the campaign. We will continue working with our partners and allies to defeat ISIS wherever it operates.”

OK, still, we’re pretty much done, right? In the narrowest sense, perhaps, although ISIS remains a regional scourge. But it raises the question of what to do when your war aims change in the middle of the war. The defeat of ISIS was, clearly, the first American goal. We were not involved in the Syrian civil war and not planning to be. So American forces took on what appeared to be a limited job. But nothing is limited in the Middle East.

By design or default, United States forces were serving two other functions. In September, secretary of state Mike Pompeo and national security adviser John Bolton made the case for Iran’s continued presence in Syria creating instability that presented a strategic threat to American interests in the region – and would allow Iran to control the “Shiite Crescent” from Iran through Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon to the Mediterranean Sea.