Jump to content
Baseops Forums
disgruntledemployee

The Next President is...

Recommended Posts

Who needs a competent SECDEF like Mattis when you have a POTUS who says “I know more about ISIS than the generals do, believe me!” and ““[The generals] don’t know much because they’re not winning”?

Sad day for the armed forces indeed

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Calling it now, next SECDEF is going to be Mike Rogers.

This is interesting...

Quote

There were other hints that the White House was trying to push out Mr. Mattis. Earlier this month, Mr. Trump named Army Gen. Mark Milley as the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 10 months before the current chairman and top ally to Mr. Mattis, Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, was set to leave.

The president bypassed Mr. Mattis’s first pick for the job, Gen. David Goldfein, who leads the Air Force.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-says-mattis-retiring-at-end-of-february-11545344800

Edited by panchbarnes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unilaterally withdrawing from Syria may not be the best short term move but it may be the best long term move, not for the fight against ISIS, Al Nusra, Iran / Russia action in the ME, etc... but in the fight against the Swamp, Deep State, Globablists, etc... that the worm has turned and a sizable portion of America thru their elected representation be it in the Legislative or Executive branch is not going resource with blood and treasure endless conflicts that have no readily achievable goals or relevant goals for America, no matter if there are laudable side effects to a Pax America enforced order.  

Like it or not we have hit the end of our ability to protect X number of others, to deter for X number of others, to fight for X number of others, not really for a lack of material resources but spiritual resources to be willing to do so.  Explain in a clear way to the forgotten people of the Rust Belt, Bible Belt, Urban Jungles... that denying victory / deterring Russia, Iran and their proxy Alawite pawn in Syria which has no natural resources we purchase, no strategic role in trade, defense or significant cultural position to America is a reason we should spend 15+ billion a year bombing random jihadis half-way around the world when we have 8,000+ fighting age males massing on our border and demanding entrance or else... explain how this time, this operation will resolve something, will lead to a situation that is marginally better for them or for us, explain how just another 15 billion over there versus spent over here on anything is better...

Indeterminate involvement may have some positive effects for others, some are probably worth defending but America's resources are finite.  Even though the material cost for this particular operation is / was not onerous per year in the grand scheme of things, the fact that it would be never-ending has caused the American Nationalist movement thru its somewhat brash and inarticulate standard bearer to say no more.  No matter if you believe we should be militarily engaged in many places around the world, the fact that 67+ million Americans said no more, should give you pause.  

  • Upvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Unilaterally withdrawing from Syria may not be the best short term move but it may be the best long term move, not for the fight against ISIS, Al Nusra, Iran / Russia action in the ME, etc... but in the fight against the Swamp, Deep State, Globablists, etc... that the worm has turned and a sizable portion of America thru their elected representation be it in the Legislative or Executive branch is not going resource with blood and treasure endless conflicts that have no readily achievable goals or relevant goals for America, no matter if there are laudable side effects to a Pax America enforced order.  

Like it or not we have hit the end of our ability to protect X number of others, to deter for X number of others, to fight for X number of others, not really for a lack of material resources but spiritual resources to be willing to do so.  Explain in a clear way to the forgotten people of the Rust Belt, Bible Belt, Urban Jungles... that denying victory / deterring Russia, Iran and their proxy Alawite pawn in Syria which has no natural resources we purchase, no strategic role in trade, defense or significant cultural position to America is a reason we should spend 15+ billion a year bombing random jihadis half-way around the world when we have 8,000+ fighting age males massing on our border and demanding entrance or else... explain how this time, this operation will resolve something, will lead to a situation that is marginally better for them or for us, explain how just another 15 billion over there versus spent over here on anything is better...

Indeterminate involvement may have some positive effects for others, some are probably worth defending but America's resources are finite.  Even though the material cost for this particular operation is / was not onerous per year in the grand scheme of things, the fact that it would be never-ending has caused the American Nationalist movement thru its somewhat brash and inarticulate standard bearer to say no more.  No matter if you believe we should be militarily engaged in many places around the world, the fact that 67+ million Americans said no more, should give you pause.  

Some may argue that the move is unilateral, but bear in mind that this President’s courage to put American interests first, even ahead of those of our “allies,” is why he got elected and is doing so well.  It is utterly entertaining to see the “peace loving” left sit here and try to criticize the President’s decision on Syria.  What do you guys want, to go melt in another s$:7 hole for another 18 years with no exit strategy?  The blind hatred for Trump cannot be more obvious over the events of the last few days. 

I will always respect Mattis, but I think it was finally time for the two to part ways.  Some people, especially those in the military, are being way too dramatic about this.   The average tenure of a SECDEF is 2-3 years, Mattis’s was no different.  The sky isn’t falling. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, dream big said:

Some may argue that the move is unilateral, but bear in mind that this President’s courage to put American interests first, even ahead of those of our “allies,” is why he got elected and is doing so well.  It is utterly entertaining to see the “peace loving” left sit here and try to criticize the President’s decision on Syria.  What do you guys want, to go melt in another s$:7 hole for another 18 years with no exit strategy?  The blind hatred for Trump cannot be more obvious over the events of the last few days. 

I will always respect Mattis, but I think it was finally time for the two to part ways.  Some people, especially those in the military, are being way too dramatic about this.   The average tenure of a SECDEF is 2-3 years, Mattis’s was no different.  The sky isn’t falling. 

“Doing so well”

Ha! 

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Mattis. Good American.

But anyone who wants us to stay in Syria has to go. Full stop. Best case scenario, Assad reasserts control over the entirety of Syria and it goes back to a country that stays quiet and causes few problems.

It boils down to a fundamental difference in philosophy. Mattis is on the W Bush, Max Boot, Neocon view that America needs to intervene in however many countries it takes to convert the world to globalist democracy. The only problem with this philosophy is that it hasn't worked since WWII.

Trump does not have the intellectual nuance to elucidate this point, but he seems to understand it somewhat instinctually. Mattis is ten times the man Trump wishes he could be, but he's wrong, and if he can't change his views on our foreign strategy, he needed to go.

We need to get out of Syria before it loses the one centralized figure capable of maintaining control (Assad). That is, unless you think Iraq and Libya are models to be recreated elsewhere...

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think we would be getting good at this abandoning the Kurds and withdrawing US forces from Kurdish turf by now but I have my doubts we have learned any lessons. The last time we did this "Emergency Evacuation" stuff in a Kurdish AO was circa 1996 in Iraqi Kurdistan and it was a complete cluster f#*k.

Here's the Situation we faced in 1996 (my memory is a bit foggy but this is some of the stuff I remember from this fiasco); During the Iraq Kurdish Civil War (1994-1997) we had - the Peshmerga slaughtering Peshmerga, the Turk military/Kurds/Iranians/Saddam's legions all backing different Kurd factions/tribes that were  slaughtering each other. The US Military was entangled (not by choice) with the Turk/Saddam backed KDP forces, the CIA (by choice IMHO) was supporting the Iranian backed PUK/PKK, and the State Department was stuck in the middle . Basically the situation in Northern Iraq was a complete mess. In late 1996 we finally said "Uncle", pulled the plug, and conducted an "Emergency Evacuation" of all our Forces/CIA/Diplomatic Personnel in Northern Iraq and the "Emergency Evacuation" of thousands of loyal Kurdish forces/key Kurdish leadership and their family members (Ref; Operation Pacific Haven/Operation Quick Transit I, II, III).

 

I would recommend the following actions/preparations in the event something like a very short notice "emergency evacuation/get out of dodge order" is given to all our folk in Syria Rojava (Syria Kurdistan). Hopefully, this round, we don't make the same stupid mistakes we made in 1996;

  • Develop an actual OPLAN, prep/train our forces on the ground in Syria, and this time give our troops a wee bit of heads-up before the "bug out" order is given so stuff like this doesn't happen again; Excerpt (1996); "What the Americans left behind when they pulled out of the Military Coordinating Center in the frontier town of Zakho is instructive--and sad. The detritus of international altruism gone awry included weapons, computers, a radio still turned on, HumVee all-terrain vehicles, a larger number of ordinary cars, maps, diverse sensitive documents and a small library of spy thriller novels."
  • Dust off/update/Prep/train/review lessons learned/etc from Operation Pacific Haven/Operation Quick Transit I, II, III.  Also prep Incirlik AB and Anderson AFB for a heavy influx of thousands of Kurd refugees/asylum seekers. Also, prep Little Kurdistan USA (Nashville) for this new/latest batch (Round 4) of potentially thousands of Kurdish refugees/asylum seekers (this should be the easiest task since Little Kurdistan USA has gotten pretty good at this stuff).
  • etc, etc.
Edited by waveshaper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dream big said:

Some may argue that the move is unilateral, but bear in mind that this President’s courage to put American interests first, even ahead of those of our “allies,” is why he got elected and is doing so well.  It is utterly entertaining to see the “peace loving” left sit here and try to criticize the President’s decision on Syria.  What do you guys want, to go melt in another s$:7 hole for another 18 years with no exit strategy?  The blind hatred for Trump cannot be more obvious over the events of the last few days

I will always respect Mattis, but I think it was finally time for the two to part ways.  Some people, especially those in the military, are being way too dramatic about this.   The average tenure of a SECDEF is 2-3 years, Mattis’s was no different.  The sky isn’t falling. 

Agreed, not really close and it was just too obvious to present a coherent front to the world, Allies and Enemies alike.

The Globalist Establishment (leftist and neocon alike) just doesn't want to admit it but the effort to force Western forms of government, values and economic systems into areas where there are established and VERY different cultures, customs, norms and attitudes is a failure.  These people will work it out based on a multitude of factors and unless we have a direct compelling interest like keeping the flow of commerce in the global commons, defending a strategic ally, directly forestalling / reacting to a humanitarian disaster that will impact us, etc... the bar for long-term engagement with restrictive ROE should be very high.

On Syria, end direct action, shift to assist/advise/supply while negotiating the best end state for the Kurds possible with Assad and the Turks.  Just being realistic, we are not going to keep X thousands of troops and equipment in "Kurdistan" indefinitely, too much money, political and spiritual cost to the American body politic.

On Yemen, stop providing direct support slowly and expand humanitarian aid.  Turn a blind eye to the KSA led war as it stymies an ally of Iran.  Don't like seeing the people of Yemen caught in the middle but that is the least bad option that we have.

On Afghanistan,  slowly privatize the war and withdraw uniformed forces then slowly pull the contractors out.  Three year process but there is nothing to be gained, won or realized and that should be obvious.  Whatever 4 star is in charge over there at the time will tell you the same thing and have been for 15+ years:  we're making progress, be patient, just a few more years and we will turn the corner...   Arm the hell out of the traditionally non-Taliban tribes in the North, expand airpower to a ridiculous extent over the Afghan AOR to whack a mole even more to forestall a precipitous collapse as we withdraw uniformed forces and leave concentrations of private armies to keep portions of Afghanistan "free" and then declare our military operations complete, fund the remaining factions we like as required to re-establish the pre-911 / pre-invasion Northern Alliance / Taliban split in the country.  Best possible outcome.

Draw down the Died, build up the 5th fleet and use that as our deterrence presence.  Establish new bases in the Southern Med / Eastern Europe (Greece, Romania, Bulgaria) to react quickly to an aggression.  Also, deters Russia but could antagonize, difficult needle to thread there.

We have things to get ready for on this side of the world, Europe and in the Pacific (Venezuelan collapse, Chinese challenges to FON in the sea lanes, Russian hybrid warfare, etc..) - it is time to disengage greatly from the ME.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are more or less energy independent now with fracking technology bringing the break even price to a little better than $20 a barrel. The ME oil is east Asia's and Europe's customers now. If the Iranians and KSA lock horns and go after each others oil fields it will be the Chicoms job to get the oil flowing again.  I find this video quite informative. 

BTW, the price for a gallon of gas in OKC is $1.77 give or take.

 

Edited by Prosuper
content

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't even begin to imagine what a military life would be like without the constant deployment cycle.  Would be very strange. 


Unfortunately we will still deploy to that shit hole. The USAF hasn’t left the Middle East since Desert Storm. The boots on the ground will go, but the USAF and USN carrier strike groups aren’t going anywhere.

I’ll concede our overall footprint will probably go down.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Unfortunately we will still deploy to that shit hole. The USAF hasn’t left the Middle East since Desert Storm. The boots on the ground will go, but the USAF and USN carrier strike groups aren’t going anywhere.

I’ll concede our overall footprint will probably go down.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app


Until I hear a president say “I’m withdrawing and recalling all troops from Kuwait” the deployments will do nothing but change location and day to day ery.

It’s hysterical to see this sudden concern for Iranian influences by the same people screaming at us stopping the actual proxy shooting war we are having with them in Yemen against Hezbollah Part II.

Trump is F’ing over the Kurds who did the lifting for us and expected us to back their bid for Independence, just like every president since Bush I.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Lawman said:

Trump is F’ing over the Kurds who did the lifting for us and expected us to back their bid for Independence, just like every president since Bush I.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I hear what you are saying but Kurdish independence backed and essentially imposed by the US is a bridge too far.  

I hate that these loyal allies and decent people in a sea of chaos will not have their own viable nation but by supporting Kurdish independence we are picking a fight with Syria, Iraq, Turkey and Iran.  We want out of the ME not further involvement and forging Kurdistan would be a 100 year war.

9_9_2014_b-pipes-kurdistan-8201_c1-0-293

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anything we do for the Kurds is predicated by what the Turks can stomach. Even though they run northern Iraq more or less with anatomy the Turks always will be a threat to them and visa versa. During the Provide Comfort days we would have to abort our operations whenever Turkey turned off the JTIDS link.  At what lengths did Mattis want to protect the Kurds, lock horns with the Turks and push Erdogen into the Russian camp?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

I hear what you are saying but Kurdish independence backed and essentially imposed by the US is a bridge too far.  

I hate that these loyal allies and decent people in a sea of chaos will not have their own viable nation but by supporting Kurdish independence we are picking a fight with Syria, Iraq, Turkey and Iran.  We want out of the ME not further involvement and forging Kurdistan would be a 100 year war.

 

If that was the choice before you, I'd completely agree. The reality is that we were 100% able to say "The United States does not recognize any unilaterally-declared Kurdish state and will not support the Kurds if they try to do so. At the same time, the United States believes governance of NE Syria is a matter to be resolved through negotiations between the inhabitants of NE Syria and the government in Damascus. Any attempt by Damascus, non-state actors, or external parties [i.e. Turkey, but left unsaid] to change the status quo east of the Euphrates will be strenuously opposed and met by whatever response the president deems necessary." In other words de facto autonomy for the Syrian Kurds similar to what the Iraqi Kurds enjoyed under the umbrella of Op NORTHERN WATCH backed up by calculated ambiguity regarding the means by which we would respond (presumably defensive but not offensive support for the SDF against the Assad regime, continued military support against ISIS or any ISIS 2.0 that rises up), and unspoken diplomatic/trade consequences for Turkey who need not even be named in the statement... While our crack State Department diplomat nerds negotiate a better long term framework.

Of course, Trump doesn't do nuance or anything that doesn't benefit him personally, so I'm not surprised we are where we are. 

Edited by Disco_Nav963
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Vertigo said:

Trump: "You can't quit, because you're fired"

 

The very definition of petulant.

Remind me, how much time did Obama give Mattis when he relieved him of command in CENTCOM?

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

Remind me, how much time did Obama give Mattis when he relieved him of command in CENTCOM?

"According to Leon Panetta, the Obama administration did not place much trust in Mattis because he was perceived as too eager for a military confrontation with Iran."

But Obama was cool with giving Iran $1.7b.  In cash.  As well as releasing $100b in frozen assets.  :bash:

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Further, McCrystal talked smack about Obama (to a reporter, no less!) and was rightly fired.

Mattis talks smack to the President, egged on by the press, and Trump's the one at fault.

Gospel on one hand.

Blasphemy on the other.

 

Farewell, logic and facts.  We hardly knew ye...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, brickhistory said:

Further, McCrystal talked smack about Obama (to a reporter, no less!) and was rightly fired.

Mattis talks smack to the President, egged on by the press, and Trump's the one at fault.

Gospel on one hand.

Blasphemy on the other.

 

Farewell, logic and facts.  We hardly knew ye...

Handled wrong by Obama? Yes? Petulant? No.

Trump "fired" Mattis in a immature act for a perceived personal slight of Mattis quitting.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vertigo said:

Handled wrong by Obama? Yes? Petulant? No.

Trump "fired" Mattis in a immature act for a perceived personal slight of Mattis quitting.

Perceived personal slight? No, it was full on and up front. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Vertigo said:

Handled wrong by Obama? Yes? Petulant? No.

Trump "fired" Mattis in a immature act for a perceived personal slight of Mattis quitting.

Obama "mishandled" and Trump fired as Hillary "mishandled" her TS/SCI (and above) e-mails and I'd be in Leavenworth for doing the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×