U.S.'s Bolton says Turkey must not attack Kurdish fighters once U.S. leaves Syria

[webfact]

U.S.'s Bolton says Turkey must not attack Kurdish fighters once U.S. leaves Syria

By Steve Holland

 

FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump's national security adviser John Bolton speaks during a press briefing at the White House in Washington, U.S., November 27, 2018. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo

 

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - White House national security adviser John Bolton added a new condition on Sunday to the U.S. withdrawal from Syria, saying Turkey must agree to protect the United States' Kurdish allies.

 

President Donald Trump's abrupt decision to announce a U.S. pullout from Syria left many questions open, chiefly whether Kurdish fighters who had been operating in northern Syria alongside U.S. forces would now be attacked by their long-time enemy, Turkey.

 

Bolton, on a trip to Israel and Turkey, said he would stress in talks with Turkish officials, including President Tayyip Erdogan, that Kurdish forces must be protected.

 

Ahead of talks with Israeli officials, he told reporters the pullout would be done in a way that guaranteed the Islamic State jihadist group "is defeated and is not able to revive itself and become a threat again."

 

And it would be carried out in such a way as to "make sure that the defense of Israel and our other friends in the region is absolutely assured, and to take care of those who have fought with us against ISIS and other terrorist groups."

 

Asked whether a U.S. withdrawal would not take place in Syria until Turkey guaranteed the Kurdish fighters would be safe, Bolton said: "Basically, that's right."

 

The Syrian YPG militia has been highly effective in the war against Islamic State, a part of the wider Syrian conflict pitting a range of insurgent groups against President Bashar al-Assad's forces and sometimes against each other.

 

But Turkey has long castigated Washington for its military relationship with the YPG. Ankara regards the YPG an extension of the PKK, a Kurdish armed group that has waged an insurgency in southeast Turkey for over three decades.

 

"PRESIDENT'S REQUIREMENT"

"We don't think the Turks ought to undertake military action that's not fully coordinated with and agreed to by the United States at a minimum," Bolton said, "so they don't endanger our troops, but also so that they meet the president's requirement that the Syrian opposition forces that have fought with us are not endangered."

 

The YPG has indicated that it might seek a deal with Damascus after the U.S. forces have gone.

 

Bolton, who will travel to Turkey on Monday, said the United States would talk to Ankara to find out what its objectives and capabilities were.

 

Erdogan's spokesman Ibrahim Kalin said Turkey's targets were the YPG, the PKK and Islamic State.

 

"One aim of Turkey's fight against the PKK and its Syrian extensions is to rescue the Kurds from the cruelty and oppression of this terrorist group," state-owned Anadolu news agency quoted Kalin as saying, in comments that emerged after Bolton made his remarks.

 

"Turkey will continue decisively its efforts to end the war, provide security, and implement the process of political transition without discriminating between our Syrian brothers on the basis of religion, ethnicity or sect," Kalin said.

 

In Washington on Sunday, Trump reiterated that the United States would be pulling its troops out of Syria but suggested the move might not happen soon.

 

"I never said we are doing it that quickly. But we are decimating ISIS," Trump told reporters.

 

Later on Sunday Bolton met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and reassured Israel and other allies of the United States' commitment to their security.

 

(Additional reporting by Daren Butler in Istanbul and Jeffrey Heller in Jerusalem; Editing by Angus MacSwan and Kevin Liffey)

 

-- © Copyright Thai Visa News 2019-01-07

[bristolboy]

Bizarre Headline. Should read

"Contradicting Trump, Bolton Places Conditions on US Withdrawal From Syria"

 

[stevenl]

" Asked whether a U.S. withdrawal would not take place in Syria until Turkey guaranteed the Kurdish fighters would be safe, Bolton said: "Basically, that's right." "

 

So what would happen if Turkey decides to go after the Kurds after all once the US troops are gone, send those troops back in and attack the Turks?

[Enoon]

42 minutes ago, stevenl said:

" Asked whether a U.S. withdrawal would not take place in Syria until Turkey guaranteed the Kurdish fighters would be safe, Bolton said: "Basically, that's right." "

 

So what would happen if Turkey decides to go after the Kurds after all once the US troops are gone, send those troops back in and attack the Turks?

 

Way back when mission was "accomplished" there then arose a range of possibilities about what would happen next.....and what would happen after that.

 

At the end of the line of dominoes (ha-ha) was the one marked "Independent Kurdish State (sprung from the ruins of shattered Iraq) supports Kurdish separatists/unificationists/pan-nationalists in Turkey".   Which would have raised the question:

 

"What does NATO do when a Kurdish state (born of US intervention/sponsorship and a notional "friendly") becomes an "aggressor" against one of it's members?"

 

It seems we may be in/near something like that situation now.

 

I don't know what will happen.....I only saw the possibility.........way back when.

 

 

 

 

[stevenl]

24 minutes ago, Enoon said:

 

Way back when mission was "accomplished" there then arose a range of possibilities about what would happen next.....and what would happen after that.

 

At the end of the line of dominoes (ha-ha) was the one marked "Independent Kurdish State (sprung from the ruins of shattered Iraq) supports Kurdish separatists/unificationists/pan-nationalists in Turkey".   Which would have raised the question:

 

"What does NATO do when a Kurdish state (born of US intervention and a notional "friendly") becomes an "aggressor" against one of it's members?"

 

It seems we may be in/near something like that situation now.

 

I don't know what will happen.....I only saw the possibility.........way back when.

 

 

 

 

""What does NATO do when a Kurdish state (born of US intervention and a notional "friendly") becomes an "aggressor" against one of it's members?""

If that happens NATO will allow Turkey to slaughter the Kurds. Also if that doesn't happen NATO will allow the Turks to slaughter the Kurds, which will very likely happen anyway.

[bendejo]

1 hour ago, webfact said:

Turkey must agree to protect the United States' Kurdish allies.

 

Yes, of course.

You go now yes?  gule gule!

 

 

[Hanaguma]

Actually, the real questions are: how many British/American lives is a good price to keep the Kurds safe?

                                               what connection is there between Kurdistan and the national security of the US?

 

I think the answers are "zero" and "zero". The sooner the better to go home.

[Emdog]

23 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Actually, the real questions are: how many British/American lives is a good price to keep the Kurds safe?

                                               what connection is there between Kurdistan and the national security of the US?

 

I think the answers are "zero" and "zero". The sooner the better to go home.

How many British/American lives were saved keeping the Brits & Yanks safe by Kurds during war with Saddam and ISIS? Quite a few I would hazard.... Kurds kicked butt in both of those events

[rudi49jr]

28 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Actually, the real questions are: how many British/American lives is a good price to keep the Kurds safe?

                                               what connection is there between Kurdistan and the national security of the US?

 

I think the answers are "zero" and "zero". The sooner the better to go home.

what connection is there between Kurdistan and the national security of the US? Jeez, I don't know, how about if the Kurds hadn't been there, most of Syria and Iraq would now be under IS rule? Do you think that would be in the interest of US national security?

[farcanell]

1 hour ago, Hanaguma said:

Actually, the real questions are: how many British/American lives is a good price to keep the Kurds safe?

                                               what connection is there between Kurdistan and the national security of the US?

 

I think the answers are "zero" and "zero". The sooner the better to go home.

Lol... or answer three, of many more, I would suspect;

 

what were US and allied forces doing in Iraq in the first place, which allied them to the kurds

.

[farcanell]

1 hour ago, Hanaguma said:

Actually, the real questions are: how many British/American lives is a good price to keep the Kurds safe?

                                               what connection is there between Kurdistan and the national security of the US?

 

I think the answers are "zero" and "zero". The sooner the better to go home.

Or.... how many lives does it take to support your allies?

less, I suspect, than in betraying your allies.... in the short term at least.

this then leads to the question of US security, which you raise, to wit..... how many lives does it cost to maintain established alliances, which may be needed in future conflicts elsewhere in the world.

[Srikcir]

3 hours ago, webfact said:

the pullout would be done in a way that guaranteed the Islamic State jihadist group "is defeated and is not able to revive itself and become a threat again."

In other words No Timetable.

Bolton may have in part been motivated by the sudden resignation of the Chief of Staff to the Department of Defense and possibly more high ranking resignations over Trump's plans for an immediate withdrawal from the Middle East.

It may take a couple days until Fox personalities and Rush L. get Trump to understand what Bolton has done - back stabbed Trump's foreign policy made to his base.

Bolton may be gone before February unless perhaps held over until Trump's summit meeting with Kim.

[farcanell]

1 hour ago, Hanaguma said:

Actually, the real questions are: how many British/American lives is a good price to keep the Kurds safe?

                                               what connection is there between Kurdistan and the national security of the US?

 

I think the answers are "zero" and "zero". The sooner the better to go home.

Or... how many lives does it take to maintain your international credibility.

 

oh... and in posing the question, the implication might be seen as suggestive of a high number to date.... the numbers are one Brit and five US in four years, which is probably a safer way to spend your military career than being caught in a training cycle, which killed 80 Americans in the last year recorded

[farcanell]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

 

As the media's coverage of the war and that of the Pentagon diverged, a so-called credibility gap developed.^[236] Despite Johnson and Westmoreland publicly proclaiming victory was being achieved, with Westmoreland divulging that the "end is coming into view"

 

So..... After US desertion of its allies, the south Vietnamese (in a war American citizens said wasn’t worth US deaths), over 250,000 Vietnamese lost their lives fleeing the incoming VC armies.

 

and.... 40 plus years later, trump proclaims victory in Syria.... amid a credibility crisis, with his acolytes claiming that the end of ISIS is coming into view.

 

we know it didn’t work out well for abandoned American allies in 1975.... and by extension, why on earth would anyone think it will end any differently for abandoned allies in 2019?

 

in between was the interference in Afghanistan, amongst other failed US international initiatives..... so who can you trust? Obviously not the US.... which seemingly, is being yet again.

[puipuitom]

Happily for the Kurds, the mightiest economy in the world, the EU, will defend them. As they do not have a real working army, as their finances go to Putin-Russia to pay for gas & oil to finance HIS war machine, and therefore leans on the US war machine paid by the US tax payers, they cannot bring in more as flaming protest notes to support the flaming Kurdish light weaponry. 

[Hanaguma]

1 hour ago, farcanell said:

Lol... or answer three, of many more, I would suspect;

 

what were US and allied forces doing in Iraq in the first place, which allied them to the kurds

.

That is an excellent question. Big mistake IMHO.  If the goal was to kill Hussein, just should have killed the bastard and then moved on. The whole "nation building" concept is an exercise in futility.  

[Hanaguma]

1 hour ago, farcanell said:

Or.... how many lives does it take to support your allies?

less, I suspect, than in betraying your allies.... in the short term at least.

this then leads to the question of US security, which you raise, to wit..... how many lives does it cost to maintain established alliances, which may be needed in future conflicts elsewhere in the world.

No allies in the Middle East, only partners of convenience. Let Syria fight ISIS.  "International credibility" is not worth one drop of blood.  There is no security risk to the US if Syria and Turkey take up the slack against Iran and ISIS. 

 

What "established alliances" are at risk if the US pulls its troops out of Syria?  The whole place is a huge tar baby.  It reminds me of cop shows where the police show up for a domestic disturbance call. They see a man beating his woman and pull him off. Rather than be greatful, the woman then lays into the cop, yelling "leave my man alone!" The ME is the same. No gratitude for trying to be the good guy.  

 

Besides, the US has plenty of air power and sea power/carrier groups in the area if they need to lay a beating on anyone. Far better than troops in the sand getting nothing accomplished.

[farcanell]

3 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

That is an excellent question. Big mistake IMHO.  If the goal was to kill Hussein, just should have killed the bastard and then moved on. The whole "nation building" concept is an exercise in futility.  

Oh.... was that the “goal”?

[joecoolfrog]

6 hours ago, stevenl said:

" Asked whether a U.S. withdrawal would not take place in Syria until Turkey guaranteed the Kurdish fighters would be safe, Bolton said: "Basically, that's right." "

 

So what would happen if Turkey decides to go after the Kurds after all once the US troops are gone, send those troops back in and attack the Turks?

Nothing will happen because the Turks will have given Trump an arms deal , that will make them untouchable.

[stevenl]

7 minutes ago, joecoolfrog said:

Nothing will happen because the Turks will have given Trump an arms deal , that will make them untouchable.

Arms deal or not, I agree nothing will happen. No way will they send troops back in, let alone to attack a NATO ally.

[farcanell]

3 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

No allies in the Middle East, only partners of convenience. Let Syria fight ISIS.  "International credibility" is not worth one drop of blood.  There is no security risk to the US if Syria and Turkey take up the slack against Iran and ISIS. 

 

What "established alliances" are at risk if the US pulls its troops out of Syria?  The whole place is a huge tar baby.  It reminds me of cop shows where the police show up for a domestic disturbance call. They see a man beating his woman and pull him off. Rather than be greatful, the woman then lays into the cop, yelling "leave my man alone!" The ME is the same. No gratitude for trying to be the good guy.  

 

Besides, the US has plenty of air power and sea power/carrier groups in the area if they need to lay a beating on anyone. Far better than troops in the sand getting nothing accomplished.

Pretty sure isreal is more of an ally than a partner of convenience. 

 

But anyway, whilst abandoning partners of convenience, once they have served their purpose, is pretty shameful, they are not who I’m thinking of, but rather those potential minor alliances ( that’s a more respectful term, I think) of the future, which might be significant to saving lives in future conflicts, as they have in past conflicts.... not to mention existing mainstream allies, which should examine the reliability of US alliances.... especially when they might become unconvienient at some stage.

 

in examining these alliances, foreign powers must then consider different alliances, with different actors.... this could have an impact on US security in the future, as well as an impact on US trade, as existing markets seek to realign with more reliable partners.... so it could be a matter of swapping a little immediate pain, for a ton of long term pain.

 

anyway... you assume turkey and Syria will pick up the slack in fighting ISIS... I fail to see why, as Russia is lurking, and will definitely want to increase its sphere of influence ( that’s what this is about... international influence).... but if they fail.... and if Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine, Qatar, Iran and Iraq (almost all not big fans of the US), for example, join forces and oppose the established order, what then?

 

what then.... is a significant threat to US security.... and totally plausible..... ergo international credibility or trust and reliability, is very important, and worth blood.... much as in the days of old, when reputation was all and oath breakers were shunned, America could in future be shunned for its repetitive faithlessness... and could bleed for that faithlessness. 

 

also... trying to be seen as the good guy is a self fellating joke... the US isn’t trying to be the good guy here, that’s diriculous... maybe you could claim that if the coalition was a nato controlled effort, but it’s not

 

and by the way, your last comment arguable underscores the claims that it’s the US which is most seriously in breach of non proliferation treaties, not Russia, as trump claims.... y’all sure do like your reach arounds... just like trumps latest state of emergency reach around for his wall.

 

your comment.... “if they need to lay a beating on anyone” is rather disturbing. It kind of reminds me of imperial Rome, sending its legions to quell minor tribes, using extreme force with impunity.... impunity is not something that fits in the 21st century, imho.... and I see the concept as shameful.... but that’s just me

[Hanaguma]

3 hours ago, farcanell said:

Oh.... was that the “goal”?

Good question... personally, I think it was Bush the Younger trying to finish what Bush the Elder started, trying to erase the presumed 'stain' on his father's memory.  Afghanistan was even less defensible. There is NO compelling US interest in doing anything but leaving that misbegotten hellhole of a country alone. The British learned that. The Soviets (eventually) learned also.  It is the height of arrogance to assume a different outcome.

[LomSak27]

Please

 

Purty Please, don't do anything bad, cause we might have to respond to, or make a public statement about it. Otherwise we don't give a flying hockey puck. Gas em, cluster bomb em, we don't care. 

[sammieuk1]

All I can say is Bolton must be a right knob to expect Erdog wont try to annihilate the Kurds its part of what he faked his own coup for Gulen and the Kurds????

[lvr181]

About as much chance as "Night must not follow day"!!

[farcanell]

31 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Good question... personally, I think it was Bush the Younger trying to finish what Bush the Elder started, trying to erase the presumed 'stain' on his father's memory.  Afghanistan was even less defensible. There is NO compelling US interest in doing anything but leaving that misbegotten hellhole of a country alone. The British learned that. The Soviets (eventually) learned also.  It is the height of arrogance to assume a different outcome.

So.... nothing to do with the war on terror and states sponsoring terror, which cost 3000 American lives on 9/11, then?

 

and the same with taking the fight to terrorists on foreign soil in Syria, to prevent further terror attacks against soft US domestic targets... these are not a part of your equation, then?

 

[Ulic]

The Turks will make all the promises the US wants and once they leave Turkey will do as it pleases, end of story. 

[Tug]

It’s all bs when the Kurds get slaughtered Donald will start his fake news rant he doesent are about anything hell he just furloughed 800,000 Americans that’s our Donald 

[Baerboxer]

9 hours ago, stevenl said:

""What does NATO do when a Kurdish state (born of US intervention and a notional "friendly") becomes an "aggressor" against one of it's members?""

If that happens NATO will allow Turkey to slaughter the Kurds. Also if that doesn't happen NATO will allow the Turks to slaughter the Kurds, which will very likely happen anyway.

 

NATO, which includes the US and Turkey, could as a body expel Turkey for violations against the Kurds - especially genocide or ethnic cleansing attempts. Arguably, that could drive Turkey into Vlad's waiting arms. 

 

My late father used to say in the 1980's that the next world war flash point would be the Middle East not Eastern Europe with NATO v Warsaw Pact cold war. Maybe he'll be right.

[JemJem]

Syrian Kurds have had a major piece of bad luck factor_Turkey's being a NATO member. The Syrian Army for sure would have attacked Erdogan's forces if Turkey weren't a NATO member. Would Erdogan's forces have been any match for the war-hardened Assad's forces ? Maybe yes but maybe not. I am quite sure that Erdogan would have had a difficult time dealing with the Syrian Army and the YPG at the same time.

 

It is a shame that Erdogan doesn't get the harsh response he should have been getting long ago. I guess most of us are aware of the reasons for that_mainly, Erdogan's 'refugee/migrant card' and the West's not wanting to lose out on military and other sales to Turkey.

 

In an ideal world, sanctions would have been imposed on this guy long ago.

 

And, the world seems to have given up on Turkey. For example, Myanmar's two jailed Reuter journalists seem to be getting some international media coverage (which they should get of course), whereas hardly any of the dozens of jailed journalists (and other activists) in Turkey has gotten any decent media coverage, especially recently.

 

Sometimes, sadly, fascism wins, as has been the case with Erdogan. Will things turn around in Turkey ? To be honest, unfortunately, I don't see that happening anytime soon (and this 'soon' might mean many many years). Sad !