Right, great.

So you also know that this isn't just about people dying, right? You also know that people dying is not what the powerbase actually cares about in private, right?

It's simple economics. Stability = more money. If we decided to pull out of the middle east entirely, in all ways, diplomatically, militarily, economically, we (as an entity, the west) would be at an enormous disadvantage. The only reason countries actively engage and attempt to shape the middle east is for financial gain. Nothing else. All the other side effects of that are simply means to an end, used to frame the why in a less cold hearted, sellable, faux-humanitarian package.

I won't deny that on an individual level these people care about such things, but as an entity, the machine does not.

This is why in order to have made this decision you would assume Trump has a plan off the back of it that creates more stability and profit, not less and financial loss. Sanctions are simply going to create a worse scenario that may, ultimately, ironically result in the need for more military intervention. Russia will also gain more of a foothold and then you're in a whole new situation. Just because 'we' back out doesn't mean others will? Very closed minded, overly simplistic way of interpreting global politics and power.

Also I'll answer my own question on whether he has thought this through. No. Despite all the advice to the contrary.

No-one was dying before he pulled out, there was a low level of military presence in the area and things were in a far better place.

Edited by SW19 CPFC (11 Oct 2019 2.19pm)

Right, great.

So you also know that this isn't just about people dying, right? You also know that people dying is not what the powerbase actually cares about in private, right?

It's simple economics. Stability = more money. If we decided to pull out of the middle east entirely, in all ways, diplomatically, militarily, economically, we (as an entity, the west) would be at an enormous disadvantage. The only reason countries actively engage and attempt to shape the middle east is for financial gain. Nothing else. All the other side effects of that are simply means to an end, used to frame the why in a less cold hearted, sellable, faux-humanitarian package.

I won't deny that on an individual level these people care about such things, but as an entity, the machine does not.

This is why in order to have made this decision you would assume Trump has a plan off the back of it that creates more stability and profit, not less and financial loss. Sanctions are simply going to create a worse scenario that may, ultimately, ironically result in the need for more military intervention. Russia will also gain more of a foothold and then you're in a whole new situation. Just because 'we' back out doesn't mean others will? Very closed minded, overly simplistic way of interpreting global politics and power.

Also I'll answer my own question on whether he has thought this through. No. Despite all the advice to the contrary.

No-one was dying before he pulled out, there was a low level of military presence in the area and things were in a far better place.

Edited by SW19 CPFC (11 Oct 2019 2.19pm)

You don't seem to have understood the point. Washing ones hands of involvement in the region will most likely cause more issues, not less, for his own people than a more strategic withdrawal and ongoing diplomacy.

If he ends up having to go back in with military intervention, or ends up with more involvement in the region than if he'd simply stuck to the previous approach in order to tidy up the mess he created... To prevent long-term economic damage to the US and limit the growing influence of Russia and China in the region, then that will be the fullest validation of the point I am trying to make.

If he has some grand plan that we simply can't see because of his 'Great and unmatched wisdom'(oh dear leader) and this plays out that he accomplishes the above without doing so, then fair play. Let's see what happens.

On positives – I do see plenty of sense in his China strategy, again, providing he implements it properly and doesn't fly off the rails. So there's that.

Nope. He's taken the decision despite advice to the contrary from people who know what they are doing on this particular issue, and the decision is a bad one. It's a simple as that. That's not a partisan point of view, it's a shared one.

The underlying sentiment I agree with – reduce military presence in the region. But do it in an intelligent way. Not a reactive one. This isn't a business transaction.

It's pretty simple, really.

'We' did, but it was a mutually beneficial agreement. And so what? What's your point? 'We' also have history with them, WWII, for example. No one, well at least I'm not saying he shouldn't have a plan to move out or decrease involvement, but there are more intelligent ways to do so.

And your point about 'fronting up' – he may well have to do so as a result of the decisions he is taking, yes. That's on him.

And yes, he had a choice to use diplomacy and intelligence. He didn't, and he therefore doesn't have a choice now. There are times and situations where tact is required. He has none. Works well sometimes (China), backfires badly elsewhere (now).

Jumping to conclusions without the bigger picture is too easy.
How do you know what Trump did or didn't do?

The simple fact is that America cannot physically stop Turkey from invading a neighbour.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (11 Oct 2019 6.14pm)