I think that US support for the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, begun under Obama and extended under Trump, is the only positive thing the US has done in the middle east since the Iran nuclear deal and turning that territory over to MBS is a formula for disaster. The successes of the Kurdish-led SDF in liberating most of the ISIS Caliphate seems to have happened in spite of Trump, not because of him. I think we should continue our sponsorship of Kurdish efforts to keep that part of Syria liberated and ISIS-free.
Unlike our disastrous War on Terror and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, the neocons had nothing to do with this...it's not an occupation. That vast part of Syria east of the Euphrates, rich in oil and agricultural resources, is now in the hands of the people who live there, free of both Assad's brutal tyranny and the Wahhabist Caliphate of ISIS. How many casualties did this alliance cost us? Five American combatants have been lost, most in accidents, not combat. Why would the US abandon that hard won territory and its people to a war criminal like Assad, whose rule will only add fuel to an ISIS resurgence? Turning the territory over to MBS and his Salafi-Jihadist allies would be similarly disastrous for the area and its people. Why not continue to support it as a self-supporting secular territory that respects all religions and cultures and ensures that ISIS will not rise again there?
We're supposed to be pursuaded that it's okay for Putin to tip the election to his chaos-agent-in-chief Trump because the American government has meddled in the elections of other countries? I don't see the logic in that. American troops massacred villagers in My Lai so it's okay for Putin to massacre civilians in Ukraine and Chechnya?
I think the US/SDF response to the Syrian Army's incursion showed strength rather than vulnerability.
Assad watched as the US did nothing when the Iraqi military took back Kirkuk from the Kurds. And he's taking note of US inaction as Turkey and it's jihadist FSA attack and beseige Afrin. So for Assad it was perhaps a worthwhile gamble to test US commitment to territory east of the Euphrates liberated by the SDF and its local Arab allies. The SDF may be leftist, as we're often reminded, but they're fierce fighters and they're secular: unlike the Turks, they'll never allow Salafi-jihadists to regain power in their those territories again.
For me, US support of the Syrian Kurds is the only bright spot in this administration's foreign policy. By defending eastern Syria from Assad, we're not only able to finish off what remains of ISIS in the Euphrates valley, but we'll deny those hard-won oil and agricultural resources to both Assad and to Sunni fundamentalists supported by Turkey and Saudi Arabia.
I think that this ongoing US/SDF alliance is a long time in the making. Why would the Syrian Kurds sacrifice so many young fighters so far from their traditional homelands if not for some kind of guarantee of protection after the defeat of ISIS. Also, why would the US expend so many resources to conquer all of Syria east of the Euphrates if only to turn it over to Assad after the defeat of ISIS? I think there's probably been an unspoken agreement all along and that the new autonomous regions of Eastern Syria will serve as a reliable way to control the bulk of Syria's oil resources, tamp down a resurgence of Salafi-Jihadists and to block the expansion of Russian/Iranian influence in the area.
For the US, the most appealing quality of the Kurdish SDF may be that it's secular. Not only are they fierce fighters, but they are as mistrustful of the Salafi-jihadists as we are. When the Pentagon supplies them with arms and training, it knows those resources will not be turned against us. They can't say the same for the Turks, who despite their NATO membership have given support to al Nusra, ISIS and jihadist elements of the FSA for years.
Why isn't anybody noting the fact that the bulk of the banned countries (Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen (Houthi) on Trump's list are on the Shia side of the Islamic religious spectrum. All of them are fighting to suppress Salafist Sunni rebellions sponsored by Saudi Arabia and other gulf countries like Qatar and Kuwait. And those Salafist sponsors of global jihad? Not on Trump's list.
Why should anybody be concerned about the Wahhabist extremists of ISIS posing a threat to Saudi Arabia when the Saudi theocracy is the heart of religious extremism in the Middle East? Do they not behead, torture, amputate and even crucify their own citizens? Hasn't Saudi Arabia spent hundreds of millions spreading it's medieval theocratic version of Islam throughout the Muslim world? To me it seems ISIS is like Saudi Arabia without the corrupt monarchy. I'd much prefer to see America focusing its regime-changing energies on helping the people of Saudi Arabia acquire genuine democracy and civil liberties.
More recent examples of murder in the name of Christ can be seen in the Sabra and Shatila massacre carried out by Lebanese Christian Phalangists in 1982 and in the massacres of tens of thousands of Bosnian Muslims by Christian Croats and Serbs in the early 90s.
Your pie chart would be more illuminating if it showed how many of those white Iowans are the conservative ones you mention in your headline. Iowa is a Democrat-leaning blue state with an activist evangelical minority that dominates its Republican primary. This headline/pie chart display gives the impression that the whole state is redder then Oklahoma, which a majority of Iowans would probably find offensive. Texas and the states of the Old South, all of them with diverse racial piecharts, are conservative mainstays. Is there any evidence of a connection between a state's racial composition and its political leanings?
I think that US support for the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, begun under Obama and extended under Trump, is the only positive thing the US has done in the middle east since the Iran nuclear deal and turning that territory over to MBS is a formula for disaster. The successes of the Kurdish-led SDF in liberating most of the ISIS Caliphate seems to have happened in spite of Trump, not because of him. I think we should continue our sponsorship of Kurdish efforts to keep that part of Syria liberated and ISIS-free.
Unlike our disastrous War on Terror and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, the neocons had nothing to do with this...it's not an occupation. That vast part of Syria east of the Euphrates, rich in oil and agricultural resources, is now in the hands of the people who live there, free of both Assad's brutal tyranny and the Wahhabist Caliphate of ISIS. How many casualties did this alliance cost us? Five American combatants have been lost, most in accidents, not combat. Why would the US abandon that hard won territory and its people to a war criminal like Assad, whose rule will only add fuel to an ISIS resurgence? Turning the territory over to MBS and his Salafi-Jihadist allies would be similarly disastrous for the area and its people. Why not continue to support it as a self-supporting secular territory that respects all religions and cultures and ensures that ISIS will not rise again there?
We're supposed to be pursuaded that it's okay for Putin to tip the election to his chaos-agent-in-chief Trump because the American government has meddled in the elections of other countries? I don't see the logic in that. American troops massacred villagers in My Lai so it's okay for Putin to massacre civilians in Ukraine and Chechnya?
I think the US/SDF response to the Syrian Army's incursion showed strength rather than vulnerability.
Assad watched as the US did nothing when the Iraqi military took back Kirkuk from the Kurds. And he's taking note of US inaction as Turkey and it's jihadist FSA attack and beseige Afrin. So for Assad it was perhaps a worthwhile gamble to test US commitment to territory east of the Euphrates liberated by the SDF and its local Arab allies. The SDF may be leftist, as we're often reminded, but they're fierce fighters and they're secular: unlike the Turks, they'll never allow Salafi-jihadists to regain power in their those territories again.
For me, US support of the Syrian Kurds is the only bright spot in this administration's foreign policy. By defending eastern Syria from Assad, we're not only able to finish off what remains of ISIS in the Euphrates valley, but we'll deny those hard-won oil and agricultural resources to both Assad and to Sunni fundamentalists supported by Turkey and Saudi Arabia.
I think that this ongoing US/SDF alliance is a long time in the making. Why would the Syrian Kurds sacrifice so many young fighters so far from their traditional homelands if not for some kind of guarantee of protection after the defeat of ISIS. Also, why would the US expend so many resources to conquer all of Syria east of the Euphrates if only to turn it over to Assad after the defeat of ISIS? I think there's probably been an unspoken agreement all along and that the new autonomous regions of Eastern Syria will serve as a reliable way to control the bulk of Syria's oil resources, tamp down a resurgence of Salafi-Jihadists and to block the expansion of Russian/Iranian influence in the area.
Didn't Turkey serve for years as a major transit hub for ISIS fighters, funds and arms? Chutzpah!
We should probably add cessation of torture, beheading and crucifixion of dissidents to the list of suggested improvements: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/09/saudi-arabia-beheading-crucifixion-nimr/407221/
For the US, the most appealing quality of the Kurdish SDF may be that it's secular. Not only are they fierce fighters, but they are as mistrustful of the Salafi-jihadists as we are. When the Pentagon supplies them with arms and training, it knows those resources will not be turned against us. They can't say the same for the Turks, who despite their NATO membership have given support to al Nusra, ISIS and jihadist elements of the FSA for years.
Why isn't anybody noting the fact that the bulk of the banned countries (Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen (Houthi) on Trump's list are on the Shia side of the Islamic religious spectrum. All of them are fighting to suppress Salafist Sunni rebellions sponsored by Saudi Arabia and other gulf countries like Qatar and Kuwait. And those Salafist sponsors of global jihad? Not on Trump's list.
Why should anybody be concerned about the Wahhabist extremists of ISIS posing a threat to Saudi Arabia when the Saudi theocracy is the heart of religious extremism in the Middle East? Do they not behead, torture, amputate and even crucify their own citizens? Hasn't Saudi Arabia spent hundreds of millions spreading it's medieval theocratic version of Islam throughout the Muslim world? To me it seems ISIS is like Saudi Arabia without the corrupt monarchy. I'd much prefer to see America focusing its regime-changing energies on helping the people of Saudi Arabia acquire genuine democracy and civil liberties.
More recent examples of murder in the name of Christ can be seen in the Sabra and Shatila massacre carried out by Lebanese Christian Phalangists in 1982 and in the massacres of tens of thousands of Bosnian Muslims by Christian Croats and Serbs in the early 90s.
Your pie chart would be more illuminating if it showed how many of those white Iowans are the conservative ones you mention in your headline. Iowa is a Democrat-leaning blue state with an activist evangelical minority that dominates its Republican primary. This headline/pie chart display gives the impression that the whole state is redder then Oklahoma, which a majority of Iowans would probably find offensive. Texas and the states of the Old South, all of them with diverse racial piecharts, are conservative mainstays. Is there any evidence of a connection between a state's racial composition and its political leanings?