Tillerson: US military will have long-term presence in Iraq

[undergroundrr]

Identical to Hillary.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/22/tillerson-admits-iraq-war-actually-going-to-last-a-long-time/#ixzz4cAyG9jug


Tillerson Admits Iraq War Actually Going To Last A Long Time

WILL RACKE
5:16 PM 03/22/2017

President Donald Trump entered office promising to avoid costly nation-building efforts overseas, but his administration appears willing to deploy significant military resources to “stabilization” in Iraq after the Islamic State is driven from the country.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Wednesday U.S. forces will remain in Iraq following the military defeat of ISIS, whenever that happens, the Washington Examiner reported. Troops would stay in place in to prevent ISIS militants from re-establishing a foothold in the country.

“The military power of the coalition will remain where this fraudulent caliphate has existed in order to set the conditions for a full recovery from the tyranny of ISIS,” Tillerson said at the Department of State.

Many Republicans and national security hawks criticized former President Barack Obama for withdrawing troops from Iraq in 2011, which they said allowed ISIS to emerge and overrun large swathes of the politically fragile country. Trump has hit his predecessor for the same reason, but has also characterized the decision to invade Iraq in the first place as one of the worst U.S. foreign policy blunders ever.

Tillerson’s announcement signals yet another change of course for the administration’s long-term plans in Iraq, though the secretary emphasized that post-ISIS operations would not constitute “nation-building,” a term that has fallen out of favor in the wake of U.S.-led military quagmires in the greater Middle East.

“Local leaders and local governments will take on the process of restoring their communities in the wake of ISIS with our support,” Tillerson said. “The development of a rejuvenated civil society in these places will lead to a disenfranchisement of ISIS and the emergence of stability and peace where there was once chaos and suffering.” (RELATED: Trump Won’t Work With Russia Against ISIS in Syria)

The commitment to a long-term troop presence in Iraq comes as the administration is stepping up force deployment to Syria to combat ISIS in that country. A comprehensive strategy has not been announced publicly, but the White House and Defense Department are reportedly considering sending 1,000 troops to support an offensive against the ISIS-held city of Raqqa.

[CPUd]

Hopefully the Congress will help to maintain oversight on defense contracts:
Lawmakers want Trump commitment to help Iraq post-ISIS (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?508835-Lawmakers-want-Trump-commitment-to-help-Iraq-post-ISIS)

[CaptUSA]

Oh my... "Set the conditions for a full recovery from the tyranny of ISIS"???!!

Who is going to set the conditions for the recovery of all this freedom we're dropping on them?

[CPUd]

Oh my... "Set the conditions for a full recovery from the tyranny of ISIS"???!!

Who is going to set the conditions for the recovery of all this freedom we're dropping on them?

Well now we have extreme vetting, so after we fight them over there, they won't be able to come here.

[dannno]

That's what he thinks.

[CaptUSA]

That's what he thinks.

Is Tillerson another Deep-Stater?

[timosman]

Oh my... "Set the conditions for a full recovery from the tyranny of ISIS"???!!

Who is going to set the conditions for the recovery of all this freedom we're dropping on them?

The best behaved citizens get a prize. A relocation package to US of A! All expenses paid by the US taxpayers.:cool:

[dannno]

Is Tillerson another Deep-Stater?

Well if he thinks Trump will find it acceptable to spend all the money and have all those lives ruined in Iraq without making any progress, then he has another thing coming.

[CaptUSA]

Well if he thinks Trump will find it acceptable to spend all the money and have all those lives ruined in Iraq without making any progress, then he has another thing coming.

The easy answer is, "Yes." Yes, he is just as much a part of the deep state, establishment, PTB, shadow government... as the rest of them. In their minds, they're "protecting America's interests" with all this Middle East BS. They'll change the names a bunch, but the results will be the same. Taliban, Al Qaeda, ISIS... Just different words for people who won't get in line. But hey, as long as we increase spending on our military, we should be fine. Because the guy in charge, who surrounds himself with these people, is different.

[undergroundrr]

Well if he thinks Trump will find it acceptable to spend all the money and have all those lives ruined in Iraq without making any progress, then he has another thing coming.

It's just a test. If it doesn't work, Tillerson will get fired.

[TheCount]

Well if he thinks Trump will find it acceptable to spend all the money and have all those lives ruined in Iraq without making any progress, then he has another thing coming.

What flavor is that Kool-aid?

[undergroundrr]

Taliban, Al Qaeda, ISIS... Just different words for people who won't get in line.

LOL, what will trump's blowback-generated terrorist organization be called? Can't wait to find out. Rubio will have his hands full in the Middle East in 2029 and the Deep State will be delighted with that.

[dannno]

The easy answer is, "Yes." Yes, he is just as much a part of the deep state, establishment, PTB, shadow government... as the rest of them. In their minds, they're "protecting America's interests" with all this Middle East BS. They'll change the names a bunch, but the results will be the same. Taliban, Al Qaeda, ISIS... Just different words for people who won't get in line. But hey, as long as we increase spending on our military, we should be fine. Because the guy in charge, who surrounds himself with these people, is different.

Like I've said before, there are good people and bad people in the deep state. The apparatus as a whole is evil, but not every individual involved in the deep state is a bad person.

Was Michael Flynn part of the deep state? If so, why did they take him out? Or do you think he was part of the Russian deep state?

[dannno]

It's just a test. If it doesn't work, Tillerson will get fired.


What flavor is that Kool-aid?

Have either of you ever worked in the free market for an organization that had longterm profitability?

If you have, you would know this is incredibly commonplace. To think that it is a stretch Trump would do something like this would have to come from someone who has never worked in the free market for a company with longterm profitability.

[nikcers]

Have either of you ever worked in the free market for an organization that had longterm profitability?

If you have, you would know this is incredibly commonplace. To think that it is a stretch Trump would do something like this would have to come from someone who has never worked in the free market for a company with longterm profitability.
Where's this mythical free market you are talking about?

[undergroundrr]

Have either of you ever worked in the free market for an organization that had longterm profitability?

Yes. Longterm profitability is a result of good decision-making, not spending trillions on something and seeing if it sticks.

[dannno]

Where's this mythical free market you are talking about?

The one where people voluntarily buy your goods or services, as opposed to where they are coerced.

Sure, we don't have a pure free market and pretty much every company faces regulatory burdens and such - but there is a big difference between working for the government or a company that receives huge government subsidies or privileges and working for a company that actually has to work against regulations and make a profit in order to exist.

[dannno]

Yes. Longterm profitability is a result of good decision-making, not spending trillions on something and seeing if it sticks.

Precisely.

That is why Trump is not going to let this go on for too long.

If you don't think that is true, then you don't have much experience with business leaders like Donald Trump. I've spent my entire career working very closely with CEOs and CFOs, in some cases I am their right-hand man. I am extremely familiar with how people like Trump operate. (I've never got coffee or run food errands either so we can avoid those jokes)

[nikcers]

The one where people voluntarily buy your goods or services, as opposed to where they are coerced.

Sure, we don't have a pure free market and pretty much every company faces regulatory burdens and such - but there is a big difference between working for the government or a company that receives huge government subsidies or privileges and working for a company that actually has to work against regulations and make a profit in order to exist. I am under the impression that we are under a protectionist government, that is literally controlling the price of oil by installing forces in the middle east next to the gulf states, its illegal for US companies to cut back oil production but we force the entire world market to bow before our petrol dollar and to further push that goal we are occupying babylon for an indefinite amount of time and you are going to tell me we have a free market?

[dannno]

I am under the impression that we are under a protectionist government, that is literally controlling the price of oil by installing forces in the middle east next to the gulf states, its illegal for US companies to cut back oil production but we force the entire world market to bow before our petrol dollar and to further push that goal we are occupying babylon for an indefinite amount of time and you are going to tell me we have a free market?

*whooosh*

[undergroundrr]

dannno. At least in regards to foreign policy, I can shout out a more hearty "I hope you're right" to you than anyone else on RPF.

However, so far all we've seen is bad decision-making by trump and his MIC staff.

[CPUd]

Tillerson Bumbles Around Asia

The secretary of state’s first big trip abroad did not go well.
By ELY RATNER March 20, 2017


The Trump team’s early forays into Asia couldn’t have gone better. In early February, Defense Secretary James Mattis received high praise for his trip to Tokyo and Seoul, reassuring nervous allies that the Trump administration would continue decades of American leadership in Asia. A week later, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe braved a visit to the White House and was rewarded with President Donald Trump reaffirming the importance of the U.S.-Japan alliance.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was poised to ride this momentum into Northeast Asia last week, but instead sustained a series of self-inflicted wounds. Before even departing Washington, he broke tradition by not inviting the State Department press corps on his plane, needlessly damaging relations with the media and forgoing the opportunity to better explain the contours of his mission. (“I’m not a big media press access person,” he said later, as if the only purpose of talking to reporters would be to serve his own agenda. “I personally don’t need it.”)

He then decided against a visit to the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo in what would have been a simple and routine gesture to thank his overseas diplomats for their hard work. On his next stop in Seoul, Tillerson reportedly snubbed his hosts by turning down a dinner invitation due to what a South Korean official later descried as “fatigue.” Even as the secretary dismissed this characterization—a day later, because there was no American press around to rebut the claim—the occurrence of such a misunderstanding at all between two close allies was itself remarkable.

All this would have been bad enough. But Tillerson’s final act in Beijing was the most controversial and potentially damaging. Before meeting with Foreign Minister Wang Yi, the U.S. secretary of state parroted well-known Chinese Communist Party slogans, avowing that the United States and China have “a very positive relationship built on non-confrontation, no conflict, mutual respect and always searching for win-win solutions.” As if to underscore the point, he repeated them again after the meeting. The passages were nearly identical to President Xi Jinping’s own words standing aside President Barack Obama in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing in November 2014.

While it’s easy to dismiss these phrases as diplomatic pablum, you can be sure that China’s leaders took note. As U.S. diplomats know, terms like “mutual respect” and “nonconfrontation” are code in Beijing for U.S. accommodation of a Chinese sphere of influence in Asia, requiring that the United States back off and respect China’s demands over issues including Taiwan, Tibet, the South China Sea and regional dominance more broadly. As for “win-win,” there’s a well-known joke among China experts that what it really means is China wins twice.

No surprise then, that the populist state-run newspaper Global Times raved that Tillerson had shown “unprecedented positive tendencies,” moderating his tone on North Korea and rightfully prioritizing U.S.-China relations over other thorny issues. Tillerson may have been more pointed in private, but repeating these phrases publicly signaled to China—and, don’t forget, America’s nervous allies and partners throughout Asia—that the Trump administration was willfully or unintentionally bowing to Beijing’s conception of a China-led region. (When pressed at the State Department’s daily briefing on Monday, acting spokesperson Mark Toner said of Tillerson: “He was aware of his word choice.”) Chinese analysts were quick to point out that Tillerson’s comments “will undermine U.S. authority among its allies” by exacerbating a persistent concern in Asia that Washington will ultimately capitulate to China’s rise. This comes after other actions by the Trump administration—such as withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement and remaining silent on Chinese provocations in the South China Sea—that are amplifying China’s influence at America’s expense.

Tillerson’s mishap also revealed ongoing deficiencies in the Trump administration, including a genuine lack of Asia expertise among senior officials that is being magnified by the perpetuation of skeleton staffs at key national security agencies. Secretary Mattis had a more successful maiden trip to the region in part because he conveyed continuity in U.S. policy, likely aided by his decades of government experience. Mattis has also been known to roam the halls of the Pentagon to get more details from mid-level career officials who penned his background briefings, while Tillerson is reportedly asking for rudimentary two-page memos and shunning his bureaucracy. To make matters worse, the State Department still has neither a deputy secretary nor an assistant secretary for Asia, the two most important posts covering the region in the Obama administration. Moreover, the lack of coordination and process inside the White House has exposed an administration that is far behind in developing a coherent approach to Asia, suffering instead from careless and contradictory messaging.

The good news is they will inevitably get another bite at the apple. Among Secretary Tillerson’s principal charges in Beijing was to lay the groundwork for President Xi to visit the United States in early April. The Trump administration still has the chance to define its own way forward for U.S.-China policy, which became overly tilted toward acquiescence in the final years of the Obama administration. Trump’s tough comments on the campaign trail suggest a president ready to reset the goalposts toward a policy less permissive of Chinese assertiveness and unfair trade practices. That could be a good thing.

But Tillerson’s flap in Beijing demonstrated that the administration remains ill-prepared to handle a leader-level meeting with China. As acting Assistant Secretary of State Susan Thornton acknowledged in her preview of the trip, it’s still “early days” in the Trump administration and much remains to be resolved on Asia policy. To avoid another damaging interaction with China, any such presidential summit should be postponed for at least another month until national security adviser Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster—whose experience is primarily fighting wars in the Middle East—has had the chance to run a comprehensive interagency process to put America’s China policy in good order. As it stands, this simply isn’t possible without a deputy secretary of state or undersecretary of defense for policy. Narrow policy reviews on singular issues like North Korea and trade reciprocity cannot substitute for a comprehensive, coherent and coordinated approach to a massive subject like China. Until then, it is premature to welcome President Xi to the United States.

In addition, a senior U.S. official should give a major speech prior to any Xi visit outlining the administration’s approach to Asia. Keeping the region guessing about Washington’s intentions and priorities is leading to all sorts of unhelpful behavior as countries increasingly look to China in the face of a mercurial and unpredictable United States. Australia, one of America’s closest allies, is Exhibit A for the kind of troubling and unprecedented debates that are emerging about whether it is time to prepare for a China-led future, as Australia’s revered former ambassador to China argued last week in Sydney. Without greater explication, a highly scripted Trump-Xi meeting, as it assuredly would be, would only reinforce these trends.

If delaying the meeting proves impossible, it is imperative that the visit be confined to Washington, not held at Mar-a-Lago, as currently rumored. Hosting Xi in Florida would trade substance for fete, feed the narrative of U.S. obeisance to China, and hazardously shower Xi with prestige and legitimacy. This would constitute a far greater foul than anything Tillerson said in Beijing.

The Trump administration will get a do-over on China policy when Xi eventually visits. But this shouldn’t be rushed. Senior posts first need to be filled at State and Defense. Public statements have to be consistent and coordinated. A China strategy should be developed, embedded in a comprehensive approach to the region. The media has to be more effectively managed to shape and sell the message. And the administration needs to spell out its overall approach to Asia to build confidence that it knows what it is doing. As of today, Trump isn’t ready for Xi, and Tillerson’s rhetorical blunder should serve as a wake-up call that there’s still work to do on several fronts.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/tillerson-bumbles-around-asia-214936

[surf]

freedumb

[jmdrake]

That's what he thinks.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Dcau3GJuoqw/hqdefault.jpg

[CPUd]

http://i.imgur.com/gAnHPim.png