the issue is that there seems to be a trend where when a politician comes out against certain forms of intervention they start to become labelled as "anti-war" or "anti-intervention"
you can see a similar thing with donald trump where people were ascribing these labels to him despite him advocating for putting boots on the ground in syria to combat ISIS and such
this article quotes here in 2016 saying “when it comes to the war against terrorists, I’m a hawk. When it comes to counterproductive wars of regime change, I’m a dove.”
This extends beyond Tulsi. Being "against war" is a nice ill-defined slogan that appeals to some voters. It is not a plan or even a policy. What I want (so far as foreign policy) and have not seen from anyone (including the President) is a plan or goal for withdrawal. ISIS is a great example of how leaving can make things worse.
are you being sarcastic or are you implying that trump wanted erdogan to kill americans? i have to ask because there are so many retarded opinions on this conflict that it's impossible to tell when someone is being sarcastic as opposed to merely stupid.
One of the greatest foreign policy blunders of the Obama administration was not assassinating Erdogan. The guy is a complete arse. Yet the central point remains: why the fuck are we even there?
What vital strategic importance does Northern Syria have to the United States? Before the Syrian civil war started we gave exactly ZERO SHITS about the region. Why do we have to care now?
The Russians have had air bases and naval bases in Syria for longer than anyone in this server was alive, and nobody cared. The region has no strategic importance to us.
