Congress has never authorized troops in Syria.

But was it voted on?

House vote was 354-60. Am I reading this wrong?

Ha, no. I mean originally going into Syria. No vote on that. Now there is. Funny, that.

Hmm, my information is coming up odd. Nearest I can tell, there was a bill proposed with bipartisan efforts to keep our troops off the ground. That Obama said he had authorization to do so but sought congressional approval... but that in the time table, Syria agreed to a US-Russian joint resolution to turn over weapons it had rendering the bill moot.

Huh. Any additional reading you have for me?

No, I just remember there was no vote.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/09/the-best-result-from-congress-a-no-vote-on-syria/279412/

Ah. I wonder why the hell we had troops on ground at all then. I don't even see where Obama DID authorize troops. Maybe had something to do with the UN-coalition? My google searches are all coming up Trump and less on Obama. :Sigh: I see Trump increased US presence there but only air-strikes... like Obama... but maybe I'm misreading and we were occupying allied bases. In fact, according to what I read, Trump did leave a garrison of 400 troops (or was suppose to) so what the Hell happened to that?

Sorry, sorry for my ignorance.

Google has been garbage the last year or so.

I don't know what happened after Trump wanted to pull out but Bolton cried about it. But the WH spokesman says there were just 27 soldiers left before they got pulled out. That seems low but idk.

The whole Syria thing was a clusterf**k.

I'm not on top of it either, bro.

When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. What else would you expect the military to advise?

We only teamed up with the Kurds to fight ISIS, that fight is over. The Kurds, Syrians, and Turks have been fighting each other for hundreds of years, how is this our problem?

If the European countries want the fighting to stop, let them go in and stop it.

Are you saying you and Trump know better than our military forces?

Mmm... seems a might bit more complicated than that. I don't disagree that the European countries have not put in as much effort as we have, but it seems to me that the whole point of going to Syria was to stabilize a destabilized region. By leaving the region destabilized, it renders our entire efforts wasted. People, money, weapons, and time... wasted.

I'm ecstatic that Trump made an effort to keep his promise. Nor am I shocked that he utterly botched our withdraw from the region. I'm more disappointed by the people who shouted "Benghazi" for six years have given Trump yet another pass by falling for his lame spin that the Kurds didn't do enough to help us in World War II.

"Are you saying you and Trump know better than our military forces?"

I know very little about the situation and definitely don't know better than anybody. As far as Trump, I would imagine that like any good executive he listens to all sides, understanding their bias, weighs pro's and con's, and then makes a decision. I am sure he had advisors saying to withdraw.

As far as the withdrawal, I really don't care why he did it, I am just glad he did. I am tired of the U.S. losing our people in these endless wars that really don't have a clear cause or objective.

We need to stop trying the be the world police and stop getting involved in these regime-change wars. The different Muslim sects have been fighting each other for a thousand years. Let them fight.

As I said, if Europe and the rest of the world want the fighting to stop, let them send in their people

As far as Benghazi, Hillary and Obama abandoned Americans. Ambassador Stevens was raped and tortured for seven hours before he was murdered.

Raped? Wha?

Raped.

Huh, so you can use the word if it's the first word in a comment. Neato.

Nice catch. Let's bring on the...

Rape

Republican Congress vs Democrat. Weird