US warplanes attacked a vehicle convoy in what they are describing as a “deescalation zone” near al-Tanf, identifying the targets are Pro-Assad forces, and destroying multiple vehicles. Casualty figures are as of yet unknown, and the US is claiming the attack was “defensive in nature.”
A number of questions are unclear, as the US is identifying the targets as “Assad forces” or “regime vehicles,” but some media reports identify them as simply Shi’ite militias. The deescalation zone appears to refer to the southern safe zone in Syria, around Daraa.
That’s confusing, however, because Pentagon officials also claim the targeted forces were within 55km of a “US training base” at al-Tanf, where US ground troops are stationed, and the Daraa safe zone appears farther away from the area that base is in.
The US described the base as housing special forces training rebels to fight against the Assad government. The Tanf base has also been a target of ISIS in recent weeks. They are insisting the presence of those special forces justified the attack on the convoy, insisting it was purely defensive and does not mark a change in US policy.
US officials also appear confused about the timing of the attack, claiming they warned Russia that the convoy was inside the safe zone and gave Russia time to try to get in contact with them, which other officials presented the “warning” as a military show of force, sending warplanes to “buzz” the convoy a couple of times then attacking when they didn’t turn around.
The confusion surrounding this incident leaves open a lot of question, though the identities of the targeted convoy could be a particularly big question mark. If indeed the target was a Shi’ite militia it is likely to be a militia from either Iraq or Iran. If it were an Iraqi militia, it might well be one the US had previously been fighting alongside against ISIS, deploying into an area with a known ISIS presence, and being attacked by US forces for doing so.
“Purely defensive”. On the other side of the world against the sovereign country’s military. Imagine Syrian forces shooting at a US convoy in Texas and claiming self defense.
Am I the only one who finds the proximity of this attack on pro-Russian forces to the announcement of the Special Counsel on Spooky Russian Skulduggery (working title) to be a bit suspicious? Perhaps Trump is trying to prove how presidential he is again by killing more brown people. Maybe that’s exactly what the deep state heavies want. This whole thing reeks like Tonkin.
Trump isn’t calling the shots anymore than Obama did.
The Pentagon has gone rogue.
That’s been true since at least the 1990’s.
There were a couple of instances during Clinton’s reign where the Pentagon openly defied the Commander in Chief. Hard to tell about before or after that, as we’ve rarely had a President since Vietnam who is willing to openly disagree with the Pentagon.
Yeah…. We saw this when we “accidently” bombed the Syrian base a few days into the Kerry Lavrov cease fire agreement… And the local ISIS boys got to escape their encirclement by Assad forces.
I suppose if I knew more military history it would seem less awful to see our elected gobmnt lose control of the military in these thermo-nuclear world..
Sooner or later we are going to have a major confrontation with the Russians in Syria. We are sleepwalking to a very, very dangerous place.
I wonder how Murkans would react to a foreign military establishing bases here and in surrounding nations where they trained terrorists to destroy the United States.
This bombing is classic Orwellian American logic in all its perverse glory.
Last I checked, these “safe zones” (i.e. colonial zones) and that American training base are INSIDE Syrian territory, yet the Americans claim that their attack on the pro-Syrian militia was “defensive” in nature.
The American Empire thinks it has a God-given right to invade and occupy any nation it chooses–and with typical imperialist hubris, claim that it is acting in self defense no less!
George Orwell has got nothing on Uncle Sam.
Actually, the US had NO right whatsoever to enter Syrian airspace, much less, bomb Syrian forces within their own territory. This is an illegal war of aggression, since Syrian forces have the right to move anywhere within Syria’s own borders. Period.
These airstrikes violate the UN Charter, which states that aggressive war is the #1 war crime, as atrocities against civilians and/or POWs tend to follow such aggressive wars.
The US Empire may think it has the God-given right to invade and occupy any country it chooses .. and with typical imperialist hubris, claim that it’s acting in self-defense .. However, that doesn’t make it so. The UN Charter says otherwise, and this attack on the Syrian army, WITHIN ITS OWN TERRITORY, is in violation of this Charter.
Running an insurgency into another country from bases all around it goes far over that line. The bombers are just icing on that cake.
Together with our Government’s previous missile attack on the Syrian airbase, this is another unarguable act of aggressive war — the “supreme war crime” for which German and Japanese officials were tried, convicted and executed at the Nuremburg Trials, and which is prohibited by the central collective security provisions of the UN Charter (a US treaty which is the “supreme law of the land” under our Constitution. It is outrageous to this US citizen and Korean War veteran that our mainstream media continues to ignore — or celebrate — what is the very worst offense that our Government can possibly commit.
We know that Trump likes to kill people as after-dinner entertainment for a diplomatic dinner. That’s probably all this is. Killing a few people so Trump and the Saudi king can have something to laugh about over chocalate cake.
US Special Forces are obviously complete cowards if they felt “threatened” by a bulldozer 20 miles away.
So if the Turkish government can attack dissidents in America and America can set up bases in Syria and attack forces affiliated with the Syrian government in Syria, doesn’t if follow that
Syria can attack the United States without consequences.
Apparently it wouldn’t even be considered an act of war.
US-supported rebels were attacked. This seems like a tit-for-tat response.
This sort of thing can get out of hand easily, and the US is not the power strongest on the ground, nor does it have “escalation dominance.” This was a loser move, if it was what I suspect.