Pentagon officials have been pretty clear about their intention of keeping troops in Iraq more or less forever. The plans for Syria, however, have been far less public, mostly owing to the fact that US troops are there without the approval of the Syrian government.
The Kurdish YPG, however, appears to be privy to US intentions on the matter,and spokesman Talal Silo claims that he US has a “strategy policy” committing them to keep military forces in northern Syria “for decades to come.”
The expectation here is that US forces are to be deployed inside the Kurdish autonomous region of Rojava, though this is obviously predicated on the Kurds keeping on autonomous region beyond the war itself, something they haven’t negotiated with anyone else, and which even the US is officially “opposed” to, preferring Syria to have a strong centralized government.
Yet the reality is that a strong, centralized government in Syria is almost certain to reject the idea of an open-ended US military presence. The Kurdish YPG may be comfortable with such a hosting deal both to keep US arms flowing in and to keep the Turkish military out, but the Assad government has made clear they don’t consider the US welcome, and there’s little sign that the post-war government is going to be so dramatically changed as to reverse that view.
Pockets of US military basis spreading all over the world is like a cancer metastasis. It doesn’t forebode much good.
Costs a lot too
As I’ve said before, once ISIS and Al-Qaeda have been contained and decimated, the US will turn on the Syrian government. This is why the US is slowly increasing its forces inside Syria – to act as a guerrilla and targeting force when the US finally decides to destroy the Syrian military using air strikes.
The only question about that plan is how they intend to deal with the Russian forces in country.
That raises the question as to whether or when RUSSIA intends to depart Syria. Presumably they will keep their enlarged Tartus base and probably an airbase as well. But how many troops will they keep in country as a check on US forces? The minute they leave, the US will attack Syria, that’s pretty obvious.
It’s not obvious. The US lost thousands of men in Iraq and weakened their global power and influence. I’m not sure how many of its leaders are stupid enough to do the same thing again.
What I think is also interesting is China’s intentions. President Xi believes Syria would fit very well in the Belt and Road program. China is discussing a plan for assisting Syrian in her reconstruction. So eventually the U.S. and Israel will have not just Russia, but China to deal with. This is going to be a very interesting situation to watch.
Sale198s
Isn’t control of Syria’s North required for the our next scheduled war against Iran? The US military protecting Americans, and her allies, all over the world.
Is it? Syria doesn’t border Iran.
Shhhsh ,,, don’t expect the people that want to take your money for all of this to be able to actually read a map. They are too busy taking your money for such mundane truths.
Remember, this is the nation that was ‘discovered’ by lost people who thought they were on the other side of the world.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b747e619617b634c0d66c41de21260618a9a8a7ab021e41739e964f227e66e00.jpg
Well, there’s the argument that it’s the government that’s responsible for the war, not the army
Which means neither should be supported.
There’s the old school tradition of philosophy that says we should always be loyal to the king, even when he is in the wrong, because it’s our duty as subjects, and if we want things to improve we must pray for God to guide him towards the right path.
Yes, but without the troops, the govt. could do nothing. Hitler never killed anyone personally …it was the “troops” that carried out his orders… Wars are started by the rich and fought by the poor.
Nevertheless, a country needs security forces, because it is the duty of a ruler to protect the people
But not to squander the countries resources trying to rule the world ….big difference.
“US Forces to Stay in Syria for ‘Decades’”
Not if American taxpayers and a true America First movement ever has anything to say about it. Do you want to be paying taxes for decades to keep US forces on the other side of the world? Or would you rather you own community and your own lives be improved?
From the Syrian point of view …… Would you want a bunch of war criminals who’ve been supplying terrorists with chemical weapons and other tools of death to have a permanate foothold inside your country? Not likely.
Syria has been trying to make the case at the UN that the USA and its allies have been 1) supplying chem weapons materials to terrorists…. they’ve just uncovered hideouts in the Damascus area with chem weapons supplied by US and UK. 2) That the US and its allies have been indiscriminately killing Syrian civilians as a part of its illegal campaign, and that the Syrian govt is asking the UN to try to stop this and get the killers out of their country.
Of course, the US and its allies would use its veto powers (which it hates when Russia and China use the same rules) to stop the UN from really doing anything about these crimes that violate the UN treaty. And outfits like Reuters would far rather tell you all about the dreams that the US will permanently occupy at least parts of someone else’s country.
The Iraq government didn’t approve of us being there either until we overthrew it and installed one that would.
If the Kurds except this deal then the Rojava Revolution is over. There is no such thing as an American sponsored anarchist state. The longer US troops occupy Kurdish soil the more likely they will be damned to state assisted quisling suicide.
THE FASCIST U.S. GOVT. THINK THEY RULE THE WORLD.