While a lot of the details of the US withdrawal from Syria and the
Turkish invasion of Syria still aren’t entirely clear, Turkey sees a big
opportunity. The US has 22 military bases in Syria they presumably will
no longer need, and Turkey wants them.
Turkey’s National Security Adviser Ibrahim Kalin has reportedly asked the US to agree to cede all of the bases to the Turkish military, or failing that agree to destroy them outright before they leave.
The US bases are embedded across Syrian Kurdish territory, exactly where
Turkey is invading. The goal here for Turkey is likely to ensure that
the US doesn’t simply hand them over to Kurdish factions, though being
given the bases would be ideal for their invasion.
Since US officials say they want to protect the Kurds on their way out
of Syria, it’s unlikely they’ll give most of the bases to Turkey. They
may, however, decide that small posts on the Turkey border, and bases
inside Manbij, from which the Kurds have already fled, would be no harm
to hand over.
And then, how does US plan to keep other bases, once even token YPG units flee to defend the populated Kurd region of Kobane? Does US really plan on staying — surrounded by hostile population of cities and villages of Eulhrates valley and Deir Azzor?
Well, sure. Apparently the plan is to leave as many YPG and Kurd civilians as possible to be massacred by either IS, angry local Arabs, or Turkey, or all three.
NATO-CIA-IS may not hold the ground, but they can at least get the propaganda score.
Whoa. Bolton really made a bad impression.
Sounds like Turkey was just short of resurrecting the medieval tradition of sticking heads of not-particularly-diplomatic envoys on spikes outside the palace…
I sympathize with the urge.
An interesting notion, not entirely without merit, to restore that time-honored practice to currency. Modern sensibilities could do with a bit of toughening. The head of Dick Cheney comes richly to mind.
Solution, Ship all the Kurds to the Southern border and let them claim asylum, problem solved and we are out of Syria. Every one happy, even Chuck and Nancy as they love any and all immigrants.
I have been thinking that this is what should be done with the Palestinian refugees. But Chucky and Nancy wouldn’t like that.
How about putting some of “settlers” from the West Bank there.
Mary, I know alot of Palestinian Christians that moved to the USA and settled in Michigan,,very fine people, they can all come here as far as I am concerned. They surely do not care for Muslims.
I agree. The U.S. has never been an honest peace broker in the Palestinian/Israeli dispute and acts as Israel’s lawyer. These poor refugees should be compensated with placement in the U.S.
Hell no, the Syrian Kurds have legit homes in Syria.
… most of which lie behind Syrian Arab Army lines, not the Arab Euphrates they’re holding for American Kurdistan.
The armed YPG is the main beef Erdogan has. They should either disarm, or safer yet withdraw to their core territories.
As is, they’re being set up for slaughter.
Why don’t we give them to Syria; it’s their country.
BUT MUH HEGEMONIES!!!!!111111one
If Turkey is really going to invade, they should tip their hand the rest of the way and set a date when it will happen, with or without any other party giving their blessing or getting out of the way.
Erdogan is using the ol’ “threat in being” diplomatic trick. Its the more normal use of a standing army.
Actually invading would weaken his diplomatic hand, and Turkey has invaded for real often enough to be taken seriously diplomatically.
Clearly, those bases should be handed over in an orderly transfer, to the Syrian Arab Army. That option is no where to be found in any discussion I have heard, but as the Kurds are now talking to Damascus, it should “pop up on the radar” at any moment.
Trump should immediately revise his approach to Syria by renewing communication/relations with Assad’s Govt, and coordinating the withdrawal with them. That would be the rational, almost conventional approach, since it is clear that Assad/Russia have won.
I wholeheartedly agree, Jeffrey .. those 22 US bases should be handed over to the Syrian Arab Army. However, that option’s nowhere to be found in any discussions .. but as the Kurds are currently talking to Damascus, it should “pop up on the radar” at any moment.
I agree that Trump should immediately revise his approach to Syria by renewing communication/relations with Assad’s gov’t and coordinating the withdrawal with them. That would certainly be the rational, almost conventional approach, since it’s clear that Assad/Russia have won.
In addition, Bibzy NuttY&Yahoo in Tel Aviv should also immediately revise his approach to Syria as well, since Assad/Russia have won the war there.
Conceding defeat is not an imperial thing to do, and emphasizing a loss would be contrary to antiwar aspirations; we don’t want to provoke them into staying.
The only mitigating factor is that the U.S. was not officially warring against Russia and Syria for that to be a legit accusation.
The U.S. entered under the pretext of taking on the IS. This was done and won.
Taking on Russia and Assad is mission creep, even if we all know Russia and Assad were the whole unofficial point all along.
Trump would just about hang for even considering cutting losses and retreating to a fallback position. Obama was similarly exorcised for backing off his Red Line. Trump takes notes, if noting else.
We won, time to go home, forget mission creep. If the D.S. wants to take on Russia and Assad, we need a stronger position than a swath of Syrian desert with Kurds.
Brockland, I’ve been wanting to send you a note of appreciation and welcome. Your comments are smart and cool headed. You substantially elevate the conversation. Kudos.
In the above case, you write:
“The only mitigating factor is that the U.S. was not officially warring against Russia and Syria for that to be a legit accusation.”
Israel wanted Syria destroyed, and Bush and Obama complied, prostrating themselves before the Neoconservatives — Israeli agents — invited by Cheney to take over US Mideast policy (on behalf of Israel — well duh!).
But this Oded Yinon effort to get the US to destroy Syria, was all Bush/Obama. Trump inherited it, but had no part in it. None at all. In fact, you may recall that shortly after taking office, Trump shut down CIA support for the al Qaeda forces around Damascus. So Trump has no ***genuine*** beef with Assad, and could easily “pretend” that the US never had a “serious” problem with Assad, but only with “radical Islamic terrorism”. That would make it at least feasible for him to revise US policy toward Syria in a “friendly” direction, and turn the mess over to the “legitimate” forces in the Syrian “theater”.
Then you write:
“Trump would just about hang for even considering cutting losses and retreating…”
Without question, Trump opponents — Neocons, Deep State, anti-Trump pols, and their MSM mouthpieces — would go ballistic, but on the other side of the equation, the American people would be ***massively*** in favor. I leave it to the reader to calculate the political consequences.
Thanks again, Brockland.
Gosh, thanks.
Just to add though, Israel wasn’t the only one who wanted Syria destroyed. Blaming Israel may flatter those who need Israel to be the centre of all things, but Israel seems to mean as much if not more to Zionist Christians then even the Israelis themselves.
Israel centrism also ignores Syria’s historical rivalries with other Arab nations such as Saudi Arabia, and Syria’s place on the Mackinderan chessboard, that makes it a natural target of the West anyway.
Israel does understand and play the Great Game for its own benefit, sometimes better than most, and plays very aggressively and opportunistically. The same could be said for every other player of the Great Game, though.
Our moderator is once again threatening to block me from commenting. His comment and my response is buried deep in an older discussion, so I am reposting my response to TK here:
You certainly have the power to censor my speech — dare I say violate my right to speak freely — by censoring my submissions here on AW.C. But you have no such power, nor any kind or right, to censor my speech on my own blog.
And preventing me from telling the other participants here where they can find that “speech”, speech that you consider unacceptable, which assessment I dispute ….. that simply goes beyond what is acceptable in any venue where freedom of speech is honored and protected.
I shall continue, now and again, to tell the rest of the commenting community at AW.C, where they can find my speech, unsuppressed by you.
I have done so multiple times in the past, so hopefully they already know.
If you choose to block me on that account, as you have the power to do, I will appeal that decision to others more superior at AW.C, as I have done before, with success, in an effort to have your decision overturned.
I have been a regular here for twenty years now, substantially longer than you, and engaging with civil (mostly) and thoughtful (hopefully) commentary. So do what you must, and I will do the same.
“I have been a regular here for twenty years now, substantially longer than you”
I’m not sure what makes you think that you’re the only reader who’s been here from the beginning (I have too — I remember when the site launched, as I was an editor at another site which promoted it).
Or why you think that makes you exempt from the site’s rules.
You’re not. You don’t have to like it. That’s how it is whether you like it or not.