A few days after sending US troops out of Syria into neighboring Iraq, and the Pentagon announcing those troops would remain in western Iraq, Defense Secretary Mark Esper has now confirmed that won’t actually be happening at all.
The plan was to shift them from eastern Syria to western Iraq, up until the point when the Iraqi government actually heard about it. The Iraqi government has issued a subsequent statement saying the US never asked if the troops could stay, and that by the way, they can’t. The troops can come to Iraq for transit out of the region, so they’ll be coming home after all.
This was a problem that should’ve been obvious during the transition. The US presence in Iraq is increasingly controversial, and while the exact US troop numbers in Iraq are classified, it’s known that it’s well above the “cap” negotiated with Iraq already, even before those extra troops started showing up.
There was no way the Abdul Mahdi government could afford politically to accept more US troops, particularly when they just started wandering in from Syria without permission. How long they’ll be in Iraq isn’t clear, but it’s not a permanent deployment.
This will complicate the ability of the US to reverse the pullout if they eventually decide to, though with at least 200 US troops staying put in Syria anyhow, that may matter less.
Even with the 200 it is unclear exactly ehere will they stay. The corner on Syria-Turkey-Iraq border will be an irritant to Turkey. Turkey is already ridiculing ISIS excuse, offering its own forces to take care of non-existent ISIS. The main purpose is to stay and keep Kurds there, imagining Syria’s oil in that region to pay for Kurds armament and board. Say what?
And Turkey will accept another vipers’ nest of Kurds smuggling arms to fuel armed banditry in Turkey, Iraq and Syria! This — even if it happens, will be tightly controlled on all sides of border.
Turkey and Russia agreed that Syrian forces will take over control of area outside the secure zone. Which means that refugee resettlement is not limited to secure zone, but anywhere Syrian government is in control.
The length of meeting between Turkish and Russian presidents and their teams indicate the preparation for a number of things. One is political process to be moved from Astana to UN, as all preparatory work is done.
Second, securing territories under former SDF or YPG, and determining exactly how will YPG dismantle both politically and militarily.
Third, resolving endless ever new and creative ways by which NATO wants to inject itself into the secure zone,
Fourth, Idlib. Trump just approved an ungodly amount of money for White Helmets, the ones splattered with blood of head chopping victims. With all the visual documentation present showing White Helmets clean up execution sites, I thought it would be virtually impossible for anybody to try restoring their reputation — apparently, I was wrong. The capacity of Western institutions to use political theater is astounding.
I would not be surprised that the 7 hour meeting included situation in which both Turkey and Iran are potential targets of military action.
Trump, in the same sentence taking credit for ending wars, announces casually attacking Turkey — if needed. And is sending attack tram to Saudi Arabia to see what is stalling Iran “maximum pressure”. And yes, he also casually mentioned our need to go to war with Iran.
What is making Trump go so all over the place?
Clearly, some want him to expedite war or wars. But are they going to publicly back him up now, when Democrats are after impeachment?
It all boils down to domestic politics.
But Russia and Turkey are not taking chances.
Trump’s actions are consistent with political evasive maneuvering under extreme hostile fire, not ‘all over the place’.
Economic warfare has been far more effective against Turkey and Iran than any military action with little real domestic cost; Trump has no reason to go hot war inviting real losses that would be politically damaging.
Its not all domestic politics; globalists want Trump gone too.
I understand it, and I agree with you.
But is he aware what it does to voters? Most people are not studying issues carefully, nor pursuing their own research. Thus, his evasiveness to many appear as a giant con — to keep gullible think he us for ending wars, while in fact he is increasing number of troops deployed, and in fact not really closing any of high visibility peace overtures, from North Korea to Afghanistan.
And economic measures against Iran make no sense to most people. If Iran is not breaking nuclear agreement, then we break it, not ever really saying why. And the treatment of Turkey throughout the Syrian venture, was far less then what a good ally should do to support Turkey.
Just because we utterly caved into neocon narrative on both Iran and Turkey — does not make any of his pronouncements make sense.
Unless he actually closes out cleanly his stated ends of wars, and puts a bow on it — it all looks like a giant mud.
Especially, when in a single paragraph he is against wars — and telling us about going into new wars.
If he is trying to trick the neocon octopus strangulating our politics — he cannot do that. They are pursuing their goals, pulling all strings,
So, who is being confused? Public, of course. If he hopes to achieve anything — he needs to get public on board. As it stands — most people are shaking heads. Even though who absolutely wish him well.
Well said.
An impeachment proof segment of the public is on his side.
And so he has a year to get those who approve of him from 40 to 51%. Withdrawal completely from Syria and nearly completely from Afghanistan will move him along that path.
Add to that a deal with China and he can have a platform of peace and prosperity.
Not too shabby.
“An impeachment proof segment of the public is on his side.”
There’s no such thing, since the public doesn’t decide whether or not he’s impeached.
“An impeachment proof Senate is on his side.”
FTFY.
Meanwhile, the Dems are enfeebled, split between the Bernie/Tulsi group and the ex-Clintonian corporate wing. A recession is looming … maybe. A year can be an agonizingly long period of “unknown unknowns”.
A fractured polity is a measurement of its health, not of its “enfeeblement”. The function of an assembly in a republic, is compromise. The gop is unified, all money to the rich, all government investment to war. Spanky is just their rubber stamp.
Naw, there are enough RINOS to impeach Trump no problem, except that mass conservative voter rejection of anything Republican for an election cycle would sink any RINO retirement plans based on re-election.
The guns and tinned food crowd is not to to be provoked, but do not make the Senate impeachment proof.
Not a single Republican vote is required to impeach Trump. The House majority is Democratic.
It would, however, take 20 Republicans (assuming Democratic unanimity) to convict him in the Senate.
So let’s work from some assumptions:
– Not all Republican Senators like Trump;
– But Republican Senators from states Trump carried in 2016 risk getting primaried if they abandon him; and
– Republican Senators in close/swing states risk the GOP base sitting at home if they abandon him; while on the other hand
– Some Republican Senators in both categories expect to be sent packing in 2020 anyway, which leaves them free to do whatever they feel like doing (and sell it as “voting my conscience instead of the party line” if what they feel like doing is convicting Trump).
Could that last number be as high as 20? At the moment, I doubt it. But that assumes no more crazy stuff comes out that drives voter support for impeachment/removal upward.
The Senate determines the outcome of an impeachment, not Congress. A Congress impeachment vote is mostly symbolic and plays well to the Democratic base.
The incumbent Republicans have to be looking out for their post-political careers, which will be dependent on how much power Republicans hold in both Houses.
Outing Trump but losing power will net them the political equivalent of a pat on the head and lollipop, but no gravy. The ‘bullets and tinned food’ attitude of the Republican base gives them the confidence to tune out federally for an election cycle and focus on state-based power.
Not completely from Syria.
“We need to secure the oil,” Trump said.
There are priorities after all.
The public doesn’t matter till election time, and the countdown has begun.
This is all buildup to 2020, not about what’s best for the soldiers in Syria and U.S. foreign policy.
All noplace is more like it. Turkey let the US know what they were going to do in the buffer zone, including return im ng refugees…they waited a year for trump to put some reactive plan in place. Nothing. Finally, Turkey tired of waiting and gave the US a date when they would start. The general staff told trump there was nothing to do but bug out, even with nowhere to go. Inept, lazy and irresponsible, especially considering trump specifically put those troops there in the first place. If this is the way he ends wars, it’s no wonder he can’t start a new one, and yes, he is trying.
Trump is front man of a psudodemocratic oligarchy, not fully in charge as is popularly conceived.
Going into Syria was always a bad move, right from Obama. Once they were in, removing them would be politically costly no mater who was President, but only a Trump would dare try.
“only trump would dare try”…I have seen no evidence trump has deescalated to the point he came in. Obama resisted attacking Syria after the first bogus chem attack. He stated he would leave it to Congress, then the Russians brokered the chem deal.
Trump also resisted radical escalation. The moment it became apparent U.S. troops were going to be in the crossfire between Russia and Syria and Turkey and the Kurds, he pulled out.
Both Obama and Trump (so far) avoided being herded into a formal Syrian war. Obama’s red line is seen as a failure by the neoliberalcons.
By being against the intervention in the first place, Trump was able to avoid getting policy-pinned like Obama was over his Red Line.
Trump wants to end the wars and bring the troops home. That has been his goal all along. For 3 years the Deep state has been fighting him all the way.
Heh, you cant throw me out ! I was leaving anyway ! Lol
That and destroying Iran and Venezuela. But as long as he does it without dropping bombs makes it ok. Right?
No, wars, it’s not okay, but how difficult is it to perform the duties of the Presidency of the US with the Deep State out to get you? We can only guess, according to our individual assessments of Trump’s character, but may never know, what a Trump presidency would have been like w/o the Deep State coup attempt backed by the Neoliberals, Neocons, MSM & the Dems — EVERYONE except the “Deplorables”.
We are witnessing a full-blown ***POLITICAL WAR*** here in the US, and it hasn’t nearly reached its peak. War is an ever-escalating series of attacks between adversaries, continuing until one side or the other has “had enough”. We’re not nearly there yet. Consequently, expect to see the attacks continuing and intensifying at least through election day 2020. With more than a year to go, we can look forward to an unprecedented shitstorm spectacle. (I confess, I’m thoroughly enjoying the show and am totally looking forward to the fireworks of the coming year. Hoping the Barr and Durham investigations — ie counter-attacks — will tear the coup plotters a new one … with agonizing slowness. Brennan, Clapper, Comey, et al publically bleeding — metaphorically — from their collective … well, you know. All culminating in a rip-snortin’ election night 2020. Yeehah!)
Bull, every politician has a built in opposition the moment they enter office, and a press willing to attack them. That trump has garnered special attention, well sure, it is his victim brand. The difference with trump, no other politician has ever spent so much energy whining, bloviating and blaming about criticism, instead of actually governing something. The only “deep state” that is hindering trump, is the mind-numbing state he achieves when presented with facts, data, or written words.
His Presidency would have included what he is doing in Iran since he promised that during his campaign. His stated loyalty to Israel and him bragging about being the most militaristic candidate running leaves me to believe his Presidency hasn’t been affected as much by the Deep State as it is used as an excuse. I think Russia-gate, and now Ukraine-gate, actually end of helping Trump since that’s in the news more than him casually saying we might have to go to war with Iran. I don’t hear shit about anything but impeachment.
I remember Mitch McConnell saying the stated goal of the GOP was to block any initiative of Obama’s and to ensure he was just a one term President. And the birthers(including Trump)were out in full force for how long? The political war started before Trump it’s just more obvious now. Tweet Tweet.
Great report by Jason – good news!
And great comments below.
Bring them home! Bring them home!
Those guys being sent home from Iraq are lucky.
The U.S. base Al Tanf, in south-eastern Syria, could become quite crowded.
That I doubt, Brockland. DJT isn’t about to go back on his promise to bring ALL US troops out of Syria and bringing them home. Moving them to Al-Tanf won’t help matters anyway in that war-torn country. It will only leave them vulnerable to attacks from Bashar Assad’s Syrian forces or drones from other adversaries.
No, there won’t be any more troops sent to Al-Tanf (there are around 300 there already, and they’ll most likely be gone from that base soon).
What part of Trump claiming the he is leaving several hundred soldiers in Syria to protect the stolen oil fits with your “DJT isn’t about to go back on his promise to bring All US troops out of Syria” statement again?
Never mind what comes out of Trumps mouth. She is inflicted with TDS. Delusional to the bone.
ROFL. American politics has become a contest of the deranged against the delusional….
300… how appropriate; no Hot Gate chokepoint but an isolated area that lets them oversee the so-called Shia Crescent far closer than they need to be.
Trump’s Syria pull-out announcement seems as much push back against impeachment as concern over promises kept. Of course, with 2020 coming up, he will have to answer to antiwar base members.
Antiwar has the balance of the argument though. Syria is a political liability that pulling out solves better than staying. The fuss over a pullout would be intense but transitory, nothing compared to American casualties at election time in a war Trump promised to leave.
Good deal. I hope the Iraqis give the illegal, war mongering troops a kick on their back end before sending back home. Good riddance!
There are still over 5,000 US troops in Iraq. These particular troops may go home for holidays only to be returned to Iraq. Who knows anymore? Transparency is not in the Pentagon dictionary.
Like an unwanted shelter animal. Maybe someone can keep the troops under a foster care deal until they can find another war to fight in.
Or, maybe John Kelly, who is in the private detainment housing buisness now, could build some cheap “housing” for them in Iraq. No toothbrushes or blankets needed.
Another question is what happens to the hundreds of ISIS head choppers and their rape wives who have been evacuated to Iraq as well? I’m sure the Shia Iraqis have plans for them, kill them all and let Allah sort it out!
Maybe this is the start of something constructive at long last-no country would want the zionist occupation troops of the US.
Waiting for the fools who infest this site to say this proves Trump wants to end all unnecessary wars…
Kick all the filthy f**king bums out! Open the door with their heads.