Elaborating on Thursday evening’s report that US tanks are going to be sent to Syria, Defense Secretary Mark Esper confirmed Friday that the US is sending “mechanized forces” into the area around some eastern Syria oil fields, with an eye toward retaining control over the oil.
Over the past week, US officials have emphasized that military operations in Syria are now more or less wholly about oil, with some lip service to preventing ISIS’s return. Esper suggested US forces need to keep ISIS from the oil, though other officials have said the US need to keep the oil from Syria, or from Iran.
Whatever the case, the US wants to keep the oil away from anything that is not the US. Hoping to set up a long-term US control of the region, President Trump has also suggested that the Kurds, in the course of getting chased out of northern Syria, consider moving to the area around the US-occupied oil fields.
The US had previously been on the way out of Syria, with Turkey invading the northeast, but the Trump Administration has subsequently shifted its priorities to controlling the oil, and Trump in particular has been keen to make oil the new metric for the war’s success.
While this is just another basic excuse for military engagement, same as any other, the deployment of tanks into the area suggests the US is envisioning this being a very long-term operation.
This is all about regime change for Israel’s benefit. Uncle Sam is denying the Syrians the resources to recover from the war against head choppers like HTS and al-Qaeda which the US funded and armed. Just another example of American dishonesty, depravity and cruelty.
It’s not the US or Americans, it’s Washington. As research shows, Democrats get 50% of their campaign money from Zios and the GOP gets 25%. But above all it’s about who the few big media bosses are, and the Hollywood bosses. (And who Epstein, funded visa Mossad-connected Lex Wesler, blackmailed with photos of sex with underage girls.)
Trump wants out of Syria, but the GOP bosses can threaten to join the screeching Democrats in attacking him with any excuse they can come up with. So Trump couldn’t pull out completely. But the important thing was to move out of the PKK terrorists’ area. To show that there is no “Kurdish massacre!” Then, Trump can later pull out of Syria (inevitably) with the excuse that he “made a deal with Russia and Turkey on the Kurds’ behalf, so now we can leave completely”.
When the war is over the Pentagon can’t hold the oil fields with both Syria and Iraq disapproving. For one thing, it is far more important to keep Iraq’s permission to station troops there, and there is already political pressure in Iraq to end that permission.
“As research shows, Democrats get 50% of their campaign money from Zios and the GOP gets 25%.”
One of those internet “facts,” I see.
Overturn Citizens United, and maybe that changes.
“Regime change” re Syria began with 0bama.
He would be the least likely president to work on behalf of Israel.
So I think you are wrong.
The US (0bama) armed the Syrian “moderates” (lol) with arms channeled through Benghazi. That marks the beginning of ISIS.
And the US effort for “regime change”.
So why would 0bama do that?
Ans. to have Assad replaced with an Iranian (Shia) client state (Syria) which would bring increase Iranian pressure,
power and logistics ——AGAINST Israel.
PS: I know it’s heresy for Antiwar.com posters to break with the ironclad orthodoxy of, it’s always the Israel/US’s —-fault, but your line of reasoning above is ridiculous.
Completely absurd. Iran is Shia and the head choppers we funded and ISIS itself are Sunni! Why would Iran want their co-religionists killed by a bunch of Sunni fanatics?
0bama/Hillary thought the “Syrian moderates”
could overthrow Assad. Regime change.
That was the goal.
With Assad out of the way,
Iran could turn Syria into another version of Lebanon.
“regime change in Syria began with Obama”….yup, obama invented cancer too. The US has been enforcing their flavor of regime in Syria since the CIA was invented. 2 coups I believe. Bush put Syria on the “axis of evil” in 02. Doesn’t excuse Obama’s actions, but, c’mon…..
Dave, the guy is pro torture, pro sanctions, thinks sending those tanks to Syria to protect the oil is a good idea, is all for our 3,000 troops recently deployed to Saudi Arabia and praised both John Bolton and Nikki Haley. Need I say more?
Syria was not part of Bush’s “axis of evil” and
the only armed US backed regime change attempt was by 0bama with the “Syrian moderates”, who immediately went rogue and became ISIS.
From the inauguration speech
.Wbush…” states like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil” …toadies added Syria, Cuba and Lybia to the list. Syria was listed as a “terror state” in 04. In 04 US began “anti-terror” ops in Syria, invoked sanctions, and began funding anti-government elements against Assad. Cheney pushed hard for direct air strikes.
Exactly as I said,
Bush did not name Syria in his “axis of evil” speech.
No, what you said, was “regime change in Syria began with Obama”
You are changing the subject,
YOU said Bush called Syria out as part of “the axis of evil”,
he didn’t.
And, 0bama started,
by funding and arming Syrian “moderates”,
the active military effort to “regime change” Assad.
Just like 0bama did in Libya.
Wrong, the original discussion was on who started regime change, you couldn’t back your point up so you went after the definition of “axis of evil”.
So, when bush said “states like these” in the inaugural address, you think he meant Sweden, or Uruguay? Of course you will ignore the black ops, sanctions and funding for anti-Syrian groups in 04. Also, don’t do any research on the CIA and Syria back to 1947. You are the all-antiObama channel, all day. Wonder why that is.
Wrong, you used, the axis of evil speech, to prove regime change in Iraq began before 0bama arming the Syrian “moderates” which became ISIS.
My point is that overt military efforts by the US, for regime change in Syria, began with 0bama.
Figured you wouldn’t answer what Bush meant…”states like these”…knew you would ignore the obvious regime change ops by bush in 04. Know also that trumps massive escalation in Syria is somehow someone else’s responsibility.
You said Bush named Syria in that speech, he didn’t.
And he may or may not have inferred Syria with the comment “states like this”.
You certainly have
but Syria was relatively stable in 04,
so at best your assumption is just conjecture..
0bama went into Syria to fight ISIS, with RoE that looked like a Boys Scout camping trip.
Trump ramped it up and destroyed the caliphate and now decided to protect Kurdish oil fields from any ISIS resurgence, which, under the circumstances is prudent.
I believe I have answered all of your questions.
If I’ve missed any, lemme know, it’s not a problem for me.
Now:
Do you deny centuries of bloodshed between Sunni and Shia?
ISIS was formed because of the vacuum created by our invasion of Iraq in 2003. But of course you got that wrong too.
So, … an invasion, created a vacuum? Funny.
The withdrawal created that vacuum, and then 0bama/Hillary/McCain/Graham facilitated arming them because they were “moderates” (lol), with arms transfered from the “regime change effort in Libya” who proceeded to become ISIS.
What is called “ISIS” is the organization of Sunni refugees caused by the invasion and destruction of Iraq beginning with bush1. Cause and effect, or, as pundits like, “blowback”.
Oh, another attempt to change the subject,
which was Bush did not call out Syria as part of the “axis of evil”.
Now to your latest point, ISIS is indeed Sunni, formed in response to the fall of Saddam and the specter of a Shia ruled Iraq. Before Bush invaded, Sunnis ruled and Shia were brutalized. It isn’t merely “cause and effect” it is centuries of sectarian hatred exploiting the evolving political structures.
Don’t misunderstand, Bush was an arrogant fool to invade Iraq,
on that I think we agree. But the homicidal, sectarian, hatred that exists there is endemic, both in pre and post Bush’s invasion.
Thanks for reaffirming that you don’t consider “cause and effect” very important. So, tell me, do you believe Sunni/Sharia “homicidal” “hatred” is “endemic” to arab people more so than other ethnic groups worldwide ?
There aren’t many Shia Muslims living elsewhere in the world though. Most of the Muslim world is Sunni.
Do you deny centuries of bloodshed between Sunni and Shia?
Answer my question first.
Christians were tolerated under Saddam, relative to what happened afterwards. I doubt Saddam was very partisan towards Sunni. Saddam was a secular socialist dictator.
Agreed.
But he aligned himself with the Sunnis and was harsh against the Shia.
Yes, Saddam was partial toward the Sunni. They were the minority from which he drew his operative/officer class, precisely because they WERE the minority and would be loyal to someone who kept them from coming under rule by the Shia majority.
Removing Saddam created the vacuum. Also, many ISIS were former soldiers for Saddam. The US sent them away, so they created ISIS.
Don’t misunderstand,
Bush’s mistakes were invading in the first place and then staying to establish a democracy that nobody in that country wanted.
Saddam was no saint, he pushed his luck then lost.
That “vacuum” was
filled by the US but once the US left under 0bama, then THE vacuum developed which lead to ISIS.
It’s important to remember that it was a US mistake which released so many of Saddam’s former soldiers. The US could have tried to use them instead. With Saddam dead, they shouldn’t have had loyalty issues really.
The vacuum was filled by the US and yet sectarian violence didn’t start until we got there? Again, the neighborhood cleansing happened while were still there. al Qaeda got their foot in the door while we were still there. Not a very good job at filling the vacuum.
Sectarian violence existed across the ME before, during and after the US invasion. It’s what they do.
AQ didn’t do squat in Iraq until, AFTER 0bama ordered them out.
There was very little sectarian violence in Iraq BEFORE we invaded. al Qaeda wasn’t even in Iraq BEFORE the invasion. Are you noticing a “trend” there? We didn’t fill a vacuum, we created one and it started while we were still there.
There was no sectarian violence in Saddam’s Iraq, correct,
opposition was tortured and murdered, ah, the good old days.
Invading Iraq was a colossal mistake,
but while we were there, there was no “vacuum”.
When we made a hasty withdrawal, the “vacuum” was created.
I didn’t condone Saddam’s actions, I just pointed out that the sectarian didn’t start until we invaded. I was only refuting what you said, not taking sides.
Once more, the sectarian violence and the ethnic cleansing of the neighborhoods happened BEFORE we withdrew. al Qaeda’s presence began BEFORE we withdrew. Why can’t you get that through your thick head? We set up the green zone and let the country sink into chaos by disbanding their government. The vacuum STARTED the day we invaded.
And the only reason we withdrew was because of the status of forces agreement. The Iraqi’s didn’t want to allow us to kill with impunity any longer.
Before Saddam there was tribal, secular violence. With his brutal policies against the Shia, he filled the vacuum.
When the US invaded and eliminated him, the US filled the vacuum.
When the US left, 0bama wanted out and used the SoF collapse to justify it, and the vacuum returned.
Shia and Sunni have always fought and always will. Sunnis knew that “democracy” would lead to Shia govts take revenge against them.
Iraq is close to 2/3 Shia. With the US leaving the Sunnis were gearing up for the inevitable.
After US forces left Iraq, Maliki aggressively consolidated power and began oppressing Iraq’s Sunni tribes. One day after the last US troops
withdrew from Iraq, Maliki forced his Sunni vice president into exile,
then had him charged and convicted in absentia for supporting terrorism.[xxxviii]
Under the guise of counterterrorism and de-Baathification, his
government arrested Sunni elites who attempted to challenge his
authority, many of whom were subsequently tortured and killed.[xxxix]
Sunnis lost positions of power in the government and security forces.
In December 2012, the ISF raided the home of Iraq’s minister of finance,
a popular Sunni politician and member of the Iraqiya coalition. Sunni
protests broke out in Fallujah and spread throughout the country,
continuing for more than a year. Iraqi security forces responding to the
protests in Hawija killed between 23 and 44 civilians, some of whom
were shot execution-style with their hands bound behind their backs.[xl]
Maliki’s
systematic persecution of the Sunnis in the wake of the US withdrawal
bred the same kind of resentment that had fueled the Sunni insurgency in
2005-2006. The Sunnis harbored deep-seated distrust for Maliki and had
accused him in 2006 of complicity in the killing of Sunnis by Shia
militias.[xli]
Protection and support from US troops and promises of inclusion in the
Iraqi government had turned the Sunnis against the insurgency and AQI,
but the failed US-backed power sharing agreement and subsequent troop
withdrawal robbed them of both incentives. After suffering more than a
year of abuses at the hands of the ISF, the tribes once again sought
help in fighting back against Maliki’s government.
The alliance between the Sunnis and ISIS began in Ramadi in December 2013.
So now you have to go back BEFORE Saddam to try and make your bullsh*t stick. The US didn’t fill the vacuum, it set up shop in the green zone and let the country turn into chaos. Do you even understand what a vacuum is? It certainly doesn’t seem like it. When you eliminate the government of a country you invaded and you don’t have anything in place to run the ensuing mess, that creates a vacuum. That’s what happen. Whatever happened AFTER that would not have had happened without us invading, including the sectarian violence, the cleansing of the neighborhoods, the formation of al Qaeda which morphed into ISIS. Are you that dense or just unable to admit you are wrong?
“When the US left, 0bama wanted out and used the SoF collapse”
He didn’t USE “the SOFA collapse” to leave Iraq. He tried renegotiating it but the Iraqi’s refused to let us kill with impunity.
Iraq was a chaotic mess before Saddam subdued it,
ditto after Saddam was removed the US Army subdued it.
When the US Army left it returned to it’s pre-Saddam madness.
Shia and Sunni have fought, do fight and will fight each other forever.
The US invasion was merely a short interlude.
Re. 0bama’s exit:
Throughout the negotiations, Obama kept his intentions ambiguous. He repeatedly trumpeted his plan to withdraw all remaining US troops from Iraq by the end of 2011, even as his military advisers almost unanimously supported a continued presence of 10,000 to 20,000 troops.[xxiii] Iraqi officials also understood that they needed American troops to continue training and advising the Iraqi security forces, and to help protect Iraq’s borders.[xxiv] In May 2011, Prime Minister Maliki indicated that he too would support a continued American military presence.[xxv] Under pressure from his commanders and some of his cabinet officials, Obama indicated in May that he was prepared to keep up to 10,000 troops in Iraq, which he revised to about 5,000 troops by August. However, that number was a closely guarded secret, and he never authorized his negotiators to convey to the Iraqi government how many troops he was willing to keep in Iraq.[xxvi] This ambiguity led to uncertainty on the Iraqi side—without an offer from the United States, there was nothing for Iraq’s leaders to debate or negotiate.
Obama’s insistence that US troops could only remain in Iraq under new SOFA came as a surprise to both US negotiators and to Prime Minister Maliki, who had been working off the understanding that the US presence could be extended through an exchange of diplomatic notes. The Bush administration had spent nearly a year negotiating the 2008 SOFA, but the Obama administration did not begin negotiations until June 2011, less than six months prior to the planned completion of the US troop withdrawal.[xxvii] The condensed negotiation timeline added to the confusion and ambiguity, complicating the new agreement’s chances of success.
Obama’s insistence on legal immunity for US troops, while ostensibly reasonable, was an artificial barrier designed to kill the deal. When the same issue had arisen in 2008, Bush’s lead negotiator, Brett McGurk, had devised a creative solution. He asserted that it was possible to “offer the Iraqis in principle what they say they need… while retaining in practice essential protections for all US military personnel in Iraq [original emphasis in bold].”[xxviii] The 2008 SOFA granted Iraq the “primary right to exercise jurisdiction” over US troops in cases of “grave premeditated felonies… when such crimes are committed outside agreed facilities and areas and outside duty status.”[xxix] However, accused persons would remain in US custody, and it was understood that, in practice, no US servicemember would be tried before the Iraqi judicial system.[xxx] Obama refused to accept this solution, which had already been passed in Iraq’s parliament and had been implemented without incident in the intervening period.
Obama’s negotiators knew that his demand for legal immunities would never make it through the Iraqi parliament.[xxxi] Knowing that parliamentary ratification was unlikely, Obama was negotiating in bad faith. The Bush administration had determined in 2008 that ratification was unnecessary.[xxxii] The Obama administration’s position was that approval in parliament was necessary for the agreement to be binding under international law.[xxxiii] However, as lawmakers in the United States pointed out, US personnel operate in many countries under executive agreements or exchanges of diplomatic notes, neither of which require parliamentary ratification.[xxxiv] Furthermore, the phrase “binding under international law” is, in practice, essentially meaningless. By its own definition, the U.S. State Department considers any international agreement “to be legally binding in the absence of an express provision indicating its nonlegal nature.”[xxxv]
In October 2011, Iraqi leaders approved the continued presence of US military trainers but refused to grant them immunity. This ended the SOFA negotiations, and the 45,000 remaining US troops withdrew from Iraq by the end of the year.[xxxvi] The withdrawal of US troops led to the deterioration of the Iraqi security forces, the reemergence of a security vacuum in parts of the country, and the oppression of the Sunnis, laying the groundwork for the return of AQI.
President Obama’s support for Maliki and withdrawal of US troops from Iraq reversed the tenuous progress made since the Sunni Awakening and the US strategy shift in 2007. The decision to back Maliki for a second term as prime minister profoundly undermined the development of a legitimate Iraqi government, the primary objective of counterinsurgency.[xxxvii] Passive US support for Maliki’s reinterpretation of the Iraqi constitution to serve his own purposes signaled to Iraqis that the US did not believe they deserved to choose their own leaders. The second and third order effects were disastrous.
ISIS Rises from the Ashes of AQI
What Iraq was before Saddam is irrelevant. We’re talking about what happened AFTER the invasion. The Shia and the Sunni lived in mixed neighborhoods before the invasion. The neighborhoods were cleansed AFTER our invasion and the sectarian violence exploded. Now how in the f*ck can you say the US subdued anything? It turned into chaos because of the vacuum created by us disbanding their government and the only safe place was the green zone. So there was no violence or sectarian cleansing of the neighborhoods, no al Qaeda and the Shia and Sunni got along as good as can be reasonably expected. And yet even after all of those things went down the sh*tter AFTER we invaded, you insist no vacuum was created until AFTER we left. Do all neocons have as much difficulty admitting they are wrong as you do? And again, do you know what a vacuum is?
And good neocon take on the SOFA. What neocon rag did that come from?
Yeah, Iraq was heaven on earth BEFORE the US invasion, lol.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_pre-Saddam_Iraq
Not the point. But nice try. Whether Saddam was a brutal authoritarian or not doesn’t have anything to do with the subject at hand. When we invaded, Saddam was firmly in power, even after the first invasion and the 12 years of brutal sanctions. Iraq was a functioning country BEFORE our invasion. The country fell into chaos shortly after our invasion because we created a power vacuum when we dismantled their government. The sectarian violence and cleansing of the neighborhoods along with the emerging presence of al Qaeda all happened while we there, hence the need for the “surge”. I don’t even know why you continue to argue about what obviously happened. So no invasion, no ISIS.
There was no al Qaeda before the invasion and yet they formed while we were still there. The sectarian cleansing happened right under our noses. No invasion, no ISIS.
Correct no AQ in Iraq before invasion, because Saddam was in control.
“Yet they formed while we were still there.”
Correct again (this is awkward),
because Bush insisted on NOT using Sunni’s who worked for Saddam
in any new govt., they began to organize preparing to deal with the
inevitable Shia controlling govt that we fostered.
“No invasion, no ISIS.”
Wrong. The invasion did not cause the Syria civil war.
The Syrian civil war:
the trigger event which caused the Civil War in Syria was when 1000s of people took the street in January 2011 to demand political reforms (e.g. elections) inspired by ‘ The Arab Spring ‘ – a wave of violent and non-violent protests which had swept across many North African and Middle Eastern Countries in December – January 2012.
Nothing to do with the “invasion”
“Arab Spring” lol, wonder where we got that?
“[Obama] would be the least likely president to work on behalf of Israel.”
A plausible case could be made that until Trump, Obama was the most likely president to work on behalf of Israel since Truman.
An example would be nice.
Sucking up to Iran?
Ignoring Netty?
FUNDING Iran with $150 billion (in cash, no less) for nothing?
It was $1.7 billion, not $150 billion. And it wasn’t “funding” Iran, it was giving Iran back money that the US had stolen (“frozen”) in 1979.
The deal with Iran was objectively pro-Israel — if the Israeli regime prefers peace to war.
Netanyahu may be Israel’s greatest enemy, if the Israeli people prefer peace to war. He should be made an honorary member of Black September.
Yes, giving back money that had been frozen in a gesture to normalize relations but nevertheless completely dismissed by the Iranians.
How was that “deal” pro-Israeli?
It had nothing to do with Israel.
You haven’t made your case Tom re. how anything 0bama did benefited Israel. 0bama and Jarrett despise Israel.
“0bama and Jarrett despise Israel.”
As did most presidents before Obama.
The Iran deal was pro-Israel because it reduced Israel’s excuses for continuing to make unreasonable demands in the region — demands of the kind intended to keep the region on a war footing for Likud’s benefit at the expense of the Israeli (and American) people.
You would find very few Israelis agreeing with you.
0bama ‘s cash payments and sanctions released funding primarily went to their military and Hezbollah affiliates. Iran viewed the US gestures as those of a patsy foreign policy to the anger and chagrin of Israel who have to deal with Hezbollah almost on a daily basis
I’m sorry Tom your examples are vapid, “reduced Israel’s excuses”, for unnamed “unreasonable demands”??? Like what?
No president worked harder against Israel interest than 0bama.
Well, at least the fantasy world you live in is interesting anyway.
How does Israel benefit when the US funds Hezbollah?
Talk about a “fantasy”!
You and all the so called ‘conservatives’ of the neo-con persuasion re-define the meaning of words worse than any progressive I have ever seen. Returning stolen money becomes Funding. Not pushing lies about a foreign nation becomes Sucking up. klajsdfklsdjfkl… there make of that last one whatever best fits your ideology..
0bama’s gesture of returning frozen Iranian assets
got him nothing in the way of normalizing relations.
I didn’t “re-defined” anything.
0bama bent over backwards to cater to Iran with the so-called nuclear treaty, all for nothing, he was chumped.
For the record I am not a neocon nor a conservative, I’m a realist.
Realist… which is why you deny reality and called it funding….as I said you… and neocons and ‘conservatives’.
Hard to ‘normalize relations’ when people pushing lies insist on not holding up their part of the bargain for political reasons( IE pandering to people who believe lies).
“Oh look Iran didn’t follow the agreement we violated from day 1… bad Iran… bad.”
Look 0bama did his best to normalize things with Iran
$1.7 billion in unfrozen cash, returned with interest,
the relief of sanctions and
the nuclear treaty.
It isn’t my fault Iran essentially spit in his face, but they did.
Reality.
AIPAC seems to have been able to spin another occupation .
It’s easy for them, Esper and Trump just have say “ISIS”, then use the AUMF to continue occuptation anywhere.
“We are leaving Syria.” “The troops are coming home.” “Well, maybe not all of the troops are coming home.” Some will go to Iraq. And on and on… No troops are coming home. Yet, nobody wants the US anymore. Nobody can trust the US. Even Iraq does not want US troops anymore. (The eviction notice has been issued, we’ll see if Iraq can hold US feet to the fire.) US troops to Saudi Arabia, for hire. US troops to guard Syrian oil fields and who the hell asked you to?! Believe it or not, there is consistency in US Foreign Policy: we are consistently inconsistent. Well Done and at the expense of possible peace and stability. Our country is in total disarray. The closer we are to Peace, it seems, the closer we are to more war… We are going to reap what we sow…
Aggressive, belligerent USA understands only the language of violence and blood. of loot and plunder.
Tanks? What use are they? Are they going to do battle with Syrian armoured forces. Nah, it’ll be a war of a thousand cuts as tanks are destroyed by “ISIS” IEDs and ATGMs. Did the United States learn nothing from its occupation in the Iraq War. The U.S. might win the initial battles (of which there aren’t any) but then they lose thereafter.
On the other hand, I reckon this is nothing more than Trump bullshit to distract attention from what’s happening in the north of Syria – essentially it’s being handed back to the Syrian government – and it’s working. In a few months, the oil fields will be handed back to the Syrians because it’s too expensive in materiel to occupy them and no American oil company will touch them with a barge pole. And anyway, they’ll find that the Kurds have been extracting the oil and smuggling to the unoccupied parts of Syria at low cost because where else can they sell it? And by then everybody will be focused on the fake impeachment which will turn out to be more Trump bullshit.
Hey, tank factory stockholders have to eat too…..
“Hey, tank factory stockholders have to eat too…..”
I realize you are being sarcastic, but you do realize that there are actually people in power who would consider that a good and valid argument, right? As if these people couldn’t invest in consumer electronics or marijuana stocks or something.
I am confident Dave “realizes” to the extent his sarcasm masks cynicism, not of his, but of our system’s values. Paragraphs/articles could be, and have been, written to establish how much truth his sarcasm masks, sarcasm probably a much better investment of Dave’s time and energy.
It`s the Oil….stupid!!
“Neither international law, nor the American legislation itself can justify the US troops’ goal to guard Syrian hydrocarbon reserves from Syria itself and its people,”
Russian Military Releases Satellite Images Confirming US Smuggling of Syrian Oil.
https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201910261077154752-russian-military-releases-satellite-images-confirming-us-smuggling-of-syrian-oil/
These oil fields were discovered by Conoco/Phillips decades ago, they put billions into developing them along with building the refineries. ISIS captured them and kept them operational, they trucked the oil to Turkey through Erdogan’s Son’s front compay. The Russian’s then bombed the Trucks, when they came in. Then the US bombed ISIS and drove them out with the help of the Kurds so they could get the oil flowing again.
In 2017 the Russian Mercenaries (Wagner Group) attacked our Special Forces and Kurds with a column of tanks and light infantry. We wiped them out, apparently with the blessing of Putin who was told before the attack took place that we would wipe them out if they attacked..
Conoco put money into the fields and got them running again, they plan to invest billions more to get them fully operational. The Kurds will eventually ask Assad to provide security for this region too. Our SF, even with some mech, can’t do anything more than fend off attacks, like the last one. However, once Assad takes over security then Conoco will have to make a deal with the Syrian Government. Trump seems to think he can cut Syria out of the deal and allow the Kurds to profit instead. Either way though, it’s likely that Conoco will continue to invest in their fields and someone, either Assad or the Kurds will take their cut and someone, either the US or Assad will be paying for the security.
I vote for Assad paying for it and who the hell authorized the use of these SF to protect these fields in the first place??? Trump I guess authorized it himself and congress paid zero attention as usual.
Eventually it’s going to be Assad taking this region back and that will include securing the fields, that’s if I had to guess (The same thing that happened in Iraq). For now Trump is reinforcing the base as a move to keep the neo-cons happy and to keep the oil company from losing their investment.
Imperialism at it’s worst. We shouldn’t be using SF as Oil Mercenaries but that has been the game for decades all over the world. It’s not new by any stretch of the imagination but only Trump would be so blatant as to outright admit it.
At one point, Erdogan spoke of UN-monitored elections in Syria. They might find a way to expel Assad.
Do any of our Soldiers bother reading the constitution? Do any of them have the balls to stand up and defend it? They can muster the courage to listen to our allies rape their sex slave children, but they can’t man up and get sent to the brig to defy unconstitutional orders?
I agree with the spirit of your post. As best I can, I will just post questions/thoughts in response, an attempt to allow each their own perspective. Unfortunately, my life/perception, is disappointingly/resoundingly/nightmarishly to the negative.
Look around you at your world. How many people in your family have read the constitution? Consider your neighbors, coworkers, the people around you; with the question of having read the constitution, but more widely as to what type of people they are, where their head is at…
Look at your local/state/federal governments; I suppose the same general questions suffice.
Consider your average 19-22 year old in our society, the training provided, by the organization they serve, that they are receiving a paycheck for these services.
While I agree with your post, and your questions, it is my belief/experience that the answers are No. Hell no (defense taken only at the question dare asked of them)! No (defense taken only at the question dare asked of them)(they won’t even truly understand your questions, just jump to a desire to show you how big those balls are). And their group-think would be to take your questions as offensive, ridiculous jokes, with cat-calls of you being a commie-liberal-whacko. It is good to see such sentiment in you, but none of this has any place in the society/culture which maybe I presume you belong (but you did state “our soldiers”).
I think I get where you are going here and I agree with the spirit of it. The general status of Americans is that they simply have no idea what is in the constitution. This is hardly only the soldiers as voters, police, federal agents, judges, congressional reps and staffers all act as if the constitution is not supposed to be The Law of the land. To be fair even those who wrote the constitution, explained the constitution to the ratifying committees of the 13 states who adopted it have failed to treat it as such. John Marshall instantly changed the meaning of the constitution from his seat on the Supreme Court by simply ignoring what he himself had explained was the meaning during ratification. Jefferson violated it when it suited his needs, as did Washington.
I wrote my comment to be provocative. Truth is almost always highly controversial in a world where most of what is believed has no basis in reality. U.S. Soldiers have become the Idols of the citizenry. This is likely for many reasons, not least of which is the utter betrayal of the soldiers by those citizens who refuse to vote for reps that will follow the constitution. In Iraq the republicans literally thought our army was capable of instituting successful socialism( planned economies) despite nominally being anti socialist and recognizing the futility of economic planning in general. Still they tasked the Army with implementing socialism…As to if the truthfulness of the statement can reach the soldiers through their natural reaction of defensiveness… its all depends on just how solid the grip their idolatry has on their thinking. If they have been totally blinded by ideology then nothing will get through, if the hold is tenuous… at some point the violence of collisions between truth and ideology could perhaps nock loose their ideological lenses. And soldiers already aware…well they need no reminder of situation they are in and likely wont take offense to the truth.
Just like the poppy fields in Afghanistan…..the US uses theft to finance its Black Ops, secret and illegal operations around the world.
Remember Iran-Contra under Reagan…well they never stopped…..from Iraq1 and 2 – Libya – Syria…….
Yup, once accounting figured out the bookkeeping, the program was sent to marketing……
Exactly.
I’ve been meaning to ask, ever since the proliferation of synthetic opoid drugs many, many times more powerful than heroin or opium – killing tens of thousands a year in the USA alone, mind you – why does this idea that the CIA must physically control land in Afghanistan persist?
At present, not a big deal for Syria — the are is populated by Syrian Arabs, sick of SDF overlording. And with SDF begging for protection by Assad forces against Turkey, and having to withdraw, the last thing they should do is to cozy up to American forces in an area Kurds do not live.
As the political process is moving along — slowly but surely, soon enough, elections will take place. And US will not be able to deny internationally supervised elections to take place in the area of “their” oil fields.
Past election— any government should be able to offer an American company a great deal for exploration, making troop presence just an unnecessary cost and risk.
At present, Syria, Turkey and Russia have much to do to deal with armed SDF or really YPG presence — securing the border East of Euphrates, then what should be easier, but still work – going West. There are Turkey controlled areas Jarubulus-Al-Bab, then Afrin. All that birder can be treated in an identical manner established for East. It will require more pullout of Turkish forces — but probably not wise until Idlib is settled. Turkey has much influence over domestic groups, but nobody has influence over British supported White Helmeted Al-Qaeda, or US troops now in South-East.
What is about to be sorted out is under control of parties that DO work together to sort this out — and that is a big plus. Turkey was dead right — in retrospect — to argue to leave Idlib alone , unless somebody in Idlib itches for a fight. Then Russia and Syria give the m a good smackdown — Turkey giving a wholehearted nod.
So, with so much to do among the three — and with Iraq border cooperation, actually four — US holding oil well as a consolation prize i— is a minor side show.
When you consider the COST of US deployment, and all the ancillary support to keep the few hundred deployed secure and supplied, this oil must be the most expensive oil in this planet.
Tanks mean a HUGE logistics investment, and that’s a LOT more than a few hundred boots on the ground. Wake up, America.
It’s going to be tough to campaign for him if “take their oil” is his campaign slogan. I hope something changes…
I liked “bring troops home; promote the American worker” better.