Whether to control the oil or flat out take the oil, US statements on
the new military mission in Syria are heavily oil-themed. Other reports,
however, suggest that the operation is a lot more complicated than that.
In reality, a lot of the goal is nation-building,
with US forces meant to both keep the Syrian government out of this
part of Syria, and try to “bring prosperity” to the region, propping up a
potential territory of rebels.
This is again built around the assumption that the US can manufacture an
autonomous, prosperous region, using the oilfields as the revenue
source, and then steer that region toward hostility with the rest of
Syria.
This will likely end up being a plan easier for the Trump Administration
to sell than overt theft of oil, as it allows the US to retain its
primary focus, military hostility toward Syria with an eye toward
eventual regime change.
To that end, the US keeps condemning Syria and Russia for airstrikes in the Idlib Province of northwestern Syria,
and is demanding a full halt to strikes to resolve the situation
through the UN. Ironically, the US has also opposed that UN
reconciliation process, because it’s not going to end with regime
change.
Pentagon officials are also pointing out that their military presence in
Syria implies US military authority to open fire on Syrian government
representatives if any of them try to reclaim control over the Syrian oilfields.
This is a result of Israel panicking that giving up on Kurds was a mistake. Another artificial state on somebody else’s land was important, and will be attempted in this location. Problem? There are no Kurds living there — less then .5% of population. Then, Arab population does not want to be dominated by Kurds. This was the reason SDF failed, and was merely YPG without Arabs. The only group there is US funded Revolutionary Commando Army, a group of about 300. But I suspect that the goal is to prevent Syria and Iraq from controlling their borders, building infrastructure and trade.
With protest prime pumping in Iraq and Lebanon — new delicious opportunities are opening up.
We have money, indeed we have money. Nobody is complaining about the fact that money from oil is a drop in the bucket when it comes to the cost of keeping troops there.
A couple of statements that should make one upchuck:
“Pentagon officials asserted Thursday U.S. military authority over Syrian oil fields because U.S. forces are acting under the goal of “protecting Americans from terrorist activity” and would be within their rights to shoot a representative of the Syrian government who attempted to retake control over that country’s national resource.”
“When the Pentagon officials were pressed on whether “U.S. troops have the… authorization to shoot if a representative of the Syrian government comes to the.. oil fields and says, ‘I am here to take property of these oil fields,'” Byrne said, “our commanders always retain the right and the obligation of self-defense when faced with a hostile act or demonstrated hostile intent.”
We really must have a low opinion of the rest of the world’s collective IQ to say this vile sh*t with a straight face.
Ok intelligence helps in building confidence in one’s own judgement but once you think about it the role of intelligence is hard to assess. If you know the Asch experiment where the impact of a random peer group pn a person’s stated judgement is measured, people rely on others to confirm their thinking is correct. They will also not stick their necks out to disagree with consensus. When the peer group is trusted you expect this effect to be stronger, which explains how intelligent people still participate in group think.
And that is why this stuff is peddled so shamelessly. Because it targets a groupthink bubble who are influential and basically (not literally) trust the authorities.
It doesn’t have to make sense anymore, wars. It hasn’t since 9/11. But, I’m sure the Russians and the Syrian Arab Army will have a different take on it all when they come to visit the Syrian oil fields to “take property.” “Our commanders always retain the right and the obligation of self-defense when faced with a hostile act or demonstrated hostile intent.” Or, to run like hell if needs be.
To be an american official the ability to spout crap with a straight face is a job requirement. It’s totally risk free as the global corporate media are programmed to treat it with the utmost respect no matter how inane.
US Bogus Plan……“bring prosperity” to the region ( occupied land ).
Propping up a potential territory ( occupied land ) of rebels ( terrorist, jihads, Takfiri) through destruction, terror, killings, theft, sanctions.
Surely the ignorants and brainwashed will fall for it…….again.
“that the US can manufacture an autonomous, prosperous region, using the oilfields as the revenue source, and then steer that region toward hostility with the rest of Syria”
Hostility to Iran is at least as important to those US officials.
Furthermore, in their fever dreams, they imagine this rebel nation will be a friend of and forward base for Israel.
Essentially, what they were doing before with Greater Rojava.
Turkey forced a slight downsizing of Greater Kurdistan in Syria, but much remains east and north of the Euphrates.
“It’s about oil” can mean so many things that it’s always true. Oil for the US? Oil to make money with? Oil security for the US
I would claim that US concern about oil since WW2 is in the first place about the ability to deny and permit access to oil for others. Members of the empire get access as long as they behave. Others don’t get access. Well, to the extent that that can be made to work. Anyway it’s about power.
Currently the US denies Syria the access to oil. This idea of ‘nation building’ is long term denial of access.
China has been in negotiations in Iraq and Syria since at least 2017 for an “oil for infrastructure” swap.
Matthew Ehret at Strategic Culture gives a great little summary of what’s been happening outside Western-centric anti war activity. Quite a lot, actually.
“The Middle East’s New Post-Regime Change Future” – Matthew Ehret, Strategic-Culture. com, November 1, 2019.
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2019/11/01/middle-easts-new-post-regime-change-future/
When Trump said, the U.S. was taking the oil, it was a layered statement with one barb directed at the Syria-China infrastructure swap.
That is an interesting link thanks.
Good mentions of economic value of Yemen.
Russia should attack all of the American positions in Syria immediately. They won’t (because Putin is too weak) but they should.
They have cards not to be played until the war, and they intend to let America start the war by attacking Iran.
WWIII brinkmanship is not in the cards. Putin is not weak, he’s smart. His first goal is to protect Russia. Everything else can be handled by negotiation and the limited application of military force. Syria is the prime demonstration of that. Russia handled the Syrian crisis expertly.
Russia attempts diplomacy with Erdogan and Netanyahu, 2 terrorists that cannot be trusted. This shows a lack of common sense. The Russians are weak and indecisive. If they were interested in protecting Russia they would have crushed the us installed governments in Ukraine and Georgia’s. They can’t even deal with russias internal enemies like the western funded NGO’s and fifth columnists in their government. They dragged their feet on attacking Idlib last year which enabled the us to build permanent bases used to house, train, and arm terrorists just as they did when Russia foolishly withdrew from parts of Syria 3 years ago. Putin’s stupidity has trapped Russia in an endless war. If Russia ever leaves the terrorists the us is harboring will be set loose on Aleppo again. If the Syrian army cannot deal with them Russia will have to redeploy or let the terrorists have Syria. That’s why Russia should attack immediately and destroy all us positions in Syria. America and her allies have no interest in diplomacy and cannot be trusted. America is a global bully and every bully needs a good beating. Unfortunately Putin is too weak. How else do you propose Russia and Syria end this conflict? If you have any answers I would love to hear them.
Drivel. You have no clue how international relations or military options work. Putin has handled Syria quite well. I would have hoped for more pressure on Israel to stop their random attacks inside Syria, but on the whole he has done everything he can do without risking WWIII.
Or did you forget about that part? Russia *has no* capability to “crush US forces inside Syria” – without risking a massive escalation by the US. If you think they do, you’re an idiot.
So you’re saying that Erdogan and Netanyahu can be trusted? I know there is a risk of American retaliation if Russia attacks, but I don’t see any other way of them ending this war. If you have better suggestions I would like to hear them?
1) I said nothing about Erdogan or Netanyahu.
2) I don’t expect to see this war end. I expect it to escalate once Israel attacks Lebanon, and the US joins in.
3) If 2) occurs without it escalating, Syria will still be drawn in once the US attacks Iran.
So there is no solution. Putin has done as well as he could without risking WWIII.
Your suggestion that he attack the US in Syria unilaterally is simply stupid – and Putin is not stupid.
We’re done here. I have enough nonsense coming from other idiots on this site.
I brought up Erdogan and Netanyahu because you criticized what I said and said Putin was doing a great job without providing any details. My point was that dealing with countries diplomatically that obviously have no interest in diplomacy is dumb. Russia also withdrew prematurely, which enabled the us to build bases on the vacated areas. That’s also dumb. There are other examples of Russian mistakes that I don’t have the time to get into. We’ll see if the Russian people have the stomach for an endless war. I’m done too.
With a GDP lower than Italy’s, not gonna happen.
USA will never leave any nation unless enough US soldiers leave in body-bags. Casualty free means never ending.
Perhaps extending the targeting to the “decision-makers” wherever they might reside would be more effective than taking it out on the foot soldiers. Decision-makers tend to react to dead foot soliders not by changing policy, but my killing more foot soldiers – and civilians.
Funny how it works that way.
Indeed. One needs to know who one’s real enemies are.
“Nation-building” is a code word for “get profits for the military-industrial complex.”
Besides, if you want an Iran war, you need troops in all the countries expected to be involved in it – which is pretty much every country in the region. So you start early – moving troops in under any pretext – Houthis attacks on Saudi Arabia moves 3,000 there, ISIS in Syria means another 2,000 there, you’ve already got 5,000 in Iraq, etc., etc. Not to mention the extra ships, planes, new bases being built, etc.
This is just the beginning. It will take the US a year or more to get the number of assets they need to handle a full-scale Iran war. If there is an early conflict such as against Hezbollah in Lebanon, that will be an excuse to pour more thousands of troops.
Oil is just a bonus and a tool to influence the locals.
… Mount a war on Iran from Yemen while fighting the Houthi trying to evict them?
Saudi Arabia’s sole excuse for being in Yemen would likely be to not have to fight Iran, not a step towards fighting Iran.
U.S. troops in Yemen, aren’t much use there let alone against Iran.
I said pretty much all the countries – Yemen isn’t important.
The Houthis can be expected to support Iran, but since they have their hands full with Saudi Arabia, who cares? The Houthis may be able to damage Saudi oil fields, but they can’t take over Saudi Arabia, if for no other reason than that the US wouldn’t allow it.
As for the Saudis being in Yemen to not fight Iran, how does that work? Iran isn’t in Yemen and they aren’t going to be going there, and despite any direct or indirect Iranian support for the Houthis, that doesn’t translate to any direct threat to Saudi Arabia.The Houthis might be able to stir up the Shia in southern SA, but with X thousand US troops in country for the Iran war that isn’t going to worry the Saudis, who will already have their hands full with Iranian missile attacks.
If Iran starts shipping serious missiles to the Houthis, the US will just aid Saudia Arabia in bombing Yemen or directly invade Yemen as well, not Iran from Yemen.
So Yemen is mostly irrelevant in an Iran war. Syria, Iraq and Lebanon are not – the Saudis and the UAE are targets for Iran, so they’ll get US defenses to the degree the US cares about defending any US assets already in country.
Wait – did you think I meant to say 3,000 US troops moved into Yemen? No, I was referring to the 3,000 moved into Saudi Arabia as a result of the Houthi oil field attack. Only if the Houthis develop into a more serious threat during an Iran war would the US bother to send any significant number of troops into Yemen.
Oh; kk. my bad. I was wondering how 3000 U.S. troops were in Yemen and not google-able.
Tulsi Gabbard’s deeply flawed Syria withdrawal bill, rewritten with the Jar Jar Binks removed, is not a bad bill.
The Jar Jar Bink granting CiC powers to Congress was removed. Exclusive Presidential CiC powers granted by the Constitution are specifically identified and protected,
Removed were any reference to the unworkable War Powers Act, although some useful wording was retained,
The AUMF was clarified to remove application to Syria,
Constitutional Congressional powers to make rules regarding captures on land and water were added, as seizures of Syrian territory and Syrian oil wells are captures on land,
Removal of the word ‘northern’ in reference to oil field location, as this may be loopholed by placing troops at another oilfield location,
Reference to ‘hostilities’ was removed to prevent any misinterpretation of ‘hostilities’ and ‘potential hostilities’ affecting the bill.
A request for removal of all forces is the intent, with no excuse for any to remain. Trump may say no, but he has no grounds for veto. Denying an urgent, no tricks withdrawal request from Congress would be for Trump, assuming formal official ownership of Obama’s Syrian intervention.
Used as primary reference were articles and links posted by libertarian academic Thomas Woods, who has written extensivly on the sham that is the War Powers Act, and the original text of Gabbard’s Res. 70.
https://tomwoods.com/levin/
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/70/text/ih
This rewrite is closer to what a real antiwar legislative bill should look like. [My changes in squared brackets].
H. CON. RES. 70 [Rewritten to remove Jar Jar Binks]
[Urgent request of] the President pursuant to [Article I Section 8 and Article II Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States] to remove United States Armed Forces from [] the Syrian Arab Republic [(Syria)].
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
October 31, 2019
Ms. Gabbard submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. [… Not this version…]
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
[Urgent request of] the President pursuant to [Article II Section 8 and Article II Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States] to remove United States Armed Forces from [] the Syrian Arab Republic [(Syria)].
Be it resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),
SECTION 1. Removal of United States Armed Forces from [] the Syrian Arab Republic, [which are not authorized by Congress under a Declaration of War.]
(a) Findings.— Congress finds the following:
(1) [(a)] Congress has the sole power to declare war [and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water,] under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.
[(b) The President of the United States, as the Commander in Chief of the United Stated Military, has “… the supreme command and direction of the military,” under Article II Section 2, as interpreted by Hamilton, The Federalist Papers #69.]
(2) [(a)] Congress has not declared war with respect to, or provided any specific statutory authorization for, United States military participation in any activity related to securing, guarding, possessing, profiting off of, or developing oil fields in [] Syria. [].
[(b)] The Syrian Arab Republic has not declared war on the United States, nor engages in acts of aggressive war against the United States.]
(3) President Donald Trump stated on October 27, 2019 regarding Syria that “we are leaving soldiers to secure the oil. Now, we may have to fight for the oil. That’s OK. Maybe somebody else wants the oil, in which case they have a hell of a fight.” And that “it can help us, because we should be able to take some also. And what I intend to do, perhaps, is make a deal with an ExxonMobil or one of our great companies to go in there and do it properly. Right now it’s not big. It’s big oil underground but it’s not big oil up top.”.
(4) The Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, stated on October 28, 2019, regarding oil in Syria that “US troops will remain positioned in this strategic area to deny ISIS access those vital resources. And we will respond with overwhelming military force against any group that threatens the safety of our forces there.”. Secretary Esper confirmed that this includes denying access to the oil from Russian and Syrian forces.
(5) Oil, natural resources, and land in Syria belong to the Syrian people, not the United States.
(6) Depriving the Syrian people from the economic benefit of their natural resources will inhibit them from rebuilding their country. It is not humane or in the national security interests of the United States for the Syrian Arab Republic to be an unstable or failed state. An unstable or failed Syrian state further proliferates the presence of terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda and ISIS in Syria, and significantly deteriorates the humanitarian condition of the Syrian people.
(7) [Congress recommends the urgent and immediate] removal of all United States Armed Forces in] Syria including the assignment of members of such armed forces to command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or irregular military forces of any foreign country or government when such military forces are engaged, or there exists an imminent threat that such forces will become engaged, in hostilities.
(b) Congress [urgently requests] of the President to remove United States Armed Forces from the Syrian Arab Republic, the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note), not [being applicable in any way to Syria,] until a declaration of war or specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces [in Syria] has been enacted into law.
USA needs to control as much as possible the mass of traded oil in order to keep the preponderance of the Dollar. desperate move. which soon will prove to be ineffective because the entire world is aware that the Greenback is becoming more and more a sort of Monopoly paper, almost fake currency.