Maj. Gen. Eric Hill, addressing the arrival of more armored vehicles at
the US positions in eastern Syria, says it is part of the “resetting” of
the US position further east, and required the US to have more “combat power here to sustain ourselves.”
Maj. Gen. Hill says that the goal is not simply to have power to match
ISIS but “the militaries of the Syrian regime, the Russians, or even
militias backed by fellow NATO partner Turkey.” The focus is on how
everyone is carving up territory in eastern Syria, which was once
controlled by the US and its Kurdish allies.
The US clearly has problems with the territory being carved up, at the
least to the extent that they’re not getting as much territory as they’d
figured on. President Trump’s talk of taking the oil, and
re-positioning the US troops at the oilfields show that if Syria is to
be carved up, the US intends to take some key pieces.
Putting aside long-term US territorial ambitions in Syria, the
indications are that the US intends to maintain a presence of less than
1,000 troops in Syria, and even with some tanks and an irresponsibly
large number of Bradley Fighting Vehicles, it’s hard to imagine that the
US really believes that, and air support, would truly match the
militaries of Syria or Russia.
Though the Pentagon likes to brag about its ability to project power
across the world, in Syria its ability to accomplish anything has
historically hinged on getting the Kurds to do it for them. Though the
deployment at the oilfields is no doubt capable of inflicting some
casualties if control of the fields is challenged, it’s hard to imagine
that the US believes it would truly hold this ground with a few hundred
troops.
Time for Russia to step in and remove the bandits from the stolen oilfields.
Russia has now according to recent reports confirmed by the US itself , superseded the US in militIry power capabilities. Russia’s supersonic missiles can now not be detected and intercepted.
Just the opposite. Russia historically never wastes its energy or resources on something that is best left alone to eventually exhaust itself. Russia also has a keen understanding of timing. When situation is not ripe for positive change ,!it is best left alone.
It took US a few years to accept the fact that its position on Turkish border, Hassakah region, Quamushli , Manbij, Raqqa, was not viable snd not sustainable. US could not promise Kurds autonomy, nor a long term nursing of a new semi-independent nation. Turkey — fighting armed secessionists at home, is deadly serious about not giving them a US-sponsored foothold in Syria.
Now, US is just hanging on — to hang on. Unless US goes back into the business of arming terrorists — it will have nothing to do.
As for oil — US is controlling that region for years! Who is pumping that oil, who is selling it? This is a nothing burger. Unless US oil company wants to repair and upgrade the wells, the earnings do not pay for US military presence cost.
This is just a reaction to the hysteria that ensued following withdrawal from the North-Eastern Syria.
Let it settle down.
Bianca’s right, and presumably Russia and Syria’s political and military chiefs are smart enough to realize it.
The US force is there as a tripwire and a way to keep an iron in the Syrian fire. Or, as Bianca put it, the US is just hanging on — to hang on. If it wasn’t “hold the oil fields,” it would be something else equally pointless.
As for the ability of a few hundred troops to hold those positions, the purpose of tripwires is to be tripped, not to win at the tactical level.
But a few hundred troops with tanks, APCs, and air support is also a lot more military power than Jason seems to think it is on fairly level terrain in a potential maneuver warfare scenario. It would take a substantial force to dislodge or defeat that kind of presence.
Yup, one guy with reception can call in the equivalent of the opening bombardment in the Sonne, in a few minutes.
Indeed. As long as the US doesn’t have to deal with Russian air support, they can keep a lot of enemies off their back until reinforcements arrive.
No one is going to attack the US and risk massive escalation at this point, when everyone is mostly getting what they want as the conflict winds down.
I’m right with you on this, Bianca. The US is simply hanging on, as it couldn’t promise autonomy for the Kurds, nor a long term nursing of a new semi-independent nation, Turkey – fighting armed secessionsts at home, is deadly serious about not giving them a US-sponsored foothold in Syria.
As for oil – you’re right in saying the US is controlling that region for years! Who’s pumping that oil, and who’s selling it? This is nothing but a nothing burger. Unless a US oil company wants to repair and upgrade the wells, the earnings don’t pay for US military presence cost.
Yes, indeed, this is just a reaction to the hysteria that ensued following withdrawal from North-Eastern Syria. I agree fully .. Let’s settle down.
US ‘stealth’ technology and ‘precision’ bomb technology were firsts too, didn’t mean much for the outcome of Iraq 2 or Afghanistan now, did it?
This can only end badly. Russia will soon have an airbase just outside of Qamishli in northeast Syria on the northern edge of the Suwayda oil field. That, and their new hypersonic missiles will put an end to US air superiority in Syria’s Eastern provinces. Those Bradleys and Abrams tanks that we’ve so foolishly deployed there will soon become sitting ducks.
Maybe that’s part of the plan, to involve the USA in a catastrophic war in Syria against Iran and Russia. No, I can’t imagine that crazy Trump ever thought this up, only the Christian Zionists and Likudniks he’s surrounded himself with are diabolical enough to do that. Heaven help us.
It is possible to goad Americans to agree to the need to confront an imminent threat from Iran . It is also possible to convince Americans to run into panic mode and stamp with approval the need to confront militarily Russia . CNN Fox MSNBC NPR and NYT will do the job
They did in 2003 They did in Syria in 2011 and again in 2017 2018 and 2019 . They managed Americans becoming war ready against Iran in 2007 ,2010 and 2016
Facts don’t matter .It’s the stupidity they ( media and bribed politicians ) rely upon.
I feel that even if he wanted to — he could not surround himself with anyone not pre-approved.
And yes, Qamishli is THE spot. There, Syrian government is in charge of town, Russian’s setting up base. US is doing everything to set up control of Syria-Iraq borders. It cannot do it all — so it will be in the name of “oil wells”.
As for aching for war — it is all somehow linked to Israel. The Kurdish project in Syria is falling apart. It fell apart in Iraq, and Turkey will deal with its militants in due course. Which all means that in order to block Levant and Turkey from Gulf and Iran — border with Iraq must become destabilized, US controlled or US-Kurdish elements controlled. And wait for another generation of Kurds, or for situation to change in their favor.
It is ALL about blocking development of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Turkey. It is indirectly against Gulf oil dependent states, so they remain isolated from the broader region and do not diversify.
But here is my take on chances for a wider conflict involving Russia and US.
Russia will be avoiding it for as long as possible . Russia will not do anything without consulting China and other SCO members. Russia will wait till circumstances are ripe. Will not attack unless attacked.
Russia has basically only two ways of fighting — a deliberate, localized strike-back that is a permanent political/military advantage (Ossetia, Abkhazia, Crimea, Donbas, Syria), and one or the other of the following. Defend for survival on Russia’s territory, or strategic defeat of adversary to prevent war of survival on its territory.
Since Russian military doctrine requires that no wars be fought on its territory — I think that strategic victory is the only one left.
Based on the weapons announced on March 2018, I suspect the strategic targets will be forward deployed navy and its coastal infrastructure, and air targets of land-based forward deployed missile assets.
This is why Russia is putting premium into missile defense, as it expects consequences from destroying forward deployed naval assets (Asia-Pacific, Indian Ocean and Mediterranean), and European land based assets (Poland, Romania). China will very likely focus on Korea and Japan.
There is no way of knowing who will really try to defend forward positioning — as all of the action will be under water. The announcement of Russian unmanned nuclear submarines was the most important, even as hypersonic took all the attention.
But it is blindingly obvious that the only way to DETER the use of Navy destroying unmanned submarines is the fear of retaliation by missiles. No matter how good Russian missile defense — in a large scale attack, it can fail. THIS is why supersonic cruise missiles , and supersonic individually controlled gliders, as well as air fired supersonic missiles are BIG headache for US.
There is no SAFE way to deliver a retaliatory blow to Russia’s heavily defended mainland,
if Russia can deliver strikes against US mainland that is UNDEFENDED.
Unless there is a weapons limitation deals — this is where this mess is heading. It can all be avoided by removing naval assets to safe distances, and cutting a global security deal on air defenses and warnings.
It will take an entirely different thinking.
Banking on Russia and China not having. advertised technology and not sharing it — is dangerous delusion.
what has it been, 2 whole weeks since the trump stated that US would withdraw from syria?
he lied bro. it’s ok. we’re used to it.
Washington wants to match “the militaries of the Syrian regime, the Russians, or even militias backed by fellow NATO partner Turkey.” But it does not see the historic dangers of such a policy, and where it is leading.
https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
Pentagon is determined to kick off World War III in Syria/Iran. Flaccid, feckless Trump will be pushed along or forced aside. The man is a tool of the MIC.
and he is mentally unbalanced (as are a lot of Americans).
He’s not flaccid or feckless. He wants this. He’s always supported the MIC 1000%, more brazenly and childishly than any non-wartime president.
The man just has to learn hard way how to function in a role of a President, while fighting for the Empire.
All other Presidents knew their place. He constantly forgets that be is not tbe boss.
Is it wise for military people, generals or otherwise, to be speaking out as to what US foreign policy is or is not going to be? Isn’t that the job of the President or the Secretary of State? Makes me wonder who’s on first.
Congress thinks they are running foreign policy, and indeed there is nothing else they do. Trump and Russia, Trump and Syria, Trump and Turkey, Trump and Saudi Arabia, Trump and North Korea…..
For as long as they can latch a foreign policy to Trump — they make it look like domestic policy. But in background it is money and the branches of spooks, long ago privatized in order to steer nation’s ship in their desired direction.
The inly way he still is in White House, is because he is a useful straw man in shaping their desired outcome.
His future is less clear. Unlike his predecessors— he will not learn the art of being quiet. And he knows too much.
“there is nothing else they do”..
try to pay attention Bianca..the House has sent over 400 Bill’s to the Senate to discuss and vote on. Mitch and the gop won’t bring them to the floor, like they did to the SCOTUS pick. The correct expression is not “congress does nothing”, but, the gop will not address anything not in their platform in the peoples house. The fascist gop has to go.
Yes, technically you are right. I have long time ago stopped caring about party politics. They are both vile and beneath contempt.
And it is true, Republicans are doing this, but to what end? Ince upon a time, at the beginning of Obama administration he had BOTH houses, and nothing was happening. Supposedly, they needed a filibuster proof majority. B-crap. They needed to bring the legislation up for debate, and let things fly as they may. I am convinced these two corporations are perfectly happy with domestic agenda being paralyzed.
There is no money for anything other then military, State Department conglomerate, Department of Energy and all other Departments where money is stashed for overseas projects. So why debate domestic programs when they know full well no money is available.
This is anyway about debt servicing, and debt based spending.
So, yes, I have not been paying attention— as they are both fascist corporations usurping laws of the United States, and siding with real nazis in real world, with regime change street revolutionaries, head chopping religious freedom seeking psychopaths, and in love with military coups. Both parties, no exception. Of those 400 hopefully there is at least one useful to actual human beings.
“nothing was happening” ….really ? The failure of the Iraq war, and the tanked economy were paramount. The war pundits claimed that bush ignored the Afghan problem by invading Iraq, and that with the end of the combat mission there, focus (as in troops) should be sent to Afghanistan. Thus, Obama’s failed surge in Afghanistan. There was very little talk of ending the war on terror anywhere.
Also occurring in 09 was the beginnings of the arab spring, the result of millions of refugees overburdening poor infrastructure. This resulted in rebellions, and civil wars across the ME.
The end of the Obama tenure saw a patched up economy, and marked increase in war weariness in the US (well, everywhere), making it politically possible to end the constant US warmongering. This, has not occurred.
To date, we see a president saying he wants to end wars, and expanding them instead, we see dems in congress saying we should continue, as in N. Syria, yet also casting votes to end conflict.
The obvious dung pile, constant, and stinking, clogging the way out is the gop. No, the parties are not the same.
Trump isn’t running anything but his mouth.
Trump is a rubber stamp for the gop, since day 1. The deal was simple once he was the nominee….trump signs what they want, gop keeps congress off of his thieving. Only other part …don’t waste trumps time explaining what he is signing.
I seem to recall another psychotic egomaniac making a last minute land-grab on some primo oil territory after a failed crusade back in the late-Eighties/early-Nineties. I think we bombed him back a few centuries for his trouble. A real Kurd-screwing assh*le too, with a killer porno-stasch to boot. Now what was his name?…. I wanna say Saddam Jeremy, but that’s not it…. It’ll come to me. Donald should look the old f*ck up and see how that plan worked out for him.
I seem to recall another psychotic egomaniac making a last minute land-grab on some primo oil territory after a failed crusade back in the late-Eighties/early-Nineties. I think we bombed him back a few centuries for his trouble. A real Kurd-screwing assh*le too, with a killer porno-stasch to boot. Now what was his name?…. I wanna say Saddam Jeremy, but that’s not it…. It’ll come to me. Donald should look the old f*ck up and see how that plan worked out for him.
It’s only hinged on the Kurds because the US military is essentially a cowardly military – unwilling to subject its troops to the possibility of casualties.
To be precise, I refer to the US military *command* – the politicians don’t mind sacrificing troops as long as there aren’t *too many* body bags coming home – “too many” referring to the US public’s reaction. So a few hundred a year is no problem, as Iraq and Afghanistan proved. Fifty thousand in ninety days – as in a conflict with North Korea – is unacceptable – which is why Trump backed down on North Korea.
However, the US military *command* don’t want *any* casualties if they can avoid it. The reason is losing too many troops threatens careers at the Colonel or higher level.
This is why the US military historically relies on air power and stand-off weapons and refuses to send troops into dangerous situations to engage the enemy at close quarters or in urban combat. They’d rather drop a 500-pound bomb on a civilian neighborhood and civilian casualties be damned.
As for “holding Syrian ground” with 900 troops, keep in mind that the US could drop considerably more on the ground – potentially thousands – within hours or a day, and that would be under close air support (as well as naval support.) Air power may not win conflicts, but in a tactical situation close air support can keep the enemy off your back until reinforcements can arrive. Unless the US has to deal with the Russian air force, it could handle considerable numbers of other forces on short notice.
Not to mention who is going to attack the US? Russia won’t – too much risk of escalation to WWIII. Assad won’t: 1) he won’t risk massive US retaliation while things are mostly going his way, and 2) Russia won’t let him for the same reason. Iran won’t – that would give the US justification to attack Iran. Turkey won’t – they’re part of NATO at this point whether they like it or not, and one part of NATO attacking another part isn’t going to go over well. Erdogan isn’t a complete idiot.
Besides, they’re probably lying about the number of troops there anyway.
Off-topic: Read this piece on the front page:
Europe should consider renewed sanctions on Iran, Germany suggests
I’m proved right once again. The EU never intended to support Iran and save the JCPOA deal. Apparently the EU intends to hold a meeting of the Joint Committee within the next week or so to discuss the situation. I expect the EU to reimpose sanctions on Iran and finally kill the JCPOA – at some point if not at this meeting.
That will allow Trump and the neocons to ramp up their pressure on Iran and their preparations for the upcoming Iran war.
The Pentagon, the President, the US Congress – all war criminals. Where is Nuremberg when we need it?