President Trump’s decision to slow the withdrawal of US troops from Syria, after initial reports that he planned for a “rapid” withdrawal, are raising a lot of questions. These center heavily on how this apparently unilateral slowing of the pullout is reconciled with previous promises to closely coordinate with Turkey.
The decision to withdraw, after all, came by all indications at the behest of the Turkish government, and at least in part as a way for the US to avoid getting mixed up in an imminent Turkish war against the Kurdish YPG, with whom they are embedded.
But after the US pullout went from a reported 30 days to “around four months,” does that mean Turkey’s timetable has also slowed for attacking Manbij? If not, Manbij could be attacked by Turkey with US forces inside the city, and the Syrian Army present to try to keep the invading Turks away. This results from the Kurds quickly allying with Syria’s government after the pullout was announced. That could be even messier than the initial invasion envisioned.
Even if the US moves out of Manbij and other early targets for Turkey, the Syrian government’s involvement in the defense of Kurdish territory means the US will risk the appearance that they are handing over the defense of this region to Syria. In reality, the US has been comfortable with the Kurdish territory falling to Turkey, and wanted to facilitate that with the pullout.
Slowing that down, and not even putting a definitive date on it beyond “about four months” greatly confuses the US position. The US is moving away from its alliance with the YPG, and keeping an estimated 2,000 troops embedded in YPG territory will be terribly awkward, particularly as the YPG continues to court new allies who aren’t necessarily on good terms with the US.
Trump may have found slowing the process necessary in the face angry opposition to the pullout from massive numbers of Congressional hawks. Yet it is forcing everyone to scramble to change plans to fit the still nebulous US schedule, and the future of the US-Turkey coordination is completely up in the air.
There are no allies in international diplomacy, only potential enemies: ‘friends’ become enemies when their core interests collide. If those interests clash there is conflict. The pattern of history shows we are heading for another world war, not just a regional one.
https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
“There are no allies in international diplomacy” Agreements typically do not go on for decades. Oddly when the Kurds declared independence in 2017 there was no interest in recognizing them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Iraqi_Kurdistan_independence_referendum
The slowing down is an excuse and hope for an incident to take place in Manbij. This is a Mexican stand-off waiting for someone to make the first move.
LOL “US will risk the appearance that they are handing over the defense of this region to Syria.” That would never do, giving a country back to its people.
It goes against centuries of fine American tradition. We still haven’t handed Hawaii back.
It is likely that the CIA needs four months to do a substantial increase in its forces in Syria, to offset the withdrawal of the DoD contingent.
A US general recently said (then tried to walk back) that the numbers now are 2,000 military and another 2,000 CIA, total 4,000. So nothing will change but the US address in DC controlling the forces.
CIA does not have 2000 people in Syria. That’s just nonsense.
I’d be interested to hear how you know that.
Sorry, it doesn’t work that way. You can’t prove a negative. Instead, we’ll focus on your government source instead of hearsay from the grapevine.
A good point. In fact, since the CIA sponsored insurgents sometimes fought the Pentagon backed insurgents, it might be argued that this is a consolidation.
Regardless, black ops are supposed to be impossible under the Constitution due to oversight of the money Congress is in charge of. We know, of course, that this goes on all the time. Both political parties and during one administration after another. Nothing changes.
There is no transparency in “our” government. The political class cares not a wit for the Constitution. When 10’s of thousands of American soldiers die, 100’s of thousands in the ME, and millions have their lives wrecked on lies, those that are responsible are never held accountable.
They are claimed to be experts. Those that wreck country after country. The msm idolize this bunch of psychos. They have a platform on mass media with fawning “journalists”. The question of track record never comes up.
The DC establishment is feudal. Factions of the permanent State have control of portions of the vast wealth extracted from the populace. The portion they get never declines. The figure heads may change, but the policies don’t.
The DC political class is both insular and unaccountable. They are openly contemptuous of those that they exploit.
“Both political parties”
I’ve been trying to reclaim reality by referring to them as the uniparty, or some such term when I can, in order to help expose the fact they are just two separate funding arms of the war party.
The only chance we have is to reclaim our language in order to reduce the Orwell effect that the government stenographers are using to such great effect.
I see the only window of opportunity as being the next crash and subsequent tightening of credit.
Waiting for a top down solution is foolish in my opinion, the only way to change this is to make them fear us again.
Pat Buchanan said it well: “two wings of the same bird of prey”.
While in terms of funding military expenditure the “parties are the same” is true. In terms of authorization votes in congress, since McGovern, it is not true at all. The latest Senate vote questioning Yemen war participation, could be, a marked beginning in US drawback from forever war. This occurred because only 10 GOP senators voted with the dem members to make it happen. This bill is not new, congress members have attempted to thwart war many times, difference ? Some in the GOP are coming on board. The expenditure voting occurs this way…once a war is authorized, huge pots of money become available, it becomes important for congress reps to secure some of this money for their districts. So it reads, an antiwar congressman votes against an authorization, then for the appropriations.
Yes. We should work to elect more libertarian and paleo conservatives to congress. Especially since the Democrats are increasingly dominated by war mongering neo-liberals.
Notice that neo-cons like Boot are returning to their original political base.
The leadership of both parties are dominated by neoliberals and neocons.
The funny thing is watching conservatives and libertarians try to play innocent victim.
More so was the anti war left that vanished when Obama was elected. I was told they “were tired”.
At least there WAS one to vanish unlike the right that never got around to being anti war until the 90’s.
Wow. I guess you don’t know that for the first half of the 20th century as well as the later decades of the 19th Century, the resistance to wars, intervention and Empire came from the conservative side of the political spectrum. The warmongering came from the left.
And, of course the right was subverted by neo-conservatives. Neo-conservatives were a product of the left. Interesting they, like Max Boot are rejoining the Democrat party.
No, the left, at least the center left, has mostly been pro war. Only during the Viet Nam war and for a couple of decades after has the left been anti war. And again the center left is returning to it’s pro war roots.
I do respect those on the left that ARE anti war. But they are a small percentage of the left.
The problem is “government as a force for good” is still force. The power attracts those that use it for bad things. Like wars. Since these types spend all their energy in controlling others they take over. Then they use that power to meddle
The democratic party only exists to limit the conversation when we talk about how far right the world is turning.
These parties are both corporations and are also corporate partners who control the presidential debate process.
Figure in the AUMF and all the other police state laws, acts, and treaties that have paralyzed all three branches of government and it’s plain to see that all that can pass congress is what K-street allows in order to preserve just enough credibility to keep the lid on the lie that congress isn’t completely captured.
We live in an inverted totalitarian state that hides behind a controlled democracy.
Our government is not in charge of much more than house keeping duties and the media spun bread and circus wedge issues designed to keep everyone distracted.
There is no reason at all to blame Congress. Trump put these troops in Syria.
And Obama.
The numbers….Obama left office with 300 spec ops in Syria, likely air spotting units. Trump deployed 3000 marines in the form of artillery batteries, logistics and security. Air and naval units are not stationed in Syria, and dont seem to count for some reason. I dont have the resources to define what those units mean as far as being ” in Syria”. I guess if a flotilla launches 100 missiles into Syria, they are not counted as “being there”. Who knows how many mercenaries…both state, and corporate sponsored. Further, I guess a drone operator in Las Vegas, flying a drone in Syria, isnt there either.
300 is a start. That’s why I added him.
Got it, I offer no excuses for Obama’s failures. The “deep state” did not make him do it.
Never even heard the term during Obama’s years. But I think they were holding him hostage to their will by keeping it a secret that he was really born in Mexico. Imagine if the wall had been up back then.
I find it fascinating in a morbid way, that trumpsters will blame Obama directly for warmongering, yet excuse trump as a victim of the deep state. Then, blame Clinton for things Obama was in charge of, she worked for him. The cognitive dissonance is sending me to additional wine.
It’s the magical thinking of people who have suffered the consequences of the neoliberal agenda. Their pain is real but there are no answers or truth anymore due to the covert regime that has flipped what used to be it’s oversight into overseeing policy.
I think that’s why people who should never have the ability to direct the overall outcome of policy end up not only shaping it, but making it happen without the knowledge of the other entities involved.
If Wall Street can govern congress then the MIC wing of Wall Street would have no problem governing the executive and judicial branches.
This is how inverted totalitarianism works, you just hide the fact you’ve perpetrated a successful coup against the US government by constant distraction and fear mongering while you rinse and repeat all over the planet until you get the neo feudalism you want.
i hate Trump, but the blame for putting the troops there is on Obama and if credit is due for withdrawing them then it will go to Trump. As the saying goes even a blind orange pig finds an acorn now and again.
Actually both Obomber and Trump put troops in Syria. Obomber just gets extra credit for initiating the coup attempt.
Regime change in Syria was part of the Cheney regime. Axis of evil stuff. The civil war war in Syria was mostly caused by the Arab Spring, unrest caused by the millions of refugees from you guessed it, Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine..Obama didn’t start it, he erroneously intervened, yet nowhere to the extant that trump did.
When the “unrest” began in Syria, the US Ambassador was in the streets with the demonstrators, just like Nuland and McCain were in the Maidan with the peaceful anti-authoritarian, democracy loving neo-Nazis.
The peaceful unrest was in bed with the jihadis from the very beginning and so was Obama.
Wiki arab spring, then actually read it.
That’ll be enough time for the Pentagram to stall the liberation, create more h*ll and deadly traps for Syria and her allies, evacuate some of their more valuable investments i.e isis/al Qaeda cutthroats and their commanders to Afghanistan. And after 4 months they’ll make flip flop in chief flip flop some more and stay indefinitely.
So there’s Kurds who feel betrayed and annoyed by us, Turkey who does also, and then there’s the Syrian forces closing in who we’ve been actively killing off-and-on, with an ever shrinking number of US soldiers in between. Who wants some hostages, tar-and-feather fun, or something worse? And they say the slower withdrawal is all to keep Americans safe, somehow.
At this point, other than the Turkish border, I doubt a full withdrawal will happen short of President Gabbard ordering it. Alternatively the Iraqis might order the US out of Iraq, which would not leave much hope for US forces in Syria.
“President Gabbard”
Love it.
If we can get the troops out and f**k up Edogan’s little final solution then good, but if this thing goes from four months to four years to four-ever then bad. Way f**king bad. It’s too bad Justin’s out of commission for this. His explanation would probably be dizzying but fascinating none the same.
Least surprising news of the week.
Many an unwanted pregnancy came about from the withdrawal method.