As US officials continue to reiterate their intention to withdraw from Syria, but it seems that is coming with some caveats. Now, reports are that the end vision is to keep a few hundred US troops at the al-Tanf base, just to “challenge Iran.”
On the Iraq-Syria-Jordan border, al-Tanf was originally meant to prop up rebels on the Jordan border. Ultimately, it just became an excuse for the US to attack Shi’ite militias that got “too close” to the base, generally presented as pro-Iranian forces.
Making that the new face of US operations in Syria is liable to fuel more legal challenges. When troops were there to fight ISIS, the legal basis was nominally the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF). There is no AUMF for confronting Iran in a country where the government never authorized the US to be in the first place.
Though President Trump has presented himself as determined to deliver on a promised pullout, the rest of his administration seems to be constantly presenting the pullout as slower, more deliberate, and less complete. What ultimately happens remains to be seen, but there are clearly reasons to doubt that the US presence is really going to be ending in a timely fashion.
Whenever you discuss Al Tanf you should point out that it is a waypoint on the Damascus Baghdad highway that at the current time would be hard for Iraq to Syria traffic to avoid. I think Erik Prince even mooted charging a toll.
As part of an American effort to promote economic development in Iraq and secure influence in the country after the fight against the Islamic State subsides, the American government has helped broker a deal between Iraq and Olive Group, a private security company, to establish and secure the country’s first toll highway.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/47156.htm
Not to mention the proposed Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline.
https://www.globalresearch. ca/the-secret-stupid-saudi-us-deal-on-syria/5410130
Just exactly who has suggested this version of the US remaining in Syria?
Is it just the usual suspects who have tried unsuccessfully to re-define the pullout? Or is it a real climb down by Trump’s insiders?
Bibi comes to mind for some odd reason.
Easy peasy, just declare Tanfistan independent. Go down to the local insane asylum find some disaffected fellow who wants to be ruler of the new democratic republic of Tanifistan and you are in business. Now work the international scene to get Vanatu and Canada to support you in the UN, order the Brits to do it as well and la voila a brand new country. As a side effect now your troops are no longer in Syria
Or just rename Syria as Fsaia find a handful of sycophants to front another charade and not withdraw at all.
Perhaps you and I should not give these ciaholes any ideas.
It was good enough for Kosovo, and that was right in Europe. This absurdity is not as impossible as the evident sarcasm might seem.
Sacrificial lambs on the alter of intervention…
Who will do those legal challenges, much less take them seriously? Sounds like at this point that the only way all US soldiers will leave Syrian soil is in body bags.
There’s no real reason to stay at al Tanf; Iran can just fly troops and materiale in, or build new roads around American occupation zones. Even pipelineistan can be made up for by Syrian offshore gas fields.
With Jordan solidly in the American camp, its probably better for the Eurasians to cut them out of the Syrian pie anyway.
I nominate the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan to staff and maintain the al-Tanf base. Who could complain?