Walking back the Syrian withdrawal

Please don't misunderstand. We will be pulling troops out of Syria. In fact, Redur Khalil, a commander in the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, calls the U.S. withdrawal and a Kurdish deal with Damascus "inevitable".
So then what is there to walk back?

Some U.S. troops could remain in southern Syria for an undetermined amount of time even as American forces withdraw in coming months from the northern part of the country, a senior administration official said Friday.
...Bolton plans to discuss with Israeli officials possible plans for maintaining some U.S. forces at a base near the Jordanian border that has played a critical role in the U.S. effort to diminish Iran's influence in the region.

"A base near the Jordanian border" is al-Tanf. What I called The U.S. military base dedicated to regime change in Syria more than a year ago.
It's not in a Kurdish region of Syria.
We unilaterally declared a 34-mile radius surrounding the base a “deconfliction zone,” using this as the pretext for launching three separate airstrikes against militias aligned with the Damascus government.
syria1.jpeg

Our official purpose there is to train anti-ISIS fighters, but the main group, Maghawir al-Thawra, is both anti-ISIS AND anti-regime. So you can see why the Assad government and his allies aren't very keen on this development.
In September, U.S. Marines conducted live-fire drills with these rebels at the base.
And then a few days ago this happened.

When Iran tests missiles we lose out sh*t, and then we turn around and give missiles to jihadists?
WTF? Why are we giving missiles to a bunch of rag-tag jihadists?
Do we know where these weapons will end up?

Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

link

As a presidential candidate, the mogul told Republican primary audiences that George W. Bush had lied the United States into Iraq; that said war had done a “tremendous disservice to humanity”; and that America could have saved countless lives by investing $5 trillion in domestic infrastructure instead. As commander-in-chief, Trump has suggested that there is no moral distinction between the U.S. and other great powers; that American foreign policy in the Middle East is largely dictated by the interests of arms manufacturers; and that the U.S. judges foreign regimes by their utility to American economic interests, not their commitment to human rights.

But if Trump’s descriptions of geopolitics echo Noam Chomsky, his prescriptions owe more to Attila the Hun. The president does see the invasion of Iraq as a criminal waste — but only because the U.S. failed to expropriate the region’s oil fields. He does imply that, in the eyes of the American state, Raytheon’s profits count more than journalists’ lives —but he sees that as a good thing. And when Trump suggests our country isn’t “so innocent,” he isn’t imploring neoconservatives to hold America to higher moral standards, but rather, to hold foreign autocrats to lower ones.

In other words, the Trump presidency can be read as an object lesson in the virtues of hypocrisy. Having a global hegemon that preaches human rights — while propping up dictators and incinerating schoolchildren — is bad. But having one that does those things while preaching nihilism is worse; not least because even a nominal commitment to liberal values can function as a constraint against their violation.

up
0 users have voted.