Posted on 09/28/2017 2:18:45 PM PDT by huldah1776
Why do we have “interests” in Syria at all?
This is a GOOD thing...
+++++
As I warned last December, Russia’s endgame has always been the annihilation of the rebels in Idlib. But now that Erdogan has rendered himself Putin’s supplicant puppet, and the U.S. has withdrawn support for most rebel groups, all the ingredients are set for a final purge of Idlib by Russia, Assad, and Iran.
If you asked me why we are in Syria, I couldn’t tell you.
War should be clear cut if you expect to win.
>>> U.S. interests in Syria. <<<
Syria is a treaty ally of Russia. The US has exactly NO legitimate interests in a country that poses no threat to the US or our allies.
“The US has exactly NO legitimate interests in a country that poses no threat to the US or our allies.”
Well, if a country does pose a threat to the US or our allies, we do have legitimate interests? The Syrian regime does threaten Israel, Saudi Arabia and Jordan - as it has for decades. Is that of interest?
Syria allows the Russians their only warm water port, as well as airbases. Russia threatens the US and our allies - they are in fact the main reason for NATO. Russian presence and influence in Syria is growing. Interest?
But most importantly, Iran and Iranian surrogates like Hizbollah (which has already effectively taken over former US ally Lebanon with Iranian support) have large military forces (50,000 to 100,000) in Syria, and are preparing to stay in perpetuity (likely to eventually take over like Lebanon, without the US stopping them).
The same Iran whose catchphrase is Death to America! The same Iran which is on the cusp of becoming a nuclear power. The same Iran who is officially considered the world’s largest State supporter of terrorism by the US Government. What the hell more must one do to be considered a “legitimate interest”? What more could one do?
Iran has directed and supported the killing of THOUSANDS of Americans, from the Marine Barracks bombing in 1983, through the explosively formed penetrators they manufactured and provided to their militias in Iraq (specifically to kill American soldiers - the single largest cause of our casualties in Iraq). They still chant Death to America, they still mean it, and they are actively teaching that policy to the militias that they raise in other countries (Syria is now by far their biggest project).
Syria is also now al Queda’s largest base on this planet. ISIS is headquartered in Syria. Any of this ring a bell? Legitimate interest? Anyone? Buehler?
Wow, he sure understood things then. I would have preferred him openly siding with Assad as the (much less) worse evil there, but then the Neocons and the Left would have gone even crazier than they are now.
But as it is, that war, THANKFULLY, is in the process of finally ending. It never needed to start in the first place.
Most of what you listed here came about because John McCain and Barack Obama decided to destabilize Syria after Syria refused to allow Qatar to build a natural gas pipeline to Europe across Syrian territory.
Russia having a naval base in a country that’s friendly to them is none of our business.
If Russia were to attack and invade Japan because we have naval bases there that pose a threat to the east coast of Russia how would you expect the US to respond?
Does Russia have a right to protect their ally?
Are you willing to go to war with Russia when they eventually shoot down US warplanes that bomb Syrian soldiers on Syrian territory like the US did last week?
Is a Qatari gas pipeline worth starting a nuclear war?
Turkey should be kicked out of NATO. This Erdogan character is bad news, especially after staging the coup to consolidate power.
Russia has had a base in Syria for 40 years. We have a base in Turkey. By your logic that means Russia is justified in attacking Turkey.
Isis is in Syria? Yes, largely because the Obama adminstration helped create a power vacume by supporting they anti-Assad groups allied with ISIS. And Assad and Russia have been fighting them.
Now if being allied with Iran is reason to topple Assad, when to we go after Iraq? The government we put in place there is a defacto ally of Iran now. The way to deal with Iran is not to support jihadists against Assad, but to confront Iran directly.
As for NATO, we already have one Islamic member, who have been instrumental in getting us involved, because they want to be the new caliphate, starting with controlling Syria. Within a generation countries in Europe will become majority Muslim. That’s not speculation, just fact. Half the kidegarten children in France RIGHT NOW are Muslim.
I don’t know where your info about Syria being the largest AQ base in the world, but if so it’s because we allowed them to become so. There was no AQ presence when Assad had control. We allied with AQ affiliated jihadis to overthrow Assad. Assad may have been strategically opposed to Isreal, and therefore us, but the regime was relatively sane and restrained, until the Obama/Hillary/McCain crowd decided to overthrow him by backing jihadists. We have no interest in Syria that’s worth US lives and treasure.
EXCELLENT posting. Hard to believe that we still have people here drinking the deep-state Koolaid.
I watched the PBS show from a couple of years ago (smack middle of the war) called “Inside Assad’s Syria” (absolutely worth watching) and watching the people still under Assad, how they dressed, how they partied, how they adored Assad and how they knew what was in store for them if Assad loses...that was it for me, once again Deep State has been PLAYING US.
It is common in the shifting multi-polar hostilities of the Middle East, for enemies to temporarily agree to a cease fire or some tradeoffs, to focus on beating up some common enemy.
Erdogan (and the Turkish military elites) are dead set against the establishment of an Independent Kurdish nation, or a semi-autonomous Kurdish enclave in Syria. They are willing to trade their other chips on the table to squash that.
Everyone recognizes that the US is the 800lb gorilla in the room, so they have to adjust their strategies around the US, to shape the best end state for themselves.
The gist of the article is correct, that Turkey has sold out/called off its surrogate “rebels” in Idlib , so that the Assad Regime and Russia can throw everything at the Kurds, to limit or roll back what they (and therefor the US) have gained.
But I believe that it is wrong to think that Erdogan and Putin are now loyal to each other. Should this push fail, they will likely be knifing each other’s interests right away.
Turkey is apparently trying to stand up/shift some rebels that it supports to fight the Kurdish-led SDF around Deir ez Zour as part of this deal - but they have not been very effective at this so far, and they will be cut off from the Turkish border this time. So it will likely fall to the Syrian Regime and the Russians to face conflict with the US, to try to halt Kurdish advances.
That might be Erdogan’s real play - try to tempt his other competitors to get into a fight with the US, so Turkey can pick up more of the pieces in the meantime. The big Omar oil fields are are rich prize to help tempt them.
My guess is that this deal will temporarily free up some assets for the Regime/Russians/Iranians to make a race with the Kurds/SDF for the remaining assets controlled by ISIS, but it would be unlikely to escalate into a full operation against Kurds/SDF - as long as the US doesn’t cower when probed.
The race is on for the ISIS territories, as ISIS collapses, and there is going to be some shoving and head-butting, but no one can really afford a major shoot-out with the US.
“watching the people still under Assad, how they dressed, how they partied, how they adored Assad and how they knew what was in store for them if Assad loses”
Saddam had an elite that lived high on the fruits of the Dictator’s oppression, torture, genocide, and warmaking as well. So did Hitler. So does every despot. Very modern, fashionable people. Cute kids with adorable grandmas.
How the situation may have come about, does not change what is.
And what is, is what I have listed, and you can not refute - a string of “legitimate interests” - arguably the world’s greatest concentration of them. Outside of China/North Korea, it is currently the epicenter of geostrategic confrontation.
Your approach is apparently to simply retreat from any confrontation, unwilling to risk fighting, allowing any competitor or mortal enemy to expand at will, ignoring the future implications.
Regardless of how we got to this point, there is a lot to lose by simply throwing the region to the wolves, and burying our heads in the sand, wishing that it doesn’t matter.
Oh, I would think Iran would be a bet more important. But those who created this mess now use it as an excuse to continue, yet have no solution for it. What end result do you envision, and how will it be acheived? To me it seems Assad is the best of bad options. Or do you believe in the mythical moderate Muslim jihadists? Our meddling sure has done a great job in Libya.
BTW, any government in Syria will be hostile to Israel, bucause they hold the Golan Hts. While I understand and agree Israel was justified in taking them, and cannot give them up for security reasons, that doesn't change the fact that it guarantees a hostile Syria. But Israel can defend themselves against Syria. If they fall it will be because of the demographic reality that they are on their way to a Muslim majority sooner or later.
“I don’t know where your info about Syria being the largest AQ base in the world”
“Idlib Province is the largest al-Qaeda safe haven since 9/11,” says Brett McGurk”, the senior US envoy to the international coalition fighting Isis. (he tweeted this out a few weeks back, and has repeated it multiple fora. Here is one citation: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-defeat-al-quaeda-syria-grow-global-attention-islamist-terrorists-jihadis-un-us-west-iraq-raqqa-a7932881.html)
“...but if so it’s because we allowed them to become so”
So on the one hand you lament our not taking action to prevent this, while on the other hand, you want us to pull out and take no action, and allow the whole witches brew free reign to commit their mischief.
Logically inconsistent. That is because it is not feasible in the real world for us to be isolationist and safe for very long. It was not that long ago that the string of increasing terrorist attacks across the West were being planned and directed from Raqqa, Syria - but not now that we are in there bombing them to oblivion.
“Oh, I would think Iran would be a bet more important.”
Syria IS currently the main battlefield for Iran.
“What end result do you envision”
In a nutshell, weaker or defeated enemies, stronger friends. ISIS and al Queda denied territory or safe haven, starved of resources and killed to the greatest degree we can, and Iran contained and weakened in Syria to the greatest extent possible.
“...and how will it be acheived?”
The current US approach is to annihilate ISIS (kill them all), in alliance with the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) on the ground. (Note: these are NOT the so-called “moderate rebels” like the Free Syrian Army (FSA) who were heavily composed of islamists - they were/are ineffective/counterproductive).
Beyond that, there will be a diplomatic/political settlement after the war. My understanding is that the preferred US outcome would be an autonomous region administered by our SDF allies, and a negotiated settlement that limits Iran’s role, and retires Assad, for a “re-branded” Ba’ath Party administration - same guys, same desks, different talking points.
The Ba’ath Party of Assad is the last ruling political party on Earth based on the same principles as the Nazi Party - National Socialism based on race (the Arab Race, in this case - usually deceptively translated as Arab Nationalism). That doctrine needs to go.
“Our meddling sure has done a great job in Libya.”
The US Central Command (CENTCOM) is currently managing operations in Libya, and is successfully rolling back the ISIS “Caliphate” that was established there, around Sirte. They are currently crushing ISIS there. Egyptis also engaged against islamists in Libya.
“BTW, any government in Syria will be hostile to Israel”
Not the Kurds. They are the great exception in the Region.
The worst case by far is the Iranians - it is an existential threat to Israel to have Iran’s full strength positioned right on its border, with an open land route back to Iran for unfettered supply, and the time to deliberately build up military fortifications and stockpiles (notably Missiles/Rocket Forces). That is exactly what will happen if we just back off (may happen anyway).
“the demographic reality that they (Israel) are on their way to a Muslim majority sooner or later.”
Actually, Orthodox Jews have a huge birth rate, Jews still emigrate into Israel, and there is a significant net outflow from the Palestinian areas (Obama actually admitted a significant number into the US. The bottom line is that demographics do not in fact doom a Jewish State in Israel.
Nn, I criticize our actions that caused this. If you want to get rid fo them, the best course of action is help Assad restore order.
You OTOH, never answered my question about how you see our involvement bringing this to a good conslusion. What is your end game? What is the victory you envision?
BTW, you are lying when you call me an isolationist. I already said we should confront Iran directly, not by pinpricking their proxies and pretending that if I don't want to be bogged down in every mideast hellhole I'm "isolationist".
“...Dictator’s oppression, torture, genocide, and warmaking...”
Considering the BLOODTHIRSTINESS of ISIS, I’d say he knew his enemies PERFECTLY and had EVERY RIGHT to treat his opponents as he did.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.