Did former US officials support extremists in Syria as an 'asset'?

Jerusalem Post ^ | 4/6/2021 | Seth Frantzman

[EBH]

It is unclear why the US saw these groups as assets, considering that not long ago, they were cheering 9/11 and supporting genocidal terrorism.

In a bizarre twist of the remnants of the Syrian civil war, it was revealed in a recent PBS interview that the former US envoy on Syria saw an extremist group as an “asset” in the war-torn county.

How this was revealed is a circuitous route that ended with an interview by PBS Frontline correspondent Martin Smith in Syria's Idlib province. Smith spoke with Mohammad al-Jolani, a terrorist and senior extremist Islamist leader whose group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (Levant Liberation Committee - HTS) has turned Syria’s Idlib province into a mini theocratic state.

According to the article at PBS, former US Syria Envoy James Jeffrey, who also headed a separate envoy’s office to the US-led anti-ISIS coalition, told Smith that Jolani’s organization was an “asset” to US strategy. This surprising revelation uncovered the depth to which the US under the Trump administration appears to have considered working with extremists backed by Turkey – or at least to advance Turkey’s occupation of northern Syria and the empowerment of extremist groups that harm religious minorities and women’s rights.

It is unclear why the US saw these groups as assets, considering that not long ago they were cheering 9/11 and supporting genocidal terrorism. Why some US officials have had a long history of flirtations with religious extremist groups, even organizations linked to Al Qaeda, is also unclear.

[The Free Engineer]

It was an asset if your goal was to cause massive unrest and refugee outflows so as to change your political futures at home.

[BobL]

We already know that the military was LYING to Trump regarding troop redeployments in at least that part of the world, so any hit pieces on Trump have zero meaning.

[Bookshelf]

Jeffrey responds:
Underlining the important alliance between Ankara and Washington within NATO for more than 70 years, Jeffrey said that there are comprehensive relations but also issues that have had a negative impact on ties.
The U.S.’ support of the YPG in northern Syria during the country’s civil war has been one of the most controversial topics that seriously harmed the partnership between the two countries. Regarding this support, Jeffrey said that the U.S. has its own national interests in Syria within the context of the fight against the terrorist group Daesh, and it was not possible for the U.S. to conduct this fight without a partner having power on the field.
“The reason that we went there was Daesh, which posed a threat not only to Syria, Turkey and Iraq, but also to the whole region and even Europe. And, our only partner to fight the Daesh on the field was the YPG,” he said.
Stating that they always kept communication open with Turkey during the process, he said a solution supported by Ankara could not be reached.
Jeffrey also said the U.S. did not make any political promises to the YPG.
“We told it to them many times. Even when contacting their autonomous systems, we were very cautious. If you are Syrian, there will be a political process under the supervision of the United Nations and some conditions including the new constitution ... Whatever you do, you should do it with the Syrian opposition and the Assad regime. This is your job, not ours. We told it clearly to everyone.

[Wuli]

Trump should have put someone ON TOP of both the State Department and DOD on Syria policy, telling both agencies they no longer have a Syria policy of their own, that they are both totally subservient to the dictates of Trump’s appointee.

That appointee should have dictated, to State and DOD, that whatever we were doing in Syria we were not there to agree to, sanction, or help Turkey taking control anywhere in Syria, directly or by proxy, and that we would not see any fundamentalist Muslim militia group as an “asset” either.

In that regard, we would not have stood by and let Erdogan cleanse Afrin of the Kurds. By our helping the Kurds to keep Afrin, THEY would have worked to keep the terrorist groups in Idlib from getting assistance from Erdogan (Afrin controls the main highway south into Idlib province, which is why Erdogan cleansed the Kurds from Afrin - so he could build up his terroist proxies in Idlib).

Erdogan is no “balance” against the Mullahs of Tehran. They are brothers of a different sect on the same order of extremist fundamentalist Islam.