Posted on 10/16/2019 5:30:28 AM PDT by LesbianThespianGymnasticMidget
That was Britain and France, we were bit part players at most. But yes, you’re right.
They each wanted a piece, and to hell with the people living there!
Lebanon should have been GREATLY enlarged to encompass all the Levant Christians. Iraq and Syria should have been three or four countries... A Kurdistan North, A Shi’ia Southeast, and a Sunni Arab remainder, united perhaps with Transjordan.
Palestine should have been given to the Jews—minus Jerusalem, which would remain an International city... Run by? I don't have an answer.
Had they done this right after the Fall of the Ottomans, I really do think things would have been more peaceful. Including the Arab-Israeli situation, as the Muslims in Palestine should have been compensated and sent to Transjordan. The Christians in Palestine could either be citizens of Free Jerusalem or the expanded Lebanon.
For those who say no Arabs would abide by leaving Palestine for Transjordan, note that MANY Arabs in diverse places moved to new states (out of Turkey) or Turks moved back into the remains of Turkey.
The time to carve out the Jewish state was during all the other carving going on, not 30 years later.
In the following quote, the author seems to suggest Israel is a part of the Deep State: “Indeed, besides seizing the Golan, West Bank, Shebaa Farms and Southern Lebanon from Syria, the Deep State’s tactical support for the Kurds is based on the strategic interplay of feuding powers as defined by Saddam Hussein’s rise to power in 1969.”
This is the first time I ever heard anyone make such a connection. The author does so by ignoring the events which caused Israel to go into the Golan, Gaza, Lebanon and the West Bank. He also ignores the consequences to Israel when Gaza, and Southern Lebanon were returned. All in all, unlike many of those commenting, I found the article to be poorly written and disjointed and lacking any unifying theme other than the US and Israel are bad. But, given the author’s background, this makes sense.
But why Syria where there was a handful of troops for a very short time? Why not start with Afghanistan if this is really about troop pull back from the ME.
The table had been set. It is not yet set in Afghanistan.
Simpler problem to solve. Solve what you can solve immediately, immediately. Work on what is going to take time to solve.
It is like asking “Why haven’t we solved the Jewish/Palestinian problem?”
I might have misunderstood your question in my first response.
The goal in pulling troops out is not just pulling troops out after you have lit a fuse. The goal is to pull troops out once you have arranged your pieces of the puzzle so that you leave a stable situation behind and not a mess. Syria has had a lot less time to become complex so extrication is a simpler task given you have not totally upset the apple cart leaving huge power vacuums. The pieces were there to arrange and skeedaddle without lighting the fuse to a bomb. Leaving Afghanistan in its current state would be leaving a fuse lit on a bomb.
Leaving Syria is a win for us and a loss for those against us. Once Afganistan is similarly arranged we will get out quickly.
Because “Syria” is really just a proxy for the entire Middle East fiasco, the blame for which lies entirely at their doorstep.
Sadly true. This is why our government has been covering up the Saudi role in 9/11 for 8 years and counting. I also strongly suspect that the Saudis had some role in the Las Vegas Massacre as well (they own a lot of the real estate in that area).
Should have been 18 years and counting.
Seen in this context a U.S. withdrawal from Syria represents a loss of influence that cost a lot of very bad people a lot of very big money, most of which will have to be re-spent to recover this lever of power, if that's even possible in the face of a clear majority opinion in the States away from endless intervention in the ME. Not only is this threatening, but even more so is the prospect that Trump may decide to do it again, waging instead a bloodless (and so far very successful) economic war against Iran. That alone is a serious, perhaps even an existential threat to the European Deep State, who is doing its very best to prop up Iran. A lot of rice bowls are being threatened by this loss of control and what is left after 2024 is the real question in a lot of boardrooms and luxury suites throughout the world.
All of this is well said.
Deep State is an amorphous term for an amorphous group of people world wide. Oligarchs. billionaires, intel agencies and people, politicians, think tanks and arms manufacturers to name a few.
War and Corruption Inc. controls a lot of money, moves a lot of oil, ends and ruins a lot of lives.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. :)
Steve Brown strangely makes no comment about Russian oil interests, Russia’s history of financing protesters in the West up to and including the Dakota Access pipeline protests, or the highly effective Russian use of propaganda. Apparently thinks the propaganda is only one-way.
And Iran-friendly Qatar is where a lot of deep state funding’s been coming from.
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.