Posted on 10/16/2019 5:30:28 AM PDT by LesbianThespianGymnasticMidget
Considering that the United States largely created the fiasco in Syria beginning in earnest in 2011, it is difficult to consider the Kurds as a US ally, when the US placed the Kurds in harms way by inciting them versus America’s own NATO ally in 2011.
Israel has been at war with Syria since 1948. Period. Full stop. It has been at war over the Golan, West Bank, southern Lebanon, and Shebaa Farms, where no peace agreement or armistice has ever been signed or accomplished between Israel and Syria. During this time, the hegemonic power behind Syria’s war has primarily been about land, water, and resources, while Syria possesses tremendous untapped oil and mineral wealth.
Now in these changing geopolitical times the Kurds have been forced to negotiate with their neighbors instead of looking to the United States and Israel for support. Since Donald Trump has withdrawn most US forces from Syria, let’s explore in detail why Neocons and Neoliberals in the west are going spare about Syria.
According to the EIA: “Syria is the only relatively significant crude oil producing country in the Eastern Mediterranean region, which includes Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. Syria produced about 400,000 barrels per day (bbl/d) of crude and other petroleum liquids in 2010.” And, “According to the Oil and Gas Journal, Syria had 2,500,000,000 barrels (400,000,000 m3) of petroleum reserves as of 1 January 2010.”
Syria’s oil and gas production accounted for 1/5th of Syrian state revenue in 2010, and 1/3rd of its exports. Subsequent to the US State-led rebellion in Syria during 2011 however, Syria lost control of the oil fields east of the Euphrates.
Kurdish tribal elements in Syria have controlled the oil fields east of Deir Ezzor since then, and traded that oil to the United States in exchange for weaponry and funds to pursue battle with Turkey, and to some extent ISIS.
Like the United States, Israel too is aware of the enormous oil and gas reserve present in eastern Syria. On October 10th, Netanyahu wrote, “Israel strongly condemns the Turkish invasion of the Kurdish areas in Syria and warns against the ethnic cleansing of the Kurds by Turkey and its proxies. Israel is prepared to extend humanitarian assistance to the gallant Kurdish people.”
Now, what can Israel do to prevent the Turkish ‘ethnic cleansing’ of Kurds in Syria? No doubt the irony of Netanyahu’s statement here is lost on him, and strikes the rest of the world as somewhat tongue-in-cheek at best. Netanyahu says Israel will provide “humanitarian assistance” only, which highlights the erstwhile Israeli support for the Kurds since 1964, when ben Gurion judged the Kurds to be a strategic partner versus Saddam Hussein’s ‘radical Arab’ regime.
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.
By 1972 Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger believed that the Kurds would provide a useful foil to oppose and undermine the strategic alliance between Iraq and the Soviets. Israel too insisted that Kurdish instability in Northern Iraq would force the Iraqi leadership to maintain troops there, and prevent Iraqi forces from attacking Israel.
But even Nixon and Kissinger knew that a people split between four nations and without access to the sea could not form a viable state on their own. Promises made by the United States to the Kurds were (in eventuality) not kept, and Israel too was incapable of providing the Kurds autonomy.
As a result, the Kurds developed into a sort of mercenary force, fighting on behalf of Israel (versus Saddam) or for the United States, ultimately for financial gain; while the PKK – labeled as a terror group by the US – worked to destabilize Turkey, particularly resurging in 2011 with Clinton’s ‘Arab Spring’.
Considering that the United States largely created the fiasco in Syria beginning in earnest in 2011, it is difficult to consider the Kurds as a US ally, when the US placed the Kurds in harms way by inciting them versus America’s own NATO ally in 2011… and then put the Kurds on defensive via the ISIS terror group in Iraq and Syria, the very ISIS terror group that the United States itself created.
Consider too the 1996 Israeli IASPS blueprint for the region (detailed in this October 10th tanker attack article) if we accept that the US withdrawal prima facie is a fundamental change to the global hegemonic after twenty-four years of Warfare State adventurism, then the Neocon/Neoliberal outrage about the US withdrawal from Syria is simply heir apparent.
Next consider the interest of the generals, the Pentagon, and Beltway contractors who all realize enormous profits from Syria. Whether by commissions, by share values, or by government contracts. Unfortunately, it is all too easy to forget the real lives and real consequences of the US war in Syria. Yes, it’s all about the oil, but it’s about real people too.
Just one example is the abortive attack on a Conoco oil installation near Deir Ezzor in February of 2018, which remains unexplained to this day. The New York Times used this tragedy to castigate Russia for possibly employing contractors in Syria, just as the US factually employs contractors in all war theatres where it operates. In other words, the tragedy in Syria is played by the media just like all the war propaganda the west produces, in pursuit of endless wars for profit, regardless of lives lost.
And so, while we shed a crocodile tear for the Kurds in Syria, please also consider the big picture… where we came from… how we got here… and where we might go next. Let’s hope the United States and Israel will not be involved. And if not, Washington’s Deep State will cry louder… and louder still.
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.