Thread: TRUMP’S SYRIA PLAN IS A “DREAM SCENARIO” FOR ISIS, RUSSIA, IRAN AND ASSAD

TRUMP’S SYRIA PLAN IS A “DREAM SCENARIO” FOR ISIS, RUSSIA, IRAN AND ASSAD

Trump’s Syria plan is a “dream scenario” for ISIS, Russia, Iran and Assad

By Tim Hume Dec 20, 2018


Donald Trump’s sudden announcement Wednesday that he intends to pull all U.S. troops out of Syria blindsided his aides and allies — and opened the door for a potential ISIS resurgence, experts warn.

Trump committed as recently as September to the 2,000-strong troop deployment remaining in Syria indefinitely until ISIS was defeated, a political solution was in place, and Iranian forces and their proxies had left.


None of those goals have been accomplished, but Trump said he was bringing the troops home anyway.

"We have won against ISIS,” he declared in a video message. “We’ve beaten them and we've beaten them badly. We’ve taken back the land, and now it's time for our troops to come back home.”

The abrupt policy reversal attracted a storm of criticism from lawmakers, military partners on the ground, and analysts.

The battle against ISIS is far from over, they say. What’s more, the pullout looms as a repeat of an Obama-era foreign policy decision that the president has repeatedly criticized — the withdrawal from Iraq, which left a power vacuum that enabled the rise of ISIS. “Withdrawal of this small American force in Syria would be a huge Obama-like mistake,” tweeted Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham.


The pullout would also leave the Kurds, a key regional ally, without support as they face an imminent threat, while effectively ceding victory in the conflict to Syria’s key backers, Russia and Iran — even though the Trump administration has repeatedly cited Tehran as Washington’s main regional threat.

“I see any such U.S. decision as just as wrongheaded and counterproductive as Obama’s to leave Iraq in 2012 — and likely with just as many adverse consequences,” Michael O’Hanlon, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, told VICE News.

“Allies will suffer. Assad and Iran and Russia will gain.”

Charles Lister, director of the Countering Terrorism and Extremism Program at the Middle East Institute, described the move as “the greatest gift and insurance policy that ISIS could have wished for.”


“Geopolitically, this is not just a dream scenario for ISIS but also for Russia, Iran and the Assad regime, all of whom stand to benefit substantially from a U.S. withdrawal.”

WHY THE EXPERTS ARE WORRIED

The 2,000 U.S. troops have been stationed in support of the Syrian Defense Forces (SDF), a Kurdish-dominated militia that has been the most effective ground force in the fight against ISIS, reducing its one-time “caliphate” to a mere footprint in Syria.
With the might of a superpower behind it, the SDF has gained control of about a third of Syria’s territory in the northeast.

But the Kurds are surrounded by enemies —Turkey, which sees the Kurds as terrorists and fears they will fuel an insurgency in the country's heavily Kurdish southeast; Syria and its Russian and Iranian backers; and ISIS.

The Kurds fear that once the U.S. withdraws, the recent battlefield equilibrium will be shattered and Syria will revert to chaos.

An SDF statement Wednesday said that Trump’s move would “create a political and military vacuum... leaving its people between the claws of hostile parties” — a situation that would jeopardize the anti-ISIS campaign and allow the terror group “to revive itself again.”

Trump’s move comes as Turkey, a U.S. ally that has already carved out a pocket of influence bordering Kurdish areas in Syria, is threatening to launch an attack on the SDF.
“Turkey will take advantage of there no longer being a risk of clashing with U.S. troops in northeast Syria to pursue its planned military campaign against” the SDF, Lina Khatib, head of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at Chatham House, told VICE News. She said that with the Kurds occupied in renewed hostilities with Turkey, “the ground would be left wide open for ISIS to regroup and regenerate.”


READ: This Syrian family dug a cellar to hide from Assad’s bombs

Lister said the Syrian regime may respond to the U.S. withdrawal by buying the loyalty of the Arab militias affiliated with the SDF in northeast Syria, leaving the Kurds more vulnerable to Turkish aggression.

“It’s a sad state of affairs when our key allies on the ground, who’ve shed blood and thousands of lives for our fight against ISIS, are to be well and truly abandoned,” he said.

THE MOVE BENEFITS THE U.S.’ GEOPOLITICAL RIVALS IN THE REGION

American withdrawal would also cede the Syrian conflict to the regime and its Russian and Iranian backers, analysts warn.

The move will undermine the administration’s sanctions policy intended to exert maximum pressure on Tehran, according to analysts at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies think tank.

“A full U.S. troop withdrawal from Syria will signal that as the administration calls for maximum pressure on Iran, it is not even willing to do the bare minimum to counter Iran at the regional level,” said research fellow Behnam Ben Taleblu.

If Assad reclaims Kurdish-held territories, where 90 percent of the country’s oil supplies are located, it will ease the pressure on Tehran to subsidize Syria’s oil needs and alleviate the pressure from U.S. sanctions. It would also allow Iran to complete a strategically valuable land-bridge from its territory to the Mediterranean.

Russian President Vladimir Putin himself commended Trump’s decision to pull out Thursday. “On this, Donald is right. I agree with him,” he said in a news conference.


WHY ISIS COULD MOUNT A COMEBACK

Obama’s reason for entering the Syrian quagmire was “to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIS.” But despite Trump’s claim that “we have defeated ISIS in Syria,” the job is far from done.

The “caliphate” that once stretched across two countries and governed an estimated 8 million people has all but collapsed. Yet ISIS still controls small, organized pockets of territory — which U.S. officials say could take months to win back — and the group is believed to command thousands of militants across the country who have gone underground and reverted to insurgency tactics.
A U.S. Defense Department assessment in August estimated the number of ISIS fighters in Syria at 14,500.

Lister said any defeat was “arguably years” away. “To make that fact as clear as day, ISIS claimed responsibility for an attack in Raqqa only 10 minutes before Trump’s 'mission accomplished' tweet,” he said. “That’s a city the U.S. liberated and in which U.S. troops and USAID and State personnel are deployed to this day.”

Paul Salem, president at the Middle East Institute, told VICE News that ISIS was already regrouping in parts of Syria and Iraq “and will certainly try to come back in parts of Syria if it sees an opportunity.”

He added: “It is certainly not 'out' by any stretch of the imagination.”

Salem said it was a mistake to think that the group, as a manifestation of violent Islamic fundamentalism, could ever be truly defeated on the battlefield alone. “As long as it exists as an idea and skeleton network in part of Syria and Iraq — and parts of other countries like Yemen, Libya, or elsewhere — it can bide its time, regroup and fight another day. They have played the long game before, and they will play it again.”


Contrary to his comments Wednesday, Trump appeared to concede Thursday that the group hadn’t actually been defeated — but argued instead that the fight was the responsibility of Assad and his allies.

“Russia, Iran, Syria & others are the local enemy of ISIS. We were doing there (sic) work,” he tweeted. “Now they will have to fight ISIS and others, who they hate, without us.”


But that stance could be disastrous if the terror group capitalizes on the new security vacuum to make a comeback in the region. Several analysts said that by the 2020 U.S. elections, Trump could be among the many, many people rueing that decision.

“Trump blamed Obama for withdrawing too soon from Iraq and allowing ISIS to rise there,” said Salem. “In the run-up to the 2020 election, Trump might be faced with the reality of a resurgent ISIS in Syria that he might take the blame for.”

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/...ithdrawal-isis

Send their refugees back to go fight!

We are not the military for the world.

No more money, no more US blood.

TRILLIONS WASTED ON BARBARIANS WHO WILL CONTINUE TO FIGHT, BREED, RAPE AND KILL ANOTHER 1,000 YEARS!

IT WILL NEVER END YOU DOUGH HEADS!!!

President made the right decision.

Originally Posted by Judy

President made the right decision.

There are a whole lot of folks, including so-called experts, that disagree with you. Nobody in the Pentagon agrees with the decision. This is just Trump kissing Putin's buttocks again.

Pentagon & Congress

Lawmakers tell Trump his decision to pull troops out of Syria is a ‘costly mistake’



By: Leo Shane III   6 hours ago


U.S. soldiers take part in a combined joint patrol in Manbij, Syria on Nov. 1. White House officials announced Wednesday they plan to begin withdrawing troops from the region, after President Donald Trump declared victory over Islamic State fighters in the region. (Spc. Zoe Garbarino/Army)

WASHINGTON — Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers reacted with disbelief over President Donald Trump’s sudden decision this week to withdraw all U.S. military forces from Syria, expressing concern that the move could be a dangerous strategic mistake.

Just hours after the president released a video stating that “we have won against ISIS,” a bipartisan group of Senate Armed Services Committee members released a letterpleading with him to reconsider his stance.

“Such action at this time is a premature and costly mistake that not only threatens the safety and security of the United States but also emboldens ISIS, (Syrian leader) Bashar al Assad, Iran and Russia,” the letter said.

“If you decide to follow through with your decision to pull our troops out of Syria, any remnants of ISIS in Syria will surely renew and embolden their efforts in the region.”



Troops to immediately withdraw from Syria as Trump declares victory over ISIS

Pentagon officials did not immediately confirm reports that Trump has ordered a total withdrawal of troops.
By: Kyle Rempfer

The group was led by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and a staunch defender of Trump in recent months. However, on this move, he blasted Trump, leveling the same criticisms he used against former President Barack Obama when he withdrew U.S. forces from Iraq after that war.

“I fear it will lead to devastating consequences for our nation, the region, and throughout the world,” he said on social media.

Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump

After historic victories against ISIS, it’s time to bring our great young people home!

101K
6:10 PM - Dec 19, 2018

64.2K people are talking about this



Twitter Ads info and privacy

Senate Armed Services Committee ranking member Jack Reed, D-R.I., called the “hasty, disjoined” withdrawal announcement “further evidence of President Trump’s inability to lead on the world stage.” He criticized the president for ignoring assessments from his own staff in making the decision.

“Just because President Trump tweets that he has defeated ISIS doesn’t make us safer, especially when the reality is very different on the ground,” he said. “The president continues to disregard the advice of his military, diplomatic, and intelligence personnel who have consistently warned against the action the president seems poised to take.”

Marco Rubio
✔@marcorubio





I found someone who is supportive of the decision to retreat from #Syria
Russia in USA
✔@RusEmbUSA


The #US decision to pull its troops from #Syria creates good prospects for a political solution in that Arab country - #Zakharova

http://tass.com/world/1036875










12.4K
4:57 PM - Dec 19, 2018
Twitter Ads info and privacy

8,064 people are talking about this



Twitter Ads info and privacy


Senior administration officials have downplayed the suddenness of the move, arguing that Trump’s antipathy towards U.S. military involvement in Syria has been well knownsince his presidential campaign.

But both military and State Department leaders — many of whom in recent days had downplayed the chances of a full withdrawal of forces from the region — appeared caught off guard by the commander in chief’s decision, adding to the frustration on Capitol Hill.

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and the incoming chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said he was “deeply concerned that the President is making yet another abrupt decision, with seemingly little input or consultation with military and intelligence officials.” He promised a full review of the move.

Chris Murphy
✔@ChrisMurphyCT


But wait a minute...I thought we defeated ISIS. Why would Russia, Iran and Syria have to fight them if they’re defeated?
Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump


....Russia, Iran, Syria & many others are not happy about the U.S. leaving, despite what the Fake News says, because now they will have to fight ISIS and others, who they hate, without us. I am building by far the most powerful military in the world. ISIS hits us they are doomed!


10.5K
7:57 AM - Dec 20, 2018
Twitter Ads info and privacy

3,133 people are talking about this



Twitter Ads info and privacy

Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., went even further in his criticism.

"Eight days ago the administration called a hypothetical pullout ‘reckless.’ Today, we're leaving,” he said.

“The president's generals have no idea where this weak decision came from: They believe the high-fiving winners today are Iran, ISIS and Hezbollah. The losers are Israel, humanitarian victims and U.S. intelligence gathering. A lot of American allies will be slaughtered if this retreat is implemented.”

Claire McCaskill
✔@clairecmc


President Trump appears to have 2 kinds of advisors, those that are indicted and those that are ignored. #SyriaWithdrawal


4,379
8:02 AM - Dec 20, 2018
Twitter Ads info and privacy

1,346 people are talking about this



Twitter Ads info and privacy


White House and Pentagon officials have not confirmed a timeline for withdrawal, although multiple media sources have quoted defense officials as saying they have been instructed to move quickly on bringing troops home.

One lawmaker who offered faint praise for the move was Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., and an outspoken opponent of multiple U.S. overseas combat operations. She signaled support for the move helping to “bring these endless wars to a close” but also criticized how the withdrawal is being handled.

“As we draw down our military role in Syria, the U.S. must redouble our diplomatic negotiations to broker peace in the region,” she said. “President Trump should not be celebrating walking away from a humanitarian crisis, especially one that the United States helped create.”

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/p...-out-of-syria/

Trump, who never served in the military, is pretending to know more than all his military advisers and Pentagon leadership. It's a mistake to stab our allies in the back like this. Of course Trump has always been one-way where loyalty is concerned. Never having served, Trump wouldn't know anything about abandoning your allies to the mercy of their enemies or deserting a war prematurely (ISIS is not completely defeated). Remember when Trump ostracized Obama for announcing the time-frame of a military withdraw publicly? Will Trump ostracize himself for doing the same thing?

This seems to come out of the blue. However, I hear Jared and Ivanka were seen exiting Trump office right before he came out with his announcement to our enemies. Of course I'm joking, but I certainly wouldn't be shocked if it were true.

Originally Posted by MW

There are a whole lot of folks, including so-called experts, that disagree with you. Nobody in the Pentagon agrees with the decision. This is just Trump kissing Putin's buttocks again.

You're a war-hawk who is afraid of Russia. Whatever. Your choice, but it doesn't make your policy of war and war spending correct or one that should be imposed on the American military, American taxpayers or American citizens. In my opinion, it's dead wrong.

Originally Posted by Judy

You're a war-hawk who is afraid of Russia. Whatever. Your choice, but it doesn't make your policy of war and war spending correct or one that should be imposed on the American military, American taxpayers or American citizens. In my opinion, it's dead wrong.

Merry Christmas Assad and Putin! Welcome to Trumpland, where, like Burger King, you can get it your way.

Originally Posted by Judy

You're a war-hawk who is afraid of Russia. Whatever. Your choice, but it doesn't make your policy of war and war spending correct or one that should be imposed on the American military, American taxpayers or American citizens. In my opinion, it's dead wrong.

My policy?

Continued American Occupation Of The Middle East Does Not Suppress Terrorism, It Causes It



"The chaos of this incoherent and counterproductive strategy is, peculiarly enough, what the neocons actually want. Perpetual war and destabilisation in the Middle East is their goal..."

Thu, 12/20/2018 - 23:45
86 SHARES
Authored by Craig Murray,

Even the neo-con warmongers’ house journal The Guardian, furious at Trump’s attempts to pull US troops out of Syria, in producing a map to illustrate its point, could only produce one single, uncertain, very short pen stroke to describe the minute strip of territory it claims ISIS still control on the Iraqi border.



Of course, the Guardian produces the argument that continued US military presence is necessary to ensure that ISIS does not spring back to life in Syria. The fallacy of that argument can be easily demonstrated. In Afghanistan, the USA has managed to drag out the long process of humiliating defeat in war even further than it did in Vietnam. It is plain as a pikestaff that the presence of US occupation troops is itself the best recruiting sergeant for resistance. In Sikunder Burnes I trace how the battle lines of tribal alliances there today are precisely the same ones the British faced in 1841. We just attach labels like Taliban to hide the fact that invaders face national resistance.
The secret to ending the strength of ISIS in Syria is not the continued presence of American troops. It is for America’s ever closer allies in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf to cut off the major artery of money and arms, which we should never forget in origin and for a long time had a strong US component. The US/Saudi/Israeli alliance against Iran is the most important geo-political factor in the region today. It is high time this alliance stopped both funding ISIS and pretending to fight it; schizophrenia is not a foreign policy stance.



There has been no significant Shia Islamic terrorist or other threat against the West in recent years. 9/11 was carried out by Saudi Sunni militants. Al Qaida, ISIS, Al Nusra, Boko Haram, these are all Sunni groups, and all Saudi sponsored. It is a matter of lunacy that the West has adopted the posture that it is Iran – which has sponsored not one attack on the West in recent memory – which is the threat in the Middle East.
The origin of this stance appears to lie in the fact that the Shia group Hezbollah proved to have the only military force among Israel’s neighbours capable of halting an Israeli invasion. After the disastrous invasion of Iraq resulted in an Iran friendly regime in Baghdad, the US decided for balance of power reasons to back Saudi regional power plays, only for Saudi Arabia to fall into the hands of the psychopathic warmonger Mohammed Bin Salman who escalated an already flawed policy to breaking point.
The chaos of this incoherent and counterproductive strategy is, peculiarly enough, what the neocons actually want. Perpetual war and destabilisation in the Middle East is their goal. One of the findings I had not expected to discover in writing Sikunder Burnes was that the British had been deliberately exploiting and exacerbating the Shia/Sunni divide as early as 1836 to the Imperial purpose. Today, by keeping Arab populations poor and politically divided, the neo-cons believe that they enhance the security of Israel, and they certainly do facilitate the access of western companies to the oil and gas of the region, as we see in destabilised Iraq and Libya.
The Clintons and Blair were the apotheosis of the capture of the mainstream “left” political parties by this neo-con Imperialist agenda in the Middle East. Sanders, Trump and Corbyn were the first politicians with any chance of power for many decades who did not pay lip-service to the neo-con agenda. Trump’s lack of enthusiasm for Cold War politics has been neutralised from any possible action on his part by the ludicrous lie that Russia hacked his election.
Furthermore his greed has led to deals with Saudi Arabia which have largely undercut his declared preference for non-interventionism. And now in Syria, the very hint that Trump may not be fully committed to the pursuit of perpetual war has the entire neo-con establishment, political media and NGO, screaming in unison, both sides of the Atlantic.
I have written before that Trump may be a rotten President for Americans, but at least he has not initiated a major war; and I am quite sure Hillary would have done by now. For a non-American, the choice between Hillary and Trump ended up in balancing on one side of the scale the evil of millions more killed and maimed in the Middle East and the launching of a full on, unreserved new Cold War, against on the other side of the scale poorer Americans having very bad healthcare and social provision and America adopting racist immigration policies. I do hope that the neo-con barrage today arguing for more American troops in the Middle East, will help people remember just how very unattractive also is the Hillary side of the equation.
It is also very helpful in revealing the startling unanimity of our bought and paid for political, media and NGO class here in the UK.



https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...m-it-causes-it