Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

In Drastic Reversal, Trump Orders Full Withdrawal From Syria After “Victory Over ISIS”

Will America finally exit Syria? Is Trump belatedly making good on his campaign promises?

Published

on

1,979 Views

Via Zerohedge…


update 2: A troop withdrawal appears already underway after a Pentagon official said it would happen “quickly”.

White House spokesperson Sarah Sanders has issued a formal statement on troop withdrawal from Syria: “We have started returning United States troops home as we transition to the next phase of this campaign.”

Moments after President Trump confirmed reports of US pullout via Twitter saying “We have defeated ISIS in Syria,” Pentagon officials said the president “ordered full US troop withdrawal from Syria,” and that this will be “rapid” — apparently already beginning, per a Reuters breaking report“All U.S. State Department personnel are being evacuated from Syria within 24 hours – official.”

The full White House statement issued Wednesday late morning:

Meanwhile Israel’s ambassador to the U.N. has vowed to continue combating Iran in Syria if US forces leave. Russia has alternately said “Syria will stabilize” should the thousands of American troops stationed there exit.

***

update: It’s official, within an hour after the first headline the president tweeted “We have defeated ISIS in Syria”and in reference to reports of a planned US troop withdrawal from Syria which unnamed officials say is to be initiated “immediately,” he added that the terror group’s defeat was “my only reason for being there”.

Minutes after the WSJ first broke the story, The Washington Post confirmed the following through a defense official:

The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a decision that has not yet been announced, said the decision would include the entire force of more than 2,000 U.S. service members. It was made on Tuesday, the official said.

President Trump has long promised to conclude the campaign against the Islamic State and has questioned the value of costly and dangerous military missions overseas.

***

The WSJ just reported a monumental and historic reversal in White House policy on Syria, revealing Wednesday morning the Pentagon is preparing to withdraw all forces from northeastern Syria “immediately”:

In an abrupt reversal, the U.S. military is preparing to withdraw its forces from northeastern Syria, people familiar with the matter said Wednesday, a move that throws the American strategy in the Middle East into turmoil.

U.S. officials began informing partners in northeastern Syria of their plans to begin immediately pulling American forces out of the region where they have been trying to wrap up the campaign against Islamic State, the people said.

The WSJ notes the complete 180 reversal in policy, which just days ago was reiterated by officials as an “indefinite” American presence in Syria in order to “counter Iran” while bolstering Kurdish and Arab SDF forces in the East (the YPG-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces), comes following a phone call last week between President Trump and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

For the past week Erdogan has threatened to launch a full-scale cross border assault on US-backed Kurdish forces in Syria, which Turkey has long considered an terrorist extension of the outlawed PKK. This would potentially bring American troops and advisers under fire, who’ve found themselves in the awkward position since entering Syria of training Syrian Kurdish militias on the one hand, and coordinating broadly with a NATO ally on the other.

Perhaps Trump finally took full stock of the fact that the prior planned “indefinite” presence of some 4000 American troops was recipe for a quagmire sure to be Washington’s next Afghan or Iraq style “endless war”?

As one recent intelligence study put it“The prospect of US being militarily involved in Syria, caught in middle of one of most complex conflicts in recent memory, with shifting objectives & ambiguous endgame, has been met with congressional indifference and public apathy.” 

Will America finally exit Syria? Is Trump belatedly making good on his campaign promises?

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
25 Comments

25
Leave a Reply

avatar
13 Comment threads
12 Thread replies
2 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
13 Comment authors
Olivia KrothZhangTheCelotajsYou can call me ALWesaf Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Blue Pilgrim
Guest
Blue Pilgrim

If the US is going to attack Iran it would not want it’s troops in Syria to be easily hit in retaliation.

voza0db
Guest
voza0db

That’s not a real problem for them because the USofT as bases around Iran anyway…

You can call me AL
Guest
You can call me AL

You may have forgotten but China and Russia vowed to defend Iran. The US are out os Syria, because they lost and everybody knows that, In the first few years of their illegal presence they assisted ISIS and Turkey in stealing Syrian Oil, only when the Russians bombed the hell out of the convoys and actually won the war against ISIS (in general), did it even contemplate leaving – please also remember that the US has trained up 50,000 equivalent vermin to ISIS, to continue fighting.

voza0db
Guest
voza0db

CIA terrorists are going to have a busy Christmas week with the preparations for another FAKE CHEM ATTACK!

JPH
Guest
JPH

Hezbollah knows how to end unwanted US presence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombings
Guess US finally realized too that their continued unwanted presence amounted to invitation for a repeat.

Tom Welsh
Guest
Tom Welsh

Ah yes, the standard Pentagon method of ending its unwinnable wars: declare victory and go home. As they did in Vietnam.

Monteg3534
Guest
Monteg3534

So who’s complaining? What’s not to like about declaring victory and going home? Going home is all that matters.

Shaun Ramewe
Guest
Shaun Ramewe

*Yes but well done Syria, Russia and Iran for actually being the real, true and only victors against the lying ZioAmerican war criminals and all their terrorists brands, including ISIS.

You can call me AL
Guest
You can call me AL

+ the Gulf war I and II.

Cudwieser
Guest
Cudwieser

America aren’t withdrawing. The are redeploying.

SIDELINE:

If America redeploy, where will they redeploy to next (and at what odds)

Venezuela (5:1)
Another Middle Eastern Country (10:1)
South China Sea (6:1)
the Balkins (25:1)
Ukraine (50:1)
Cuba (100:1)

monteg3534
Guest
monteg3534

Q: Where are we NOT deploying?
A: Syria, Yemen, Korea.
3 down and many more to go, but it’s a start.

Cudwieser
Guest
Cudwieser

They’ll find an excuse to help the saudi’s in Yemen. They’d love to get at North Korea and are unofficially deployed in the South. As for Syria they know they’re on a hiding to nothing and likely need their ‘resources’ elsewhere as the state of play with Russia and other interests have shifted to new fronts. Iran is now a little safer (relatively) with Syria as a Buffer, but with the EU in crisis and the Balkins getting hotter, not to mention the Ukraine being the currant thorn in Russia’s side, I suspect the US can see a wound forming… Read more »

Shaun Ramewe
Guest
Shaun Ramewe

Another part of Syria as FSA sickos – probably Idlib.

You can call me AL
Guest
You can call me AL

AFRICA + Afghanistan.

Shaun Ramewe
Guest
Shaun Ramewe

*All the Zio-lying illegal-invading false-flagging terrorist-abetting civilian-murdering resource-thieving ZOG-Yank coward-pervert war criminals have ever sneakily done is the sly opposite to what they say.

Olivia Kroth
Guest

I do not believe that US troops will really leave Syria. They are a pest, once there, for always there. If they really leave, they will order ISIS to continue the dirty job of chemical attacks, and other cowardly murdering of Syrian patriots.

Shaun Ramewe
Guest
Shaun Ramewe

And fellow illegal-invader, terrorist-abettor, civilian-murderer, war-criminal, liar-thief Turkey and its slyly remorphed ISIS/Nusra/Sham/etc FSA sicko terrorist armies will continue to sneakily assist.

Olivia Kroth
Guest

Tass reports: “Militants shell Syria’s Latakia, Hama, Aleppo over past 24 hours”
More:
http://tass.com/world/1036895
Who are these so-called militants? US proxies continuing the dirty work of the US troops who are “going home”. The US disseminates fake news, as always. Not a single word of what the write or say is true. They are pathological liars.

TEP
Guest
TEP

Trump has tried to order US troop withdrawal from Syria before, only to be undermined/over-ruled by the deep state who line up expert govt officials to make statements to the contrary. Come on guys, do you really believe Trump conducts US policy? 100 days is a long time, I suspect in 200 days time the anglozionists – with false flags or otherwise – will still have troops in Syria working hard to destroy and destabilise any peace. I’m not a pessimist, I’m a realist. Anglozionists always double down, always.

Wesaf
Guest
Wesaf

Maybe it is more to the point that it is becoming more difficult, selling weapons to the enemy and then sending your troops against them.Maybe better to sell weapons and make your profits.

TheCelotajs
Guest
TheCelotajs

White House spokesperson Sarah Sanders has issued a formal statement on troop withdrawal from Syria: “We have started returning United States troops home as we transition to the next phase of this campaign.”

No they are not because he is replacing them with uncontrollable paid mercenaries just like he is doing in Afghanistan that way the United States is no longer responsible if they commit war crimes. George W. Bush did it in Iraq using “Blackwater Security aka Academi Company now” until Iraq kicked them out for killing incent civilians.

Olivia Kroth
Guest

The Syrian Government does not believe the US troops will pull out of their country. TASS reports what the Syrian Ambassador to the UN said:

Syria has doubts about US President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw US troops from the country’s territory, Syria’s UN Amabassador Bashar Ja’afari has told reporters.
“At first we need to see if this decision is genuine or not,” he said. ‘The American decision was referring us to a delay of between 60 and 100 days so let is wait and see if this decision is being implemented genuinely.”

More:
http://tass.com/world/1037280

Olivia Kroth
Guest

There is no “victory over ISIS” because militants keep shelling Syrian cities. Who are these militants? Of course, it is Daesh and ISIS! TASS reports:

Three Syrian soldiers wounded in shellings by militants — Russian reconciliation center
World December 21, 23:34 UTC+3
Militants operating in the Idlib de-escalation zone shelled settlements in the Latakia and Hama governorates, as well as parts of the Aleppo city…

More:
http://tass.com/world/1037468

Zhang
Guest
Zhang

While it’s good to see the US withdrawal, it’s incredibly insulting to see the US claim credit for other people’s work. ISIS is gone not because of anything the US did, but because of the efforts by the Syrian army, Russia and the Iranian militias.

The US did everything they could to fund and help the terrorists. Trump is merely cutting their losses after the ruthless Obama regime change scheme failed.

Olivia Kroth
Guest

True! And by the way ISIS is still active in Syria, shelling cities. SANA reports about it (Syrian-Arab News Agency).
US Americans are big liars. As soon as they open their mouth, a lie comes out.

Latest

Bercow blocks Brexit vote, May turns to EU for lifeline (Video)

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 112.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss Theresa May’s latest Brexit dilemma, as House of Commons Speaker John Bercow, shocked the world by citing a 1604 precedent that now effectively blocks May’s third go around at trying to pass her treacherous Brexit deal through the parliament.

All power now rests with the Brussels, as to how, if and when the UK will be allowed to leave the European Union.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via Bloomberg


Theresa May claims Brexit is about taking back control. Ten days before the U.K. is due to leave the European Union, it looks like anything but.

House of Commons Speaker John Bercow’s intervention, citing precedent dating back to 1604, to rule out a repeat vote on May’s already defeated departure deal leaves the prime minister exposed ahead of Thursday’s EU summit in Brussels.

Bercow, whose cries of “Orrdurrr! Orrdurrr!’’ to calm rowdy lawmakers have gained him a devoted international following, is now the pivotal figure in the Brexit battle. May’s team privately accuse him of trying to frustrate the U.K.’s exit from the EU, while the speaker’s admirers say he’s standing up for the rights of parliament against the executive.

If just one of the 27 other states declines May’s summit appeal to extend the divorce timetable, then the no-deal cliff edge looms for Britain’s departure on March 29. If they consent, it’s unclear how May can meet Bercow’s test that only a substantially different Brexit agreement merits another vote in parliament, since the EU insists it won’t reopen negotiations.

Caught between Bercow and Brussels, May’s room for maneuver is shrinking. Amid rumblings that their patience with the U.K. is near exhaustion, EU leaders are girding for the worst.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

President Putin signs law blocking fake news, but the West makes more

Western media slams President Putin and his fake news law, accusing him of censorship, but an actual look at the law reveals some wisdom.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

The TASS Russian News Agency reported on March 18th that Russian President Vladimir Putin signed off on a new law intended to block distorted or untrue information being reported as news. Promptly after he did so, Western news organizations began their attempt to “spin” this event as some sort of proof of “state censorship” in the oppressive sense of the old Soviet Union. In other words, a law designed to prevent fake news was used to create more fake news.

One of the lead publications is a news site that is itself ostensibly a “fake news” site. The Moscow Times tries to portray itself as a Russian publication that is conducted from within Russian borders. However, this site and paper is really a Western publication, run by a Dutch foundation located in the Netherlands. As such, the paper and the website associated have a distinctly pro-West slant in their reporting. Even Wikipedia noted this with this comment from their entry about the publication:

In the aftermath of the Ukrainian crisis, The Moscow Times was criticized by a number of journalists including Izvestia columnist Israel Shamir, who in December 2014 called it a “militant anti-Putin paper, a digest of the Western press with extreme bias in covering events in Russia”.[3] In October 2014 The Moscow Times made the decision to suspend online comments after an increase in offensive comments. The paper said it disabled comments for two reasons—it was an inconvenience for its readers as well as being a legal liability, because under Russian law websites are liable for all content, including user-generated content like comments.[14]

This bias is still notably present in what is left of the publication, which is now an online-only news source. This is some of what The Moscow Times had to say about the new fake news legislation:

The bills amending existing information laws overwhelmingly passed both chambers of Russian parliament in less than two months. Observers and some lawmakers have criticized the legislation for its vague language and potential to stifle free speech.

The legislation will establish punishments for spreading information that “exhibits blatant disrespect for the society, government, official government symbols, constitution or governmental bodies of Russia.”

Insulting state symbols and the authorities, including Putin, will carry a fine of up to 300,000 rubles and 15 days in jail for repeat offenses.

As is the case with other Russian laws, the fines are calculated based on whether the offender is a citizen, an official or a legal entity.

More than 100 journalists and public figures, including human rights activist Zoya Svetova and popular writer Lyudmila Ulitskaya, signed a petition opposing the laws, which they labeled “direct censorship.”

This piece does give a bit of explanation from Dmitry Peskov, showing that European countries also have strict laws governing fake news distribution. However, the Times made the point of pointing out the idea of “insulting governmental bodies of Russia… including Putin” to bolster their claim that this law amounts to real censorship of the press. It developed its point of view based on a very short article from Reuters which says even less about the legislation and how it works.

However, TASS goes into rather exhaustive detail about this law, and it also gives rather precise wording on the reason for the law’s passage, as well as how it is to be enforced. We include most of this text here, with emphases added:

Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed a law on blocking untrue and distorting information (fake news). The document was posted on the government’s legal information web portal.

The document supplements the list of information, the access to which may be restricted on the demand by Russia’s Prosecutor General or his deputies. In particular, it imposes a ban on “untrue publicly significant information disseminated in the media and in the Internet under the guise of true reports, which creates a threat to the life and (or) the health of citizens, property, a threat of the mass violation of public order and (or) public security, or the threat of impeding or halting the functioning of vital infrastructural facilities, transport or social infrastructure, credit institutions, energy, industrial or communications facilities.”

Pursuant to the document, in case of finding such materials in Internet resources registered in accordance with the Russian law on the mass media as an online media resource, Russia’s Prosecutor General or his deputies will request the media watchdog Roskomnadzor to restrict access to the corresponding websites.

Based on this request, Roskomnadzor will immediately notify the editorial board of the online media resource, which is in violation of the legislation, about the need to remove untrue information and the media resource will be required to delete such materials immediately. If the editorial board fails to take the necessary measures, Roskomnadzor will send communications operators “a demand to take measures to restrict access to the online resource.”

In case of deleting such untrue information, the website owner will notify Roskomnadzor thereof, following which the media watchdog will “hold a check into the authenticity of this notice” and immediately inform the communications operator about the resumption of the access to the information resource.
The conditions for the law are very specific, as are the penalties for breaking it. TASS continued:

Liability for breaching the law

Simultaneously, the Federation Council approved the associated law with amendments to Russia’s Code of Administrative Offences, which stipulates liability in the form of penalties of up to 1.5 million rubles (around $23,000) for the spread of untrue and distorting information.

The Code’s new article, “The Abuse of the Freedom of Mass Information,” stipulates liability for disseminating “deliberately untrue publicly significant information” in the media or in the Internet. The penalty will range from 30,000 rubles ($450) to 100,000 rubles ($1,520) for citizens, from 60,000 rubles ($915) to 200,000 rubles ($3,040) for officials and from 200,000 rubles to 500,000 rubles ($7,620) for corporate entities with the possible confiscation of the subject of the administrative offence.

Another element of offence imposes tighter liability for the cases when the publication of false publicly significant information has resulted in the deaths of people, has caused damage to the health or property, prompted the mass violation of public order and security or has caused disruption to the functioning of transport or social infrastructure facilities, communications, energy and industrial facilities and banks. In such instances, the fines will range from 300,000 rubles to 400,000 rubles ($6,090) for citizens, from 600,000 rubles to 900,000 rubles ($13,720) for officials, and from 1 million rubles to 1.5 million rubles for corporate entities.

While this legislation can be spun (and is) in the West as anti-free speech, one may also consider the damage that has taken place in the American government through a relentless attack of fake news from most US news outlets against President Trump. One of the most notable effects of this barrage has been to further degrade and destroy the US’ relationship with the Russian Federation, because even the Helsinki Summit was attacked so badly that the two leaders have not been able to get a second summit together.

While it is certainly a valued right of the American press to be unfettered by Congress, and while it is also certainly vital to criticize improper practices by government officials, the American news agencies have gone far past that, to deliberately dishonest attacks, based in innuendo and everything possible that was formerly only the province of gossip tabloid publications. The effort has been to defame the President, not to give proper or due criticism to his policies, nor credit. It can be properly stated that the American press has abused its freedom of late.

This level of abuse drew a very unusual comment from the US president, who wondered on Twitter about the possibility of creating a state-run media center in the US to counter fake news:

Politically correct for US audiences? No. But an astute point?

Definitely.

Freedom in anything also presumes that those with that freedom respect it, and further, that they respect and apply the principle that slandering people and institutions for one’s own personal, business or political gain is wrong. Implied in the US Constitution’s protection of the press is the notion that the press itself, as the rest of the country, is accountable to a much Higher Authority than the State. But when that Authority is rejected, as so much present evidence suggests, then freedom becomes the freedom to misbehave and to agitate. It appears largely within this context that the Russian law exists, based on the text given.

Further, by hitting dishonest media outlets in their pocketbook, rather than prison sentences, the law appears to be very smart in its message: “Do not lie. If you do, you will suffer where it counts most.”

Considering that news media’s purpose is to make money, this may actually be a very smart piece of legislation.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

ABC’s Ted Koppel admits mainstream media bias against Trump [Video]

The mainstream news media has traded informing the public for indoctrinating them, but the change got called out by an “old-school” journo.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

Fox News reported on March 19th that one of America’s most well-known TV news anchors, Ted Koppel, noted that the once-great media outlets like The New York Times and The Washington Post, have indeed traded journalistic excellence for hit pieces for political purposes. While political opinions in the mainstream press are certainly within the purview of any publication, this sort of writing can hardly be classified as “news” but as “Opinion” or more widely known, “Op-Ed.”

We have two videos on this. The first is the original clip showing the full statement that Mr. Koppel gave. It is illuminating, to say the least:

Tucker Carlson and Brit Hume, a former colleague of Mr. Koppel, added their comments on this admission in this second short video piece, shown here.

There are probably a number of people who have watched this two-year onslaught of slander and wondered why there cannot be a law preventing this sort of misleading reporting. Well, Russia passed a law to stop it, hitting dishonest media outlets in their pocketbook. It is a smart law because it does not advocate imprisonment for bad actors in the media, but it does fine them.

Going to prison for reporting “the truth” looks very noble. Having to pay out of pocket for it is not so exciting.

Newsmax and Louder with Crowder both reported on this as well.

This situation of dishonest media has led to an astonishing 77% distrust rating among Americans of their news media, this statistic being reported by Politico in 2018. This represents a nearly diametric reversal in trust from the 72% trust rating the country’s news viewers gave their news outlets in 1972. These statistics come from Gallup polls taken through the years.

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending