Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

Not so fast! Trump says we’re leaving Syria, deep state says no

The fight against terrorism isn’t real issue with all of this, but merely the premise used to justify American empire building

Published

on

2,162 Views

The US and its coalition, numbering the in dozens, have been involved in numerous military operations, including thousands of military personnel, in Syria on the premise of eradicating ISIS from the Middle Eastern country, albeit without the consent of the Syrian government of Bashar Assad or the UN Security Council.

Last week, US President Donald Trump proposed pulling out of the conflict on the basis that the US has dumped a massive amount of resources into these and other operations in the Middle East, with costs exceeding $7 trillion, with no recognizable benefit to the US or its citizens, let alone to those of the country that the US military is conducting these active operations in, who have only witnessed massive death and destruction.

President Trump’s proposal, however was short lived as the new US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Joseph Dunford, together with special envoy to the US-led coalition Brett McGurk, Defense Secretary James Mattis,  and director of the US Joint Staff, Director Lt. Gen. Kenneth McKenzie on Tuesday quickly and vehemently advised against an immediate withdrawal of forces on the ground in Syria, on the basis that such a move would be contrary to America’s national interests.

Military Officials advise continued active leadership in campaign to eliminate ISIS 

Brett McGurk stressed that the coalition was not through with its mission to, and that the US should continue active leadership in the campaign until ISIS is defeated. Defense Secretary James Mattis insisted that, should the US withdraw from Syria, that there would be a resurgence of the terrorist group, undoing all of the progress that the campaign has thus far achieved.

Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon on Thursday, Pentagon spokesman Dana White announced that the mission in Syria will continue and that the policy on the matter remained unchanged. In addition, Lieutenant General Kenneth McKenzie revealed to reporters at the Pentagon that Washington would only adjust the level of the troops in Syria once ISIS has finally been eliminated.

Egypt today reports:

WASHINGTON – 5 April 2018: The U.S. military policy towards fighting Islamic State militants in Syria remains the same following discussions with President Donald Trump this week and the military has not been given a timeline for withdrawing troops, the Pentagon said on Thursday.

Trump agreed in a National Security Council meeting this week to keep U.S. troops in Syria a little longer to defeat Islamic State but wants them out relatively soon, a senior administration official said on Wednesday.

Trump had signaled his desire to get U.S. forces out of Syria in a speech last week, and officials said he had privately been pressing for an early withdrawal in talks with his national security aides.

“We’ve always thought that as we reach finality against ISIS in Syria we’re going to adjust the level of our presence there, so in that sense nothing actually has changed,” Marine Lieutenant General Kenneth McKenzie told a Pentagon briefing.

McKenzie said Trump has not given the U.S. military any timeline.

“We think as we go forward one of the things that we haven’t been given is a timeline and that is actually very effective… (The) President has actually been very good in not giving us a specific timeline, so that is a tool that we will use to our affect as we move forward,” McKenzie said.

The United States is conducting air strikes in Syria and has deployed about 2,000 troops on the ground, including special operations forces whose advice has helped Kurdish militia and other U.S.-backed fighters capture territory from Islamic State, also known as ISIS.

The Pentagon and State Department have said a longer term U.S. effort would be needed to ensure that Islamic State’s defeat is a lasting one.

Essentially, without a real timeline of withdrawal, and with the interest of removing Assad remaining one of the key goals to be accomplished in Syria, McKenzie’s statement that the number and amount of American assets and troops on the ground would only be “adjusted” once ISIS is eradicated in Syria is really quite telling.

Basically, as far as America is concerned, Syria is just like another Iraq for America. They will not rest until they have ousted Assad, set up a puppet government, and redrawn the map in Syria. Of course, with all of the international interest and involvement in these campaigns, that’s not all there is to the story. America’s allies in the region each have interests that they want to see advanced, and, for that reason, they will continue to lobby for the US’s involvement in Syria, so that we may never actually see the conflict reach a conclusion under present circumstances.

American Strategic Interests Served

When Trump complained about the sheer amount of resources that have been expended on America’s involvement in its ongoing campaign in Syria and Iraq, his military advisers immediately pointed out that a sudden withdrawal could not only undo America’s efforts to defeat ISIS, which is apparently quite close, or so they argued, but that other nations active in the region, such as Russia, Iran, and Turkey, would be totally free to go about pursuing their own interests in Syria, which runs totally counter to America’s interests, and those of its allies in the region. CNN reports:

“As far as Syria is concerned, our primary mission in terms of that was getting rid of ISIS. We have almost completed that task, and we will be making a decision very quickly — in coordination with others in the area — as to what we’ll do,” Trump said.

“Saudi Arabia is very interested in our decision. And I said, ‘well, if you want us to stay, maybe you’re going to have to pay,'” he continued.

“But a lot of people … we do a lot of things in this country … we do ’em for a lot of reasons. But it’s very costly for our country, and it helps other countries a hell of a lot more than it helps us.”

“Think of it — $7 trillion over a 17-year period and we have nothing, nothing, except death and destruction. It’s a horrible thing. So, it’s time. It’s time,” Trump concluded.

However you parse these words, they are not flattering to America’s sacrifice in the region over nearly 16 years. (The 17 years he references would have to include the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, which isn’t in the Middle East).

According to Trump, not only has the US lost thousands of soldiers — and led a war that caused the deaths of tens of thousands more — for “nothing” but “death and destruction.” He is also willing to contract their services out as a regional enforcer, putting more American lives at risk, if the Saudis pay up. To many observers, these words would have been staggering.

So what are US troops doing in Syria? In February they gave us a tour of their secretive bases. There are small pockets of ISIS they are still hunting on the Iraqi border and in the wide expanses of desert.

The US presence can also be felt west of the Syrian Kurdish-held area known as Rojava, where US forces patrol the borderline between these US-backed Syrian Kurdish and Arab fighters and the Turkish-backed Syrian rebels who want to take territory back from them. They are, in effect, peacekeepers.

To the south of Rojava, US troops have a similar role in keeping the Syrian regime and its Russian backers at bay. When some regime-loyal militias, aided by Russian contractors, tried to seize an oilfield in February, they were met with intense US firepower, killing dozens.

The short-term argument for keeping US troops in Syria is about supporting these Kurds, both as an unspoken mark of gratitude for their sacrifice in nearly defeating ISIS and as a bulwark against the group’s re-emergence.

But there is a broader, more strategic picture here, which serves far more than Saudi Arabian interests.

Iran is using its strong presence in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon to secure its growing dominance in the region. US forces in Syria, while limited in capacity, can at least keep an eye on — and act as a speed bump for — that Iranian influence.

This suits the Saudis, who are Iran’s regional nemesis. But it also suits Israel, another US ally, who is becoming increasingly aligned with Saudi Arabia in its regional goals. It also suits Jordan, and the Gulf states, yet more US allies who would prefer to see Iran held in check.

While Turkey — another long-term ally of the US currently at odds with Washington — publicly despises the US support of the Syrian Kurds (whose Turkish brethren it calls terrorists), there must be a recognition in Ankara that if nothing else, the American presence in Syria can at least keep the Kurds there in check.

In short, a lot of interests are served by the US presence in Syria, which used to be part of an age-old game called “US strategic or regional interests.”

In short, America’s active involvement in Syria is far from over, and will not end any time soon. In reality, if America were to withdraw from Syria, the coalition would follow suit, and the conflict would be left up to Russia and Assad’s forces.

Such a maneuver, however, would not suit Israel, Jordan, the Saudis, or the Gulf States as the sheer amount of money and manpower that they have invested in the campaign would be totally lost as Assad regains control over his nation’s territory and a stronger relationship with Russia and Iran, meaning that they won’t get to come away with a piece of the action if the Coalition were to succeed in its endeavour and get a chance to redraw the map and set up a new regime friendly to their own interests.

Lastly, Assad’s government reestablishing control over all of its territory would also thwart Turkey’s activity in its attempt to gobble up parts of Syria. Syria will remain a central focus of international activity and interests likely for many years to come as the situation will only yield more conflict until someone is able to establish a high degree of stable, long term, control. Of course, with all of this considered, it is apparent that the fight against terrorism isn’t the real issue with all of this, but merely the premise used to justify the Western coalition in its empire development.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

New Zealand weapons ban dream move of leftist activists

The American left is sure to pick this up and start screaming for an “assault weapons ban” because this supports their agenda so well.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

Reuters reported on Thursday, March 21 that the Prime Minister of New Zealand enacted a sweeping change, banning weapons of the type that were used in the massacre of at least fifty Muslims, who were gunned down on livestream while in Friday prayer services in Christchurch last week. We quote from the Reuters piece below, with added emphasis:

New Zealand will ban military-style semi-automatic and assault rifles under tough new gun laws following the killing of 50 people in its worst mass shooting, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said on Thursday.

In the immediate aftermath of last Friday’s shootings at two mosques in the city of Christchurch, Ardern labeled the attack as terrorism and said New Zealand’s gun laws would change.

“On 15 March our history changed forever. Now, our laws will too. We are announcing action today on behalf of all New Zealanders to strengthen our gun laws and make our country a safer place,” Ardern told a news conference.

“All semi-automatic weapons used during the terrorist attack on Friday 15 March will be banned.”

Ardern said she expected the new laws to be in place by April 11 and a buy-back scheme costing up to NZ$200 million ($138 million) would be established for banned weapons.

All military style semi-automatics (MSSA) and assault rifles would be banned, along with parts used to convert weapons into MSSAs and all high-capacity magazines.

Australia banned semi-automatic weapons and launched a gun buy-back after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996 in which 35 people were killed.

Ardern said that similar to Australia, the law would allow for strictly enforced exemptions for farmers for pest control and animal welfare.

“I strongly believe that the vast majority of legitimate gun owners in New Zealand will understand that these moves are in the national interest, and will take these changes in their stride.”

This is undoubtedly going to be real red meat (or perhaps real vegetables) for the anti-gun lobby in the United States. This is because New Zealand strongly resembled the US in terms of firearm rights and the penetration of numbers of guns in the populace of this remote island nation. Reuters continues, with statements that would probably surprise, even horrify some gun owners in the States, but which are doubtlessly useful for the application of pressure on such individuals:

New Zealand, a country of fewer than 5 million people, has an estimated 1.2-1.5 million firearms, about 13,500 of them MSSA-type weapons.

Most farmers own guns while hunting of deer, pigs and goats is popular. Gun clubs and shooting ranges dot the country.

That has created a powerful lobby that has thwarted previous attempts to tighten gun laws.

Federated Farmers, which represent thousands of farmers, said it supported the new laws.

“This will not be popular among some of our members but … we believe this is the only practicable solution,” a group spokesman, Miles Anderson, said in a statement.

The main opposition National Party, which draws strong support in rural areas, said it also supported the ban.

The changes exclude two general classes of firearms commonly used for hunting, pest control and stock management on farms.

“I have a military style weapon. But to be fair, I don’t really use it, I don’t really need it,” said Noel Womersley, who slaughters cpoliticalattle for small farmers around Christchurch.

“So I’m quite happy to hand mine over.”

To be absolutely fair, the attack on the mosques was an awful event, made the worse by the shooter’s deliberate attempts to politicize various aspects of what he was doing and what he “stood for” as an attack ostensibly against US President Donald Trump, some seven thousand miles away in the United States.

The immediate reaction of the people interviewed, some among them related or friends with the victims of the massacre, was to embrace the weapons reform laws:

Nada Tawfeek, who buried her father-in-law killed in the attacks, Hussein Moustafa, on Thursday, welcomed the ban.

“It’s a great reaction. I think other countries need to learn from her [Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern],” Tawfeek said.

Mohammed Faqih, a member of the Islamic clergy who flew in from California and attended the funerals for some victims on Thursday, said he was “extremely grateful” for the gun ban.

“I wish our leaders in the States would follow on her footsteps and do the same thing,” he said.

One can expect there to be quite the outcry among American liberals about gun control, especially if anything remotely resembling this event takes place or is thwarted in coming days in the US.

It may seem very cold and cruel to focus on the political angle of this story rather than the human tragedy that it is. However, in this situation we have seen signs that the most vile form of human tragedy has actually taken place – the murder of dozens of innocent people for a mere political point. Indeed this thought has been noted and vilified already, as Mr. R.X. Dentith, writing for the New Zealand website Spinoff here quoted:

American paleo-conservative Rush Limbaugh was one of the first to note: “There’s an ongoing theory that the shooter himself may, in fact, be a leftist who writes the manifesto and then goes out and performs the deed purposely to smear his political enemies, knowing he’s going to get shot in the process. You know you just can’t – you can’t immediately discount this. The left is this insane, they are this crazy. And then if that’s exactly what the guy is trying to do then he’s hit a home run, because right there on Fox News: ‘Shooter is an admitted white nationalist who hates immigrants.’”

…[P]eople like Limbaugh… can’t stomach the idea the terrorist action in Otautahi might be motivated by the kind of rhetoric Limbaugh helps disseminate – tend to think there is a culture war going on, and they are on the losing side.

This war has many names, and the enemy is easily identified: it is the battle against Cultural Marxism; the fight against Toxic Feminism; the resistance to Identity Politics; and the fear of the Great Replacement, the thesis at the heart of the terrorist’s own manifesto.

The Great Replacement thesis posits that the majority white European countries are being “invaded” by non-white, non-European peoples. Not just that, but due to declining birth rates in the West, this “invasion” constitutes a wholesale replacement of the white population over time.

Mr. Dentith tries further to knock down this notion of the Great Replacement. However, he misses a much more basic point.

Someone who goes and takes human lives and broadcasts them for any reason is not a mere political operative. The person who does this is a very sick, deranged human being indeed. Evil is certainly appropriately used here.

However, evil is often quite cunning, and despite the intellectual arguments about the reality or non-reality of any particular manifesto statement, in this case, the killer played the media with infernal intelligence, and they took the bait. It is possible that Prime Minister Ardern also took the bait, in this most awful of bad situations, and to give her credit, she took swift actions to try to “correct” what was wrong.

But the problem here was not the type of weapons used. The problem is the fact that they were used by a person who thought these fifty people’s lives were worth nothing more than a bit of policy change. One of the worst examples of human evil in recent times, this incident shouts to the world that there is a problem, but the problem remains unsolved, even though many people will hand over their firearms out of a genuine wish for compassion to those lost and the hope that somehow this action will prevent a future incident.

But the logic of this emotional reaction is nil. And what is worse is that the American Left knows this, but does not care. The movers and shakers of liberalism will likely milk the actions of sincerely horrified New Zealanders for all they are worth to try at affecting change in American constitutional rights.

And the innocent dead will not rest in peace, because the real problem has not even been examined.

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

Latest

Upstart Populist Party Shocks In Dutch Election Upset, 2 Days After Utrecht Attack

International reports have described the FvD as receiving “a surge of last-minute support” in the days following the Utrecht attack.

Published

on

Via Zerohedge…


Dutch voters have sent shock waves through Europe at the polls on Wednesday in the wake of Monday’s deadly Utrecht terror shooting, in which a now detained 37-year old Turkish man went on a terrifying tram killing spree which left three dead and three injured.

Euroskeptic party, Forum for Democracy (FvD), has emerged victorious in key provincial elections this week, paving the way to making it one of the two largest groups in the Dutch Senate, and representing growing Dutch frustration with the recent unprecedented refugee influx in Europe.

Newcomer Forum for Democracy party is led by 36-year-old Thierry Baudet, who is a critic of the EU and of the Netherlands’ immigration policies, via EPA

International reports have described the FvD as receiving “a surge of last-minute support” in the days following the Utrecht attack, which investigators have since described as having a “terror motive” based on a letter found in shooter Gokmen Tanis’ possession.

Forum for Democracy party leader Thierry Baudet had immediately placed ultimate blame  for the incident on the government’s “lax immigration policies” and provocatively stated a day before the elections (referencing his political rival)

If people want more deadly shootings like the one in Utrecht, then they have to vote for the VVD.

Baudet, riding a wave of renewed Euroskeptic sentiment, and whose party also wants to see more military spending, green initiatives, and an easing on income tax while greatly restricting the borders, said in the aftermath of Wednesday’s vote: “The voters in the Netherlands have spread their wings and shown their true power.”

Referencing the Utrecht attack and other deadly terror incidents on European soil, he added: “We have been called to the front because we have to. Because the country needs us.”

Three were killed and several injured in Monday’s Dutch tram terror attack, which raised the country’s emergency threat level to five as it was unfolding, its highest level.

Interestingly, the 36-year old Baudet and his party continued campaigning down to the last moments even as others stopped in the wake of Monday’s attack which rocked the Netherlands. According to Al Jazeera:

Following the lead of US President Donald Trump, Baudet opposes immigration and emphasises “Dutch first” cultural and economic themes. He opposes the euro and thinks the Netherlands should leave the European Union.

Baudet had continued campaigning when other parties stopped after Monday’s attack in Utrecht, in which a gunman shot three people dead on a tram. The populist leader blamed the incident on the government’s lax immigration policies.

The FvD is now set to take 12 seats in the upper house of parliament, which is equal to Prime Minister Mark Rutte’s conservative VVD Party, a scenario before this week considered unlikely according to many observers.

The FvD slightly outscoring the VVD means Rutte’s government has lost its majority for the 75-seat Senate ahead of upcoming May elections.

In a post-election speech on Wednesday, Baudet described further that what’s now being described in international media as “an upstart populist party [that has] shocked the Dutch political establishment” as punishing the arrogance of elites.

In his pro-Western civilization themed remarks, Baudet added, “We are standing in the rubble of what was once the most beautiful civilization in the world.”

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

Latest

Will The Trump White House finally punish Facebook for censorship?

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 113.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris take a look at US President Trump’s tweet where he has said that he would be “looking into” a report that his social media chief, Dan Scavino Jr. has been censored by Facebook.

Are we finally about to see the Trump White House move to punish social media outlets for their blatant and bias censorship of alternative narratives that dare to stray from globalist neo-liberal and radical left ideology?

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

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

“Conservatives face a tough fight as Big Tech’s censorship expands”, authored by Donald Trump Jr., via The Hill…

As Big Tech’s censorship of conservatives becomes ever more flagrant and overt, the old arguments about protecting the sanctity of the modern public square are now invalid. Our right to freely engage in public discourse through speech is under sustained attack, necessitating a vigorous defense against the major social media and internet platforms.

From “shadowbans” on Facebook and Twitter, to demonetization of YouTube videos, to pulled ads for Republican candidates at the critical junctures of election campaigns, the list of violations against the online practices and speech of conservatives is long.

I certainly had my suspicions confirmed when Instagram, which is owned by Facebook, “accidentally” censored a post I made regarding the Jussie Smollett hoax, which consequently led to me hearing from hundreds of my followers about how they’ve been having problems seeing, liking or being able to interact with my posts. Many of them even claimed that they’ve had to repeatedly refollow me, as Instagram keeps unfollowing me on their accounts.

While nothing about Big Tech’s censorship of conservatives truly surprises me anymore, it’s still chilling to see the proof for yourself. If it can happen to me, the son of the president, with millions of followers on social media, just think about how bad it must be for conservatives with smaller followings and those who don’t have the soapbox or media reach to push back when they’re being targeted?

Thanks to a brave Facebook whistleblower who approached James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas, we now know that Mark Zuckerberg’s social media giant developed algorithms to “deboost” certain content, limiting its distribution and appearance in news feeds. As you probably guessed, this stealth censorship was specifically aimed at conservatives.

Facebook appears to have deliberately tailored its algorithm to recognize the syntax and style popular among conservatives in order to “deboost” that content. “Mainstream media,” “SJW” (Social Justice Warrior) and “red pill” — all terms that conservatives often use to express themselves — were listed as red flags, according to the former Facebook insider.

Facebook engineers even cited BlazeTV host Lauren Chen’s video criticizing the social justice movement as an example of the kind of “red pills” that users just aren’t allowed to drop anymore. Mainstream conservative content was strangled in real time, yet fringe leftists such as the Young Turks enjoy free rein on the social media platform.

Despite the occasional brave gesture, politicians have been far too sluggish in recognizing the extent of the problem. But the Republican Party and the conservative movement are becoming more vigilant against the suppression of our speech, as we saw at last weekend’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).

Silicon Valley lobbyists have splashed millions of dollars all over the Washington swamp to play on conservatives’ innate faith in the free-market system and respect for private property. Even as Big Tech companies work to exclude us from the town square of the 21st century, they’ve been able to rely on misguided conservatives to carry water for them with irrelevant pedantry about whether the First Amendment applies in cases of social media censorship.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) has been making a name for himself as a Republican prepared to stand up to Big Tech malfeasance since his time as Missouri’s attorney general. He delivered a tour de force interview with The Wall Street Journal’s Kimberly Strassel in front of the CPAC crowd, one that provided a clear-eyed assessment of the ongoing affront to the freedoms of conservative speech and expression.

Hawley demolished the absurd notion that “conservative principles” preclude taking action to ensure free debate online simply because Big Tech firms — the most powerful corporations in the world — are private companies.

Hawley pointed out that Big Tech companies already enjoy “sweetheart deals” under current regulations that make their malfeasance a matter of public concern. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, for instance, allows them to avoid liability for the content that users post to their platforms. To address this problem, Hawley proposed adding a viewpoint neutrality requirement for platforms that benefit from Section 230’s protections, which were originally enacted to protect the internet as “a forum for a true diversity of political discourse.”

“Google and Facebook should not be a law unto themselves,” Hawley declared. “They should not be able to discriminate against conservatives. They should not be able to tell us we need to sit down and shut up!”

It’s high time other conservative politicians started heeding Hawley’s warnings, because the logical endpoint of Big Tech’s free rein is far more troubling than conservative meme warriors losing their Twitter accounts. As we’re already starting to see, what starts with social media censorship can quickly lead to banishment from such fundamental services as transportation, online payments and banking.

Left unchecked, Big Tech and liberal activists could construct a private “social credit” system — not unlike what the communists have nightmarishly implemented in China — that excludes outspoken conservatives from wide swaths of American life simply because their political views differ from those of tech executives.

There is no conservative principle that even remotely suggests we are obligated to adopt a laissez-faire attitude while the richest companies on earth abuse the power we give them to put a thumb on the scale for our political enemies.

If anything, our love of the free market dictates that we must do whatever is necessary to ensure that the free marketplace of ideas remains open to all.

Donald Trump Jr. is executive vice president at The Trump Organization.

 

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