The modification of US policy on Trump by Syria has caused some confusion so that it is worth reviewing the record.
White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham announced on October 6:
Turkey will soon move forward with its long-term operation in northern Syria. The United States Armed Forces will no longer support or participate in the operation, and the United States forces will no longer be in close proximity by defeating the ISIS territorial caliphate.
The statement is also remarkable for refusing to oppose the Turkish invasion – directed at the Kurdish-led US-SDF – and because it suggests that the US will remain in Syria but will move their forces from the "immediate area" that Turkey is attacking; nothing in these remarks can read that the US will withdraw from Syria.
] An anonymous senior US official, quoted by the Associated Press (New York Times, 10/6/19), stated that the US would "withdraw" [its troops] from the immediate area "in northern Syria, which Turkey invaded. The official, however, went on to say that Turkish pressure "is expected to elicit a large fighting response from the SDF and US troops will almost certainly withdraw completely from Syria."
Trump tweets that of the 1,000 troops who The United States admits that they have in Syria, "there are only 50 soldiers left in that section of Syria and they have been eliminated." But he also described this development as part of a long-term war in Syria and elsewhere, tweeted ] for example, that "slowly and carefully we bring our greats soldiers and soldiers at home. "
Meanwhile, the Pentagon's statement on Syria meant nothing to suggest to the US
To summarize, an anonymous official speculated that the US could eventually leave Syria while Trump tweets that the US is simply displacing "50 soldiers left in this stretch of Syria", at the same time indicating that it ultimately wants to return the troops home and leave Syria alone without offering anything close to a specific plan or timeline . Neither of the two official US government declarations – that of Grisham or that of the Pentagon – can probably be assumed that the US is taking its hands from Syria and there is simply no evidence that this is exactly what is happening.
Yet you would not understand it from the media coverage of these developments. Just as last December, when Trump suggested he could soon withdraw from Syria, and when Trump sailed the same opportunity in March 2018, newsletters consistently and unjustifiably reported on the issue as if the United States had announced plans to leave Syria and as if The US has the right and eventual obligation to occupy Syria permanently.
The New York Times (10/7/19) published an article entitled "Pulling US troops into Syria Can Assad and ISIS help. "It would be natural to assume that this meant that US troops were withdrawing from Syria, although this was not happening.
A report in The Hill (10/7/19) was entitled" Trump Hammers "Funny Endless wars "Against the background of US military units from Syria", which suffered from a slight flaw, namely that there was no "US. Syrian troops are flowing.
A History of the Associated Press (10/7/19) was entitled" US The troops begin withdrawing from Syria, leaving the Kurds unsupported. "As noted, there is no evidence that the US actually did." download from Syria. "
USA Today (10/7/19) warned readers about "" Reasonable Gambling: Four Critics of the Reason Decree Syria's "Impulsive" Departure. "But these critics can rest easy because Trump did not withdraw from Syria.
NBC News (10/8/19) had a segment called" How Allies Respond to US Troops Departing from Syria. " , but a day earlier a senior Trump administration official told reporters that "the government's announcement does not represent a full withdrawal of the US from Syria and that only 50 to 100 US special operations forces have moved elsewhere in Syria." Moving to other places in Syria "is obviously not the same thing as" downloading Still, the title of Business Insider (10/8/19) suggests, "Here are 5 major players who will feel the impact of Trump's decision to withdraw troops from Syria."
Americans will be difficult to develop an informed view of Syria's continued occupation of their government, which has no basis in international law, when US media continue to mistakenly assume that the US is leaving the country.
Much of the coverage expresses concern for people living in parts of Northern Syria that Turkey is attacking. These concerns are justified. In the early days of this invasion, Turkish air strikes and artillery fire struck several villages and towns, killing dozens and sending thousands fleeing their homes. In the border town of Tal Abyad, shelling has forced the vast majority of people to leave, while Doctors Without Borders
is concerned that many thousands of women and children living in camps such as Al Hall and Ain Isa are also particularly vulnerable, as humanitarian organizations are forced to suspend or limit their operations.
The US is directly involved in this, except even Trump's initial green light. Turkey is a member of NATO, an alliance in which the US is the most powerful member, and NATO has refused to suggest Turkey not invade its neighbor or even offer explicit criticism of this illegal aggression, with Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg offering remarks that served to legitimize the security proposal Turkey offers as justification for the attack.
Stoltenberg said on a visit to Turkey on October 11, "While Turkey has legitimate security concerns, I expect Turkey to act with restraint." He went on to describe "grave concerns about the risk of further destabilization of the region, escalation of tensions and further human suffering."
In addition, two U.S. military officials told the New York Times (10/11/19):  As Turkish troops planned the attack, they received US video surveillance and intelligence from reconnaissance aircraft. The information may have helped them track Kurdish positions. Due to the US counter-terrorism partnership with Turkey, Turkish planes were given access to a range of US reconnaissance fields in northeastern Syria. Turkey was removed from the intelligence-sharing program only on Monday, a Defense Ministry official said.
An official stated that US military and surveillance aircraft remain in the area to protect other US land forces in northeast Syria, but said he would not dispute Turkish military aircraft attacking Kurdish positions.
In 2017, the most recent year for which figures are fully reported, Washington gave Turkey $ 154 million in aid, the fourth largest amount of US aid sent to each country in Europe and Asia. From 2011-18, the US sells $ 3.7 billion worth of weapons to Turkey. Although the US has no right to occupy Syria, there is no need to stop the Turkish attack: If the US says its support and cooperation is threatened, it is virtual security that Turkey will not attack Northern Syria; Turkey wanted to carry out this invasion for months and did not do so until the US gave its blessing.
Calling on the US to exit Syria and stop Turkey's attack is a consistent position: When Turkey invaded the Kurdish Afrin in Syria in large numbers in early 2018, robbing the region and expelling 220,000 civilians, the US had forces in Syria as it is during today's attack. The requirement that the United States maintain its forces in Syria to prevent Turkish violence against Kurdish and other Syrian people neglects the fact that US forces in Syria are not an obstacle to violence in Turkey.
In fact, US intervention is a central cause of this bloodshed and much more in the Middle East. Assisting Turkey in the invasion is the Syrian National Army (SNA), a rebranding of the Free Syrian Army (FSA), an umbrella group that the United States spends years taking care of fighting the Syrian government. The same scenario developed in Afrin when the FSA also fought with Turkey.
USA. intervention against the Syrian government directly expelled violence against minorities in Syria, including the Kurds: US supplied weapons to anti-government groups in Syria, who eventually empowered ISIS to carry out "attacks on members of the Kurdish family and the abduction of hundreds of civilians by hundreds of civilians their ethnic identity. "
No more can be expected from the US government to defend the Kurds or any other group, except that it can be expected that Chevron will take green initiatives because protecting people is not the goal of American policy. the long-term approaches of the US ruling class globally and in the Middle East, there is every reason to conclude that US policies towards Syria are related to building military bases and bleeding and weakening rivals such as Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and Syrian you do
Thus, Washington's efforts to control the Middle East are the driving force behind violence in the region, indicating that the response to violence in the region is no longer US involvement, but less so.
There is, however, considerable coverage that states that the US must continue to occupy Syria in order to weaken its government and other US competitors. New York Times new headline, "Withdrawing US troops in Syria may help Assad and ISIS" (10/7/19), states unequivocally that the US should keep its forces in Syria, as their removal will be to the benefit of the Syrian government. This perspective suggests that the US has a legitimate right to use its military to form, and perhaps frankly dictate, the relative strength of other governments. The attached article states that a change in US policy
could also create a void in the region that could benefit the President of Syria, Russia, Iran and the Islamic State, Bashar al-Assad, also known as ISIS. And that is likely to further limit the United States' influence on the conflict.
The article appears to support the view of Brett McGurk, a former presidential envoy, that if the Turkish attack prompts a Kurdish re-appointment, it would put "American targets at risk" by taking advantage of "Russia, Iran and ISIS." According to this view, the United States should do everything in its power to keep Syria in a proxy war for as long as possible, because this situation is bad for the international competitors of the US government.
The Times' editorial (10/7/19) advocates subordinating Syria to this condition indefinitely – to maintain open occupation of Syria as "a counterweight to Turkey and Syria's Russian and Iranian allies" – because otherwise, the unspecified "enemy [s]" will not "look at [America] and fear a clear adversary." Encouraging unnamed political forces is, at the very least, a compelling justification for maintaining an unlawful military occupation.
1,000 US troops in Syria could be forced to withdraw entirely, which would be a major victory for Russia and would pave the way for Iran to strengthen its forces its along the northern border of Israel.
The Syrians are pawns whose fates the US must hold hostage to because of greater imperial play. Another reason the document provides to support the US presence in Syria is that
the United States was able to partner with the SDF to destroy a possible Islamic caliphate and gain effective control of much of eastern Syria. This impeded Iran's expansion into the country and gave Washington vital influence over any possible settlement of the Syrian civil war.
Why it is "vital" – or even legal – for Washington to have a "lever over any possible settlement" of the war over Syria is unclear. It is simply taken for granted that the United States has a key role to play in shaping Syria's future.
Influential sectors in the corporate media clearly believe that US policy in Syria must be consistent with ensuring worldwide hegemony. This will inevitably lead to Kurdish and many other nations wrapping themselves in body bags.