'Mission Creep' Confirmed as Trump Replaces Vow to Withdraw From Syria With Embrace of Indefinite Military Presence
By: Jake Johnson, staff writer 9-7-18
RE:
https://www.commondreams.org/news/20...ace-indefinite
"Trump is maintaining an indefinite U.S. military presence in (i.e., occupation of) Syria, strengthening a policy of bipartisan imperialism, in an attempt to weaken the Iranian and Syrian governments."
Photo Link:
https://www.commondreams.org/sites/d...?itok=SicQ_uU8
Thick smoke from an airstrike by the U.S.-led coalition rises in Kobani, Syria, as seen from a hilltop on the outskirts of Suruc, at the Turkey-Syria border. (Photo: Lefteris Pitarakis/AP)
Just months after proclaiming to the American public that U.S. soldiers will completely withdraw from Syria "very soon," President Donald Trump has reportedly agreed to a new strategy under which the more than 2,000 troops currently occupying the war-torn nation will remain "indefinitely."
Other(s) inside Syria are saying: "We have to force the United States to leave."
—Iranian President Hassan Rouhani
"The new policy is we're no longer pulling out by the end of the year," James Jeffrey, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's representative for Syria engagement, told the Washington Post on Thursday. "That means we are not in a hurry."
To justify keeping American troops in Syria for an "indefinite" period of time, the Trump administration's new strategy redefines U.S. "objectives" in the country from "defeating ISIS" to ejecting all Iranian military forces and proxies from the country—despite the fact that Iran's presence in Syria, unlike America's, is at the invitation of the Syrian government.
In addition to attempting to expel Iranian forces, the Trump administration's new "strategy" in Syria will also consist of the "establishment of a stable, nonthreatening government acceptable to all Syrians and the international community," notes the Post.
While such an objective smacks of regime change, Jeffrey told the Post that U.S. policy is not that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad "must go."
"Assad has no future, but it's not our job to get rid of him," Jeffrey declared.
While Trump has not publicly called for regime change in Syria, Bob Woodward reports in his new book—citing "deep background" interviews with top administration officials—that the president last year ordered Defense Secretary James Mattis to "go in" to Syria and "fucking kill" Assad.
Trump's embrace of endless war in Syria was revealed just hours ahead of a high-stakes summit in Tehran on Friday between the presidents of Iran, Russia, and Turkey.
In remarks at the start of the meeting, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani demanded that American forces immediately withdraw from Syria if lasting peace is to be achieved.
"We have to force the United States to leave," Rouhani declared.
Rouhani's clear demand for American troops to completely exit Syria came just as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley warned during a U.N. Security Council meeting on Friday that Assad will face "dire consequences" if he launches an assault on Idlib province, one of the last areas controlled by Syrian rebels.
Further heightening the risk of dangerous escalation, the U.S. carried out a military exercise in southeastern Syria on Friday that, according to the military, included a "live-fire rehearsal" and an "aerial assault."
Progressive anti-war activists and commentators warned throughout the Obama years and during Trump's presidency that the U.S. strategy in Syria was a slippery slope that would inevitably lead to ever-increasing engagement in a complex conflict and fuel perpetual war.
In a Twitter thread breaking down the Trump administration's new Syria objectives on Friday, Emma Ashford—a foreign policy research fellow at the Cato Institute—argued that the White House's plan is "not a strategy."
"It's totally unrealistic. We might as well ask for a pet unicorn," Ashford concluded. "In short, the Trump administration appears poised to commit us to a costly, unnecessary years-long commitment in Syria. Only the justification is different: rather than the idea of stabilization, it's the Iranian bogeyman. And the goals are so vague, mission creep is assured."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personal note:
Is it just me or are we spreading are forces a little thin - sending more and more troopers to so many of these wild card countries? We get out of one mess into another time and time again. It seems like we are the "Big Brother" to all these third world countries only to suffer personnel losses for those in most cases don't really want us there??
Am I missing something? We have only so many military personnel to cover so many world wide issues - rotation of personnel each year only to come back or go to another conflict zone - time and time again?
What are the reasons Washington see's that requires our personnel to fight the conflicts world wide? Is it to keep other powers from moving in and/or is it just a political move for reasons we are not aware of?
I'd sure like someone to explain to me what the hell's going on and why we are always sending our personnel into harms way and for what gains? Is it our destiny to always be at war when other's just sit back and watch?
Boats