empire watch, latest, Syria
Comments 36

Donald Trump Comes Out in Support of Islamic Terrorists

Eric Zuesse

Image source: here

On September 4th, U.S. President Donald Trump came out publicly in support of Islamic terrorists.

He clearly stated that he is against eliminating the people who live in, and who have sought refuge in, the region of Syria that has the highest concentration — almost 100% of the people there — either supporting or being Islamic terrorists. This region has what is virtually certain to be the highest percentage of jihadists and of their supporters, anywhere in the world. No other locale on the planet has been shown to be even close to 100% supporting Islamic terrorism, jihadists, but this one has.

Idlib Governate, in Syria, is by far the most-pro-jihadist region in Syria, and has increasingly been collecting jihadists from abroad, for jihadists globally to overthrow and replace Syria’s secular Government.

Syria is the nation that, for seven years, has experienced an influx of jihadists from not only the Arab world, and not only from Muslim-majority countries, but from everywhere, including Europe and the United States, who have come into Syria to overthrow the only non-sectarian government in the entire Middle East. No other Arab country — and also not the Jewish theocratic state of Israel — is secular, and is founded upon equal rights for all of its citizens, regardless of religion. Only Syria is. Jihadists therefore especially hate its government.

Idlib has consistently been showing as being, by far, the most-pro-jihadist of all of Syria’s Governates, in the annual polls that the British polling organization, Orb International, has taken since 2014, throughout Syria. Idlib has been showing there as being over 90% in favor of jihadists and of jihadism — and specifically in favor of organizations such as Al Qaeda and ISIS.

For this very reason, Syrian Government forces, as they have been conquering jihadists in the other Governates of Syria, have been offering all conquered jihadist warriors a choice of either immediate death from Syria’s Army, or else surrender to the Government, and it has bussed all of those who have surrendered; it has bussed them into Idlib Governate, concentrated them there, for them to be amongst their own kind — amongst other supporters of jihad — supporters of the imposition of Sharia law and of either death or imprisonment to anyone who resists that.

Back in 2015 (as is documented at that last link), when one of Orb’s polling questions was support versus opposition to Syria’s secular Government and also to its current President, Bashar al-Assad, only 4% in Idlib said that they supported it and him. By contrast, throughout all of Syria (including Idlib) 47% of Syrians supported both it and him.

Therefore, by Trump’s now warning Syria’s Government and its allis Russia and Iran, not to invade that part of Syria, Trump is threatening Syrians, Russians, and Iranians, that any such invasion by them, into that part of Syria, will mean outright war between the U.S. and all three of those countries. Trump is so passionate in support of jihadists, as to threaten World War III if Syria and its allies go into the Idlib part of Syria to finish-off the jihadists who have been a curse to that country since at least 2012. 2012 was when the U.S. first determined to support Al Qaeda to lead its boots-on-the-ground fighters in Syria to overthrow the Government.

Trump tweeted, on September 4th:

President Bashar al-Assad of Syria must not recklessly attack Idlib Province. The Russians and Iranians would be making a grave humanitarian mistake to take part in this potential human tragedy. Hundreds of thousands of people could be killed. Don’t let that happen!”

The stakes here are whether or not Trump is willing to go to war against Russia and Iran in order to protect the jihadists who are the U.S. Government’s boots-on-the-ground fighters to overthrow Syria’s Government.

By no means are all of the jihadists in Syria recruits from abroad; probably the majority of them are instead from Idlib and from other especially Sunni-fundamentalist parts of Syria. In December 2015, The Soufan Group (TSG), a private international-security firm, issued a study, “FOREIGN FIGHTERS: An Updated Assessment of the Flow of Foreign Fighters into Syria and Iraq”.

It estimated “the numbers of foreign fighters traveling to join the so-called Islamic State and other violent extremist groups in Iraq and Syria.” It noted that three months earlier, “United States intelligence estimates put the number of foreign fighters in Syria at upwards of 30,000 from over 100 countries. TSG research, which includes information provided directly by officials, largely confirms these figures.”

This report estimated that the top jihadist-supplying countries were: Tunisia 6,000; Saudi Arabia 2,500; Russia 2,400 (mainly from Chechnya amd Dagestan); Turkey 2,100; Jordan 2,000+; France 1,700; and Morocco 1,200. Soufan Group counted 87 countries-of-origin for jihadists in Syria. 900 were from Lebanon; 760 from Germany; 760 from UK; 470 from Belgium, 330 from Bosnia, and 150 from USA. None came from Iran — it wasn’t among the 87.

Trump is protecting all of the jihjadists, domestic and foreign, that are in Idlib, where almost all of the locals support the jihadist cause, even individuals who aren’t fighting do. For this purpose, Trump is now threatening WW III. Barack Obama protected Al Qaeda in Syria; Trump now is protecting even ISIS members who are in Idlib. The U.S. Presidential candidate who verbally obsessed against “Radical Islamic Terrorism” has been, during his Presidency, an even bigger supporter of that, than his predecessor was (who also spoke against Islamic terrorism and who actually did kill Osama bin Laden). What the voters want is irrelevant to what the U.S. Government does. But the U.S. Government still calls itself a “democracy,” instead of a dictatorship by the rich against everyone else — an “aristocracy.”

And that’s why WW III is being threatened and could soon happen.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

36 Comments

  1. Paul X says

    Much depends on whether an aggressive American military machine can bump Trump into ‘doing the right thing’ and keep the Syrian War going for a few more years. It’s not unlike the Bay of Pigs when the CIA (wrongly) anticipated Kennedy would be forced to back the invasion of Cuba. Has Trump really got the nerve to contradict the Dark State? Or do grassy knolls’ keep him awake at night? How ironic that Peace depends on such a man. The only consolation is that if Clinton had won we’d already be fighting WW3.

  2. Haltonbrat says

    ISIS was set up by US, Israel and UK to give an excuse for taking action in Syria. A good plot until you are found out or ISIS is turned against you.

    19
    • A good plot may be if it were the first time but alas it was not the first time CIA and MI6 played the proxy game… that’s been their pet strategy anywhere they have invaded for ‘humanitarian’ reasons or to ‘restore freedom of an oppressed people’ by introducing democracy … the only difference is in Syria they got exposed like never before… and if one is keen on understanding the quagmire they had created to stay in Syria, one also begins to understand what these war mongers have been up to in Afghanistan… the problem with Idlib is these are not ordinary terrorists who have congregated there… these are the command level, well trained assets inclusive of the 200 or so Americans and Britons who are trapped there with no place to run to except Turkey…

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says

      Don’t forget the EVIL Sordid Arabia Wahhabist regime.

  3. zach says

    Gird yourselves for a prolonged frenzy of ‘humanitarian’ concern for the Arab civilians of Idib, and demands for intervention .. from parties who have maintained stoic silence about the bombing and starvation of the Arab civilians of Yemen.

    Their compassion and indignation will be moving in the extreme.

    21
    • Why: “. . . and demands for intervention?”

      Is it not possible for the Arab civilians of Idlib to be tragically caught in the crossfire of a geopolitical contest? And then what makes you so sure that “that” purported contest hasn’t been framed, so to speak, for public consumption, both inside and outside Syria, to disorient popular sentiments, that all of the militaries implicated in Syria, including the Takfiris, aren’t all there but to crush a restive population? If people everywhere are the real threat to the capitalist establishments everywhere, you can probably safely bet that all public proclamations by all governments, East and West, North and South, and designed to obscure rather than clarify the ‘real’ ends of the ‘apparent’ conflicts.

      2
      1
  4. Snafu says

    What? NO Libyan’s? Hmmm.

    “top jihadist-supplying countries were: Tunisia 6,000; Saudi Arabia 2,500; Russia 2,400 (mainly from Chechnya amd Dagestan); Turkey 2,100; Jordan 2,000+; France 1,700; and Morocco 1,200. Soufan Group counted 87 countries-of-origin for jihadists in Syria. 900 were from Lebanon; 760 from Germany; 760 from UK; 470 from Belgium, 330 from Bosnia, and 150 from USA. None came from Iran — it wasn’t among the 87.”

    Unless the Tunisians are not what they claim.

    3
    1
    • The great majority of Iranians are Shiite, not Sunni. the Sunnis are much more prone to violent jihad against other Muslim nations, then are Shiites. It was the Saudi Sunnis who attacked Yemen. It was the Iraqi Sunni leadership that attacked Iran. There is a good reason why Iranians were not involved in Idlib jihad.

      • “. . . the Sunnis are much more prone to violent jihad . . .”

        Really?

        What, are we talking, here, about a cultural pre-disposition to violence? Because that’s just how “all” Sunnis tend to be?

        And what is the ‘essence’ of a Sunnis, exactly?

        Is it something like the ‘essence’ of a Jew, as from the perspective of a Nazis? Or as perhaps from the perspective of a Palestinian?

        Or maybe it’s something like the ‘essence’ of a black man for a white Southern Confederate?

        Given, on your assumption, the “less violent nature” of Shiites, who are the majority of Iranians, and by that fact presumably make of all Iranians, on the whole, a “less violent people,” and so “a people” more deserving of our respect, what are we to make of this:

        Quote begins:

        For months and months, the US and Iran, and the Iraqi regime – an asset which these two supposedly hostile powers regard as an ally – laid siege to the ISIS stronghold of Mosul. The city has been completely destroyed, “bombed back to the Stone Age,” up to 40,000 people killed, and finally this US-Iranian “regime change” operation was successful. Meanwhile, Iranian-backed and armed Shiite sectarian militia known as Hashd al-Shaabi, or Popular Mobilization Units (PMU), have poured in and are carrying out a horrific vengeance against the Sunni population, murdering, torturing, throwing them off cliffs, drowning them in rivers, in an ISIS-like orgy of sectarian terror.

        Quote ends.

        The Trump-Putin coalition for Assad lays waste to Syria: Imperial agreement and carve-up behind the noisy rhetoric by Michael Karadjis.

        Karadjis provides, in that paragraph, although here excluded for the sake of this posting, not less than 10 links supporting his contentions.

        But if this is a testament to the “less violent nature of Shiites,” God help all those who should fall into the clutches of ordinary Sunnis, eh?

        BTW: Karadjis’s entire piece is worth the read, in my opinion. Things, I believe, are not at all what they appear to be. As for who is more or less violent, people in uniform, or organized in militias, and thus trained to follow orders and to kill without hesitation, regardless of their ethno-religious backgrounds, are probably more capable of violence, on the whole, than any other so-called group you may care to discuss . . .

        1
        8
      • Let me make a quick correction here… these sickos… the Jihadis… are not Sunnis, please call them Wahaabis/Takfiris etc… they are the creation of the Saud-Wahaab religio-political conglomerate and its operative offshoots. Classifying them as Sunnis is unfair to the great majority of Sunnis who have nothing to do with this ideology and such a distorted interpretation of Islam. Nonetheless you are very accurate at pointing out that such a phenomenon has not risen out of the Shiite community.
        https://wannaknowthetruthblog.wordpress.com/2018/03/31/579/#more-579

      • Mulga Mumblebrain says

        The Sordid Arabians are NOT Sunni-they are Wahhabists, a genocidal death-cult of infinite wickedness, hence perfect allies for those other two Evil regimes, the USA and Israel.

  5. A slightly different reading of what the ordinary people of Idlib province face, people in their millions who seem to be left entirely out of account by analyses mainly focused on international relations, for those who can read French (although ‘Google Translat’e does a decent job of translating . . .):

    Idlib, prochaine cible du régime Assad et de ses alliés

    About the Author:

    Joseph Daher completed a Doctorate in Development Studies at SOAS, University of London, and teaches at Lausanne University, Switzerland. He is the author of Hezbollah: Political Economy of the Party of God (Pluto Press, 2016) and founder of the blog Syria Freedom Forever.

    E-Mail: Joseph.Daher@unil.ch

    1
    5
      • bevin says

        I note that your interview is in the ISO’s Socialist Worker which, sadly, has been apologising for US/Saudi Foreign Policv for several years now. It has no credibility. Jay Lovestone rides again.

        • Ah, the dang source that “proves” and “disproves” everything about everything!

          Question: now you claim that ISO has been — what? — apologizing for US/ Saudi Foreign policy, right? So what does that mean, exactly? That ISO cheers on their interventions? That they want the U.S. and the Saudi’s to interfere in the way that they do in Syria? Is that the kind of “apologizing” you mean?

          What to make of this, then?

          Quote begins:

          As revolutionary socialists, we recognize that U.S. military intervention anywhere is against the interests of all working people. We agree that U.S. intervention in Syria and elsewhere should be opposed unequivocally. We agree, too, with Shupak’s statement that “there is no positive role that America and its allies can play through intervention” and that “we must prevent our governments from inflicting more damage abroad.” [Norm’s emphasis]

          Quote ends.

          Source: ISO’s Socialist Worker

          Or is “that” the kind of apologizing you have in mind?

          Question: what’s up with all the slanderous claims?

    • As the intelligent and knowledgeable French would say: Cet article est un amas de foutaises mensongères.

      • How about on this point, does Daher lie?

        Quote begins:

        AFTER THE invasion of Iraq, a vast recruitment and facilitation network, for the express objective of supplying the jihadi insurgency in Iraq, was allowed to be established in Syria. Syria’s Grand Mufti, Sheikh Ahmad Kaftaru, issued a fatwa [edict] making it farad ’iyn, or an obligation for all Muslims, both male and female, to resist the occupying forces using any possible means, including suicide bombings.

        The Syrian regime’s collaboration with jihadis served a particular geopolitical purpose — the aim was to normalize their relations with the U.S., by pressuring Washington to collaborate with Damascus on the Iraqi file. So this collaboration with jihadis then stopped, at which point Syria became the target of their attacks.

        Quote ends.

        See the previous link for the source of the quote.

        • bevin says

          Daher is arguing then, to speak plainly, that the Syrians encouraged the uprising against the United States in Iraq, in order to put pressure on the US so that relations between Damascus and Washington should be normalised.
          That seems like a bit of a reach to me. It would be interesting to learn who supervised Daher’s SOAS Doctorate.
          The idea that millions of civilians in Idlib have been living normal lives, while armies of IS and other jihadi militias, recruited from dozens of foreign lands, armed to the teeth and imposing the most rigid religious rules on all around them,m and now live in fear of being conquered by the Syrian government is unlikely. Of course civilians are at risk which is why every effort is being made to provide corridors for those seeking safe refuge.
          The blame in this matter lies entirely with the imperialists who have sponsored, armed and paid for the recruitment of terrorists to invade Syria. The students who, often encoiuraged by dilettante ‘socialists’ in the west, allowed themselves to be enrolled, along with the Saudi/Gulf militias into doing the Empire’s dirty work for it were foolish. They had obviously not paid attention to what had happened, very recently, in Libya.

          5
          1
          • Dear Mr. Bevin,

            vierotchka claims that Joseph Daher is lying. I want to know which lies, according to him/her, he spouts.

            Question: who is Sheikh Ahmad Kaftaru? Did he or did he not issue a fatwa? Was he or was he not Syria’s grand mufti? As a result of his fatwa, is it true or false that, a) ” authorities transferred Syrian and other volunteers to Iraq;” that, b) “As the initial invasion un­folded, busloads of Syrians were driven across Syria towards the eastern governorates of Hasakah and Deir ez-Zor, where border guards willingly waved them through ‘open gates’ into Iraq;” that c) “This was the start of a mass migration of Arabs towards Iraq — almost exclusively via Syria — that would come to define the development of a com­mitted jihadist insurgency in that country?”

            I quote lines “a,b, and c” from a piece by Gareth Smyth, that seems to independently corroborate this particular detail as related by Joseph Daher. Perhaps the detail is corroborated elsewhere, as well?

            But apparently for you the feeling that Daher’s claim is a bit of a reach is sufficient proof that the claim is surely part of an amas de foutaises mensongères.

            You write:

            “It would be interesting to learn who supervised Daher’s SOAS Doctorate.”

            Maybe. Probably not. But why don’t you write Daher to ask him? His email is at hand.

            Then you write:

            “The idea that millions of civilians in Idlib have been living normal lives, while armies of IS and other jihadi militias, recruited from dozens of foreign lands, armed to the teeth and imposing the most rigid religious rules on all around them,m and now live in fear of being conquered by the Syrian government is unlikely.”

            Speaking of a straw man: “The idea that millions of civilians in Idlib have been living normal lives . . .. ” — because that is exactly what Daher claims, eh?

          • Mulga Mumblebrain says

            Pilon is promulgating the basic mechanism by which the USA, Israel (as outlined in the Oded Yinon Plan) and Sordid Barbaria intend to destroy all the states of the Middle East-the deliberate fomenting and promotion of internecine Sunni-Shia hatred and civil war. It is an odious ‘Divide and Destroy’ policy that has killed millions already, and will kill millions more. Perhaps all of us. The truth revealed about Aleppo after its liberation gives the lie to all the lurid and filthy lies concerning Idlib. Just why such propagandists have such sympathy for child-butchering psychopaths in preference to a Government under which all ethnic and religious groups lived peacefully, is a problem for the moral ponerologists.

      • Or maybe Daher is making things up when he writes:

        Quote begins:

        YES, ANOTHER important part of the uprising, one which was more “cosmopolitan,” was the university students, young graduates and sections of the middle class, in the major cities of Damascus, Aleppo, Homs, and Raqqa. The number of students in further and higher education had increased massively since the 1970s: enrollment figures for Syrian tertiary education went from around 7 percent in 1970 to 26 percent in 2010. Students represented a significant and distinct social force within society. Students were not directly exploited in the way that workers are, but with the mass expansion of education, they are not a privileged section of society either. They would be a particularly important section of the protest movement at the beginning of the uprising.

        The Union of Free Syrian Students (UFSS) was established on September 29, 2011, to struggle against the regime, and for a civil and pluralistic democracy, treating all citizens equally. They grew in numbers rapidly, and most Syrian universities with activists had established a branch. They faced the repression of the official, pro-regime student union members and of the security services. By July 2012, university students were a quarter of all the individuals killed since the beginning of the protest movement, in mid-March 2011, according to the UFSS.

        Quote ends.

        Well, vierotchka, what in these paragraphs does Daher get wrong?

        • Jen says

          One thing I’d like to know about Joseph Daher is why he refers to Bashar al Assad’s government as “the regime”, as if somehow it’s not the legitimate government of Syria in spite of 2014 presidential elections and 2016 parliamentary elections in the country in which most people able to vote and who did so plumped for Assad again as President and then two years later returned the Ba’ath Party (as part of a coalition) to power. Surely as a former native of Syria with contacts still in the country, Daher would be aware of the popular support Assad and his government have? Does he even seem to know the country adopted a new constitution in 2012?

          Also what percentage of the people of Idlib province are normal, everyday civilians and what percentage are jihadists on the eve of the Syrian Arab Army’s offensive against the jihadists? Have those figures been established? If not, how can we be sure that most people in Idlib are what we assume them to be?

          • “lso what percentage of the people of Idlib province are normal, everyday civilians and what percentage are jihadists on the eve of the Syrian Arab Army’s offensive against the jihadists? Have those figures been established? If not, how can we be sure that most people in Idlib are what we assume them to be?”

            Exactly, Jen. Precisely, I think, the point that I just made HERE.

            As for the Syrian government being “a regime,” aren’t all forms of governance, especially ‘capitalist governance,’ by definition “regimes?”

            And as for the electoral success of Assad, I’ll yield to a reply made by Michael Karadjis:

            In 2017, some believe “free elections” occur in fascist dictatorships

            Anderson also claimed that Assad had been “elected” at an “election” held in 2014, and from memory one of the questioners even asked why we shouldn’t accept the results of a free election. This is indeed a unique occasion in leftist history when people who have rejected oppression and repression all their lives, and made great efforts at understanding how even our own bourgeois democracy is deeply flawed, uphold an “election” farce run by a murderous dictatorship. Aside from the fact that the only candidates allowed to stand against Assad were two nobodies, allowed precisely because they were Assad clones (to be allowed to stand, the first condition was that a candidate must have the support of at least 35 members of the existing Baathist-dominated parliament, and so 21 of 23 were rejected); aside from the fact that “voters” had to bloody their thumb to stamp the electoral roll, and thus could be spotted at workplaces the following day if the evidence was absent (a possible death or disappearance certificate); aside from large parts of the country being outside regime control; aside from 5 million Syrians being in exile; aside from all of this and more, why would anyone assume that the figures released by the State

            Ministry of Truth (ie, the 73.4 percent participation rate and the 88.7 percent vote for Assad) mean anything at all? Is anyone able to check?

            If we assume these figures are “true” (even taking into account the manipulation and other factors), then do we also accept that in every other “election” that Assad has called since 1971, he has received 99 percent of the vote? Why would anyone with a brain accept that? And if so, do you also accept that Zairean tyrant Mobutu received 99 percent in his 1970 election? That Saddam Hussein got 99 percent and 100 percent in his last two elections? That Mubarak always got 97 percent? That Enver Hoxha usually got around 100 percent?

            Anderson claimed large numbers of Syrian refugees voted in Lebanon, though outside Assad state control, thus proving that participation was genuine. However, every media report referred to “tens of thousands” rushing the embassy in Lebanon to vote. Yes, that is a great many. But there are 1.1 million Syrian refugees in Lebanon, so do the maths – the “tens of thousands” probably do represent the actual level of support for Assad among Syrians in Lebanon. But in any case, the great majority were barred from voting even if they had wanted to: a law was passed that refugees who had fled Syria at checkpoints not controlled by the regime were not eligible to vote. I wonder which groups of refugees fled at regime-controlled checkpoints?

            What a sad day for the left that it is even necessary for me to explain this.

            Source: My debate with Tim Anderson on Syria: Reflections on the collapse of solidarity

            • Jen says

              I did try reading Michael Karadjis’ post on his debate with the Sydney University academic Dr Tim Anderson but after he started headbanging about the main role of the US in Syria being to fight ISIS and not acting as ISIS’ de facto air force providing air cover for the jihadists, I decided not to yield any further to his hysteria.

              • Well, he does suffer (somewhat acutely) from certain biases, as we all do, I suppose, and I, too, find him an effort to read at times, so you are definitely not alone on that particular score. But his reply on the question of the ‘democratic’ legitimacy of the Assad government is on point, in my opinion, and that is why I quoted him.

            • Stonky says

              “As for the Syrian government being “a regime,” aren’t all forms of governance, especially ‘capitalist governance,’ by definition “regimes?”…

              Apparently not Norman. At least not according to your pal, the one-eyed propagandist. I had a quick scan through a few of his articles, doing a word-search for ‘regime’. It’s certainly one he likes to use. I gave up counting after about a million, but the only other ‘governments’ I saw him refer to as ‘regimes’ were, er… Russia and Iran.

              3
              1
              • Well, Stonky, lets have a dictionary reading of some of the word’s definitions, shall we:

                Quote begins:

                a. A government, especially an oppressive or undemocratic one: a fascist regime.

                b. A usually heavy-handed administration or group in charge of an organization: Raises were canceled under the new regime.

                c. a. A way of organizing or managing something; a system: an admissions regime at a college.

                Quote ends

                Source: HERE

                Hmm. Three definitions. Three connotations. I quote only the relevant ones.

                Words, eh? Funny how they tend to have a range of meanings.

                But as Freud might once have put it, “sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, eh.”

                But try this, to see if it helps you better comprehend my ‘pal:’ instead of only scanning through articles, take the time to actually read them; and then whenever you see the word ‘regime,’ substitute ‘government.’ Hope that helps.

                Regards,

                –N

  6. Thomas Prentice says

    Herr Trumpf has been totally flipped by the military / security / surveillance industrial complex but it wasn’t hard since the axis of evil, Israel and Saudi Arabia, are the puppetmasters anyway

  7. Paul X says

    Ever since US Special Forces arrived at Syria’s most productive oil wells and established themselves with local support and from Kurd and Arab militias it seemed unlikely they’d ever simply pack their bags and leave with a cheery wave. At the time there were comments about it being ‘impossible’ for them to ‘leave’ the revenue from the oil flooding into Assad’s coffers. The revenue can instead pay off local protection. The war against Assad will continue and the jihadists will once again be the Coalition’s Shock Front Line troops deploying their suicide bomb tactic on a mass scale. It’s why jihadists fleeing Iraq were signposted into Syria. It’s why the American’s responded so overwhelmingly to a recce by Russian mercenaries/volunteers, killing 100. It was a demonstration of how America will hang onto the area they have allocated to themselves, an early reward of victory.

    26
    1
  8. Jo says

    Let alone USA forces are confirmed to remain in east Syria area……”The US will not withdraw its military presence from Syria, as announced by the US special representative for Syria, James Jeffrey on September 6th.

    According to Jeffrey, the Trump administration is shifting towards a more expansive plan for Syria that involves not just the defeat of ISIS, but also reducing Iranian influence and preventing Bashar al-Assad from consolidating power.

    According to James Jeffrey, President Donald Trump supports the strategy that envisions an indefinite military and diplomatic presence in Syria, contrary to the President’s previous inclination to withdraw US troops after defeating ISIS.

    “The new policy is we’re no longer pulling out by the end of the year,” he told reporters in Washington. Initially the 2,200 US troops deployed to eastern Syria in support of the multi-national coalition against ISIS was supposed to leave. Instead, they will remain in support of a combined military and diplomatic effort to limit Iranian and Russian influence over post-war reconstruction. “That means we are not in a hurry,” Jeffrey said, adding that he was “confident” Trump supports what he called a “more active approach” in Syria.”

    Southfront. If that is not a declaration of war I do not what is.

    Plus USA troops at al tanf are having military exercises outside their 55 k zone…….plus Haleys delusional psychotic outrage against Syria and Russia seem to me to indicate they are getting ready for the off big time….and no going back from that posturising betchya.

    20
    1

Please note the opinions expressed in the comments do not necessarily reflect those of the editors or of OffG as a whole