conflict zones, latest, Syria, terrorism, USA
Comments 35

Washington’s Long War on Syria Isn’t About to End

by Stephen Gowans, September 10, 2018

The United States has a new strategy for Syria, according to The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal. The new direction, however, is simply the old, largely unrecognized, one, transformed from a de facto status to official one by presidential authorization. In other words, an aggressive US policy on Syria will continue to be implemented—one the US president had, for a time, openly mused about reversing, but has now accepted.

The strategy, crafted by “the steady state”, and now acquiesced to by the US president, features the continued illegal and indefinite occupation of roughly one-third of Syrian territory by US forces as well as US interference in Syrian attempts to liberate Idlib from the control of Al Qaeda forces allied to Washington, its Arab monarchist collaborators, and their partner, Israel. It also features US pressure, military and otherwise, to confront Iranian forces and to drive them out of Syria. The overarching goal of the strategy, clearly articulated by US officials, is to dictate the form, nature and raison d’être of the Syrian state, the self-appointed prerogative of a globe-girding dictatorship. In the words of US officials, Washington seeks to build “a stable, nonthreatening government acceptable to all Syrians and the international community”. The goal, redolent with the stench of imperialism, can be challenged on democratic and liberal grounds, as well as on legal and moral ones.

First, it might be noted that almost every state in the Arab world was created by the dominant imperialist powers of the day, Britain and France, to serve their own interests at the expense of the Arabs they subordinated to their rule, occasionally directly but usually indirectly. London and Paris partitioned West Asia and North Africa without the slightest regard to the aspirations of the people who inhabited these regions, and imposed rulers upon them, quislings who collaborated with their imperial patrons in plundering the region’s resources. Washington’s plan to establish a government in Syria acceptable to the international community, i.e., the United States, continues a long imperialist tradition of indirect rule by outside powers.

Partisans of democracy should object to this plan for three reasons.

First, a Syrian government doesn’t have to be acceptable to the United States or any other country. It only needs to be acceptable to Syrians.

Second, democracy has both intra- and inter-national aspects. Internationally, it means that peoples have the right to organize their own affairs, free from the interference of foreign states. Governments need only answer to their own people; not to Washington. While the point should be obvious, it is studiously avoided in public discourse and therefore needs to made: US “leadership” and democracy are antitheses.

Third, there can be no democracy intra-nationally, if a government has been imposed on a people by outside powers, as provided for in Washington’s plan. Clearly, a government acceptable to Washington would be a government willing to do Washington’s bidding; one that would assent to reshaping Syria’s economy and politics to comport with US business and military-strategic interests, not with the interests of Syrians. There are already too many quisling governments in the Arab world; another is not needed.

Washington’s objection to the Assad government is of a piece with its fierce opposition to Nasser’s Egypt, Saddam’s Iraq, and Gaddafi’s Libya. All these governments pursued the Arab socialist project of breaking the control of the region’s wealth by the Western oil companies and their Arab Petains in order to direct it to the uplift of Arabs. While the Western-backed emirs, kings and sultans built pharaonic palaces and lived lives of luxury in exchange for allowing Western oil corporations to pile up a Himalaya of profits, their subjects wallowed in poverty. Meanwhile, in Iraq, during the 1970s, the Arab socialists used their country’s oil wealth to build a Golden Age.

In Libya, Muamar Gaddafi, inspired by Nasser’s Arab socialism, built a society beyond the dreams of his compatriots who had lived lives of stark under-privilege under the Western-imposed King Idris I. In Syria and Egypt, Arab socialists implemented social reforms to uplift the poor, and asserted the right of women to equality. At the same time, they brought large parts of the economy under public control and implemented plans to overcome the economic legacy of colonialism. In Egypt, the president Gamal Abdel Nasser, the most popular Arab since the Prophet Mohamed, lived in the modest house he occupied as an army colonel, while sending his children to public school. He threatened the West by proclaiming the democratic slogan “Arab oil for Arabs”. All these governments were assisted ably by the Soviet Union. Syria’s government stands in this tradition.

It is the only Arab socialist government that has withstood the anti-democratic designs of Washington, Israel and the Saudi kings, to bring the entire Arab world, from the Atlantic to the Gulf, under their uncontested domination.

As part of its campaign to topple the last force of Arab independence, the United States currently controls about one-third of Syrian territory, by means of an unspecified number of US service personnel who direct a mercenary force of Kurds, and some traitorous Arabs under Kurd control. Dennis Ross, who held several senior national security positions in the US state, says that “the U.S. and its partners control about 40% of Syrian territory.” The Pentagon says there are some 2,500 US troops in Syria, but acknowledges the number is higher, since covert forces and aircrew are not counted.

The Pentagon, then, is running a semi-covert war on a sovereign Arab state, having obtained no legal authorization for its actions, either from the United Nations Security Council or the US Congress. The point is only partly relevant, since even if the Pentagon had obtained legal authorization for its actions, the legal cover would in no way justify the occupation. Still, failure to obtain legal authorization is significant in bringing to the fore the question of why US forces are in the country. Trump raised the question, though predictably not on moral or legal grounds, but in relation to the implications that US entanglement in Syria have for the US Treasury. This, of course, reflects Trump’s Mattis-identified inability to grasp the subtleties of US imperial strategy.

The ostensible purpose of the US presence in Syria is to defeat ISIS. Washington says that it must maintain its presence in the Levantine country to prevent an ISIS resurgence. This implies an indefinite occupation, based on the pretext of the occupation acting as an anti-ISIS prophylaxis. But US officials acknowledged earlier this year that the Pentagon plans to occupy the territory to a) prevent its recovery by the Syrian government; b) to create administrative structures, i.e., to impose a government on the US-controlled portion of a partitioned Syria; and c) to rebuild the territory under US control, using Saudi financing, while denying reconstruction funds to Damascus.

Another plank of the US strategy is to interfere in the Syrian government’s campaign to liberate Idlib from Al Qaeda. “Brett McGurk, the U.S. envoy to the international coalition fighting Islamic State, has called Idlib ‘the largest al Qaeda safe haven since 9/11.’”

The joint Syrian-Russian campaign will resemble other campaigns that have been waged by Syria, Russia, the United States and Iraq to wrest control of territory captured by Islamist guerillas. What has distinguished these campaigns is not the military methods used, but the way they have been presented by the Western media. Western news organizations have condemned ISIS as the bad jihadists and lionized Al Qaeda as the good ones. The US-directed campaigns in Mosul and Raqqa to wrest control of these cities from ISIS were portrayed as laudable US-Iraqi military victories against a foe, ISIS, of ineffable depravity, whose fighters were branded as “terrorists.” In contrast, the Russia-Syria campaigns in Aleppo and now Idlib have been painted as murderous projects aimed at good jihadists, Al Qaeda, branded as “opposition fighters”.

In the former case, civilians caught in the crossfire were presented as a grim but necessary cost that regrettably needed to be incurred to eradicate the ISIS evil. US Defense Secretary James Mattis, in reference to the US campaign to capture Raqqa, intoned: “Civilian casualties are a fact of life in this sort of situation.” In the latter case, civilian casualties become a humanitarian tragedy that evidences the evil of the Russian and Syrian governments. The fact of the matter is that Mattis is right: civilian casualties are unavoidable.

Added to the patent double standard is a clear attempt to build public support for US intervention against the Idlib campaign and therefore on behalf of Al Qaeda by announcing that the United States has information that Damascus is planning to use chemical weapons in liberating Idlib. Making the allegation appear credible to an all too frequently lied to public is facilitated by the single voice with which the Western media proclaim matter-of-factly that Damascus has built a track record of using chemical weapons in the long-running war. And yet the only so-called evidence presented of Syrian chemical weapons use are assessments by US officials that amount to: “We believe the Syrians have used chemical agents, but have no definitive evidence to back up our claim; still this is the kind of thing the evil Assad would do.”

Inasmuch as the Syrians dismantled their chemical weapons under an internationally supervised process and inasmuch as no credible evidence exists that they have retained or regained access to weaponized chemicals, any discussion of the possible future use of chemical arms by the Syrian military represents a decent into a world of fantasy. What’s more, even if Syrian forces had gas to use, “with the Russians positioning forces to carry out naval and air bombardments,” they have no need to use gas, as former US national security official Dennis Ross argues.

Lest we take Syria’s previous possession of chemical weapons as emblematic of a unique Syrian evil and menace, we ought to give the matter some thought.

First, Israel, with which Syria remains in a state of de jure and de facto war, has its own stock of chemical weapons. If Syria’s former possession of chemical weapons makes it evil, then what are we to say of Israel?

Second, the United States and its satraps, Israel included, use their military superiority to dominate, oppress, and exploit poor countries. What options are open to Syria to defend itself? Achieving parity in conventional arms is out of the question. On top of monopolizing the world’s wealth, the United States and its allies monopolize the world’s weapons systems. Syria can’t hope to compete with the United States or US-subsidized Israel in conventional military terms.

Israel’s function within the US Empire is to weaken Arab and Islamic nationalism and prevent either from becoming a significant force that would challenge US control of the Arab world’s oil resources. As the last bastion of Arabism, Syria quite naturally is a target for Israeli aggression.

Munificent US military aid has made the Jewish nationalist settler colonial state into the region’s military Leviathan. Not only is it more formidable than every Arab country in conventional arms, it is also much stronger militarily than the Persian country, Iran. Additionally, Israel holds a regional nuclear weapons monopoly, and boasts stocks of chemical and biological weapons. Moreover, the United States exempts Israel, as it does itself, from any legal constraints on its right to use force.

The only way Syria can defend itself against the imperialist predations of the United States and its Jewish nationalist janissary, both bursting at the seams with the world’s most sophisticated conventional arms and formidable collections of WMD, and unrestrained by international law, is to develop an equalizer. That means nuclear weapons, or, failing that, chemical and biological arms. It also means achieving parity with its adversaries by operating outside the constraints of international law.

We’re taught to shudder at the idea of chemical weapons (that is, when they’re used by a country that defies the international dictatorship of the United States, not when they’re used in its service, as they were in the 1980s by Iraq, then a temporary US ally of convenience against Iran, a US target. Washington accepted Iraq’s use of the chemical weapons it had helped the Arab state acquire.) But why should we shudder at the thought of chemical weapons any more than we do at cruise missile strikes, the Pentagon’s Mother of All Bombs, the incendiaries fighter pilot John McCain dropped on Vietnamese peasants and light bulb factory workers, Israeli snipers gunning down unarmed Palestinians in Gaza demanding their internationally-recognized right of return, and so on?

In all these cases, the outcome is death or disability, often brutal, regularly painful, and frequently prolonged. Does it matter how the death was brought about? The United States doesn’t use guillotines on the battlefield to kill quickly, painlessly and humanely; it maims, crushes, pulverizes, vaporizes, incinerates and leaves bodies to slowly bleed to death. And it reserves to right to use nuclear weapons, and assorted other WMD.

Shuddering at the methods available to the weak, the oppressed, the exploited, and the plundered, to fight back and defend themselves while accepting the more formidable weapons of the strong as legitimate makes no sense. Insisting we shudder at one but not the other is part of a class war of the oppressors against the oppressed, of tyrants against the tyrannized, carried out at an ideological level. To deplore the weapons of the weak is to concede ground in this war of class. Syria hasn’t a stock of chemical weapons to use, but if it did, far from condemning their use, the only defensible course would be to welcome it as one of the few effective means by which a secular, republican, Arab socialist state can assert its independence and preserve its freedom against the intolerable despotism and anti-democratic machinations of the world’s paramount tyranny, the United States.


35 Comments

  1. Unfortunately, as has been for Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, etc etc, now read for Myanmar.
    I was wondering how the switch in attitude to this country had happened.. was dubious about MSM reporting..
    Control of energy, containment of China.. same old game..
    See: https://21stcenturywire.com/2017/10/08/myanmar-confrontation-china-political-islam/
    https://21stcenturywire.com/2017/09/30/china-russia-urge-diplomatic-media-objectivity-myanmar/ https://21stcenturywire.com/tag/myanmar/

  2. Having observed military dictator President Zia ul Haq of Pakistan and his intelligence agency ISI skillfully maneuver Russia into the Afghanistan quagmire I can only appreciate how skillfully Putin walks the razor’s edge.

  3. Good grief. While it is blindingly obvious that the imperialism which is and for which the US stands is bent on controlling and exploiting the resources and peoples of the Middle East, what Gowans and many here do not apparently have eyes to see is that the so-called resistance axis, (i.e., Russia, Iran, the Syrian establishment, Hezbollah, and there in the background, China, and whomever else may formally or informally be a part of this alliance) is also bent on controlling and exploiting the resources and peoples of the Middle East.

    All of these entities, without exception, are about profit making, that is to say, about subjugating entire regions and the peoples therein to their money making schemes, and the way that capital has always done this is, in the final analysis, by unleashing terror and breaking the resistance of ordinary people, however that resistance may assert itself, however organized or not.

    The Russian, Iranian, and Syrian oligarchies are not the friends of the Syrian people, no more than are the Western representatives of the same identical interests, and unless you yourself are to be reckoned as one among the superlatively and well-connected rich, they are also not by any stretch of the imagination your friends.

    When it comes right down to it, behind the scenes, and not among what is publicly professed in the public record, the competing ‘imperialist blocs’ on the terrain of the Middle East, are more than ready and willing and able to come to mutually satisfying agreements to co-ordinate their military actions and divvy up the subsequent pie if doing so guarantees above all else that control over rebelling masses of people can be reestablished, stabilized and maintained in the long run.

    Do you really believe that if the US had wanted to topple Assad, it would have taken them more than 7 years, with their objective still not anywhere near having been achieved? Oh, but the Russians! Right. But in the Ukraine, 6 billion dollars or so, together with Victoria Fuck-the-EU Neuland, is all that it took to topple Yanukovych, and this right on Russia’s own doorstep. Please.

    All bourgeois states (ours and their’s, be it on the international, regional, or intra-national levels) must be opposed in their endeavors to crush the people of Syria.

    As a socialists, if you are socialists, you should, as Karl Liebknecht once put it, ““[a]lly yourselves to the international class struggle against the conspiracies of secret diplomacy, against imperialism, against war, for peace within the socialist spirit.”

    Aziz Al-Azmeh writes, “the understanding of Islamic political phenomena requires the normal equipment of the social and human sciences, not their denial,” and I entirely agree.

    Consequently, for those who believe that the US’s intent always was and remains to topple Assad, a thumbnail sketch, from a “historical sociological” perspective, of why this isn’t necessarily the case, that is to say, because of the manner in which “power” was centralized and institutionally structured in Syria, the overthrow of Assad might not be deemed the most “rational” option from the standpoint all of the Imperializing nations intervening in the Middle East, very much including that of the US — I refer you to an analysis by Ramond Hinnebusch (the whole of Hinnebusch’s presentation in the video is worthy of your attention, in my opinion, but his presentation specifically speaks to the structural necessity, from the standpoint of both international and national oligarchic rule, of preserving the Assadist neo-patrimonial system in Syria, beginning at around 11 minutes and 3:

    https://youtu.be/K2mqouqaeG8?t=11m8s

        • Pertaining to the video above, quoted from the YouTube video description:

          Middle East Institute – NUS

          Published on Sep 30, 2016

          Chairperson: Mohamed Ali-Adraoui, Visiting Senior Research Fellow Middle East Institute, National University of Singapore

          Speaker(s):

          Daniel Neep, Assistant Professor, Georgetown University: Is Syria an Artificial State? or: Why the Sykes-Picot Narrative Asks the Wrong Question

          Eberhard Kienle, Director, Institut Français du Proche-Orient (IFPO) Da’ash: The Struggle for Syria Continues

          Peter Sluglett, Visiting Research Professor Middle East Institute, National University of Singapore: From Bad to Worse: Bird’s Eye View of the Syrian Economy in the LateTwentieth and Early Twenty-First Centuries

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says

      The USA is doing Israel’s dirty work, as ever, in Syria. The Oded Yinon Plan plainly states that Syria is to be vivisected into four parts, and Smotrich, the deputy Knesset Speaker, firmly stated a few years ago, on Israeli TV, that ‘Damascus belongs to the Jews’. There’s all the explanation you need for the USA’s typically Evil behaviour.

      • There is no question about the “evil intents” of the US in allegiance with its Middle East allies, and that on that terrain it competes with other national and international players.

        But like Gowans, most who post here, whether above or below the line, apparently fail to recognize and acknowledge the most basic and elementary fact about the ‘regimes’ competing for control of the Middle East: they are all capitalist. Every single one of them. Period. And if capitalist, they have but one objective: to enslave and expropriate.

        To declare, as Gowans does, that Assad’s Syria is “a secular, republican, Arab socialist state [that is trying to] assert its independence and preserve its freedom against the intolerable despotism and anti-democratic machinations of the world’s paramount tyranny” is simply risible.

        See this, for exampale, a collection of short lectures by some of the world’s foremost scholars on the Middle East: A Seven Part Series of Lectures on Syria (2016)|Middle East Institute – NUS
        Either it is Gowans who is the paramount expert on all historical, sociological, political and economic questions pertaining to Syria, and the fifteen Middle East scholars who attended the Middle East Conference hosted by the National University of Singapore in 2016 are all know-nothings, or Gowans isn’t quite up to speed just yet on all of the relevant issues.

        Here’s a curiosity, pertaining to just how socialist Syria might ever have been: “Business Networks in Syria – The Political Economy of Authoritarian Resilience,” by Bassam Haddad. If you ‘google’ it, you should be able to locate a 46 page .pdf of it. If it isn’t too far beneath him, perhaps Gowans should read it, too. If you can’t find it, let me know. I’ll provide you with a link.

        And speaking of Bassam Haddad, a piece that I was just reading, some facts and food for thought on the subject of Syria, even if dated from 2016: The Debate Over Syria Has Reached a Dead End

  4. Questioning this statement:
    “The only way Syria can defend itself against the imperialist predations of the United States and its Jewish nationalist janissary, both bursting at the seams with the world’s most sophisticated conventional arms and formidable collections of WMD, and unrestrained by international law, is to develop an equalizer.
    < Especially this:
    That means nuclear weapons, or, failing that, chemical and biological arms. It also means achieving parity with its adversaries by operating outside the constraints of international law.” >
    Really?

  5. Antonyl says

    As the last bastion of Arabism, Syria quite naturally is a target for Israeli aggression. The “normal” regional glue in the ME is Sunni Islam; that doesn’t work for Syria with its Alawites, Kurds etc. Not too strange that they took to Arabism, though it didn’t work out: too many cultural differences.

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says

      Pure Zionazism, as per the Oded Yinon Plan. Set the ‘two-legged animals’ at each others throats by fomenting sectarian and tribal strife, as the Zionazis did during Lebanon’s civil war. Utterly Evil.

  6. RT just reporting (midnight 17/18 Sept) that a Russian military aircraft with 14 personnel on board has disappeared over the Mediterranean off the Syrian coast near the area of Latakia…which was subjected to missile attacks by the Israeli airforce earlier today. Watch this space.

    • Paul X says

      RT says the Russians detected missiles fired by the French vessel Auvergne at the time the plane went missing. Other witnesses reported an attack from the sea. . Russia now has a problem in how to react. The French must calculate Russia dare not fire missiles back because of the risk of World War.

      • The diplomatic situation in Syria is a pretty complex 3D-Chess situation. Russia is allies with Assad AND Nuttyyahoo (who was the only dignitary at the May Victory Parade?) Contra earlier reports: the narrative is that the Il-20 was shot down by Syrian S-200s …who mistargeted it in response by a surprise attack by Israeli F-16s …something I’m finding a little hard to swallow.

        All the Rus-MOD reports cannot be true. If the FS Auvergne fired missiles – why, and at whom?

        One can only speculate why Russia might possibly be covering up an act of war. That is, if that is what the earlier reports indicated is true?

        I suspect this will not escalate publicly, but there will be merry hell to pay privately and diplomatically.

        • Aster SAMs …that’s surface to air missiles. No frigate can leave port without air defences.

  7. “Steady state”? No, Deep State for sure!

    If … “Washington seeks to build a stable, nonthreatening government acceptable to all Syrians and the international community” … then the US Army should leave Syria now. Get out America. Syria is none of your business!

    Trump simply hasn’t the self confidence to stand up to Washington neocons such as John Bolton and he get’s praised by the fake news whenever he bombs someone. It’s a tragic shame as I think he would tend to be non-interventionist and had he been left to his own devices he would probably have withdrawn from Syria.

    Bloodthirsty bastards such as Bolton have been clearly working on him for some time and now have him in the palm of their hands. It’s sickening.

    • Graham Hooper says

      Not to Forget The Real Reason The USA is There ..To Protect the Workers Building Oil Pipeline across Southern Syria from the Saudi Arabian Oil Fields. But to Pretend to Keep an Enemy of ISIS in Northern Syria as Their Reason for Being There,…

  8. James Edwards says

    Washington intends to build a stable Syria acceptable to America.
    Syrians and anyone else in the international community matter naught to America.

    1
    1
      • I think the atrocity you talk of was committed last night, but not by NATZO’s “rebels” — by the French and Israeli attack dogs in NATZO. See JudyJ post above.

  9. Sadly the Hegemon is far too attached to hegemony for us to expect it to ever change its spots. The great fear now, as it faces being supplanted by China, is that it will adopt an enraged Samson strategy and destroy the entire earth rather than accept the reality that is no longer the world’s last best hope.

    6
    1
    • Mulga Mumblebrain says

      That is certain. Just look at the rabid dog Bolton for the type that the Israel/USA co-dependency throws up as leaders.

  10. “peoples have the right to organize their own affairs, free from the interference of foreign states. Governments need only answer to their own people; not to Washington. While the point should be obvious, it is studiously avoided in public discourse and therefore needs to made: US “leadership” and democracy are antitheses.”

    “…there can be no democracy intra-nationally, if a government has been imposed on a people by outside powers, as provided for in Washington’s plan. Clearly, a government acceptable to Washington would be a government willing to do Washington’s bidding; one that would assent to reshaping Syria’s economy and politics to comport with US business and military-strategic interests, not with the interests of Syrians…”

    These are critical arguments which the many ‘left’ supporters of NATO wars ignore.
    In reality the United States ruling class reserves to itself the right to impose its client politicians on all nations. Including its own
    As we know this includes Russia. It also includes Germany, Australia and of course Canada. Currently the campaigns against Corbyn in the UK are a perfect example of US interference, on behalf of capitalist interests, and of the employment of Israeli state resources to further them.
    Stephen Gowans is not just writing about Syria but about the contemporary world in which the matters of Syria and Palestine are of the same importance that Spain was in 1938.
    It is noteworthy that, within the last few days, Bernie Sanders has proclaimed, in a public speech the necessity for ‘progressives’ to organise internationally to counter ‘authoritarian’ governments. Throughout the Cold War the ruling class has relied on sections of the left to promote the international policy that lies at the core of the imperialist project.

    10
    • This article is an illustration of the problem.

      “…The US involvement in European politics is so evident and extensive that talking about Russian “meddling” sounds farcical. The Americans are free to do anything they want. It never occurs to European leaders to sound the alarm and put the issue on the EU’s security agenda. They are too busy looking the other way while turning a blind eye to the fact that the meddling they fear so much has already been taking place without hindrance for a very long time indeed.”

      https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/09/17/eu-does-nothing-stop-us-meddling-into-its-elections.html

  11. harry stotle says

    By now intellectuals in the Arab world must have worked out America is a one party system committed to imperialism at any cost and that Europe is complicit with this self-evident agenda (aided and abetted by the MSM such as the ‘White Helmet’ loving Guardian).

    The antidote is for Arab states to act in concert – in other words they have to decide which is the biggest threat: US militarism or the Sunni-Shia schism preventing unity between them.

  12. America’s constant interference in the politics of other countries knows no bounds. Last week Republican’s in Congress got to together to suggest sanctions on a party in Iraq that intended to join a Coalition Government. In plain sight they said the US could not allow that to happen as they suspected the Party in question ‘supported Iran’.

    13
    • Mulga Mumblebrain says

      The rabid dogs are attacking Central American states for changing their recognition from Taiwan to the real China. They are frenzied in their aggression and stinking hypocrisy.

  13. vexarb says

    Dr.Assad’s (and President Putin’s) “milk livered” policy of clemency and reconciliation continues to save Syrian (and Russian) lives:

    17-61/10 : TERRORISTs BACKED BY US ACCEPT DAMASCUS OFFER TO DROP WEAPON & MOVE OUT OF AREA!

    US-backed Militant Group In Al-Tanaf Accepts Evacuation Agreement!

    The Damascus government and the US-backed al-Qaryatayn Martyrs Brigade have reached an evacuation agreement, under which the group’s fighters and around 5,000 civilians will be allowed to withdraw from the Rukban refugee camp, south of the border area of al-Tanaf, to the Euphrates Shield-held area in the northern Aleppo countryside, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) reported on September 16.

    https://southfront.org/us-backed-militant-group-in-al-tanaf-accepts-evacuation-agreement-report/

  14. vexarb says

    Syrian Arab Army
    Yesterday at 12:02 PM ·
    ”Do you realize what it means when the single most sophisticated air force in the region and one of the most sophisticated air forces in the world does not dare to approach anywhere near the Syrian Airspace and fire all their attacks from at least 100+km distance?!
    Do you realize that a nation fighting a war for almost 8 years is still capable of making the single most sophisticated air force in the region think more than twice before entering its airspace?!
    That same country had its early warning radars systemically attacked by terrorists backed by its enemies; buys its equipment and pays for them, its enemy is more technologically advanced than its closest ally, yet still [it] can foil an attack with small missiles designed to be hard to intercept without any losses?!
    Those who are asking for more must look at the entire picture. At one point Syria retaliated and we showed pictures and videos of that on this page; there were however couple other incidents when Syria retaliated and it did not reach the media, but for the sake of being responsible with information we will stop there.
    On the other hand, we have an occupation entity backed by the major powers in the World, treated as if it is above the international law, supplied with whatever the latest technological military hardware available, does not buy most of its equipment, and still lost in a war against a small sized party in Southern Lebanon in 2006; still have to think multiple times before entering Syrian Airspace, and just recently found to be inadequate by an internal study.
    So before asking Syria for a retaliation; you should realize what Syria did first.

    Long live the guardians of our homelands

    #Syria_Prevailed
    Syrian Arab Army”

    17

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