President Trump's US policy change in relation to Syria has created confusion. It is therefore worthwhile to check the recording.
The White House Press Secretary, Stephanie Grisham, announced on October 6:
Turkey will soon make progress in its long-planned operation in northern Syria. The United States Armed Forces will not support or participate in the operation, and the United States forces that defeated the ISIS Territorial Caliphate will no longer be in close proximity.
The statement is both notable because it rejects the Turkish invasion – aimed at the Kurdish-led, US-allied Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) – and because it suggests that the US remain in Syria, but its armed forces withdraw from the "immediate area" attacking Turkey; Nothing in these statements can be understood as meaning that the US would withdraw from Syria. NYT: US Stand aside for Turkish Assault on Kurds in Syria "width =" 350 "height =" 1
An anonymous high-ranking US official cited by the Associated Press (New York Times, Oct. 6, 1919) stated that US would [its troops] "retreat"] from the immediate vicinity "in northern Syria, which is attacking Turkey, but the official continued that the Turkish attack" is likely to provoke a major fighting reaction by the SDF and almost certainly complete US forces
Trump tweets Of the 1,000 troops that the US claims to have in Syria, "only 50 were left in this part of Syria and they were removed." He has them Development, however, also in the context of a length The protracted escape process of the wars in Syria and elsewhere, tweets for example, that "we bring our big soldiers and the military slowly and carefully home".
In the Pentagon Declaration on Syria, no mention was made of the US withdrawing from the country.
In summary, an anonymous official speculated that the US could eventually leave Syria, while Trump tweeted that the US was merely relocating "50 soldiers remaining in this part of Syria" at the same time Home and leave Syria alone without offering anything that comes close to a specific plan or timetable. Neither the two official statements by the US government – those of Grisham nor the Pentagon – suggest that the US is taking its hands off Syria, and there's simply no evidence that that happens.
However, they would not know it from coverage of these developments in the media. Just as in December last year, when Trump proposed to withdraw from Syria soon, and when Trump held the same promise in March 2018, the news periodically and unfoundedly reported on the issue as if the US had announced plans to leave Syria , and as if The US has the right and possibly the duty to permanently occupy Syria.
The New York Times (07.10.19) published an article entitled "Withdrawal of US troops in Syria" Could help Assad and ISIS. "It would be natural to assume that this meant that US troops were being withdrawn from Syria, although this was not the case.
A report in The Hill (07.10.19) was headlined "Trump Knocks" Ridiculous Endless Wars & # 39; In the midst of the US withdrawal from Syria, "which suffered from a small deficiency, namely that no" US troop withdrawal from Syria "withdrawal of troops from Syria" takes place.
An Associated Press story (07.10.19) was titled "USA." Troops withdraw from Syria and leave Kurds behind without assistance. "As mentioned earlier, there was no evidence that the US was actually" leaving Syria ".
USA Today (7/10/19) Warned Its Readers "" A Reckless Game ": Four Reasons Why Critics Trumps & # 39; impulsive & # 39; decrypt withdrawal from Syria. "But these critics can just rest, because Trump has not withdrawn from Syria.
NBC News (08.10.19) had a segment called "How Allies Respond to the Withdrawal of US Troops from Syria," a senior Trump administration official told reporters a day earlier that the "announcement of the Government does not represent a complete US withdrawal from Syria and that only 50 to 100 US special forces operate relocation to other locations in Syria. "Relocation to other locations in Syria" is clearly not the same as "withdrawal from Syria".
Nevertheless, a Business Insider headline (08.10.1919) was offered Here are the 5 key players who will feel the effects of Trump's decision to withdraw troops from Syria. "
It will be difficult for the Americans to develop an informed opinion on the continued occupation of Syria by their government, which has no basis in international law if the US media wrongly asserts that the troops are being withdrawn from Syria USA leave the country.
The report is concerned about the people in parts of northern Syria being attacked by Turkey. These concerns are well founded. In the early days of the invasion, Turkish air strikes and artillery fire hit several villages and towns, killing dozens and sending thousands fleeing their homes. In the border town of Tal Abyad, shelling has forced the overwhelming majority of people to leave, while Doctors Without Borders
fears that the many thousands of women and children living in camps such as Al Hol and Ain Issa are at particular risk, Humanitarian organizations were forced to suspend or restrict their operations.
The United States is also directly involved in the attack beyond Trump's initial go-ahead. Turkey is a member of NATO, an alliance where the US is the most powerful member, and NATO refused to suggest that Turkey does not invade its neighbors or even explicitly criticize this illegal aggression, and Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg did Remarks to legitimize the "security" issue that Turkey offers as justification for the attack.
Stoltenberg said during a visit to Turkey on October 11, "While Turkey has legitimate security concerns, I expect Turkey to act reluctant." He further described "serious concerns about the threat of further destabilization of the region, escalating tensions and even more human suffering".
In addition, two US military officials told The New York Times (10/11/19):  When Turkish military officials were planning the attack, they received American surveillance videos and information from reconnaissance planes. The information could have helped them to track Kurdish positions. As a result of an American counter-terrorism partnership with Turkey, Turkish planes have been able to gain access to a number of American intelligence agencies on the battlefield in northeastern Syria. Turkey was not removed from the intelligence program until Monday, a Defense Department official said.
One official said that US fighter jets and surveillance aircraft remained in the area to defend the remaining American ground forces in northeastern Syria, but said that they would not contest Turkish fighter jets attacking Kurdish positions.
In 2017, with full figures, Washington granted Turkey $ 154 million in aid, the fourth highest amount of US aid sent to a country in Europe and Asia. From 2011 to 18, the US sold $ 3.7 billion to Turkey. Although the US has no right to occupy Syria, they do not need to do so to stop the Turkish attack: if the US risks its support and cooperation, it is almost certain that Turkey will not attack northern Syria ; Turkey wanted to carry out this invasion for months and did it only when the US gave its blessing.
Calling on the US to withdraw from Syria and end the Turkish attack is a consistent position: when Turkey? In early 2018, the US attacked largely Kurdish Afrin in Syria, plundered the area and expelled 220,000 civilians. The US had armed forces in Syria, as it did during the current attack. Demands that the US retain its forces in Syria to prevent Turkish violence against Kurds and other Syrians ignore the fact that US forces in Syria are not an obstacle to Turkish violence.
In fact, US intervention is a key reason for bloodshed and much more in the Middle East. The Syrian National Army (SNA), a new mark of the Free Syrian Army (FSA), which the US has used for years to fight against the Syrian government, is supporting Turkey in its invasion. The same scenario developed in Afrin when the FSA also fought with Turkey.
Intervention against the Syrian government led directly to violence against minorities in Syria, including Kurds: the US supplied arms to anti-government groups in Syria, who eventually authorized the ISIS, "attacks on Kurdish family members and the abduction of hundreds of civilians carried out "the basis of their ethnic identity.
The US government can no longer be expected to protect Kurds or other groups than Chevron for taking green initiatives, as protecting people is not the goal of US policy. Given the longer-term approaches of the US ruling class at the global level and in the Middle East, there is every reason to conclude that US policy towards Syria was about establishing military bases and rivals such as Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and Israel to bleed and weaken The Syrian government.
Washington's efforts to control the Middle East are thus a driving force for violence in the region. This suggests that the response to violence in the region is no longer US involvement, but less so. However, my research provides no evidence for a discussion of this perspective in the US corporate media.
However, there is much news that the US should continue to occupy Syria to weaken its government and other rivals in the US. The New York Times headline, "Withdrawal of US troops in Syria could help Assad and ISIS" (07.10.1919), clearly indicates that the US should retain its forces in Syria as their removal from the Syrian government would benefit. This perspective implies that the US has a legitimate right to use its military to shape and perhaps even determine the relative strength of other governments. The attached article further states that the change in US policy
could also fill a gap in the region, from President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, Russia, Iran and the Islamic State, also known as ISIS could benefit. And it would probably further restrict the influence of the United States on the conflict.
The article seems to confirm the view of Brett McGurk, a former ambassador to the President, that if the Turkish attack would force a Kurdish redeployment, American targets would be at risk "by taking advantage of" Russia, Iran and ISIS " In this view, the US should do everything in its power to keep Syria in a proxy war as long as possible, since this is bad for the international rivals of the US government.
A Times Editorial (07.10.1919) was in favor To indefinitely subject Syria to this condition – to maintain an indefinite occupation of Syria as a "counterweight to Turkey and the Russian and Iranian allies of Syria." Unidentified "enemies" [s] "do not look" at [America] and one The intimidation of unnamed political forces is, to say the least, an unconvincing re production for the maintenance of an illegal military occupation.
An editorial by the Washington Post (07.10.1919) said
the 1,000 US troops in Syria could be forced to do so. The full withdrawal would be a great victory for Russia and the road for Iran, its forces along the northern border Consolidate Israel.
For the post, Syrians are farmers whose fate the US should take hostage for a major imperial game. Another reason for supporting the US presence in Syria is that
the United States was able to work with the SDF to destroy the potential Islamic caliphate and gain de facto control over much of Eastern Syria. This hindered Iran's expansion into the country and gave Washington a decisive influence on a possible settlement of the Syrian civil war.
Why it is "important" – or even legitimate – for Washington to "influence the eventual settlement" of the war Syria is unclear. It goes without saying that the United States should play an important role in shaping the future of Syria.
Influential sectors in the corporate media are clearly of the opinion that US policy in Syria should be geared towards securing US global supremacy. To do this, Kurds and many other peoples must be wrapped up in body bags.