Today: January 17 2019
russian English greek latvian French German Chinese (Simplified) Arabic hebrew

All that you will be interested in knowing about Cyprus on our website
the most informative resource about Cyprus in runet
Plan B Trump on Syria: occupation and intimidation

Plan B Trump on Syria: occupation and intimidation

Tags: USA, Trump, Tillerson, Politics, Syria, War in the Middle East, Analytics, Militants, Middle East, IGIL, Turkey

On Wednesday, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson announced the creation of a de facto autonomous Kurdish state in eastern Syria, which the US will support, and the US-backed "puppet" occupation armies - to protect. Tillerson's statement was made at a private meeting, where he attended, at the Stanford University of Hoover Institution.

According to The Hill:

"On Wednesday, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson outlined a new US strategy in Syria, depending on the establishment of an indefinite military presence in the country in order to remove the government of the Syrian president Bashar al-Assad from power and keep the rebel groups in deadlock.

Speaking at Stanford University, Tillerson tried to justify the expanded US military role, supported by a political decision mediated by the UN in a war-torn country.

The withdrawal of the US military grouping, he said, is likely to have catastrophic consequences.

"The complete withdrawal of troops from the country will restore the influence of Assad and the continued ill-treatment of his own people," Tillerson said. " ("Tillerson outlined the plan for a long-term US military presence in Syria", The Hill)

Tillerson's comments underscore the fact that the recent relapses of the 7-year conflict have not tempered Washington's determination to overthrow the elected government in Syria and impose its political vision on the country. They also confirm that in the foreseeable future, the US intends to occupy parts of Syria. As clearly stated in the article:

"The Secretary's remarks on Wednesday give a signal about his unequivocal endorsement of the US long-term military presence in this country." (The Hill)

On Thursday, Tillerson abandoned his earlier statement, saying that his comments were "misinterpreted."

"The whole situation is misinterpreted, misrepresented, (and) some people have incorrectly expressed themselves. We do not create border security forces at all. "

Unfortunately, the media did not "misrepresent" the intentions of Washington or its policies. In fact, the details are circulating from the previous weekend, when the article appeared in The Defense Post with a statement about the creation of the security forces of the border by the number of 30 000 people. Here is an excerpt from that article:

"The US-led coalition against IG * is currently training forces to ensure security along the Syrian border as part of an operation against the shift in the focus of the fight against IGIL *. The 30 000 units will consist partly of veteran fighters and act under the leadership of the Syrian Democratic Forces, The Defense Post was told in the Combined Joint Tactical Group for Operation Unshakable Resolve (CJTF-OIR).

The coalition works together with the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) to create and prepare new Syrian border guard forces (BSF). Currently, there are about 230 persons undergoing training in the BSF induction class with the goal of a total of approximately 30 000, "said PR officer Col. Thomas F. Wil ...

The BSF will be deployed along the Euphrates River Valley - marking the western edge of the territory inside Syria, now controlled by the SDF - both on the Iraqi and Turkish borders, "he said." (The Defense Post)

As we noted earlier, Washington is determined to drop the "Iron Curtain" along the Euphrates, consistent with its plan to split Syria into small parts, support the enemies of the central government and create a safe haven for attacks on the government in Damascus. In this vein, this 30 000 contingent of the "border security forces" is not at all the forces of border protection, but a slippery type of Washington's puppet occupation army in the style of Madison Avenue. The fact remains, "the Coalition told the Defense Post that the" northern army "is not a recognized term in Syria" and this demonstrates the importance that Washington gives to its special "product name". The nickname of the "border security force" helps to conceal the fact that Washington has armed and prepared most of the Kurdish puppet army, pursuing strategic goals in Syria, including the overthrow of the Bashar al-Assad government, the division of the country into small tribal territories and bringing to power in the capital of an obedient puppet, which will follow the dictates of Washington.

In order to achieve these goals, Washington had to make significant concessions to its Kurdish allies in the Syrian Democratic Forces, which are "an alliance of militants in northern and eastern Syria with the domination of the Kurdish YPG." Kurds expected the United States to respect the Kurds' demands for a Kurdish homeland, an autonomous entity carved from the northern quarter of Syria, part of the territory east of the Euphrates captured during the battles with IGIL. Tillerson's statement confirms that the US will support the protection of Kurdish puppets of this territory, implying that the Trump administration will with all its might and authority support the unilateral establishment of the Kurdish state in eastern Syria. (Officially, the US opposes the creation of Kurdistan, but their actions on the ground demonstrate support for its creation).

Naturally, this was met with disapproval by other countries in the region, which sought to curb the hopes of the Kurds. The leaders of Syria, Iran, Iraq and Turkey were against the emergence of Kurdistan, although Turkish President Erdogan is still the most outspoken. According to the Turkish daily Hurriyet:

"President Recep Tayyip Erdogan threatened to prevent the creation in northern Syria of the US-backed security forces of the 30 000 border, mostly from the People's Self-Defense Forces (YPG). The Turkish Armed Forces have finished preparations for the operation against YPG in their stronghold Afrete, in the northwest of Syria, and Manbije in northern Syria, Erdogan said 15 January at the opening ceremony in Ankara.

"The operation can begin at any time. Operations in other regions will follow it, "the president said, noting that the Turkish army is already striking at positions of YPG.

"America recognized that it is in the process of creating a terrorist army at our border. What we need to do is to destroy this terrorist army in the bud, "said Erdogan ..." We will not be held responsible for the consequences. " (The Hurriyet)

It is worth noting that the US has never consulted with its ally on NATO by Turkey before the initiation of the current plan. This suggests that the foreign policy circles that formed this erroneous scheme could probably calculate that Erdogan and his comrades will be deceived by a thin veil of PR about "border security." Washington's hopes of an information cover operation and propaganda may have clouded their understanding and undermined the ability to understand how their PR scam could explode in front of them (which happened).

Despite all this turmoil, in Washington's determination to consolidate its permanent military presence in Syria, there is nothing new; in fact, the plan was exactly that from the first day. The basis of the US strategy in Syria has been modified many times in recent years, in particular after the Syrian forces liberated the Syrian industrial complex of Aleppo, which was a turning point in the conflict. Since then, news circulated about Plan B, which recognizes the reality that Assad will remain in power after the war, but will redirect the US efforts to more achievable goals, such as seizing a vast territory east of the Euphrates, which can be used for future operations on destabilization of the regime.

The main outlines of the "B" plan were presented in the report of the Brookings Institution by leading military analyst Michael O'Hanlon. Here is an excerpt from the article 2014 of the year entitled "The dismantling of Syria: a new strategy for America's most hopeless war": "

"... the only real way to move forward can be a plan that will essentially lead to the dismantling of Syria ... the international community must work to create inside Syria over time" closed enclaves "with more viable security and governance ... The creation of such shelters will provide autonomous zones who should never face the prospect of governing either Assad or IGIL ... "(" The dismantling of Syria: a new strategy for America's most desperate war ", Michael O'Hanlon, Brookings Institution).

The occupation of eastern Syria by Kurdish puppets is consistent with O'Hanlon's main plan for splitting the country into parts and creating "enclaves" of resistance, which the US will support. This is a variation on the "split and seize" theme, which the US has used many times in the past.

Plan "B" - Washington's reserve plan today, when regime change is no longer available. The strategy suggests that Washington did not plan to leave after the defeat of the IGSF, but always intended to stay with the goal of creating bases in the east, (Judging by Bloomberg News, the US now possesses 10 permanent bases east of Efrat) support of the occupation army and the continuation of the war against the existing government . This is the plan today, despite the failed attempts by Washington to hide its motives behind the touching "border security forces." Erdogan and everyone else have already understood the meaning of this fraud and expressed their displeasure.

The problem with plan "B" is that they are supposed that Russia and its coalition partners will try to release the Kurdish-held eastern Syria and, thus, will be drawn into a bloody and protracted conflict that will turn into a strategic nightmare, as well as in the PR- catastrophe. This is the scenario Washington counts on. And in fact,

Trump's chief national security adviser, Lieutenant-General Herbert McMaster wrote a lot on this topic and explained how to undermine the efforts of the advancing army. Here is an excerpt from the presentation of McMaster at the Center for Strategic and International Studies 4 May 2016:

"... what is required to contain a strong state that is conducting a limited war with limited goals on battlefields that include weaker states ... this is an advanced deterrent, an opportunity to raise the price of success on the front line and take advantage of a deterrent approach that is consistent with deterrence by denial , the belief of your enemy that he is unable to achieve his goals at a reasonable price, and not by the approach of distant balancing and the threat of punitive actions later and at a distant distance, and as we know from all evidence awn - recent experience confirms that this approach is untenable. "

"Advanced deterrence"? This need to be clarified.

McMaster says that instead of threatening to strike back sometime in the future, the US should use "intimidation by denial", that is, to make it as difficult and more expensive for Russia to achieve its strategic goals. (McMaster's comments focus on Russia's participation in the events in Syria). Through the support of the Kurdish fighters and the establishment of permanent American bases, according to McMaster, the United States will be able to frustrate Russia's efforts to restore Syria to its former borders, which is one of the main objectives of the mission. The goal of forward deterrence is not to win the war, but to prevent the enemy from winning. The reverse side of this theory - when neither side can win - is that there is no political settlement, there is no end to the battles and there is no way to bring people back to their homes so that they can resume life in peace and security. That is, in reality the plan is designed to continue suffering, continuing destruction and continuing bloodshed. This decision, which does not give any solution, is a war without end and edge.

More importantly, "advanced deterrence" is a military strategy that ignores a broader political situation, which is adversely affected by Washington's statement on "border security forces." Now the cards are laid out on the table and all major players can see what the US has in the sleeve. The leaders of Syria, Iraq, Iran and especially Turkey can see that Washington is not an honest broker, but a skilful and cold-blooded opportunist capable of sacrificing even his allies to achieve their own narrow geopolitical goals.

As a result, Erdogan took the position of rapprochement with Russia, which in Washington sounded as a signal of danger, which was to be expected. In the end, in a broader sense, Turkey is more important to the United States than Ukraine. In fact, it is a land bridge and an energy hub that will link Europe and Asia to the world's largest free trade area. If Turkey leaves the Washington orbit and moves to the Moscow camp, the Washington plan for a "turn to Asia" will collapse completely.

So, while McMaster can imagine that the best deterrence will prevent Russia from achieving its goals, it is clear that politics is already working in favor of Putin. Any Washington blunder only adds to the credibility and reputation of Putin as a reliable partner. Simply put, the Russian president is gradually replacing Washington as a guarantor of regional security. This is a tectonic shift, yes such that influential persons of the USA will definitely regret it in the future.

There is a "change of guard" on the energy-rich Middle East, and Washington there is superfluous.

* - grouping, banned in the Russian Federation.

Mike Whitney CounterPunch US
GTranslate Your license is inactive or expired, please subscribe again!