Trump says there is no set date for Syria troop withdrawal

U.S. Marines with SPMAGTF-CR-CC practice company size reinforcement, live fire ranges in Syria (photo: U.S. Central Command)

By Bill Van Auken

In a meandering and at times incoherent White House cabinet meeting held in front of the media, US President Donald Trump defended his surprise December 19 announcement of his decision to withdraw all US troops from Syria, while indicating that there is no set timetable for doing so.

Initially there were reports from within the administration that US forces—officially numbered at 2,000 but possibly consisting of as many as twice that number—would be brought out of Syria within 30 days. Subsequently, the time frame was put at 60 to 100 days. Since the beginning of the new year, it has been reported that the deadline has been extended to 120 days.

The withdrawal decision provoked the resignation of Defense Secretary General James Mattis, who penned a letter implicitly criticizing Trump for abandoning allies and failing to confront Russia, as well as that of Brett McGurk, the US envoy to the so-called war on the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). The announcement likewise provoked a storm of criticism from both Democratic and Republican members of Congress.

At Wednesday’s cabinet meeting, Trump answered a reporter’s question on the timetable for the Syria withdrawal by denying that he had signed off on a three-month period or that he had ever used the words “fast or slow.” Instead, he merely reiterated, “I’m getting out—we’re getting out of Syria.”

CNN reported that the 120-day framework had been presented by the US military command, which claimed that it would be impossible to organize a safe and orderly pullout any sooner. Part of the problem is the huge amounts of weaponry and ammunition that the US military has sent into Syria, which cannot be removed as quickly as the troops themselves and which the Pentagon refuses to leave behind.

Pressed on how soon US troops would pull out of Syria, Trump responded: “Over a period of time. I never said I’m getting out tomorrow. I said we’re pulling our soldiers out, and they will be pulled back in Syria, and we’re getting out of Syria. Yeah. Absolutely. But we’re getting out very powerfully.”

He justified his decision by citing his election campaign pledge to bring US troops home from “endless wars” as part of his “America First” agenda.

At the same time, he stated in virtually the same breath that it was time to withdraw from Syria because the US had “decimated ISIS” and that “Syria was lost long ago.”

He attributed this loss to the failure of the Obama administration—under which the CIA-backed war for regime change was launched in 2011—to carry through on its threat to initiate a direct US military onslaught against Syria over alleged chemical weapons attacks in 2013.

“So Syria was lost long ago,” Trump said. “It was lost long ago. And besides that, we’re talking about sand and death. That’s what we’re talking about. We’re not talking about, you know, vast wealth. We’re talking about sand and death.”

The US president’s crude and rambling remarks provide at least a glimpse into the real thinking within the US ruling class. The unending wars in the Middle East and Central Asia have not been about “weapons of mass destruction,” a “war on terror” or “human rights,” but rather about “vast wealth” in terms of energy reserves.

Syria’s oil and natural gas resources are insignificant compared to other countries in the region. The war that Washington and its allies provoked, killing hundreds of thousands and turning millions into refugees, was about denying Russia a foothold in the region and rolling back the regional influence of Iran.

Trump suggested that the withdrawal of US troops would serve to undermine Moscow and Tehran, which would be forced to confront the remnants of ISIS in Syria. “But you know where else they’re going?” Trump said in relation to ISIS. “To Iran, who hates ISIS more than we do. They’re going to Russia, who hates ISIS more than we do.”

Again, through the bravado and incoherence, a glimmer of truth. The Islamist militias in Syria, ISIS included, were armed and financed by the US and its allies for the purpose of toppling the Assad government. These same forces can and will be turned against US imperialism’s rivals and regional opponents, including Russia, China and Iran.

Trump turned to Iran in his rambling monologue, declaring, “Iran is a much different country than it was when I became President…. I had a meeting at the Pentagon with lots of generals. They were like from a movie. Better looking than Tom Cruise, and stronger. And I had more generals than I’ve ever seen, and we were at the bottom of this incredible room. And I said, ‘This is the greatest room I’ve ever seen.’”

The room apparently included a “big board” showing a map of the Middle East with Iran advancing on all fronts.

“I saw more computer boards than I think that they make today,” Trump said. “And every part of the Middle East, and other places that was under attack, was under attack because of Iran. And I said to myself, ‘Wow.’ I mean, you look at Yemen, you look at Syria, you look at every place. Saudi Arabia was under siege.”

What emerged from Trump’s longwinded and disjointed presentation is that the Syria troop withdrawal, if it is executed, represents merely a tactical shift in what will be a continuation of the decades-long military campaign to assert US hegemony over the Middle East.

“We are continuing the fight,” Trump said at one point, adding that “there was a lot of misinterpretation.” He said that the US was doing “very exciting” things in the Middle East that he did not want to talk about. “A lot of great people understood it. Lindsey Graham understood it.”

The Republican Senator Graham, an influential figure on national security issues, had condemned the withdrawal decision as “a huge Obama-like mistake.” After meeting with Trump on December 30, Graham said that Trump had told him “some things that I didn’t know that make me feel a lot better about where we’re headed in Syria.”

Meanwhile, a senior congressional Democrat attacked Trump from the right for allegedly abandoning a military challenge to Russian and Iranian forces in Syria. Steny Hoyer, the new House Majority Leader, responded to Trump’s remarks by describing the withdrawal decision as “dangerous and reckless” and charging that it “creates a vacuum for Iran, Russia, and other adversaries to exploit.”

The essential component of the Democrats’ opposition to Trump is over imperialist strategy and tactics. Speaking for layers of the military and intelligence apparatus, they oppose any lessening of the confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia, particularly in the Middle East.

Trump and his supporters within the ruling establishment see domination of the Asia Pacific region as the key priority. General Mattis’ replacement as acting defense secretary, the 30-year Boeing aircraft executive Patrick Shanahan, during his first meeting with civilian leaders at the Pentagon told them to focus on “China, China, China.”

Meanwhile, Al Jazeera reported Thursday that the US military has sharply escalated its bombing campaign against alleged ISIS targets in eastern Syria, including villages packed with civilians who have fled other areas that came under siege.

“The civilians in these areas have no place to go or hide from the US bombardment of their villages,” a civilian activist told Al Jazeera.

The bombing campaign, dubbed Operation Roundup, has struck numerous civilian targets, including the Yarmouk Hospital, the last public health facility treating civilians in the region. Striking such a facility is a war crime.

According to the report, the bombing campaign is also targeting internet cafes used by civilians, on the grounds that ISIS fighters also frequent them.

“They [the US] backstabbed all their allies and they’re killing the people here, and eventually the Islamic State will survive and spread, or it will fall,” an ISIS fighter interviewed for the report said. “But there will be people here who will remember what happened here, and they will carry on this information and it will spread throughout the Middle East.”

This article first appeared on World Socialist Web Site (WSWS) on 4 January 2019, and was republished with permission.

Defeat of ISIS in last stronghold signals new stage of US war in Syria

Photo released on Monday, Sept 4, 2017 by the Syrian official news agency

By Bill Van Auken

Syrian government troops, supported by Iranian-backed Iraqi and Lebanese Shia militia forces, have routed ISIS from its last stronghold in Syria, the Euphrates River town of Albu Kamal just across the border from Iraq.

Far from signaling an end to the US intervention in Syria, launched in the name of fighting ISIS in that country and in Iraq, the collapse of the Islamist militia has only set the stage for a further escalation in Washington’s drive to assert its hegemony in the Middle East by military means.

Remaining ISIS fighters withdrew from Albu Kamal in the face of the government offensive. The group is now believed to control only a few small villages along the Euphrates and small nearby desert areas.

The taking of Albu Kamal follows the driving out of ISIS from the Iraqi city of Qaim, where Iranian-backed militias also took the lead. The linking up of these forces effectively secured the much vaunted “land bridge” linking Tehran to a northern tier of Arab states—Iraq, Syria and Lebanon—which have all established close ties to Iran.

Washington’s main aim now is to blow up these ties. To that end, the Trump administration has sought to sabotage the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the nuclear accord struck between Tehran and the major world powers, while seeking to forge an anti-Iranian axis linking the US, Israel and the reactionary Sunni Persian Gulf oil monarchies led by Saudi Arabia.

This anti-Iranian alliance has found its most destructive expression in Washington’s backing for Saudi Arabia’s two-and-a-half-year-old war against Yemen, where an unrelenting bombing campaign combined with a blockade of the country’s airports, sea ports and borders is unleashing a famine that could claim the lives of millions.

The Saudi regime orchestrated the convening of a meeting of the Arab League in Cairo on Sunday for the purpose of condemning Iran and the Lebanese Shia movement, Hezbollah. Saudi Foreign Minister Adel Jubeir told the assembly that the monarchy “will not stand by and will not hesitate to defend its security” from Iranian “aggression.”

This supposed “aggression” consists of a missile fired from Yemen on November 4 which was brought down near Riyadh’s international airport without causing any casualties or significant damage. This, after Saudi warplanes have bombed Yemeni schools, hospitals, residential areas and essential infrastructure into rubble. Both Iran and Hezbollah have denied Saudi claims that they supplied the missile, while a UN monitoring agency has stated that there are no indications of missiles being brought into the impoverished war-ravaged country.

Lebanese Foreign Minister Gebran Bassil and Iraqi Foreign Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari boycotted the meeting in Cairo, while Syria has been expelled from the Arab League. While hosting the meeting and heavily dependent on Saudi aid, the Egyptian regime of Gen. Abdel Fattah el-Sisi appeared to distance itself from the aggressive anti-Iranian line from Riyadh, with Egypt’s Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry calling for the defusing of tensions in the region. Sisi himself called for the return of Prime Minister Saad Hariri to Lebanon in the interest of “stability.” Hariri was apparently kidnapped by the Saudi regime and forced to resign his position in an attempt to blow up the Lebanese government, which includes Hezbollah.

Within Syria itself, US military operations have already shifted from combating ISIS to countering Iranian influence and Syrian government consolidation of control over the areas previously held by the Islamist militia and other Al Qaeda-linked forces.

This has been made explicit in the form of the direct US role in evacuating ISIS fighters and commanders from areas under siege by the Pentagon and its proxy ground troops organized in the Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). Repeated charges by both Iran and Russia of such complicity have been confirmed by the BBC, which documented the US military and the Kurdish YPG militia organizing a convoy that rescued some 4,000 ISIS fighters and family members together with tons of arms, ammunition and explosives from Raqqa last month.

The purpose of this operation was to redirect the ISIS forces against the offensive by Syrian government troops, while freeing up the US proxies in the SDF to make a dash for strategically vital oilfields north of the Euphrates.

Both Iran and Russia have charged that the US also intervened in an attempt to prevent the fall of Albu Kamal to the Syrian government troops and their Shia militia allies. The Russian Defense Ministry charged that US warplanes were deployed to effectively provide air cover for ISIS by preventing Russian planes from bombing the Islamist militia’s positions.

Last week, US Defense Secretary Gen. James “Mad Dog” Mattis made clear that Washington has no intention of ending its illegal military intervention in Syria, ostensibly launched for the purpose of defeating ISIS. “We’re not just going to walk away right now before the Geneva process has traction,” he said.

Mattis was referring to the long-stalled UN-brokered talks between the government of President Bashar al-Assad and the so-called rebels backed by the CIA, Saudi Arabia and the other Sunni Gulf monarchies.

Washington is attempting to uphold this process—and the demand for the ouster of Assad—in opposition to attempts by Russia, Iran and Turkey, the three largest regional powers, to broker their own political solution to the Syrian crisis, the product of the US-backed war for regime change.

Russian President Vladimir Putin is hosting his Iranian and Turkish counterparts, Hassan Rouhani and Recep Tayyip Erdogan, at a summit in Sochi Wednesday to discuss a joint position on Syria. Washington’s reliance on the Syrian Kurdish forces has served to further solidify relations between Ankara and Moscow.

While there are tactical difference within the US establishment and its military and intelligence apparatus over how to proceed in the Middle East, there is general consensus on an escalation toward military confrontation with Iran.

In a piece published by the Wall Street Journal titled “Iran Strategy Needs Much Improvement,” Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution argues that the nuclear deal, Yemen and Lebanon are distractions from the main arena for such a confrontation: Iraq and Syria.

Pollack, a former CIA agent and National Security Council official, who was one of the leading advocates of the US invasion of Iraq, argues that Tehran is “badly overexposed” by its intervention on the side of both the Iraqi and Syrian governments against ISIS.

“Washington could take advantage of this by ramping up covert assistance to Syrian rebels to try to bleed Damascus and its Iranian backer over time,” he writes, “the way the US supported the Afghan mujahedeen against the Soviets in the 1980s.”

That the US support for the Afghan mujahedeen produced Al Qaeda, US imperialism’s supposed arch enemy in an unending global war on terror, does not give this imperialist strategist the slightest pause. He like others in US intelligence circles know that such movements have a dual use, serving at one point as proxy forces in wars for regime change, only to be transformed at another into a pretext for US interventions in the name of fighting terror.

At the same time, Pollack calls for the US to maintain “a large residual military force” in Iraq to counter Iranian influence.

What is involved in this proposal is a continuation and escalation of the campaigns of US military aggression that have already claimed the lives of over a million Iraqis and hundreds of thousands of Syrians. To thwart Iran’s influence, Washington is prepared to blow up the entire region.

This article first appeared on World Socialist Web Site (WSWS) on 21 November 2017, and was republished with permission.

Wordt Noord-Korea Trump’s gevaarlijkste blunder?

Donald Trump kan nog bitter weinig op zijn palmares schrijven. Hij komt niet over als een rationeel leider, en toont een opvallend gebrek aan dossierkennis. Trump’s presidentschap lijkt te mislukken. Dat geldt voor zijn binnenlands én buitenlands beleid. De crisis met Noord-Korea wordt zijn achilleshiel.

Trump ontpopt zich als een klassieke Republikein. In plaats van zijn beloftes aan de “vergeten Amerikanen” in uitvoering te brengen kondigt hij een belastinghervorming aan die de rijken bevoordeelt. Hij verleent steun aan een nieuw gezondheidszorgstelsel dat 24 miljoen Amerikanen buiten de boot laat vallen. Hij maakt geen werk van de beloofde biljoenen investeringen in infrastructuur, maar blijft wel hameren op zijn “prachtige” muur langs de grens met Mexico. Zijn verschillende pogingen om Moslims de toegang tot Amerika te ontzeggen faalden. En zijn verbale druk op Amerikaanse ondernemingen om komaf te maken met het exporteren van jobs is meer schijn dan echt gemeend.

In zijn buitenlands beleid breekt Trump met zijn belofte om komaf te maken met de confrontatie met “ongehoorzame” landen, en met de eindeloze Amerikaanse oorlogen. Hij gaf zich gewonnen in de harde en aanhoudende Rusland-hetze van de media en heeft zich zonder verpinken neergelegd bij het gedachtengoed van de neoconservatieven. Dat uit zich in de hondse houding ten opzichte van Israël en Saoedi-Arabië. Die landen schilderen Iran af als de belangrijkste aanstichter van terrorisme, en Trump en zijn team nemen die valse boodschap over. Binnen de regering-Trump gaan er zelfs stemmen op om het nucleaire akkoord met Iran op te zeggen, niet omdat Iran kernwapens ontwikkelt, maar vanwege de nieuwe macht van Iran in het Midden-Oosten na de mislukte Amerikaanse oorlogen.

Trump en zijn team leggen ijskoud de schuld van alle ellende in het Midden-Oosten bij Iran, en laten Israël, Saoedi-Arabië en Amerika zelf vrijuitgaan. Geen woord over de aanstichters van deze ellende: president George W. Bush en de neoconservatieve kliek die - met Israelische steun - besloten tot de rampzalige invasie van Irak, president Barack Obama en buitenlandminister Hillary Clinton die hamerden op regime change in Libië en Syrië, en Saoedi-Arabië en de Golfstaten die instonden voor de bewapening en financiering van Al Qaida, IS en andere Soennitische terreurgroepen. En tenslotte Israël, dat al tientallen jaren de inheemse Palestijnse bevolking terroriseert, buurland Libanon binnenvalt en de Syrische Golanhoogte wederrechtelijk bezet houdt.

Iran draagt juist bij aan het bestrijden van IS en Al Qaida in Irak en Syrië. Maar deze terreurgroepen zijn de instrumenten van Saoedi-Arabië en de Golfstaten om hun doelstellingen in het Midden-Oosten te realiseren. Dus is Iran de zondebok. En ook Rusland, dat Syrië militair steunt. Onder zware druk van beide politieke partijen, het Pentagon en de inlichtingendiensten heeft Trump zijn plan ingetrokken om de relaties met Rusland te verbeteren. Hij voerde de druk juist op. Zo stationeerde hij NAVO-troepen in de Baltische landen, onmiddellijk langs de grens met atoommacht Rusland, en komen NAVO-gevechtsvliegtuigen bij herhaling dicht bij een treffen met Russische straaljagers. En hij vuurde 59 Tomahawk-raketten af op Syrië om door het politieke establishment voor vol te worden aangezien.

Die aanval maakte hij bekend tijdens het staatsbezoek van de Chinese president Xi Jinping, met als boodschap dat hij even “doortastend” kon optreden in Noord-Korea. De manier waarop hij hierover de media informeert zegt veel over zijn karakter: “Ik zei de president: we hebben juist 59 raketten afgevuurd, die wonderbaarlijk, van op honderden kilometer, allemaal doel hebben getroffen. En Xi keek op zijn neus.” Maar over wat er werkelijk gebeurde hoort men Trump niet. Een aantal raketten zwaaiden af en maakten in een nabijgelegen dorp tien burgerslachtoffers. Hoewel Trump bezwoer dat Xi akkoord was met de aanval ligt het meer voor de hand dat Xi in het maniakale gedrag van Trump een bevestiging zag van de gevaarlijke leeghoofdigheid die veel van zijn critici in hem zien.

De manier waarop Trump communiceert over Noord-Korea bevestigt niet enkel zijn leeghoofdigheid, maar ook roekeloosheid. “Noord-Korea moet zijn kernwapens en raketten opgeven. Er is absoluut kans op een heel groot conflict. Ik zie liever een diplomatieke oplossing, maar dat zal heel moeilijk worden. Xi Jinping doet zijn uiterste best om Noord-Korea in het gareel te krijgen want die wil geen dood en verderf zien.” Intussen heeft het Witte Huis de vroegere president Jimmy Carter met klem gevraagd niet met de Noord Koreanen te gaan praten. “Dat kan het Amerikaanse beleid enkel bemoeilijken. Carter heeft er eerder al eens voor gezorgd dat een Amerikaanse regering van koers moest veranderen. Dat was in 1994 toen Bill Clinton een militaire aanval op Noord-Korea overwoog.”

Bereidt Trump de publieke opinie voor op een militaire confrontatie met Noord-Korea, of wil hij echt onderhandelen? Buitenlandminister Rex Tillerson zegt dat er kan worden onderhandeld, mits voorafgaandelijk akkoord over de agenda. Een kernwapenvrij Koreaans schiereiland moet het doel zijn. Tillerson mag dan begrip tonen voor de behoefte van de Noord-Koreanen om afdoende afschrikking te hebben voor akties gericht op regime change en hereniging met Zuid-Korea, de Amerikaanse geloofwaardigheid is gering. Een ieder kent het Amerikaanse optreden in Afghanistan, Irak, Syrië en Libië, landen die geen nucleaire afschrikking hadden, of hun kernwapenprogramma onder Amerikaanse druk hadden opgegeven.

Amerika zal uit een ander vaatje moeten tappen. Als het Noord-Korea in het gareel wil krijgen zal de VS moeten stoppen met de aanhoudende provocaties. Tientallen Amerikaanse, Zuid-Koreaanse en Japanse oorlogsschepen voeren omvangrijke oefeningen uit in de onmiddellijke omgeving van het Koreaanse schiereiland. Video’s tonen grootschalige landmachtoefeningen met scherpe munitie vlak bij de gedemilitariseerde zone. Wie gelooft nog in de defensieve aard van die oefeningen, nu die passen in een agressief operationeel plan, OPLAN 5015, dat voorziet in preëmptieve aanvallen op Noord-Korea en acties om de leiders om te brengen?

Trump houdt niet van lezen. Hij kijkt liever naar de actualiteitenprogramma’s. Buitenlandse Zaken is nog niet op sterkte. Het probleem is dat de regering-Trump zich niet verdiept in de voorgeschiedenis. Maar dat geldt ook voor vorige Amerikaanse regeringen. Ambassadeurs zijn geen geschoolde diplomaten, maar mensen die iets in bedrijfsleven of organisatiewereld hebben gepresteerd, en vooral de zittende president in zijn campagne (financieel) hebben gesteund. Het verhaal dat men alles heeft geprobeerd en wel met geweld moet optreden klopt gewoon niet. In 1994 bracht Bill Clinton een Kaderakkoord met Noord-Korea tot stand: Noord-Korea zou zijn kernwapenplannen opgeven, de VS zou vijandige acties verminderen. Dat werkte min of meer, tot het aantreden in 2001 van George W. Bush. Die maakte Noord-Korea tot deel van de “As van het Kwaad” en stelde sancties in. Dus hervatte Noord-Korea zijn kernwapenprogramma.

In 2005 kwam er dan een heel verstandig, nieuw, voorstel op tafel. Noord-Korea was bereid zijn kernwapenprogramma te stoppen. In ruil vroeg men een niet-aanvalsverdrag: geen Amerikaanse oorlogsretoriek, geen sancties, en een akkoord over de productie van laag-verrijkt uranium voor medische en andere doeleinden. Bush verwees dat voorstel onmiddellijk naar de vuilbak en stelde harde sancties in. Die waren erop gericht om Noord-Koreaanse financiële transacties met de buitenwereld onmogelijk te maken. De reactie laat zich raden: Noord-Korea pakte zijn kernwapenprogramma weer op.

Dat Noord-Korea kernwapens nodig heeft als afschrikking is voor een ieder duidelijk. En ook vandaag ligt er een voorstel op tafel: Noord-Korea stopt zijn kernwapenprogramma, in ruil voor stopzetting van dreigende Amerikaanse militaire oefeningen tezamen met Zuid-Korea direct aan de Noord-Koreaanse grens. Dat lijkt toch geen onredelijk voorstel. Toch werd het gewoon van tafel geveegd. En ook Obama deed dat. Eenvoudige stappen kunnen de kans op een zeer ernstige crisis verkleinen. Gebruikt de VS geweld tegen Noord-Korea, dan wordt volgens militaire bronnen de stad Seoel per direct van de kaart geveegd door de omvangrijke Noord-Koreaanse artillerie. En wat staat er dan nog te gebeuren? Vergelijk zo’n scenario met het voorstel voor een diplomatieke oplossing. Blijkbaar vreest wereldmacht Amerika voor gezichtsverlies.

En laat ons niet vergeten dat Noord-Korea een olifantengeheugen heeft. Het land werd praktisch vernietigd in de intensiefste bombardementen van de geschiedenis. Men moet er eens de officiële Amerikaanse Luchtmachtannalen op naslaan. Noord-Korea was compleet platgebombardeerd. Geen enkel doelwit stond nog overeind. Dus moesten ook nog de dijken worden aangevallen. Een pure oorlogsmisdaad. En de Amerikanen waren daar nog trots op ook: “het water vernietigt de oogst, dat zal ze afmaken.” Dat hebben de Noord-Koreanen allemaal mogen meemaken. Begrijpen we nu dat Amerikaanse B-52 bommenwerpers aan hun grenzen die met kernwapens kunnen worden uitgerust voor hen geen lachertje zijn?

De geschiedenis leert dat diplomatiek overleg tot stappen in de goede richting hebben geleid, sancties en hard optreden contraproductief waren en er vandaag opties op tafel liggen die kunnen worden opgevolgd. Is Trump verstandig genoeg om die weg te bewandelen? Het heeft er alle schijn van dat ook hij niet leert uit het verleden. Het wapengekletter in de Koreaanse wateren en bij de gedemilitariseerde zone is te hevig geweest. Buigt Noord-Korea niet en gaat het onverstoord door met zijn kernwapen- en rakettenprogramma, dan ligt oorlog in het verschiet. China zal Noord-Korea niet eenvoudig tot de orde kunnen roepen, China voelt zich immers evenzeer bedreigd door het THAAD raketafweersysteem, waartegen mensen in Zuid-Korea ook steeds meer protesteren.

De crisis rond Noord-Korea herinnert aan de Cubacrisis van 1962, toen de wereld vlak voor een kernoorlog stond. Die crisis kon worden opgelost door geheim overleg tussen rationeel denkende leiders in Amerika en de Sovjet-Unie. Vandaag kennen we in China en Rusland even rationeel denkende leiders, maar dat kan van wereldmacht Amerika niet worden gezegd. Het wordt spannend.

Pentagon prepares for bigger, bloodier war in Iraq and Syria

Syrian opposition asks US-led coalition to halt attacks on Isil after dozens of civilian deaths. “(Syria) condemns, with the strongest terms,

the two bloody massacres perpetrated by the French and US warplanes and those affiliated to the so-called international coalition

which send their missiles and bombs to the civilians instead of directing them to the terrorist gangs,” it said in a letter sent to the

United Nations this week, according to state news agency SANA.

By Bill Van Auken

The Pentagon has prepared recommendations to be submitted to President Donald Trump at the beginning of next week for a major escalation of the US military intervention in Iraq and Syria.

According to unnamed US officials cited Friday by the Wall Street Journal, the proposal is expected to include “sending additional troops to Iraq and Syria” and “loosening battlefield restrictions” to “ease rules designed to minimize civilian casualties.”

The new battle plans stem from an executive order signed by Trump on January 28 giving the Pentagon 30 days to a deliver a “preliminary draft of the Plan to defeat ISIS [Islamic State] in Iraq and Syria.”

According to independent estimates, as many as 8,000 civilians have already died in air strikes carried out by US and allied warplanes against targets in both Syria and Iraq, even as the Pentagon routinely denies the vast majority of reported deaths of unarmed men, women and children resulting from US bombings. The new policy to be rolled out next week, which the Journal reports is aimed at “increasing the number and rate of operations,” will inevitably entail a horrific intensification of this bloodletting.

Speaking before the Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence at the Brookings Institution in Washington on Thursday, the chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine General Joseph Dunford, said that the Pentagon would be presenting Trump with a “political-military plan” to deal not only with ISIS in Iraq and Syria, but to “advance our long-term interests in the region.”

Referring to the intense contradictions besetting the US intervention in the region, which has relied on the use of Kurdish militias as proxy ground troops in Syria, even as Washington’s NATO ally, Turkey, has intervened to militarily counter their influence, Dunford insisted that Washington “can’t be paralyzed by tough choices.”

Pointing to the regional scope of the planned US military escalation, Dunford echoed earlier bellicose rhetoric from the administration against Iran, listing it alongside Russia, China, North Korea and “transnational violent extremism” as the major targets of the US military.

The US military commander stated that “the major export of Iran is actually malign influence across the region.” He said that the US military buildup against Iran was designed to “make sure we have freedom of navigation through the Straits of Hormuz, and that we deter conflict and crisis in the region, and that we advance our interest to include our interest in dealing with violent extremism of all forms.” All of these alleged aims are pretexts for continuous US provocations aimed at countering Iran’s regional influence and furthering the drive for US hegemony in the Middle East.

In relation to Iraq, Dunford signaled US intentions to maintain a US military occupation long after the campaign against ISIS is completed. He referred to a “dialog about a long-term commitment to grow the capacity, maintain the capacity of the Iraqi security forces,” adding that Iraq’s Prime Minister Haider Abadi had spoken of “the international community continuing to support defense capacity building.”

Dunford’s comments echoed those of Secretary of Defense James “Mad Dog” Mattis during a trip earlier this week to Baghdad. While disavowing Trump’s crude comments last month—“We’re not in Iraq to seize anybody’s oil,” Mattis said—he also suggested that plans are being developed for a permanent US military presence in the country.

“The Iraqi people, the Iraqi military and the Iraqi political leadership recognizes what they’re up against and the value of the coalition and the partnership in particular with the United States,” Mattis told reporters Monday. “I imagine we’ll be in this fight for a while and we’ll stand by each other.”

Currently, Washington has more than 5,000 US troops in Iraq and another 500 Special Forces troops operating inside Syria. These forces are backed by tens of thousands of military contractors as well as other military units that are rotated in and out of the region. The plan to be presented next week will likely involve the deployment of thousands more US combat forces.

Trump has repeatedly indicated his support for establishing “safe zones” in Syria, an intervention that would require large numbers of US soldiers backed by air power to seize and control swathes of Syrian territory. It would also entail threats of military confrontation with Russian warplanes operating in support of the Syrian government.

As the Pentagon prepares its plans for military escalation in the region, US ground forces have reportedly entered Mosul, operating on the front lines with Iraqi forces in the bloody offensive to retake Iraq’s second-largest city from ISIS. American Special Forces “advisers” joined Iraqi troops Thursday in the first incursion into western Mosul, with the retaking of the Mosul International Airport as well as a nearby military base. The operation was conducted with close air support from US warplanes.

The airport and the base, located in the southern part of western Mosul, are to be used as the launching pad for a major assault into the most densely populated area of the city, where an estimated three quarters of a million civilians are trapped with no means of escape.

The International Rescue Committee warned that this stage of the offensive would represent the “most dangerous phase” for civilians.

“This will be a terrifying moment for the 750,000 people still in the west of the city, and there is a real danger that the battle will be raging around them for weeks and possibly months to come,” said Jason Kajer, the Iraq acting country director for the humanitarian group.

Referring to the increasingly desperate plight of civilians in western Mosul, the International Committee of the Red Cross’s field coordinator in Erbil, Dany Merhy, said: “Supply routes have been cut from that side of the city and people have been facing shortages of food, water, fuel and medicine. We can only imagine the state people will be in.”

As in previous US-backed offensives against Fallujah and Ramadi, Mosul faces the prospect of being reduced to rubble. It is in this city where the proposed changes in the “rules of engagement” will find their first expression in the elevated slaughter of Iraqi civilians.

This article first appeared on World Socialist Web Site (WSWS) on 25 February 2017, and was republished with permission.