On Donald Trump’s Withdrawal From Syria
by Karl Radl
WHEN THE NEWS that US President Donald Trump was pulling out US military forces from the Syrian civil war — which is now all but decided with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad the last man standing despite the many and varied efforts of his Islamist and Israeli enemies — (1) I knew that it would provoke a fit of public kvetching in the media like no other.
The stated rationale that Trump used was — as communicated on Twitter rather than the usual channels — ‘We have defeated ISIS in Syria, my only reason for being there during the Trump Presidency.’ (2)
Yet, the Associated Press immediately began claiming that:
‘The aspect of this that he did not address is whether the extremists or others will fill the security vacuum created by the U.S. withdrawal to regroup and pose a new threat.
The administration said it intends to continue combating Islamic State extremists globally and could return to Syria if necessary. Still, critics launched a barrage of questions about the implications of Trump’s decision, including whether it opens the door for Turkish forces to attack the Syrian Kurds who had partnered with the U.S.’ (3)
This is typical Neo-conservative pro-Israel drivel that ignores that there is no ‘vacuum of power’ because Bashar al-Assad’s government is — like it or not — the legitimate ruling body of Syria and has the experience as well as, increasingly, the manpower to step back into these formerly-Syrian government run areas and manage their transition from a state of conflict back to normalcy.
The Syrian Kurds are not the concern of the United States and are armed rebels against US enemies, such as Syria, as well as US allies like Iraq and Turkey. It is also worth noting that the sudden Neo-conservative concern about the Syrian Kurds is ironic because Israel has been arming them and funding their insurgency for decades. (4)
The chorus of alarmed chirps from other Neo-conservative politicians has also been deafening, with:
‘Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican and typically a Trump supporter, said he was “blindsided” by the decision and called it “a disaster in the making.” He said, “The biggest winners in this are ISIS and Iran.”
Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida said the withdrawal would be a “grave error with broader implications” beyond the fight against IS. He called it “one more example of how the United States is not a reliable partner.”
Just last week, the U.S. special envoy to the anti-ISIS coalition, Brett McGurk, said U.S. troops would remain in Syria even after the Islamic State militants were driven from their strongholds.’ (5)
The irony is that — contrary to what a bought-and-paid-for Israeli shill like Lindsey Graham would have you believe — this development puts more strain on Iran’s large existing commitment to fighting Islamic State in Iraq and Syria and is not exactly what the Islamic State would want either; it means that the remaining ‘secular rebels’ will likely surrender to and be amnestied by the Syrian government, and then drafted into the Syrian army — as has been already been done with draft dodgers and deserters — (6) to deal with the remainder of Islamic State and other Islamist militias, like Jabhat Al-Nusra.
Whereas Marco Rubio appears to be upset that the United States is not acting against its national interests, and Brett McGurk is not only upset with the United States acting in its national interest, but also not effectively invading Syria on behalf of Israel.
Similarly, former US General and Secretary of Defence James Mattis has resigned citing ‘disagreements’ with Trump on the lack of a Syrian presence, among other things, in a far less cowardly bleating way as perpetual Puerto Rican soy boy Marco Rubio. (7) Trump has since brought Mattis’ resignation date forward to 1st January 2019 and replaced Mattis with his deputy, Patrick Shanahan. (8)
It will be interesting to see what Graham, McGurk and Rubio have to say when Shanahan takes over and a policy that is opposed to their upset shrieking demands on behalf of Israel takes effect, even as Mattis has cancelled his latest ‘fact-finding trip’ to Israel following his resignation. (9)
Why do I say on behalf of Israel?
Well, the principle reason that Graham, McGurk and Rubio are up in arms is because the Israeli government is extremely upset and confused about why their puppet in the White House suddenly went against what they wanted him to do.
Despite the public statements of IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkott to the effect that people should not ‘overstate’ the ‘importance’ of the Unites States military in the war against Islamic State, (10) and the Israeli cabinet’s claim that they will pick up the military slack along with their Islamic allies Jordan and Saudi Arabia, (11) the Israelis are clearly very worried, as Ben Caspit at ‘Al-Monitor’ has neatly documented, (12) and as also suggested by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s own panicked response to the announcement. (13)
The reason for is adroitly stated by Franco Ordonez at McClatchy:
‘The abrupt resignation of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has left Israel, America’s closest ally in the Middle East, confounded as it comes to grips with the even greater implications of the U.S. military withdrawal from Syria that prompted Mattis’s departure.
Combined with the departures of Chief of Staff John Kelly and Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, Israeli officials are scrambling to determine who is left in the White House who can convince President Donald Trump to think of Israel before taking such drastic security moves, as Mattis successfully did in the past, U.S. and Israeli officials said.
“There is no question that Israeli officials are concerned about the U.S. pulling out,” said Dan Shapiro, U.S. ambassador to Israel in the Obama administration. “It was done without any meaningful consultation with them.”’ (14)
Put more succinctly, Israel’s US Presidential puppet Donald Trump is suddenly not in the control of his pro-Israel neo-conservative handlers Haley, Kelly and Mattis, while his other controller… sorry ‘guide’ … (15) Jared Kushner — (16) Trump’s Jewish son-in-law — is clearly out of position and unable to bring his not inconsiderable influence to bear at the moment.
This is why the Times of Israel has published a similar piece to Ordonez’s analysis at McClatchy in which the authors Julie Pace and Zeke Miller claim that there are ‘no adults in the room’ in the Trump administration anymore — meaning that there is a sudden lack of pro-Israel and/or Jewish ‘senior advisers’ to tell… sorry… ‘advise’ Trump about the ‘correct thing to do’ — and lamenting this as a catastrophe for Israel’s national interests. (17)
Now, I don’t think Trump has suddenly come in from the cold — personally I think this is a cynical ploy to get his grassroots base back ‘on side’ after the slight inroads the Democrat Party made into his support in the recent US mid-term elections — but rather is trying to fulfill outstanding campaign promises, such as his sudden hard-line stance on the southern border wall with Mexico, in order to re-energize his increasing lackluster presidency.
Rather, I think this is a temporary bout of sanity from Trump until such time as the Israelis and their neo-conservative Israeli nationalist allies in the United States reassert control of their puppet in the White House through Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, and her Jewish husband, Jared Kushner.
We’ll see, but I’d like to be proven wrong for once.
(1) See my articles: https://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/2018/03/israeli-imperialism-in-syria.html; https://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/2018/01/israel-and-saudi-arabias-campaign-to.html; Semitic Controversies: Israel prepares for War with Syria
(4) On this see my article: Semitic Controversies: Israel, the Kurds and the Creation of Kurdistan
(16) On this see my article: Semitic Controversies: Jared Kushner: An Unelected Jewish Dictator
* * *
Source: The Purity Spiral