(Click On Image to Enlarge)
Robert Ford, Defense One/The Atlantic: The US Will Spend $500M on Syrian Kurds This Year. For What?
The Trump administration is embarking on a state-building project with no clear strategy, benchmarks, or goals.
As the world watches the Syrian government’s relentless bombing of Ghouta, 300 miles to the east, the United States remains focused on eradicating the last vestiges of the Islamic State. On February 11, Secretary of Defense James Mattis stressed that, following the group’s defeat, there is no plan for a deeper U.S. commitment in Syria. Several weeks later on February 23, President Donald Trump echoed Mattis’s message, saying that the 1,700 to 2,000 U.S. troops in the country would “go home” after ISIS had been beaten.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: What is the U.S. strategy, benchmark, and goals in Syria? A legitimate question, and one that I predict will not be answered in the coming months.
1 comment:
Without the US's current muscular presence in Syria, Turkey would have invaded probably out to Iraq-Syria borders. Iran would control the eastern half of Syria giving it end to end access to the Mediterranean sea. Israel would probably have it's own proxies in Syria and Russia would have direct influence in a much larger area than it does. Jordan would probably be dealing with a civil war.
US influence would drain away with other Sunni nations and along with it, arms sales.
Syria is no more, its borders are up for grabs and the Kurds have the forces to carve out their own self governing lands. So in a sense the US is midwifing a new Sunni nation from the Syrian ruins. Sunni's have been great customers for US goods and services.
I think the modest US presence is probably lower cost than the alternatives.
Post a Comment