|
Syria – U.S. Reveals Underpants Plan For Indefinite Occupation
Today the United States officially announced a new policy in its war on Syria. It is an equivalent to the three step business plan (vid) of the underpants gnomes:
The new U.S. plan is to: 1. keep north-east Syria indefinitely occupied, 2. ???, 3. Iran leaves Syria and the ‘regime’ in Damascus falls:
President Trump, who just five months ago said he wanted “to get out” of Syria and bring U.S. troops home soon, has agreed to a new strategy that indefinitely extends the military effort there and launches a major diplomatic push to achieve American objectives, according to senior State Department officials.
Although the military campaign against the Islamic State has been nearly completed, the administration has redefined its goals to include the exit of all Iranian military and proxy forces from Syria, and establishment of a stable, nonthreatening government acceptable to all Syrians and the international community.
The first major step of the “diplomatic push” is to prevent the imminent Syrian army operation against al-Qaeda aligned groups in Idleb province:
While the United States agrees that those forces must be wiped out, it rejects “the idea that we have to go in there . . . to clean out the terrorists, most of the people fighting . . . they’re not terrorists, but people fighting a civil war against a brutal dictator,” as well as millions of civilians, [U.S. special representative for Syria James] Jeffrey said. Instead, the United States has called for a cooperative approach with other outside actors.
“We’ve started using new language,” Jeffrey said, referring to previous warnings against the use of chemical weapons. Now, he said, the United States will not tolerate “an attack. Period.”
Jeffrey just visited Turkey. The intent was to stiffen Turkey’s objection to the upcoming Idleb attack. The result was a plan that the Turkish president Erdogan presented today at the Tehran summit with President Putin of Russian and President Rohani of Iran. It included:
- prolongation of the deescalation ceasefire
- 12 armed groups, including Hayat Tahrir al Sham to be disbanded
- Turkey will train a new rebel force to control Idleb under Turkish command
- Groups who resist will be targeted in counter terrorism operations
- …
The plan is nonsense. It is a copy of the task list Erdogan was given when the deescalation zone in Idleb was established at an earlier summit in the Astana format. Erdogan failed to implement it. HTS still rules Idelb province. HTS still rejects to dissolve. The observation posts Turkey established around Idleb still depend on the goodwill and protection of HTS fighters.
Erdogan has no way to implement his plan. Accordingly today’s summit in Tehran ended with a mealymouthed statement. It failed to come up with a common way forward for Idleb.
via Thomas van Linge – bigger
Syria and its allies Russia and Iran should proceed with their plans to cleanse Idleb of terrorist. The U.S. is bluffing. It has no realistic means to prevent the operation. Any U.S. attack on Syrian and Russian forces involved in it would likely escalate into a conflict between nuclear powers. That is a risk the U.S. military is unwilling to take. It knows that the forces it planted into Syria are vulnerable to attacks.
The U.S. is now screaming of imminent chemical attacks by the Syrian army on “civilians” in Idleb:
“If they want to continue to go the route of taking over Syria, they can do that,” said Nikki Haley at a UN press conference today, without explaining how a nation’s only recognized government can ‘take over’ the country it governs. “But they cannot do it with chemical weapons. They can’t do it assaulting their people. And we’re not gonna fall for it. If there are chemical weapons that are used, we know exactly who’s gonna use them.”
If a chemical incident occurs the U.S. will know who did it because it provided the chemicals to the terrorist. The Syrian army will of course not use any such weapons. Sun Tzu never gave this advice:
bigger
Chemical warfare is ineffective. That is why everyone agreed to ban it. Like in east-Ghouta the U.S. obviously plans to again fake such a “chemical attack on civilians” to have a propaganda pretext to attack Syrian forces.
Tomorrow the Russian fleet will finish its ongoing maneuver in the eastern Mediterranean. All Syrian army units have taken up their launching positions for the Idleb operation and are ready to go. The shaping operations by artillery and air forces have been ongoing for a while. Any hold off now would only deteriorate the readiness of the troops and give the U.S. more time to implement counter measures.
The Russian President Putin seems to understand that. At the press conference at the Tehran summit he said:
“Regarding a ceasefire, we consider it unacceptable when, under pretext of protecting the civilian population, they want to withdraw terrorists from being under attack, as well as inflict damage on Syrian government troops.”
Russia is not in the mood to compromise. It warned the U.S. military that it would soon launch an operation against ISIS forces under protection of the small U.S. garrison in al-Tanf. Those forces recently launched another attempt to recapture Palmyra but were caught and defeated before they could achieve their aim:
Russian complaints about the presence of potential Al Qaeda or ISIS fighters in the buffer zone are not new, the US officials point out. But with an imminent Russian-backed assault by Syrian regime forces in the Idlib area in the north, there is concern Moscow could see this as an optimum time to conduct multiple offensive operations.
And there is the problem of the new U.S. strategy in Syria. The position in al-Tanf is untenable. The U.S could put a full brigade there, including anti-air assets, and it would still be too vulnerable. That is why today the U.S. launched a rescue and exfiltration exercise in al-Tanf. The place is too far away from other U.S. assets to withstand a committed attack.
In the north-east of Syria the U.S. positions is likewise endangered. Since early August 1,900 trucks brought in weapons and equipment for its Kurdish proxy forces, the SDF. The Saudis have committed to pay some money for reconstruction and the U.S. surely hopes to use the oil fields there to finance a future occupation. It will soon start to announce some ‘independent’ regional government that will be under its complete control.
But Turkey is against such empowerment of Kurds. The supply lines through Iraq are vulnerable. The population is diverse with many Syrian Arab tribes unwilling to live under Kurdish/U.S. control. They will resist the sectarian and ethnic cleansing the Kurds have planned. That makes it easy to instigate a guerilla war against the U.S. occupiers and their proxy forces. What happens when the U.S. forces start to take serious casualties?
The U.S. presence in Syria is costly heap of underpants with no chance to ever turn it into a profit. It was a mistake by Trump to fall for the siren songs of the neo-conservatives and Zionists who pressed for this plan. It is he who will have to pay the political price.
Karlofi@39
Jackrabbit@44
James@51
See:
Russia’s asymmetric response is very painful.
https://cont.ws/@alex-haldey/1054552
machine translated from the original Russian; excerpted:
The fact is that Russia pursues its policy without regard to their provocations. She defeated the Wahhabis trained by the West in the Caucasus, snatched Crimea from under the nose. The US scenario in Ukraine broke. Restores the EAEC. In Syria, Russia completely threw the Anglo-Saxon West off the pedestal, which he held there all the post-war 50 years. That is, with its bombing of Igilov barmaleyov, Russia has broken the main ribs of the rigidity of the geopolitical world contour built by the Americans. This is a disaster, which the Anglo-Saxon world has nothing to answer nuclear to Russia.
While Britain crumbled in compliments of the OPCW experts it had bought for the act, Russia dealt the most powerful bomb attack in Idlib, clearing the way for the Syrian army to destroy the last enclave of American suckers. And thus it struck a blow to the British political elite. After all, all the dances around the Violins and the subsequent sanctions are designed to prevent what Russia is doing now in Idlib. Not prevented. And this is a demonstration of the weakness of the British ruling class, capable only of biting stealthily behind its heels.
But worst of all, the actions in Idlib demonstrate the US weakness. Trump is completely zamordovan – not their rivals, and Russia. Exactly. Russia has revealed the preparations for the provocation of the Khimatki in Idlib, which the United Nations has declared throughout the world. And all this was heard. With all the details, includes the number of barrels and their color, as well as a description of the ways of delivering chlorine from Idlib and places of their secret storage. All the trumps of Americans are shone. There is absolutely no sense in the operation.
But the operation will be. The match will take place in any weather. The United States has already outlined the places on which they will strike rocket-bomb strikes. The assault will be more decisive than the previous time. Preparation is as if the US is confident – the chlorine attack will take place. Then, when they decide in the US. Not in Damascus, but in Washington. That is, in general, all masks are dropped and the States openly prepare for aggression with provocation in a sovereign country where they are open in the status of an occupier. And even if there is no chemotherapy at all, the American blow will take place. Too much Russian was battered by bombs of American protégés. They are too close to defeat, for which the reason for finding Americans in Syria will disappear. How can this be allowed? The impact of prestige is necessary and it will be, even if the Sun falls to the ground and the Mississippi will flow backwards. Only prestige is not visible.
States are increasingly falling from the strategy to tactics. The attack on Syria is necessary for Americans not because they will decide something in the outcome of the campaign. He will not decide anything, because the US needs to introduce its ground forces to change the course of the war, with all the ensuing consequences – the death of the military and the clash with Iran, Syria and Russia. And even with Turkey. With China silently standing behind them. This is a guaranteed defeat, the global consequences of which are unpredictable. The first thing that can be seen is the collapse of NATO. The second Vietnam will crush not only the American president, but the US itself. Therefore, the Americans will score a goal of prestige and leave the lost match. They will strike at Syria, where again Russian intelligence will reveal in advance the alleged targets of the strike, withdraw the Syrian leadership from there, and then again a lot of exploding Tomahawks seeps from the fields of Idlib,
Russia in Idlib is now a difficult task. It does not consist in repelling an American attack, but in not getting it off TOO MUCH. Trump goes to the attack not because he wants to defeat the Russians in Syria, but because he wants to defeat the globalists in America. And do it on the eve of the congressional elections. That is, the reasons for the American attack on Syria are purely internal. If Russia gives too much in Syria to Trump on snot, she risks drowning him, instead of somehow supporting his formidable image and helping to win. Simply because Trump is beneficial to Russia – it’s too cool he breaks everything on what the American power of the past decades was based. Turning such a guy into an idiot and helping his impeachment is beyond the national interests of Russia. We can not now overstep the stick in Syria. Trump must come out of the shelling with a good man,
That is, the fate of the United States is now in Russia’s hands. And Russia is leading America according to its plan, lowering it slowly and controllably – although the US remains the world hegemon and very much at the same time beating Russia with sanctions. But Russia does not loose her teeth on the throat of the States. At the same time, Berlin, supported by Moscow’s cheap gas, is on the brink of London in Europe.
It’s very painful to understand this to the British and Americans. It is so painful that no collapse of the ruble and Hochma in Salisbury with the filing letters of local clerks from the OPCW, who were intimidated by British special services, can not satisfy this pain. Russia responds asymmetrically – by continuing to do what has become the cause of such insane and ineffective actions by London and Washington. After the United States has fired back from Damascus, Russia and Syria will continue to squeeze Idlib and squeeze him. And after that they will build a “big Chinese wall” around Deir-ez-Zor and not a single mouse will slip out of there, especially with oil. We have already shown by the example of Erdogan how easily caravans with oil are bombed, Russia does not want to allow its exports from Syria. And the US will have to withdraw from there. And the subject of negotiations with Russia will be the preservation of the US face in this history of their next defeat. In the meantime, Russia needs to try very hard not to let Trump get missiles to where they do not need to, and yet not expose him as a weakling and a symbol of American disgrace. Russia should give Trump the opportunity to finish his important business. The second such president the United States will not have, as Russia will not have a second Gorbachev.
Posted by: pogohere | Sep 8 2018 7:00 utc | 75
James @98:
Think of Erdogan’s economic woes that are now being exacerbated by US financial attacks and Trump’s need to survive the US mid term elections this Nov for all the members of the House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate.
The object would be to give Erdogan and Trump the political “Golden Bridge”/cover they need to accede to what must happen, analogous to what Helmer cites here: IS PUTIN OFFERING KUTUZOV’S GOLDEN BRIDGE TO RUSSIA’S ADVERSARIES, OR IS HE TRYING TO CROSS IT HIMSELF? as Kutuzov’s strategy to allow the French to retreat from Russia:
“The Russian tactic of giving an adversary an exit through which to escape was coined by Marshal Mikhail Kutuzov (left) during the war against Napoleon. He called it the “pont d’or” (golden bridge). The meaning was that Napoleon and his army should be allowed to retreat out of Russia, harassed, starved, diminished, but not annihilated. Kutuzov’s reasoning was strategic. It was not worth the risk and cost to the Russian army of a struggle to the death with the French. Worse, Kutuzov thought, if Napoleon were totally destroyed, there would be nothing to stop the British from emerging to threaten Russia more powerfully than the French had been capable of.
“You don’t realize,” Kutuzov talking to a subordinate in November 1812, as Napoleon and his stragglers crossed the Dnieper river, “that circumstances will in and of themselves achieve more than our troops.And we ourselves must not arrive on our borders as emaciated tramps.” And in a put-down of Sir Robert Wilson, a known English spy at the tsar’s field headquarters: “I am by no means sure that the total destruction of the Emperor Napoleon and his army would be of such benefit to the world; his succession would not fall to Russia or any other continental power, but to that which commands the sea, and whose domination would then be intolerable.”
Is the golden bridge still a doctrine of Russian strategy, and if so, who will express it?
. . .
Dominic Lieven’s history, Russia Against Napoleon, was published in 2009 in the UK, and a year later in the US. It is the first history in English to use Russian documents to substantiate the victories of the first Patriotic War, and to be dedicated by a non-Russian author thus: “in memory of the regiments of the imperial Russian Army who fought, suffered and triumphed in the great war of 1812-14”.
. . .
But there are three strategic lessons, which Lieven credits to the tsar, Kutuzov and others in the Russian command, and which qualify for Putin’s recommendation to re-read the history and apply it to today’s battlefields. The first is logistics – by withdrawing before Napoleon’s advance, and destroying the forage and food, the Russian strategy eliminated the forage on which Napoleon’s horses, and hence his supply chain, as well as his power projection (artillery, cavalry) depended. “The horse was a crucial – perhaps even the single most decisive – factor in Russia’s defeat of Napoleon”, Lieven concludes. Napoleon lost 175,000 horses in Russia in 1812. The following year Russian intervention prevented him getting hold of new horses from studs in Poland, Prussia, and Austria. It was easier to replace the men lost to the French army than the horses.
The second is intelligence. The record of the first Patriotic war reveals one of the most thorough penetrations of an enemy’s military plans, and its leaders’ most intimate conversations, in European history. With bribes, interceptions, seduction, and other means, Russia’s command had access to every Napoleonic secret from unit strengths, arms and orders to what went into Napoleon’s mouth for breakfast, and what was happening in his sensitive stomach. The Russians were also able to mobilize considerable counter-intelligence capability, turning French and British agents into conduits of disinformation. In intelligence gathering and its application to tactics and strategy, the Russians clearly outclassed the British.
The third lesson is the golden bridge. Requiring confidence in their ability to anticipate the enemy, and a realistic appraisal of their own weaknesses and vulnerabilities, the Russian command was able to prevent Napoleon from fighting the Russian campaign as he wanted. The bridge strategy gave the enemy the one predictable exit that optimized on the domestic and foreign political calculations in Alexander’s strategy. To achieve it, Kutuzov had to withstand constant criticism of his competence, age and loyalty from younger officers with attack plans Napoleon expected them to deploy. Borodino was the one exceptional sacrifice Kutuzov was obliged to make, allowing Napoleon to deploy 587 guns against almost 100,000 Russian troops on flat ground of less than one square kilometre with minimal cover. Although Kutuzov had 624 guns on the field, they were deployed in a scatter, unable to concentrate their fire on the French, and sitting ducks for the French artillery. In meat-grinders like that, the Russian heroism was in the sacrifice of lives without victory. In the golden bridge, the heroism was in the saving of lives, and victory at the same time.” [emphasis added]
Posted by: pogohere | Sep 8 2018 17:41 utc | 99
|
