|
U.S. Announces Retreat From Iraq (And Syria)?
I did not expect this. Great – if true:
Nafiseh Kohnavard @nafisehkBBC – 13:57 UTC · Jul 15, 2021 Breaking
White house coordinator for MidEast, Brett McGurk has informed Iraqi officials that US troops will withdraw from Iraq.
“step by step”, sources tell me. “First combat troops will leave and then others” he has told his Iraqi hosts … “Withdrawal from Iraq will not be like what happened in Afghanistan and it will be step by step. The schedule for this will be agreed during Iraqi PM’s trip to Washington” official sources told me … And here is the statement from PM office that “mechanism for combat troops withdrawal” has been briefly mentioned in
link
The link is to a tweet of the Iraqi Prime Minister account which says (in Arabic) of the McGurk – al-Kadhimi meeting:
During the meeting, they discussed coordination and joint cooperation in various fields, and preparations for holding the next round of strategic dialogue between Iraq and the United States of America, as well as the mechanisms for the withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq and the transition to a new phase of strategic cooperation.
My first thoughts on this:
- The pressure the resistance has put onto the occupation force has achieved the desired result.
- No time frame is given but I expect weeks rather than months for the retreat to take place as the pressure will otherwise increase.
- Leaving Iraq likely also means leaving Syria as supplies and support to the U.S. occupied Syrian north-east and to the al-Tanf base at the border triangle of Syria, Iraq and Jordan runs through Iraq.
- The Kurds in north-east Syria must immediately start talks with Russia and the Syrian government. They will have to give up their autonomy or they will be eaten alive by Turkey. Expect them to (again) make the wrong decision. That means that the Syrian government, with Russian support, will have to use force against them. So be it.
- The U.S. occupation has denied the Syrian government access to two of its greatest resources, oil and grain. Syria will be much better off after regaining these.
- Expect a huge attempt by the usual hawks and the media to change the decision.
- The U.S. has dragged its feet over the renewal of the nuclear deal with Iran. Removing the troops from Iraq and Syria moves them out of the target area in the case of an eventual war on Iran.
While there are now first denials from some anonymous 'officials' I do believe that the decision has been made.
It is only rational. A further occupation of Iraq and Syria makes absolutely no sense.
Yeah Strait of Hormuz, my bad.
The fact McGurk’s statement specified “combat troops” first and “other troops” later, strongly suggests a rerun of the Obama formula for “NOT leaving Iraq while pretending to leave Iraq”.
Pull out a few thousand, to much media fanfare, then get your proxy terrorist forces to commit a range of atrocities which naturally, completely against their will of course, forces the US to reluctantly “re-enter” somewhere they never really pulled out of in the first place.
Rinse and repeat.
Most of the people commenting here seem to have very short memories
Posted by: Triden | Jul 19 2021 16:58 utc | 143
Good point, but…everyone forgot about the Bear in the Room.
in iraq, isis appear 2011 “seemingly” out of nowhere, this time, no such forces will be appear without being crushed immediately by Russia.
Russia can deploy troops in the thousands in less than two weeks and will likely do so if the US really pulls out of Syria. like they did futher north as the US withdaw from the bases their.
With this they will support the SAA to regain the Oilfields and the general North East. and the SDF have not the Power to do anything about it. Look at the “resistance” they put up as Turkey pounded them with impunity. Without help from the “Friend” the SDF is only a littlebit better than all of those “Resistance” forces.
Also Al-Tanf will be under Pressure. To what degree will be seen then.
And that Russia and US get along?
Well EVERYBODY here seems to forget that their are over 10.000 Warhead directed at each other STILL!! The Mutual Assured Destruction is still in force even today and Russia has right now, the upper Hand with his Hypersonic ICBMs and far better Air defense. So NOBODY wants a direct US vs Russia.
Did anyone recognize that in this WHOLE Theater, NEVER, EVER, a SINGLE US Soldier has shot on a Russian Solder EVER? Or vice Versa?
Even if BOTH sides are standing directly against each other? EVERY soldier KNOWS what could happen if they try to shoot. nobody is insane enough to even try. i wonder why…
The Kalibir Attack in Syria a few Years Back made the US clear that Russia has now also Cruise Missiles. Another tactical advantage that was taken from the US.
It seems that the US has plain overplayed his hand with the killing of Suleiman and is now pressured to various degrees to get out their or get vitanamised. Look at all the “warnings” they get recently. Non lethal, but it could be. this is how this game is played. you send “Warnings”, nobody got hurt, but everybody understand the message.
If you are really pissed you make a surgical strike and kill few clandestine Black Ops of the other side to get the point across. That’s it.
Because, to kill official US soldiers is one thing, but to kill a mercenaries or someone how isn’t “official” there, was never a problem ever, in the whole of mankind’s history.
We live in a age you could kill someone with a drone one the other side of the world from your damn couch, with weapons that can level a whole building in one Shot.
So why the “numbers” in this conflict are so “low”? because they kept them low on purpose, to not anger the other side to a degree, that they step up the game of aggression.
If they would make a point they did it other wise. like the Russians did as the level a command center with “Resistance adviser” that happens to be MI6 agents…ups Russians are too drunk to aim.
Or the US “tried” with the cruse missiles back then but got a slap in the face by Russia with intercept the shit out of them.
But the message was very clear received ant soon the IS goons lost footing all around Syria due to lack of support.
So what do you guys think will happens if they replace the the official US Troops with blackwater?
I can guess here:
They will not reach this point of replacement. A swift and VERY aggressive SAA march at the Oilfield will happen (Probably the Tigers again), with an RAF that work overtime to give them Air cover and an EW environment even a Nokia will go up in flames.
I guess the SAA will go out with all they have and max aggression to get to those fields no matter what. And if the US dares to step in the Russian will be suddenly in the way.
The SDF? will step aside or die, the Kurds had chances enough to switch sides and they made clear that this is the side they die on. They are far to poor organized and armed to put up real resistance to a determined battle hardened Army with substantial support of one of the superpowers. They have to retreat and looking at the map the only place the can retreat without being trapped are Iraq right now, but stupid like they are they will go to the north, thinking that Turkey will let them live…their will be some battles in the north, then Turkey will step up their Aggression and Russia and SAA will likely counter maybe in Iblib how knows.
In the End SDF will be crushed and vanish and Turkey will hoist their colors or retreat (i guess the latter after some “warnings” from the northern pond of theirs).
Turkey by now, is a NATO ally in Name only, and will carefully think about to anger the reliant Partner they won recently. Russia will stick to their commitment of an sovereign Syria and their Mediterranean Bases. Israel? Will do shit. they don’t dare to do anything after the upgraded S300s damaged one of their useless F-35 (bird damage, my ass). SAA have made it clear that this game is over for IL if they don’t want to go all out. And right now IL isn’t capable of, even “lost” to hisbollah in their very won open Air KZ that is Gaza right now, for what reason i not care but they don’t do shit.
Lebanon “could” be a staging ground? Nope, not as long as hisbollah is their. KSA? how? they have enough trouble in Yemen. any other “Ally”…you forget Iran do you?
So, if the US even pull out a single Group of theirs they have to retreat full or step up their game of aggression significantly to stop any advance of the SAA and their allys. But i doubt that they do that, looking at the greater Picture with the AFG retreat of Bagram and the ‘stan’ negotiation recently.
Posted by: Kerwas | Jul 19 2021 20:37 utc | 144
|