RNA - He said, “I am pleased to announce that the Syrian Democratic Forces, our partners in the fight against ISIL in Syria, have successfully recaptured Raqqa. Together, our forces have liberated the entire city from ISIL control.”
The firebrand Republican also suggested he had done more to tackle the group in the last few months than Obama did in his eight years as leader. On that note:
- The fall of the city doesn’t mark a major defeat for ISIL. Long before capturing the ruined neighborhoods of Raqqa, the anti-partition coalition of Iran, Syria, Iraq, Russia, Hezbollah and Popular Mobilisation Units had defeated ISIL to liberate many cities and towns in both Iraq and Syria, mainly Ramadi, Fallujah, Tikrit, Mosul, Palmyra, Aleppo, and so on. So the terrorist group had already seen its territories steadily shrink long before the US-led battle for Raqqa.
- The fall of Raqqa does in no way represent a critical breakthrough in Washington’s imaginary campaign to defeat ISIL - as Trump would like to suggest. As maintained by numerous US intelligence reports and official statements, the CIA aided and abetted ISIL to affect regime change in Iraq and Syria in order to partition the Levant on sectarian lines and protect Israel. That gambit failed and the battle for Raqqa was just a change in tactic.
- No one in his right mind feels grateful to President Trump for ‘liberating’ the devastated city of Raqqa, let alone for saving Syria. The sight of hundreds of US-backed militants on the streets of the occupied city, their state-of-the-art weaponry linked with Israel and Saudi Arabia, and their Qaeda-linked allies rattling sabers, not only doesn’t soothe fears that a disrupted season lay in Syria’s future, but give its Iranian-Russian allies tacit permission to keep on fighting the Real War on Terror without being too disturbed about Trump’s mind games on the battlefield.
- On the other hand, could the Raqqa ‘liberation’ have actually been no more than a Hail Mary moment designed to briefly shore up a failed regime change campaign? Could that show of ‘military success’ have helped to block growing concerns that, amid a blizzard of negative news and views, the pro-partition coalition was beginning to fade as the most internationally hated American campaign in the region?
- In other words, could Donald Trump have saved Syria? Give him credit for this: He certainly spun an international demonstration against racism and Muslim travel ban into a flagrant case of disrespect for International Humanitarian Law, the United Nations, and above all else, of course, Syrian refugees.
- Trump’s Raqqa slur clearly resonates with the resentment many people around the globe often seem to have when it comes to Washington’s despotic allies in the region, mainly Saudi Arabia. Keep in mind that Saudi Arabia, like the United States, has also waged its own condemnable war against the poorest country in the region i.e., Yemen. The world cannot ignore the realities of the current state of Yemen.
- The war crimes committed by the US-backed, Saudi-led alliance in the past 30 months or so have put a spotlight on the American injustice, distrust, and anger that plague so many of us. The international system at the UN is broken too. But the problems are not new, the violence is not new, and the political divide at the UN definitely is not new. But the urgency for change is at an all-time high.
Briefly stated, there would be no meaningful solution to the Syrian crisis as long as Raqqa remains occupied by the War Party and its minions. It is the single most vivid image of American resistance to regional peace and security since liberation of Kirkuk by Iraq’s national forces. At some point, it’s not that hard to note the link that connected the failed Kurdish secession vote to the US-backed occupation of Raqqa: It’s all about permanent occupation, protection of Israel, and preservation of regional status quo – at the expense of Iraq, Syria and the rest of the region.
So even as the real liberation of Raqqa by Donald Trump becomes a distant dream, the reality of a permanent occupation is spiraling in the air. Would it lead to another regime change campaign by a handful of ‘moderate’ terror proxies, would it be intercepted by the anti-partition coalition? Would the world - including the United Nations - come to understand that the issue is more than ‘liberation’? Would they grasp that it is yet another lesson in how America is gaming the region and the world all over again?
847/940