RNA - The occupying regime talks numbers, but it’s always the same. There are 503 US troops in Syria, and 5,262 in Iraq. It doesn’t matter that thousands more occupying troops have also been added since those figures were invented.
Which quickly reveals what we already knew, that the Pentagon’s reported figures meant for the world public are flat out lies. In reality, there are thousands of US troops in Iraq and Syria, and the numbers continue to rise by the day – even as Iran has declared the end of ISIL in Syria and the Iraqi armed forces are dislodging the last remnants of the terrorist group from the Iraq-Syria border regions - issues the War party and corporate media lackeys refuse to acknowledge:
1- US troop deployments into Syria have no legal basis. Washington has no invitation from Damascus and it certainly can’t just send troops there because they feel like it. The only check the world currently has to protect itself from unjust wars is a combination of domestic and international legal systems that severely restrict the conditions under which a war can be launched. In the case of Syria, the War Party is still bound to the international legal principles surrounding war and permanent occupation.
2- Without permission from the Syrian government, which holds the seat at the United Nations and was elected in 2014 by the Syrian people, the US cannot legally launch troops into the Syrian territory. Simply put, the UN Charter says it is illegal.
3- It was US policies that created ISIL by invading Iraq in 2003, leaving hundreds of thousands of military officers without jobs. It was also Obama’s policies that put ISIL in Libya and helped ISIL grow in Iraq and Syria. This can be seen in the instances where ISIL took its major strongholds in Iraq and Syria while the US completely sat on its hands and did nothing.
4- Leaked audio of former Secretary of State John Kerry confirms the US was purposely watching ISIL grow so the terror group could put pressure on the Syrian government to come to the negotiating table. The US cannot claim the moral high ground regarding the ISIL war.
5- Sending more troops to post-ISIL Syria means only one thing: Giving the US more of an excuse to conduct operations in Syrian territory on the pretext of fighting terror. The intention of this is, of course, to put added pressure on the Syrian government, which has made significant advances in recent months with the assistance of Iranian military advisors and Russian air power.
In the prevailing circumstances, the final question has to be this: Whose interests are being served here? Certainly not the people of Syria, and certainly not the people of the Middle East, either. That’s because the Trump White House is not seeking to increase the size and scope of the already massive American military there for humanitarian purposes. Far from it.
The major troop deployments the White House has ordered does in no way demonstrate a reasonable chance of achieving any strategic and lawful objective. The Pentagon regime may be capable of accomplishing a given tactical mission – occupying Syria - but if the risks to the nation inherent in the conduct of that mission are greater than the threat it is meant to cure, the mission must be abandoned. The risks this mission entails make it a virtual certainty that the outcome for the United States would fall somewhere between bad and disastrous. There is no realistic upside.
Equally important, direct US military action simply isn’t necessary. Thanks to the efforts by the allied forces of Iran, Syria, Iraq, Russia, Hezbollah and Popular Mobilization Units, ISIL is already losing territory and is a dead man walking. There is no legal authorization for further US military action or occupation on the territory of Syria.
Last but not the least, the United Nations ought to reject and stop Washington’s plans to send more occupying troops to Syria based on the fact that it is not to save Syria or protect it from future terrorism. Also, the world body must stand against the US unilateral military intervention in Syria on whatever pretext as it poses a major threat to not just the war-ravaged country but to the security of entire Middle-East.
847/940