The Trump GOP Plan for Iraq and Syria:

Exacerbate Sectarian Conflict and Destabilize the Entire Region

Rasa - If you ever needed further evidence that the Trump administration doesn’t give a single good goddamn about the people of Iraq and Syria, just listen to what Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has to say.

News ID: 428378

Date: 23 March 2017 - 22:07

RNA - Tillerson says he has a new war plan for Iraq and Syria. His plan stinks on so many levels that we are tempted to say it should be taken far out to sea and dumped into the deepest depths of the Atlantic Ocean. Tillerson has confirmed previous comments by President Trump that the United States intends to set up “safe zones” in northern Syria to force refugees to go back to Syria even before sustainable security is established in the war-torn country. He has also confirmed what has been reported for a while that the Empire of Chaos intends to keep its thousands of ground troops in Iraq over the long-term - even after the terrorist group of ISIL ends up being defeated.

As has been the case in the past, Tillerson’s comments do not offer much in the way of details on how the US intends to make this happen, though it’s not that hard to see that the US would establish so-called “interim zones of stability, through ceasefires” somewhere in Syria anyhow. Perhaps, the territory occupied by Turkey and its militants in northern Aleppo and Idlib provinces have been picked up for the same purpose since long ago. The Israelis have also long been speaking of such so-called safe zones in the Golan Heights, where the Syrian army and police should be absent and law enforcement would be exercised by militants. And guess who are the militants fighting against the government troops in Quneitra, Western Syria: the Al-Nusra Front (you may also recognize them as Fatah Al-Sham, Jeish Al-Fatah or the Levant Liberation Board), the official branch of Al-Qaeda in Syria. Meaning, Israel is working hard and giving aerial support to the terrorists fighting the Damascus army and wants them to police future safe zones in the Golan Heights in Syria's Western province of Quneitra. (Or should I use an exclamation mark here)

The same assumption could be made about the plan to occupy Iraq permanently. Pentagon officials have been arguing for a more or less permanent deployment, the idea of keeping occupying troops in Iraq on the pretext of preventing ISIL from ever coming back. Tillerson presents this open-ended deployment as a “stabilization” operation, while admitting that dedicated significant military resources to post-war Iraq for the sake of stability would not amount to “nation-building,” something we are not surprised to hear at all:

Turkey has been calling for the safe zones for years, and has envisioned them being used as a base of operation for pro-Turkey rebels to operate out against Syrian government without fear of being retaliated against militarily. Turkey’s presumptive involvement in the effort likely also means no zones will be in Kurdish territory, though there are as many refugees in the area around Syrian Kurdistan as there are further west. Though Turkey now controls territory that could be used for such zones, it is likely the US would be expected to deploy a lot of troops to secure those areas. The idea is to train and arm anti-Syria militants, allow them to control the safe zones, and help them launch fresh attacks against Syrian forces and allies.

Admittedly, the decision to occupy Iraq forever is not about destroying ISIL or nation-building either. Tillerson has emphasized that there would be no “nation-building” afterwards in either Iraq or Syria, though he has reiterated that US troops would remain in both countries after the war. We don't know how it can get any worse:

-If this escalates to a direct US-led war on Syria - casualties could be far worse. In the confusion of regime change, a military intervention or safe zones for militants, of any type, could end up triggering far more Syrian civilian deaths.

-US intervention in Syria will be viewed as occupation - not liberation or help for refugees, vastly complicating resolution of post-war issues.

-Syrian refugees don’t want “safe zones”. After Trump’s refugee ban, they have come to better realize the US role in masterminding plots against their country and its share in their misery. They want Washington and company to end the regime change campaign so they could return to their homes and shattered communities.

-Iraq and Syria are a cauldron of sectarian communities. Intervention and permanent occupation has a significant probability of igniting a new sectarian conflict and destabilizing the entire region. The resulting civilian death toll could vastly exceed the current carnage.

-Unlike the past, the armed forces of Iraq and Syria are receiving international support and are actually winning the twin wars against ISIL and Al-Qaeda. American intervention could trigger increased Saudi-led coalition aid to terrorist groups and extremist outfits; they would welcome a stronger and deeper US engagement in the proxy war with Syria and Iraq; drain Syrian-Iraqi resources; and distract them from ultimately defeating ISIL and Al-Qaeda. The new plan for permanent intervention and occupation could result in a prolonged war.

Basically, this is not the time for a new Middle Eastern adventure by the United States. For the sakes of the Syrian and Iraqi people, military intervention and permanent occupation should be off the table. Tillerson’s new war plan is not based on realistic assumptions and it will once again harm the US in bringing into question its basic competency on the world stage. Lest he forgets, almost everything the US did in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Libya was a disaster. His plan looks dishonest and bumbling. The US wants to intervene and occupy Iraq having no plans, and the plan the Trump GOP has made on the “safe zones” in Syria is poorly thought-out and doomed to fail. It will cause resistance to swell.

Quite the contrary, the world community is supporting Iraq, Syria, Iran and Russia for defeating ISIL and Al-Qaeda. Their anti-terror alliance is known for competence and for getting good results. Being the world’s true anti-terror alliance turns into respect, cooperation and, ultimately, confidence and investment. If the US came to most of the world today with an alliance project like this, it likely couldn’t get the time of day from them.

After banning Muslim immigrants and refugees, after making promoting hatred and fear of Muslims a common political tactic by Western politicians and far-right groups, after turning Iraq and Syria into failed states, and after helping to prolong the lives of various terrorist groups, the United States is deeply diminished in world counsels.

847/940