US Mission Creep in Syria?

Rasa - War-party Washington plans to expand its dangerous path of mission creep beyond its original goals of so-called war on ISIL in Syria.

News ID: 436207

Date: 01 February 2018 - 12:35

RNA - The ambitious attempt hasn’t gone so well with Turkey, which demands that the US immediately and unconditionally withdraw from the Syrian city of Manbij. Washington has said no, with Central Command Chief Gen. Joseph Votel saying that the US has no intention of withdrawing just because Turkey says to.

Gen. Votel claims that US is not looking at pulling back in Syria, adding that the US remains focused on fighting ISIL, despite ISIL having very little remaining territory in Syria. Turkey invaded Northern Syria earlier this month in Afrin District, and has indicated that Manbij will be invaded next. Deputy Premier Bozdag has said US troops may be targeted by Turkish forces for helping the Kurds.

This has been a problem long coming, as Turkey has been complaining about US support for the Kurdish YPG for years, and has telegraphed that they would eventually invade Syria to get them. The US has mostly just ignored those warnings, all while urging Turkey to focus on ISIL. The reality, however, is that Turkey believes Syria and its Iranian-Russian allies have already defeated ISIL, and the YPG, which it considers as terrorists, are their only focus now. On that note:

- The Trump administration wants US occupying troops to stay in Syria for the foreseeable future to partition the Arab country and counter Iran’s influence. This raises legal questions about the US military presence in Syria.

- The mission creep in Syria raises questions about violations of international, as well as the trajectory of the United States' failed regime-change war on the pretext of fighting ISIL and humanitarian concerns that has included dozens of countries and terror proxy groups with no end in sight.

- The open-ended occupation of Syria could only mean one thing: US moving the goal posts and raising the stakes of armed conflict with Russia, Syria, Iran, and as events in Afrin recently show, even with NATO ally Turkey.

- Unlike Russia and Iran, key backers of the Syrian government in the war against various foreign-backed terrorist groups, the US is not in Syria at the invitation of Damascus, which accuses Washington of "aggression on Syria's sovereignty."

- Washington justifies a continued US military presence in Syria on "ensuring ISIL cannot re-emerge." This is not a valid argument. Many reports and eyewitness accounts, even official statements by American officials suggest the CIA has been one of the main suppliers of arms to ISIL and Qaeda-allied “moderate rebels” from day one. The US is committed to a never-ending war on Syria, with the ISIL threat simply a cover for a continued military occupation.

In any event, the US-led regime-change campaign is to a considerable extent a reflection of an inability to live up to the excessively ambitious goals Americans set for themselves - partition of Iraq and Syria on sectarian lines. It matters little whether this goal-setting is due to an idealistic American commitment to human rights and democracy, to falling prey to the Zionist lobby, to a lack of realism, or to sheer arrogance and hubris. ISIL has been defeated in Syria and the US has no business to be there anymore. It has no power left for good purposes.

Which leads us to this conclusion:

The US military presence in Syria is illegal. It cannot continue indefinitely. The Trump administration has no right to expand its goals in Syria beyond the ISIL war to include a political settlement of the country’s crisis, a daunting and potentially open-ended commitment that could draw the United States into conflict with Syria, Iran, Russia and Turkey.

The US already has 2,000 to 3,000 occupying troops in Manbij and nearby regions in the same Kurdish canton in Northern Syria, and that number is likely to keep growing as the US entangles itself more deeply in that country. An open-ended deployment in the territory of an unfriendly government that is supported by Iran and Russia is a recipe for a pointless and easily avoidable conflict. At worst, it is the start of a steadily expanding mission creep that will embroil the US in yet another futile war. That will do nothing to make the US or its allies more secure, and it could contribute to further instability in the region and beyond.

It almost goes without saying that the US mission creep in Syria for any purpose has no legal justification whatsoever and has not had any for the last seven years. The United Nations has never authorized military action there against ISIL or Syrian forces, the Syrian government has never given the US permission to operate on its territory, and further US military presence there has absolutely nothing to do with self-defence and suchlike.

847/940