Why the US Will Be Force to Leave Syria Soon. The Kurds Are Waking Up
Why the US Will Be Force to Leave Syria Soon. The Kurds Are Waking Up by Elijah J. Magnier – Russia-Insider
The US-backed Syrian Kurdish faction in the civil war there is realizing the US isn’t a reliable backer and that they must reach an accommodation with Damascus
The Syrian army is conducting its southern campaign with the pacification of the last two percent of the Qunietra province that remains under the control of the “Islamic State” (ISIS) terrorist group. That will free tens of thousands of troops of the Syrian army and its allies from the burden of fighting in the south of the country and will mark a turning point in the seven years of war imposed on the Levant. The whole of Syria will be liberated from the territorial control of militias and jihadists. What remains of occupied Syria is under the control of two countries: territories held by the US and Turkey in the north. However, these occupations do not seem tenable, particularly now that the Kurds, in control of 23% of Syria, have decided to respond positively to the Syrian President’s call to engage in dialogue or face war. The US cannot stay for much longer in Syria; it will find a face-saving way to leave very soon.
The US presence in Syria had several aims:
- To divide Syria and establish a Kurdish state in the north under the name of Rojava, under the US military “protection”, like Iraqi Kurdistan during Saddam Hussein era. The US was not against a Kurdish state to include Syria and Iraq. However, Iraqi Kurdistan, under Masood Barzani, dashed its hopes of independence when he refused to follow US advice to postpone a move to break away for 18 months. Barzani’s premature decision to separate from Iraq was confronted with a strong reaction from Baghdad troops who took control of Kurdistan’s borders and resources.
- Leave the rest of Syria in an endless bloody war between Salafi-Takfiri jihadists and other groups. This war was meant to advance the cause of ISIS, whose enemies were not the distance US (notwithstanding the proximity of US troops) but closer to hand (ISIS set his objective to fight and eliminate the “nearer enemy” — mainly Shia, secular and Sunni who disagree with its “state” versus al-Qaeda traditional goal of prioritising the “far enemy” although this objective was not prioritised in the Levant): Lebanon, Jordan, and the rest of the Middle East. ISIS advances would have been detrimental to the “Axis of Resistance” (Iran, Syria, Hezbollah) or at least would have interrupted the flow of weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon (from Iran through Syria). Hezbollah would have been cornered into the south of Lebanon, a Shia enclave surrounded by Israel on one side and a hostile government to the north with Takfiri ruling in the other parts of the country.
The US came to Syria not exclusively for oil but also to serve Israel by eliminating an enemy state or several enemies altogether. However, the war in Syria did not go as planned and today the Damascus government is in control of all Syrian territory except for the north. This notwithstanding any ISIS insurgency that may continue to be operational not only in Syria but also in any other parts of the Middle East and North Africa (Egypt is the best example– the state is on solid ground but suffers continuous terrorist attacks).
Moreover, the Putin-Trump meeting in Helsinki boosted the confidence of Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a settlement — Moscow promised to protect Israel’s borders with Syria (1974 line). The Russian President argued that Assad’s government had maintained its borders with the occupied Golan heights for over 40 years without any incident.