Good: The US is finally thinking about long-term strategy for the part of Syria formerly controlled by ISIS. Bad: This strategy they're thinking about.https://www.axios.com/report-us-wants-arab-force-to-replace-american-troops-in-syria-824da7ca-04e0-4a24-bb0e-5ab4da06a8b9.html …
-
-
Hoping to hand off responsibility for northeastern Syria to a (currently non-existent) multinational Sunni Arab coalition appears driven by a desire to leave, regardless of what happens, rather than formulate a strategy that could succeed. 3/xpic.twitter.com/TFQpJ0hj8X
Show this thread -
Especially odd in this situation because: 1) Republicans lambasted Obama for fully withdrawing from Iraq, creating a vacuum that facilitated the rise of ISIS. Similar risk in Syria. Probably worse, given the ongoing civil war. And at least the the Iraqi army actually existed. 4/x
Show this thread -
2) Only 2,000 US troops in Syria. Just 3 killed by hostile action in 3+ years. Not a big commitment. But they make a big difference. Support SDF (mostly Kurdish force that dislodged ISIS). Get between US ally Turkey and US ally SDF. Saudi, Egypt don't have those relationships 5/x
Show this thread -
Big winners of US leaving Syria--whether trying to hand off to multinational Sunni Arab force or not--would be Assad-Iran-Russia. They want the whole country. Only fear of war with the US will deter them from trying, causing more suffering, and likely leading to next ISIS. 6/x
Show this thread -
A better strategy--which I discuss in this article--would be solidifying the de facto partition of Syria. Instead, Trump's complaining about a relatively small amount of money and proposing to do what Russia wants most. Surprised? (END)https://arcdigital.media/america-bombed-syria-but-what-does-the-u-s-want-1bffedaa6cf5 …
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.