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 …
-
-
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 -
-
-
This strategy leaves a vacuum in Syria, which WILL be filled by friends of the Assad Regime, Iran! It will give John Bolton exactly what he wants,’which is war with Iran. If people think Iraq and Afghanistan were protracted wars, stand by
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.