Will Obama and Kerry’s Military Combat the Islamic State?
It seems that the United States is in a hurry to take the lead in Iraq and Syria. It is hurrying in an attempt to tip the balance of power in favor of its military that it leads to not only dominate Syria and Iraq and include them in its pre-prepared plans, but also to thwart any other attempts to lead the fight against terror from the Syrian and Iraqi governments themselves.
Statements and calls to action from U.S. President Barack Obama and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry regarding Syria and Iraq raise many questions. This is due in part to the fact that it comes after many changes in the situation on the ground have gone in the favor of those countries’ governments. In the case of Syria, this is thanks in part to the efforts of the Syrian Army, and from the sincere constructive support of its allies. For Iraq, its fortunes have been a result of its army and militia groups, who have been boosted significantly in capability by the training and tactics given from Iranian advisers.
Obama has stated that the United States would increase the number of its forces in Iraq and Syria, but that, “When I said no boots on the ground, I think the American people understood generally that we're not going to do an Iraq-style invasion of Iraq or Syria with battalions that are moving across the desert.” He added, "But what I've been very clear about is that we are going to systematically squeeze and ultimately destroy ISIL and that requires us having a military component to that." Kerry has also stressed the need for Syrians themselves to fight the Islamic State group.
In my opinion, given the American position and its recent movements in the region, this is not a departure from its projects and goals that it has strategically built upon with its 60-member coalition for fighting the Islamic State group in Syria and Iraq. The failure of any of its political or military efforts will therefore be caused by the failure of its projects.
Therefore, the talk around redeploying American forces and forming local Arab forces in Iraq and Syria, and Washington’s invitation to European countries such as the Netherlands to participate in military operations, are an attempt by America to strengthen its alliance. In doing so, it will become more effective and gain superiority in countering the effectiveness of the Syrian, Russian and Iranian alliance. This alliance, more specifically Russia’s strategy in Syria, will fail — which is the hidden strategy of the United States’ alliance.
[This hidden strategy is in addition to] recent scandals, which have surfaced among the U.S. military camp that is opposed to action in Syria. The recent revelation of theft of Syrian and Iraqi oil is merely a small episode in a long series of scandals in those countries. The U.S.-led coalition is in place to ensure that Iraq will not slip from the United States’ hegemony. It is common sense — and it is not being understood — that the United States along with its 60-member alliance has a massive military and human inventory at its disposal. According to a U.S. estimate generated by its intelligence services, the Syrian Army currently has an organized force of around 90,000 [soldiers], and is confident that between 20,000 and 30,000 are actually involved in the conflict. It is clear that after the remarkable successes of the Syrian Army and the Iraqi regular and military forces that their numbers have dropped significantly.
During a press conference on Friday, Dec. 4 John Kerry made an abrupt turn in his normal rhetoric when he stated that it might be possible for the Syrian government and the armed opposition forces to cooperate against militants of the Islamic State group without President Bashar Assad having first left power. In the same conference, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius commented on the American position by arguing a policy line, which in my opinion did not differ from that of the U.S. and those who are pursuing a dismantling of the obstacles to peace in the Syrian conflict. On the one hand, everyone involved is searching for solutions to a difficult question amidst a softening Russian position, while simultaneously trying to put pressure on the so-called moderate Syrian opposition to unite at the conference Saudi Arabia will host. However, evidence suggests that Kerry quickly retracted his previous sentiment, and began sounding like a broken record when he stated in the same conference that “… it would be exceedingly difficult to cooperate without some indication or confidence on the part of those who have been fighting him [Assad] that in fact there is a resolution or a solution in sight.” It can be said that Kerry was uttering political gibberish, and only wanted to deflect some of Russia’s anger at the United States by promoting the position as an anecdotal formality. He also wanted to send a message to opponents in his country of the idea of a moderate opposition; if they don’t come to an agreement, there will be no choice but to accept a Syria with Assad as president in power.
It seems, therefore, that both the leaders of Iraq and Syria have the support of their alliances and friends, and are realizing what the United States wants from the redeployment of its troops under the guise of fighting the Islamic State group, and what its flip flopping on the future status of Syrian President Bashar Assad means. Iraqi Prime Minister Haider Abadi denounced the U.S. decision by proclaiming [that he] “will consider any country sending ground combat forces a hostile act and will deal with it on this basis,” adding that, “the Iraqi government is committed to not allowing the presence of any ground force on the land of Iraq,” and that, “The Iraqi government confirms its firm and categorical rejection of any action of this kind issued by any country [that] violates our national sovereignty.” Abadi’s remarks are only the beginning of political and civil responses against the United States’ plan. This strong response is because through its plan Washington seems bent on deepening the rift in the Arab world, its wounds and its sectarian strife. This will be another extermination as Arabs kill one another. Political solutions in the region will begin with the relinquishing of support for terrorism, closing borders to [the terrorists], and abandoning the tendency to topple the governments of countries.
Statements and calls to action from U.S. President Barack Obama and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry regarding Syria and Iraq raise many questions. This is due in part to the fact that it comes after many changes in the situation on the ground have gone in the favor of those countries’ governments. In the case of Syria, this is thanks in part to the efforts of the Syrian Army, and from the sincere constructive support of its allies. For Iraq, its fortunes have been a result of its army and militia groups, who have been boosted significantly in capability by the training and tactics given from Iranian advisers.
Obama has stated that the United States would increase the number of its forces in Iraq and Syria, but that, “When I said no boots on the ground, I think the American people understood generally that we're not going to do an Iraq-style invasion of Iraq or Syria with battalions that are moving across the desert.” He added, "But what I've been very clear about is that we are going to systematically squeeze and ultimately destroy ISIL and that requires us having a military component to that." Kerry has also stressed the need for Syrians themselves to fight the Islamic State group.
In my opinion, given the American position and its recent movements in the region, this is not a departure from its projects and goals that it has strategically built upon with its 60-member coalition for fighting the Islamic State group in Syria and Iraq. The failure of any of its political or military efforts will therefore be caused by the failure of its projects.
Therefore, the talk around redeploying American forces and forming local Arab forces in Iraq and Syria, and Washington’s invitation to European countries such as the Netherlands to participate in military operations, are an attempt by America to strengthen its alliance. In doing so, it will become more effective and gain superiority in countering the effectiveness of the Syrian, Russian and Iranian alliance. This alliance, more specifically Russia’s strategy in Syria, will fail — which is the hidden strategy of the United States’ alliance.
[This hidden strategy is in addition to] recent scandals, which have surfaced among the U.S. military camp that is opposed to action in Syria. The recent revelation of theft of Syrian and Iraqi oil is merely a small episode in a long series of scandals in those countries. The U.S.-led coalition is in place to ensure that Iraq will not slip from the United States’ hegemony. It is common sense — and it is not being understood — that the United States along with its 60-member alliance has a massive military and human inventory at its disposal. According to a U.S. estimate generated by its intelligence services, the Syrian Army currently has an organized force of around 90,000 [soldiers], and is confident that between 20,000 and 30,000 are actually involved in the conflict. It is clear that after the remarkable successes of the Syrian Army and the Iraqi regular and military forces that their numbers have dropped significantly.
During a press conference on Friday, Dec. 4 John Kerry made an abrupt turn in his normal rhetoric when he stated that it might be possible for the Syrian government and the armed opposition forces to cooperate against militants of the Islamic State group without President Bashar Assad having first left power. In the same conference, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius commented on the American position by arguing a policy line, which in my opinion did not differ from that of the U.S. and those who are pursuing a dismantling of the obstacles to peace in the Syrian conflict. On the one hand, everyone involved is searching for solutions to a difficult question amidst a softening Russian position, while simultaneously trying to put pressure on the so-called moderate Syrian opposition to unite at the conference Saudi Arabia will host. However, evidence suggests that Kerry quickly retracted his previous sentiment, and began sounding like a broken record when he stated in the same conference that “… it would be exceedingly difficult to cooperate without some indication or confidence on the part of those who have been fighting him [Assad] that in fact there is a resolution or a solution in sight.” It can be said that Kerry was uttering political gibberish, and only wanted to deflect some of Russia’s anger at the United States by promoting the position as an anecdotal formality. He also wanted to send a message to opponents in his country of the idea of a moderate opposition; if they don’t come to an agreement, there will be no choice but to accept a Syria with Assad as president in power.
It seems, therefore, that both the leaders of Iraq and Syria have the support of their alliances and friends, and are realizing what the United States wants from the redeployment of its troops under the guise of fighting the Islamic State group, and what its flip flopping on the future status of Syrian President Bashar Assad means. Iraqi Prime Minister Haider Abadi denounced the U.S. decision by proclaiming [that he] “will consider any country sending ground combat forces a hostile act and will deal with it on this basis,” adding that, “the Iraqi government is committed to not allowing the presence of any ground force on the land of Iraq,” and that, “The Iraqi government confirms its firm and categorical rejection of any action of this kind issued by any country [that] violates our national sovereignty.” Abadi’s remarks are only the beginning of political and civil responses against the United States’ plan. This strong response is because through its plan Washington seems bent on deepening the rift in the Arab world, its wounds and its sectarian strife. This will be another extermination as Arabs kill one another. Political solutions in the region will begin with the relinquishing of support for terrorism, closing borders to [the terrorists], and abandoning the tendency to topple the governments of countries.
Previous article![]( "Don’t Ban Donald Trump. Just Keep on Laughing at Him")
