US Secretary of Defense claims US will stay in Syria many years

(December 12, 2019) Mark Esper, US Secretary of Defenses and General Mark Milley testified to the US House Armed Services Committee that the US will continue to have troops in Syria for many years. They claimed it was hard to foresee all US forces withdrawing anytime soon.

	1 of 2

US troops needed to combat ISIS

Both officials claimed that the US troops were needed to combat the threat of iSIS, the Islamic State. They claimed that it would be a long time before regional forces in Syria would be able to fight ISIS on their own. ISIS seems mostly defeated. The two did not specify what regional forces they are referring to but presumably it is the Kurds. The US withdrew from parts of Syria near the Turkish border giving the green light in effect for Turkey to occupy the safe zone along the border. The US troops are becoming more and more centered in a diminishing area.

Trump claims he moved troops to guard oil area

The Pentagon and other officials conflict with Trump's narrative about why US troops are staying in Syria. An article on November 13 reports: " President Donald Trump declared Wednesday that the U.S. mission in Syria is focused solely on protecting oil fields, which appears to contradict the Pentagon's contention that fighting ISIS is the priority."We're keeping the oil, we have the oil, the oil is secure, we left troops behind only for the oil," Trump told reporters during a meeting with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan at the White House."

Neither Esper nor the general mention oil only the threat of ISIS. Trump has long insisted that ISIS has been defeated, However Pentagon officials insist that ISIS is a continuing threat.

In contrast as a recent article points out: "President Trump now insists that the US war in Syria is exclusively about oil, and the only reason US troops are in Syria is to take Syrian oil with the help of US oil companies to be named later. President Trump has repeatedly reiterated this stance, despite military officials trying to make the war about something else."

Perhaps the time has come for complete withdrawal

As the Wall Street Journal notes, Trump made a campaign promise during his campaign for president that he would withdraw troops from Syria. However, many military officials are against this. Trump has given in but at the same time is providing an alternative justification for staying that is not sitting well with many officials.

It seems that the Pentagon narrative of the great danger of an ISIS comeback is not that convincing. No evidence is provided for it. On the other hand, Trump's rationale makes the US look very bad and there seems no legal basis for the US claiming Syrian oil. No large oil company has jumped at the opportunity Trump appears to be offering them. No doubt they think the legal risks are too great, Perhaps it is time for Trump to finally fully carry out his campaign promise to withdraw all US troops from Syria,

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Trump claims US troops are in Syria only for the oil

(November 15, 2019) President Trump's new position on the Syrian War simplifies matters but only by ignoring the position of lawmakers and the Pentagon on why the US is there. However, it avoids criticizing Turkey and its occupation of the Syrian safe zone.

US presence is all about oil

A recent article sets forth Trump's position: ""As you know, we've pulled back our troops quite a while ago, because I think it's time for us not to be worried about other people's borders," Trump said to reporters alongside Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan at the White House. "I want to worry about our borders...So, we want to worry about our things," Trump added. "We're keeping the oil, we have the oil, the oil is secure, we left troops behind only for the oil."

This position avoids any conflict with Turkey. However, the new position is no cure all and adequate substitutes for his earlier often conflicting views on the issue.

Internal opposition to the Trump position

Many lawmakers see the Syrian war as in part protecting the Kurds and the Pentagon sees it as well as together with the Kurds fighting ISIS. Some also see the US a helping promote regime change in Syria, although that seems to have been a failure. However, the continued US presence can make things difficult for Assad. Some in the US even see the US presence as countering Russia which supports the Assad government.

Trump's simplified view may reflect his agenda

The Trump position may simply reflect what Trump cares about in Syria. After all he campaigned about getting the US out of useless wars. His new position gives him a reason to keep some troops in Syria and not withdraw them all. Trump may not care about or at least care to admit other reasons for the US staying in Syria.

However, Trump fails to see the legal complications involved in trying to sell the Syrian oil to add to US revenues. Many top US officials are downplaying the matter. No major oil company has come out to support Trump. This is no doubt due to possible legal complications as to who owns the oil. Many military officials hope that Trump's policy fails to work out as he envisages it.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Local sources in Syria report the US is preparing to build two bases near major oil fields

Local sources in eastern Syria report that the US appears to be preparing to build two substantial military bases in the Soor area which is close to major oilfields that the Trump administration claims it will retain.

Trump appears to have revised plans for Syria 

 

Trump withdrew US troops from the 30 km so-called safe zone along the Turkish border with Syria. This allowed Turkey to enter the zone and Kurds had to withdraw. In an agreement with Russia there have been joint controls in parts of the area with Russians. Although some of the US troops were withdrawn into Iraq, Trump announced that some troops would remain to keep control over the oil fields in Kurdish-controlled areas. He even talked of extracting oil from the area. Recent US military deployments appear centered on oilfields in the east of the country. Originally the purpose of US troops was to guard the oil fields against being seized by Islamic militants. No doubt the US also wants to deprive the Syrian government of access to the oil. A recent article notes that US seizing the oil could be a war crime: "After President Donald Trump said on Monday the U.S. will be "keeping the oil" in northeastern Syria, his administration is looking into the "specifics," according to a senior State Department official -- but it's prompted renewed cries that doing so is a war crime." 

 

 Building bases in the area makes sense. 

 

 Since US troops will be staying in the area it is not surprising that bases are being built. It shows that the oil decision led to quick planning and that the US is likely to remain in the area for an indefinite but long period. As a recent Digital Journal article notes Russian news has predicted the US will take oil worth $30 million per month. Trump has actually claimed even more, $45 million per month in his own comments. 

 

 Maintaining US troops in Syria will be costly 

 

 The cost of building the two new bases will not be insubstantial and maintaining troops in them will add to the cost. Trump seems to assume that Syrian oil will pay for these added expenses.  

 

There appears no legal basis for seizing and selling Syrian oil  

 

A recent article notes Trump's position and its lack of any legal basis: "Trump has a long history of calling for the U.S. to "take the oil" in the Middle East, in Iraq and Syria in particular. But any oil in both countries belongs to their governments, and according to U.S. law and treaties it has ratified, seizing it would be pillaging, a technical term for theft during wartime that is illegal under U.S. and international law."We're keeping the oil," Trump said Monday to a conference of police chiefs in Chicago. "I've always said that -- keep the oil. We want to keep the oil, $45 million a month. Keep the oil. We've secured the oil."" Although Trump talks of getting companies such as Exxon-Mobile involved in extracting the oil, so far no large oil company has even expressed interest in such a scheme as there are bound to legal issues arising immediately upon any attempt to extract and claim ownership of the oil.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Trump's claim to Syrian oil complicates US mission in Syria

(November 1)President Trump in a recent speech in Chicago said that the US was staying in Syria to control the oil. However, he also said that the US was "keeping the oil" and claimed it was worth $45 million per month.

Trump's position

A recent article reports Trump's position: "Trump has offered varying descriptions of the military's role in eastern Syria. On Oct. 25 he said, "We've secured the oil, and, therefore, a small number of U.S. troops will remain in the area where they have the oil." Three days later, he went further, declaring the oil to be America's."We're keeping the oil — remember that," he said in Chicago. "I've always said that: 'Keep the oil.' We want to keep the oil. Forty-five million dollars a month? Keep the oil."

Trump has twice before claimed he would remove US troops from Syria. He did remove troops from the so-called "safe" buffer zone along the border with Turkey and redeployed some to Iraq without the permission of the Iraqi government that has demanded that they just be considered in transit and move on.

US officials have not said how Trump is going to execute his plans or explained the rationale and legal basis for taking the oil.

Trump himself has suggested he can make a deal with an oil company such as Exxon-Mobil: "US President Donald Trump said yesterday that he is interested in making a deal with Exxon-Mobil or some other energy company to tap Syrian oil reserves in areas not controlled by the Syrian government."

US military goals in Syria have never been that clear and with ISIS mostly defeated no doubt Trump's position set out a new reason for the US to be there. However the mission has now become legally and morally dubious and appears its length is now open-ended.

Doubts about Trump's project

Russia as an ally of Syria was very critical of the Trump position calling it "state banditry". However, even US legal experts said that there was no real legal basis for the US to just seize Syrian oil. Any sale of the oil is problematic as well. No US or other oil companies have shown interest in extracting the Syrian oil no doubt because they realize the ownership of the oil would be disputed.

If any companies do in the end decide to extract the oil under the protection of US military occupation, the occupation could last until the oil runs out.

White House officials have not explained what Trump means by keeping the oil but said privately they had been given no order to take ownership of any Syrian resources including oil wells and stored crude. However Defense Secretary Mark Esper said on Thursday he interprets Trump as meaning he will deny Islamic extremists access to the oil.

Details of the new deployment

A recent article describes details of the revised deployment in Syria: "Some 500 US ground troops are currently involved, along with M2A2 Bradley vehicles. Tanks are also reportedly going to be deployed to the area, though it’s not clear any have actually arrived yet.Estimates are that 700 to 900 US troops are going to remain in Syria under this plan, which is a minor decline from the 1,000 troops believed to be present when the US moved out of the north to facilitate the Turkish invasion. "

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Trump administration shutting down CIA program supporting rebels in Syria

The Russians have called for such a move for years. and the move will no doubt be seen as a victory for Russia and a gift from the US. The program was begun under Obama in 2013.However, stopping the program will not end US involvement in Syria by any stretch of the imagination as the US is deeply involved in funding and arming the Syrian Democratic Forces dominated by Kurds. The Kurds are regarded as terrorists by Turkey and there have been clashes with them.

The US was recently angered as Turkey revealed the location of its numerous bases in Kurdish-controlled areas. There are reports of US armored vehicles pouring into Kurdish-held areas in Syria suggesting that US involvement in Syria is actually increasing even though the CIA program has been jettisoned.

The aid seems to have been frozen in February after the groups suffered from a major Islamist attack in January. There were complicated relations and conflict among groups. Apparently, Trump made the decision after talking with CIA director Mike Pompeo and national security adviser H.R. McMaster. Trump and Russian President Putin also made a deal for a partial cease-fire during their recent meeting at the G-20 summit. The ceasefire includes the area where rebels supported by the CIA are stationed. While this may be seen as helping Russia it also help all those living the areas as they will not suffer the effects of  being in a battle zone.

The development is a stark change from the situation last month when the US shot down a Syrian plane and Russia in response said that US planes flying over the area would be regarded as potential targets. Earlier still, the US had hit a Syrian base with Tomahawk missiles in response to an alleged chemical attack by Assad. No doubt there will be an outpouring of articles describing the cessation of the program as a sellout to Russia even though there is plenty of evidence the program was not working well. It is unlikely to have made any significant difference to the progress of the war.

Defeat of the Islamic State in Syria will not be end of conflict

While the U.S.-supported Syrian Democratic Forces are confronting the Islamic State in eastern Syria and beginning to enter the strategic city of Raqqa, the Syrian Army has been taking control of positions in their rear further west.

Around the end of May , the Syrian Army captured almost 100 square kilometers in the desert sparsely populated Badia area — a huge region that stretches to the southern border of Syria with Jordan and Iraq. Assad forces took over the country's largest phosphate mine and the strategic highway from the ancient city of Palmyra to Damascus. Both Assad forces and rebels, some supported by the U.S., are racing to gain control of territory as the Islamic State is forced to retreat.

The U.S. has insisted on focusing on the defeat of the Islamic State. However, the U.S. is now making it clear that it will also defend the rebels it supports from Assad attacks. At the time of the Assad advance, Al-Baraa Fares, a spokesperson for Free Syrian Army (FSA) group Mitaghawir al-Thawra (MAT), said: “The coalition is a partner of ours in the war against Daesh [the Islamic State], but when it comes to fighting the regime and its foreign militias, [the coalition] is not our partner. The role of the international coalition is to train members of MAT and to provide logistical support, weapons, ammunition and all that is needed to eliminate the terrorist Daesh." However. the U.S. has now made it clear that it will defend rebels that it supports from attacks by Assad forces.

This appears to be a new and dangerous emphasis that will inevitably give rise to new clashes and more involvement by the U.S. in the Syria war. The Assad regime is not likely to give up attacking rebels who are enemies of the Assad regime and will attack them when they get a chance. The U.S. has already shot down an Assad jet because it was said to be dropping bombs close to rebels supported by the U.S. The Assad regime said that it was on a mission against the Islamic State. Russians claim that the hotline was not used to talk to them before the plane was downed. As a result of the incident, Russia has declared that coalition planes flying west of the Euphrates will be considered targets, a clear escalation of tensions between Russia and the U.S.-led coalition.

The U.S. has a base in the Badia numbering about 100 special forces based in a small military outpost near the Tanf border crossing between Syria and Iraq. The base trains fighters of vetted forces to fight against the Islamic State. However the Free Syrian Army sees things differently and adopted a campaign titled "Badia Volcano" a campaign to "cleanse the Badia of Iranian and foreign militia". These militias are of course Assad allies. No doubt the groups involved in the campaign will demand U.S. support as they battle against pro-Assad Hezbollah and Iranian forces. The Iranians have upped their involvement in Syria by launching missile attacks on the eastern Syrian city of Deir rl-Zour. It was said to be in retaliation for an earlier attack in Iran on the parliament claimed by the Islamic State that killed at least 18 people. Within the last 12 days the U.S. has shot down two Iranian drones near the outpost of al-Tanf.

The U.S. maintains a defensive area around that Tanf base with a radius of 55km within which it will not permit the regime or its allied forces to enter. Earlier in the month, coalition warplanes attacked a group of tanks. armored vehicles and others who were advancing towards the outpost. In other words, the U.S.-led coalition has defined a zone that it occupies as off limits to the country to which it belongs. It can hardly expect to avoid further clashes. Yet a CENTCOM spokesperson said: “The continued armed and hostile presence of forces inside the de-confliction zone is unacceptable and threatening to Coalition forces. Coalition forces are prepared to defend themselves if pro-regime forces refuse to vacate the de-confliction zone.” The regime may be trying to re-establish trade links between Iraq and parts of Syria or even for troops and supplies to come from Iran.

The increased conflict appears to be confined to areas where regime forces, rebels and the Islamic State are in close contact. It may be that as the Islamic State loses more and more territories conflict could arise between forces loyal to Assad and the Syrian Democratic Forces supported by the U.S. In some areas of the country, there is rebuilding and cessation of hostilities as the enclosed video shows.

As US downs Assad aircraft tensions with Russia in Syria increase

(June 20)Russia has said that it will now consider US warplanes operating in parts of Syria where its forces are also present as "targets" after the U.S. downed a Syrian jet.

The Russian defence ministry said it would track U.S.-led coalition aircraft with missile systems and military aircraft although the statement did not say that they would shoot the aircraft down. The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) has announced that it is suspending flights in Syria as a precaution. In a statement the Russian Defence Ministry said: “All kinds of airborne vehicles, including aircraft and UAVs of the international coalition detected to the west of the Euphrates River will be tracked by the Russian SAM systems as air targets.” On Sunday a US F-18 Super Hornet shot down a Syrian SU-22 jet in the countryside west of the city of Raqqa. This is the first ever downing of a Syrian jet by the U.S. since the civil war began in 2011. While the Assad government said the plane was on a mission against Islamic State militants, the U.S. claimed it dropped bombs near U.S. forces. Astonishingly, the U.S. apparently did not use the hotline with Russia ahead of downing the plane. The Russian ministry accused the U.S. of a "deliberate failure to make good on its commitments" under the deconfliction deal between the two forces.

The Russian statement applies only to coalition flights west of the Euphrates. Flights in areas east if the Euphrates will not be targeted. The U.S. can probably target the IS held city of Raqqa and other areas held by the IS east of the Euphrates. Perhaps the U.S. will also continue flights west of the Euphrates but will think twice before trying to shoot down any more Syrian planes or Russian planes either.

When asked about the downing, White House Secretary Sean Spicer said that that U.S. wanted to keep an open line of communication with the Russians. However he did not explain why it did not use such a communication line before shooting down the plane. Spicer said: "The escalation of hostilities among all of the factions that are operating there doesn't help anybody. And so making sure that people understand while we want to de-escalate the situation there, that we have to understand that we will always preserve the right of self-defense." An ABC news report said that the Syrian plane actually dropped bombs on rebel forces fighting the Islamic State rather than just near them. Even if this were the case the plane could have been alerted to what it was doing and demands made that it stop rather than shooting it down. As well, the rebels are an enemy of Assad. If anyone could bring up self defense as a reason for what they were doing it was the Syrian plane rather than the U.S. plane. The Russian Defense Ministry said: "Repeated combat actions by U.S. aviation under the cover of counter-terrorism against lawful armed forces of a country that is a member of the U.N. are a massive violation of international law and de facto a military aggression against the Syrian Arab Republic."

Lt. Colonel Damien Pickart, a spokesperson for the U.S. Air Forces Central Command said: "As a result of recent encounters involving pro-Syrian regime and Russian forces, we have taken prudent measures to re-position aircraft over Syria so as to continue targeting ISIS forces while ensuring the safety of our aircrew given known threats in the battlespace."

According to an ABC report the downing happened over the town of Ja Din, south of the town of Tabqa recently retaken from the Islamic State by the Syrian Democratic Forces an umbrella group of mostly Kurdish but also Arab fighters. The SDF came under attack in Ja DIn by Assad forces while overhead U.S. fighter jets flew overhead firing warning shots that turned back the advance of the Assad forces. A statement from Operation Inherent Resolve said:"Following the pro-Syrian forces' attack, the coalition contacted its Russian counterparts by telephone via an established deconfliction line to de-escalate the situation and stop the firing. At 6:43 p.m., a Syrian regime SU-22 dropped bombs near SDF fighters south of Tabqah and, in accordance with rules of engagement and in collective self-defense of coalition partnered forces, was immediately shot down by a U.S. F/A-18E Super Hornet."Note that the official statement does not say the bombs were dropped on the SDF fighters but near them! Whereas earlier in its report ABC had said it was on them. ABC makes the same incorrect claim on the appended video. The Syrian pilot of the downed jet was able to eject and was rescued later by Assad troops.

The Russian Defense Ministry claims that the air-safety hotline was not used and also noted that there were also Russian aircraft in the area when the plane went down. It may be that the hotline was used to warn the Assad forces advancing on the town of Ja Din but not to warn the pilot of the jet that was shot down which appears to have happened later. A U.S.-led coalition statement said: "The coalition does not seek to fight Syrian regime, Russian or pro-regime forces partnered with them but will not hesitate to defend coalition or partner forces from any threat.The demonstrated hostile intent and actions of pro-regime forces toward coalition and partner forces in Syria conducting legitimate counter-ISIS operations will not be tolerated." If the U.S. seeks to defend rebel forces that it supports by that very fact it is bound to fight the Syrian regime whenever the regime comes into conflict with those forces. Such a stance inevitably will lead the U.S. into more conflict with the Assad regime and with Russia.

The U.S. believes it has the right to occupy a part of Syria and demands that a de-confliction zone around the town of Tanf in southwest Syria where there is a coalition training base for forces fighting the Islamic State not be entered by Syrian government forces. In the last few weeks the U.S. has mounted three air strikes on Assad forces when they tried to enter the area. The U.S. is becoming ever more involved in the war in Syria. As the Islamic State holds less and less territory conflicts of the U.S.-led coalition with the Assad regime, Russians, Iranians and Hezbollah are ever more likely.

US Defense Minister Ashton Carter announces 200 more troops for Syria

(December 10)Manama - US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said that another 200 troops will go to Syria in order to aid an offensive by Kurdish and Arab fighters, the Syria Democratic Forces (SDF), to free the city of Raqqa a stronghold of the Islamic State(IS) in Syria.

Speaking in Manama, the capital of Bahrain, Carter said: "I can tell you today that the United States will deploy approximately 200 additional US forces in Syria." There already are 300 US special forces operating in Syria backing the SDF troops. The offensive began in recent weeks and is taking place at the same time as an offensive against the IS-held city of Mosul in Syria. These two cities are the last two urban centers held by the IS after the Libyan city of Sirte fell to Libyan forces just recently. Their other Libyan stronghold of Derna was won by rival Islamist groups earlier this year. Carter said that bomb disposal experts, and trainers, will be included with the special forces. The IS have used car bombs, booby traps, and mines as well as snipers as they have put up fierce resistance when attacked in what they term is their caliphate. The US has used extensive airstrikes to help the advancing SDF forces. Carter said: “By combining our capabilities with those of our local partners, we’ve been squeezing Isis by applying simultaneous pressure from all sides and across domains, through a series of deliberate actions to continue to build momentum."

Carter criticized other Middle East partners for not adding more military support for the fight against the IS while themselves complaining about US efforts: “I would ask you to imagine what US military and defence leaders think when they have to listen to complaints sometimes that we should do more, when it’s plain to see that all too often, the ones complaining aren’t doing enough themselves.” He said it was reasonable that the US should expect regional powers opposed to the IS and other extremists in the Middle East to do more to help fight them. Carter said of the additional troops that they would "continue organizing, training, equipping and otherwise enabling capable, motivated local forces".

Carter also said that if Sunni regional powers were concerned about Iran's influence in the region they needed to become more involved in the area: “The fact is, if countries in the region are worried about Iran’s destabilising activities – a concern the United States shares – they need to get in the game. That means getting serious about starting to partner more with each other, and investing in the right capabilities for the threat.” Saudi Arabia has been busy intervening in the Yemen civil war on behalf of the former government, which until recently was in exile in Saudi Arabia, with disastrous humanitarian results. The opposition Houthi rebels are supported by Iran. Carter said that President Obama had approved sending the extra troops.

Carter said that Russian intervention in the Syrian war had "only inflamed the civil war and prolonged suffering". Russia's intervention not only appears to have saved the Assad regime but to have enabled it to achieve a major victory in Aleppo which may have turned the tide against the rebels supported by the US and many Arab states.

The US support for the Kurdish fighters is complicated by the fact that even though the US considers them to be the most effective partners of the US, they are viewed by Turkey, a US ally, as a terrorist threat. The US has slowly been increasing the number of its troops both in Iraq and Syria since 2014. Troops have not had a direct combat role. This could result in casualties and a negative political reaction within the US. Their main role is as advisors to Sunni fighters and Kurdish militia.

Carter noted that US strategy was to divide IS territory and taking out its leadership:"Leaders of the terrorist group can no longer travel between Raqqa and Mosul without the risk of either being struck from the air or hunted down by the coalition’s Expeditionary Targeting Force. In fact, since we began accelerating our campaign last year, we’ve killed the majority of ISIL’s most senior leaders.”

US Secretary of State, John Kerry is in Paris meeting with EU and Arab foreign ministers to discuss the situation in Syria. He is due to hold talks with Sergei Lavrov, Russian foreign minister. Kerry said he was tired of trying to negotiate with the Russians. Kerry complained:“I know people are tired of these meetings. I’m tired of these meetings. And people are sort of: ‘Oh, another meeting. OK. This one will end the same way the other one did.’ I get it, folks... But what am I supposed to do? Go home and have a nice weekend in Massachusetts while people are dying? Sit there in Washington and do nothing? That’s not the way you do business.”

With the Assad regime appearing near victory in Aleppo, negotiations may be difficult. The UN special envoy to Syria, Staffan de Mistura, said that even if Assad takes all of Aleppo the war will not end. He said a serious discussion about the political future of Syria was the only way to peace.

Trump may end US support for "moderate" rebels in Syria

(Nov. 12) In a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal, President-elect Donald Trump suggested that he was likely to end the U.S. policy of supporting "moderate" rebel groups.

He claimed that the U.S. did not really know who the moderate rebels were and that the U.S. should concentrate on defeating the Islamic State (IS).

Trump said in the interview:“I’ve had an opposite view of many people regarding Syria. My attitude was you’re fighting Syria, Syria is fighting ISIS, and you have to get rid of ISIS. Russia is now totally aligned with Syria, and now you have Iran, which is becoming powerful, because of us, is aligned with Syria. … Now we’re backing rebels against Syria, and we have no idea who these people are.”Trump also expressed concern that if the U.S. attacked the Assad regime it would end up fighting not only Syria but Russia as well.

In the past, Trump has suggested that the defeat of Assad could actually lead to something worse in the aftermath assuming it did not result in a war with Russia. Within the U.S. administration there has been an ongoing problem with the Pentagon wanting to fight the Islamic State (IS) while the CIA and State Department wants to shift the focus toward regime change. The CIA is heavily involved in providing arms and funding for the rebels. Earlier CIA plans for creating new forces and arming them have failed, often disastrously. Often arms end up in the hands of Al-Qaeda-linked or IS forces.

The U.S. is supporting about 30,000 Syrian-Kurd plus some Syrian-Arab fighters against the IS. They are at present advancing on the IS "capital" in Syria Raqqa. There are approximately 300 U.S. Special Operations forces assisting these fighters. It is not this operation but the CIA covert program designed to help rebels defeat Assad which Trump may end. The so-called moderate rebels are allied and cooperate with some groups that were until recently explicitly associated with Al-Qaeda. The rebels show little concern that some of those against Assad are radical jihadists. The important aspect of the situation for them is that they are opposing Assad.

Trump's position will probably resonate with Putin since Trump is unlikely to try and pressure Russia to drop support for Assad. However, he may find himself in conflict with the CIA.

US sending 250 more troops to Syria but no mission creep

Although the Pentagon admits it is sending 250 more troops to Syria, it denies that this represents any mission creep in the war against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. The deployment is said to be needed simply to meet current requirements.

Pentagon press secretary Peter Cook said:

“These are specific capabilities ... specific needs right now as we talk to our partners. And including our assessment, talking to local leaders on the ground in Syria, these are decisions that we think makes sense to accelerate this campaign and to further enable those local forces.This is not a question of putting in thousands of American forces to wage this fight. We are looking to others to carry this fight out but to do what we can to support them.”Before sending these troops there were only 50 special operations troops said to be in Syria.

Last week the Pentagon announced it was sending 200 troops to Iraq as well. Some members in both parties criticized the incremental increases in troops numbers being sent to the region. Some Republican hawks say that the number of troops being sent are too few. On the other hand, some Democrats describe the increases as mission creep that will draw the U.S. deeper into conflicts.

As usual, the authorities deny that the new troops represent "boots on the ground." Cook said those sent to Syria will not be on the front lines. Their role will be to train and assist local forces, as well as provide intelligence on the ground. There will also be medical and logistical personnel included in the group. Military commanders had recommended that 250 troops be sent. Cook explained:“Force multipliers is the best way to look at this. A small number of Americans with these kinds of capabilities can bring an enormous weight to bear in this fight and in support of these forces. And those forces who have come into contact and worked with U.S. forces, I think would attest to that.”

The troop deployment came less than 24 hours after Obama said on the BBC that he ruled out sending more ground troops to Syria. He said that military efforts alone could not solve Syria's problem: "It would be a mistake for the United States, or Great Britain... to send in ground troops and overthrow the [Bashar al-] Assad regime. We can slowly shrink the environment in which they operate."Obama is constantly trying to assure Americans that he will not involve the U.S. in extensive combat operations like those earlier in Iraq and Afghanistan. These more extensive actions result in casualties that are politically damaging. Obama prefers actions such as the drone program, proxy wars, and use of special forces, that involve almost no casualties and are not noticeable to many in the general public.

The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which includes the strong YPG militia of the Kurds, is the main partner of the U.S. fighting the Islamic State in Syria. It welcomed the plans of the U.S. but claimed it needed more support, including guided anti-armor missiles. Spokesperson Talal Sito said: "Any support they offer is positive but we hope there will be greater support. So far we have been supplied only with ammunition, and we were hoping to be supplied with military hardware, and this is something we were promised." The alliance was formed last October and has been successful at wresting territory away from the control of the Islamic State. However, Turkey opposes the YPG and worries that a Kurdish enclave is being formed on its border.

US bombings of Nusra Front in Syria produce disastrous blowback

The U.S. has in effect opened a new front against Jabhat al-Nusra in Syria a move that has already created disastrous results for moderate rebels the US hopes to train and arm.

When the US started it first airstrikes in Syria there were two separate operations. One group of bombings involved coalition partners including some Arab states and was only directed against positions of the Islamic State. However another set of attacks were directed against the Al-Qaeda-affiliated Jabhat al-Nusra or at least part of that group the Khorasan. While there is such a group, it is part and parcel of the Nusra Front. Locals have not even heard of the Khorasan, and the members involved do not use the name as it is an invention of the intelligence community:The name of the group was coined by intelligence agencies as a reference to the high-ranking Khorasan Shura, a leadership council within al-Qaeda which many members of the group belong to. The Khorasan operate in Syria alongside other Al Nusra front members but the US maintains that they are busy plotting against western interests and manufacturing bombs to blow up airliners. Attacks against them are easily justified by the ongoing war on terror and by representing them as a direct threat to the US.
US policy analysts seem to wear blinkers. They cannot look left or right but only straight ahead at the war on terror to plan military action against Islamic Jihadists. As a result, they fail to see that Syrian rebels of all stripes are intent on getting rid of Assad. Radical jihadists are seen as among the most effective fighters against the regime. Naturally, other rebels will fight the Islamic State when attacked by it but not otherwise. Al Nusra front often cooperates with all the other rebel groups so attacking it means weakening the fight against Assad. Rebels of all stripes protested the attack on the Nusra Front.
The bombings also caused a reaction within the front creating a new policy that has already had the result of two important groups of vetted moderate rebels being driven out of the areas they have held and in one case their US-provided weapons falling into the hands of the Nusra Front, an event that the US was at pains to prevent. Not surprisingly the Nusra Front now regards US-backed moderate rebels as the enemy. The leader of Al Nusra Abu al-Golani accused moderate US-supplied rebels were "Western collaborators".
 US intelligence officers had warned that any bombing of the Nusra Front would drive a wedge between the group and other rebels and draw a target on the rebels' backs. For once the intelligence community appears to be right but the situation is even worse than that because those with the targets on their back are in some cases deciding to join the jihadists against Assad rather than advance US aims. Abu Abdullah a commander of a brigade allied with the moderate Syrian Revolutionaries Front said that if the US continued to attack al Nusra, he and his men would swear allegiance to Al-Golani the Front's leader. Abdullah argues that the only interest of the US is in defeating the Islamic State and that moderate rebel groups are being set up to sacrifice as proxy troops to carry out US policy. The main aim of rebels of all stripes is the defeat of Assad.
 Another immediate result of the bombing of the Nusra Front was the defeat of two main moderate rebel groups the Syrian Revolutionary Front and the Harakat Hazm group. Both have been driven out of the areas they held. As a response to these events the US is carrying out further bombing raids against the Nusra Front in an apparent attempt to prevent the loss of even more moderate-held territory close to the Turkish border. Syrian rebels do not see the US bombing of Al Nusra in terms of US policy aims but in terms of their own desire to fight Assad. The bombing of Al Nusra strengthens the position of the Assad regime. As former Navy Officer Christopher Harmer claims: “If the U.S. attacks Nusra without attacking Assad, all the average Syrian sees is that the U.S. is enabling, emboldening, and strengthening the Assad regime. It’s not that the Syrian people love Nusra; it’s that Nusra has been in the fight against Assad, and the U.S. has looked for every excuse to stay out of the fight against Assad.”
 The US denies that it is attacking al-Nusra. General Lloyd Austin the commander of US Central Command said of the widening air campaign: “There were no strikes conducted against the al Nusra front. We did conduct a number of strikes, and the strikes were focused on the Khorasan group.” However, the Khorasan insofar as they exist are simply part of the Nusra Front. The Khorasan theme is dutifully picked up by the media as with CNN which reports that David Drugeon an Al Qaeda bomb-maker was killed in the recent attacks. The report comes courtesy of an anonymous official but not to worry CNN assures us that the official has access to the latest information about the strikes: The U.S. military fired at a vehicle it believed carried David Drugeon, a skilled bomb-maker in his 20s who also has ties to core al Qaeda members in Pakistan, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
 The US policy in Syria is in disarray and any hopes of building an effective moderate force to carry out US policy of attacking the Islamic State seem to have been dashed by the recent bombing of Jabhat al-Nusra.
 Another factor in the Syrian civil strife is the relationship of the Kurds to the Assad government. From very early on Assad has left the Kurds alone except when they tried to expand their territory. Assad is not worried about Kurdish fighting the Islamic State since this does not threaten the regime's interests. Many other rebel groups are suspicious of the Kurdish position or even hostile to the Kurds since they are not confronting the Assad regime. Again in the western press they are the heroes fending off the Islamic State. While that is true enough it does not change the manner in which they relate to the Assad regime.

Two moderate Syrian rebel groups surrender to Al-Qaeda-linked Nusra Front

Two of the main moderate rebel groups who had received weapons from the US have surrendered to the Al Qaeda-linked Nusra Front after defeats in battle.There are reports that Islamic State forces joined the Nusra Front in at least one attack.

When the US bombed Islamic State positions in Syria they also bombed Nusra Front positions claiming they were attacking a group called Khorasan said to be threatening attacks on the west. However, the result has been disastrous. Not only were almost all rebel groups furious but the move appears to have led to the Nusra Front cooperating with the Islamic State rather than fighting it along with other rebel groups. The Harakat Hazm and the Syrian Revolutionary Front were two major rebel groups to become part of the vetted moderate rebel forces chosen to fight the Islamic State. The Hazm movement had even received heavy weapons including Grad rockets and TOW anti-tank weapons and they had in turn supplied weapons to the Syrian Revolutionary Front(SRF).
 On Saturday, Jabhat al-Nusra or the Nusra Front stormed villages controlled by Hazm in the northern province of Idlib. The group surrendered their bases and weapons supplies to the group. A day earlier the Nusra Front had captured the home town of the Revolutionary Front's leader Jamal Marouf. The Nusra Front claims to have captured TOW missiles when it took over the home town of Marouf. His group fled into the mountains.
 Aymen al-Tammimi an analyst of the Syrian situation said:"As a movement, the SRF is effectively finished. Nusra has driven them out of their strongholds of Idlib and Hama." Marouf had become a prominent rebel leader praised in the west because he had launched the rebel offensive that had driven the Islamic State forces from most of the territory in two northern provinces they had wrested mostly from other rebel forces. Now jihadist forces linked to Al-Qaeda have driven him from his own strongholds into the mountains and taken over his home village. The US has from the beginning been wary of supplying any heavy weapons to the Syrian rebels in case they should end up in the hands of militant groups they oppose.
  Some reports indicate that Harakat Hazm simply decided to surrender to the Nusra Front without a shot being fired and that some members of Hazm joined the jihadist group. Even the moderate rebel groups were furious that the US is bombing groups fighting the Assad regime, especially Al Nusra Front who had been working with them. Even moderate rebels are primarily interested in the overthrow of Assad. The Hazm group still exists in Aleppo but only after they gave up some of their checkpoints to Al Nusra and signed a ceasefire agreement with them. One of the conditions for giving Hazm weapons was that the group would not work with Jabhat al-Nusra. The Al-Qaeda group felt that Hazm's close relations with the US made it a threat and that may be one of the reasons they attacked the group.
Obama announced that part of his fight against the Islamic State will involve training, arming, and equipping 5,000 Syrian rebels to fight against the Islamic State. The US appears to have completely misread the situation. The rigorous vetting process will take several months before training can even begin and it will be up to a year before the force is prepared to fight. Just last month a US official said that they would hasten the process by choosing rebels from groups already vetted. Included among those were Harakat Hazm.
 Apparently the operation rooms in Turkey that funnel weapons to rebels have been revamped and have representatives from the US, Britain, France, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. A Syrian source said that Qatar had been thrown out of the group over suspicions that it had been helping Jabhat al-Nusra but was being allowed back. The system for supplying weapons is complicated and is intended more to ensure that donor countries have confidence that the weapons were used for their proper purposes rather than providing effective aid to commanders. The US is intending to develop its own elite forces but these forces also could become victims of jihadist rebels who are interested only in attacking Assad and will only attack the Islamic State if IS attacks them.

US and some allies considering buffer zone between Syria and Turkey

The U.S. and the UK say they are willing to look at the possibility of creating a "buffer zone" between Syria and Turkey. Meanwhile the Islamic State is continuing its assault on the border town of Kobane with fighting now taking place within the town .

John Kerry, US Secretary of State said: "The buffer zone... is an idea that's out there, it's worth examining, it's worth looking at very, very closely," He said that the millions of refugees who had fled Syria "should not be a problem which is thrust onto Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, where they bear an incredible burden." Kerry's remarks suggest not just a buffer zone between Turkey and Syria but between Lebanon and Syria, and Jordan and Syria as well. Kerry continued: "If Syrian citizens can return to Syria and be protected in an area across the border, there's a lot that would commend that. You'd have to guarantee safety, that there wouldn't be attacks by the government... so it needs a thorough examination. We're all in favour of looking at this very closely."
 The White House and also the US Department of Defense both claimed that a buffer zone was not a military option being considered at present. However, they did admit that the possibility was being discussed with Turkey:President Barack Obama's spokesman, Josh Earnest, said "it's not something that is under consideration right now", while Pentagon spokesman Rear Admiral John Kirby said the buffer zone is "a topic of continued discussions". The idea of a buffer zone was first suggested by the the Turkish president Recep Erdogan and is also supported by France. The US has consistently refused to consider establishing a safe haven or buffer zone for Syrians fleeing the conflict. The US argues that it would be too difficult to set up and even more problematic to patrol, particularly since the US is unwilling to commit ground troops to the conflict.
 Meanwhile, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights claims that US air strikes on Kobane have killed at least 45 Islamic State fighters since this Monday and forced them to partially withdraw from several streets they had occupied. The continuing onslaught is reported to have already killed more than 400 people. About 200,000 Syrians fled to shelter in Turkey exacerbating the humanitarian situation there.
 US officials travelled to Turkey to discuss the role of Turkey in the international coalition fighting the Islamic State. The issue of a buffer zone will be discussed at those meetings. The Turks have argued in favor of such a zone for several years already as they believe such a zone would help them deal with their huge refugee problems. Kerry's recent statements may indicate that the US may be considering changing their position on the issue which up to now has rejected a buffer zone. UK Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond also said of the buffer zone idea that he "certainly wouldn't want to rule it out." No details of such a zone were discussed by the UK or US. Turkey has requested a "no-fly zone" that would keep some of the territory bordering on Turkey from being attacked or bombed by the Assad regime's air force. This plan has zero relevance to the issue of the Islamic State attacks near the border, actions that at present are the prime source of the huge flow of refugees into Turkey.
Retired Marine General John Allen, who is the US special envoy in the fight against the Islamic State is to travel to Turkey on Thursday to see if Turkey will now take part in the fight against the Islamic State. The buffer zone idea will be part of his discussions with Turkish officials. Rear Admiral John Kirby press secretary at the Pentagon said that the US and Turkey have discussed the buffer zone proposal many times already but said: “It is now not on the table as a military option we are considering. That said, it is a topic of continuing discussion.”
 The US administration appears to be of two minds on the issue with Kerry appearing to support the idea but others noting that it is not now being considered as a military option. Kerry also seems to be lining up allies such as the UK and France to support the idea along with Turkey. The French President Francois Hollande issued a statement indicating his support for a buffer zone between Syria and Turkey to take in and protect refugees. Both Kerry and Hammond said that any buffer zone proposal would need to be carefully examined especially with other nations. They did not mention the Syrian regime ruled by Assad. As the appended video from two years ago shows, rebels themselves have tried to set up buffer zones to protect refugees.