““The Russians” had to be reinstalled as "the enemy” after Obama made his alliance with Islamist jihad. Trump has now signed on as Protector of the Idlib Caliphate.”…9/6/2018, “Trump Protects Al Qaeda, “The Resistance” Applauds, Cursing “Russians”,” Black Agenda Report, Glen Ford…“No country has more contempt for the rule of law than the United States."
and is plundering the country’s petroleum resources.
Washington has no authorization
under international or even US law to invade and occupy Syria,
much less attack Syrian forces, which it has done repeatedly.
Nor has it a legal warrant to create new administrative and governance structures
in the country
to replace the Syrian government,
a project it is undertaking through a parallel invasion of US diplomatic personnel.
[2/9/2018, Former Obama Syria Ambassador “Ford acknowledged in his testimony that U.S. humanitarian aid to Syria was heavily politicized, explaining: “The U.S. also has deployed a small civilian team into Syria charged with initial reconstruction and building new local governance or improving on existing local governance. If it sounds like nation-building, it is but on a smaller scale.”…This politicized humanitarian funding has been part of a concerted effort to undermine the Syrian government’s control over Syrian territory by creating independent political administrations, civil society organizations, health institutions, and infrastructure that are outside of its control, effectively establishing de facto autonomous governments that survive on U.S. funding.”…“US ambassador confirms billions spent on regime change in Syria, debunking ‘Obama did nothing’ myth,” Ben Norton, Grayzone]
(continuing): “These actions—criminal, plunderous, and an assault on democracy at an international level—amount to a retrograde
project of recolonization by an empire bent on extending its supremacy to all the Arab and Muslim worlds, including the few remaining outposts of resistance to foreign tyranny.
[Image: “US troops occupying Syria’s oil fields,” Grayzone, 11/2019]
Moreover, US actions represent an escalation of Washington’s
previously carried out
through proxies, including the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda,
into a full-scale conventional war with direct US military involvement.
Yet, despite the enormity of the project, and the escalation of the war, the
has largely flown under the radar of public awareness….
[Image: Image: 12/30/2018, “US flag flies in Syria’s Manbij despite pullout notice,” AFP, Delil Souleiman. Syria would be fully justified in planting its flag over one third of the US]
Marauders in Washington have pilfered part of the territory of one of the last bastions of Arab independence—Syria. Indeed, Washington now controls
“about one-third of the country including most of its oil wealth
has no intention of returning it to its rightful owners,
has planned for an indefinite military occupation
of eastern Syria,
and is creating a new Israel, which is to say,
a new imperialist outpost in the middle of the Arab world,
to be governed by Kurdish proxies backed by US firepower. [2]
The crime has been carried out openly, and yet has hardly been noticed or remarked upon.
[US has spent billions supporting many jihadist groups in Syria including at least one, Nour al din al Zenki which proudly beheaded a child. 2016. Following are over 40 CIA-approved terrorist groups in Syria as of Oct. 2013:
101st Division Infantry (Forqat 101 Masha’a)
Northern Division (Forqat al-Shamali)
Mountain Hawks Brigade (Liwa’ Suqour al-Jabal)
Army of Victory (Jaish al-Nasr)
1st Coastal Division (Forqat al-Awwali al-Sahli)
2nd Coastal Division (Forqat al-Thani al-Sahli)
Army of Glory (Jaish al-Izza’)
Central Division (Al-Forqat al-Wasti)
Army of Liberation (Jaish al-Tahrir)
Sultan Murad Brigade (Liwa’ Sultan Murad)
16th Division Infantry (Liwa’ 16 Masha’a)
Nour al-Din al-Zenki Movement, (Harakat Nour al-Din al-Zenki)
Mujahideen Army/Army of Holy Warriors (Jaish al-Mujahideen)
Revolutionaries of al-Sham Brigades (Kata’eb Thuwar al-Sham)
Fastaqem Kama Umirta Union (Tajammu Fastaqem Kama Umirta)
Elite Islamic Battalions (Kata’eb Safwah al-Islamiyah)
The Sham Legion (Faylaq al-Sham)
1st Regiment (Al-Fauj al-Awwal)
Northern Thunder Brigade (Liwa’ Ra’ad al-Shamal)
Ahmed al-Abdo Martyrs’ Force (Quwwat al-Shaheed Ahmad al-Abdo)
2nd Infantry Division (Forqat al-Thani Masha’a)
1st Brigade (Liwa’ al-Awwal)
Al-Rahman Legion (Faylaq al-Rahman)
Martyrs of Islam Brigade (Liwa’ Shuhadah al-Islam)
Yarmouk Army (Jaish al-Yarmouk)
Lions of Sunnah Division (Forqat Usood al-Sunnah)
the 18th March Division (Forqat 18 Adhar)
Southern Tawhid Brigade (Liwa’ Tawhid al-Junoub)
Hamza Division (Forqat al-Hamza)
1st Artillery Regiment (Al-Fauj al-Awwal Madfa’a)
Syria Revolutionaries Front – Southern Sector (Jabhat Thuwar Souriya)
The First Corps (Faylaq al-Awwal)
Salah al-Din Division (Forqat Salah al-Din)
Omari Brigades (Tajammu Alwiyat al-Omari)
Unity Battalions of Horan Brigade (Liwa’ Tawhid Kata’eb Horan)
Youth of Sunnah Force (Quwwat Shabbab al-Sunnah)
Moataz Billah Brigade (Liwa’ Moataz Billah)
Sword of al-Sham Brigades (Alwiyat Saif al-Sham)
Dawn of Islam Division (Forqat Fajr al-Islam)
Supporters of Sunnah Brigade (Liwa’ Ansar al-Sunnah)
Emigrants and Supporters Brigade (Liwa’ Muhajireen wal Ansar)
Military Council in Quneitra and the Golan
Division of Decisiveness (Forqat al-Hasm)
46th Infantry Division (Forqat 46 Masha’a)
“Hasan Mustafas describes each group in detail here”]
(continuing): “Here are the facts:
In January [2018], US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson announced that
US “troops will remain in Syria” indefinitely
“to ensure that neither Iran
nor President Bashar al-Assad of Syria
will take over [Syria’s own land] areas” [3] the United States [allegedly] captured from [US created] ISIS,
[“Some administration officials would deny Damascus its oil and other resources [causing starvation, disease and death for innocent Syrians] in an attempt to pressure Assad from power….The Syria Study Group, established by Congress to justify a permanent U.S. military presence, came up with even more bizarre objectives, such as helping locals handle Islamic State prisoners, “enabling civilian-led stabilization efforts,”… protecting a rules-based international order, and contributing to the security of key allies and partners....Supporting “key allies and partners” should be the means, not the end.”]
(continuing): “even though these areas belong to the Syrian Arab Republic, by law and right, and not to Washington, or to Washington’s Kurdish proxy, the SDF. The SDF, or Syrian Democratic Force, is a US-constructed outfit which, in journalist Robert Fisk’s words, is neither Syrian (it’s dominated by Kurds, including those of Turkish origin) nor democratic (since it imposes Kurdish rule over traditionally Arab areas and dances to a tune called by a foreign master.)
[Image: May 2013, “Free Syrian Army rebels fire machine gun rounds” at Syrian government near airport in Aleppo, photo Corbis]
Moreover, it’s not much of a force, since,
without US airpower, artillery, and Special Operations support,
it is militarily inconsequential. [4]
“US President Donald Trump’s rollout of an updated Syria policy,” reports Aaron Stein, writing in the unofficial journal of the US State Department, Foreign Affairs,
“commits US forces to maintaining a presence” in northeast Syria
in order to “hedge against”
any attempt by Damascus to assert sovereignty
[Image: “The head of the Middle East desk for President Biden’s Pentagon, Dana Stroul, proclaimed that the US military “owned” one-third of Syrian territory, including its “economic powerhouse,” outlining a sadistic strategy to prevent reconstruction of the “rubble.”"]
The Pentagon officially admits to having 2,000 troops in Syria [6] but a top US general put the number higher, 4,000, in an October [2017] press briefing. [7] But even this figure is an “artificial construct,” as the Pentagon described a previous low-ball figure. On top of the infantry, artillery, and forward air controllers the Pentagon counts as deployed to Syria, there is an additional number of uncounted Special Operations personnel, as well as
untallied troops assigned to classified missions
and “an unspecified number of contractors” i.e., mercenaries. Additionally,
combat aircrews are not counted,
even though US air power is critical to the occupation. [8]
There are, therefore, many more times the officially acknowledged number of US troops in Syria,
operating out of 10 bases in the country,
including “a sprawling facility with a long runway, hangars, barracks and fuel depots.” [9]
[“The US government spent at least $12 billion in Syria-related military and civilian expenses in the four years from 2014 through 2017, former [Obama] ambassador [to Syria] Robert Ford disclosed in a [Feb. 2018] House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing.” This doesn’t include monies spent prior to 2014, nor the estimated $1 billion a year the CIA spends in Syria. US tax dollars were not allowed to aid all Syrians. In inhumane fashion, US only allowed aid to areas held by Islamic terrorists. US believes children not living in terrorist held areas should starve].
(continuing): “In addition to US military advisers, Army Rangers, artillery, Special Operations forces, satellite-guided rockets and Apache attack helicopters [10], the United States
has deployed US diplomats to Syria to create
government and administrative structures
to supersede the legitimate government of the Syrian Arab Republic. [11]
Plus, the United States “is now working to transform Kurdish fighters into a local security force” to handle policing [12] while US diplomats on the ground work to establish local governments to run the occupied territory’s affairs. [13]
“The idea in US policy circles” is to create “a soft partition” of Syria
[Image: “At a US gov-funded think tank, this official [Dana Stroul] who oversaw Congress’ Syria Study Group outlines the continued regime-change strategy. She says the US military “owned” 1/3rd of Syrian territory, including its oil/wheat-rich region. And the US is trying to block reconstruction funds.”]
between the United States and Russia along the Euphrates, “as it was
among the Elbe [in Germany] at the end of the Second World War.” [14]
On top of the 28 percent of Syria the United States occupies,
it controls “half of Syria’s energy resources, the Euphrates Dam at Tabqa,
as well as much of Syria’s best agricultural land.” [15]…
US military planning called for the Kurds to push south along the Euphrates River to seize Syria’s oil-and gas-rich territory. [16]
While the Syrian Arab Army and its allies
focused mostly on liberating cities from Islamic State,
the Kurds, under US direction, went “after the strategic oil and gas fields”, [17] “robbing Islamic State of key territory,” as The Wall Street Journal put it.
The US newspaper correctly designated the seizure of key territory as a robbery, but
failed to acknowledge the victim, not Islamic State, which itself robbed the territory, but
the Syrian Arab Republic.
But this skein of equivocation needs to be further disentangled.
It was not the Kurds who robbed ISIS which earlier robbed the Syrians, but
the United States which robbed ISIS which robbed Syria.
The Kurds, without the backing of the US armed forces, are a military cipher incapable, by their own efforts, of robbing the Arab republic.
The Americans are the robbers, the Syrians the victims.
The United States has robbed Syria of “two of the largest oil and gas fields in Deir Ezzour,”
including the al-Omar oil field, Syria’s largest. [18]
Last September [2017], the United States plundered Syria of “a gas field and plant known in Syria as the Conoco gas plant” (though its affiliation with Conoco is historical; the plant was acquired by the Syrian Gas Company in 2005.) [19]
Russia observed that “the real aim” of the US forces’ (incontestably denominated)
“illegal” presence in Syria has been
“the seizure and retention of economic assets that only belong to the
Syrian Arab Republic.” [20]
The point is beyond dispute:
the United States has stolen resources vital to the republic’s reconstruction
(this from a country which proclaims property rights to be humanity’s highest value.)
Joshua Landis, a University of Oklahoma professor who specializes in Syria, has argued that
by “controlling half of Syria’s energy resources…
the US will be able to keep Syria poor and under-resourced.” [21]
Bereft of its petroleum resources, and deprived of its best farmland, Syria will be hard-pressed to recover from the Islamist insurgency—
an operation precipitated by Washington as part of its long war on
nationalist influence in the Arab world—
a war that has left Syria in ruins. The conclusion that “Assad has won” and that the war is over except for mopping up operations is unduly optimistic, even Pollyannaish. There is a long road ahead.
Needless to say, Damascus aspires to recover its lost territory, and “on February 7 [2018] sent a battalion-sized column to [recuperate] a critical gas plant near Deir Ezzour.” [22] This legitimate exercise of sovereignty was repulsed by an airstrike by US invaders,
which left an estimated 100 Syrian Arab Army troops and their allies dead. [23]
The significance of this event has been under-appreciated,
and perhaps because press coverage of what transpired
disguised its enormity.
An emblematic Wall Street Journal report, for example,
asserted that the US airstrike was a defensive response
to an unprovoked attack by Syrian forces,
as if the Syrians, on their own soil, were aggressors,
and the invading Americans, victims. [24]…
It should be evident—indeed, it’s axiomatic—that the unprovoked invasion and occupation of a country constitutes an aggression, but apparently this is not the case in the specially constructed reality of the Western media.
Could Russia invade the United States west of the Colorado River, control the territory’s airspace, plunder its resources, establish new government and administrative structures to supplant local, state, and federal authority, and then credibly declare that it does not seek war with the United States and its armed services?
Invasion and occupation are aggressive acts, a statement that shouldn’t need to be made.
Washington’s February 7 [2018] attack on Syrian forces was not the first.
“American troops carried out strikes
against forces loyal to President Bashar Assad of Syria
several times in 2017,” reported the New York Times. [25]
In other words, the United States has invaded Syria,
and this aggression is supposed to be understood as
response to Syrian provocations.
It is incontestable that US…the invasion of the country by untold thousands of US military and diplomatic personnel,
the plunder of the Levantine nation’s resources,
and attacks on its military forces,
are flagrant violations of international law.
No country has more contempt for the rule of law than the United States,
yet, in emetic fashion, its government
incessantly invokes the very rule of law it spurns
to justify its outrages against it.
But what of US law? If, to Washington,
international law is merely an impediment to be overcome
on its way to expanding its empire,
are the US invasion and occupation of Syria, and attacks on Syrian forces,
in harmony with the laws of the United States?
If you ask the White House and Pentagon the answer is yes, but that is tantamount to asking a thief to rule on his or her theft.
The question is, does the US executive’s claim that its actions in Syria comport with US law stand up to scrutiny? Not only does it not, the claim is risible.
“Under both Mr. Obama and Mr. Trump,” explains the New York Times’ Charlie Savage, “the executive branch has argued that
the [alleged] war against Islamic State
is covered by a 2001 law authorizing the use of military force
against the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks [my emphasis]
and a 2002 law authorizing the invasion of Iraq.”
However, while “ISIS [allegedly] grew out an offshoot of Al Qaeda,
the two groups by 2014 had split and became warring rivals,”
and ISIS did not perpetrate the 9/11 attacks. What’s more,
before the rise of ISIS,
the Obama administration had deemed the Iraq war over. [26]
Washington’s argument has other problems, as well.
While the 2001 law does not authorize the use of military force against [so-called] ISIS
it does authorize military action against [longtime US crony] Al Qaeda.
[7/8/2018, “U.S. arms have been seen in Nusra’s [Al Qaeda] possession for many years now [since at least 2012], including highly valued TOW missiles, which were game-changing weapons in the Syrian military theater….US-made TOW anti-tank missiles sent by US planners to FSA [Free Syrian Army jihadist] groups in Idlib played a crucial role in helping Nusra conquer the entire province in the spring of 2015.“…“Idlib province is largest Al Qaeda haven since 9/11″ – Brett McGurk, July 2017]
(continuing): “Yet from 2011 to today, the United States has not only failed to use force
against the Syrian-based Jabhat al-Nusra, Al Qaeda’s largest branch,
it has trained and equipped Islamist fighters
who are intermingled with, cooperate on the battle field with, share weapons with, and operate under licence to, the group, as I showed in my book Washington’s Long War on Syria, citing the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and Washington Post, which have extensively reported on
the interconnections between US trained and armed fighters and the organization founded by Osama bin Laden. [27]
Finally, by implication, since the law does not authorize
the use of force against [US created] ISIS,
the presence of US aircrews in Syrian airspace
or US military and diplomatic personnel on Syrian soil.
In addition, it
certainly does not authorize the use of force against a Syrian military
operating within its own borders.
Let’s look again at Washington’s stated reasons for
its planned indefinite occupation of Syria:
to [allegedly] prevent the return of ISIS;
to stop the Syrian Arab Republic from exercising sovereignty over all of its territory; and
to eclipse Iranian influence in Syria.
For only one of these reasons, the first, does Washington offer any sort of legal justification. The latter two objectives are so totally devoid of legal warrant that Washington has not even tried to mount a legal defense of them.
Yet, these are the authentic reasons for the US invasion and occupation of Syria.
[9/6/2018, ““The Russians” had to be reinstalled as "the enemy” after Obama made his alliance with Islamist jihad. Trump has now signed on as Protector of the Idlib Caliphate.”…9/6/2018, “Trump Protects Al Qaeda, “The Resistance” Applauds, Cursing “Russians”,” Black Agenda Report, Glen Ford…”There would be a horrific political price to pay–an upheaval such as has not been witnessed in the U.S. since the Civil War–if the American people became fully aware of the scope of their leaders’ [both Obama and Trump] partnership with al Qaeda.”]
(continuing): “As to the first reason,
if Washington were seriously motivated to use military force to crush Al Qaeda,
it would not have armed, trained and directed the group’s auxiliaries in its war against Arab nationalist power in Damascus.
Regarding Washington’s stated aim of eclipsing Iranian influence in Syria, we may remind ourselves of the contents of a leaked
2012 U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency report. That report revealed that
the insurgency in Syria was sectarian
and led by the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda in Iraq,
the forerunner of [the so-called] Islamic State. The report also disclosed that
the United States, Arab Gulf oil monarchies and Turkey supported the insurgents.
The analysis correctly predicted the establishment of a “Salafist principality,” an Islamic state, in eastern Syria,
noting that this was desired by the insurgency’s foreign backers, which wanted to see the secular Arab nationalists isolated and cut-off from Iran. [28]
The United States has since decided to take on
the role that it had once planned for a Salafist principality.
A planned Saudi-style state dividing Damascus from Tehran
has become an indefinite US occupation,
from whose womb US planners hope to midwife the birth of a Kurd mini-state
as a new Israel.
The reality that the US operation in Syria is illegal
may account for why, with Washington’s misdirection and the press’s collusion,
it has largely flown under the radar of public awareness.
Misdirection is accomplished by
disguising the US occupation of eastern Syria as a Kurd-, or SDF-effort,
which the United States is
merely assisting, rather than directing.
The misdirection appears to be successful, because the narrative has been widely mentally imbibed, including by otherwise critical people.
There are parallels. The United States is prosecuting
a war of aggression in Yemen,
against a movement that threatens US hegemony in the Middle East,
as the Syrian Arab Republic, Iran and Hezbollah do.
The aggression against Yemen is as lacking in legal warrant as is the US war on Syria.
It flagrantly violates international law;
the Houthis did not attack Saudi Arabia, let alone the United States, and therefore
there is no justification for military action on international legal grounds against them.
What’s more, the Pentagon can’t even point to authorization for the use of force against Yemen’s rebels under US domestic law since
they are not Al Qaeda and have no connection to the 9/11 attacks.
To side step the difficulty of deploying military force without a legal warrant,
the war, then, is presented as “Saudi-led”,
with the involvement of the United States relegated in the hermeneutics to the periphery. Yet Washington is directing the war.
The United States flies its own drones and reconnaissance aircraft over Yemen to gather intelligence to select targets for Saudi pilots. [29]
It refuels Saudi bombers in flight. Its warships enforce a naval blockade.
And significantly, it runs an operations center to coordinate the bombing campaign among the US satellites who participate in it.
In the language of the military, the United States has command and control of the aggression against Yemen.
The only US absence is in the provision of pilots to drop the bombs, this role having been farmed out to Arab allies. [30]
And that is the key to the misdirection.
Because Saudi pilots handle one visible aspect of the multi-dimensional war, (whose various other dimensions are run by the Americans),
it can be passed off to the public as a Saudi affair,
while those who find the Saudi monarchy abhorrent (which it is)
can vent their spleen on a scapegoat.
We do the same to the Kurds,
hurling rhetorical thunderbolts at them, when they are
merely pawns of the US government pursuing a project of empire-building.
Jeremy Corbyn, the British Labour Party leader, has seen through the misdirection, declaring that it is the West, not the Saudis, who are ‘directing the war’ in Yemen. [31]…
I leave the last word to the Syrian government, whose voice is hardly ever heard
above the din of Western war propaganda.
The invasion and occupation of eastern Syria is “a blatant interference,
a flagrant violation of [the] UN Charter’s principles…
an unjustified aggression on the sovereignty and independence of Syria.” [33]
None of this is controversial. For his part, Syrian president Bashar al-Assad has pointed out incontestably that
foreign troops in Syria “without our invitation or consultation or permission…are invaders.”
It is time the US invasion and occupation of Syria—illegal, anti-democratic, plunderous, and
was recognized, opposed, and ended.
There is far more to Washington’s long war on Syria
than Al Qaeda, the White Helmets and the Kurds.
As significant as these forces are, the threat they pose to the Syrian center of opposition to foreign tyranny has been
surpassed by a more formidable challenge—the war’s escalation into
a US military and diplomatic occupation
accompanied by direct US military confrontation
with the Syrian Arab Army and its allies.”
…………………………………
1. Neil MacFarquhar, ‘Russia’s greatest problem in Syria: It’s ally president Assad,’ The New York Times, March 8, 2018.
2. Anne Barnard, “US-backed force could cement a Kurdish enclave in
Syria,” The New York Times, January 16, 2018; Domenico Losurdo, “Crisis
in the Imperialist World Order,” Revista Opera, March 2, 2018.
3. Gardiner Harris, “Tillerson says US troops to stay in Syria beyond battle with ISIS, The New York Times, January 17, 2018.
4. Robert Fisk, “The next Kurdish war is on the horizon—Turkey and Syria
will never allow it to create a mini-state,” The Independent, January
18, 2018.
5. Aaron Stein, “Turkey’s Afrin offensive and America’s future in Syria:
Why Washington should be eying the exit,” Foreign Affairs, January 23,
2018.
6. Nancy A. Yousef, “US to remain in Syria indefinitely, Pentagon officials say, The Wall Street Journal, December 8, 2017.
7. Andrew deGrandpre, “A top US general just said 4,000 American troops
are in Syria. The Pentagon says there are only 500,” the Washington
Post, October 31, 2017.
8. John Ismay, “US says 2,000 troops are in Syria, a fourfold increase,”
The New York Times, December 6, 2017; Nancy A. Yousef, “US to remain in
Syria indefinitely, Pentagon officials say,” The Wall Street Journal,
December 8, 2017).
9. Dion Nissenbaum, “Map said to show locations of US forces in
Syria published in Turkey,” The Wall Street Journal, July 19, 2017.
10. Michael R. Gordon, “In a desperate Syrian city, a test of Trump’s policies,” The New York Times, July 1, 2017.
11. Nancy A. Yousef, “US to send more diplomats and personnel to Syria,” The Wall Street Journal, December 29, 2017.
12. Dion Nissenbaum, “US moves to halt Turkey’s drift toward Iran and Russia,” the Wall Street Journal, February 21, 2018.
13. Nancy A. Yousef, “Some US-backed Syrian fighters leave ISIS battle
to counter Turkey,” The Wall Street Journal, February 6, 2018.
14. Yaroslav Trofimov, “In Syria, new conflict looms as ISIS loses ground,” The Wall Street Journal, September 7, 2017.
15. Gregory Shupak, “Media erase US role in Syria’s misery, call for US to inflict more misery,” FAIR.org, March 7, 2018.
16. Trofimov, September 7, 2017.
17. Raj Abdulrahim and Ghassan Adnan, “Syria and Iraq rob Islamic State
of key territory,” The Wall Street Journal, November 3, 2018.
18. Raj Abdulrahim and Ghassan Adnan, “Syria and Iraq rob Islamic State
of key territory,” The Wall Street Journal, November 3, 2018.
19. Abdulrahim and Adnan, November 3, 2018.
20. Raja Abdulrahim and Thomas Grove, “Syria condemns US airstrike as tension rise,” the Wall Street Journal, February 8, 2018.
21. Joshua Landis, “US policy toward the Levant, Kurds and Turkey,” Syria Comment, January 15, 2018.
22. Yaroslav Trofimov, “As alliances shift, Syria’s tangle of war grows
more dangerous,” The Wall Street Journal, February 15, 2018.
23. Raja Abdulralhim and Thomas Grove, “Syria condemns US airstrike as
tensions rise,” The Wall Street Journal, February 8, 2018; Nancy A.
Yousef and Thomas Grove, “Russians among those killed in US airstrike is
eastern Syria,” The Wall Street Journal, February 13, 2018.
24. Yousef and Grove, February 13, 2018.
25. Charlie Savage, “US says troops can stay in Syria without new authorization,” The New York Times, February 22, 2018.
26. Savage, February 22, 2018.
27. Stephen Gowans. Washington’s Long War on Syria. Baraka Books. 20017. Pp. 149-150.
28. DIA document leaked to Judicial Watch, Inc., a conservative,
non-partisan educational foundation, which promotes transparency,
accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf
29. Mark Mazzetti and Eric Schmitt, “Quiet support for Saudis entangles U.S. in Yemen,” The New York Times, March 13, 2016.
30. Stephen Gowans, “The US-Led War on Yemen, what’s left, November 6, 2017.
31. William James, “May defends Saudi ties as Crown Prince gets royal welcome in London,” Reuters, March 7, 2018.
32. Ibrahim Al-Amin, “Either America or Al-Quds,” Alahednews, December 8, 2017.
33. Syria condemns presence of French and German special forces in Ain
al-Arab and Manbij as overt unjustified aggression on Syria’s
sovereignty and independence, SANA, June 15, 2016.”
https://gowans.blog/2018/03/11/the-largely-unrecognized-us-occupation-of-syria/
………………………………………
a process that could “take decades.””…6/13/2019
…………
No comments:
Post a Comment