LTR Visa is Now available for Long Term Residency

[webfact]

Exclusive: U.S. forces to stay in Syria for decades, say militia allies

By John Davison

 

U.S. forces are seen at the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) headquarters after it was hit by Turkish airstrikes in Mount Karachok near Malikiya, Syria April 25, 2017. REUTERS/ Rodi Said/Files

 

AIN ISSA, Syria (Reuters) - Washington's main Syrian ally in the fight against Islamic State says the U.S. military will remain in northern Syria long after the jihadists are defeated, predicting enduring ties with the Kurdish-dominated region.

 

The U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), an alliance of militias dominated by the Kurdish YPG, believes the United States has a "strategic interest" in staying on, SDF spokesman Talal Silo told Reuters.

 

"They have a strategy policy for decades to come. There will be military, economic and political agreements in the long term between the leadership of the northern areas (of Syria) ... and the U.S. administration," Silo said.

 

The U.S.-led coalition against Islamic State has deployed forces at several locations in northern Syria, including an airbase near the town of Kobani. It has supported the SDF with air strikes, artillery, and special forces on the ground.

 

Asked about long-term strategy, Col. Ryan Dillon, spokesman for the coalition, referred Reuters to the Pentagon. He said there was "still a lot of fighting to do, even after ISIS has been defeated in Raqqa".

 

Islamic State remained in strongholds along the Euphrates River Valley, he added, in a reference to its stronghold in Deir al-Zor province southeast of Raqqa.

 

"Our mission ... is to defeat ISIS in designated areas of Iraq and Syria and to set conditions for follow-on operations to increase regional stability," Dillon said, without elaborating.

 

Eric Pahon, a Pentagon spokesman, said in Washington: “The Department of Defense does not discuss timelines for future operations. However we remain committed to the destruction of ISIS and preventing its return.”

 

The SDF and YPG dominate a swathe of northern Syria where Kurdish-led autonomous administrations have emerged since the onset of the Syrian conflict in 2011.

 

The YPG and its allies hold an uninterrupted 400-km (250-mile) stretch of the Syrian-Turkish border.

 

The U.S. alliance with the SDF and YPG is a major point of contention with neighbouring Turkey, a U.S. ally. Turkey views the YPG as an extension of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which has fought a three-decade insurgency in Turkey.

 

Silo said: "The Americans have strategic interests here after the end of Daesh," using a pejorative term for Islamic State.

 

NEW BASES?

 

"They (recently) referred to the possibility of securing an area to prepare for a military airport. These are the beginnings - they're not giving support just to leave. America is not providing all this support for free," Silo said.

 

He suggested northern Syria could become a new base for U.S. forces in the region. "Maybe there could be an alternative to their base in Turkey," he added, referring to the Incirlik air base.

 

The head of the YPG said last month the United States had established seven military bases in areas of northern Syria controlled by the YPG or SDF, including a major air base near Kobani, a town at the border with Turkey.

 

The coalition says it does not discuss the location of its forces, citing operational security.

 

Reuters reporters have seen Blackhawk and Apache military helicopters taking off from a cement factory southeast of Kobani, a Kurdish town on the border with Turkey.

 

Washington under the new U.S. administration of President Donald Trump started distributing arms to the YPG in March ahead of the final assault on Raqqa city, infuriating Turkey which has been unsuccessfully lobbying Washington to abandon the SDF.

 

Despite SDF confidence that U.S. forces will stay, there is concern that Washington will not give enough backing to YPG-allied forces and civil councils that control northeast Syria.

 

"We're constantly asking them for clear, public political support," Silo said. He said the U.S. State Department held its first public meeting with SDF officials this month.

 

"At the moment there are no meetings being held for a real discussion of Syria's future. There are initiatives for developing political support for our forces, but we hope this will be bigger," he said.

 

(Reporting by John Davison; Editing by Tom Perry and Andrew Roche)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-08-18

[Srikcir]

10 hours ago, webfact said:

northern Syria could become a new base for U.S. forces in the region

Isn't there a slight issue with Syrian sovereignty that will be defended in part by Russia?

Better that Iraq, Turkey and Syria partner some joint military Arab military base in Syria.

 

[craigt3365]

46 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Isn't there a slight issue with Syrian sovereignty that will be defended in part by Russia?

Better that Iraq, Turkey and Syria partner some joint military Arab military base in Syria.

 

They all hate each other!  LOL

[dunroaming]

Well depending on how long Trump remains as POTUS, Russia will be deciding what happens in Syria.

[ilostmypassword]

This is part wishful thinking on the part of the Kurds and part hoping to pressure the USA into adopting this position. 

[ilostmypassword]

*Deleted post edited out*

 

Whatever the truth about his allegations, basically oil is fungible. The US may be getting lots of its physical oil from Venezuela, but if the middle east spigot was turned off, the price of that oil would skyrocket and the US market for it would be competing with other markets around the world. Most of the world economy would take a huge economic hit

And while I think what he says is an exaggeration, would the West really have committed all those resources to the first gulf war if all the middle east had to offer was sand?

Edited August 18, 2017 by Scott
Deleted post edited out

[craigt3365]

6 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Whatever the truth about his allegations, basically oil is fungible. The US may be getting lots of its physical oil from Venezuela, but if the middle east spigot was turned off, the price of that oil would skyrocket and the US market for it would be competing with other markets around the world. Most of the world economy would take a huge economic hit

And while I think what he says is an exaggeration, would the West really have committed all those resources to the first gulf war if all the middle east had to offer was sand?

100% agreed!  It's about the global economy. Not one nations. We are a global society.

 

Just don't like posts that don't portray the truth. Global economy? Absolutely. Oil just for the US? Absolutely not.

 

I fully supported Iraq  1, fully against Iraq 2.

[onthesoi]

The US barely cares for its own citizens never mind anyone else's,  you must be very naive if you think the US are spunking trillions of dollars on the middle east as part of their caring and sharing program.....& it's not entirely to do with their own unmatched thirst for oil and the global domination they require in order to quench that thirst.

[craigt3365]

8 minutes ago, onthesoi said:

The US barely cares for its own citizens never mind anyone else's,  you must be very naive if you think the US are spunking trillions of dollars on the middle east as part of their caring and sharing program.....& it's not entirely to do with their own unmatched thirst for oil and the global domination they require in order to quench that thirst.

The US isnot the best for taking care of its citizens and for sure not the worst. Far from it.

 

As mentioned earlier, it's a global economy. All major countries are interested in what happens in the ME. Sadly. Though less and less every year.

[anon4546543]

As the post was about US forces in Syria, most arguing about oil assets in Iraq seems a bit off topic.  The post also had a lot to say about the Kurds. As the most stable occupants of land in Syria and  Iraq, I hope their wish for a formal homeland becomes real.  I also hope Turkey can cut them some slack. I would hope that talks between the Kurds in Turkey could could produce a peaceful resolution. 

[tonbridgebrit]

Washington, I really don't think it's a good idea for you to have your own ground forces in Syria. As for having them there for decades, certainly not a good idea.

Backing whatever rebels with arms and cash is one thing, but having US soldiers there is not the same. The last thing we want is American soldiers getting killed out there.

[anon4546543]

1 minute ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Washington, I really don't think it's a good idea for you to have your own ground forces in Syria. As for having them there for decades, certainly not a good idea.

Backing whatever rebels with arms and cash is one thing, but having US soldiers there is not the same. The last thing we want is American soldiers getting killed out there.

Of course it is quite ok in Sth Korea, Okinawa, Guam, Britain, Germany, Poland,, Ukraine ad nauseum 

[tonbridgebrit]

2 minutes ago, spiderorchid said:

Of course it is quite ok in Sth Korea, Okinawa, Guam, Britain, Germany, Poland,, Ukraine ad nauseum 

But it's not a good idea if Washington wants to put soldiers into places like Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. for decades. I really do think Syria is not a good idea.

[anon4546543]

4 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

But it's not a good idea if Washington wants to put soldiers into places like Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. for decades. I really do think Syria is not a good idea.

Do you really think that once they get a toe hold they will leave voluntarily. Only time they  leave is when they get kicked out as in Vietnam. 

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Washington, I really don't think it's a good idea for you to have your own ground forces in Syria. As for having them there for decades, certainly not a good idea.

Backing whatever rebels with arms and cash is one thing, but having US soldiers there is not the same. The last thing we want is American soldiers getting killed out there.

You are aware this isn't a statement from the US government!  LOL

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, spiderorchid said:

Of course it is quite ok in Sth Korea, Okinawa, Guam, Britain, Germany, Poland,, Ukraine ad nauseum 

All there with the permission and support of the local governments. You are aware of this,  right?  LOL

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, spiderorchid said:

Do you really think that once they get a toe hold they will leave voluntarily. Only time they

leave is when they get kicked out as in Vietnam. 

Research the Philippines.

[tonbridgebrit]

31 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

You are aware this isn't a statement from the US government!  LOL

American ground forces have obviously been in Syria for some time now, Obama sent them there. This should never have happened. It's not good for America that the soldiers are there, and certainly not good if they're going to be there for years.

Notice how Washington is supporting the Kurds. Turkey is a NATO ally, and Turkey does not want any Kurdish 'havens' in Syria. Arming and supporting whatever rebels to remove Assad (but do not use US soldiers) and then, wait for Assad to go, and then bomb any rebels who don't like America and Europe, that seems like a more sensible strategy. An even better strategy would be for Washington to not get involved at all, and let Assad remove the rebels. The Trump administration did say, that they're going to stop backing the rebels. 

[FritsSikkink]

5 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

You constantly post anti US comments.

 

Worth reading.

http://www.npr.org/2012/04/11/150444802/where-does-america-get-oil-you-may-be-surprised
 

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/182499/war-oil-myth-arnold-ahlert

Research is a good thing. Nice try though.

They are non stop at war for over 200 years, you learn some history 

[Scott]

Off-topic posts removed.   Please stay on topic.  

[pegman]

8 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

The US isnot the best for taking care of its citizens and for sure not the worst. Far from it.

 

As mentioned earlier, it's a global economy. All major countries are interested in what happens in the ME. Sadly. Though less and less every year.

Outside of maybe Italy the USA is about the worst amoung rich countries for looking after it's people. Blame it on an out of control military and too many pampered vets who are overwhelmingly conservative and could care less about their fellow citizens. That being said Obama was in Syria for humanitarian reasons. Him and Jimmy Carter were a breed apart from the usual POTUS.

 

 

Edited August 18, 2017 by pegman

[craigt3365]

14 hours ago, pegman said:

Outside of maybe Italy the USA is about the worst amoung rich countries for looking after it's people. Blame it on an out of control military and too many pampered vets who are overwhelmingly conservative and could care less about their fellow citizens. That being said Obama was in Syria for humanitarian reasons. Him and Jimmy Carter were a breed apart from the usual POTUS.

 

 

The US does ok taking care of it's old people. Not the best for those who are unemployed. As someone who has worked hard, and started with nothing,  I'm ok with that. We've got a low tax rate.  I love that.

 

As for pampered vets? Some, but not all.

[craigt3365]

17 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

They are non stop at war for over 200 years, you learn some history 

Well aware of that. But what's that got to do with this topic? LOL

[FritsSikkink]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

Well aware of that. But what's that got to do with this topic? LOL

They are at war in Syria against the legal government.

[craigt3365]

10 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

They are at war in Syria against the legal government.

Along with many other countries who are part of the coalition.

[anon4546543]

21 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

All there with the permission and support of the local governments. You are aware of this,  right?  LOL

And who in Syrian govt gave permission for the basing of troops, building airfields in Syria. lol

[craigt3365]

30 minutes ago, spiderorchid said:

And who in Syrian govt gave permission for the basing of troops, building airfields in Syria. lol

The relatives of the hundredths of thousands of people who have been killed by Assad and his partners in crime.  LOL

[Thorgal]

US troops are only there to keep shaping the new Kurdistan. New Kurdistan will even have territories who were never historically populated by Kurds or controlled by any Kurdish sovereign entity.

 

Kurdish troops sponsored by the Pentagon are actually fighting on multiple fronts the so called 'moderated' rebels sponsored by the CIA.

 

Both need US ground troops support in Syria.

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, Thorgal said:

US troops are only there to keep shaping the new Kurdistan. New Kurdistan will even have territories who were never historically populated by Kurds or controlled by any Kurdish sovereign entity.

 

Kurdish troops sponsored by the Pentagon are actually fighting on multiple fronts the so called 'moderated' rebels sponsored by the CIA.

 

Both need US ground troops support in Syria.

To be a viable nation, the new Kurdistan needs an outlet to the sea. Which of the nations surrounding it, is going to surrender territory to make that happen?

[anon4546543]

Just now, Thorgal said:

US troops are only there to keep shaping the new Kurdistan. New Kurdistan will even have territories who were never historically populated by Kurds or controlled by any Kurdish sovereign entity.

 

Kurdish troops sponsored by the Pentagon are actually fighting on multiple fronts the so called 'moderated' rebels sponsored by the CIA.

 

Both need US ground troops support in Syria.

I wish what you state is true. I doubt that a Kurdish state will become reality. The Russians, Turks and Iraq will oppose it.

Kurds are convenient to the US right now. US has a habit of dumping those useful to them when they depart a war wrecked country.