We Are Change: Trump Pulls Out! His Secret Deal Explained
Dec 19, 2018
In this video, we give you the latest breaking news on President Donald Trump and his recent announcement of a rapid pull out. What is behind this deal? Everything is explained here! https://teespring.com/stores/wearechange Visit our MAIN SITE for more breaking news http://wearechange.org/ PATREON https://www.patreon.com/WeAreChange?a… FACEBOOK: https://facebook.com/LukeWeAreChange TWITTER: https://twitter.com/Lukewearechange INSTAGRAM: http://instagram.com/lukewearechange STEEMIT: https://steemit.com/@lukewearechange OH YEAH since we are not corporate or government owned help us out http://wearechange.org/donate
US Begins to Withdraw Troops From Syria
The Department of Defense is designing a timeline for the withdrawal, according to a senior administration official. The withdrawal is consistent with President Donald Trump’s campaign promise and public statements since his inauguration, the official said.
“We have defeated ISIS in Syria, my only reason for being there during the Trump Presidency,” Trump wrote on Twitter on Dec. 19.
While the United States began operations in Syria in late 2014 with the goal of eradicating ISIS, gains against the terrorist group accelerated dramatically under President Donald Trump. According to the State Department, the president adopted several policies that have empowered the military, including the delegation of decision-making from the White House to commanders in the field.
“These victories over ISIS in Syria do not signal the end of the Global Coalition or its campaign,” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement. “We have started returning United States troops home as we transition to the next phase of this campaign.”
Sanders didn’t specify a timetable for withdrawing the estimated 2,000 U.S. troops in the region or how many troops have already returned home. She added that Washington will continue to work with the global alliance against ISIS.
“The United States and our allies stand ready to re-engage at all levels to defend American interests whenever necessary, and we will continue to work together to deny radical Islamist terrorists territory, funding, support, and any means of infiltrating our borders,” Sanders said.
The State Department is evacuating all of its personnel from Syria within 24 hours, a U.S. official told Reuters.
Trump has previously spoken of his desire to bring the troops home from Syria. His Dec. 19 message showed that he saw no further reason to keep troops in the region.
One official told Reuters that partners and allies had been consulted. Two U.S. officials said a decision to withdraw had already been reached but that could not be immediately confirmed.
The Pentagon declined to comment, saying only that it continued to work with partners in the region.
Many of the remaining U.S. troops in Syria are special operations forces, working closely with an alliance of Kurdish and Arab militias known as the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).
The partnership with the SDF over the past several years has led to the defeat of ISIS in Syria, but has also outraged NATO ally Turkey, which views Kurdish militia forces in the alliance as an extension of a militant group fighting inside Turkey.
The deliberations on U.S. troops come as Ankara threatens a new offensive in Syria. To date, U.S. forces in Syria have been seen as a stabilizing factor in the country and have somewhat restrained Turkey’s actions against the SDF.
A complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria would still leave a sizable U.S. military presence in the region, including around 5,200 troops across the border in Iraq. Much of the U.S. campaign in Syria has been waged by warplanes flying out of Qatar and other locations in the Middle East.
The United States is currently working on stabilizing and providing early recovery efforts in areas liberated from ISIS control, including the removal of explosive war remnants and the restoration of essential services.
In addition to leading the global coalition to defeat ISIS in Syria, the United States is the single largest donor for efforts in response to the conflict in Syria. Washington has provided nearly $8.1 billion in assistance for people displaced since the crisis started, including 12.1 million people suffering in Syria and 5.6 million Syrian refugees in the region.
The crisis in Syria began in 2011 along with similar unrest in the Middle East during the Arab Spring protests. Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad violently suppressed protests against his regime, triggering an armed conflict that has ravaged Syria since and allowed ISIS to gain territory.
Reuters contributed to this report.
Marco Rubio Panics Over Trump’s Syria Withdrawal: ‘Turns Syria Over to Israel’s Greatest Enemies’
Dec. 19, 2018
Senator Marco Rubio is outraged that President Trump has decided to put America First and pull US troops out of the endless quagmire in Syria.
“Hasty withdrawal from #Syria will cause Kurds & SDF to end fight against ISIS & turns Syria over to Israel’s greatest enemies,” Rubio said. “This is a terrible mistake. It will have grave consequences for the U.S. & Israel & great benefit for ISIS, Iran & Hezbollah.”
This is a terrible mistake.
It will have grave consequences for the U.S. & Israel & great benefit for ISIS, Iran & Hezbollahhttps://www.facebook.com/SenatorMarcoRubio/videos/vb.178910518800987/740706119618182/?type=2&theater …
The decision to pull out of Syria was made despite overwhelming military advice against it.
It is a major blunder. It it isn’t reversed it will haunt this administration & America for years to come.
‘ISIS is Not Defeated’: Lindsey Graham Rips Syria Pullout as ‘Huge Obama-Like Mistake’
Withdrawal of this small American force in Syria would be a huge Obama-like mistake.
Breaking: Trump administration plans to pull U.S. troops from Syria immediately, defense official says https://wapo.st/2Lrlrrg
Joaquin Flores: Is The U.S Really ‘Withdrawing’ From Syria? Here’s Why Not
The White House predictably announced a new phase of the military campaign in Syria and the withdrawal of troops from the country. This was unceremoniously announced by the press secretary of the White House, Sarah Sanders on Wednesday, December 19th.
Sanders noted that five years ago, ISIS was a very powerful and dangerous force in the Middle East, but the United States managed to destroy their territorial caliphate. The representative of the White House added that the victory of the international coalition of countries led by the United States over ISIS in Syria does not mean the end of the coalition or its campaign.
“The United States and our allies stand together to re-engage in the defense of American interests at all levels if necessary, and we will continue to work together to prevent the spread of radical Islamism, its sponsorship, support in any form or its penetration beyond our borders”, read the statement of the press secretary, Sanders.
The US government plans to fully evacuate all State Department employees within 24 hours, as Reuters reported.
But why this statement now, and how accurate is it?
It would appear on face value that forecasts pointing towards the futility of the American campaign against Syria, regardless of the pretext, had failed and as such, the announcement of ‘a new phase of the conflict’, or even a ‘Mission Accomplished’, involving the total withdrawal of U.S forces, was eventual.
If we take at face value, the U.S’ ostensible reasons for being in Syria – to fight ISIS, but in such a way that doesn’t buttress Assad or leave him irremovable – the defeat of ISIS would seem to compel a new rationale for the U.S presence. The reality of Syria’s new position, where in some 93% of the lands formerly occupied by ISIS are now controlled by the representative government elected in Damascus, would seem to mean that an announcement of a U.S withdrawal would be short-coming. Even if numerous countries close to the coalition, including statements from the U.S president, said that Assad did not necessarily have to leave power in Damascus in order to arrive at a political solution to the conflict.
In terms of the news cycle, Putin just spoke words on the present 93% position of Syria, which translates into a ‘good job’ by the Russian military. Trump rushing in during the same cycle, to claim victory as well, makes sense on numerous levels. But then using this to announce a total withdrawal?
Still it should be understood that the U.S has approached a phase in its corrosion or in its ‘winning strategy’, that it is ‘non-agreement capable’, in the words of Lavrov. This is not merely a function of unilateral position changes, made at whim. At issue is the lack of a single faction in control of American activities abroad. The U.S empire is such that the country runs multiple and contradictory foreign policies simultaneously, and it remains mysterious to many what the real motives and interests of the decision makers indeed are, and in what ways they are at odds with one another.
In short, the U.S will no doubt continue its military operations in Syria. The Pentagon and the CIA each run different sorts of operations, in the interests nominally of national security, but by all accounts in the interests of the power-junta acting locally within this or that vector of American power, be it the military or intelligence services.
That means that Trump’s announcement could amount to very little – can represent his intentions, which may not be realized in reality – and it can represent simply a bargaining chip that can be re-introduced later, a sort of form of regressive or ‘hard’ bargaining tactic – which Trump is using in his domestic conflict against the deep state and other vested power interests.
When we read of ISIS units fighting SDF/YPG Kurds, we know we are reading a mixed account, filtrated through the medium of text. Our understanding of the report has to be measured at the same time with our understanding that elements of the anti-Syria coalition are in fact fighting each other.
But some battles between these two Western sponsored factions had low casualty rates, even an absence of real fighting, but nevertheless we saw real the transfer of territory. And wherever the SDF went, the U.S could ‘justify’ its presence, within the unjustifiable context of its own self-justified rationale of what constitutes a legitimate ‘intervention’. So within western media we read of the U.S occupation of Syria, nominally areas that are ‘Kurdish’ and where not, then areas that the suddenly no longer Kurdish-oriented SDF are in control of, and these are Syrians, Arabs, not Kurds.
That all means that White House statements issuing a withdrawal are difficult to read. Do they signify the obvious? Yes, in some way, but not entirely. Nothing is at it appears, there’s always a number of important strategic points – operational plans – that have to be smuggled into the workings of any otherwise obvious concession. Even when retreating, the fighting continues.
Conclusively, there are various U.S power vectors involved in Syria, all able to fund, even muster their own, fighting force – whether as uniformed personnel, or as mercenaries, and if as mercenaries, whether NATO/American or Arab/Muslim fighters. That means that official statements mean something, but they do not mean that the U.S is not engaged in some phase or other of this war. That is explicitly the case, even.
The U.S has something of a networked ‘self-awareness’ built into it, so its apparently chaotic foreign policy in many ways works to its advantage. Being unable to make agreements is only the flip-side of being unpredictable.
While this means that the U.S is ‘losing’ the conventional conflict, in the more linear and binary sense of the term, this isn’t a win-lose game but one of relative positions. And at any time there is always a relative position to defend, and the imperative is to defend that position – whether on the ascent or descent – at all times. And add to that, within the U.S there are several player-groups moving things in various directions.
The U.S will be meddling in the Syrian war which it in fact started, as long its able, in whatever way. And this means that so long as there is a conflict, the U.S will be active in it there. At the end of the day, this has very little to do with Trump’s druthers either way.