AhlulBayt News Agency (ABNA): As we are nearing the end of the year, the US troop “withdrawal” from Iraq will make headlines again. December 31 was set as the date for the US withdrawal from Iraq. However, no troops will be actually withdrawn. The occupation forces will only be rebranded. The very same combat troops will be given an “advisory” role and not a single soldier will be withdrawn. This has already been confirmed by Pentagon officials to The New York Times saying that the withdrawal would mostly take place on paper. Looking back at how US troops returned to Iraq in 2014 after being expelled in 2011 by the Iraqi resistance will reveal that there never has been an intention to withdraw troops from Iraq.

In 2011 the Iraqi resistance forced the US occupation to leave Iraq. The US was militarily defeated in a protracted war. Another factor that legitimized the resistance and weakened the US’ position further was the fact that the US government failed to reach an agreement with the Iraqi Maliki government to keep US soldiers in Iraq.

This development was quickly reversed in 2014 when multiple provinces in Iraq fell to the internationally supported and transnational organization the “Islamic State in Syria and Iraq” (ISIS). While Baghdad was threatened to be overrun by ISIS, the US declined to provide Iraq with weapons – already paid for by the Iraqi government – to defend itself. The chaos in Iraq was used to pressure the Iraqi government to “invite” US troops to provide air cover while ground troops would enter the country as trainers and advisers. The presence of US troops had no legal foundation in the absence of a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). After multiple war crimes and violations of Iraqi sovereignty, the targeting of Iraqi security forces, culminating in the extrajudicial killings of Abu Mahdi Al Muhandis and Qasem Soleimani, Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdel Mahdi rescinded the invitation and formally requested all foreign troops to withdraw from Iraqi soil. To further strengthen this position, the majority of the Iraqi parliament voted in favor of a corresponding motion requesting foreign troops to leave Iraq.

Authorizing the US presence in Iraq is informal. In fact, the invitation could be retracted by the Iraqi government at any moment.

The US refused to withdraw its troops and went as far as threatening Iraq with sanctions. While still in office, former US President Donald Trump stated that they would “charge them sanctions like they’ve never seen before, ever. It’ll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame”. This is to be read in the context of the historical precedent of the ’90s when the US imposed extreme sanctions that killed more than a million Iraqis. Moreover, this would also mean Iraq would lose access to the Iraq Oil Proceeds Account at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York which holds all proceedings from Iraqi oil sales. These threats do not fall short of threatening Iraq with starvation.

Marketing

The refusal to end the occupation of Iraq is a bipartisan stance that was once again demonstrated by the latest comments made by US General Frank Mackenzie. In an interview with Associated Press on December 10, Mackenzie stated that the United States will keep the current 2,500 troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future. This would mean that the troop withdrawal at the end of this year would be “completed” without withdrawing a single soldier. As mentioned before, the occupation will only rebrand its forces after December 31. Later in the aforementioned interview, General McKenzie said he believed Islamic State militants would continue to be a threat in Iraq and that the group would “keep recreating itself, perhaps under a different name”. His statement served to prophecize or rather announce (given the ambivalent relationship between the US and Gulf-funded Wahhabi terror groups) that the same[1] re-branding strategy would be passed on to the Islamic state.

The re-branding of a military force is an old propaganda trick that is often employed by the US and its proxies in conflicts throughout the region. Entering Vietnam as “advisors” only to unleash a full-scale war is perhaps the most well-known historic example. More recently, in 2017, U.S. Army General Raymond Thomas commented the following on the YPG changing their name to the Syrian democratic forces:

“We literally played back to them: ‘You have got to change your brand. What do you want to call yourselves besides the YPG?’ With about a day’s notice, they declared that they are the Syrian Democratic Forces.”

He proceeded to say: “I thought it was a stroke of brilliance to put democracy in there somewhere. But it gave them a little bit of credibility.”[1]

This strategy was extended to other terror groups such as the Islamic State offshoot Jabhat al-Nusrah that was rebranded multiple times according to the requirements of shifting strategic objectives. Rebranding Jabhat al-Nusra was needed to pave the way for NATO member Turkey to continue supporting this group in its battle against the Syrian government. Since Jabhat al-Nusrah was officially considered a terror group, a new brand was needed. More recently, the leader of the terror group, Abu Mohammed Al-Jolani, was interviewed by PBS wearing a slick suit in an attempt to change his public image. Around the same time, former US special envoy to Syria James Jeffry said that Jolani’s organization was “an asset” to the US strategy in Idlib[2].

CENTCOM

The comments made by General McKenzie should be analyzed and given their proper weight. Being in charge of the US Central Command (CENTCOM) makes him the top US Commander for West Asia. Even if the US would significantly or completely draw down its forces in Iraq, this would not necessarily mean a reduction in the capacity of the occupation in Iraq. This has to do with the fact that the US troops in Iraq are part of and administered by the US Central Command. Based in Tampa Florida, CENTCOM has a forward headquarters in Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar and commands the US military in the whole region. When created in 1983, it took over the responsibilities of the Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force (RDJTF). The creation of this force was in the context of cold war-related “threats” to vital interests. US vital interests were described as a process that “helps maintain regional stability and the Gulf oil-flow westward[3]”. This meant controlling the oil, markets and protecting pro-US regimes. The RDJTF was created as a highly mobile force.

“It was not designed to have specific forces but to draw in times of crisis from a central pool of resources depending on the nature of the threat, geographical location and time available for deployment[4]”.

This means that even after a troop reduction in Iraq, the troops within the borders of Iraq would serve as a forward base for CENTCOM to rapidly deploy its forces too. Whenever the US sees its interests in Iraq threatened, it could deploy its forces from the bases in the surrounding countries to Iraq and vice versa. The US government claims there are around 2500 US troops present in Iraq, the troop deployment could however easily be expanded by bringing in troops from any neighboring country that hosts US Bases such as Qatar that hosts over 11,000 troops, or Kuwait that hosts 13,000.

The former is demonstrated in the “Defense budget overview” of 2020, published as part of the President’s Annual Defense Budget by the United States Department of Defense. In the report, it is estimated that in 2019, around 5,765 US troops would be deployed in Syria/Iraq. It is interesting to note that the report does not differentiate between Syria and Iraq. Both are considered as one single deployment. Even more striking is that the report estimates the “in-theater” support (troops) at 59,463.

Later in the report, the term “in-theater” support is explained: “Funds requested in this category provide reinforcement in case of critical combat and other support for personnel in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria that come from units and forces operating outside the battlefield. This category also includes funding to support other operations conducted outside Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria[5]”.

This means that almost 60,000 troops were part of the operation in Afghanistan (as of now, the 15,000 troops that were in Afghanistan are stationed elsewhere), Iraq, and Syria.

Since Iraq is an area of responsibility of CENTCOM, neither the number of troops nor the brand of these troops would reflect the actual size and capability of the occupation in Iraq. CENTCOM ignores the borders of nations and moves troops and hardware in and out of countries without consulting the respective governments. Therefore, the Axis of Resistance was right when it set a goal that consists of expelling the US from West Asia.

Conclusion
Today, the US strategic objectives still focus on controlling the oil, markets and trade routes in West Asia. But now the stakes are different: the emergence of China and Russia in the region as economic and military partners of local countries has changed the nature of the conflict. The 2018 US National Defense Strategy (NDS) states the great-power competition with China and Russia as its main military objective. Accordingly, the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is considered a strategic threat. This explains why the US is focused on controlling the border areas between Iraq and Syria, as this zone is an important part of the BRI, and it would be indispensable in a West Asia free of US dominance.

Whether the US will stay or be expelled from Iraq will not be the outcome of diplomatic talks held between the Iraqi government and the US. The US will be expelled from Iraq by the Iraqi Resistance and its regional partners in the Axis of Resistance. During the first phase of the occupation from 2003 to 2011, a young inexperienced Iraqi Resistance managed to inflict heavy losses on the US occupation, forcing a withdrawal from the country. If the US refuses to leave Iraq today, it must face a more experienced and better-equipped resistance.

References
[1]https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-usa-ypg-idUSKBN1A62SS

The opinions mentioned in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ABNA24 but rather express the opinion of its writer exclusively.

Source: https://en.abna24.com/news//will-us-troops-leave-iraq_1212794.html

The post Will US troops leave Iraq? first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The conflict in Syria has seen the convergence of multiple, sometimes opposing forces in the skies over a near-decade-long civil war that today threatens to draw the United States’ foreign policy resources back into the quagmire, one in which its closest ally, Israel, and a leading rival, Russia, are among those operating in dangerous proximity.

The sudden roar of jets and missile blasts have become an all too common feature of Syria’s ongoing war, and last week’s attacks across the country’s southwest served as an explosive reminder of the war’s lingering violence. The airstrikes, which were unclaimed but widely blamed on Israel, targeted positions near the Golan Heights and Damascus International Airport, where Israel has accused Iran-linked elements of storing and transporting weapons.

While the attacks were intended to cause harm on the ground, one senior U.S. intelligence official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, raised concerns about the sheer volume of air traffic caused by Israel’s semi-secret bombing campaign while the Russian and Syrian air forces carry out their own missions.

The official told Newsweek that, at the time, “the U.S. observed a significant increase in military air activity over Syria, including forces from Israel and Russia in addition to Syrian aircraft.”

The increased traffic made a mishap more likely, the official said.

“The airspace was saturated above daily norms,” the official said, “presenting an elevated opportunity of miscalculation or perhaps the misidentification of targets by all entities.”

The U.S. operates in Syria today as part of a multinational coalition tasked with the defeat of the Islamic State militant group (ISIS) in the country’s northeast. Russia and Syria also target ISIS in other parts of the country, along with other insurgent forces, some backed by Turkey. Iran supports this latter campaign on the ground, but its partnered militias are viewed as a threat and targeted by Israel.

The complex lines of control are blurred and have led to reports of up to 170 reported aviation and unmanned aerial vehicle incidents involving at least seven nations as well as non-state actors. On the ground in Syria, some worry a misunderstanding could always be mere moments away.

“About the crowded airspace over Syria, it’s always been a concern, notably after the U.S. stepped in Syria,” a Syrian source who asked to remain anonymous told Newsweek.

With so many countries operating in Syrian airspace, the chances of something going wrong are high, this source said.

And then add missiles to the mix.

“Now where Russia and the U.S. and Turkey and France, not to mention Israel, are all operating over/near Syria accidents are always possible,” the source added, “especially when the case involves air defense missiles. Once the missile is launched, there’s no turning back.”

A Russian Sukhoi Su-27 plane flies over Binnish during pro-government forces airstrikes on rebel-held areas surrounding the government-controlled town of Saraqeb, in the northwestern Idlib province on March 4, 2020. Russian and Syrian warplanes occasionally share the skies with Israeli forces targeting suspected Iran-linked positions and Syrian air defense sites. MUHAMMAD HAJ KADOUR/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

There have already been a number of lethal, high-profile miscalculations, such as Syria’s accidental downing of a Russian spy plane during an Israeli raid in 2018. Others, such as the U.S. shoot-down of a Syrian jet allegedly flying over territory held by the Pentagon-backed Syrian Democratic Forces the year prior, were deliberate escalations.

The Israeli and Syrian armed forces have also shot down one another’s warplanes. As yet, there have been no clashes between Israeli and Russian aircraft. But with an increased number of forays into Syria by Israel, such an incident cannot be ruled out.

To prevent this, the two countries have a coordination mechanism on Syria, the details of which are difficult to discern, especially given Moscow’s close ties to Damascus and strategic partnership with Tehran. At the same time, Russia has expressed its criticism of Israeli operations in the country.

“It is hard to deny that such actions further destabilize the complicated regional situation,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova told reporters amid an intensification of Israeli strikes in December.

Israel rarely discusses the specifics of its Syria operations, but an Israeli military official told Newsweek that the country’s communications with Russia have mitigated the risk to both sides.

“We do indeed have a deconfliction mechanism with the Russian military which facilitates our freedom of action while minimizing the risk of friction with Russian troops, and promotes mutual safety,” the Israeli military official said. “So far, it has been very effective and withstood challenging circumstances in a very dense battlespace.”

Newsweek also spoke last month with an Israeli security official who discussed the challenges of target selection in Syria given the ambiguity surrounding the conflict there, where local troops, Iranian personnel, fighters of the Iran-backed Lebanese Shiite Muslim Hezbollah movement, and sometimes Russian forces are operating.

“[The Syrian army] gives [Hezbollah] a lot of space to do what they want, and it makes life a bit uncomfortable,” the Israeli security official said at the time. “It’s a big problem for us to actually decide who to strike and what to do.”

Syria’s permanent mission to the United Nations has condemned what it called “acts of aggression perpetrated by Israel” in past statements sent to Newsweek.

On the ground, a second Syrian source who requested anonymity described the layout of this stretch of Syria’s air activity, where not only military-to-military incidents but those involving military and civilian airlines are “a very common thing.”

The Syrian government’s aerial operations over its own country are limited. Restricted areas include the autonomous northeast, a U.S.-controlled southeast desert pocket, and a northern border stretch occupied by rebels, jihadis and Turkish troops, the second source said.

Syrian jets also operate along the southern and western borders, as well as off the Mediterranean coast, but this source noted any activity too close to Lebanese or Israeli borders would be met with an Israeli military response.

The second source said the Russians don’t share these limitations—or any, for that matter.

“There are some restrictions beyond our waters, there are some restrictions over Lebanon, over the south,” the second source explained. “While for Russia there are no restrictions at all. They are more free than us.”

This freedom extends to and beyond Syria’s exclusive economic zone as well, where “U.S. spy planes are also flying,” this source said.

An Israeli airstrike strikes “military targets belonging to the Iranian Quds Force & Syrian Armed Forces in Syria” on November 18, 2020, according to the IDF. Israel has accused Syria of allowing Iran and its regional partners to transport advanced weapons and set up forward operating bases in the country. ISRAEL DEFENSE FORCES

The U.S. and Russia have their own deconfliction channels, both for air and ground operations in Syria’s northeast, where tensions between the two countries and their respective allies have mounted in recent months. The two countries have largely pursued their campaigns separately, but have had occasional dust-ups, some of which have been violent.

For other parties, however, there is little to no communication at all, greatly increasing the risk to both armed forces and civilians.

“Unlike the case between Russia and the U.S. where a direct line of communication between the two is existing and minor incidents can be easily stopped before escalation,” the first Syrian source told Newsweek, “the aerial clashes between the two adversaries, i.e. Syria and Israel, have always placed the regional civilian flights in danger.”

“Israeli jets flying in a civilian corridor or near a civilian plane and Syrian missiles seeking after a big radar pulse after missing their locked targets or crashing into a house, you name it,” the first source said. “Errors are possible and will always be costly.”

While Moscow’s mission in Syria to save President Bashar al-Assad‘s government from a nationwide insurrection has been clear from the start, Washington’s goals have shifted over the course of administrations. Former President Barack Obama initially sought to topple Assad by supporting insurgents but switched to an anti-ISIS mission later carried out by former President Donald Trump, who expressed a desire to withdraw but kept up to 900 troops behind to guard oil and gas sites.

President Joe Biden, who served as Obama’s vice president, has offered no indication of ending U.S. presence in Syria, despite Damascus’ calls for withdrawal. The new U.S. leadership has also not signaled a willingness to become further involved in the conflict.

In a statement sent to Newsweek, a State Department spokesperson detailed three aims of President Joe Biden’s administration in Syria.

First, “The United States is committed to a political settlement in line with UNSCR 2254 to end the conflict in Syria, in close consultation with our allies, partners, and the U.N.,” the spokesperson said.

Second, “We will use the tools at our disposal, including economic pressure, to push for meaningful reform and accountability for the Assad regime,” according to the statement.

Third, “The United States and the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS continue to work with our increasingly capable local partners to maintain constant pressure on ISIS remnants in Syria to ensure ISIS’s lasting defeat,” as relayed to Newsweek by the State Department spokesperson.

But U.S. officials have routinely declined to discuss the role in Syria played by Israel, a country the Biden administration has reaffirmed a longstanding pact to defend. Israel went entirely unmentioned in the Pentagon‘s latest quarterly report to Congress detailing U.S. military missions in Iraq and Syria, despite including references to the other major actors, including Iran, Russia, and Turkey.

Reached for comment by Newsweek, the U.S. Central Command declined to discuss the specifics of air operations over the stretch of the country frequented by Russian and Israeli jets.

“I am going to decline to comment on the air space over Western Syria,” a Pentagon spokesperson said.

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views and editorial stance of the SOHR.

Source: An Unintended Syria Air Clash Could Pull Biden Into Conflict Involving Russia, Israel

Source: https://www.syriahr.com/en/204739/

The post An Unintended Syria Air Clash Could Pull Biden Into Conflict Involving Russia, Israel first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The U.S. Army is sending Bradley Fighting Vehicles to Syria to bolster force protection in the region as ISIS “still poses a threat,” according to a coalition spokesman.

“The @coalition continues to support our partners bringing the fight to Daesh,” Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR) spokesman Col Wayne Marotto wrote on Twitter. “Positioning M2A2 Bradley’s in North East Syria provides force protection support to the continuing mission to #DefeatDaesh.”

The post US Army boosting presence in Syria, says ISIS ‘still poses a threat’ first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The U.S. has struck Syrian government targets in defiance of Russian warnings and killed Russian volunteer fighters, but the seven-year conflict has yet to see any direct confrontations between the U.S. and Russia. In an exclusive interview aired Thursday by Russia’s state-owned RT news channel, Assad credited Russia with defusing what could have been a clash between the world’s leading military powers as the Islamic State militant group (ISIS) was defeated and both local and international rivalries deepened.

“In reality, we were close to have direct conflict between the Russian forces and the American forces, and fortunately, it has been avoided, not by the wisdom of the American leadership but by the wisdom of the Russian leadership, because it is not in the interest of anyone, anyone in this world, and first of all the Syrians, to have this conflict,” Assad told RT.

“We need the Russian support, but we need at the same time to avoid the American foolishness in order to be able to stabilize our country,” he added.

U.S. Army soldiers conduct training drills and fire missions with M142 High-Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) at an undisclosed location in Syria between the months of August and September 2017. Two separate offensives waged by a U.S.-led coalition and the Russia-backed Syrian military mostly defeated ISIS across eastern Syria last year.MARINE CORPS SARGEANT MATTHEW CALLAHAN/DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

The U.S. was an early supporter of efforts to overthrow Assad as he faced a 2011 uprising also backed by Sunni Muslim monarchies and Turkey. As the Syrian opposition became increasingly jihadi in nature and ISIS emerged from a post-U.S. invasion insurgency in Iraq, the U.S. formed a coalition to battle the militants as they spread across the two Arab countries in 2014. Iran, an ally of both the Iraqi and Syrian governments, helped fight the jihadis by mobilizing Shiite Muslim militias and, in 2015, Russia entered the fight in support of Assad.

Russian and Iranian support has helped the Syrian leader reclaim most major cities and provinces seized by rebels and jihadis, save for the territories now in the hands of the U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces, a mostly Kurdish alliance that includes Arabs and ethnic minorities as well. Both factions have succeeded in nearly wiping out ISIS altogether, and Kurdish fighters have worked both alongside and against pro-Syrian government forces at times, but Assad warned Thursday he would not hesitate to use force to retake what they control if they refused to negotiate.

Related: Syria’s Assad tells Trump, “What you say is what you are” after being called “animal” by U.S. president

In response to Assad’s remarks, chief Pentagon spokeswoman Dana W. White told a press briefing Thursday that the U.S. mission “remains to defeat ISIS in Syria, our desire is not to get involved in the Syrian civil war.” Assad rejected the term “civil war” in the RT interview, describing the conflict “as mercenaries, Syrians, and foreigners being paid by the West in order to topple the government”

Marine Corps Lieutenant General Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr. also weighed in on the potential of a conflict between U.S.-led coalition and the Syrian military during Thursday’s briefing, saying “any interested party in Syria should understand that attacking U.S. forces or our coalition partners would be a bad policy.”

The first confirmed incident between Syrian and U.S. forces took place in Deir Ezzor in September 2016, when U.S. airstrikes killed dozens of Syrian soldiers besieged by ISIS in what the Pentagon said was an accident. As President Donald Trump came to office, he called for the U.S. to focus on battling ISIS and quit funding anti-Assad rebels. This changed in April 2017, however, when he ordered a series of cruise missile strikes on a Syrian military airport in response to allegations of a chemical attack in Idlib.

Russian soldiers are seen as they guard a checkpoint near Al-Wafideen camp in Damascus, Syria, on March 2. Russia warned that any U.S. attack that threatened the lives of its troops fighting alongside the Syrian military would face retaliation.OMAR SANADIKI/REUTERS

That summer saw a number of clashes between pro-Syrian government fighters, consisting of various militias, and the Syrian Democratic Forces. The U.S. unilaterally declared the southern border crossing of Al-Tanf to be a deconfliction zone and launched several aerial assaults on forces fighting on behalf of Assad, including the downing of a Syrian Su-22 that the Syrian Democratic Forces accused of bombing their positions. Following this June 19 incident, Russia warned it would treat U.S. aircraft flying in its designated area of operations as “targets.”

The most serious battle took place in February. Hundreds of pro-Syrian government fighters, including Russian citizens, were reportedly killed after the U.S.-led coalition claimed they launched a massive assault on Syrian Democratic Forces positions in Deir Ezzor. Russia said its nationals were not fighting on behalf of the armed forces, but Syria called for the United Nations to condemn the U.S.

Related: U.S. military will leave Syria base in deal with Russia, reports say

The U.S. struck a second time days later when it hit a Russian-built T-72 tank that reportedly approached Syrian Democratic Forces positions. Defense Secretary James Mattis said in March that a third incident was avoided through the use of a deconfliction line maintained between the U.S. and Russian militaries.

Two months later and shortly after he suggested he would soon withdraw U.S. troops from Syria, Trump again ordered military action against the Syrian government in response to an alleged toxic gas attack last month. Russia denied Assad’s culpability and some officials had even threatened to shoot down U.S. missiles along with the ships and aircraft firing them if Russians lives were put at risk.

The April 13 attack saw the U.S., France and the U.K. blast three Syrian state-run research centers suspected of developing chemical weapons. During his RT interview, Assad said that he had information suggesting Trump had planned “a comprehensive attack all over Syria,” but that Russia’s threat “pushed the West to make it on a much smaller scale.”

People pass near a portrait of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad hanging in Damascus, Syria, on May 31. Assad warned U.S.-backed Kurdish forces, who have worked both alongside and against him at times, that he would not hesitate to use force to retake the third of the country they control.LOUAI BESHARA/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

Despite the occasional hostilities, the U.S. and Russia have maintained regular contact in Syria, and U.S.-led coalition spokesman Colonel Ryan Dillon said last month that the coalition even provides Russia with information on potential ISIS positions on the western side of the Euphrates River that divides the two campaigns. The U.S. has called for Assad’s other ally, Iran, to withdraw.

The U.S., Israel and Saudi Arabia are opposed to Iran’s growing influence in Iraq and Syria, where Iran-backed militias have grown increasingly powerful after working alongside government troops. Israel has launched airstrikes against Iranian and pro-Iran positions in Syria and has threatened to escalate its offensive. Iran has refused even Russian calls to withdraw, and Syria has said it continues to welcome both Russian and Iranian support in the conflict, while calling for the U.S. and Turkey to withdrawimmediately.

As the resurgent Syrian military prepares for a new offensive in the south, near the Israeli and Jordanian borders, international powers have scrambled to prevent an all-out war. The U.S., Russia and Jordan are reportedly attempting to broker a deal between Iran, Israel and Syria that would see all Syrian and non-Syrian militias withdraw from the southern border region and allow for the Syrian military to regain control. Such a deal may also reportedly include the dismantling of the U.S. base at Al-Tanf, where Syria, Russia and Iran accuse the U.S. of supporting jihadi groups.

This story has been updated with remarks made by Pentagon spokeswoman Dana W. White and Joint Staff Director  Marine Corps Lieutenant General Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr. during a press briefing.

Source: http://www.newsweek.com/us-russia-military-came-close-fighting-each-other-syria-assad-says-951675

The post U. S. and Russia military came ‘close’ to fighting each other in Syria, Assad says first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The post Trump Freezes Funds for Syrian Recovery, Signaling Pullback first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Image copyright REUTERS

US-backed forces in Syria say they now control so-called Islamic State’s one-time capital of Raqqa, with only a few dozen militants remaining in the city.

The Syrian Democratic Forces say they have retaken al-Naim square, where IS once held public executions.

The official declaration that the city has been recaptured is expected soon, a BBC correspondent reports.

Earlier, a convoy of local IS fighters and their families left Raqqa as part of a preplanned departure.

No foreign fighters were allowed to join them, the SDF says.

More than 3,000 civilians have escaped the city in recent days, local forces say.

Image copyrightREUTERS

Raqqa was one of the first large cities IS took over in 2014, and had held control there for three years.

But the SDF, an alliance of Kurdish and Arab militias, has been besieging the city for nearly four months.

• The desperate fight for IS ‘capital’ Raqqa
• Inside ‘Islamic State’: A Raqqa diary
• IS wives: Why I joined the ‘caliphate’ in Raqqa

On Monday, the SDF told the BBC that about 50 IS fighters remained around the city’s hospital and stadium.

The BBC gained access to Raqqa earlier on Monday, and for the first time in months there were no air strikes, shelling or gunfire, the BBC’s Quentin Sommerville reports.

Image Copyright @sommervilletv@SOMMERVILLETV

An SDF vehicle has been patrolling the ruined streets with a loudspeaker urging people to come out into the open and “eat hot soup”, our correspondent says.

The SDF’s earlier decision to allow some of the militants to go out of the city, leaving only a hardcore group of fighters behind, was designed to shorten the battle.

The loss of Raqqa will be seen as another blow for IS, which has been steadily losing ground in both Syria and Iraq over the last two years.

IS, which attracted fighters from across the globe with its extreme interpretation of Islamic law, used beheadings, crucifixions and torture to terrorise residents who opposed its rule.

Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-41646802

The post Syria war: US-backed forces ‘control’ Raqqa first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.