Washington once again announced its intention to withdraw its troops from Syria. True, then he made a reservation and specified: we are talking about the transfer of the American military from one part of the country to another. And this, I must say, is so branded in Washington: "We, like, are not here, but in fact we are." Trump about a year ago (maybe even a little more) announced the complete withdrawal of US forces from the Syrian conflict zone. I then wrote that all these statements are nothing more than dust in the eyes. Obviously, since Washington is withdrawing troops from Syria again, my comments of that time were correct.
Now we are talking about the allegedly fifty US military located in the eastern province of the country. The figure, in my opinion, is definitely underestimated - artificially and implausible. Considering that not one or two American bases are still deployed in Syria (only in the north-east of Syria there were at least three not so long ago), it is very difficult to believe that there are only fifteen American bases on each of them soldier. So even at the stage of voicing numbers, it is clear that this is another US bluff.
However, the topic raised again about the withdrawal of American troops (and in fact about the deployment) is another reason for the international community to ask two fundamental questions. The first is what do American troops do in Syria? The second - is it possible to physically somehow control or verify whether they have withdrawn their military or not? By whom is this process regulated and regulated in principle?
In fact, everything related to the US military presence in Syria is illegal. Outside of the law of Syria itself and outside of international law as such. No matter how hard the Americans try, this country continues to be a sovereign state, which has and, most importantly, all the relevant political institutions: the president, government, parliament. And not one of these institutes of the American military invited Syria. Unlike, say, the Russian contingent or the same Iranians with Hezbollah, which, of course, are fighting there at the request of the official Syrian authorities.
That is, not only is the very formulation of such a question - about the withdrawal of troops - incorrect, but political manipulations on this topic in the international arena are, in my opinion, extremely doubtful. After all, no one can control the exact number of US troops located in the country.
Do international observers or at least some public organizations have access to American bases? Of course not. In addition, it is necessary to understand the specifics of the region, at least elementary geographical.
The northeast of Syria is a desert and a border with Iraq, which in fact is simply nominal. Specifically, this means that, having an impressive contingent on the territory of Iraq, Americans can transfer and transfer their troops from one part of the desert to another without any hindrance, without really bothering about the regulations for crossing state borders of either country.
This means that at any moment necessary for itself - despite all the political and public statements of Washington - the United States can have as many soldiers in Syria as they need (or as much as they want). This is another argument in the treasury of the thesis that the story of the withdrawal of troops is nothing more than a manipulation.
And, finally, you can’t talk about the American military in Syria without reference to the Kurdish armed forces, which the American military is in charge of, as a matter of fact. Specifically, we are talking about the group "Democratic Forces of Syria" (DSS). Trump has already said that the United States will not stop supporting the Syrian Kurds - weapons and money. However, I personally have great doubts about the Washington declaration on supporting certain Kurdish democratic aspirations directly. For the United States, the Kurdish, let’s say so, resistance is, in fact, an instrument for the rough capture of Syria’s natural resources, primarily oil fields.
After all, oil in Syria is extracted just in the eastern provinces of Hasak and Deir ez-Zor, and it was there (by a lucky chance) that the main American bases were deployed. From the point of view of oil production, this, of course, is a phenomenal region: black gold literally oozes out of the ground there. I visited Deir ez-Zor and Hasak and saw for myself: it’s worth digging a meter or two at almost any point in this desert - and you have an oil field in front of you. And this is not a figure of speech, it is an absolutely material fact.
In this situation, the DSS and the Kurds are for Americans no more than a private security company for the protection of natural resources that they seized as a result of the "fight against ISIS *", which Washington just does not intend to give away. So to take seriously the statements about the withdrawal of American troops from this region is at least frivolous. In fact, this is nothing more than another divorce. In an American way. But who does the USA want to deceive? Seriously, no geopolitical player in the Middle East has long taken such rhetoric.
* “Islamic State” (IG) - the organization was recognized as terrorist by decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of December 29, 2014.
The author’s point of view may not coincide with the position of the publisher.