(Screenshot: CBS News. Some of the 'Big Guns' being deployed to a US military base on Monday as US forces continue to ramp up firepower in the region amidst alleged 'new threats' from Syrian and Russian armies.)
Amidst what is still being called a military withdrawal from Syria, the US occupation continues to reinforce their military forces in eastern Syria, deploying more heavy equipment including many more of the tanks seen above - officially Bradley Fighting Vehicles - which were deployed to a remote base on Monday.
Speaking during a visit with Turkish President Erdogan on Wednesday, President Trump insisted the only reason US troops are being kept in Syria despite an earlier withdrawal order is for the oil.
”We're keeping the oil, we have the oil, the oil is secure,” he said. “We kept troops in Syria only for the oil.”
His most recent comments here are quite similar to ones made a week ago on Friday, when the president also insisted he did want to bring the troops home, but they're going to be staying in Syria anyway, because “we're keeping the oil,” Trump said, according to the LA Times.
“We want to bring our soldiers home. But we did leave soldiers because we're keeping the oil,” said Trump on Friday, before adding, “I like oil. We're keeping the oil.”
The president has been repeating this rhetoric since late last month, so this is nothing new, and he already officially authorized a military mission to secure the oil fields before this as well.
Additionally, “U.S. Military officials say they want to secure the oil to deny Islamic State the chance to take back the fields and use them to fund its resurgence,” the LA Times reported. Because apparently ISIS really was defeated months ago when Trump assured the world it was so – even as the terrorist group continued to carry out attacks against the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) – and so the remnants of ISIS which the US really isn't battling in Syria must be labeled a “resurgence” I suppose.
Back to the subject at hand, of US forces 'securing' the oil:
“It's a subset of the counter-ISIS mission,” US spokesman Col. Myles Caggins said in an interview on Monday.
Which is really interesting because also on Monday and in an interview, another higher ranking military spokesman speaking from inside Syria said the current ramping up of US firepower taking place in eastern Syria was to counter new threats on the battlefield, not to combat ISIS but rather the SAA and Russian forces.
In an NBC interview in eastern Syria on Monday, General Eric Hill said the reason the military is significantly ramping up US firepower there is to counter new threats on the battlefield. “Combat power to match not ISIS but the militaries of the Syrian regime, the Russians, and even militias backed by Turkey,” the reporter explained; after describing how the US was bringing out the big guns including Bradley Fighting Vehicles at a remote base in the region.
”We've been conducting a withdrawal. We've been resetting ourselves here in the east and as we do that, we want to make sure we have the right mix of different vehicles and combat power here to sustain ourselves,” Hill said.
In other words, they need to have the combat power to protect the occupied Syrian oil fields from the Syrians, who rightfully want their resources back. After all, Russian Defense Minister recently stated that the Syrian Army won't be waiting much longer to take back their oil, so it isn't hard to see what's really going on here, and who exactly US occupation forces are 'securing' the oil fields from.
Even as far back as last week Defense Secretary Mark Esper, who previously cited countering ISIS as the reason for increase in forces in Syria, said the US presence in northeastern Syria is there to deter Syrian and Russian forces from commandeering the oil fields, according to the LA Times. And last week on Thursday, a Pentagon official even claimed the US forces in Syria have the authority to shoot any Syrian government official who attempts to take back control of their own country's oil.
Just as I theorized in my last post on the subject, the reinforcement of US forces in Syria look to indeed be preparations for potential direct conflict with the Syrian Army. Yet there are of course those officials who insist otherwise, in an attempt to keep up the facade that we really are only in Syria to fight the terrorists we just so happened to have also funded and armed.
On Tuesday senior State Department official James Jeffrey still insisted the primary role of the US occupation forces staying behind in Syria was to counter ISIS, and that securing the oil fields was only a “secondary mission,” explaining that US forces in northeastern Syria are authorized “to fight terrorism, specifically to ensure the enduring defeat of ISIS.” “That is our overall mission,” he said.
Clearly the President who ordered the withdrawal and then authorized the reversal in order to secure the oil fields sees things a little differently. The overall mission is to keep the oil – it's what Trump has wanted all along. And it may in fact be to 'secure' the oil for an Israeli business whose owner claims that it is in charge of the sale of the stolen oil, and that it has been given the rights by the Kurdish (US proxy) forces controlling the oil fields to develop the oil in all the areas they govern. The Israeli businessman even shared a letter with the LA Times from the Kurds saying exactly that:
An Israeli businessman, Moti Kahana, claims his company, Global Development Corp., became the representative of the Kurdish-led administration for the sale of oil. He shared with The Times a letter from the Kurds saying his company also had “the right to explore and develop oil that is located in areas that we govern.”
As for the Syrian side, the SAA is currently making bold moves in the region, rapidly deploying in the north where they have now deployed forces to over 200 km on the northern border with Turkey in Hasakah province, in an attempt to keep the Turkish invasion and Turkish-backed terrorist attacks on civilians in the border region at bay. This is the first time the SAA has taken control of these towns in seven years, and puts Syrian forces quite close to the US occupation buildup around oil fields in that region.
At the same time, Syrian and Russian forces have just launched a new offensive on the Jihadist terrorist group HTS (formerly al-Nusra Front) and their Turkish backed allies in the Jihadist enclave in Idlib province.
And speaking of the US troop 'withdrawal', does anyone else notice the absolute self-contradictory nature of the General's statement above about the heavy reinforcements? If you're in the middle of 'conducting a withdrawal', then why on earth do you need to 'sustain' yourselves? Because a withdrawal means you're leaving, right? The answer is you don't, and this clearly isn't a withdrawal, as Trump has already said. He ordered a withdrawal, and the troops were going to leave, but then instead they stayed behind to secure the oil from ISIS, or that's right, from Syria.
Which I suppose is why the corporate media cabal that has continually been attempting to paint this recent troop surge and military reinforcement with heavy combat equipment in Syria as somehow part of an ongoing withdrawal, are now calling it a “partial withdrawal.” Not necessarily because they are withdrawing part of the troops, but because they are withdrawing from part of the occupied territory – that section along the Turkish border which Trump's “good friend” Erdogan invaded into northern Syria in the days following Trump's withdrawal order, and who had wanted the US out of the way for quite some time. Looks like that recent meeting between the US and Turkish presidents went fairly well for Turkey, and presumably the US as well – they'll get to continue their invasion of Syria without US intervention, and Trump (or the Israelis) will get to keep Syria's oil, assuming his occupation forces and Kurdish sort of proxy forces can keep it out of the hands of the Syrians.
Which may be easier said than done, as the Kurdish SDF and SYrian Army look to be working more and more as allies in the region than as enemies, with both forces recently launching a joint operation against Turkish forces in al-Hasakah. With the US no longer protecting its Kurdish sort of proxies from Turkish attacks, they may well be forced to soon do more than simply form a loose alliance with Damascus to survive, but may have to reconcile with Damascus and join the ranks of the SAA as President Assad has repeatedly asked that they do in order that they may together as one force defeat the Turkish invasion of northern Syria.
Making it even more obvious that the US 'withdrawal' has been put on hold and quite likely even completely reversed, is that in midst of this alleged withdrawal, US forces have at the same time just established two new bases in eastern Syria.
U.S. forces have established two new bases near the border city of Qamishli in the northern part of Syria’s al-Hasakah, the Hawar News Agency (ANHA) reported on November 13.
And that is really quite close to one edge of the new SAA frontline being built up in northern Syria, where the Kurdish and Syrian forces are apparently working jointly to repel and push back the Turkish invasion. So yet again it appears that the US in fact has absolutely no intention of withdrawing from Syria, but is rather building up forces in the region to counter or deter the Syrian advances in the northeast and to keep Syria from re-taking control of her own natural resources. For that is what this has been about all along - weakening the Syrian state in any way possible. And one excellent way to do so is to starve it of its own oil, forcing Assad to buy smuggled oil at bolstered prices through the Kurds.
But there is likely more to this withdrawal reversal than simply keeping the oil as Trump says. Convincing Trump to keep the troops in Syria for the oil may have been the only way for the military industrial complex head honchos to convince Trump to put the withdrawal on hold while a new and easier to sell to the public pretext to keep US occupation forces there for the long haul is devised. At least one foreign diplomat thinks exactly that:
“It’s quite clear that the president has been convinced to retain troops on the only basis that might have been of interest to him — the existence of oil,” said Charles R. Lister, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute. “But the much bigger U.S. government apparatus is trying to use that as a cover to form a more meaningful, less ambiguous and more sustainable strategy focused on countering terrorism while reasserting leverage over Damascus.”
Ah yes, the age-old strategy of using the pretext of fighting the very terrorists they fund and arm to reassert leverage over Damascus. All over again. And when the White Helmets carry out false flag gas attacks which can be easily blamed on Assad by the west, that also helps, because then the US can openly attack Damascus directly, without having to use here proxy terrorist armies which are being slowly defeated in Idlib bit by bit.
So is it any surprise that just over a month ago Trump began funding the White Helmets again, and then soon after that, the so-called rescue group was accused yet again of planning to stage another gas attack provocation to be blamed on Damascus? At the beginning of the month the Russian Foreign Ministry warned that "new confirmations emerge all the time on the information" that the White Helmets along with Al-Nusra (al-Qaeda in Syria) are planning provocations to blame on the Damascus government, and which information the Syrian authorities regularly give to the UN - which then does nothing about it because they are de-facto controlled by the US. And with a new Syrian offensive just launched against the terrorists in Idlib, the time is now prime for just such a provocation by the White Helmets.
In October, Trump approved $4.5 million in funding to the White Helmets. It's almost as if Trump's decision to continue funding the White Helmet proxy terrorist group and to keep troops in Syria to 'secure the oil' came around the same time - almost as if he was convinced to do both and was directed to do so by those who pull his strings.
The methods and official statements may change from time to time, but the goals of the "much bigger US government apparatus" (Military Industrial Complex) clearly remain the same: Regime change in both Syria and Iran, and in the meantime weakening both countries in any way they can, especially by looting the natural resources of any territory they invade and occupy - which generally happens in every case. And like clockwork, US foreign policy strangely always works in the interest of long-term Zionist goals for the region.