No, We Haven’t Really Left Just Yet

| November 6, 2019

Trump OKs a wider oil mission in Syria, but there are questions.

https://www.militarytimes.com/flashpoints/2019/11/05/trump-oks-wider-syria-oil-mission-raising-legal-questions/

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump has approved an expanded military mission to secure an expanse of oil fields across eastern Syria, raising a number of difficult legal questions about whether U.S. troops can launch strikes against Syrian, Russian or other forces if they threaten the oil, U.S. officials said.

The decision, coming after a meeting Friday between Trump and his defense leaders, locks hundreds of U.S. troops into a more complicated presence in Syria, despite the president’s vow to get America out of the war. Under the new plan, troops would protect a large swath of land controlled by Syrian Kurdish fighters that stretches nearly 90 miles (150 kilometers) from Deir el-Zour to al-Hassakeh, but its exact size is still being determined.

Officials said many details still have to be worked out. Trump’s decision hands commanders a victory in their push to remain in the country to prevent any resurgence of the Islamic State group, counter Iran and partner with the Kurds, who battled IS alongside the U.S. for several years. But it also forces lawyers in the Pentagon to craft orders for the troops that could see them firing on Syrian government or Russian fighters trying to take back oil facilities that sit within the sovereign nation of Syria. – article

Category: Isis, Syria

8 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
A Proud Infidel®™

Hmmmm, I’m a-gonna make me some popcorn to enjoy while watching lefty pukes twist this…

David

A no-win situation when we went in, and this makes it better how? Our objectives are? Our eventual exit plan is?

11B-Mailclerk

I think he is chuckling about the lefties who screeched about not leaving, and now have to either go along with Trump, annoying their constituents and looking too dumb to avoid the trap, or flip-flop and oppose Trump and look majorly two-faced and dumb.

Either way, they look dumb, so laughter is a given.

The prior blockheads got us into this mess. Trump has to finesse the drawdown in such a way as to leave at least some temporary stability. He may be looking for one good ass-kicking moment to make the point of “don’t annoy us” and to provide justification to draw down further.

SteeleyI

The concept of winning a war is a thing of the past. Arguably, the last war the United States won was the Philippine Insurrection, depending your definition of war.

According to the OIR website the mission is to defeat ISIS in designated areas of Iraq and Syria and set conditions for follow-on operations to increase regional stability.

There’s more there, but basically the objective is to defeat or at least contain ISIS by providing fire and intel support to the Iraqis and Kurds while we train them to find and kill bad guys all by themselves.

So, we will probably never ‘win’. The exit strategy is to keep killing them there so they don’t come here, and eventually build Kurdish and Iraqi capacity to the point where they do it on their own. My guess is we’ll always have some sort of capability on the ground to do things like the Baghdadi raid.

Maybe we’ll kill them all, but another group will take their place as the Worst Terrorists Ever. I’ve heard generals refer to this as mowing the grass (the terrorists being the grass).

What is it worth to the US to have ISIS and their successors more or less contained in the Middle East?

So far it’s cost us 87 dead (17 due to hostile action), and as of 2017 DoD was estimating operating costs at $13M or so a day.

Graybeard

Unfortunately this just confirms the half-wit interpretations of our presence there as ‘working for the oil companies.’

Unfortunately, this was expressed by my Airborne son’s f-i-l to his face once. In the interest of family peace my son kept his mouth shut.

11B-Mailclerk

Trump would probably respond

“Hell yes this is about oil. Are you stupid? There is nothing else there but old-style cat box filler. We are doing this for our own benefit. Ours. ”

This whole fracas is about the oil fields in the disputed areas. The Caliphate needed them. Turkey and Russia want them. The Kurds want them. Syria wants them back. We want them in friendly hands.

5th/77th FA

Correcto mundo! It has always been about the oil and who controls it. Since what, about 1919 some odd? Give that patch of sand to the Kurds and back them up with the carriers.

We and the Brits help them to find it, refine it, transport it, and protect it from Hitler. Without it, they would still be herding goats thru the sand and cuddling with their camels…oh. wait.

SteeleyI

First off, I am super confused here. Why do we have to protect the oilfields from ISIS? Didn’t the president say we defeated ISIS? Now, about the oil: Bottom line, seizing Syrian oil would be a very bad strategic move. It would be an act of war, it is against US law, and it is not really worth what it would cost us. The president has no authorization to invade a sovereign country and seize their natural resources. We went to war with Iraq (the first time) for doing exactly the same thing. It’s a bad idea. First, of course we are in the Middle East partly to ensure the world energy supply continues to flow. No shame in that, it’s realpolitik. However, unilaterally seizing the land and natural resources of a sovereign country is an act of war and a violation of US law. Under US law, fighting ISIS is the only legal justification for having US troops in Syria. Second, the president is acting under the post 9/11 AUMF. Keeping the oil out of the hands of ISIS falls under that umbrella because it denies them the oil revenue. That makes sense, no problem there. However, the Syrians have a right to their own oil. Preventing them from pumping it would be an act of war against a sovereign nation, and arguably a violation of the AUMF. I suppose if our troops acted only in self defense (to which they have an inherent right) the president could try to invoke the War Powers Act, but he would be on shaky ground. Finally, we do not import any Syrian Oil. Most of it goes to the EU, which as in the aggregate is our biggest trade partner. Turkey also imports a lot of it. The cost of seizing it, protecting it, and exporting it would far outweigh the benefit. All in all it would be a spectacularly bad idea, especially since we don’t really depend on Syrian oil. Besides, I thought the president was all about making other countries fight their own fights. Why don’t Germany, France, or Italy… Read more »