Trump: Mattis To Leave On Jan 1, His Deputy Shanahan To Become Acting Defense Secretary

US forces in Syria were minimal, they became imbedded with their proxies that served as their boots on the ground. Those proxies, ISIS, HTS and later SDF were used to,destabilize Syria and eventually overthrow the current government. Syria was the last country to taste the western color revolution of the Arab spring, the US intent was to remove Assad.

“the US intent was to remove Assad”

yes. And their withdrawal proves that they have dropped that intent, at least directly.

But the subject is the nature of the mission of the US forces in Syria, that mission has never been to directly topple Assad, but to somehow make clear to both Syria and its enemies that they could undertake that mission, given some conditions (like “chemical attacks” and other kinds of false flag operations they would perform together with Israel and the ragheads).

Withdrawing the US forces basically tells Syria’s enemies that the hope for direct US intervention is over.

That’s why many US representatives who received tons of moneybags from Saudia and Israel are crying rivers about Trump’s decision, and desperately trying to design alternate plans which could keep that hope alive.

Not that I’m sure that this withdrawal will happen for real – the times for it are so long that it will be entirely possible for the enemies of Syria to create some opportunity to justify a counter-order.

“””And their withdrawal proves that they have dropped that intent, at least directly.””” Assad’s removal was intended to be accomplished by Arab spring playbook. US was involved directly in the Arab spring turmoil, without heavy military involvement.

“””But the subject is the nature of the mission of the US forces in Syria, that mission has never been to directly topple Assad, but to somehow make clear to both Syria and its enemies that they could undertake that mission, given some conditions (like “chemical attacks” and other kinds of false flag operations they would perform together with Israel and the ragheads).”””

US forces in Syria assisted the rebels in their fight against Damascus being imbedded with them, US did not want to pay the price for deploying a large expeditionary force in Syria given the logistical and terrain difficulties, so they tried to do it cheaply. Reaction to false flag chemical attacks was just a juvenile stunt to show that they were still number one, defying the deployment of Kalibr and S400 missiles that challenged their naval and air “supremacy”. US tried to project maximum power using minimal forces and a lot of hot air propaganda that did not change the situation at all.

For all it is worth, US and their proxies lost their conflict in Syria, Trump found it more expedient to get out of the Kurd quagmire and of need and support, and cash in on +10 billion F35 deal with Turkey plus some Patriot sales as well. In the end with Trump it is about what is expedient to the US.

“Assad’s removal was intended to be accomplished by Arab spring playbook. US was involved directly in the Arab spring turmoil, without heavy military involvement.”

Syria could not be subdued that way. In fact, the playbook was the same one used with Lybia, in which the US, together with Britain and France got a direct military involvement. Without their support, the anti-Qaddafi forces would had never won.

The only difference with Syria, is Russia’s direct involvement. With the Russian military directly and openly support Syria against the foreign aggression, the west could not repeat Lybia’s playbook. If Russia did not intervene, they would find an excuse to support the jihadists (like they tried, with the fake chemical attacks, “barrel bombing”, “hospitals bombings” and so on).

“US forces in Syria assisted the rebels in their fight against Damascus being imbedded with them”

Yes and no. They embedded with openly, and fought together with the SDF, basically the Kurds. With other factions, it was rendered impossible mostly by the Russian intervention again. Furthermore, all signs point to a lesser involvement by the Pentagon with jihadist formations, somewhat balanced by involvement of the CIA and possibly other national and private organizations.

Until McCain died, he was known for having the connections and the power to direct manpower and material to fullfill regime changing missions. It’s also very likely, that he was able to “lease” hardware and technical personnel from services like the USAF, and use them to provide some direct support to jihadists.

As an example, the “mistake bombing” of Syrian Army units deployed in defense of Deir Ezzor in 2016, resulting in tens of casualties and an advance of ISIS (later stopped) on the city, bears all the signs of being one of those ventures.

“Reaction to false flag chemical attacks was just a juvenile stunt to show that they were still number one”

Most of the US actions were.

They tried all the time to make it appear to the public that they have the force to control what happens on the ground. Take the ridiculous claim of hundreds of Russian mercs KIA in direct combat with US forces. It’s a clear attempt directed at the US people, to tell them that “we can kill Russians at leisure”, because the Pentagon lies were being destroyed alongside their ragheads by the actions of a small RuAF grouping. As it would be too much a big lie to claim that the “KIAs” were regular servicemen (which Russia could debunk very easily), the Pentagon chose to claim “Russian mercenaries” – with the tacit (or not so tacit) approval of the above PMC (owed to a mutual disagreement with the Russian government, who tends to legislate against too much freedom of such entities).

“For all it is worth, US and their proxies lost their conflict in Syria”

We know that since several years already. As already said above, the turning point was the Russian intervention in 2015, not only for the military implications, but also for political and diplomatical ones.

The west hoped for a short time that the Russians would not fight effectively, and that the jihadist would make Syria “a quagmire” for them – but soon realized they were totally wrong; in no little measure for the reason that the Syrian population never supported the ragheads and always knew that it was an invasion, not a revolution.

The period we are entering though, is that in which the west will have to somehow admit its complete loss in front of the worlds public opinion. This is somehow a delicate matter, one that could potentially result in some reckless moves. Because, one thing is to beat a large bully into leaving you in peace, but another is if that bully has to admit it in front of everybody else.

Will the US and its puppeteers accept in front of the world that their regime changing, NWO agenda can and will be stopped? We’ll have to wait and see.

By Arab spring playbook I mean the basic tool for these color revolutions was civil unrest formented by CIA operatives, hoping the political group friendly to US would size power. It happened in Egypt where MB took control of the government and was headed in making Egypt an Islamic state. In Lybia things were not so easy, US faction needed a lot of help and that was provided by establishing a no fly zone over the country. In Syria the civil unrest was and the competing factions were provided weapons shipped from Lybia, and with the advent of ISIS conquering significant territories in Iraq and Syria NATO was content to sit back and watch the developments as they were fully convinced ISIS and various FSA groups would topple Assad; there was no need of a no fly zone, at times coalition planes would make some “surgical” strikes against SAA or Syrian infrastructure for the sole purpose of destroying the national infrastructure. With the arrival of the Russian ground and air contingent and the projection of EW and SAM capabilities against US, constrained them to limit their activities to the east of Eufrates.

“”””US forces in Syria assisted the rebels in their fight against Damascus being imbedded with them” Yes and no.”””

When I say US forces I mean US personnel, there were casualties in Aleppo and Ghouta, Russian air strikes killed quite a few US personnel in Ghouta and possibly averted any attempt by US to deploy some forces on the Ghouta – Al Tanf axis and bring them close to Damascus protecting the terrorist groupings in the area.

“””For all it is worth, US and their proxies lost their conflict in Syria” We know that since several years already. As already said above, the turning point was the Russian intervention in 2015, not only for the military implications, but also for political and diplomatical ones. The west hoped for a short time that the Russians would not fight effectively, and that the jihadist would make Syria “a quagmire” for them – but soon realized they were totally wrong; ”””

Russia intervened in late 2015, the US was laughing at the Russian Air Force deployment, it was not until 2017 when Palmyra was taken the second time and the siege of Deir Ezzor lifted when US realized their proxies were getting crushed and they were on the loosing side. The US situation in Syria has been precarious from a number of reasons, primarily because of a potential clash with the Russians or potential showdown of their weaponry, to make or break claims or bragging rights. US could not have done anything positive in Syria considering Pentagon’s agenda, the best they could do is be spiteful and disruptive of peaceful efforts undertaken by the Russians. When Russia gave Syria the S300 and the green light for any foreign retaliation, US’ agenda of provocative actions against Syria came to a conclusion.

“In Lybia things were not so easy, US faction needed a lot of help and that was provided by establishing a no fly zone over the country”.

It’s been much more than a no-fly zone, NATO air forces provided the Close Ar Support mission to the jihadists, which in itself guarantees that NATO special forces were deployed on the ground (to direct the airstrikes and to perform mostly recon operations), and that there was an established military link between the jihadists and the NATO HQ.

Curiously enough, what the Russians accomplished in Syria has been basically the same, but against the zio-jihadists: although (based on available sources) the RuAF has performed a wider spectrum of tasks in Syria than NATO’s in Lybia; since September 2015, air dominance was established AGAINST the NATO/Israel/Saudi supported ragheads.

NATO personnel discovered for the first time since years the meaning of operating inside a potentially hostile airspace, and the result is in front of everyone – they COULD NOT change the outcome of the war in favor of the side they support.

This is the most important aspect in understanding the rationale behind the massive propaganda from the west we are seeing today, they are spending huge resources in trying to convince people (at all levels, military, political, diplomatical and laymen all alike) that what happened in Syria is not a defeat of NATO’s doctrine – but in the end they lack any meaningful point.

Nobody puts in doubt that NATO still is a formidable war machine, what has been shattered, is the illusion that it is able to destroy countries and governments and shape the worlds political layer at their leisure.

They now know that the countries they are aggressing can and will get together to defend themselves, and that the prosecution of the NWO agenda and the Wolfowitz doctrine cannot continue without taking losses that are unacceptable by western populations.

“””Nobody puts in doubt that NATO still is a formidable war machine, what has been shattered, is the illusion that it is able to destroy countries and governments and shape the worlds political layer at their leisure.”””

NATO picking up on small countries is not something galant, Russia was unawarely complicit with the Lybian matter, the reason NATO will not be able to pick on small countries is because Russia and China have the military fortitude and capability to intervene and challenge NATO’s aggression, while Eurasian military reaches a higher level of readiness and capability while NATO’s military capabilities are stagnant or declining. Demographics also indicate superior Eurasian intellectual capabilities unencumbered by social perversion and degradation as western societies are experiencing, which will enable them to develop technological platforms for superior weapons. All the propaganda NATO is putting out is to make their populous feel better, Eurasia does not listen to their BS. Multi polarity with its economic and military power projection world wide spells the doom for a unipolar world.