The Global Audience in the Theater of American War

He announced on Tuesday, Dec. 5, that the US intends, as a matter of policy, "to keep ground troops in Syria as long as necessary,” irrespective of the fact that ISIL, the terrorist group they were apparently deployed to fight, has almost no territory left in the country.

That the Medieval Caliphate, America’s own creation, was defeated by the allied forces of Iran, Syria, Iraq, Russia, Hezbollah, and Popular Mobilization Units is beside the point. That the world community prefers not to hear their war stories from the US and its client states who sat out the Real War on Terror in Syria is beside the point too. That the US-led war on Syria is different, in no small part because the Syrian government never authorized US troops to deploy there, and isn’t supporting the silly idea of them staying and entertaining the country permanently, is also there for all to see.

What’s rather odd is that Pahon says US troops are going to stay to "support our partners and prevent the return of terrorist groups,” both goals, one must note, are absolutely open-ended and illegal, and unlikely to ever be declared "accomplished” - just like elsewhere throughout the Middle East.

Instead of making it lawful, however, US officials are playing up the idea that a "new ISIL” could emerge at any moment, and the US wants to have troops deployed in such areas just in case. But by "support for our partners” they actually mean support for proxy forces such as separatist Kurdish and Qaeda-allied rebel groups.  

The argument is simple enough: Thanks to the sacrifices made by the anti-partition allied forces of Syria, Hezbollah, Iran and Russia, the terrorist group of ISIL is no longer able to emerge at any moment, rising as if magic from the desert sands. Much of the Trump administration seems to have remained in the dark on this, though. There, it seems, they sat out defeat and emerged strangely untouched – but with a still untarnished dream of American triumphalism. And that is what the world community never wanted - and many, against all odds, still don’t want - to hear.

The Pentagon regime, the United States, and the mere extras are never the ones who could still embody the idea of a "good war". Nowadays, a remarkable number of countries in the West no longer believe the War Party, with no intention to go with the flow either. Under the circumstances, a surprising number of UN member states, it just turned out, are also living in the reality-based world, at least when it comes to war-party Washington’s true intentions in Syria. They just cannot translate the all-American fantasy world, or President Trump’s dress-up dreams of permanent war and occupation, into reality - a security engagement that could extend beyond his war presidency. It just evokes howls of protest from everywhere.

While the world is for permanent security and security in Syria, the Pentagon regime, War Party leaders and allies cannot move toward a compromise. The outlines are clear enough: All US occupying troops should start leaving Syria soon. Not a single soldier has the right to stay on indefinitely with a permanent mission of providing something called "overwatch." For Syria and its Iranian-Russian allies, this open-ended occupation, read hostility, is not a done deal. About the only issue left to debate is how fast the "withdrawal" should happen, how quickly all US occupying troops should leave, and why no new troops should be "redeployed" under any pretext.

Yes, every war is bound to turn into a peace story, and Syria’s story is no exception. The people of post-ISIL Syria want to get on with their lives and are not looking for a new dramatic spectacle or theater from Washington. In that context, a debate about the math of full American troops withdrawal - and how soon - is hardly the stuff of legend, the sort of thing that has already fueled public passions across Syria and beyond. Under International Law and UN Charter, the War Party has no right whatsoever to turn the current debate on troop withdrawals and time frames into a contest between smaller competing narratives - or worse, selling the new surge.

Call it a surge of international opposition on the global front. No matter how well debated, the world community is no longer willing to allow war-party Washington to put on a new show in Syria. The new pro-war show by Pentagon Spokesman Paton cannot and will not be able to draw a big enough audience (at least among beleaguered Western allies), much less international support for Washington’s half-way measures and permanent occupation.

Once again, the top-rated show of the season is evidently that all-time favorite, "Pack Up and Leave.” After all, no facts are available to indicate that the permanent war on Syria is making Americans and Europeans safer, as many Pentagon regime and War Party leaders on both sides of the Atlantic themselves have admitted. So, Pahon’s claim makes no sense if we are measuring his argument "to keep ground troops in Syria as long as necessary" against facts or logic, irrespective of the fact that ISIL has almost no territory left in the country.