I’m not one of those who believes that US policy in Syria, which they held for more than six years and which served their interests, has collapsed. I also don’t believe that the former President of America Barack Obama has managed to impose its policy of military institutions in the country, and the leaders of Congress, University professors, analytical and research centers, with whom he usually consulted before making any decision.
If, as all believe, American policy is ineffective and doomed to failure in the region, which is the most important strategically and has the largest reserves of oil and money in the world, the United States would not be leading world power. This power in the past half century holds “the keys” to international politics, forcing the rest of the world to obey the rules established by it for the various States.
If Washington’s plans in Syria were aimed at the fact that the revolution turned into a Syrian discord that would have involved his main opponents, Russia and Iran, their mercenaries and terrorists, if they managed to achieve this, it is us policy can be called a failure or incorrect? If they decide to prolong the war to destroy an Arab regime, he was defeated both physically and morally, in order to facilitate the disintegration of the Syrian state and create in its place a new entity under the strategy of “controlled chaos”, which was launched by U.S. Secretary of state under the Bush administration Condoleezza rice in 2003? If the war really dragged on, which has led to a dangerous weakening of the subjects of international policy in our region, whether we call it all a failure of the United States, as we used to do in the era of the Obama presidency?
If you have defined red lines, which force the various forces to refrain from policies that would be contrary to the interests of Washington in Syria are forbidden to supply free Syrian army with weapons on such a scale that it would be able to end the conflict unilaterally, and at the same time limit the number of players, objasnuva in the Syrian quagmire, then what’s is the weakness and failure of the United States? Can it be called the failed policies of the state, which supplies one anti-aircraft missile systems of each of the fighter from any group that fights with Iran and Russia?
Today, all decision-makers in the administration of President Donald trump, recognize that the Obama administration dug a deep hole, and the one who replaced the former President, it will be difficult to get out of it, especially in regard to the Syrian issue and also attempts to make serious changes in Washington’s policy on the Syrian track. When you consider that the us military is doing in Northern Syria and Iraq that they cooperate with the Kurdish party Democratic Union and its troops and created with them a strategic foothold in the North of Syria, just how credible are the accusations against the United States, that their policy has failed and has no clear purpose?
If the goal of Washington’s policy in the North of Syria and Iraq is to secure a long-term presence in these areas and to compensate thereby failing to occupy Iraq during the presidency of George Bush, if Obama provided the American presence in the region, turned the conflict in Syria the ability to increase the power of the United States, pushed the region to the abyss, deprived peoples to decide their own destiny and the destiny of States, including contributing to their separation along ethno-religious lines, which are of great importance for the Assad regime, Iran, Hezbollah, The “Islamic state” and “Dzhebhat EN-Nusra” (banned in Russia organization — approx. ed.), where is the reason to talk about the weakness and the failure of White house policy under Obama?
Thus, throughout the period of the Syrian conflict, Washington has never been close to failure. On the contrary, progress has been made in every field, in particular, it has direct military presence on Syrian territory. This fact is ignored by those who believe that America has ceased to pay great attention to the Syrian issue, leaving it to Russia. However, they do not give due importance to the American generals that they intend to maintain a presence in Syria and Iraq for twenty or thirty years, bearing in mind that, in their opinion, will last the Syrian conflict.
No state except the United States, would be unable to turn an internal, local revolution against the authoritarian regime into a source of inter-Syrian, Arab, regional and international conflicts. No one but American leaders would not be able to do all this and engage in these conflicts, Iran, Russia, and international terrorism, to turn the conflict into an arena of Sunni-Shiite struggle that had been sponsored after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and to provoke the international struggle against the Islamic world, which they say is the largest American authors and strategists and which is conducted on behalf of developed countries of the North. These countries are not obliged to directly participate in this struggle to control it and to reap its fruits, namely the fruits of the bloody chaos, which is observed today in Syria is the victim of this policy.
Americans don’t lose, and they do not cheat. They have objectives that go beyond Syria. They succeeded in turning a small revolt against the regime into a source of conflict, involving many other forces. If this is failure, what is success? And how do we get out of the abyss in which we find ourselves, if we continue to ignore the fact that the conflict in our country has become multi-level, if we are unable to overcome their unconscious state for more than six years and continue to remain victims, who are powerless to overcome your current circumstances?