Demilitarize the border. You would think that after Daesh was defeated, the region would have learned something, but, evidently not. Don't argue with Iran, just start a process to demilitarize the border. Iranian militias are viewed as the peacekeepers since Daesh cannot reorganize and begin again. But, the peacekeepers have religious differences that spark conflict. The only way this is going to resolve is to prevent the opportunity for violence.
...The militarization of the border and the presence of state and nonstate actors have blurred the lines between formal and informal institutions and obscured who ultimately holds authority and governs the area—state institutions or nonstate militias....
...The tensions between some official Iraqi and Syrian military, security, and civilian institutions and Iranian-backed militias hinder Baghdad and Damascus from restoring the sovereignty and governance capacity they previously had over the area. For better or worse, the lingering presence of Iranian-backed proxies leaves Iraq and Syria with no choice but to accommodate Iran’s interests to some degree....
It is nearly impossible to remove Iran from either Iraq or Syria. Iran currently manages a small town in northwest Syria called Latakia (click here). Basically, Syria, Iraq, and Iran are Shia strongholds. So, when the USA exerts it's authority, there is political backlash in Iraq as well. The Iraqis like Iran and are more likely to start an offensive against the USA than ask Iran to mind it's own business. Iraq and Iran are Shia homelands and all the ruling Alawites want in Syria is civil war reduction and threats. The Alawites are Shia as well.
Now, why I brought up the fact that a town in Syria is occupied by Iran for security purposes is because what exists in that city is a viable drug trade.
In the summer of 2015 a businessman (click here) in the Syrian province of Latakia was approached by a powerful security chief, seeking a favour. The official wanted the merchant, an importer of medical supplies, to source large amounts of a drug called fenethylline from abroad. The regime, he said, would readily buy the lot.
After an internet search, the merchant made a decision. He left his home that same week, first sending his wife and children to exile, then following after, scrounging what he could from his businesses for a new start. “I know what they were asking me to do,” he said from his new home in Paris. “They wanted the main ingredient for Captagon. And that drug is a dirty business.”
Other businessmen in Syria’s north have not shared his reservations. The manufacture of Captagon in the regime heartland has become one of Syria’s only recent business success stories; a growth industry so big and sophisticated that it is starting to rival the GDP of the flatlining economy itself....
No different than Afghanistan, Syria after Deash, is a failed state and what is the one economic structure that sustains in a failed state? Yep, some kind of drug trade. In Afghanistan, it is the poppies and in Syria it is Captagon.
...Captagon (click here) is one of several brand names for the drug compound fenethylline hydrochloride. Captagon is not a new drug. The Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Encyclopedia places its debut in 1961, when it was manufactured by Chemiewerk Homburg, a subsidiary of specialty chemicals company Degussa. The patent for its production dates to 1962, according to the Merck Index....
This morning FOX News was propagating a wedge issue about how the politics of the extreme left effects the USA military and it's preparedness. Simply put, it doesn't. I don't know if FOX has a hotline to Netanyahu, but, they are obviously attempting to create an issue for the elections of 2022.
While it is correct to retaliate when American troops are threatened or attacked, one has to wonder, "why bother?"
A border war between Syria and Iraq will not break out. What is occurring, including this escalation with the USA, is nothing more than gang warfare, Here again, no different than when the USA military was in Iraq, the Americans are just viewed as another gang. So, the only logical question to be asked is, "What the heck are we doing there?"
What kind of shape is Lebanon in these days, too?
But, the issue with the Iraq and Syrian border is not our business. So, what the heck are we doing there?
These operations in the Middle East have been primarily run by the President's enormous OCO Funds (click here). When American soldiers are attacked it is only correct to end the attack today and in the coming weeks and months ahead. I have absolutely no problem with the USA military defending itself and if it can also end a toxic element in the area with GOOD INTELLIGENCE than do it.
The problem with this latest missile strike with Syria is not that it happened, defending the soldiers is vital. But, the real problem is why are we there at all? If we weren't there the USA military would not have to retaliate for escalations of fighting with American soldiers. Get the picture?
There is no Western answer for the Middle East without killing a whole lot of people and destroying cities' infrastructure. Or in the case of Syria, whatever is left of it's infrastructure. I realize that the USA in the region also limits Israel's idea of heaven in expanding it's borders in the name of peace. How a war brings about peace is anyone's guess. But, that is what goes on with Israel. Isreal doesn't believe in peace, not really. They believe in expansionism AS a tool for their definition of peace.
The USA military in the Middle East usually ends up in trouble of one kind or another. It is not that we lack the sophistication to carry out a mission, it is that we carry out a mission to make it the one and only mission they have to do and it ends up being so very different than any other military power in the region, it attracts attention.
It may be that ending the assault of Iranian militias against the USA could create instability at the border and otherwise. Follow? I mean the buildings that were destroyed in this attack were sort of a part of the infrastructure in the area. See all the trucks parked across the street. This area was somewhat busy and it is my guess the militias in that building were more or less carrying out attacks against DEATH SQUADS like Daesh. In that is the understanding they have purpose and the Shia Crescent has no problem with the skirmishes carried out by these militias.
So, now that the USA has rightfully defended itself, what next? None of the governments of those three countries want the USA there. Our military is attempting to end violence and create it's own understanding of stability, but, one missile strike is not going to do that. The criticism the USA has received in protecting it's own troops is to let all the other militias in the region know this isn't going to happen to them.
So, while the USA is there it figures it can do some good by attempting to rid the region of militias. Nice idea. A little on the heroic side, but, is it really necessary? Probably not. I really think the USA military needs to rethink it's purpose in this part of the world and perhaps downgrade our presence. And for god sake bring the B52s back where they belong.
