US Needs To Occupy Syria Because Of Kurds Or Iran Or Chemical Weapons Or Oil Or Whatever

in #news4 years ago (edited)

President Trump reiterated to the press today that the United States is maintaining its military presence in Syria not to patrol the nation's border with Turkey, but to control its oil fields.

“We’ve kept the oil," Trump said. "We’ve stayed back and kept the oil. Other people can patrol the border of Syria, frankly, and Turkey, let them - they’ve been fighting for a thousand years, let them do the border, we don’t want to do that. We want to bring our soldiers home. But we did leave soldiers because we’re keeping the oil. I like oil. We’re keeping the oil."

This open "kick their ass and take their gas" policy is nothing new for America's reality TV president; he's been saying it for years. It was recently addressed head-on by Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, who said during an interview that it's nice to have a US president who is honest about America's true motives in the Middle East for once.

"As for Trump, you might ask me a question and I give you an answer that might sound strange," Assad said. "I say that he is the best American President, not because his policies are good, but because he is the most transparent president. All American presidents perpetrate all kinds of political atrocities and all crimes and yet still win the Nobel Prize and project themselves as defenders of human rights and noble and unique American values, or Western values in general. The reality is that they are a group of criminals who represent the interests of American lobbies, i.e. the large oil and arms companies, and others. Trump talks transparently, saying that what we want is oil. This is the reality of American policy, at least since WWII. We want to get rid of such and such a person or we want to offer a service in return for money. This is the reality of American policy. What more do we need than a transparent opponent?"


https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1190270794716319745?s=20

Some establishment media chose to deliberately misinterpret Assad's scathing criticism of US foreign policy as praise for Donald Trump, with The Hill tweeting out "Syrian President Assad praises Trump: He is 'the best' because he's 'most transparent president'", and The Jerusalem Post running the headline "SYRIAN LEADER BASHAR ASSAD: DONALD TRUMP IS THE ‘BEST U.S. PRESIDENT’--The Syrian leader, who allegedly committed war crimes against his own people to suppress public demands and win a bloody civil war, seemed to approve of Trump’s honesty."

Many US foreign policy critics have been rightly attacking this administration's open resource grab; if Russia had forcefully invaded a sovereign nation and seized its oil fields without permission the American political/media class would be shrieking hysterically and working to manufacture support for World War Three within minutes. Yet that is what American exceptionalism leads the empire to do without a second thought.

Assad's comments mirror what I wrote more than a week ago (so please note that I'm not an Assadist--he's a Caitlinist), but it's important to point out that Trump's oil narrative is just the latest in a long list of excuses that the US government and its apologists have been making to justify the illegal occupation of Syria.

We were told that the US must intervene in Syria because the Syrian government was massacring its people. We were told that the US must intervene in Syria in order to promote freedom and democracy in the Middle East. We were told that the US must intervene in Syria because Assad used chemical weapons. We were told that the US must continue to occupy Syria to counter Iranian influence. We were told the US must continue to occupy Syria to protect the Kurds. Now the US must continue to occupy Syria because of oil.

These wildly different reasons the public has been given for America's need to forcibly insert a military presence into Syria all have only one thing in common, and that's America forcibly inserting a military presence into Syria. This is because they are not reasons, but excuses. The US forcibly inserted a military presence into Syria with the full intention of keeping it there, and then started diddling a bunch of completely different narratives in order to justify the thing it already wanted to do long before any of those excuses arose.


https://twitter.com/Ruptly/status/1190650286018355203

For eight years we've been spoonfed an assortment of radically different narratives explaining why the US needs to control Syria militarily, and it turns out that the US and its allies have been plotting to control Syria since long before then. This is because Syria occupies an extremely geostrategically valuable location that is in no way limited to its oil fields. In 2004 Assad launched his "Five Seas Vision", a plan to use Syria's supreme location to place itself at the center of a regional energy and transportation system and become an economic superpower. The nation was then plunged into chaos seven years later, but whoever manages to secure control over this location will be able to achieve the same lucrative energy and transportation control for themselves. The dispute over pipeline routes that many have highlighted is just one small example of this. There's also the illegally occupied Golan Heights which the extremely shady Genie Energy corporation has a vested interest in, and which provides a third of Israel’s water supply, and which the US has decided to officially regard as Israeli property.

So it's a geostrategically crucial region, and it happens to have no interest at all in allowing itself to be absorbed into the blob of the US-centralized power alliance, allying itself instead with the unabsorbed nations of Russia and Iran. This has made it the epicenter of a giant global imperialist struggle the implications of which stretch far beyond its borders to the rest of the world.

This is the real reason why half a million Syrians have died in an imperialist proxy war, and why many more Syrians continue to suffer under US-led sanctions and the deprivation of their nation's valuable natural resources. Not because of humanitarianism, not because of democracy, not because of chemical weapons, not because of Iran, not because of Kurds, and not even really just because of oil, but because there's a globe-spanning oligarchic empire to which Syria has refused to submit. Everything else is empty narrative.


https://twitter.com/BBassem7/status/1190671161828372480

Whenever you see anyone arguing for keeping troops in Syria that aren't there with the permission of the Syrian government, this is all they're really supporting: a campaign to annex a strategically valuable location into the US-centralized empire. This is true regardless of whatever reason they are offering for that support. And notice how all the different reasons we've been inundated with all appeal to different political sectors: the oil and Iran narratives appeal to rank-and-file Republicans, the humanitarian arguments appeal to liberals, and the Kurds narrative appeals to many leftists and anarchists like Noam Chomsky. But the end result is always the same: keeping military force in a location that the empire has long sought to absorb.

By providing many different narratives as to why the military presence must continue, the propagandists get us all arguing over which narratives are the correct ones rather than whether or not there should be an illegal military occupation of a sovereign nation at all. This is just one of many examples of how the incredibly shrinking Overton window of acceptable debate is used to keep us arguing not over whether the empire should be doing evil things, but how and why it should do them them.

Don't fall for it. It is not legitimate for the US empire to occupy Syria for any reason. At all. "Because oil" is not a legitimate reason. "Because Kurds" is not a legitimate reason. "Because Iran" is not a legitimate reason. "Because Russia" is not a legitimate reason. "Because freedom and democracy" is not a legitimate reason. "Because chemical weapons" is not a legitimate reason. And those who are driving this illegal occupation know it, which is why they keep shifting to whatever's the most convenient narrative in any given moment.


Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, checking out my podcast on either Youtube, soundcloud, Apple podcasts or Spotify, following me on Steemit, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I'm trying to do with this platform, click here. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.

Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

Sort:  

Had me with the title. There's so many lies / versions it's getting really hard to pick a favorite. sarcasm I was watching cnn one day when one of anderson cooper's guests was whining about not getting clear foreign policy positions from the 2016 candidates.
cooper blurted out, "it's about the oil, is THAT clear enough?" everyone laughed
never could find the clip but
yeah, it's clear enough, makes the usa robber barons and members of the military are turned into mercenaries

xD best title ever :D be careful that they dont sue you for it :D

but because there's a globe-spanning oligarchic empire to which Syria has refused to submit.

a plan to use Syria's supreme location to place itself at the center of a regional energy and transportation system and become an economic superpower.

but whoever manages to secure control over this location will be able to achieve the same lucrative energy and transportation control for themselves.

allying itself instead with the unabsorbed nations of Russia and Iran. This has made it the epicenter of a giant global imperialist struggle the implications of which stretch far beyond its borders to the rest of the world.

but to control its oil fields.

These are some of your key points in your debate. This goes back to statements I've made before....that decisions are based on the overall outcome in the future towards the worlds overall well being. Be honest, he did choose to align himself with countries that a majority of countries don't want to see become super power super hubs over them. That's exactly what would have happened here. Given we are talking about a man who can't even seem to balance out his own countries citizens to live in peace who in their right mind would want to see him obtaining the power of persuasion over other countries? Be realistic, he had the money, he had the resources just like anyone else but he couldn't maintain peace within his own borders and we're going to let him waltz in and become a regional superpower over others that extended well beyond his borders?

Resources brings profits, profits bring military might, military might brings submission...it's which side of that submission you want to be on. For a whole lot of people not just regionally decided he wasn't it for them.

Assad can stand there with mud all over his face doing a Hillary Clinton of excuses if he so desires but those willing to look outside the box knows the US hasn't taken control of all the oil. Those willing to look outside the box can also ask themselves why has the warring stopped?...why isn't Russia and Iran rushing to save his precious natural resources? Those willing to look outside the box can also ask why would anyone just let Turkey control the border?

Maybe, just maybe that the super powers finally determined you can't control the internal forces within a country let alone their resources. Doesn't matter who you align yourself with, that just isn't good enough, in the end there will always be those internal problems plaguing you, the leaders inability to maintain peace among the status quo.

Maybe, just maybe out of a coincidence of coming to work against a threat bigger than themselves they may have discovered this temporary solution could actually lead to better answers. When Obama basically said to Russia you take that side and we'll take this side they found a way to a common ground...like I said there was no way the US could be on both sides of the fence, if we can come together to fight a threat bigger than ourselves why can't we come together and work towards solutions to the underlying problems plaguing middle east countries...their own hatred towards each other.

When Trump came along it was just a matter of how can we make this work. They found an alternative route for the natural gas pipeline while Syria can still build a pipeline with Russia. This keeps them from total domination over European countries in the future but also allows the free distribution of choice among other countries and will have the effect of being competitive and price controls. Russia and Syria can work towards producing oil in other area's of Syria while the US secures oil in parts of Syria that will go towards securing a financial means to take care of other minorities in the country. This is the kind of give and take that ultimately if it works out will lead to real solutions. Everybody gets something out of it.

Turkey?....Turkey is a prime example of being geographical located and the kind of power that can come with. Like saying I am going to do whatever I want to do....and what did you say you are going to do about it?....puf,puf,puf pleezzze, excuse yourselves. I am going to continue to hate just because I can.

No we don't need anymore Turkey's we need real solutions.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.32
TRX 0.11
JST 0.034
BTC 66269.58
ETH 3204.67
USDT 1.00
SBD 4.24