US Invasion of Syria has started!

bhramos

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
25,644
Likes
37,250
Country flag
A video of last year's incident in Jordan, when three military instructors from the United States were killed.

The incident occurred at the checkpoint of the air base in the village of Al-Jafr.

Representatives of the US Defense Ministry said that as a result of the shootout, one soldier was killed, and two wounded soldiers were taken to a hospital in Amman, where they died.

The Jordan side stated that the car in which the Americans were stationed was fired upon by soldiers of the Jordanian army guarding the military base. Sources in the Jordanian army explained that the car did not react to the order to stop.

 

bhramos

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
25,644
Likes
37,250
Country flag
US to turn off operations in the At-Tanf area







In the evening of August 1, reports appeared that the United States was leaving At-Tanf and diverting parts of the special forces deployed on Syrian territory to Jordan.
One of the militant groupings operating in the area is in talks to surrender the SAA.

The reasons for the curtailment of operations in the area of the Syrian-Jordanian border are very obvious. In June, the US lost the race to the border http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/3471838.html , when the Iranian "proxy" bypassed the American block from At-Tanf and broke through to the border with Iraq, where they came in contact with the parts of "Hasd Shaabi." As he wrote back in June, the current US forces in this area were not enough to compete effectively with Iran.

It seems that Iran's ambitious plans to join forces in south-eastern Syria with the factions operating in Iraq have not been ignored by the Pentagon and are now actively resisting it, both within the framework of information and psychological operations, And the framework of similar air strikes.
The first round of the fight was over Iran, who won the race in East Kalamun. Now we are looking at the second round, where the question is being decided whether Iran will be able to control the road leading to the border with Iraq. If Iran wins this fight, then the Americans and the British will only have a practically bare desert.

As a result, air strikes http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/3425927.html did not help, the raids of militants on the advanced positions of the SAA and the Iranian "proxy" along the perimeter of the enclave did not bring success. Cutting off the United States from advancement to Abu Kemal and from joining with militants in Eastern Kalamun, the SAA and its allies virtually stopped all US activity in the area, having managed to occupy another part of Suwaydah during this time, Advance to the T-2 and reach the near approaches to Sukhni through Arak and T-3.
As a result, the United States not so long ago recognized the failure of its policy in southern Syria and announced the reduction of support for Syrian militants http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/3554165.html , both in general and about some of the groups operating in the At-Tanf area Together with the "New Syrian Army" created by the CIA. That's just one of these "thrown" groups and is negotiating for delivery. According to Julian Repke, one of the groups has already surrendered to the Syrians https://twitter.com/JulianRoepcke/status/892453776216 .. , but here however it is worthwhile to wait for more reliable sources than the "Jihadi Julian". As reported by https://twitter.com/Souria4Syrians/status/89243136448 .. , This group was put in a condition - either fighting together with the US against IGIL agreeing to be transferred to northeastern Syria, or to bring down on all four sides. The militants did not express any desire to fight with IGIL and they went to surrender to the SAA. Whether the US troops are withdrawn completely or it is still about the partial winding up of the group will be clear in the coming days. About the withdrawal of CIA bases from the Syrian-Jordanian border, I think it is not, especially since in addition to At-Tanf, the United States will still try to play the map of Deraa.

With the current configuration of the front, withdrawal from At-Tanf basically begs, there is nothing to do for the American special forces. IGIL is no longer there, it was not possible to prevent Iran's plans, it did not work out a connection with the militants in Eastern Kalamun. And the US itself was forced to admit, That there are no legitimate grounds here http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/3557547.html And to sit and keep a piece of useless desert does not make much sense. Hence the rumors that the troops withdrawn from southern Syria through Jordan will be transferred either to Rakku to reinforce the grouping of the storming capital of the Caliphate, or to the Al Shaddady area, to support SDF / YPG operations on the northern bank of the Euphrates in order to advance to Deir ez -Over. Completing the story with At-Tanf in one form or another would mean that Syria and Iran won an important round in the struggle for the territorial integrity of Syria, destroying the plans of the US and Britain to use southern Syria for operations aimed at dismembering Syria. But winning in one battle does not mean winning a war. Ahead still finishing off the Caliphate, Negotiations with the sponsors of the "green" and the Kurdish problem.

PS. The overlapping map reflects the current progress of the Russian-Iranian coalition and the Assad government in the Syrian war since the beginning of the year. You can confidently say that by September 1, a significant part of the 2nd card will be painted red.

Author: Boris Rozhin
 

bhramos

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
25,644
Likes
37,250
Country flag
Is the Expanding U.S. Military Presence in Syria Legal?
Washington has gone rogue.

unlu/Shutterstock
In July, the White House and Pentagon requested authority from Congress to build further “temporary intermediate staging facilities” inside Syria in order to combat ISIS more effectively. This request, it must be noted, comes in the wake of devastating ISIS defeats in Syria, mostly by the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and its allied forces.

Shortly afterward, the Turkish state-owned Anadolu news agency revealed previously unknown details and locations of ten U.S. bases and outposts in northern Syria, several of them with airfields. These are in addition to at least two further U.S. outposts already identified in southern Syria, on the Iraqi border.

When asked about these military bases, a CENTCOM (U.S. Central Command) spokesman told me: “We don’t have bases in Syria. We have soldiers throughout Syria providing training and assist to the SDF (the mainly Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces in the north of the country).” How many soldiers? “Roughly 1,200 troops,” says CENTCOM.

Yet when questioned about the international law grounds for this U.S. military presence inside Syria, CENTCOM didn’t have a response on hand. They referred me to the Office of the Secretary of Defense whose spokesman obstinately cited U.S. domestic law—an issue quite irrelevant to Syrians. He, in turn, referred me to the White House and State Department on the international-law angle. The State Department sent me back to the Department of Defense, the White House pointed me in the direction of the National Security Council (NSC), and the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel blankly ignored my repeated requests.

It isn’t hard to conclude that official Washington simply doesn’t want to answer the “international law” question on Syria. To be fair, in December 2016, the Obama administration offered up an assessment on the legalities of the use of force in Syria, but perhaps subsequent ground developments—the SAA and its allies defeating ISIS and Al Qaeda left, right, and center—have tightened some lips in the nation’s capital.


U.S. military bases and outposts in Syria identified by media and independent sources as of July 26. (Commissioned by the author from M. Fahd and Z. Adra.)

The map of U.S. bases in Syria is confusing. For starters, it reveals that many of the US outposts—or “staging facilities”—are nowhere near ISIS-controlled areas. This has generated some legitimate suspicion about U.S. motives in Syria, especially since American forces have begun to attack Syrian military targets with more frequency. This summer saw U.S. strikes against Syrian allied forces, drones, and a fighter jet all in the space of a few weeks. And most memorably, in September 2016, Coalition fighters killed over 100 SAA troops fighting ISIS in Deir Ezzor, paving the way for a brief ISIS takeover of strategic points in the oil-rich province.

It appears that U.S. intentions may go beyond the stated objective of fighting terrorism in Syria—and that Washington’s goals are also territorial and political and seek to retain post-conflict zones of influence within the country: in the south, north, and along the Syrian-Iraqi border.

Former Obama White House and NSC senior legal official Brian Egan believes the coming challenge for U.S. policymakers—in terms of international law—will be to justify clashes with Syrian forces and their allies.

“I think the harder international law question to defend is with respect to use of force against the [Syrian President Bashar] al-Assad regime,” warns Egan. “For example, the U.S. strike in response to the [alleged] chemical weapons attack. There’s no self-defense justification, there’s no UN Security Council resolution. It’s an open question what the U.S. depends on in terms of international law.”

“Theories that might be applicable against terrorist groups like ISIS don’t appear to apply for U.S. military ops against Syrian forces. The more that U.S. forces are in-theater in Syria, the greater the chance of conflict between the U.S. and Syrian forces, which makes it essential that [this administration] explains its justification for potential operations in Syria,” emphasizes Egan.

But it’s not only Syrian forces and military targets that have come under American fire. In a stream of letters to the UN Security Council this year, the Syrian government asserts U.S. air strikes have also “systematically” destroyed vital infrastructure and economic assets throughout the country for months, and complains that the attacks are “being carried out outside the framework of international legality.” The Syrians claim that these infrastructure targets include the Ghalban oil collection branch station, Umar oilfield, wells and facilities, electrical transformer stations, Tanak oil field and facilities, Izbah oil field and installations—all in Deir Ezzor governorate—a gas plant and bridges and structures of the Balikh Canal in Raqqa, buildings and facilities belonging to the General Establishment of Geology and Mineral Resources in Homs, Furat and Baath Dam facilities, the Euphrates Dam, the Tishrin Dam and their reservoirs, irrigation and power generation facilities, and many other vital sites across the country.

With U.S. legal arguments supporting military presence in Syria unravelling, the Pentagon’s untenable position has become noticeable, even within its own ranks.

“Here’s the conundrum,” explained U.S. Special Operations Command Chief Army General Raymond Thomas to an Aspen gathering last week, in response to a question about whether U.S. forces will stay in Syria, post-ISIS: “We are operating in the sovereign country of Syria. The Russians, their stalwarts, their back-stoppers, have already uninvited the Turks from Syria. We’re a bad day away from the Russians saying, ‘Why are you still in Syria, U.S.?’”

The Russians, Iranians, Hezbollah, and other allied Syrian forces are in Syria legally, at the invitation of the UN-recognized state authority. The United States and its coalition partners are not.

At the moment, the latter are trying hard to ignore that elephant in the room. But as ISIS collapses, the question “why are you still here?” is going to rise in volume.

When the U.S.-led coalition first launched overt military operations inside Syria in September 2014, various western governments cited both the recently-passed UNSC Resolution 2249 and Article 51 (Iraq’s invitation for “collective self-defense”) as their legal justification for doing so.

Neither of these justifications provided legal grounds for use of force in Syria, however. There are basically only three clear-cut international law justifications for use of force: a UN Security Council (UNSC) resolution providing Chapter 7authority, self-defense against an act of aggression by a territorial state, and an invitation by the legitimate authority of a sovereign state for foreign troops to act within its borders—“consent of a territorial state.”

While UNSC Res. 2249 called upon member states to “take all necessary measures” against ISIS in Syria and Iraq, it explicitly stated that any such measures must be “in compliance with international law, in particular with the UN Charter”—which requires consent of a territorial state, in this case, the Syrian government.

And while Iraq did invite the Coalition to militarily engage ISIS within its territory, its “collective self-defense” argument does not justify the use of force inside Syrian territory—because Syria did not attack Iraq.

To make up for the gaping holes in its international-law arguments, the U.S.-led Coalition performed some legal acrobatics. The “unwilling and unable” theory posits that the Coalition could engage militarily in Syria because the legitimate government of Syria was either unable or unwilling (or both) to fight ISIS.

An onslaught of media articles and carefully-framed narratives were employed to set the scene for this theory. Recall, if you will, the slew of articles claiming that ISIS controlled around 50 percent of Syria—areas which were outside of Syrian state control—all meant to guide us to the conclusion that Syria was “unable” to fight ISIS. Or the narratives that insisted, until ground evidence proved otherwise, that the Syrian government aided ISIS, that it never fought the terror group, that it only targeted “moderate rebels”—all intended to persuade us that Syria was “unwilling” to target ISIS.

In fact, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and its allies have fought ISIS throughout this conflict, but were often distracted by more urgent battles against U.S., Turkish, British, French, Saudi, UAE and Qatari-backed Islamist militants in the western corridor of the country, where Syria’s main population and infrastructure hubs are located. ISIS-controlled territories, it should be noted, were mostly in the largely barren, sparsely populated and desert regions in the north-east and east of Syria.

The NATO-Gulf Cooperation Council strategy appears to ping-pong Syrian troops from east to west, north to south, wearing them down, cleverly diverting them from any battle in which they were making gains. And it was working, until the Russians stepped into the fray in September 2015 and sunk the Coalition’s “unwilling and unable” theory.

As Major Patrick Walsh, associate professor in the International and Operational Law Department at the US Army’s Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School in Virginia, wrote that October:

“The United States and others who are acting in collective defense of Iraq and Turkey are in a precarious position. The international community is calling on Russia to stop attacking rebel groups and start attacking ISIS. But if Russia does, and if the Assad government commits to preventing ISIS from attacking Syria’s neighbors and delivers on that commitment, then the unwilling or unable theory for intervention in Syria would no longer apply. Nations would be unable to legally intervene inside Syria against ISIS without the Assad government’s consent.”

The UK’s leading security and defense analyst firm IHT Markit observed in an April 2017 report that during the time period in which ISIS suffered its most crippling defeats, Syrian allied forces fought the terror group two and a half times as often as U.S.-backed ones. With the Russian air force providing Syrian allied troops with game-changing air cover, the battle against ISIS and other terror groups began to turn decisively in Syria’s favor. And, with that, out went even the “theoretical” justification for U.S. military intervention in Syria.

As ISIS and Al Qaeda are beaten back in Syria, the American conversation about what comes next is missing a most critical point. In terms of international law, Washington has gone rogue in Syria. Will the world take notice?

http://www.theamericanconservative....panding-u-s-military-presence-in-syria-legal/
 

bhramos

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
25,644
Likes
37,250
Country flag
#WARmart #USA equips "moderate" Terrorists in # Syria with weapons from # Belarus






https://diana-mihailova.livejournal.com/947049.html

And after all, they almost did not sleep, but the Romanians published a report on the transit of military cargo, and in Bulgaria a contractor from the US MTR died whose relatives filed a lawsuit. The court published the documents.

... in the open materials of the court were two e-mails of the head of Regulus Global Will Samerindika to contractor Mike Doherty and the head of another subcontractor, SkyBridge Tactical, Stefan Rambli. On May 25, Will Samerindin wrote: "Training in Belarus is scheduled for Thursday and Friday. You will have 8 hours a day on the simulator "Competition". Whether you are there Thursday and Friday or only on Friday, my costs will be the same. I will have to pay extra money for facilitating and using the simulator. Training for VMZ (Bulgarian "Vazovsky Machine Building Plant" - Ed.) Will begin no earlier than Monday. I'm not sure that you need all five days. You will have training at RPG-7, RPG-9 and, if you want, on the automatic grenade launcher AGS17. He is not included in the list of purchased weapons, but I was told that they are interested. " But the head of Regulus Global wrote on May 31: "VERY VERY IMPORTANT. I had to do ninja movements to coordinate the workouts. VERY-VERY IMPORTANT that all three guys do not mention to anyone that they were in Belarus and trained at the "Competition". I said that the reason for changing our schedule occurred to achieve the goals of our mission. Especially do not talk about this to Alexander (Dimitrov, head of Alguns ltd - ed.), Who will coordinate everything in Bulgaria. He will be upset if he learns that the shift in training for Monday is related to training in Belarus. Nobody knew that our guys would be in Belarus. The same goes for VMZ. Due to the explosion, the plant is still closed. Therefore, it was also not easy to agree on training. I do not need unnecessary actions from you. Only "yes, sir", "no, sir" and a minimum of conversations. Please confirm receipt of the letter and the fact that all three clearly understood this. Thank you"....

# Belorussia -> # Bulgaria
Further the route of supply is classic: # Bulgaria -> # Bourgas -> #HanneDanica -> #Jeddah -> #KSA -> #Syria #FSA
 

bhramos

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
25,644
Likes
37,250
Country flag
#WARmart #USA arms the "moderate" Barmaleyev in # Syria armored vehicles.
the route of supply has long been known: # Bulgaria -> # Bourgas -> #HanneDanica -> #Jeddah -> #KSA -> #Syria #FSA

OT-64 was initially produced by Czechoslovakia jointly with Poland,






most of the vehicles were in service with these countries, and in Bulgaria they could only get in the course of the sale from warehouses.

https://imp-navigator.livejournal.com/654399.html
https://eadaily.com/en/news/2017/05/23/teper-i-bmp-po ..
about armored personnel carriers: https: // ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/OT-64_SKOT

Just recently, Bulgarian journalist Dilyana Gaytanjiyeva was fired for an unhealthy interest in Bulgarian expression.
https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/3638432.html
 

bhramos

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
25,644
Likes
37,250
Country flag

bhramos

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
25,644
Likes
37,250
Country flag
Clintons Pictured With Islamic State Supporters & US Created “Moderate Rebels” Misuse of Funds




If you think the United States Government (be it Republicans or Democrats), doesnt have its hands deep in the creation of ISIS (Islamic State in Syria), then you have failed to do the research into the TRUTH that you should have.

Former United States President William (Bill) Clinton is shown in the picture above with the American Arab Zaher Badaraany, the man who claims to be President of the Syrian Future Movement. (Located in Turkey). The US claims to be fighting ISIS but in fact, top officials in the US government are knee deep, as you can see. Senator McCains photo ops have been much more publicized.



American Arab Zaher Badaraany participating in an anti-Assad rally in Miami Beach Florida in March.



https://syrianfreepress.wordpress.com/2014/11/06/clintons-with-daesh/

 

bhramos

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
25,644
Likes
37,250
Country flag
LOL: US thinks presence in Syria is legal


The United States received no permission from the United Nations to intervene in Syria, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Thursday, 16 November. “We were surprised to hear a statement made by US Defense Secretary James Mattis when talking to the US media representatives, on November 13, that the US Armed Forces are in Syria “with the permission of the UN,” Zakharova said. Her comments were made after Secretary of Defense, James Mattis, said that Washington’s intervention in Syria had been approved by the United Nations. “I want to remind you that the Security Council is the only agency under the UN Charter that is entitled to take decisions on using military force,” she said, adding that no such decision has been taken. “The US forces are there contrary to the wishes of Syria’s legitimate government, in fact acting as occupants,” the diplomat stressed. Outside of the UN, for the US to be able to conduct legal military operations abroad, it should also receive the approval of the Congress - yet this regulation is constantly violated. Activity against terrorist groups, as well as government forces, have taken place in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Libya and are explained by the fact that the Congress allowed the US forces to fight Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, after the attacks of September 11, 2001. Critics say that the White House and Pentagon are interpreting the legislation too broadly. On October 30th, Rex Tillerson, US Secretary of State, stated that “geographical constrictions” [of the bill] should not be a limitation for the US to fight ISIS anywhere in the world, and that no updated legislation was necessary. This doesn’t change the fact that no UNSC permission, on behalf of the international community, was ever given to the US to invade Syria.
 

Hindustani78

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2017
Messages
1,326
Likes
386
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...itaries-deploy-to-syrian-border-idUSKBN1EG298


BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqi Shi‘ite paramilitary groups have deployed to the frontier to back up border guard forces who came under fire from within Syria over the past three days, one of their commanders said on Friday.

There was no immediate word on who opened fire from Syrian territory, but forces arrayed against Islamic State in Iraq and Syria expect the group will resort to guerrilla warfare after losing its urban bastions earlier this year.

“After several Iraqi border guard positions came under several attacks by missiles, and backup from security forces was late, the 13th brigade of the Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF) was deployed and targeted the origins of the launch,” PMF commander for west Anbar, Qassem Mesleh, said in a statement.

“Operations command and the infantry brigade are now present on the Iraqi-Syrian border in border guard positions to repel any attack or movement by the enemy,” Mesleh said.

“This area is not within the PMF’s remit but it is our duty to back up all security forces.”

The PMF is an umbrella grouping of mostly Iran-backed and trained Shi‘ite militias that formally report to Iraq’s prime minister but are separate from the military and police.

Sunni Muslims and Kurds have called on Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi to disarm the PMF, which they say are responsible for widespread abuses against their communities.

An Iraqi military spokesman confirmed the deployment. Brigadier General Yahya Rasool told Reuters it was temporary, however, and “very normal” because it was the PMF’s duty to back up government forces.

The PMF were officially made part of the Iraqi security establishment by law and formally answer to Abadi in his capacity as commander-in-chief of the armed forces.

Abadi has said the state should have a monopoly on the legitimate use of arms.

Iraqi forces on Dec. 9 recaptured the last swathes of territory still under Islamic State control along the frontier with Syria and secured the western desert.

It marked the end of the war against the militants, three years after they overran about a third of Iraq’s territory.

Rasool, the military spokesman, denied backup to the border guards had been late.

“The primary responsibility for the borders lies with the border guards and the army, however,” said Rasool.

He said Iraqi forces coordinate with both the Syrian army, which is backed by Russia, Iran and Iran-backed Shi‘ite militias, and the U.S.-backed alliance of Kurdish and Arab militias known as the Syrian Democratic Forces opposed to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

He said parts of Syria - including many areas on the border with Iraq - were still under Islamic State control.
 

Hindustani78

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2017
Messages
1,326
Likes
386
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/iraqi-shiite-paramilitaries-deploy-to-syrian-border-124669

BAGHDAD – Reuters



Iraqi Shiite paramilitary groups have deployed to the frontier to back up border guard forces who came under fire from within Syria over the past three days, one of their commanders has said.

There was no immediate word on who opened fire from Syrian territory, but forces arrayed against Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in Iraq and Syria expect the group will resort to guerrilla warfare after losing its urban bastions earlier this year.

“After several Iraqi border guard positions came under several attacks by missiles, and backup from security forces was late, the 13th brigade of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) was deployed and targeted the origins of the launch,” PMF commander for west Anbar, Qassem Mesleh, said in a statement.

“Operations command and the infantry brigade are now present on the Iraqi-Syrian border in border guard positions to repel any attack or movement by the enemy,” Mesleh said.

“This area is not within the PMF’s remit but it is our duty to back up all security forces.”

The PMF is an umbrella grouping of mostly Iran-backed and trained Shiite militias that formally report to Iraq’s prime minister but are separate from the military and police.

Sunni Muslims and Kurds have called on Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi to disarm the PMF, which they say are responsible for widespread abuses against their communities.

An Iraqi military spokesman confirmed the deployment.

Brigadier General Yahya Rasool told Reuters it was temporary, however, and “very normal” because it was the PMF’s duty to back up government forces.

The PMF were officially made part of the Iraqi security establishment by law and formally answer to Abadi in his capacity as commander-in-chief of the armed forces.

Abadi has said the state should have a monopoly on the legitimate use of arms.

Iraqi forces on Dec. 9 recaptured the last swathes of territory still under ISIL control along the frontier with Syria and secured the western desert.

It marked the end of the war against the militants, three years after they overran about a third of Iraq’s territory.

Rasool, the military spokesman, denied backup to the border guards had been late.

“The primary responsibility for the borders lies with the border guards and the army, however,” said Rasool.

He said Iraqi forces coordinate with both the Syrian army, which is backed by Russia, Iran and Iran-backed Shiite militias, and the U.S.-backed alliance of Kurdish militias known as the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) opposed to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

He said parts of Syria - including many areas on the border with Iraq - were still under ISIL control.
 

bhramos

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
25,644
Likes
37,250
Country flag
This will repeat in Syria too....


U.S Soldier Throws Puppy Off Cliff
 

Hindustani78

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2017
Messages
1,326
Likes
386
Ankara’s concerns over the continued delivery of heavy weapons and armored vehicles. Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu had told reporters after the phone call.

The list included a total of 12,000 Kalashnikov rifles worth $6.3 million, 60,000 Kalashnikov clips worth $420,000 and 6,000 machine guns worth $20.3 million.

Accordingly, sophisticated weapons will continue to be sent to Syria in 2018, including thousands of anti-tanks, heat seeking missiles and rocket launchers.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top