David Ignatius wrote an article under the title: “Trump's
big decision in Syria ,”
published on August 31, 2017 in the Washington Post. In it, the author
discusses the pros and cons of America
leaving a residual force in Syria
after the defeat of the Islamic State (ISIS).
He expands his argument by laying out the wishes of the
different factions operating in Syria at this time, and by speculating on what
each of them might do when the Islamic State will be done with, and out of the
way. He then concludes by asking the question: What happens next? And answers
it by laying out the two possibilities he sees for the region. First, if America leaves quickly, things might deteriorate
as they did in Iraq ,
he says. Second, if America
maintains a residual force, it could curb the ambitions of the Kurds, deter the
Turks from intervening and encourage the Sunni opposition to work with all
sides.
Well, it must be said that in general, this is good advice,
except for the part of America
maintaining a residual force in Syria .
In fact, America
does not need a force of a thousand troops or so, as he says, to curb the Kurds
or deter the Turks or advise the Sunnis on how to proceed. America can accomplish all this by keeping its soldiers
out of Syria .
It must, however, be conscious of the fact that the Arabs hold it responsible
for the mess that's plaguing the Levant at
this time. And they will want America
to clean up its own mess … but with a caveat. So how can this be done?
Well, four operations were undertaken in two places, and we
can study them. Their outcomes provide a valuable lesson on how America must
comport itself in the future to be useful and effective when dealing with
Middle Eastern issues. These are the before and after of America 's involvement in Iraq ; as well as the before and after of America 's involvement in Libya .
With regard to Iraq ,
it was the Arabs who called on Bush 41 to clean up the mess that was America ’s responsibility given that the chain of
events triggered by Israel 's
bombing of Saddam's civilian nuclear station ended with the latter invading Kuwait . To
remedy the situation, the Arabs gave America
parameters within which to operate as it evicts Saddam's army out of Kuwait . America
complied and the outcome was a total success.
Unhappy with an outcome that brought the Arabs and the
Americans close together, the always monopolistic Jews managed to brainwash
Bush 43, making him believe he had the duty to complete the job that his father
started in Iraq
but never finished. To complete the job, they advised him to invade Iraq and change
the regime there; and Bush did as instructed. The result was the triggering of
a second chain of events that led to the horror we see today in the Levant .
As to Libya ,
it was the Jews of France that brainwashed the leaders of that country. They
told them if they fail to intervene in Libya ,
they will see a repeat of the situation that brought genocide to Rwanda . As a
result of their inaction, they will have blood on their hand, said the Jews,
and history will never forgive them. And so, the French leaders responded by
getting their country involved in Libya .
Unable to do the work alone, the French called on America to participate in the Libya
operation. The Americans consulted with the Arab League, which gave them
parameters on how to conduct themselves, believing that America under Bush 43 will be as
wise as it was under Bush 41.
However, unlike the way that America responded under Bush 41, it
listened to the Jews this time. It ignored the parameters of the Arab League
and went on to create the horror that followed. After its withdrawal, having
left a huge mess behind, the Libyans called on Egypt to help, and the latter did.
Where necessary, Egypt
called on America to lend a
hand, and America did so
without violating the rules put down by Egypt
and Libya .
The result was the stabilization of the situation; and that's where things
stand at this time.