Daily Sabah columnist, SETA Foundation Research Director in Washington D.C. and professor of political science at Penn State University, Kılıç Buğra Kanat wrote an excellent piece for this newspaper ("Don't Underestimate the Turkey-US Partnership") the other day. Analyzing an article written by Brett McGurk, the former special presidential envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIS (Daesh), for the Foreign Affairs review, professor Kanat shows us the multifaceted nature of the U.S. strategy in Syria. McGurk wrote about "a number of interwoven goals in Syria" like checking the ambitions of Iran and Turkey." From this and other statements by McGurk, professor Kanat deduces that the main challenges between Turkey and the U.S. over the last few years have been McGurk's perception of Turkey's role and Turkish-American relations during his tenure. This very telling article needs more focus to decipher the ambivalent U.S. policy in the region.
Foreign Affairs, like the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) from which it has sprung, is a globalist, conservative publication. Founded in 1921, shortly after the United States rejected membership in the League of Nations, the CFR is the brainchild of the Rockefeller, Morgan and Rothschild families. They wanted to make the U.S. a member of the League and govern the world through globalist international organizations, including the United Nations, World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), most of which had been created in large part by CFR members. Ever since, the CFR has been pushing for globalist and one-world policies, and Foreign Affairs has been helping the "cause."
Brett McGurk was one of the foot soldiers of the globalists, doing important work in the Middle East. He made it very clear what that work was and still is: "Washington… should focus on protecting only two interests in Syria: preventing ISIS from coming back and stopping Iran from establishing a fortified military presence there that might threaten Israel." He complained, "Some U.S. officials, especially those in the Pentagon, were focused on completing the original mission," and convinced President Trump to withdraw from Iraq and Syria. "Without leverage on the ground," McGurk concluded, "The U.S. fails to achieve even these modest goals."
McGurk is not all that pessimistic; he sees some light in the dark alleys of the Pentagon. He writes: "Yet others, particularly John Bolton, Trump's national security adviser, believed that U.S. forces should remain in Syria until all Iranian forces left. This would represent a vast expansion of the mission and require an indefinite commitment of U.S. troops – something Trump opposed."
That is exactly what "others" in the Pentagon, State Department and White House are trying to implement: Let Trump face a fait accompli. The leader of this plot is the usual suspect: John "the president" Bolton. Trump had opposed appointing Bolton for his Walrus-like mustache, the Daily Mail of London had reported. But he was finally selected because of the Armageddon he could stave off. But if we believe McGurk, Bolton would bring the Armageddon in, rather than prevent it.
McGurk explains that alongside the two-thirds of the country that is controlled by the government and a small opposition enclave, one-third of the country is in the hands of the SDF (Syrian Democratic Forces), the PKK's offshoot. He confesses that during the last uncertain months while the U.S. forces were still in place and the violence was seemingly decreased, the SDF solidified its borders and entrenched its administration. According to McGurk, with forces on the ground and influence over one-third of the country, the U.S. is "in a position to play an important role in shaping postwar Syria." He concludes that the priority for the U.S. is now "to reach a settlement… about the ultimate disposition of territory in the U.S. zone of influence."
Thanks to McGurk, we now know that we are going to be "border neighbors" with the U.S.
