Will Trump's Secret War in Syria escalate to the point of War with Neighbors?

[NOVA Green]

Trump has from the Republican Primary to the '16 General Election alluded to secret plans that only he is privy to, to solve the Syrian Civil War, as well as the war against ISIS.

So far, we have yet to see a single US Policy position when it comes to Syria....

Meanwhile, the US Military with 1.5k ground troops in Syria, not to mention air power and support for various allied militias, is increasingly moving towards a scenario where there could well be open conflict with the Government of Syria, Iranian Republican Guard elements, not to mention various other political and military formations from throughout the region.

Trump's War in Syria thus far has been a stealth war, with the nominal target being crushing ISIS (Which is an extremely popular position with US Public Opinion). Now that ISIS is on the verge of defeat, it is starting to appear increasingly likely that the Trump Administration is on the verge of mounting a full scale assault to create regime change in Syria, and also pushing forward towards direct military conflict with Iran.

Thoughts???

[The Self]

Wasn't Trump the Noninterventionist™ Pat Buchanan Approved™ candidate? What happened to that?

[palandio]

So far I cannot see a consistent US position between Trump, Tillerson, Mattis, their departments and the CIA. I'm still not sure whether Trump has a plan. A full scale assault to create regime change is only one of several options. What is currently more likely is the attempt to keep Syria and Iran from controlling Deir ez-Zor province and the Syrian-Iraqi border. This might of course escalate into a full-scale war including an attempt to topple Assad, because Iran seems very determined and Russia (so far) doesn't have good reasons to let its allies fall.

[NOVA Green]

So far I cannot see a consistent US position between Trump, Tillerson, Mattis, their departments and the CIA. I'm still not sure whether Trump has a plan. A full scale assault to create regime change is only one of several options. What is currently more likely is the attempt to keep Syria and Iran from controlling Deir ez-Zor province and the Syrian-Iraqi border. This might of course escalate into a full-scale war including an attempt to topple Assad, because Iran seems very determined and Russia (so far) doesn't have good reasons to let its allies fall.

And now we have this....

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/25/trump-iran-foreign-policy-regime-change-239930

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

As bad as it is, I say not likely. The secret war in Yemen bothers me more.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Wasn't Trump the Noninterventionist™ Pat Buchanan Approved™ candidate? What happened to that?

Compared to Hillary, he definitely is. Compared to Bernie, he's an insane warmonger.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Wasn't Trump the Noninterventionist™ Pat Buchanan Approved™ candidate? What happened to that?

Yes. Aside from a few shoot downs he's largely been a non-interventionist, Pat Buchanan approved President.

[SoLongAtlas]

So far I cannot see a consistent US position between Trump, Tillerson, Mattis, their departments and the CIA. I'm still not sure whether Trump has a plan. A full scale assault to create regime change is only one of several options. What is currently more likely is the attempt to keep Syria and Iran from controlling Deir ez-Zor province and the Syrian-Iraqi border. This might of course escalate into a full-scale war including an attempt to topple Assad, because Iran seems very determined and Russia (so far) doesn't have good reasons to let its allies fall.

And now we have this....

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/25/trump-iran-foreign-policy-regime-change-239930

The neocons at FDD are strongly pushing anti-Iran policies. Any action against Iran would be sustained and bloody. Boots on in Iran is not an option. It would be a cyber and air/naval campaign but would only bolster hardliners and diminish Rouhani's influence.

I say sign up any and all of these FDD eggheads first sign of a hot war. I would even take them to the nearest MEPS and give them a book or two on our meddling that led to Islamist Iran in the first place.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Trump won't start a military conflict (or seriously engage in any) for a few reasons:

1. He doesn't care at all about foreign policy. His entire business career and public appearances have been focused on domestic policy.
2. He didn't campaign on a particularly adventurous foreign policy. He seemingly despised the Bush led Iraq War for example.
3. The dysfunction as palandio pointed out suggests that he and his team will be completely unable to form any kind of coherent foreign policy agenda. The chaos in this regard will hinder the neocons in his administration from exercising enough influence in pushing for a more interventionist foreign policy.

Yes he's a hot head but beyond that there's no "there" there for him to engage in any kind of militaristic endeavor overseas.

[NOVA Green]

So, I have yet to see anyone on Atlas promote regime change in Syria or Iran.

Even Chairman Sanchez, with whom I disagree with on very many issues.

My personal opinion is that thus far Trump has essentially continued the same American Foreign Policy items when it comes to military intervention as Obama within the Middle East.

Although there are quite a few things that I disagree with when it comes to US Military Intervention under Obama, fundamentally it is overall a good thing to practice relative consistency with US Foreign Policy.

However, now that ISIS is virtually crushed from their strongholds in Mosul and Raqaa, inevitably the focus will shift elsewhere.

George W. Bush did not run as a President seeking regime change in Iraq, and yet it still created the single largest US Foreign Policy disaster in decades, and we are still cleaning up the mess and paying the massive cost of that War.

Now we have President Trump that appears to be quietly escalating the War in Syria, while meanwhile foreign policy advisers and think-tanks are openly calling for regime change in both Iran and Syria.

We have seen this story before, although many on the Forum are likely too young to remember how a President lied to the American people and gradually escalated a conflict overseas.... (LBJ- Vietnam)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTyqoV1d2Ys

Obviously we saw the lies from the Nixon Administration, that had a "secret plan to end to the War in Vietnam"---- this caused a massive covert carpet bombing campaign that cause the Khmer Rouge to come to power in Cambodia, as well as massive student unrest that not only led to "Four Dead in Ohio", and the subsequent shut down of almost all public colleges and universities in the United States, but ultimately the US pulling out after decades of Republican and Democratic Presidents alike of trying to protect French Colonial rule in Vietnam.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YX95QSKBODo

Fast forward through time and space, and then we hit George W. Bush and Iraq War 2.0

Same concept--- war based upon fundamental lies and deception in the aftermath of 9/11, just as LBJ and Gulf of Tompkin created a fake excuse for massive military escalation and regime change....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iE-8Daea_48

Now we have President Trump who ran effectively as an Isolationist Republican, skewered Jeb Bush in the primaries on Iraq, attacked Clinton in the GE on Iraq, claiming to be an Anti-War Republican.

I fully confess I am not a huge Trump fan, and if HRC were Pres I would be asking similar questions, so ignore my avatar, but I have seen this movie before over decades.

I have very little faith in Trump when it comes to the most fundamental job duties of a President.... power over War & Peace.

His recent tirades against Qatar appear to be extremely bizarre, and now he has a very small inner circle of advisers that he listens to, rather than those with extensive background and experience in the region.

Maybe I'm just having some bad flashbacks of George W., but it sure as hell is looking like the drumbeats of War are sounding, and Trump like W. is extremely likely to "fold" to the opinion of various advisers that like a "Good War"

[Technocracy Timmy]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The same could be said of Franklin Roosevelt. Events like Germany invading Poland + Pearl Harbor and 9/11 can radically shift the course of history and sway men to abandon their promises on the campaign trail and to instead react to the events that have currently unfolded in front of them.

Trump at the moment has absolutely no public mandate to go to war with anyone. The fallout of the Iraq war is fresh on the minds of many Americans and was a pretty big contributor for why Barack Obama chose not to follow through with his red line in Syria. The big worry right now is North Korea; it's the country that Barack Obama explicitly told President Trump would be his first and biggest challenge while in office. How that situation plays out has the greatest likelihood of escalating into a full blown war moreso than anything in the Middle East.

[palandio]

So Nikki Haley announced today that the US will use an alleged chemical attack (by whoever) in the near future as a pretext to intervene against Assad (cynicically speaking).

[Kingpoleon]

The fact of the matter is that Assad controls about a third of his country. It's not really regime change when the Kurds and the NCSROF/SNC control about as much of Syria as Assad does.

[palandio]

The fact of the matter is that Assad controls about a third of his country. It's not really regime change when the Kurds and the NCSROF/SNC control about as much of Syria as Assad does.

The fact of the matter is that much of (Eastern) Syria is steppe and desert. When weighing by population or similar criteria Assad controls about two thirds of Syria. The Kurdish controlled area is rapidly expanding at the cost of ISIS (as is the Assad controlled area), but it is not that densely populated. The area controlled by [insert: random alphabet soup] has never been more than 15% (independently from how you count) and is shrinking rather than expanding. (Additionally the conference guests you named above don't exert control over all the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, Ahrar al-Sham, Jaish al-Islam and various local rebel groups that have the control on the ground.)

The Syrian Baath regime is an evil dictatorship, but you should at least acknowledge that the regime and its foreign backers by concentrating their force on "useful Syria" until circa two months ago have managed to remain by far the most relevant actor on the ground, while none of the other actors has ever controlled more than 15%. Hence regime change would still be the correct term in my opinion.

[Kingpoleon]

The fact of the matter is that Assad controls about a third of his country. It's not really regime change when the Kurds and the NCSROF/SNC control about as much of Syria as Assad does.

The fact of the matter is that much of (Eastern) Syria is steppe and desert. When weighing by population or similar criteria Assad controls about two thirds of Syria. The Kurdish controlled area is rapidly expanding at the cost of ISIS (as is the Assad controlled area), but it is not that densely populated. The area controlled by [insert: random alphabet soup] has never been more than 15% (independently from how you count) and is shrinking rather than expanding. (Additionally the conference guests you named above don't exert control over all the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, Ahrar al-Sham, Jaish al-Islam and various local rebel groups that have the control on the ground.)

The Syrian Baath regime is an evil dictatorship, but you should at least acknowledge that the regime and its foreign backers by concentrating their force on "useful Syria" until circa two months ago have managed to remain by far the most relevant actor on the ground, while none of the other actors has ever controlled more than 15%. Hence regime change would still be the correct term in my opinion.

Honestly, if I were managing foreign policy, I would:
1. Negotiate a ceasefire between all non-ISIS forces until ISIS is defeated.
2. After ISIS's defeat, then I would permanently split Syria. A referendum, watched by Iraqi and Lebanese forces with U. N. oversight, will determine what regions will join which side. In any close region, or in any region with a clear geographical divide, we simply split the region. If >50% of Syria(including Kurdistan) votes to join the Coalition or Assad, that side would take the country. If they got <60% of the vote, and one region voted for the losing side with 10%+ as high as the winner's percentage, then the losers would take all such regions/geographical areas.


Hopefully, the relatively moderate Muslims and Christian voters would outnumber the supporters of Ba'ath Syria easily.