BEIRUT, LEBANON (6:20 P.M.) – In a new article released this week, Newsweek cited an unnamed senior U.S. intelligence official as saying that the ongoing American strategy in Syria is a ‘clusterf**k’ as the next presidential election approaches in November.

While “both candidates vow to end the ‘endless wars’ waged by their predecessors”, as Newsweek points out, the U.S. currently has no strategy for Syria.

According to the article, the U.S. “doesn’t have a strategy [on Syria]” other than “to ensure an enduring defeat” of the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL/IS/Daesh) and to occupy Syrian oil fields.

The situation becomes more complicated daily by the fact that the Russian Armed Forces have managed to establish a headquarters at the Al-Qamishli Airbase in northeastern Syria, which is not far from some of the U.S. installations.

Meanwhile, Newsweek cited Pentagon spokesperson Jessica McNulty as saying that the U.S.-led coalition does not coordinate or share intelligence with Russia in Syria.

“From time-to-time we are incidentally apprised of planned Russian strikes on ISIS [Daesh] targets west of the Euphrates River, as part of our routine de-confliction communications”, she pointed out.

However, this proves to be major debacle for the U.S. Armed Forces in Syria, as they recently were involved in an accident involving their vehicles.

The accident came as a result of a “cat-and-mouse” chase involving the Russian and U.S. forces near the border-city of Al-Malikiyah in northeastern Syria.

The U.S. blamed Russia for the accident, who, in turn, switched the blame to the American forces.

 

Share this article:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  • 1
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    1
    Share
ALSO READ  Turkish forces unleash powerful attack in northern Syria

Notice: All comments represent the view of the commenter and not necessarily the views of AMN.

All comments that are not spam or wholly inappropriate are approved, we do not sort out opinions or points of view that are different from ours.

This is a Civilized Place for Public Discussion

Please treat this discussion with the same respect you would a public park. We, too, are a shared community resource — a place to share skills, knowledge and interests through ongoing conversation.

These are not hard and fast rules, merely guidelines to aid the human judgment of our community and keep this a clean and well-lighted place for civilized public discourse.

Improve the Discussion

Help us make this a great place for discussion by always working to improve the discussion in some way, however small. If you are not sure your post adds to the conversation, think over what you want to say and try again later.

The topics discussed here matter to us, and we want you to act as if they matter to you, too. Be respectful of the topics and the people discussing them, even if you disagree with some of what is being said.

Be Agreeable, Even When You Disagree

You may wish to respond to something by disagreeing with it. That’s fine. But remember to criticize ideas, not people. Please avoid:

  • Name-calling
  • Ad hominem attacks
  • Responding to a post’s tone instead of its actual content
  • Knee-jerk contradiction

Instead, provide reasoned counter-arguments that improve the conversation.

1 Comment
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Daeshbags Sux
Daeshbags Sux
2020-09-06 03:21

It’s similar to the strategy used in Vietnam which is often misinterpreted : the target wasn’t to keep Vietnam, the target was to bring a much bigger regional actor to the table of negotiations : China! And not about Vietnam : in order to gain China’s neutrality in the Cold War. Here, the goal is to obtain Assad’s neutrality in the Mid-East Cold-War : Syria’s neutrality is seen as the key to stabilise the Mid-East, and not only by the USA : Russia shares this view too. Another point is that US presence prevents Turkey from invading the oil-rich east… Read more »