Dieser Vorgang verdient eine ausführliche Würdigung, die ich verschiebe, doch ein Statement will ich dazu abgeben. Zunächst ausführliche Zitate, denn immer häufiger werden Nachrichten substanziell redigiert:
The president’s biggest foreign policy surprise may be yet to come.
Senior White House and administration officials tell me Trump’s national security adviser, General H.R. McMaster, has been quietly pressing his colleagues to question the underlying assumptions of a draft war plan against the Islamic State that would maintain only a light U.S. ground troop presence in Syria. McMaster’s critics inside the administration say he wants to send tens of thousands of ground troops to the Euphrates River Valley. His supporters insist he is only trying to facilitate a better interagency process to develop Trump’s new strategy to defeat [ISIL]. (…)
In two meetings since the end of February of Trump’s national security cabinet, known as the principals‘ committee, Trump’s top advisers have failed to reach consensus on the [strategy] (…) Secretary of Defense James Mattis, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joseph Dunford and General Joseph Votel, who is in charge of U.S. Central Command, [are said to] oppose sending more conventional forces into Syria. (…) Because Trump’s national security cabinet has not reached consensus, the Islamic State war plan is now being debated at the policy coordinating committee, the interagency group hosted at the State Department of subject matter experts that prepares issues for the principals‘ committee and deputies‘ committee, after which a question reaches the president’s desk for a decision.
(Anm.: Das ist das un-heimliche, terroristische Mittel meidende Verfahren, dem Weißen Haus Entscheidungsbefugnisse aus der Hand zu nehmen!)
(…) Trump’s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, opposed sending conventional forces into a complicated war zone, where they would be targets of al Qaeda, the Islamic State, Iran and Russia (…) he supported a deal with Russia to work together against [ISIL and Al Qaida] (…)
Inside the Pentagon, military leaders favor (…) a combination of airstrikes and special operations forces that train and support local forces. Military leaders favor lifting restrictive rules of engagement for U.S. (…) using more close air support, like attack helicopters … McMaster is skeptical of this approach. To start, it relies primarily on Syrian Kurdish militias to conquer and hold Arab-majority territory. Jack Keane (…) who is close to McMaster, acknowledged to me this week (…):
„Our special operations guys believe rightfully so that this was a proven force that could fight, While this makes sense tactically, it doesn’t make sense strategically. Those are Arab lands, and the Arabs are not going to put up with Syrian Kurds retaking Arab lands. Whenever you select a military option, you have got to determine what political end state will this support. Regrettably this option puts us back to the drawing board.“
There are other reasons that relying too much on the Kurds in Syria presents problems … [Turkey] …
Keane, who said he was not speaking for McMaster, favored a plan to begin a military operation along the Euphrates River Valley.
„A better option is to start the operation in the southeast along the Euphrates River Valley, establish a U.S. base of operations, work with our Sunni Arab coalition partners, who have made repeated offers to help us against the regime and also ISIS. We have turned those down during the Obama administration.“ Keane added that U.S. conventional forces would be the anchor of that initial push, which he said would most likely require around 10,000 U.S. conventional forces … „Handwringing about U.S. ground troops in Syria was a fetish of the Obama administration. Time to look honestly at a winning military strategy.“ (…)
[o]n Sunday in an interview with Fox News, McMaster gave some insights into his thinking on the broader strategy against the Islamic State. „We are conducting very effective operations alongside our partners in Syria and in Iraq to defeat ISIS, to destroy ISIS and reestablish control of that territory, control of those populations, protect those populations, allow refugees to come back, begin reconstruction,“ he said.
That’s significant. (indeed, TG) (…) During the Iraq War, McMaster became one of the closest advisers to David Petraeus (…) (McMaster und Flynn waren also schon damals Antipoden) (…)
The cadre of former military advisers to Petraeus argued that America’s abandonment of Iraq gave the Shiite majority there a license to pursue a sectarian agenda that provided a political and military opening for the Islamic State. One of those advisers was H.R. McMaster. It’s now up to Trump to decide whether to test the Petraeus camp’s theory or [else] Put another way, Trump must decide whether he wants to wage Bush’s war or continue Obama’s.
Es ist der JOB von Eli Lake (das Model ist mir wohl bekannt), die Sache zu der vorgestellten Bifurkation der US – Politik aufzublasen, die es sein kann, oder besser: Zu der es zählen kann (die systemische Spaltung der Imperiums-Eliten in „Internationalisten“ und „Nationalisten“, Chaosmächte und „Ordnungsmächte“) aber nicht muß. Man kann den Vorgang auch als schlichte taktische Maßnahme zur Vermeidung von Risiken lesen, die der US-Kriegführung durch jede Art von Eigenfesselung entstehen. Hier ist das – nach den jüngsten Ereignissen – das Risiko eines begrenzten nuklearen Konfliktes mit Russland, bzw. eines wahrscheinlich ebenfalls nuklearen, vom KSA und Qatar gestützten zionistischen Alleingangs, den nur ein Teil der Internationalisten akzeptieren würde.