How Far Will The U.S. Go If Turkey Invades Syria?

[charrob]

[size=+1]
How Far Will The U.S. Go If Turkey Invades Syria?
[/size]

Clear indications are emerging in Washington, DC, that the Pentagon is preparing to support a direct military invasion of Syria by Turkish Armed Forces, despite the Munich accord in the week ending February 13, 2016, which was meant to bring about a ceasefire in Syrian fighting. US officials have been actively engaged with those of Turkey and possibly Saudi Arabia in the preparations for ground force attacks on Kurdish military formations inside northern Syria, and U.S. Air Force Fairchild A-10 strike aircraft have deployed over northern Syrian territory in early February.

The planned intervention by Turkey (and possibly other powers, such as Saudi Arabia) is specifically not aimed at countering the activities of ISIS, but solely about countering the growing capability of Syrian- and Iraqi-based Kurdish fighters, and to offset the gains which Syrian Government forces, supported by Russian and Iranian/Hezbollah forces, made in and around Aleppo.

The prospect of yet another abandonment of the Kurds is causing considerable division within some U.S. military and intelligence circles, but the fiction is that the Turkish battle is with ISIS.

Turkey’s leadership, in insisting - in 2011-12 - on sponsoring a proxy war to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, has already led to a refugee crisis of irreversible strategic damage to Europe, but Turkish Presisdent Reçep Tayyip Erdogan, the Saudi Arabian military-political leadership, the U.S. Barack Obama administration, and the Qatari Emir now find themselves with nowhere to go except to escalate further in the hope that the Syrian revival, backed by Russia and Iran, will collapse.

The Obama Administration and the Government of Turkish President Erdogan appear to have calculated — probably correctly — that the Russian Government would not directly interfere with the assault on Kurdish forces, the YPG [People's Protection Units (Kurdish: Yekîneyên Parastina Gel)] in a move designed to split those forces, driving to a depth of some 25 miles inside Syria.

Meanwhile, it should be expected that a number of false-flag attacks would be mounted by U.S. and Turkish operators to give the impression that the Turkish incursion would be responding to humanitarian concerns. Questions, then, should be raised by reports of attacks on February 14-15, 2016, by aircraft against civilian hospital targets in Aleppo. False-flag attacks (ie: purporting to be from one side, but in reality by another) have been used consistently by Islamist forces since the Sarajevo attacks (blamed on the Serbs) in the 1990s, and through later conflicts.

The proposed major military assault into Syria holds considerable risk for Turkey, not the least of that being a possible accidental escalation of hostilities with Russia, but it now seems unavoidable if Ankara is not to see a major disaster, not only wasting more than five years of intense effort to overthrow the Syrian Government of President Bashar al-Assad, but also to avert the unfettered escalation of the Kurdish war to wrench a large part of Turkey away from Ankara to create a new Kurdish state which would link with Iraqi and Syrian Kurds. Already, Turkey has paid an enormous price in unanticipated consequences from its effort to lead a coalition (Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the U.S.) into overthrowing Assad.

The war has taken far longer than anticipated, and has cost Turkey all of its regional allies; it has also united the Kurds of Turkey, Iraq, and Syria into a desire to finally create their Kurdish state; it has generated a refugee flow from Syria and Iraq which is now beyond Ankara’s capacity to manage; and it has created a major rift between Turkey and the European Union, while costing Turkey most of its political support in Washington (except from the Obama White House and the State Dept.). Moreover, the escalation has led to the Russo-Turkish rift, in which Russian sanctions against Turkey are now starting to bite into an already fragile Turkish economy.

Senior levels of the U.S. Defense Dept., albeit impacted by consistent browbeating from the White House, have said repeatedly that there were no vital U.S. interests at stake which would warrant a major U.S. military intervention inside Syria, but no Defense official would countermand a direct order from the White House to undertake covert or support operations assisting the Turkish position. The White House and Ankara have been seeking triggers which would force the U.S. into a position where it would have to intervene directly.

Russia is unlikely to provide that casus belli, largely because of the 1936 Montreux Convention could give Turkey the right to close the Bosphorous transit link between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean to Russian naval shipping in the event of a formal state of war between Turkey and Russia. Moscow has consistently refused to rise directly to Turkish military provocations. Rather, it has preferred to respond politically and economically.

Moreover, the reality is that Turkey now places itself in the position, de facto, of declaring war on Syria. And Obama hopes to move the U.S. into an irrevocable military action in Syria before the Washington political establishment can warn him off it. And he might succeed. But to what end?

 

[osan]

"Earth was a pretty nice place... while it lasted."

-Klaatu

 

[vita3]

Need to talk impeachment.

 

[AngryCanadian]

So Would America let Turkey to Massacre Kurds?

 

[jllundqu]

What could possibly go wrong? :MEGA_DOUBLE_FACEPALM:

 

[alucard13mm]

Cold war is over, we dont need turkey as a buffer for europe. Should ditch turket and shore up the borders.

 

[seapilot]

So Kurds were beating the Daesh Isis or whatever the name of the month is, which all the western world politicos are worried about. Now the US might support Turkey to defeat the Kurds.

Right answer, dump Turkey go with Kurds. Continual warfare policy do the opposite.

 

[Mani]

 

[alucard13mm]

So Kurds were beating the Daesh Isis or whatever the name of the month is, which all the western world politicos are worried about. Now the US might support Turkey to defeat the Kurds.

Right answer, dump Turkey go with Kurds. Continual warfare policy do the opposite.

Seems the kurds get left to dry so many times by the us.

 

[vita3]

Check out official Turkey GOV 1oz Gold coins w/ Obama on it. & you wonder how the Turks been allowed to jihad & take whatever inside Syria for 5 years?


http://www.images-apmex.com/images/...Obv.jpg?v=20140207042659&width=450&height=450

 

[vita3]

Little more details of Gold coin w/ Obama's mug on. Looks like they minted 1,000.

Still waiting for him to call out Turkey's crimes???

http://www.apmex.com/product/81442/2009-turkey-gold-200-lira-obamas-visit-pf-69-ngc

 

[wizardwatson]

We will go all the way against Russia, down to the very last Turk.

 

[presence]

Russia has promised to protect Kurdish fighters in Syria in case of a ground offensive by Turkey, a move that would lead to a “big war,” the Syrian group’s envoy to Moscow said in an interview on Wednesday.


“We take this threat very seriously because the ruling party in Turkey is a party of war,” Rodi Osman, head of the Syrian Kurds’ newly-opened representative office said in Kurdish via a Russian interpreter. “Russia will respond if there is an invasion. This isn’t only about the Kurds, they will defend the territorial sovereignty of Syria.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-of-big-war-with-russia-if-troops-enter-syria


Russia takes Turkey to UN over SyriaAl Jazeera‎ - 39 mins ago

 

[wizardwatson]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-of-big-war-with-russia-if-troops-enter-syria


Russia takes Turkey to UN over SyriaAl Jazeera‎ - 39 mins ago

What Russian media takes issue with would be this line from your bloomberg article:

But a ground intervention risks conflict with Russia, which backs the Kurds militarily, and would anger the U.S., which sees the group as a major ally in the fight against Islamic State.

Would it anger the U.S.? Or would the U.S. prefer the situation be seen that way? We don't want to fight Russia. But we want Russia in a fight.

Remember, war being "good for the economy" is tongue in cheek. What it really is, is expensive. Weaken the enemy through attrition. Russia is publicly still optimistic, even though media is reporting their moves to contain Turkey at UNSC are being balked at by US and French representatives even before the meeting.

It's definitely getting hotter. And the "stuck on stupid" seems to be persisting.

Here's the article where RT claims Turkey and US are two peas in a pod:

No strategic divide between US & Turkey – only a division of labor

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/333023-turkey-us-divide-syria/