Michael Weiss Ok, the reporting is now sufficient for me. Baghdadi appears to have been killed in a US Special Ops raid in Idlib. This is bizarre because Idlib is generally inhospitable terrains for ISIS. But... 9:07 PM - 26 Oct 2019
Baghdadi fleeing there from eastern Syria makes a weird kind of sense after the events of the last month. The he US is now doubling down in the area that ISIS considers its “briar patch,” of the Jazira.
He might have been headed for Turkey. It’s a plausible explanation, especially now. Then again, Ankara might have helped with this targeting package, which they’d have had every interest to do after the last two weeks.
ISIS cells in Idlib might have convinced ABB that this was his best bet after the events of the last two weeks. So if Trump authorized the raid a week ago, it might have directly followed from the Turkish invasion and intel tracking ABB’s migration from the Jazira.
I also wonder about intel produced by tribal elements in Deir Ezzor. Perhaps the announced US pull out led to freshet of intel sharing with the US.
Gordon Sondland announced through his attorney on Saturday night that he testified to the House impeachment inquiry that Trump was running a quid pro quo in Ukraine.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started. They could still get him out of office. But instead, they want mass death. Don’t forget that.
Michael Weiss at 9:07 PM - 26 Oct 2019 wrote: Ok, the reporting is now sufficient for me. Baghdadi appears to have been killed in a US Special Ops raid in Idlib. This is bizarre because Idlib is generally inhospitable terrains for ISIS. But...
Still believing last year's talking points, eh Mr. Weiss? Yeah, yeah, Idlib is "rebel," not "ISIS." Whatever.
Baghdadi fleeing there from eastern Syria makes a weird kind of sense after the events of the last month. The he US is now doubling down in the area that ISIS considers its “briar patch,” of the Jazira.
He might have been headed for Turkey. It’s a plausible explanation, especially now. Then again, Ankara might have helped with this targeting package, which they’d have had every interest to do after the last two weeks.
Better, much better, not as brain-dead as earlier.
Quite possibly "helped with this targeting package" means "drove their own long-time asset right up to the planned spot of his death, chatting about football, and to his surprise handed him over to the Americans, who shot him, drone-bombed the location, and then sent a separate team, one not in on the first part, to retrieve the remains and determine identity."
ISIS cells in Idlib might have convinced ABB that this was his best bet after the events of the last two weeks. So if Trump authorized the raid a week ago, it might have directly followed from the Turkish invasion and intel tracking ABB’s migration from the Jazira.
Hey, if might have is good enough for you, it's good enough for my script too.
I also wonder about intel produced by tribal elements in Deir Ezzor. Perhaps the announced US pull out led to freshet of intel sharing with the US.
No shit, Sherlock. Really needed your expertise to figure that one out. Also, self-professed professional writers are supposed to know the apostrophe rules, okay?
SLAD wrote:Baghdadi has already been dead for years?
Yeah yeah, could be, never existed, deep-agent actor, still alive, let's go through all the variants for the lulz.
Crazy question: Did Erdogan/Turkey give Trump al-Baghdadi in exchange for the Kurds.
So craaaaaaaaaaaazzzzzzy mon, who could think such a thing.
I have to say, last couple of years the interesting times have finally started getting more interesting.
.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.
To Justice my maker from on high did incline: I am by virtue of its might divine, The highest Wisdom and the first Love.
Don’t expect Anglo-American media to ask why ISIS leader hiding out in Idlib, the Al Qaeda stronghold armed by NATO & protected by western media/think-tank propagandists these past few years. 5:28 AM - 27 Oct 2019 137 Retweets262 Likes
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.
To Justice my maker from on high did incline: I am by virtue of its might divine, The highest Wisdom and the first Love.
Evidence exposing who put ISIS in power, and how it was done.
The Islamic militant group ISIS, formerly known as Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and recently rebranded as the so called Islamic State, is the stuff of nightmares. They are ruthless, fanatical, killers, on a mission, and that mission is to wipe out anyone and everyone, from any religion or belief system and to impose Shari'ah law. The mass executions, beheadings and even crucifixions that they are committing as they work towards this goal are flaunted like badges of pride, video taped and uploaded for the whole world to see. This is the new face of evil.
Would it interest you to know who helped these psychopaths rise to power? Would it interest you to know who armed them, funded them and trained them? Would it interest you to know why?
This story makes more sense if we start in the middle, so we'll begin with the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in 2011.
The Libyan revolution was Obama's first major foreign intervention. It was portrayed as an extension of the Arab Spring, and NATO involvement was framed in humanitarian terms.
The fact that the CIA was actively working to help the Libyan rebels topple Gaddafi was no secret, nor were the airstrikes that Obama ordered against the Libyan government. However, little was said about the identity or the ideological leanings of these Libyan rebels. Not surprising, considering the fact that the leader of the Libyan rebels later admitted that his fighters included Al-Qaeda linked jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq.
These jihadist militants from Iraq were part of what national security analysts commonly referred to as Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Remember Al-Qaeda in Iraq was ISIS before it was rebranded.
With the assistance of U.S. and NATO intelligence and air support, the Libyan rebels captured Gaddafi and summarily executed him in the street, all the while enthusiastically chanting "Allah Akbar". For many of those who had bought the official line about how these rebels were freedom fighters aiming to establish a liberal democracy in Libya, this was the beginning of the end of their illusions.
Prior to the U.S. and NATO backed intervention, Libya had the highest standard of living of any country in Africa. This according to the U.N.'s Human Development Index rankings for 2010. However in the years following the coup, the country descended into chaos, with extremism and violence running rampant. Libya is now widely regarded as failed state (of course those who were naive enough to buy into the propaganda leading up to the war get defensive when this is said).
Now after Gaddafi was overthrown, the Libyan armories were looted, and massive quantities of weapons were sent by the Libyan rebels to Syria. The weapons, which included anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles were smuggled into Syria through Turkey, a NATO ally. The times of London reported on the arrival of the shipment on September 14th, 2012. (Secondary confirmation in this NYT article) This was just three days after Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed by the attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi. Chris Stevens had served as the U.S. government's liaison to the Libyan rebels since April of 2011.
While a great deal media attention has focused on the fact that the State Department did not provide adequate security at the consulate, and was slow to send assistance when the attack started, Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh released an article in April of 2014 which exposed a classified agreement between the CIA, Turkey and the Syrian rebels to create what was referred to as a "rat line". The "rat line" was covert network used to channel weapons and ammunition from Libya, through southern turkey and across the Syrian border. Funding was provided by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
With Stevens dead any direct U.S. involvement in that arms shipment was buried, and Washington would continue to claim that they had not sent heavy weaponry into Syria.
It was at this time that jihadist fighters from Libya began flooding into Syria as well. And not just low level militants. Many were experienced commanders who had fought in multiple theaters.
The U.S. and its allies were now fully focused on taking down Assad's government in Syria. As in Libya this regime change was to be framed in terms of human rights, and now overt support began to supplement the backdoor channels. The growing jihadist presence was swept under the rug and covered up.
However as the rebels gained strength, the reports of war crimes and atrocities that they were committing began to create a bit of a public relations problem for Washington. It then became standard policy to insist that U.S. support was only being given to what they referred to as "moderate" rebel forces.
This distinction, however, had no basis in reality.
In an interview given in April of 2014, FSA commander Jamal Maarouf admitted that his fighters regularly conduct joint operations with Al-Nusra. Al-Nusra is the official Al-Qa’ida branch in Syria. This statement is further validated by an interview given in June of 2013 by Colonel Abdel Basset Al-Tawil, commander of the FSA's Northern Front. In this interview he openly discusses his ties with Al-Nusra, and expresses his desire to see Syria ruled by sharia law. (You can verify the identities of these two commanders here in this document from The Institute for the Study of War)
Moderate rebels? Well it's complicated. Not that this should really come as any surprise. Reuters had reported in 2012 that the FSA's command was dominated by Islamic extremists, and the New York Times had reported that same year that the majority of the weapons that Washington were sending into Syria was ending up in the hands Jihadists. For two years the U.S. government knew that this was happening, but they kept doing it.
And the FSA's ties to Al-Nusra are just the beginning. In June of 2014 Al-Nusra merged with ISIS at the border between Iraq and Syria.
So to review, the FSA is working with Al-Nusra, Al-Nusra is working with ISIS, and the U.S. has been sending money and weapons to the FSA even though they've known since 2012 that most of these weapons were ending up in the hands of extremists. You do the math.
In that context, the sarin gas attacks of 2013 which turned out to have been committed by the Syrian rebels, makes a lot more sense doesn't it? If it wasn't enough that U.N. investigators, Russian investigators, and Pulitzer prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh all pinned that crime on Washington's proxies, the rebels themselves threatened the West that they would expose what really happened if they were not given more advanced weaponry within one month.
By the way, this also explains why Washington then decided to target Russia next.
This threat was made on June 10th, 2013. In what can only be described as an amazing coincidence, just nine days later, the rebels received their first official shipment of heavy weapons in Aleppo.
After the second sarin gas fiasco, which was also exposed and therefore failed to garner public support for airstrikes, the U.S. continued to increase its the training and support for the rebels.
In February of 2014, Haaretz reported that the U.S. and its allies in the region, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Israel, were in the process of helping the Syrian rebels plan and prepare for a massive attack in the south. According to Haaretz Israel had also provided direct assistance in military operations against Assad four months prior (you can access a free cached version of the page here).
Then in May of 2014 PBS ran a report in which they interviewed rebels who were trained by the U.S. in Qatar. According to those rebels they were being trained to finish off soldiers who survived attacks.
"They trained us to ambush regime or enemy vehicles and cut off the road,” said the fighter, who is identified only as "Hussein." "They also trained us on how to attack a vehicle, raid it, retrieve information or weapons and munitions, and how to finish off soldiers still alive after an ambush."
This is a blatant violation of the Geneva conventions. It also runs contrary to conventional military strategy. In conventional military strategy soldiers are better off left wounded, because this ends up costing the enemy more resources. Executing captured enemy soldiers is the kind of tactic used when you want to strike terror in the hearts of the enemy. It also just happens to be standard operating procedure for ISIS.
One month after this report, in June of 2014, ISIS made its dramatic entry, crossing over the Syrian border into Iraq, capturing Mosul, Baiji and almost reaching Baghdad. The internet was suddenly flooded with footage of drive by shootings, large scale death marches, and mass graves. And of course any Iraqi soldier that was captured was executed.
Massive quantities of American military equipment were seized during that operation. ISIS took entire truckloads of humvees, they took helicopters, tanks, and artillery. They photographed and video taped themselves and advertised what they were doing on social media, and yet for some reason Washington didn't even TRY to stop them.
U.S. military doctrine clearly calls for the destruction of military equipment and supplies when friendly forces cannot prevent them from falling into enemy hands, but that didn't happen here. ISIS was allowed to carry this equipment out of Iraq and into Syria unimpeded. The U.S. military had the means to strike these convoys, but they didn't lift a finger, even though they had been launching drone strikes in Pakistan that same week.
Why would they do that?
Though Obama plays the role of a weak, indecisive, liberal president, and while pundits from the right have had a lot of fun with that image, this is just a facade. Some presidents, like George W. Bush, rely primarily on overt military aggression. Obama gets the same job done, but he prefers covert means. Not really surprising considering the fact that Zbigniew Brzezinski was his mentor.
Those who know their history will remember that Zbigniew Brzezinski was directly involved in the funding and arming the Islamic extremists in Pakistan and Afghanistan in order to weaken the Soviets.
By the way Osama bin Laden was one of these anti-Soviet "freedom fighters" the U.S. was funding and arming.
This operation is no secret at this point, nor are the unintended side effects.
Officially the U.S. government's arming and funding of the Mujahideen was a response to the Soviet invasion in December of 1979, however in his memoir entitled "From the Shadows" Robert Gates, director of the CIA under Ronald Reagan and George Bush Senior, and Secretary of Defense under both George W. Bush and Barack Obama, revealed that the U.S. actually began the covert operation 6 months prior, with the express intention of luring the Soviets into a quagmire. (You can preview the relevant text here on google books)
The strategy worked. The Soviets invaded, and the ten years of war that followed are considered by many historians as being one of the primary causes of the fall of the USSR.
This example doesn't just establish precedent, what we're seeing happen in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria right now is actually a continuation of a old story. Al-Nusra and ISIS are ideological and organizational decedents of these extremist elements that the U.S. government made use of thirty years ago.
The U.S. the went on to create a breeding ground for these extremists by invading Iraq in 2003. Had it not been for the vacuum of power left by the removal and execution of Saddam, Al-Qaeda in Iraq, aka ISIS, would not exist. And had it not been for Washington's attempt at toppling Assad by arming, funding and training shadowy militant groups in Syria, there is no way that ISIS would have been capable of storming into Iraq in June of 2014.
On every level, no matter how you cut it, ISIS is a product of U.S. government's twisted and decrepit foreign policy.
Now all of this may seem contradictory to you as you watch the drums of war against ISIS begin to beat louder and the air strikes against them are gradually widened http://www.wjla.com/articles/2014/08/pr ... ossible-...). Why would the U.S. help a terrorist organization get established, only to attack them later?
Well why did the CIA put Saddam Hussein in power in 1963?, Why did the U.S. government back Saddam in 1980 when he launched a war of aggression against Iran, even though they knew that he was using chemical weapons? Why did the U.S. fund and arm Islamic extremists in Afghanistan against the Soviets?
There's a pattern here if you look closely. This is a tried and true geopolitical strategy.
Step 1: Build up a dictator or extremist group which can then be used to wage proxy wars against opponents. During this stage any crimes committed by these proxies are swept under the rug. [Problem]
Step 2: When these nasty characters have outlived their usefulness, that's when it's time to pull out all that dirt from under the rug and start publicizing it 24/7. This obviously works best when the public has no idea how these bad guys came to power.[Reaction]
Step 3: Finally, when the public practically begging for the government to do something, a solution is proposed. Usually the solution involves military intervention, the loss of certain liberties, or both. [Solution]
ISIS is extremely useful. They have essentially done Washington dirty work by weakening Assad. In 2014, while the news cycle has focused almost exclusively on Ukraine and Russia, ISIS made major headway in Syria, and as of August they already controlled 35% of the country.
Since ISIS largely based in Syria, this gives the U.S. a pretext to move into Syria. Sooner or later the U.S. will extend the airstrikes into Assad's backyard, and when they do U.S. officials are already making it clear that both ISIS and the Syrian government will be targeted. That, after all, is the whole point. Washington may allow ISIS to capture a bit more territory first, but the writing is on the wall, and has been for some time now.
The Obama administration has repeatedly insisted that this will never lead to boots on the ground, however, the truth of the matter is that anyone who understands anything about military tactics knows full well that ISIS cannot be defeated by airstrikes alone. In response to airstrikes ISIS will merely disperse and conceal their forces. ISIS isn't an established state power which can be destroyed by knocking out key government buildings and infrastructure. These are guerrilla fighters who cut their teeth in urban warfare.
To significantly weaken them, the war will have to involve ground troops, but even this is a lost cause. U.S. troops could certainly route ISIS in street to street battles for some time, and they might even succeed in fully occupying Syria and Iraq for a number of years, but eventually they will have to leave, and when they do, it should be obvious what will come next.
The puppets that the U.S. government has installed in the various countries that they have brought down in recent years have without exception proven to be utterly incompetent and corrupt. No one that Washington places in power will be capable of maintaining stability in Syria. Period.
Right now, Assad is the last bastion of stability in the region. He is the last chance they have for a moderate non-sectarian government and he is the only hope of anything even remotely resembling democracy for the foreseeable future. If Assad falls, Islamic extremist will take the helm, they will impose shari'ah law, and they will do everything in their power to continue spreading their ideology as far and wide as they can.
If the world truly wants to stop ISIS, there is only one way to do it:
1. First and foremost, the U.S. government and its allies must be heavily pressured to cut all support to the rebels who are attempting to topple Assad. Even if these rebels that the U.S. is arming and funding were moderate, and they're not, the fact that they are forcing Assad to fight a war on multiple fronts, only strengthens ISIS. This is lunacy.
2. The Syrian government should be provided with financial support, equipment, training and intelligence to enable them to turn the tide against ISIS. This is their territory, they should be the ones to reclaim it.
Now obviously this support isn't going to come from the U.S. or any NATO country, but there are a number of nations who have a strategic interest in preventing another regime change and chaotic aftermath. If these countries respond promptly, as in right now, they could preempt a U.S. intervention, and as long this support does not include the presence of foreign troops, doing so will greatly reduce the likelihood of a major confrontation down the road.
3. The U.S. government and its allies should should be aggressively condemned for their failed regime change policies and the individuals behind these decisions should be charged for war crimes. This would have to be done on an nation by nation level since the U.N. has done nothing but enable NATO aggression. While this may not immediately result in these criminals being arrested, it would send a message. This can be done. Malaysia has already proven this by convicting the Bush administration of war crimes in abstentia.
Now you might be thinking: "This all sounds fine and good, but what does this have to do with me? I can't influence this situation."
That perspective is quite common, and for most people, it's paralyzing, but the truth of the matter is that we can influence this. We've done it before, and we can do it again.
I'll be honest with you though, this isn't going to be easy. To succeed we have to start thinking strategically. Like it or not, this is a chess game. If we really want to rock the boat, we have to start reaching out to people in positions of influence. This can mean talking to broadcasters at your local radio station, news paper, or t.v. station, or it can mean contacting influential bloggers, celebrities, business figures or government officials. Reaching out to current serving military and young people who may be considering joining up is also important. But even if it's just your neighbor, or your coworker, every single person we can reach brings us closer to critical mass. The most important step is to start trying.
If you are confused about why this is all happening, watch this video we put out on September 11th, 2012
If this message resonates with you then spread it. If you want to see the BIG picture, and trust me we've got some very interesting reports coming, subscribe to StormCloudsGathering on Youtube, and follow us on Facebook, twitter and Google plus.
Until recently, Khalifa Hifter — who's leading the anti-Gadhafi forces — lived five miles from CIA headquarters in Virginia. Coincidence? By The Week Staff | March 31, 2011 0 6
4 LIbyan rebels ride a tank in the eastern part of the country: The anti-Gadhafi forces are led by a former Gadhafi army commander... and possible CIA plant. LIbyan rebels ride a tank in the eastern part of the country: The anti-Gadhafi forces are led by a former Gadhafi army commander... and possible CIA plant. CC BY: BRQ Network Now leading Libya's ragtag army of rebels, Khalifa Hifter has a mysterious past that's raising provocative questions. Once a top commander in Moammar Gadhafi's own army, he left its ranks after a disastrous campaign in Chad, then moved to a home five miles from CIA headquarters in northern Virginia, where he lived from the early 1990s until mid-March, 2011. What happened during those 20 years in the U.S.? Hifter's lifelong friend Abdel Salam Badr reports only that Hifter somehow supported a large family. With the CIA mingling among the rebels, some commentators are wondering: Is Hifter a CIA plant?
Hifter is pretty clearly CIA: So a former top chief in Gadhafi's army is allowed to settle in the U.S., soon after the Lockerbie bombing, says Patrick Martin in Axis of Logic, then spends 20 years "about five miles from CIA headquarters in Langley," with no apparent job? "To those who can read between the lines," that's enough to conclude that Hifter is a CIA operative. Need more proof? "Even a cursory Internet search" ties Hifter to the CIA as far back as 1987. "A CIA commander for the Libyan rebels"
We shouldn't be using covert operatives: There's no need for the U.S. to play games, says John Gizzi in Human Events. As Paul Wolfowitz told me, the CIA shouldn't be involved, simply because "we should be right out in the open" in our dealings with the rebels. Let's not "reinforce the notion in the Middle East that the CIA is behind everything the Americans do." "Burning Libya question: Exactly who are Gaddafi's opponents?"
The bigger issue: Can Hifter win? He cuts something of an odd figure for a military commander, wearing "a pinstripe suit and a black turtleneck sweater" instead of battle fatigues, say Alexander Marquardt and Mark Mooney in ABC News. And he incorrectly predicted that Gadhafi's hometown of Sirte "would fall easily". Despite Hifter's status as "self-proclaimed commander of the Free Libyan Army," it isn't clear that he's actually commanding the fleeing rebel forces. The only certainty is that somebody needs to "whip his army into shape." "Libyan rebel commander is from Fairfax, Virginia"
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started. They could still get him out of office. But instead, they want mass death. Don’t forget that.
Don’t expect Anglo-American media to ask why ISIS leader hiding out in Idlib, the Al Qaeda stronghold armed by NATO & protected by western media/think-tank propagandists these past few years. 5:28 AM - 27 Oct 2019 137 Retweets262 Likes
Thanks for that. Ames's question is of course a good one, so it's no wonder Jeff reposted it. Why is everyone ignoring Jeff, and indeed even trying to bury him?
"Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte." - Max Liebermann,, Berlin, 1933
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman, NYC, 1966
FUN FACT: trump made the announcement "Something big just happened" late last night, but the actual raid occurred yesterday afternoon while he was playin' golf.
thanking Russia & Turkey before our sevicemen & women
Turkey and Russia delivered Al-Baghdadi to trump for his reelection campaign in return they got Syria and Kurdish territory.
quid pro quo trump once again screws the American people for his reelection
Trump says he told Russia of ISIS raid, but not Pelosi and Schiff because ‘Washington is a leaking machine’ Published 1 hour ago on October 27, 2019 By David Edwards
During a press conference on Sunday, President Donald Trump congratulated himself after the U.S. military reportedly killed ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
Speaking from the White House, Trump insisted that he had been on the trail of the ISIS leader since his first day in office.
“I would say, where is Baghdadi?” Trump explained.
The president also said that countries like Russia had been notified in advance of the raid but Democratic leaders in the Gang of Eight were reportedly not told even though it is customary.
Trump suggested that House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) were not told because of potential leaks.
“We have notified some and others are being notified now as I speak,” Trump told the press. “We were going to notify them last night but we decided not to do that because Washington leaks like I’ve never seen before. There is nothing — there is no country in the world that leaks like we do.”
He continued: “And Washington is a leaking machine and I told my people, we will not notify them until the — our great people are out. Not just in, but out.”
“The only people that knew were the few people I dealt with,” Trump said.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started. They could still get him out of office. But instead, they want mass death. Don’t forget that.
Fun Fact: Neither you nor anyone else posting here has any idea of what happened yesterday or didn't, or whom it involved in what combination, or what the motives of particular players were, or anything else about it other than general context. All speculation, little of it less than ridiculous.
.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.
To Justice my maker from on high did incline: I am by virtue of its might divine, The highest Wisdom and the first Love.
Thankls for clarifying you do not know something...that's news!
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started. They could still get him out of office. But instead, they want mass death. Don’t forget that.
Josie Ensor Just spoken to a senior Iraqi official who says they arrested one of Baghdadi's wives, his nephew & Baghdad's courier's wife in September. In interviews the latter gave up information on the leader's whereabouts and the coordinates in Idlib. "He wasn't very mobile" official said 4:23 AM - 27 Oct 2019
These arrests were made in Iraq in September, which suggests Baghdadi has definitely be in Idlib for *at least* two months. Iraqi National Intelligence Services passed the information to the US around this time, according to the official 2/
It seems like the US mission was launched from Erbil in Iraqi Kurdistan, not al-Asad airbase in Iraq or İncirlik in Turkey 3/ Latest here:
Donald Trump talks about the “one hour and 10 min flight over very very dangerous territory”, which the US feared might have been the trickiest part of the entire mission. "We flew very low and very fast. Says met with "local gunfire" 4/
Also hearing wife of the courier/emissary who was arrested & questioned by the Iraqis led them to location in desert of al-Qaim (on the Iraqi side of the border across from Baghuz in Syria). Somewhere hidden at this site were documents with Baghdadi's coordinates written down 5/
Josie Ensor Retweeted Rukmini Callimachi This is interesting point from @rcallimachi. It was feared Baghdadi would move after being spooked as his trusted courier and his wife went quiet, but he didn't. Why? Had he become complacent? Or did he not like his chances moving around HTS-held Idlib 6/
4. Had he been tipped off that something was afoot? Did he find it odd that his trusted courier and one of his wives had gone silent? It’s unclear. But we know that geopolitically everything changed this month, when a presidential phone call led to Turkey’s invasion… Show this thread
Astonishing aerial photo of the aftermath of the US raid on Baghdadi's compound in Barisha, Idlib, from
1. Two sources have confirmed to the New York Times that Baghdadi’s location in Idlib was confirmed as far back as early July, so 3.5 months ago. I spent months working on his obituary. Here’s what I can share now:
10:55 AM - 27 Oct 2019
2. Back in the summer, two people were arrested that led the CIA to flesh out the terror chieftain’s location: His courier & one of his wives. They provided details that combined with other intel allowed the CIA to hone in on a compound in Idlib - but it was too dangerous to go.
3. The compound where he was included civilians & being in Idlib, it was in both Syrian and Russian airspace. One source told me then that they had info he was going to move, and they planned to take him out during the move. But he didn’t move. For weeks, then months, he stayed.
4. Had he been tipped off that something was afoot? Did he find it odd that his trusted courier and one of his wives had gone silent? It’s unclear. But we know that geopolitically everything changed this month, when a presidential phone call led to Turkey’s invasion of Syria
5. Sources we’ve spoken to indicate that the mission had to be rushed, because America was losing its visibility due to the pullout of US forces. Many are surprised Baghdadi was hiding in Idlib. But there were data points leading up to the raid indicating an ISIS presence there.
6. For example, in February when US-backed Kurdish troops in Syria were battling to take back the last village of Baghuz, there was a ceasefire as the Kurds negotiated with ISIS. What did ISIS want for leaving Baghuz? Safe passage to Idlib.
7. In 2015, I began collecting interviews with people who had directly interacted with Baghdadi to build a portrait of the terror chief. In all, I’ve spoken to 17 people who knew him, including his teachers, his childhood friends, his aides & three of the Yazidi girls he raped.
8. Along with @ivorprickett & Falih Hassan, I traveled to Al Jallam, the village where he was born & to Samarra, where he moved as a boy. We visited the first mosque he attended, and his former high school, where Ivor photographed his transcript. This is Baghdadi as a teen:
9. What I’ve learned on this beat is that there’s a lot of stuff that gets repeated as fact without anyone trying to verify it, and over time it becomes the truth. Here are the surprising things I learned about Baghdadi when I took the time to go down the dirt tracks of his life
10. We are familiar with the atrocities his group carried out & are used to thinking of Baghdadi as a criminal & a thug. But those who knew him as a teen & as a young man described him as having a spiritual gift. The owner of the first mosque he attended described him like this:
11. The owner of the mosque talked about how Baghdadi as a boy would - unprompted - lead the other boys in cleaning the mosque, hauling the carpets outside, hosing them down and drying them in the sun. This was his pastime while other kids hung out and did wheelies on their bikes
12. This was one of numerous anecdotes I collected from people at his first and at his second mosque, who surprised me with the affection they spoke of Baghdadi. They described him as devoted to the religion & also as a talented reciter of scripture. By the time he was a teen...
13. .... worshippers at the Samarra mosque that Baghdadi attended began asking the mosque owner to have Baghdadi - and only Baghdadi - recite the scripture during Friday prayer, essentially replacing the imam. “His voice was like a bird,” said one former attendee.
14. Another frequently regurgitated thesis about Baghdadi is that he was a normal guy until he ended up in US captivity in Camp Bucca. That it was *there* that he radicalized. I spoke to four of his former cellmates. Turns out he was well radicalized before he arrived at Bucca
15. You see flashes of it in his teens. He berated a friend for getting a tattoo, calling it a violation of Islamic law; he even reprimanded his mentor, the owner of the mosque, for smoking because it was anti-Islamic. “The smell of your breath will make the angels fly away.”
16. By the time he got to Bucca in 2004, he was so radicalized that he began inciting attacks against Shia prisoners using metal shanks salvaged from the air conditioning unit. The sectarian hatred of the Shia was a later hallmark of ISIS.
17. One of his cellmates - a man who is in the Iraqi equivalent of witness protection - told me that Baghdadi encouraged so many attacks against other Shia inmates, that Shia prisoners began to fear for their lives if they were in Baghdadi’s tent. They asked to be reassigned. https://twitter.com/rcallimachi/status/ ... 8361856001
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started. They could still get him out of office. But instead, they want mass death. Don’t forget that.
“Major Revelation” from OPCW whistleblower: Jonathan Steele speaking to the BBC
The following is a transcription of an interview given by Jonathan Steele (former Senior Middle East Correspondent for the Guardian) to Paul Henley, on the BBC World Service programme, Weekend, on 27 October 2019
Jonathan Steele: “I was in Brussels last week … I attended a briefing by a whistleblower from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. He was one of the inspectors who was sent out to Douma in Syria in April last year to check into the allegations by the rebels that Syrian aeroplanes had dropped two canisters of chlorine gas, killing up to 43 people. He claims he was in charge of picking up the samples in the affected areas, and in neutral areas, to check whether there were chlorine derivatives there …
Paul Henley: And?
JS: … and he found that there was no difference. So it rather suggested there was no chemical gas attack, because in the buildings where the people allegedly died there was no extra chlorinated organic chemicals than in the normal streets elsewhere. And I put this to the OPCW for comment, and they haven’t yet replied. But it rather suggests that a lot of this was propaganda…
PH: Propaganda led by?
JS: … led by the rebel side to try and bring in American planes, which in fact did happen. American, British and French planes bombed Damascus a few days after these reports. And actually this is the second whistle blower to come forward. A few months ago there was a leaked report by the person who looked into the ballistics, as to whether these cylinders had been dropped by planes, looking at the damage of the building and the damage on the side of the cylinders. And he decided, concluded, that the higher probability was that these cylinders were placed on the ground, rather than from planes.
PH: This would be a major revelation…
JS: … it would be a major revelation …
PH: … given the number of people rubbishing the idea that these could have been fake videos at the time.
JS: Well, these two scientists, I think they’re non-political – they wouldn’t have been sent to Douma, if they’d had strong political views, by the OPCW. They want to speak to the Conference of the Member States in November, next month, and give their views, and be allowed to come forward publicly with their concerns. Because they’ve tried to raise them internally and been – they say they’ve been – suppressed, their views have been suppressed.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
'We Didn't See A Body': Baghdadi's Death Draws Doubts In Lands Where ISIS Ruled Jane Arraf
Iraqi youth watch the news about ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's death, in Najaf, Iraq, on Sunday. Alaa Al-Marjani/Reuters In Iraq and Syria, news of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's death has stirred a mix of responses — from joy to disbelief to dread.
Since President Trump announced this weekend that Baghdadi died during a U.S. military operation in Syria, analysts have been grappling with the implications for the militant organization that has now lost its main chief in addition to all the territory it once held in Iraq and Syria.
But in the lands that were under ISIS rule, conspiracy theories are swirling. While many are happy that the man behind much suffering is dead, residents are questioning the details the U.S. has offered about Baghdadi's demise and whether he died at all. Some even wonder whether he ever existed, suggesting how deep distrust of the U.S. government may run in this part of the world.
"First [President George W.] Bush came and said he killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, then [President Barack] Obama came and he said he killed [Osama] bin Laden, now this one comes saying he killed Baghdadi. Every president kills one," says Zekko Zuhair, a pet store owner in Mosul, Iraq.
People walk near Mosul's heavily damaged Al-Nuri Mosque, where Baghdadi announced the launch of a caliphate in 2014. Zaid al-Obeidi/AFP via Getty Images Mosul is where, in 2014, the ISIS leader declared himself "caliph," claiming to be a successor to a historical Muslim figure. Baghdadi later went into hiding, while ISIS went on a rampage across Iraq and Syria, imposing its extreme interpretation of Islamic law, recruiting members from around the world to help slaughter civilians, soldiers and rival militants; take hostages for ransom; and women and girls as sex slaves.
Sign Up For The NPR Daily Newsletter
Catch up on the latest headlines and unique NPR stories, sent every weekday.
Much of Mosul is still recovering from ISIS' three-year reign and from the destruction left by U.S.-backed forces battling the militants. Many families have relatives who were killed either by ISIS fighters or during the fierce fighting against them.
Mahmoud Saeed, a local imam, says he recalls the day Baghdadi came to the city surrounded by bodyguards and declared the start of the caliphate from the pulpit of al-Nuri Mosque.
ISIS blew up the al-Nuri Mosque in the battle for Mosul before it was driven out of the area in 2017. Jane Arraf/NPR "We did not choose him," Saeed says.
Still, even after news of Baghdadi's death, Saeed and friends have been discussing whether he was invented by the U.S.
When asked who the man really was, Saeed says: "We don't know — ask America. Ask Donald Trump."
Mosul resident Marwa Khaled is with her 5-year-old son, Mohaiman, who's holding a plastic toy rifle almost as big as he is. Mohaiman never met his father, a police officer who was killed by ISIS.
"I'm happy but I'm not sure about the news," Khaled says. "We didn't see a body, we didn't see anything."
President Trump announced on Sunday that Baghdadi had died during a U.S. military operation in northwest Syria the night before. Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images According to Trump, as U.S. special forces attacked the compound where Baghdadi was hiding out, the ISIS leader ran into a dead-end tunnel and detonated a suicide vest that killed him and three children.
Trump said he is considering making some of the footage of the raid public "so that [Baghdadi's] followers and all of these young kids that want to leave various countries, including the United States, they should see how he died. He didn't die a hero. He died a coward."
In spite of Trump's claims of victory over ISIS, Baghdadi's death does not represent the end of the group, says Mansour Marid, the governor of Nineveh, Iraq.
"This is only one page of the situation, and we presume there is another page to it," says Marid. "The important thing is to end the ideology, otherwise with these kind of men, one leader goes, another will come in his place."
A worker in Mosul, Iraq, assesses the damage in the al-Nuri Mosque compound. Workers are reconstructing the mosque's al-Hadba minaret. Jane Arraf/NPR "Jaded about the United States"
Next door in Syria, many residents who spent years under ISIS rule say they're thrilled Baghdadi is dead.
"It's very happy news ... because it feels like he's a personal enemy," says Mohammed Kheder, who lived under ISIS and leads a group of Syrian researchers called Sound and Picture that documents the militants' atrocities. "ISIS committed numerous crimes against our sons. ... The person responsible for the death of their sons has died."
Kheder adds that families feel like "they have gotten their revenge, even if it's from someone who's also responsible for many deaths of their sons." The someone he's referring to is the U.S.-led coalition that defeated ISIS in its capital Raqqa, Syria, but used overwhelming firepower there, which rights groups say killed many more civilians than it did ISIS fighters. "People believe one criminal killed another criminal," he says.
This attitude doesn't surprise Jeremy Shapiro, the research director of the European Council on Foreign Relations, who worked on Syria policy at the State Department under the Obama administration. "People in that area are pretty jaded about the United States. The fact that they are not sad that Baghdadi is dead isn't going to change their opinion of us," Shapiro says.
In March, U.S.-led forces drove ISIS fighters out of their last held territory in Syria. Now thousands of suspected ISIS fighters are in prisons in the country, and their wives and children are in detention camps. The facilities are run by Syrian Kurdish forces, who have come under heavy attack by Turkey, following Trump's order for U.S. troops to withdraw from parts of Syria.
A woman walks with children at the Kurdish-run al-Hol camp where families of ISIS foreign fighters are held in northeastern Syria earlier this month. Delil Souleiman/AFP via Getty Images NPR contacted a Syrian humanitarian worker who is in touch with detainees in al-Hol camp in northeastern Syria to hear what they are saying about Baghdadi's death. He called them on their smuggled cellphones and provided recordings of some detainees.
"We are all soldiers of Baghdadi ... but the jihad hasn't stopped," says one of the women, an Iraqi. "And there's nothing to prove he died. We heard in the news. It's been a rumor numerous times. As warriors, we believe that even if Baghdadi dies, the caliphate will not end. ... We aren't just here for one person."
"If Baghdadi is dead, there are tens of thousands of Baghdadis," says another detainee, speaking in French. "Do not think we are over. We are like a boiling volcano in constant eruption."
Some of the women in the camps say they regret joining ISIS. One Tunisian woman tells NPR she is relieved Baghdadi is dead. "He will be rewarded with hell," she says.
But she and some of the other women detained with her do not trust Trump's account that Baghdadi died in a cowardly way, she says. "Nobody believes Trump's tales."
RED DEAD REDEMPTION The Kurds Spotted Baghdadi. The U.S. Abandoned Them Anyway. Back in March, America’s closest allies in Syria were telling the world where Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was. If Team Trump found the information valuable, they didn’t show it.
Adam Rawnsley Published 10.27.19 6:13PM ET
The American allies recently abandoned by the Trump administration played a key role in hunting down ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and warned as far back as March that the terror chief had taken residence in Idlib, Syria.
The mostly-Kurdish troops known as the Syrian Democratic Forces helped American special operators find and kill the man who had laid waste to much of their homeland in northern and eastern Syria, but the relationships and intelligence networks they forged with American counterparts now appear in doubt after the Trump administration greenlit a Turkish invasion of SDF-held areas and announced a U.S. withdrawal. Adding insult to injury, Baghdadi was found just a short trip across the Turkish border in Idlib-province.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started. They could still get him out of office. But instead, they want mass death. Don’t forget that.
Also via Tim Hayward (I'd missed these, probably due to the noise level):
Flawed OPCW Douma Report: key criticisms Posted on October 23, 2019 by timhayward
An International Panel convened by the Courage Foundation in October 2019, whose members included OPCW’s first Director General, José Bustani, issued strong criticism of ‘unacceptable practices’ surrounding the OPCW report on an alleged chemical attack in Douma, Syria on 7 April 2018.
The panel’s criticisms, following a meeting with a member of the OPCW’s Douma investigation team, highlight a number of serious concerns. These include alarming irregularities in the handling of toxicology reports. A summary of points arising from the panel meeting follows. Analytic Points
General
A critical analysis of the final report of the Douma investigation left the panel in little doubt that conclusions drawn from each of the key evidentiary pillars of the investigation (chemical analysis, toxicology, ballistics and witness testimonies,) are flawed and bear little relation to the facts.
Chemical Analysis
Although biomedical analyses supposedly contributed to the conclusions of the report (para 2.17), the same report is unequivocal in stating that “no relevant chemicals were found” in biological samples (Table A5.2).
The interpretation of the environmental analysis results is equally questionable. Many, if not all, of the so- called ‘smoking gun” chlorinated organic chemicals claimed to be “not naturally present in the environment” (para 2.6) are in fact ubiquitous in the background, either naturally or anthropogenically (wood preservatives, chlorinated water supplies etc). The report, in fact, acknowledges this in Annex 4 para 7, even stating the importance of gathering control samples to measure the background for such chlorinated organic derivatives. Yet, no analysis results for these same control samples (Annex 5), which inspectors on the ground would have gone to great lengths to gather, were reported.
Although the report stresses the ‘levels’ of the chlorinated organic chemicals as a basis for its conclusions (para 2.6), it never mentions what those levels were —high, low, trace, sub-trace? Without providing data on the levels of these so-called ‘smoking-gun’ chemicals either for background or test samples, it is impossible to know if they were not simply due to background presence. In this regard, the panel is disturbed to learn that quantitative results for the levels of ‘smoking gun’ chemicals in specific samples were available to the investigators but this decisive information was withheld from the report.
The final report also acknowledges that the tell-tale chemicals supposedly indicating chlorine use, can also be generated by contact of samples with sodium hypochlorite, the principal ingredient of household bleaching agent (para 8.15). This game-changing hypothesis is, however, dismissed (and as it transpires, incorrectly) by stating no bleaching was observed at the site of investigation. (“At both locations, there were no visible signs of a bleach agent or discoloration due to contact with a bleach agent”). The panel has been informed that no such observation was recorded during the on-site inspection and in any case dismissing the hypothesis simply by claiming the non-observation of discoloration in an already dusty and scorched environment seems tenuous and unscientific.
Toxicology
The toxicological studies also reveal inconsistencies, incoherence and possible scientific irregularities. Consultations with toxicologists are reported to have taken place in September and October 2018 (para 8.87 and Annex 3), but no mention is made of what those same experts opined or concluded. Whilst the final toxicological assessment of the authors states “it is not possible to precisely link the cause of the signs and symptoms to a specific chemical” (para 9.6) the report nonetheless concludes there were reasonable grounds to believe chlorine gas was the chemical (used as a weapon).
More worrying is the fact that the panel viewed documented evidence that showed other toxicologists had been consulted in June 2018 prior to the release of the interim report. Expert opinions on that occasion were that the signs and symptoms observed in videos and from witness accounts were not consistent with exposure to molecular chlorine or any reactive-chlorine-containing chemical. Why no mention of this critical assessment, which contradicts that implied in the final report, was made is unclear and of concern.
Ballistic studies
The unauthorised disclosure of the Engineering Assessment in May 2019 of the two munitions found at Locations 2 and 4, and subsequently acknowledged by the Director General as bona-fide, revealed the diametrically opposing views of inspectors within the FFM team. Although the panel does not have the technical competence to judge the merits of the contradicting studies (i.e. the study described in the final report versus the leaked engineering report), it was surprised by how little consideration was given to alternative hypotheses in the final report.
One alternative ascribing the origin of the crater to an explosive device was considered briefly but, despite an almost identical crater (understood to have resulted from a mortar penetrating the roof) being observed on an adjacent rooftop, was dismissed because of “the absence of primary and secondary fragmentation characteristics”. In contrast, explosive fragmentation characteristics were noted in the leaked study.
Testimonies
The reporting of witness statements and the lack of any meaningful analysis highlights the partiality of this report. Whilst two clearly distinct and opposing narratives are described by witnesses, only the one supportive of the use of toxic weapons contributes to the conclusions. The imbalance between numbers of persons interviewed by the respective FFM teams in Damascus and in Country X is noteworthy, with twice as many of the latter being interviewed.
Exclusion of inspectors and attempts to obfuscate
Contrary to what has been publicly stated by the Director General of the OPCW it was evident to the panel that many of the inspectors in the Douma investigation were not involved or consulted in the post-deployment phase or had any contribution to, or knowledge of the content of the final report until it was made public. The panel is particularly troubled by organisational efforts to obfuscate and prevent inspectors from raising legitimate concerns about possible malpractices surrounding the Douma investigation.
“Unacceptable Practices at OPCW” – by José Bustani and international panel Posted on October 23, 2019 by timhayward
“The convincing evidence of irregular behaviour in the OPCW investigation of the alleged Douma chemical attack confirms doubts and suspicions I already had. I could make no sense of what I was reading in the international press. Even official reports of investigations seemed incoherent at best. The picture is certainly clearer now, although very disturbing”
“I have always expected the OPCW to be a true paradigm of multilateralism. My hope is that the concerns expressed publicly by the Panel, in its joint consensus statement, will catalyse a process by which the Organisation can be resurrected to become the independent and non-discriminatory body it used to be.”
José Bustani, First Director General OPCW and former Ambassador to the United Kingdom and France
Panel Criticizes ‘Unacceptable Practices’ in the OPCW’s investigation of the the Alleged Chemical Attack in Douma, Syria on April 7th 2018
The Courage Foundation convened a panel of concerned individuals from the fields of disarmament, international law, journalism, military operations, medicine and intelligence in Brussels on October 15th. The panel met with a member of the investigation team from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), the international chemical watchdog. On this basis the panel issued the following statement:
Based on the whistleblower’s extensive presentation, including internal emails, text exchanges and suppressed draft reports, we are unanimous in expressing our alarm over unacceptable practices in the investigation of the alleged chemical attack in Douma, near the Syrian capital of Damascus on 7 April 2018. We became convinced by the testimony that key information about chemical analyses, toxicology consultations, ballistics studies, and witness testimonies was suppressed, ostensibly to favor a preordained conclusion.
We have learned of disquieting efforts to exclude some inspectors from the investigation whilst thwarting their attempts to raise legitimate concerns, highlight irregular practices or even to express their differing observations and assessments —a right explicitly conferred on inspectors in the Chemical Weapons Convention, evidently with the intention of ensuring the independence and authoritativeness of inspection reports.
However belatedly, we therefore call on the OPCW to permit all inspectors who took part in the Douma investigation to come forward and report their differing observations in an appropriate forum of the States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention, in fulfillment of the spirit of the Convention. They should be allowed to do this without fear of reprisal or even censure.
The panel advances these criticisms with the expectation that the OPCW will revisit its investigation of the Douma incident, with the purpose of clarifying what actually happened. This would help to restore the credibility of the OPCW and work towards demonstrating its legally mandated commitment to transparency, impartiality and independence. It is of utmost importance to restore trust in the verification procedures relied upon to implement the prohibitions of the CWC.
Three weeks after trump again ordered a withdrawal of all US forces from NE Syria, the US now plans to have basically the same number of troops it had in that area before the chaotic US withdrawal unfolded:
Hundreds of U.S. Troops Leaving, and Also Arriving in, Syria Once the comings and goings are done, the number of U.S. forces in Syria is expected to reach about 900 — close to the 1,000 troops on the ground when President Trump ordered the withdrawal.
An American military vehicle in northeastern Syria last week.Credit...Delil Souleiman/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images Eric SchmittHelene Cooper By Eric Schmitt and Helene Cooper Oct. 30, 2019
WASHINGTON — Every day in northeastern Syria, waves of American troops are pulling out under President Trump’s order this month that paved the way for a Turkish offensive that included assaults on the Pentagon’s allies, the Syrian Kurds.
And at the same time, a separate wave of American troops from the opposite direction is pouring back in.
In fact, once the comings and goings are done, the total number of United States forces in Syria is expected to be about 900 — close to the 1,000 troops on the ground when Mr. Trump ordered the withdrawal of American forces from the country.
“It’s damage control,” said Alexander Bick, a fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, who oversaw Syria issues at the National Security Council in the Obama administration. “But the damage is already done in terms of partners’ alarm at the capriciousness of U.S. policymaking, a strategic reshuffle along the Turkish border and the overwhelming sense that the United States is on its way out.” How the New Syria Took Shape Russia, Turkey and Bashar al-Assad carved up northern Syria as the Americans retreated. Oct. 30, 2019
In the three weeks of political and military turmoil that upended the administration’s Syria policy, the United States has deserted its pivotal Kurdish ally; ceded territory the Kurds had controlled to Syria, Turkey and Russia; and opened the door for a possible Islamic State resurgence despite the death of its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, in an American commando raid last Saturday.
The dizzying set of deployments of American troops passing one another on the roads and in the skies of northern Syria started earlier this month when Mr. Trump ordered back in a force to protect the region’s coveted oil fields from the Islamic State, as well as from Syria and Russia.
On Oct. 6, the day President Trump spoke to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey and gave tacit approval for a Turkish military invasion, the American military had around 1,000 troops in Syria. The Pentagon had, for nine months, played down that presence, hoping Mr. Trump would not focus on the extent to which the American military was continuing to fight the Islamic State despite his order in December to pull out.
The troops — primarily Special Operations forces, trainers and support staff — since then had been deployed quietly in northeastern Syria, where they fought alongside Kurdish fighters known as the Syrian Democratic Forces; at Al-Tanf in southern Syria, where they trained Kurdish and other fighters in the coalition targeting the Islamic State; and in eastern Syria, where they helped to guard oil fields that had been captured by the Kurds. After his phone call with Mr. Erdogan, Mr. Trump ordered the American troops fighting alongside the Kurds in northeastern Syria to withdraw, lest they get in the way of the Turkish incursion. Defense Department officials pulled out about 50 American service members.
On Oct. 9, Turkish warplanes launched strikes on Kurdish positions in border towns in northeast Syria. On Oct. 10, the ground invasion began. On Oct. 11, Turkish forces shelled Kobani, a city close to an American Special Operations base. The American troops did not fire back, but they began withdrawing from the base a few days later, as Syrian and Russian troops entered to defend the town from advancing Turkish-backed forces.
On Oct. 13, Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper told CBS’s “Face the Nation” that Mr. Trump was ordering the remaining American forces out of northern Syria. “We have American forces likely caught between two opposing, advancing armies, and it’s a very untenable situation,” he said. The president, Mr. Esper added, had directed a withdrawal from northern Syria, which, he said, “is where most of our forces are.”
Mr. Trump affirmed his order on Twitter. “Others may want to come in and fight for one side or the other,” he tweeted. “Let them!”
By Oct. 14, the sentiment started to shift. Republican allies expressed outrage over Mr. Trump’s withdrawal order. Hundreds of Islamic State prisoners either escaped or were freed from detention in northern Syria, as Kurds turned their attention to fighting for their own survival. And Pentagon officials continued to argue to the president that the victory of the Islamic State was in danger of being reversed.
Mr. Trump, in a statement, said American troops “coming out of Syria will now redeploy and remain in the region to monitor the situation and prevent a repeat of 2014, when the neglected threat of ISIS raged across Syria and Iraq.” More significantly, Mr. Trump also announced that the American troops in the south, at Al-Tanf, would remain “to continue to disrupt remnants of ISIS.”
By Oct. 20, things were shifting again. Mr. Trump was talking about the need to protect the oil fields in eastern Syria. Pentagon officials began working on a plan to send additional American troops to guard oil fields.
Five days later, at a news conference in Brussels, Mr. Esper said the United States would “maintain a reduced presence in Syria and deny ISIS access to oil revenue.” He said the additional steps would include some “mechanized forces,” which other defense officials said would include tanks.
As of this week, at least half of the original 1,000 American troops in Syria have left, and more will continue to fly or drive out until roughly 250 of that original group are left, largely around Deir al-Zour in the south. Meanwhile, the first few hundred infantry troops, soon to be joined by mechanized troops in Bradley fighting vehicles and possibly a few tanks, have driven in from Iraq. Defense Department officials said the total number of American troops guarding the oil fields would be around 500.
When combined with the troops at Al-Tanf, that brings the number of American troops projected to be in Syria to near 900, a number that could easily rise if, as expected, the Islamic State begins to make a comeback.
“We’re under no illusion that they will go away because we killed Baghdadi,” said Gen. Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr., the head of the military’s Central Command, during a Pentagon news conference Wednesday. “Since it’s an ideology, you will never be able to stamp it out.”
Indeed, the remaining American troops will include commandos from the military’s secretive Joint Special Operations Command, who are expected to continue carrying out counterterrorism missions on their own and with Syrian Kurdish partners against Islamic State targets.
Russell Travers, the acting director of the National Counterterrorism Center, testified to Congress on Wednesday that the death of the Islamic State leader and a number of other senior officers of the terrorist group would, in the coming days, allow for eulogies during which remaining Islamic State leaders will call for more attacks on the West.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started. They could still get him out of office. But instead, they want mass death. Don’t forget that.
Dr. Amani Ballour, who worked for six years at an underground hospital in East Al Ghouta, is the subject of the new doc “The Cave.” The West must stop looking away, she writes.
On Oct. 13, The New York Times published a story that proved that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s Russian allies deliberately bombed four hospitals in opposition-held Idlib province in May. Indiscriminate or intentional targeting of hospitals and medical facilities is a war crime, and both culprits have always denied the charges. In reality, Assad has targeted hospitals and other civilian structures from the start of the war, and Russia has done the same since it entered the war in 2015.
The Times investigation is important because it is apparently the first to present substantive proof of this specific war crime. The newspaper’s conclusions are based on comprehensive evidence from many sources, including thousands of Russian Air Force radio recordings of pilots and ground control officers. There are videos documenting the bombing of three of the four hospitals, and recordings of the Russian pilots confirming their strikes. There are testimonies of witnesses and survivors, and flight logs from the spotters who keep watch on the sky in order to warn civilians of impending attacks.
