- The American Conservative - http://www.theamericanconservative.com -

Report: U.S. Bombs Pro-Regime Forces in Syria

The U.S. reportedly bombed [1] pro-regime forces in Syria earlier today:

A US defence official told the FT the US carried out a strike in southern Syria on Thursday.

“A coalition air unit struck a pro-regime convoy in the vicinity of Tanf,” said the official, who added that coalition forces have been operating at Tanf “training local vetted Syrian opposition forces to fight Isis.”

The report says that the local commander “assessed they posed a threat to coalition forces” and ordered the attack. If that’s the case, it might be an isolated incident, but it shows how easily the U.S. can be pulled into a new conflict because of its support for opposition groups inside Syria and the decision to expand the unauthorized war on ISIS into Syria. For the second time this year, U.S. forces have committed an act of war against the Syrian government and its allies inside their own country, and there has been no authorization from Congress or the U.N. for any of it. As long as the U.S. keeps backing anti-regime insurgents in Syria and is willing to attack pro-regime forces as part of that support, there will be a danger that an incident like this could lead to a larger conflict with the Syrian government and its patrons. Each time U.S. forces attack the Syrian government and their allies, it becomes more likely that someone on their side will retaliate against U.S. forces in Syria or Iraq, and before we know it we could be mired in fighting against several new enemies that we didn’t have before. This is one of many reasons why the U.S. should be looking for ways to disentangle itself from Syria’s war.

8 Comments (Open | Close)

8 Comments To "Report: U.S. Bombs Pro-Regime Forces in Syria"

#1 Comment By Kevin On May 18, 2017 @ 2:07 pm

Beyond everything else that is wrong here: I tend to buy the explanation that this was a decision taken by a commander on the ground (whether commanders on the ground should be allowed to take such decisions is another problem..). Still ,given that the only other moment in which Trump was given good headlines was his attack on Syrian airfields, how can we possibly not link this to his scandals?

#2 Comment By John Gruskos On May 18, 2017 @ 2:21 pm

A completely non-interventionist foreign policy would undermine ISIS and Al-Qaeda more effectively than a foreign policy which includes war – economic, proxy, air or ground – against the enemies of ISIS and Al-Qaeda.

Like the earlier US attack on Syrian government forces, this incident demonstrates that Democrats and neocons can successfully use the “Russian influence” narrative to coerce President Trump into betraying his America First campaign promises.

Sincere supporters of the America First platform need to begin thinking very seriously about the 2020 Republican Presidential primaries.

#3 Comment By song of the north On May 18, 2017 @ 2:24 pm

“This is one of many reasons why the U.S. should be looking for ways to disentangle itself from Syria’s war. “

Trump needs to wrest back control of the military from Mattis and McMaster, who apparently want a “do-over” in Syria to compensate for failures and disasters they were party to elsewhere in the Middle East. Already they’ve also persuaded him to launch missile attacks on the Syrian government, send troops back into Afghanistan, and escalate operations in Yemen.

If he doesn’t get rid of these jackasses soon they’re going to drag America into a morass more damaging than the Iraq or Libya disasters.

I guess the chance of Trump doing that is pretty low, but one can hope. He certainly knows now how deeply he is hated and feared by the establishment, and while he has done a lot of damage to himself, he presumably also has some sense of how much damage establishment moles like Flynn, McMaster, and Mattis have done and are doing to him by miring him in foreign policy messes that prevent him from executing on the far more urgent domestic agenda.

#4 Comment By Phil Giraldi On May 18, 2017 @ 3:22 pm

My sources claim the attack was ordered by LTG Jeffrey Harrigian, commander of air forces for central command, and may have been in response to White House demands to “do something.” There was some concern that Russian advisers might be with the column. Ironic that we, operating illegally in Syria, attack the legitimate regime’s forces that are presumably on their way to fight some groups that we regard as terrorists.

#5 Comment By a spencer On May 18, 2017 @ 4:35 pm

Ben Ali, Mubarak, Saleh, one Western backed dictator after another fell. “Why isn’t the monster Assad going down?”

There are a vast array of issues with Assad but again, at this point how many of the Syrian ‘opposition’ are Syrian?

#6 Comment By Bob Jones On May 18, 2017 @ 5:47 pm

Yet another violation of Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 11 of the Constitution. So, either Trump has just performed his second impeachable offense, violating the Constitution is a violation of law. Or he has no clue, and the military is now running foreign policy.

I don’t know what is worse, as any impeachment would result in Pence just doing what our out of control military tells him to do.

#7 Comment By EliteCommInc. On May 19, 2017 @ 3:31 pm

If we were at war, local command makes sense. But this does not.

But I remain committed that we shouldn’t even be in Syria. My country right of wrong stops at needles regime change.

It would make more sense if we were actually building an empire but tat’s not what we are doing.

#8 Comment By EliteCommInc On May 20, 2017 @ 12:14 pm

Note: Of course US forces are entitled to sekf defense —

My comments should not be construe to suggest, otherwise. what the rules of engage are in that scenario is unknown to me. Is the area of engagement ten miles, 50 or the distance of the most formidable weapon. .

The issue for me, is we are sovereign territory – We shouldn’t be. To my knowledge Syria has not attacked Israel nor poses any threat to them or Saudi Arabia.