Trump will bring back US soldiers from Syria?

 President Trump going to fulfill his promise “America First”?

“I think we are close to completing the physical destruction of the caliphate,” said Lieutenant General Frank McKenzie, a US Headquarters candidate. They limit about 2,000 fighters to one percent of the country was under the control of the Islamic state. It is time to bring US forces home and allow Syria and neighbors to end the mission.

Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama put the United States on the path of the Permanent War in the Middle East. Washington fought in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Yemen. The results ranged from disappointment to disastrous.

Candidate Donald Trump said he does not want more similar conflicts. In April, President Trump confirmed these feelings and said he wanted to “go out”. The fight continues. It is time to take responsibility for American politics and end unnecessary wars in America. Syria will be a good place to start.

Sectarian civil wars - and especially the war that most fighters deserve - rarely end. The last conflict in Lebanon, which began in 1975 and eventually ended in 1990. President Ronald Reagan intervened on behalf of the nominal national government, which decided a little more than Beirut. The US Embassy Barracks and the US Marine Corps have destroyed in revenge because the Washington Prize has become an active militant.

President Reagan did the only reasonable move: to break out of confusion. He did not bother with any local faction that went up or down, and any outsider had considerable influence in Beirut. He realized that the United States had nothing at stake in a tragic conflict that would require participation.

It is time for President Trump to do the same in Syria. The Obama administration originally called President Bashar Assad “the Reformer” and then declared that he must go - discourage the parties from negotiating and compromising. Washington’s attempt to overthrow Assad at once, defeat Daesh, help “moderate” and some Islamist insurgents, co-operate with the Kurds, get help from the Turks to gratify Israel, and confront Iran has no other option, a great chance of success. Few policymakers have an understanding and ability to achieve two of these goals, let alone all of these goals.

Over the years, Assad has defeated his enemies. The cost of her ruined land was high: hundreds of thousands of deaths and mass destruction and dependence on Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah. But the lion is essentially another permanent man. There are the notions that, after seven years of war, he now volunteered for imagination. There is no reason to reject his recipient. At the doorstep of victory, their support is no longer decisive, but Syria remains the goal of Washington and desperately needs the help of all kinds. For the United States, Syria is a humanitarian tragedy, not a security threat. They associated the Syrian Arab Republic with the Soviet Union during the Cold War without dramatic influence. Today, Russia is only trying to preserve the shadow of its former position.  Damascus came to anger when Israel resisted, and in recent years received a cold peace Israeli military strikes sometimes broke that, including against the nuclear reactor. Despite Washington’s political classification of Syria as a state sponsor of terrorism, it did not pose a terrorist threat to America, unlike the American ally in Saudi Arabia. There is no reason Washington will take care of Assad’s future. The only legitimate and direct argument for US engagement was the rise of an Islamic state that threatened the Middle East instead of America. They could defeat preachers, but many to follow other priorities as America showed interest. Turkey has for a long time been facilitating the operation of a radical group and even enjoying it while trying to defeat Assad. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have changed their war against Yemen. Israel has mostly targeted Syria on allies, Iran and Hezbollah. In addition, Washington complained about the role of Iran and Hezbollah, even though they were fighting the Islamic state.

President Trump originally proposed that the United States remain only until they defeat the group. In September, Defense Secretary Jim Matisse stressed: “At present, our forces in Syria are for defeating the UN’s UN mandate.” That means US forces must be ready to leave. “Syria’s military component is ending,” McKenzie said last week in a testimony before Congress. With the approaching end of a moment, they must leave other countries to remove the threatening threat to all.

Pentagon officials, however, spoke particularly of the “side benefits” of the US presence in Syria, including a confrontation with Iran. Other decision-makers, including John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompey, have become more public.

Pompey called for Iran to leave Syria - a complete transfer of an independent foreign policy - as a bargaining prize for Washington. He also refused to provide funds for reconstruction help to areas governed by the Syrian government: “The burden of expelling Iran from this country rests on the Syrian government.” “If Syria does not guarantee full withdrawal of Iranian forces, you will not get a dollar for reconstruction.”

James Jeffrey, Special Representative of the United States of America in Syria, or more precisely, advocated an aggressive military intervention into Syria (A.A.M.I.S) for military action. He commented last week, “When we say we will be present in Syria, not always, but also in our circumstances - permanent defeat for the poor”. Removal of Iranian Forces - leading the Syrian political and irreversible process. - we call the United States as a whole, “President said Jeffrey,” he has a variety of options for an army, including our soldiers, to realize that we have been present not in northern Iraq but in northern Iraq for the Northern Watch operation for thirteen years. “

Likewise, in September, A.A.M.I.S said the US forces would remain to impose an Iranian departure. Because it is likely that the Iranian forces will soon leave, it means a lasting commitment. Jeffrey was publicly cautious about timing: “That means we’re not in a hurry.” Although A.A.M.I.S claimed the United States is not targeting Assad, officials said they are expecting an ongoing US job in the north that includes large oil resources. Countries neighboring Iraq will weaken the government of Damascus. They consider this being another “side benefit” for Washington’s intervention.

Unfortunately, this duty is unlawful. Jeffrey argued that the intervention against Dash “is flowing from a 2001 congressional declaration against terrorism after September 11,” but it only empowers Congress to intervene against those involved, The Islamic state arose only a few years later and differed from al-Qaida. She chose a traditional war, not terrorism, to create a semi-American state. There is not even the smallest legal list of figs, which would include military actions aimed at dismantling Syria, denying the country’s government and confronting the Damascus foreign forces. If the government believes that these objectives warrant war, it should ask Congress to act.

US policy is unrealistic. America may not want Iran, which Jeffrey calls “part of the problem not part of the solution,” but the legitimate Syrian government invited Tehran. That was the case in Moscow. In addition, neither of them is likely to return to Washington