The Syrian Observatory For Human Rights

Exclusive interviews | Politicians to SOHR: Opinion of withdrawing US forces from Syria came during presidency of Obama, and applying such suggestion is difficult at the recent time

The statement of the Russian president’s special envoy for Syria Alexander Lavrentiev, regarding a possible sudden withdrawal of US forces from Syria like what happened in Afghanistan, has sparked diverse reactions. Some parties see that this statement is a clear message directed to the Kurds, especially with Russia focusing at the recent time on starting a dialogue with Damascus for reaching a compromise and specific agreements.

 

Analyzers see that it is too early to for USA to withdraw all troops from Syria, like it has done in Afghanistan. Expectations of complete withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan lasted for 20 years before the actual withdrawal.

 

In the past two weeks, the US military bases in Deir Ezzor countryside in east Syria region came under successive attacks, which caused explosions in ammunition warehouses and the injury of several people.

 

In a statement to SOHR, the member of the National Coordination Committee and the prominent opposition John Nasta sees that there is a deliberate blackout over the US stance regarding the withdrawal of troops from Syria. Nasta said “I would like to point out to the fact that the plan of withdrawal from the middle east came with the US former president Barack Obama. However, the situation in Afghanistan could not be compared with the situation in Syria. In Afghanistan, there were thousands of soldiers, officers, security members and affiliates, amid hectic battles against Taliban and ISIS, which left considerable material and human losses. In Syria, however, it is all about a few hundreds of soldiers and some military vehicles with low costs and almost-zero casualties and material losses. Moreover, US forces in Syria could achieve spiritual and financial gains by dominating several sources of Syria’s oil. Let’s not forget that the withdrawal from Iraq has yet to be decided.”

 

Nasta recommenced “There is no doubt that the situation of SDF and SDC regarding this matter is more difficult and complicated, as the US military presence in north-east Syria region works as a material and spiritual guarantee for them, and they are sure that the military presence in Syria is not permanent, especially since Washington has never promised to support their schemes politically, but it always states that it is their ally regarding the military support only. So, we see SDC seeking after enhancing their relations with the Russians, hoping that they may mediate between them and the Syrian regime, after all previous attempts have been failed, especially since the Syrian regime denies every statement SDF or SDC release. Moreover, SDC is seeking for reaching understandings and forming alliance with democratic opposition Syrian parties inside Syria which support it to communicate with the Syrian regime under the national democratic opposition in general, and support it also to join the negotiation commission and constitutional committee in Geneva, backed by the USA.”

 

Hasan Abdualzim, the member of the National Coordination Committee and the prominent opposition, also told SOHR “there is a difference between the US administration’s stance regarding deep engagement into war in Afghanistan, since the ‘Israeli-planned’ attacks on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and the limited US military presence in north and north-east Syria and the US support to SDC to fight terrorism and push it to make alliance with the Syrian regime, the National Coordination Committee or the Syrian National Coalition, so that SDC could settle for a kind of the administrative decentralization and protection of oil fields against the domination of organizations internationally-labelled as terrorist. The Russian-US gradual steps which have been taken with support by the UN Special Envoy for Syria Geir Pedersen and his deputy Dr. Khawlah Mattar and the delegation which facilitated the issuance of the latest UN Security Council’s decision regarding a consensus to open border crossings may give hope for reaching a balanced settlement for Syria’s crisis, as a part of implementation of the statement of Geneva I and the Resolution 2254.”

 

In an interview with SOHR, the president of the Reformation Movement Shukri Shikhu said “it is right that the policy of the administration of the former president Donald Trump is still in force, especially regarding the deployment of US forces or reposition of forces in Syria. However, there will be there no effective withdrawals, as US cannot leave the region under Russian’s full domination and it will not give the chance for the Russians to practice unilateral policy, although the call to start a dialogue between SDF and the Syrian regime is a clear Russian call and it is mainly in Russia’s favour, as it will help the regime to stay in power for more time. Accordingly, the Russians can practice their policy in the region and make sure that gas allocation sent to Europe will continue.”

 

Regarding ISIS case, Mr. Shikhu said “ISIS is actually a time-bomb in north-east Syria region, and the decision makers should take the needed procedures as soon as possible, including starting field trials and repatriating their citizens.”