Saturday, February 16, 2019

THE WEST'S HOME GROWN THREAT By Ghassan and Intibah Kadi. 15 February 2019


Some thoughts on what’s eating the West from within

The West’s Home-Grown Threat:

by Ghassan and Intibah Kadi

[George Soros has recently said that Chinese leader Xi Jinping poses the biggest ever threat to free society ie the West. https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/soros-flags-xi-as-biggest-threat-to-free-society The statement was met with varied responses, the most interesting of which was the Chinese response saying this statement is not worthy of a response. https://www.rt.com/news/449705-soros-china-response-meaningless/ ]

Mr. Soros is perhaps right in saying that Mr. Xi Jinping is posing a threat to the West, but in the authors’ way of thinking, he is merely doing so with his enormous nation-building program that is poised to put China at the top of the world; not necessarily militarily, but rather economically and technologically. Moreover, if we were to rationally and analytically look at this very complex situation, we will easily see that he is only able to do so because the West is resting on its laurels, capitalizing on the previous achievements of a golden bygone era.

As China has been steadfastly moving forward with reinventing itself with a long term vision, the West has been busy fighting expensive and needless wars, squandering trillions of dollars’ worth of precious resources, including finite resources, to achieve nothing at all.

The Taliban are slowly but surely regaining control of Afghanistan. As for Iraq, during the days of Saddam neither America’s sworn enemy Iran nor the Islamists had any foot hold there. And even though ISIS has been officially defeated, there seem to be many pockets left. Furthermore, if anything, the Iranian influence on Iraq and the region as a whole has been inadvertently bolstered as a result of the ill-thought-out Western gambles.

Back to China, or should we say forward.

Apple CEO Tim Cook said recently that his company goes to China not to seek cheap manufacturing, but for the quality. He stated that in America he cannot fill a room with the kind of technicians and experts he needs, but in China, he can fill a football stadium. https://www.inc.com/glenn-leibowitz/apple-ceo-tim-cook-this-is-number-1-reason-we-make-iphones-in-china-its-not-what-you-think.html

This is the truth because as Chinese people are increasingly becoming fascinated with science and technology, Western high-school graduates are growing increasingly interested in sports, rap music, art, travel, etc. In 2017, China produced 4.7 million STEM graduates (science, technology, engineering and math), India produced 2.6 million and America produced a meager 588,000. The difference is not due to the higher populations of China and India, because the population of China is 4.3 times the population of America, yet it is producing 8 times the number of STEM graduates. In other words, on per capita basis, China is producing nearly twice the number of STEM graduates in comparison to America. On the other hand, on per capita basis also, the number of American STEM graduates is almost identical to India’s. What makes the situation more dire for America is that this gap is widening.

We are talking about comparing the USA China and India here. We are not talking about comparisons with long established developed countries. We are not comparing it with Scandinavian countries or Switzerland, not even with economically-struggling EU nations. Just a few decades ago, China and India lagged by far behind the West on science and technology, and at the time our parents were born, China was afflicted with the problem of TB and opium addictions, and India experienced searing famines and poverty. China was occupied and usurped by Japan and India was still a British colony. For either country to be doing better than America now or just even be on par with it, there are definitely good enough reasons to call for making America great again.

The core issue is the lack of interest of American students in becoming STEM graduates. Ironically, if an American student is scientifically-inclined, he/she will be branded as a nerd. There are countless Hollywood movies that ridicule nerds. But what is the West doing to encourage STEM education? Nothing, because any attempt from Western governments to influence people is seen as totalitarian and socialist.

As a matter of fact, many American hi-tech companies often import English-speaking technical experts from countries like India; not to save on cost, but because they cannot source the skills they are seeking locally. The list includes Microsoft, Intel, IBM and even NASA. https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-NASA-employees-are-Indian

If a fraction of the funds wasted on the above-mentioned needless wars was spent on education and promoting education, perhaps the West, especially America, would not now be in this predicament. Isn’t this a plausible assumption?

In more ways than one, the West is committing suicide. The cycle of the rise and fall of empires hasn’t changed since the rise and fall of the Assyrian Empire and later on Rome. It is a complex subject and we won’t get into it, but to build empires requires generations of builders. Once built, empires need generations of protectors. But eventually, empires end up plagued by generations of destroyers.

When the destroyers get hold of the reigns, there is no one to blame for the consequences of their actions other than the overall failure of the empire they are destroying.

What is happening to the West now is not very different to what happened to Rome when it began its decline, and there is no one to blame but the West itself. No one can honestly attribute the whole responsibility to any particular person or even group. But if we do want to point fingers, we can easily identify self-serving interest groups which are encouraging and nurturing the suicidal trend in the West. To this effect, the biggest culprit will have to be the Neo Left and its allied NGO’s.

Ironically, much is said about the Neo Cons (neo conservatives). This term came to prominence during the first term of George W Bush. This group is not exactly the opposite of the Neo Left; despite the diametrically conservative versus left labels. Notwithstanding the evil of the Neo Cons, which is beyond the scope of this article, for fairness to them, they do not attempt to manipulate minds. Their rhetoric of promoting and exporting western style “democracy”, using B-52’s as the mode of delivery, has an onion skin deep façade. No thinking mind in the world believes their lies. The Neo Left, on the other hand, is an entity that is increasingly becoming popular and credible. It capitalizes on passions and ideas that are so close to the hearts and minds of well-intentioned people. Whilst the Neo Cons and the industrial giants feel at ease to pillage the world for financial gain, the Neo Left pretentiously carries the “progressive” banner such as that of environmental protection among other popular, sensitive and seemingly humanitarian topics; all sentiments predominant among caring anti Neo Con people. They use the same technique to evoke similar wholistic concerns and this is where the danger lies.

Ironically, the definition of the political Left has changed recently, though not formally. By the mid 1990’s theories were proposed from sociologists for example, like Anthony Giddens among others, philosophers and other academics who radically re-examined the nature of “Left” and “Right” and what was happening to them. For the purposes of this article, we hark back to the not too distant past, where Left was best and typically represented by East European leaders like Lenin and Trotsky, Latin Americans like Castro and Guevara, Asian leaders like Ho Chi Minh and Chairman Mao, all of whom fought against colonialism, capitalism and imperialism seeking independence, freedom, justice and the rights of the underprivileged proletariat, or so they said. Whether they were all truthful to their words is another story, but today’s “revolutionary” often is a privileged Westerner, a couch activist, fixated on gender and environmental issues, advocating for legalizing late term abortion, teaching school children that there are 15 different genders and counting the carbon footprints of others, often forgetting his own.

And this brings another aspect of the Western suicide. In addition to the overwhelming prevalence and focus in the West on gender issues, including that of questioning and challenging the value and future of traditional family structures, many Western couples have little interest in procreation. They just want to have fun in life without having the responsibility of children. In a way, this is good because we need to curb the global population growth. But the other 3 billion people on the other side of the planet do not believe in this and, with or without the technological advances they are making, they are generating the manpower to become huge economic hubs.

Respecting people’s inclinations and choices, including sexual ones, is one thing and how the Neo Left is hijacking and manipulating this issue is something else. Most of us have friends and family members who are homosexual, and they are always loved and respected. Many express they are unhappy with how the Neo Left is portraying them. The Neo Left however seems to be driven by men and women who have nefarious agendas which smack of interference in societal structures that have formed the backbone of strong, productive, competitive and viable self-sustaining societies. The focus on challenging and dismantling these age-old structures is evident in the thug-like attacks some of these leaders in the Neo Left display, including their open contempt for the traditional family unit.

It is not too far-fetched to say that in future, if these thugs have their way, pressure, with legal backing, will be put on any “offenders” who challenge this restructuring of family, sexuality and society by way of insisting to live the “old” way and, their human rights may be seriously violated.

Much of these movements driven by the Neo Left are far from being liberation movements. They do not endorse and enact any reform. They are mere cults. They think like cults, preach like cults and act like cults. The authors often wonder who is behind them and benefits from the destruction and havoc they are causing to families and communities.

We read the news today Oh boy about an unlucky woman who made the grade. She was arrested for “misgendering” https://www.rt.com/uk/451202-trans-gender-arrest-trump-johnson/. And to think that radical prohibitions and policies on heterosexuality and traditional family structures are not on the way?

Turning to matters of the environment; every time the Neo Left closes down a factory in the West for its impact on the environment, China builds ten, using the same technology and manufacturing the same product that goes for consumption in the West. See the irony and hypocrisy here?

With a diminished interest in science and technology, coupled with a decreased interest in procreation, top it up with living in a fantasy world of gender identification obsession, Western carbon foot prints and governments that plunder and pillage other nations squandering trillions of dollars on needless wars, how does the West expect to be able to compete, let alone survive?

China and India are doing what is right for their nations, and they ought to be commended for their diligence. It is the West that is to be blamed for sitting back and expecting itself to magically maintain its wealth.

But here’s one aspect of the problem, and we are not sure if many in the West put two and two together. Most school children in the West today do not learn about their history and the achievements of their forebears. They do not know why their countries are in privileged positions, and this is why they take their fortunes for granted.

Western children do not know that Western scientists of yester years have given them the technological advantage that they are still capitalizing on, but also slowly losing.

They would not know or find out, because instead of teaching them history, the loud and noisy Neo Left has pushed in its twisted and nefarious views and agendas and coerced Western governments to focus primary school education on ill-supported theories about climate change, how to use condoms and that young children have the right to have sex change operations as we have seen in some Western countries.

The Neo Left did not only add stupid foul words and verbs such as the verb “to misgender” to the dictionary, but they have also demonized important words and rendered their use subject to ridicule and criticism. We are talking about words like honour, duty, obligation, decency, morality, sacrifice, shame, humility, patriotism, and the like. Alas, but the authors cannot see one good thing that the Neo Left has done to the minds of people of the West, especially young people.

Now compare this to young Russian students who know what VE Day stood for. All Russians, old and young, celebrate the 9th of May. They parade the streets in solemn remembrance to commemorate an expensive victory that has cost tens of millions of Russian lives. They march proudly festooning their presence with the photos of their loved ones who perished to honour them and their victory, a victory that was not meant to be only for Russia, but for the whole gamut of Allies.

But what is the percentage of Westerners, old and young, who know what that day stands for? How many Westerners in a million remember the date of the downfall of Hitler? What percentage of Westerners take a minute of silence on the eleventh minute of the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month?

China, India, Russia are more of international competitors than they are a source of threat. They are a threat because the West has become lazy, indifferent and entitled. The only way for America to deal with such “threats” now is to impose trade sanctions because it has lost its competitive edge. Mr. Xi Jinping is hardly to blame. The culprit is more than home-grown; it has become inbred in the Western psyche. It is more demographically diverse than the Marxism that many Westerners purportedly loath.

It is the Neo Left and the NGO’s that come with it, all the way from political correctness to gender confusion to theories of man-induced global warming, just to name a few. This is not to forget NGO’s that capitalize on refugees and migration for their own gain.

Ironically, such organizations consider wholesome and positive awareness education campaigns as acts of totalitarianism as mentioned above, but they have no qualms at all about manipulating the public mind by spreading lies and misinformation. They seem to thrive on spreading ignorance and fear.

They cloak themselves with sanctity, but they are wolves in sheep clothing. We can name only a few of such organizations herein, beginning with the UN, not to forget Amnesty International, AVAAZ, Get-Up, Human Rights Watch, etc. And how can we forget Greenpeace? We urge readers to take the time to read this article written by Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace. See how he sees that Greenpeace has “lost is moral compass” http://www.cfact.org/2013/10/05-greenpeace-lost-its-moral-compass

Do the names of such NGO’s sound familiar? Some people with vested interests in the West must be benefiting from this kind of propaganda, misinformation, brain-washing and fearmongering, without giving a second thought to their detrimental effect to their own people and communities.

This is not to forget the thousands of willing recruits who sell themselves to the highest Neo Left bidder, interfering and meddling in global affairs and wars, portraying themselves as supporters, with the sole intention of serving their real masters. They manipulate opinion, take the causes they allegedly support on tangents, create mess and mayhem, open the gates for infiltrators and then move on to new turfs.

This is social engineering at it worst/best. It is all about creating controlled opposition, a tool that diverts the focus and energies of well-intentioned good people and turning them into groups and individuals that can be goaded and manipulated.

It is the Western morally-corrupt element which is solely and merely profit-driven, that is causing the most significant harm to the West, and we can hardly blame Mr. Xi Jinping or China as Mr. Soros did.

Thursday, February 7, 2019

HOW SYRIA WON THE REVOLUTION; THE JIHADI FACTOR. By Ghassan and Intibah Kadi 6 February 2019

Ghassan and Intibah Kadi look back with a slightly different take on what Syria achieved.

How Syria Won The Revolution; The Jihadi Factor

By Ghassan and Intibah Kadi

The “War on Syria” has had many unintended twists and turns that were unforeseeable at the time it began. The plotters had no reason to believe they were going to lose, and the defenders had no option other than doing all they could and risk and sacrifice all that was dear and precious.

However, as frontlines are now being redrawn in Syria in preparation for the final showdown, a recapitulation of the events of the last eight years reveals that Syria did in fact end up having a revolution, but the group that embarked on the initial alleged revolution, the Free Syria Army (FSA) is nowhere to be seen.

This brings us back to the initial “Anti-Syrian Cocktail” that I wrote an article about back in early 2011; http://intibahwakeup.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-anti-syrian-cocktail-by-ghassan-kadi.html. The ring leader was Prince Bandar Bin Sultan, son of then Crown Prince Sultan, and the man who hoped he would be the first grandson of founding King Abdul-Aziz to become king. In two subsequent articles, “The Anti-Syrian Politics” (http://intibahwakeup.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-anti-syrian-politics-by-ghassan.html) and “The Anti Syrian Vendetta”, http://intibahwakeup.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-anti-syrian-vendetta-by-ghassan.html the articles focused on how Bandar tried to raise the largest army he could conjure, and with virtually bottomless funds, he put together a very loosely-united cocktail of groups who had nothing in common other than their hatred towards Syria.

In more ways than one, pre-King Faisal Saudi Arabia kept to itself. Founder, King Abdul-Aziz who died in 1953, had the doctrinal substance that would have exported Wahhabism to neighbouring Muslim countries, but his main concern was to bolster his domain over his new kingdom and give it a strong foundation that would secure its longevity. His successor son Saud was infamous for his orgies and debauchery. He capitalized on the spoils of the new-found wealth and did not have any agenda other than indulging in earthly pleasures. It wasn’t until he was deposed and replaced by his brother Faisal in 1964 that Saudi Arabia had a king who was a fundamentalist and also desirous of spreading Wahhabism to the outside Muslim World.

And when the “War on Syria” began, and long before the identity of the would be willing fighter was well defined, I predicted in the same above-mentioned articles that a widely diverse coalition of enemies of Syria were banding together, using Muslim fundamentalism as a recruitment drive, and as the fundamentalist factor became clear for all to see, it eventually transpired that Qatar became a new kid on the block in providing bigtime funding to a number of terror organizations operating in Syria.

They were all not only united by their hatred for Syria, but also specifically to the Assad legacy; particularly due the fact that the Assads are Alawites, and in their eyes, infidels. Their main objective was to topple President Assad and ensure that Syria was ruled by an anti-Iranian Sunni fundamentalist government.

Bandar had no qualms at all about uniting the ununitable. To Bandar however, it was not about a war of ideologies, and he was no strict Muslim. To Bandar, the “War on Syria” was about power and curbing Iran’s influence in the region. That said, he found in the already-existing numerous Jihadi armies excellent tools and pawns to use. In doing so, he did not foresee the many fault lines emerging in his fragmented army, let alone seeing any reason to worry about such cracks because, in the beginning he seemed to be going from strength to strength, with a seemingly huge chance of success. When he presented his plan to his American masters, he received the thumbs up.

Like all other early indigenous writers who supported Syria from day one of the onslaught, we all took the optimistic view and kept reiterating that victory was certain, but only a question of time. We were mindful of the importance of keeping spirits up and boosting morale, and being optimistic about turns in events and alliances that were to Syria’s advantage. In retrospect however, up until the Syrian Arab Army’s (SAA) first substantial win of the battle of Qusayr in mid 2013, more than two years into the war, the Jihadis, combined, were winning the war and closing in on key government positions right across the Syrian terrain; including the main cities.

So how did events turn around and how did the “War on Syria” turn against the plotters?

To be able to predict what was to happen was unthinkable in hindsight. It is only now that we can sit and make sense by harking back at the events of the last few years.

It would be virtually impossible to work out which came first, the chicken or the egg, but there is no doubt at all that the resilience of Syrian people and the SAA played the most significant role. But that role could have been reversed had the plotters been better able to play their game to their advantage.

Fortunately the plotters didn’t, but had they played down the role of Jihad and tried to capitalize on political reform, they would have perhaps been better able to achieve their insidious objectives.

Before the war, Syria was fraught with corruption and there were many reasons to call for reform. Agitators aside, was why the initial demonstrations in Daraa were conducted under this banner. It was under this guise also that the infamous FSA was formed as a splinter group of the regular SAA. Virtually all of the FSA officers and soldiers were SAA defectors.

For a while, a fair while, and long before ISIS and Al-Nusra came to prominence, the FSA was the major fighting force against the regular army (SAA).

During those initial months, it was very difficult to convince sympathizers of the so-called Syrian opposition that this was not a civil war, that it was not about reform, and that it was simply a conspiracy against Syria, planned and orchestrated by her regional and international adversaries, using and employing Islamist Jihadists and their supporting nations. The reason behind this difficulty was because those fundamentalist fighters were nowhere to be seen.

This was why many activists, including some prominent pro-Palestine Western activists, were adamant in their support of the “revolution” and genuinely believed that it was a popular revolt seeking reform and political plurality among other things.

In hindsight now, looking back at it all, had the mastermind plotters seen the benefit in the reform/freedom guise, had they had the wisdom and foresight in weighing out their benefits of overtly importing and arming fundamentalist fighters as against focusing their efforts on duping the public and generating real and genuine dissent amongst Syrians to their government, they might have succeeded in creating a revolution that served their agendas.

After all, it would have been conceivable for the plotters to promote misinformation and make it look plausible and endorsable. There is another chicken and egg scenario here. Did the plotters import Jihadi fighters because they weren’t able to mobilize enough Syrians against their government, or did Syrians support their government because the plotters brought in foreign Jihadi fighters?

Whichever one came first here, the chicken or the egg, neither one of them had to cross the road for the people of Syria to ask questions in order to see that what they were witnessing was not a revolution as touted by world media; especially the Western media and their Arab cohorts such as Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya.

Perhaps the plotters’ biggest failure was in being unable to hide their intentions and disguise in a manner that reflected to Syrians that there was indeed a popular and genuine reform-based revolution in their country for them to join.

 

In other words, by allowing the so-called civil war/revolution to show its brutal and ugly fundamentalist sectarian face, the plotters turned many Syrian sympathizers and many other would-be supporters against them. And this was how secular free-minded Syrians flocked together in support of their legitimate secular government; whether they believed that reform was necessary or otherwise. This was the reason why genuine supporters of reform and patriots who are in positions of political opposition to the government all banded together to fight the real enemy. This of course bolstered not only the government’s position, but also that of the SAA and this played a significant role in creating a much more resolute and united Syria.

The plotters also failed in being able to produce a charismatic figure head for the “revolution”. All the while secular Syrians looked up to President Assad and the First Lady; two figure heads charming in every way, and with the power to unite by leading by example.

Of significance also was the fact that the disunited “Anti-Syrian Cocktail” was bound to fragment sooner or later; not only on strategic and doctrinal lines, but also on matters of power sharing, loyalty, and splitting of spoils. To this effect, clashes between different fundamentalist organizations became daily events.

Later on, as the turn of events presented to the plotters and their henchmen that victory was impossible, especially after Russia entered the ground and sky, their infighting morphed into that of survival and hope for better positions on either reconciliation tables or on disengagement talks, or both. Those Jihadi versus Jihadi battles in latter times continued to rage culminating recently in a total takeover by Al-Nusra of all other terror groups in Idlib.

Whilst I have always reiterated in previous articles that there was hardly any difference at all between the numerous fundamentalist Islamic Jihadi organizations, the Wahhabi faction that is loyal to Saudi Arabia has lost abysmally to the Qatari/Turkish led Muslim Brotherhood (MB) faction which is now in full control of the last bastion left for terrorists west of the Euphrates, and specifically in Idlib and surrounds.

With this, Erdogan feels that he still has a finger in the pie before final negotiations commence about the future of the terrorist enclave. Whether those delay tactics work or not for Erdogan, whether they preclude the need for a military resolution is yet to be seen. Any such resolution however will give Erdogan a form of a consolation prize, a humble victory that he badly seeks in Syria after all of his initial gambles went terribly wrong.

At this juncture, we must pause and ask what became of the movement that allegedly represented the passion of Syrians for secular and democratic reform. Where is the FSA now?

If the news about Al-Nusra’s total control of the Idlib region is accurate, we must then assume that the FSA is no longer in existence, because prior to the recent upheaval between Al-Nusra and other brigades in the region, the presence of the FSA was restricted to this area.

Ironically, the FSA has had a late resurgence not too long ago before Al-Nusra wiped out all rival militia, but Erdogan seems to have pulled the plug on the FSA, but for some reason, there is nothing I can find in the news from the region, or anywhere for this matter, to confirm this conclusion or debunk it.

What is clear is that the FSA, the only dissenting player that had in the very early beginnings a miniscule semblance of secular Syrian dissent, perhaps the only player that could have potentially turned into a popular revolution, has been disempowered and dismantled by the same demonic forces that created it and funded it.

Either way, whether Erdogan has done the dirty on the FSA or not, the FSA lost its position and clout when its role was overtaken by the many Islamist terrorist organizations. It tried hard to maintain its presence even though many of its rank-and-file rejoined the SAA, whilst others changed uniform and joined Al-Nusra, but the short of it is that the FSA has become a spent force.

Syria had many problems before the war and continues to grapple with some of them. Wars of such devastating magnitude almost invariably leave behind not only a trail of mess and destruction, but also a countless number of corrupt officials and profiteers. Every dog has its day, and the cleanup will soon begin.

But the irony is that with the “War on Syria”, the lines have been drawn and Syrians now know well who is with them and who is against them, domestically, regionally and internationally. They know what alliances they need to nurture and which others to seek. They know what political system they want and which they totally refute. They have chosen and fought for a government they were told decades ago that it came to power by a popular revolution back in March 1963, and later on reformed by Hafez Assad’s “corrective movement” of November 1970, but the choice Syrians made from 2011 onwards was their own, and they upheld it with tears and blood.

Syria has gone the full circle against her enemies and against archaic and brutal dogmas. It seems that Syria has truly ended up having a revolution after all, a real revolution, and that real revolution has won. There is a great opportunity now to rebuild the nation, to rebuild it on wholesome, principled, virtuous and sound foundations.


Ghassan Kadi interview with Sputnik 6 February 2019

Ghassan Kadi was interviewed by Sputnik about Trump and his statements/intentions about Syria.

Let My People Go: Analysts on Why GOP Throwing Wrench in Trump's Syria Pull-Out

Subscribe
While Donald Trump is saying that "great nations do not fight endless wars" the Republican-held Senate is pushing ahead with a bill urging the US president to stay in Syria and Afghanistan. Speaking to Sputnik, political analysts of Syrian origin Ghassan Kadi and Christopher Assad shared their prognoses on whether US lawmakers will outplay Trump.

On 5 February, the Republican-controlled Senate passed a bill requiring that Donald Trump impose new sanctions on Syria and urging the US president not to withdraw from Syria and Afghanistan.

​The vote occurred just hours before Trump's State of the Union Address that clearly indicated that he is sticking to his pull-out promise.

"Great nations do not fight endless wars", the US president stated.

A few days earlier Trump tweeted: "I inherited a total mess in Syria and Afghanistan, the 'Endless Wars' of unlimited spending and death. During my campaign I said, very strongly, that these wars must finally end".

​While it is not the first time that the US president has signalled that he would deliver on his election promise, the Republicans have finally decided to openly rebuke Trump.

On 31 January, the Senate voted to endorse Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's amendment challenging President Donald Trump's plans to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan and Syria. The amendment to a bill on the US' Mid-East strategy warns that a "precipitous" withdrawal of US forces from the two countries "could allow terrorists to regroup, destabilize critical regions, and create vacuums that could be filled by Iran or Russia, to the detriment of the United States interests and those of our allies".

"The situation with lawmakers is not much different and many are passing the buck, and Trump seems like an easy target for both lawmakers and intelligence personnel. The use of terms such as 'precipitous' consequences 'to the detriment of the United States interests' is very powerful, especially when the media take them on board and employ them", Kadi said, commenting on McConnell's amendment.

US soldiers stand near military vehicles, north of Raqqa city, Syria. File photo - Sputnik International
Analysts Explain How Trump's Pull-Out From Syria Affects Turkey, Israel & Russia
However, according to the political analyst, "apart from this political consumption, those comments do not have much justification on the ground at all, because after all if anything, it is actually the American presence in Syria and Iraq that is allowing ISIS [Daesh]* to regroup, not the other way around".

For his part, Assad drew attention to the fact that "the schism between the executive branch and the US Congress was apparent from the very beginning of Trumps' presidency".

"The trouble with US domestic politics is that it always reflects in its careless and hegemonic global policy", he said. "The president wanted to withdraw US troops and end conflicts in many regions, while the Congress and Senate were trying to undermine such efforts by asserting their role as overseers of President Trump's global vision".

Trump to Pull Out of Syria, Shift Focus to Venezuela

There has long been controversy over Trump's withdrawal plan, with administration officials speculating in September 2018 that US military forces were "no longer pulling out by the end of the year".

On 20 December, the American president suddenly announced the withdrawal from Syria, asserting that Ankara would deal with the remaining terror threat.

However, on 2 January Trump remarked that the US would leave Syria "over a period of time", stressing the necessity to protect the US-backed Syrian Kurdish fighters.

It appears that Turkish President Erdogan is unnerved by Trump's flip-flops on Syria and especially his intention to shield the Kurdish militia, seen by Ankara as an affiliate of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), which is banned in Turkey. Erdogan has repeatedly called upon Washington to pull out of Syria.

"Erdogan has been for a long time trying to get the best from both America and Russia, and despite his numerous loud statements to America that it cannot be supportive of Turkey and the Kurds at the same time, he is still unable to receive the American support he desires", Kadi said, adding that "the irony here is that the deaf ear treatment America is giving him is pushing him more into the bosom of Russia".

American soldier standing on an armored vehicle - Sputnik International
Trump's Pull-Out From Syria Cools His Generals Down, Benefits Israel – Publicist
He believes that the US will eventually pull out, despite the opposition from Congress and "with or without a prior agreement with Turkey".

According to Assad, "the Congress and Senate['s] dissenting views can be justified based on ideology, whereas Trump can forge ahead to implement his vision based on pragmatism".

"In my view, Trump sees the relationship with Turkey as more important than the loss of all the assets the US had built in the Middle East over the last half century, and that making the shift to focus on Venezuela's oil is a much more beneficial strategy than having to declare almost a complete defeat of empire in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan", Assad opined.

Trump: Unorthodox President in Many Ways

It seems that Trump is facing growing dissent in the US Congress. Apart from the recent Senate legislation, the House of Representatives had earlier passed a bill de facto preventing Trump's potential withdrawal from NATO.

"Such political dichotomy is typical of the two party system of government in the US where little distinction if any can be made by voters in elections. The renegade Trump managed to cruise to victory riding on the strong Republican grassroots' coattails, same grassroots he relies on to hold on tight to his tenure in office", Assad said, commenting on the issue.

President Donald Trump speaks in the Rose Garden of the White House, Friday, Jan 25, 2019, in Washington. - Sputnik International
SOTU Address: Trump Talks INF Treaty, Border, 'State-of-the-Art' Missile Defence
Meanwhile, Kadi called attention to the "elusive 'deep state'" which appears to be "a loose collection of powerful business people with leverage on lawmakers".

"I don't profess to be an expert on American politics, but the way I see it, American politicians across the party divide have an unwritten bipartisan agreement to kowtow to the 'deep state'", he suggested.

Apparently, therefore, Republican lawmakers rushed to oppose Trump, who is challenging the established status quo by his decision to withdraw from Syria and Afghanistan, according to Kadi.

"Love Trump or hate him, he is definitely an unorthodox president in many ways. He is challenging the 'deep state', and unlike previous presidents, he is trying hard to be the actual commander-in-chief as per his constitutional right and obligation", he said.

Kadi noted that "it is only 'natural' for the Democrats to oppose virtually anything that a Republican president supports, but the anti-Trump dissent crosses party lines, and in my view, its roots stem back from how Trump views his presidency in comparison to how previous presidents viewed theirs".

*Daesh (ISIS/ISIL/Islamic State) is a terrorist group banned in Russia.

The views and opinions expressed by the contributors do not necessarily reflect those of Sputnik.