By Cian O'Driscoll

Kurdish forces seized control of the Syrian town of Kobani in January 2015 after a four-month battle with Islamic State fighters. Footage of their triumph was relayed around the world. A global audience witnessed Kurdish troops indulge in raucous celebrations as they raised their flag on the hill that once flew the IS black banner.

And so it came as something of a shock when, in October 2019, President Donald Trump granted Turkey carte blanche to seize territory held by the Kurds. Consequently, what once appeared an emphatic victory for the Kurds has since descended into yet another dismal defeat.

This is not an unusual tale. Victories have also been proclaimed in the recent wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, only for violence to continue unabated.

The spectre of these apparently endless wars gives us cause to consider whether the notion of “victory” has any purchase or meaning in respect of contemporary warfare. Having spent the best part of the last decade thinking about this very question, I have come to believe that the idea of victory in modern war is nothing more than a myth, albeit an enduringly dangerous one.

As I argue in my new book, it’s high time for us to think again, and more deeply than we have done before, about what victory in war means today.

The view from Washington

The three most recent occupants of the White House offer very different views on the issue of victory. President Trump has made it both the cornerstone of his rhetoric and the lodestar of US foreign and security policy. “You’re going to be so proud of your country,” he assured the audience at a campaign rally in 2016, "We’re going to start winning again: we’re going to win at every level, we’re going to win economically […] we’re going to win militarily […] we’re going to win with every single facet, we’re going to win so much, you may even get tired of winning, and you’ll say ‘please, please, it’s too much winning, we can’t take it anymore’. And I’ll say, ‘no, it isn’t’. We have to keep winning, we have to win more, we’re going to win more."

Victory also loomed large in President George W. Bush’s statements on world politics. Delivering a keynote speech on the Iraq War in 2005, for example, Bush used the word “victory” 15 times while standing in front of a sign that read “Plan for Victory” and pitching a document entitled “Our National Strategy for Victory in Iraq”.

Sandwiched between Presidents Bush and Trump, President Barack Obama took a very different view. Convinced that the idiom of victory was a retrograde way to talk about how modern wars end, he sought to excise it from US strategic discourse. The term “victory” is unhelpful, he explained, because it evokes crude associations with conquest and triumphalism.

The disagreement between Trump and Bush on the one hand, and Obama on the other, runs deeper than a mere difference in rhetorical style (or lack thereof). It reflects profound uncertainties about the appropriateness of the language of victory to modern war.

Since the early 20th century, the view has emerged that, when it comes to the mechanised mass slaughter of modern warfare, nobody wins. As Aristide Briand — prime minister of France for periods either side of the first world war — put it: “In modern war there is no victor. Defeat reaches out its heavy hand to the uttermost corners of the Earth and lays its burdens on victor and vanquished alike.”

Bao Ninh, a veteran of the North Vietnamese Army and the author of one of the most moving war novels of the 20th century, The Sorrow of War, made much the same argument, but in simpler terms: “In war, no one wins or loses. There is only destruction.”

Victory is dead

Irrespective of whatever Presidents Bush and Trump might believe, it is certainly tempting to say that there can be no such thing as victory in modern war. It is easy to believe that war is so ghastly and so destructive that it can never result in anything that could reasonably be called a victory. Any successes achieved on the battlefield, it might be argued are likely to be both so tenuous and bought at such a bloody cost that the mere idea of calling them “victories” appears ironic.

But this can only be part of the story. It is too glib to declare victory in modern war an untenable proposition on the grounds that it can only be purchased at a terrible cost in human lives and suffering. The value of a victory may be diminished by a steep price tag, but not entirely negated by it.

For instance, while the second world war produced a truly barbaric body count, and boasts the cold war among its legacies, it also halted Nazism in its tracks. This, it goes without saying, must count for something. More recently, while the 1991 Gulf war arguably created more problems than it solved, it also successfully reversed Iraqi aggression in Kuwait.

My point here is a simple one: although victory can be hideously costly in modern war, and it invariably accomplishes far less than it is intended to achieve, it is not an entirely vacuous concept.

This brings us to the first of three twists in our tale. What is out of date here is not actually the general concept of victory itself, but the notion that victory is the product of decisive battles. The nature of modern warfare is not conducive to clear cut endings. Instead of yielding an emphatic victory for one side and, conversely, an incontrovertible defeat for the other, modern armed conflicts are prone to descend into protracted, drawn out endgames.

So it can sometimes be difficult to discern not only which side has won a given war but whether that war can even be deemed over in the first place. The words of Phil Klay, a writer who served in Iraq several years after President Bush had already declared “mission accomplished”, captured something of this confusion, "Success was a matter of perspective. In Iraq it had to be. There was no Omaha Beach, no Vicksburg Campaign, not even an Alamo to signal a clear defeat. The closest we’d come were those toppled Saddam statues, but that was years ago."

What this suggests is that victories no longer assume the form that they are expected to assume or that they had assumed in the past. If victory has historically been associated with the defeat of the adversary in a climactic pitched battle, this vision is now a relic from a bygone era. This is not how wars end in the 21st century.

Was victory ever really alive?

There is, then, plenty of evidence to support the view that, when it is spoken about in terms of decisiveness achieved through success in pitched battle, victory has little relevance to contemporary armed conflict.

But this is where we encounter the second twist in our tale. Some scholars claim that the vision of victory associated with decisive battle did not suddenly become problematic with the advent of the “war on terror”, nor even with the birth of modern warfare. Rather, they argue, it has always been problematic.

The historian Russell F. Weigley is the leading proponent of this view. He contends that the idea of decisive victory through battle is a romantic trope left over from the only time in history when wars were routinely decided by a single clash of arms: the long century bookended by the battles of Breitenfeld (1631) and Waterloo (1815).

Spectacular but also unique to this period of history, the set-piece battles of this era, Weigley argues, have had a distorting effect upon how war has been understood ever since. The pomp and drama of these clashes was such that they captured the imagination of military historians and the general public alike. Ignoring the fact that that attrition, raiding, and siege craft, rather than grand battles, have historically been the principal means by which wars have been waged, historians (and their readers) have been culpable of buying into (and perpetuating) a kind of Hollywood vision of war that mistakes an exception to the norm.

This excessively battle-centric understanding of warfare has taken root in the popular imagination. Most contemporary representations of war – in literature, media, art and film – envision it as a sequence of battles leading up to and culminating in a decisive set-piece clash of the kind that the 2015 footage from Kobani ostensibly captured. This reflects a distortion of the historical record. In actual fact, very few wars down the centuries have pivoted on battles. Most have hinged on harrying, manoeuvring and the denial of access to vital resources. So far as we fail to see this, a proclivity to “boy’s own history” is to blame.

The idea of decisive victory predicated on success in battle is simply a historical curio that, one interlude aside, has seldom had much relevance to the material realities of war.

Long live victory! 
 
So should this be the end of the matter? Obama and all the other critics of victory have, it seems, been vindicated. It is not merely that victory, couched in terms of decisiveness and indexed to success in pitched battle, has little relevance to the vagaries of contemporary warfare, it is that (one period around the 17th century aside) it has never had any salience.

This brings us to the third and final twist in our tale. While it is true that the idea of decisive victories achieved through pitched battle may be regarded as a product of lazy history writing, this should not be taken to mean that it is of no importance to how warfare is understood and practised. Even if it is just a myth, the idea of victory through decisive battle still bears significant clout. Chimerical though it may be, it still functions as a kind of regulative ideal, guiding people’s understanding, not so much of how wars actually end, but of how they ought to end.

Decisive victories may well be a rare beast, historically speaking, but they are also widely posited as the goal toward which all militaries should strive. This argument can be derived from the writings of, among others, the controversial historian Victor Davis Hanson.

Hanson, whose most recent book is a letter of support for the Trump presidency, is better known for writing several works dedicated to making the case that the idea of decisive victory through battle continues to carry moral weight in Western political culture, even though a long time has passed since it was germane in a military sense.

Hanson traces the idea of decisive victory through battle to classical Greek civilisation and argues that it reflects the longstanding belief that the best way for communities to settle intractable disputes is to send citizen armies to face one another across an open battlefield and there fight it out. By confronting one another in a kill-or-be-killed scenario, societies commit to testing, not only their valour and military prowess, but also the values they fight for in the crucible of combat. Any outcomes that arise from such contests, must, it follows, be respected as the verdict of battle.

There is plenty of evidence to support this view. The history of Western thinking about war from the classical world to the present day is marked by both a repugnance for the adoption of tactics that circumvent the opportunity for pitched battle, and a readiness to sneer at any victories won by those means as somehow less worthy.

In ancient Greece, Odysseus was scorned for his predilection for overcoming his enemies by guile rather than by hand-to-hand combat. In Persia, King Cyrus was similarly lambasted for relying on trickery to overcome his foes “rather than conquering [them] by force in battle”. In the fourth century BC, Alexander the Great valorised victories won by direct confrontation in pitched battles. He responded with contempt when his adviser, Parmenio, proposed launching a night-time ambush on their foes: “The policy you are suggesting is one of bandits and thieves … I am resolved to attack openly and by daylight. I choose to regret my good fortune rather than be ashamed of my victory.”

Beyond the classical world, knights in the middle ages were wont to burnish their victories by exaggerating the importance of battles and downplaying the part played by more humdrum modes of warring (such as raiding) in delivering them. These views also carried over into the canon of modern strategic thought.

The survival of this way of thinking into the present era is evident in the approbation that greets the use of those modes of fighting (such as the use of guerrilla tactics, terrorism, and drones) that preclude the finality of a decisive victory on the battlefield being achieved by either side. This reflects, I think, a lingering sense that any mode of belligerency that is not geared toward producing victory through the kind of fair fight that a battlefield contest is believed to represent must, in some sense, be morally problematic.

And so even though the ideal of decisive victory is best understood as nothing more than a myth, it still matters. It still shapes how we understand, think about and indeed approach war. As such, it continues to guide our thinking about what war can achieve, when it should be employed, by what means it should be conducted and how and when it should be concluded. To imagine that it can simply be struck from our vocabulary, as Obama apparently assumed, is as naive as it is foolish. But recognising this also reveals some unsettling realities.

‘Mowing the lawn’ 
The ideal of decisive victory, then, is a myth, albeit an enduringly powerful one that continues to shape how we think about war. And this myth poses some dangers.

It’s a myth that tempts us to think that war can still be a conclusive way of settling disputes between societies. It invites us to believe that societies can resolve their conflicts by simply fighting them out, with the winner taking all and loser honourably accepting its defeat as the verdict of battle. The problem with this vision is, of course, that it promises too much. War is too blunt an instrument to deliver such a clean ending. In a way, then, this belief sells us a false bill of goods – one that comes at a terrible cost in blood and treasure. One need only look to the plight of the Kurds in Kobani for proof of this.

To our detriment, we appear to be both stuck with and trapped by the language of victory.

The Israeli strategic doctrine known as “mowing the lawn” provides an intriguing counterpoint to this. Whereas Israeli strategists traditionally focused on procuring decisive battlefield victories against rival state armies, recent experiences in Gaza have led them to adopt a different approach.

Instead of supposing that the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) should aim to vanquish its enemies once and for all in direct combat, it is directed toward the pursuit of more modest, contingent objectives. The doctrine counsels that the IDF must treat the threat from Israel’s enemies in the same way that a gardener approaches the mowing of their lawn: that is, as a recurrent task that can never be fully completed but must instead be returned to at regular intervals.

As such, it reflects a hard-won acceptance of the fact that Israel will not achieve a final victory over its foes any time soon. In its place, it proposes that the best Israel can hope for is provisional gains – namely, the degradation and short-term containment of its enemies – that require constant and recurrent consolidation.

There are clearly very serious problems with this position — problems that I do not wish to deflect from or in any way minimise — but it does raise some interesting possibilities for how we think about victory. Specifically, it provokes us to reflect on what victory might look like if we ceased indexing it to notions of decisiveness and conclusiveness.

How might we reconfigure our understanding of victory so that it is coupled to provisional rather than final outcomes? This would presumably involve reframing it in partial and contingent rather than comprehensive terms. There is much to be said for this. But above all else, it would reconnect how we think about victory with the realities of modern warfare and a more sober assessment of the kind of goods it can deliver.

My point is not to persuade states to ape Israel’s strategic posture. It is, rather, to encourage reflection on the conundrum that victory in modern war poses.

What does winning mean today? 
 
Thinking about contemporary armed conflict in terms of victory is problematic because modern warfare is not configured in such a way as to produce what we might regard as a clear-cut victory for one side and an emphatic defeat for the other. Construed this way, victory appears more mythical than real.

But even if it is a myth, it colours how we approach contemporary armed conflict today, tempting us to believe that clean endings are still a possibility – when they are evidently not. Victory is, in this sense, a red herring.

One solution to this conundrum would be to strike victory from our vocabularies. That is, to simply cease talking about it or in its terms. Yet this is easier said than done. As President Obama discovered, the language of victory is very difficult to circumvent or evade. Just when you think it’s dead, it comes back with even greater force behind it.

The dilemma, then, is clear. Victory: can’t live with it, can’t live without it. The challenge arising from this is to rethink what we mean by victory. If, as the historian Christopher Hill once wrote, every generation must rewrite its history anew, the ever-changing nature of war demands that every generation must also rethink its understanding of military victory. 
 
(Cian O'Driscoll is Professor of Politics, University of Glasgow)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/can-wars-no-longer-be-won-126068">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) &nbsp; 
&nbsp;

By Cian O'Driscoll Kurdish forces seized control of the Syrian town of Kobani in January 2015 after a four-month battle with Islamic State fighters. Footage of their triumph was relayed around the world.

By Cian O'Driscoll Kurdish forces seized control of the Syrian town of Kobani in January 2015 after a four-month battle with Islamic State fighters. Footage of their triumph was relayed around the world. A global audience witnessed Kurdish troops indulge in raucous celebrations as they raised their flag on the hill that once flew the IS black banner. And so it came as something of a shock when, in October 2019, President Donald Trump granted Turkey carte blanche to seize territory held by the Kurds. Consequently, what once appeared an emphatic victory for the Kurds has since descended into yet another dismal defeat. This is not an unusual tale. Victories have also been proclaimed in the recent wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, only for violence to continue unabated. The spectre of these apparently endless wars gives us cause to consider whether the notion of “victory” has any purchase or meaning in respect of contemporary warfare. Having spent the best part of the last decade thinking about this very question, I have come to believe that the idea of victory in modern war is nothing more than a myth, albeit an enduringly dangerous one. As I argue in my new book, it’s high time for us to think again, and more deeply than we have done before, about what victory in war means today. The view from Washington The three most recent occupants of the White House offer very different views on the issue of victory. President Trump has made it both the cornerstone of his rhetoric and the lodestar of US foreign and security policy. “You’re going to be so proud of your country,” he assured the audience at a campaign rally in 2016, "We’re going to start winning again: we’re going to win at every level, we’re going to win economically […] we’re going to win militarily […] we’re going to win with every single facet, we’re going to win so much, you may even get tired of winning, and you’ll say ‘please, please, it’s too much winning, we can’t take it anymore’. And I’ll say, ‘no, it isn’t’. We have to keep winning, we have to win more, we’re going to win more." Victory also loomed large in President George W. Bush’s statements on world politics. Delivering a keynote speech on the Iraq War in 2005, for example, Bush used the word “victory” 15 times while standing in front of a sign that read “Plan for Victory” and pitching a document entitled “Our National Strategy for Victory in Iraq”. Sandwiched between Presidents Bush and Trump, President Barack Obama took a very different view. Convinced that the idiom of victory was a retrograde way to talk about how modern wars end, he sought to excise it from US strategic discourse. The term “victory” is unhelpful, he explained, because it evokes crude associations with conquest and triumphalism. The disagreement between Trump and Bush on the one hand, and Obama on the other, runs deeper than a mere difference in rhetorical style (or lack thereof). It reflects profound uncertainties about the appropriateness of the language of victory to modern war. Since the early 20th century, the view has emerged that, when it comes to the mechanised mass slaughter of modern warfare, nobody wins. As Aristide Briand — prime minister of France for periods either side of the first world war — put it: “In modern war there is no victor. Defeat reaches out its heavy hand to the uttermost corners of the Earth and lays its burdens on victor and vanquished alike.” Bao Ninh, a veteran of the North Vietnamese Army and the author of one of the most moving war novels of the 20th century, The Sorrow of War, made much the same argument, but in simpler terms: “In war, no one wins or loses. There is only destruction.” Victory is dead Irrespective of whatever Presidents Bush and Trump might believe, it is certainly tempting to say that there can be no such thing as victory in modern war. It is easy to believe that war is so ghastly and so destructive that it can never result in anything that could reasonably be called a victory. Any successes achieved on the battlefield, it might be argued are likely to be both so tenuous and bought at such a bloody cost that the mere idea of calling them “victories” appears ironic. But this can only be part of the story. It is too glib to declare victory in modern war an untenable proposition on the grounds that it can only be purchased at a terrible cost in human lives and suffering. The value of a victory may be diminished by a steep price tag, but not entirely negated by it. For instance, while the second world war produced a truly barbaric body count, and boasts the cold war among its legacies, it also halted Nazism in its tracks. This, it goes without saying, must count for something. More recently, while the 1991 Gulf war arguably created more problems than it solved, it also successfully reversed Iraqi aggression in Kuwait. My point here is a simple one: although victory can be hideously costly in modern war, and it invariably accomplishes far less than it is intended to achieve, it is not an entirely vacuous concept. This brings us to the first of three twists in our tale. What is out of date here is not actually the general concept of victory itself, but the notion that victory is the product of decisive battles. The nature of modern warfare is not conducive to clear cut endings. Instead of yielding an emphatic victory for one side and, conversely, an incontrovertible defeat for the other, modern armed conflicts are prone to descend into protracted, drawn out endgames. So it can sometimes be difficult to discern not only which side has won a given war but whether that war can even be deemed over in the first place. The words of Phil Klay, a writer who served in Iraq several years after President Bush had already declared “mission accomplished”, captured something of this confusion, "Success was a matter of perspective. In Iraq it had to be. There was no Omaha Beach, no Vicksburg Campaign, not even an Alamo to signal a clear defeat. The closest we’d come were those toppled Saddam statues, but that was years ago." What this suggests is that victories no longer assume the form that they are expected to assume or that they had assumed in the past. If victory has historically been associated with the defeat of the adversary in a climactic pitched battle, this vision is now a relic from a bygone era. This is not how wars end in the 21st century. Was victory ever really alive? There is, then, plenty of evidence to support the view that, when it is spoken about in terms of decisiveness achieved through success in pitched battle, victory has little relevance to contemporary armed conflict. But this is where we encounter the second twist in our tale. Some scholars claim that the vision of victory associated with decisive battle did not suddenly become problematic with the advent of the “war on terror”, nor even with the birth of modern warfare. Rather, they argue, it has always been problematic. The historian Russell F. Weigley is the leading proponent of this view. He contends that the idea of decisive victory through battle is a romantic trope left over from the only time in history when wars were routinely decided by a single clash of arms: the long century bookended by the battles of Breitenfeld (1631) and Waterloo (1815). Spectacular but also unique to this period of history, the set-piece battles of this era, Weigley argues, have had a distorting effect upon how war has been understood ever since. The pomp and drama of these clashes was such that they captured the imagination of military historians and the general public alike. Ignoring the fact that that attrition, raiding, and siege craft, rather than grand battles, have historically been the principal means by which wars have been waged, historians (and their readers) have been culpable of buying into (and perpetuating) a kind of Hollywood vision of war that mistakes an exception to the norm. This excessively battle-centric understanding of warfare has taken root in the popular imagination. Most contemporary representations of war – in literature, media, art and film – envision it as a sequence of battles leading up to and culminating in a decisive set-piece clash of the kind that the 2015 footage from Kobani ostensibly captured. This reflects a distortion of the historical record. In actual fact, very few wars down the centuries have pivoted on battles. Most have hinged on harrying, manoeuvring and the denial of access to vital resources. So far as we fail to see this, a proclivity to “boy’s own history” is to blame. The idea of decisive victory predicated on success in battle is simply a historical curio that, one interlude aside, has seldom had much relevance to the material realities of war. Long live victory! So should this be the end of the matter? Obama and all the other critics of victory have, it seems, been vindicated. It is not merely that victory, couched in terms of decisiveness and indexed to success in pitched battle, has little relevance to the vagaries of contemporary warfare, it is that (one period around the 17th century aside) it has never had any salience. This brings us to the third and final twist in our tale. While it is true that the idea of decisive victories achieved through pitched battle may be regarded as a product of lazy history writing, this should not be taken to mean that it is of no importance to how warfare is understood and practised. Even if it is just a myth, the idea of victory through decisive battle still bears significant clout. Chimerical though it may be, it still functions as a kind of regulative ideal, guiding people’s understanding, not so much of how wars actually end, but of how they ought to end. Decisive victories may well be a rare beast, historically speaking, but they are also widely posited as the goal toward which all militaries should strive. This argument can be derived from the writings of, among others, the controversial historian Victor Davis Hanson. Hanson, whose most recent book is a letter of support for the Trump presidency, is better known for writing several works dedicated to making the case that the idea of decisive victory through battle continues to carry moral weight in Western political culture, even though a long time has passed since it was germane in a military sense. Hanson traces the idea of decisive victory through battle to classical Greek civilisation and argues that it reflects the longstanding belief that the best way for communities to settle intractable disputes is to send citizen armies to face one another across an open battlefield and there fight it out. By confronting one another in a kill-or-be-killed scenario, societies commit to testing, not only their valour and military prowess, but also the values they fight for in the crucible of combat. Any outcomes that arise from such contests, must, it follows, be respected as the verdict of battle. There is plenty of evidence to support this view. The history of Western thinking about war from the classical world to the present day is marked by both a repugnance for the adoption of tactics that circumvent the opportunity for pitched battle, and a readiness to sneer at any victories won by those means as somehow less worthy. In ancient Greece, Odysseus was scorned for his predilection for overcoming his enemies by guile rather than by hand-to-hand combat. In Persia, King Cyrus was similarly lambasted for relying on trickery to overcome his foes “rather than conquering [them] by force in battle”. In the fourth century BC, Alexander the Great valorised victories won by direct confrontation in pitched battles. He responded with contempt when his adviser, Parmenio, proposed launching a night-time ambush on their foes: “The policy you are suggesting is one of bandits and thieves … I am resolved to attack openly and by daylight. I choose to regret my good fortune rather than be ashamed of my victory.” Beyond the classical world, knights in the middle ages were wont to burnish their victories by exaggerating the importance of battles and downplaying the part played by more humdrum modes of warring (such as raiding) in delivering them. These views also carried over into the canon of modern strategic thought. The survival of this way of thinking into the present era is evident in the approbation that greets the use of those modes of fighting (such as the use of guerrilla tactics, terrorism, and drones) that preclude the finality of a decisive victory on the battlefield being achieved by either side. This reflects, I think, a lingering sense that any mode of belligerency that is not geared toward producing victory through the kind of fair fight that a battlefield contest is believed to represent must, in some sense, be morally problematic. And so even though the ideal of decisive victory is best understood as nothing more than a myth, it still matters. It still shapes how we understand, think about and indeed approach war. As such, it continues to guide our thinking about what war can achieve, when it should be employed, by what means it should be conducted and how and when it should be concluded. To imagine that it can simply be struck from our vocabulary, as Obama apparently assumed, is as naive as it is foolish. But recognising this also reveals some unsettling realities. ‘Mowing the lawn’ The ideal of decisive victory, then, is a myth, albeit an enduringly powerful one that continues to shape how we think about war. And this myth poses some dangers. It’s a myth that tempts us to think that war can still be a conclusive way of settling disputes between societies. It invites us to believe that societies can resolve their conflicts by simply fighting them out, with the winner taking all and loser honourably accepting its defeat as the verdict of battle. The problem with this vision is, of course, that it promises too much. War is too blunt an instrument to deliver such a clean ending. In a way, then, this belief sells us a false bill of goods – one that comes at a terrible cost in blood and treasure. One need only look to the plight of the Kurds in Kobani for proof of this. To our detriment, we appear to be both stuck with and trapped by the language of victory. The Israeli strategic doctrine known as “mowing the lawn” provides an intriguing counterpoint to this. Whereas Israeli strategists traditionally focused on procuring decisive battlefield victories against rival state armies, recent experiences in Gaza have led them to adopt a different approach. Instead of supposing that the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) should aim to vanquish its enemies once and for all in direct combat, it is directed toward the pursuit of more modest, contingent objectives. The doctrine counsels that the IDF must treat the threat from Israel’s enemies in the same way that a gardener approaches the mowing of their lawn: that is, as a recurrent task that can never be fully completed but must instead be returned to at regular intervals. As such, it reflects a hard-won acceptance of the fact that Israel will not achieve a final victory over its foes any time soon. In its place, it proposes that the best Israel can hope for is provisional gains – namely, the degradation and short-term containment of its enemies – that require constant and recurrent consolidation. There are clearly very serious problems with this position — problems that I do not wish to deflect from or in any way minimise — but it does raise some interesting possibilities for how we think about victory. Specifically, it provokes us to reflect on what victory might look like if we ceased indexing it to notions of decisiveness and conclusiveness. How might we reconfigure our understanding of victory so that it is coupled to provisional rather than final outcomes? This would presumably involve reframing it in partial and contingent rather than comprehensive terms. There is much to be said for this. But above all else, it would reconnect how we think about victory with the realities of modern warfare and a more sober assessment of the kind of goods it can deliver. My point is not to persuade states to ape Israel’s strategic posture. It is, rather, to encourage reflection on the conundrum that victory in modern war poses. What does winning mean today? Thinking about contemporary armed conflict in terms of victory is problematic because modern warfare is not configured in such a way as to produce what we might regard as a clear-cut victory for one side and an emphatic defeat for the other. Construed this way, victory appears more mythical than real. But even if it is a myth, it colours how we approach contemporary armed conflict today, tempting us to believe that clean endings are still a possibility – when they are evidently not. Victory is, in this sense, a red herring. One solution to this conundrum would be to strike victory from our vocabularies. That is, to simply cease talking about it or in its terms. Yet this is easier said than done. As President Obama discovered, the language of victory is very difficult to circumvent or evade. Just when you think it’s dead, it comes back with even greater force behind it. The dilemma, then, is clear. Victory: can’t live with it, can’t live without it. The challenge arising from this is to rethink what we mean by victory. If, as the historian Christopher Hill once wrote, every generation must rewrite its history anew, the ever-changing nature of war demands that every generation must also rethink its understanding of military victory. (Cian O'Driscoll is Professor of Politics, University of Glasgow) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Can wars no longer be won?

Regime forces and armed groups were locked in heavy clashes Monday on the edge of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/nearly-70-dead-in-syria-regime-clashes-with-idlib-terrorists-265594">Syria's last opposition bastion</a>, with 96 fighters killed over two days, a war monitor said.

The battles since Saturday on the edge of the jihadist-dominated Idlib region are the most deadly since a Russia-brokered ceasefire went into effect in late August, the Syrian Observatory for Human rights said.

"Fighting raged at dawn Monday on several axes in the southeastern Idlib countryside," the Britain-based monitoring group said.

Fifty-one regime fighters had been killed over 48 hours, while 45 of their opponents including 31 jihadists had also lost their lives, the Observatory said.

The Syrian government does not usually divulge casualty figures.

Watch: Nearly 700 children killed in Syria since the beginning of 2019 - UNICEF

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/nearly-700-children-killed-in-syria-since-beginning-of-2019-unicef-263952/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The Idlib region, home to around three million people including many displaced by Syria's eight-year civil war, is largely under the control of a group dominated by a former Al-Qaeda affiliate.

It is one of the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/syria-military-presence-risks-us-credibility-with-world-community-264856">last holdouts of opposition</a> to forces backing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

The president has long repeated that his government would eventually reimpose its control over the northwestern region on the border with Turkey.

The late August ceasefire had brought about relative calm, months into a devastating Russia-backed regime offensive that killed around 1,000 civilians and ousted hundreds of thousands from their homes.

The <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/turkey-says-about-100000-syrians-left-istanbul-since-early-july-263412">war in Syria</a> has killed more than 370,000 people and displaced millions since it erupted in 2011 with the brutal repression of anti-government protests.

Regime forces and armed groups were locked in heavy clashes Monday on the edge of Syria's last opposition bastion, with 96 fighters killed over two days, a war monitor said.

Regime forces and armed groups were locked in heavy clashes Monday on the edge of Syria's last opposition bastion, with 96 fighters killed over two days, a war monitor said. The battles since Saturday on the edge of the jihadist-dominated Idlib region are the most deadly since a Russia-brokered ceasefire went into effect in late August, the Syrian Observatory for Human rights said. "Fighting raged at dawn Monday on several axes in the southeastern Idlib countryside," the Britain-based monitoring group said. Fifty-one regime fighters had been killed over 48 hours, while 45 of their opponents including 31 jihadists had also lost their lives, the Observatory said. The Syrian government does not usually divulge casualty figures. Watch: Nearly 700 children killed in Syria since the beginning of 2019 - UNICEF The Idlib region, home to around three million people including many displaced by Syria's eight-year civil war, is largely under the control of a group dominated by a former Al-Qaeda affiliate. It is one of the last holdouts of opposition to forces backing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The president has long repeated that his government would eventually reimpose its control over the northwestern region on the border with Turkey. The late August ceasefire had brought about relative calm, months into a devastating Russia-backed regime offensive that killed around 1,000 civilians and ousted hundreds of thousands from their homes. The war in Syria has killed more than 370,000 people and displaced millions since it erupted in 2011 with the brutal repression of anti-government protests.

Death toll in Syria's Idlib touches 100: Sources

Two days of clashes between regime forces and armed groups in Syria's last major opposition bastion have killed nearly 70 on both sides, undermining a months-long ceasefire agreement, a war monitor said Sunday.

The battles in the northwestern province of Idlib are "the most violent" there since a Russian-brokered ceasefire agreement went into effect in late August, said Rami Abdul Rahman, head of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

Residents of affected villages fled north to escape the fighting, adding to the hundreds of thousands who have already flooded out of the province's violence-plagued south since fighting escalated earlier this year.

"I don't want to see my children trapped under rubble," said one of those driven from his home, Hafez, who escaped the flashpoint area along with his wife and three kids two days earlier.

On Sunday morning, clouds of smoke rose over the Maaret al-Numan region as warplanes pounded jihadists and allied rebels in positions they had recently recaptured from regime forces, said an AFP correspondent.

The Britain-based Observatory on Sunday put the death toll from fighting at 69 combatants since battles started the previous day.

At least 36 regime forces were among those killed.

'Cease-fire'

The Observatory said an attack led by Syria's former Al-Qaeda affiliate on several regime positions had initially sparked the fighting.

Overnight, the Syrian army backed by Russian warplanes launched a counter-push to reclaim territory it had lost in the battles, the war monitor said.

Regime forces have since regained lost ground but violent clashes are ongoing, the Observatory and an AFP correspondent said.

Airstrikes on Sunday afternoon hit jihadist-run areas dozens of kilometres (miles) away from the main frontline, signalling a potential escalation, the correspondent said.&nbsp;

The Idlib region, home to around three million people including many displaced by Syria's eight-year civil war, is controlled by the country's former Al-Qaeda affiliate.

The Hayat Tahrir al-Sham jihadist alliance also controls parts of neighbouring Aleppo and Latakia provinces, with battles also currently taking place in the latter, according to the monitor. &nbsp;

The region is one of the last holdouts of opposition to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad who controls more than 70 per cent of the country, according to the Observatory.

Assad has repeatedly vowed to reclaim all of Syria, including Idlib, which he views as a "terrorist" holdout.

In August, government troops began a ground offensive that saw them retake several areas in southern Idlib, allowing them their first foothold in the region in years.

Assad, during a visit to the area in October, his first since the start of the eight-year war, said that defeating jihadists in the province was key to ending the conflict.

The other flashpoint

Between late April and the end of August, Idlib was pounded ceaselessly by Syrian soldiers backed by Russian airpower.

The Observatory estimates that nearly 1,000 civilians were killed in that period, and the UN says that more than 400,000 people were displaced.

A ceasefire announced by Russia in late August has reduced fighting, but airstrikes and clashes increased in November.&nbsp;

According to the Observatory, more than 160 civilians and more than 460 fighters, including regime forces, have been killed since the deal went into effect.

The Idlib front was the main focus of Syrian regime forces before Turkey in October launched an invasion of swaths of northeast Syria.

The operation against Kurdish forces who had controlled the region since 2012 paved the way for mass regime deployments in the area for the first time in seven years.

Syrian troops arrived in positions bordering Turkey as well as other parts of the northeast under a deal with Kurdish forces seeking protection from Ankara and its Syrian proxies.

An agreement between Russia and Ankara in October further cemented the deployment, tasking regime forces with ensuring the withdrawal of Kurdish fighters from the border region.

Turkey last month accused Russia and Damascus of failing to secure that objective, threatening further action against Kurdish groups.

The war in Syria has killed more than 370,000 people and displaced millions since it erupted in 2011. 
&nbsp;

Two days of clashes between regime forces and armed groups in Syria's last major opposition bastion have killed nearly 70 on both sides, undermining a months-long ceasefire agreement, a war monitor said Sunday.

Two days of clashes between regime forces and armed groups in Syria's last major opposition bastion have killed nearly 70 on both sides, undermining a months-long ceasefire agreement, a war monitor said Sunday. The battles in the northwestern province of Idlib are "the most violent" there since a Russian-brokered ceasefire agreement went into effect in late August, said Rami Abdul Rahman, head of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Residents of affected villages fled north to escape the fighting, adding to the hundreds of thousands who have already flooded out of the province's violence-plagued south since fighting escalated earlier this year. "I don't want to see my children trapped under rubble," said one of those driven from his home, Hafez, who escaped the flashpoint area along with his wife and three kids two days earlier. On Sunday morning, clouds of smoke rose over the Maaret al-Numan region as warplanes pounded jihadists and allied rebels in positions they had recently recaptured from regime forces, said an AFP correspondent. The Britain-based Observatory on Sunday put the death toll from fighting at 69 combatants since battles started the previous day. At least 36 regime forces were among those killed. 'Cease-fire' The Observatory said an attack led by Syria's former Al-Qaeda affiliate on several regime positions had initially sparked the fighting. Overnight, the Syrian army backed by Russian warplanes launched a counter-push to reclaim territory it had lost in the battles, the war monitor said. Regime forces have since regained lost ground but violent clashes are ongoing, the Observatory and an AFP correspondent said. Airstrikes on Sunday afternoon hit jihadist-run areas dozens of kilometres (miles) away from the main frontline, signalling a potential escalation, the correspondent said. The Idlib region, home to around three million people including many displaced by Syria's eight-year civil war, is controlled by the country's former Al-Qaeda affiliate. The Hayat Tahrir al-Sham jihadist alliance also controls parts of neighbouring Aleppo and Latakia provinces, with battles also currently taking place in the latter, according to the monitor. The region is one of the last holdouts of opposition to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad who controls more than 70 per cent of the country, according to the Observatory. Assad has repeatedly vowed to reclaim all of Syria, including Idlib, which he views as a "terrorist" holdout. In August, government troops began a ground offensive that saw them retake several areas in southern Idlib, allowing them their first foothold in the region in years. Assad, during a visit to the area in October, his first since the start of the eight-year war, said that defeating jihadists in the province was key to ending the conflict. The other flashpoint Between late April and the end of August, Idlib was pounded ceaselessly by Syrian soldiers backed by Russian airpower. The Observatory estimates that nearly 1,000 civilians were killed in that period, and the UN says that more than 400,000 people were displaced. A ceasefire announced by Russia in late August has reduced fighting, but airstrikes and clashes increased in November. According to the Observatory, more than 160 civilians and more than 460 fighters, including regime forces, have been killed since the deal went into effect. The Idlib front was the main focus of Syrian regime forces before Turkey in October launched an invasion of swaths of northeast Syria. The operation against Kurdish forces who had controlled the region since 2012 paved the way for mass regime deployments in the area for the first time in seven years. Syrian troops arrived in positions bordering Turkey as well as other parts of the northeast under a deal with Kurdish forces seeking protection from Ankara and its Syrian proxies. An agreement between Russia and Ankara in October further cemented the deployment, tasking regime forces with ensuring the withdrawal of Kurdish fighters from the border region. Turkey last month accused Russia and Damascus of failing to secure that objective, threatening further action against Kurdish groups. The war in Syria has killed more than 370,000 people and displaced millions since it erupted in 2011.

Nearly 70 dead in Syria regime clashes with Idlib terrorists

By David Banks

President Donald Trump’s decisions to withdraw US&nbsp;troops from northern Syria – and then to send them back into action – has raised new concerns around the world about the reliability of US&nbsp;promises.

Since the beginning of Trump’s presidency, I and other foreign policy scholars have worried that Trump’s tendencies toward hyperbole, exaggeration and outright lying could disrupt a relatively stable international community.

For the last several years, I was relieved to find that didn’t happen. Some of the president’s public statements about NATO, trade and nuclear weapons were concerning, but largely didn’t result in major shifts in US&nbsp;policy or changing courses of American action.

However, by announcing that the US military in northern Syria would leave positions they occupied between Turkish and Kurdish forces – two US allies who viewed each other as enemies – and then apparently reversing that decision, Trump has likely caused US allies and rivals to view American commitments in a new, uncertain light.

Other countries have seen how quickly the US&nbsp;can reverse longstanding commitments. They may now adjust their own diplomatic and military strategies to depend less on the US. That, in turn, may reduce the power and influence the US has in the international community, increasing global instability.

Slow-moving bureaucracy

In the first several years of the Trump presidency, bureaucratic lack of action in the Pentagon and the State Department meant that statements from the president didn’t actually change what US troops and diplomats did in other countries.

The message other nations took from that was that they couldn’t totally ignore the president’s words, but they did not need to worry about their implications very much. Despite what Trump said, they felt they could continue to depend on the US for assistance, aid and support.

For instance, a Japanese foreign ministry official told the Japan Times newspaper, “The Japanese government shouldn’t react to a tweet by the president each time … If it’s their official position, we need to deal with it, but the president says various things.”

Put another way, Trump’s statements were hurting the reputation of the US, but not damaging the country’s credibility about its commitments.

To many scholars of foreign policy, this might be surprising. The behaviour of a country’s leader is expected to affect that country’s global reputation, which is usually key to international credibility. Developing consistent positions deters would-be challengers of US&nbsp;allies or interests.

That’s why national officials in the US and around the world are typically quite careful with what they say and how they say it.

(David Banks is Professorial Lecturer of International Politics, American University School of International Service) 
 
(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/uk-election-2019-a-choice-between-low-tax-individualism-or-generous-state-with-unknown-price-tag-264595">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) &nbsp;

 
&nbsp;

By David Banks President Donald Trump’s decisions to withdraw US troops from northern Syria – and then to send them back into action – has raised new concerns around the world about the reliability of US promises.

By David Banks President Donald Trump’s decisions to withdraw US troops from northern Syria – and then to send them back into action – has raised new concerns around the world about the reliability of US promises. Since the beginning of Trump’s presidency, I and other foreign policy scholars have worried that Trump’s tendencies toward hyperbole, exaggeration and outright lying could disrupt a relatively stable international community. For the last several years, I was relieved to find that didn’t happen. Some of the president’s public statements about NATO, trade and nuclear weapons were concerning, but largely didn’t result in major shifts in US policy or changing courses of American action. However, by announcing that the US military in northern Syria would leave positions they occupied between Turkish and Kurdish forces – two US allies who viewed each other as enemies – and then apparently reversing that decision, Trump has likely caused US allies and rivals to view American commitments in a new, uncertain light. Other countries have seen how quickly the US can reverse longstanding commitments. They may now adjust their own diplomatic and military strategies to depend less on the US. That, in turn, may reduce the power and influence the US has in the international community, increasing global instability. Slow-moving bureaucracy In the first several years of the Trump presidency, bureaucratic lack of action in the Pentagon and the State Department meant that statements from the president didn’t actually change what US troops and diplomats did in other countries. The message other nations took from that was that they couldn’t totally ignore the president’s words, but they did not need to worry about their implications very much. Despite what Trump said, they felt they could continue to depend on the US for assistance, aid and support. For instance, a Japanese foreign ministry official told the Japan Times newspaper, “The Japanese government shouldn’t react to a tweet by the president each time … If it’s their official position, we need to deal with it, but the president says various things.” Put another way, Trump’s statements were hurting the reputation of the US, but not damaging the country’s credibility about its commitments. To many scholars of foreign policy, this might be surprising. The behaviour of a country’s leader is expected to affect that country’s global reputation, which is usually key to international credibility. Developing consistent positions deters would-be challengers of US allies or interests. That’s why national officials in the US and around the world are typically quite careful with what they say and how they say it. (David Banks is Professorial Lecturer of International Politics, American University School of International Service) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Syria military presence risks US credibility with world community

A <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/car-bomb-kills-9-in-northern-syria-town-monitor-264094">car bomb</a> killed at least 17 people and wounded 20 others in the Turkish-controlled region of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/turkey-threatens-new-syria-operations-directs-us-russia-to-fulfill-agreement-263046">northern Syria </a>on Tuesday, Turkey's defence ministry said.

The attack took place in the Tal Halaf village west of the city of Ras al-Ayn, which is now controlled by the Turkish military after its offensive in October, the ministry said on its official Twitter account.

Several vehicles were reduced to charred shells by the blast at a village market, images from the scene showed.

It blamed the attack on the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG), which Ankara accuses of being the Syrian offshoot of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) that has waged an insurgency against Turkey since 1984.

"The PKK/YPG terror group continues its car bombings aimed at civilians. The child murderers this time detonated a car bomb in Tal Halaf village west of Ras al-Ayn, killing 17 people and wounding more than 20," the defence ministry said on Twitter.

Britain-based war monitor the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights confirmed the attack but gave a lower toll, saying 11 people -- including at least three civilians -- had been killed.

But it said the death toll is likely to climb due to the severity of some of the injuries suffered.

Turkish forces and their proxies -- former Syrian rebels hired as a ground force by Ankara -- launched an offensive against Kurdish forces in Syria on October 9.

The military action came after US President Donald Trump ordered his troops to withdraw in a move that observers condemned as a betrayal of their Kurdish partners in the war against the Islamic State group in Syria.

In its operation, Turkey secured a strip of land in northern Syria after signing separate deals with the US and Russia.&nbsp;

Ankara says it wants to establish a "safe zone" in which to resettle some of the 3.6 million Syrian refugees it hosts on its soil.

A car bomb killed at least 17 people and wounded 20 others in the Turkish-controlled region of northern Syria on Tuesday, Turkey's defence ministry said. The attack took place in the Tal Halaf village west of the city of Ras al-Ayn, which is now controlled by the Turkish military after its offensive in October, the ministry said on its official Twitter account.

A car bomb killed at least 17 people and wounded 20 others in the Turkish-controlled region of northern Syria on Tuesday, Turkey's defence ministry said. The attack took place in the Tal Halaf village west of the city of Ras al-Ayn, which is now controlled by the Turkish military after its offensive in October, the ministry said on its official Twitter account. Several vehicles were reduced to charred shells by the blast at a village market, images from the scene showed. It blamed the attack on the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG), which Ankara accuses of being the Syrian offshoot of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) that has waged an insurgency against Turkey since 1984. "The PKK/YPG terror group continues its car bombings aimed at civilians. The child murderers this time detonated a car bomb in Tal Halaf village west of Ras al-Ayn, killing 17 people and wounding more than 20," the defence ministry said on Twitter. Britain-based war monitor the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights confirmed the attack but gave a lower toll, saying 11 people -- including at least three civilians -- had been killed. But it said the death toll is likely to climb due to the severity of some of the injuries suffered. Turkish forces and their proxies -- former Syrian rebels hired as a ground force by Ankara -- launched an offensive against Kurdish forces in Syria on October 9. The military action came after US President Donald Trump ordered his troops to withdraw in a move that observers condemned as a betrayal of their Kurdish partners in the war against the Islamic State group in Syria. In its operation, Turkey secured a strip of land in northern Syria after signing separate deals with the US and Russia. Ankara says it wants to establish a "safe zone" in which to resettle some of the 3.6 million Syrian refugees it hosts on its soil.

17 killed by car bomb in Turkey-controlled region of Syria: Ankara

A woman, who was believed to have joined Islamic State (IS) group returned back to Germany along with her three children, police said, reports&nbsp;an agency.&nbsp;

Laura is the first adult female member to return to Germany from Syria through official channels. The 30-year-old, who originally hailed from Hesse state arrived at Frankfurt airport on a flight from Erbil in Iraq late on Saturday.&nbsp;

As per a report by German newsweekly Spiegel, Laura was not immediately arrested on arrival but remains the subject of an investigation on suspicion of her membership to a terrorist organisation as well as failure to properly take care of her children.&nbsp;

The woman's passport has been confiscated and the two children are being entrusted to a close relative, the report added.&nbsp;

The weekly magazine also said that the woman travelled to Syria to join IS with her two children and husband, a Somalia-born US citizen.&nbsp; 
&nbsp; 
The woman had already been linked to Salafist (Islamic fundamentalist) circles in Germany and she had also allegedly posted an online call for aid donation for Syria that in reality went to a fundamentalist organisation. Following her own capture by Kurdish forces and the reported killing of her husband, Laura claims to have turned away from IS ideology.&nbsp;

A US aid organisation helped Laura move to Erbil from from the Al-Hol prison camp in northeastern Syria, the weekly reported.&nbsp;

Kurdish authorities have repeatedly urged Western countries to accept their nationals linked to IS. So far, the countries have majorly avoided the repatriation.&nbsp;

Laura is the first adult who is repatriated to Germany, a country which has allowed a few orphans to return back.&nbsp;

After Turkey invaded northern Syria last month, a lot of people broke out from Kurdish-led jails and camps.&nbsp;

Two weeks earlier, Turkey said that it will repatriate seven captured IS fighters to Germany.

Austria, Belgium, Britain and France have repatriated some orphaned children. A number of women and children were accepted by the United States.&nbsp;

Earlier this month, an Albanian boy taken by his mother to join IS in Syria returned to his home in Italy.&nbsp;

Dozens of women and children were repatriated by Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Kosovo too.

(with inputs from AFP and Reuters)

A woman, who was believed to have joined Islamic State (IS) group returned back to Germany along with her three children, police said, reports an agency. Laura is the first adult female member to return to Germany from Syria through official channels.

A woman, who was believed to have joined Islamic State (IS) group returned back to Germany along with her three children, police said, reports an agency. Laura is the first adult female member to return to Germany from Syria through official channels. The 30-year-old, who originally hailed from Hesse state arrived at Frankfurt airport on a flight from Erbil in Iraq late on Saturday. As per a report by German newsweekly Spiegel, Laura was not immediately arrested on arrival but remains the subject of an investigation on suspicion of her membership to a terrorist organisation as well as failure to properly take care of her children. The woman's passport has been confiscated and the two children are being entrusted to a close relative, the report added. The weekly magazine also said that the woman travelled to Syria to join IS with her two children and husband, a Somalia-born US citizen. The woman had already been linked to Salafist (Islamic fundamentalist) circles in Germany and she had also allegedly posted an online call for aid donation for Syria that in reality went to a fundamentalist organisation. Following her own capture by Kurdish forces and the reported killing of her husband, Laura claims to have turned away from IS ideology. A US aid organisation helped Laura move to Erbil from from the Al-Hol prison camp in northeastern Syria, the weekly reported. Kurdish authorities have repeatedly urged Western countries to accept their nationals linked to IS. So far, the countries have majorly avoided the repatriation. Laura is the first adult who is repatriated to Germany, a country which has allowed a few orphans to return back. After Turkey invaded northern Syria last month, a lot of people broke out from Kurdish-led jails and camps. Two weeks earlier, Turkey said that it will repatriate seven captured IS fighters to Germany. Austria, Belgium, Britain and France have repatriated some orphaned children. A number of women and children were accepted by the United States. Earlier this month, an Albanian boy taken by his mother to join IS in Syria returned to his home in Italy. Dozens of women and children were repatriated by Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Kosovo too. (with inputs from AFP and Reuters)

Suspected woman linked to Islamic State returned to Germany

US&nbsp;Central Command chief General Kenneth McKenzie said on Saturday about 500 US&nbsp;personnel in east Syria are expected to resume operations against Islamic State in coming days and weeks.

Islamic State has lost nearly all its territory in Syria and US&nbsp;forces killed its former leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi last month, but the group that once controlled a third of Syria and neighbouring Iraq is still seen as a threat.

The administration of President Donald Trump shocked US&nbsp;allies last December by saying Washington was pulling out all its troops from Syria.

It said later it decided to keep a residual force in the northeastern part of the country, focusing on preventing Islamic State from staging a comeback and attacking the oilfields there.

"Now I've got about 500 US&nbsp;personnel generally east of the Euphrates river east of Deir al Zor up to Hasaka, northeast all the way up into extreme northeast Syria," McKenzie told reporters on the sidelines of the Manama Dialogue security summit in Bahrain.

"It is our intention to remain in that position working with our SDF (Syrian Democratic Forces) partners to continue operations against ISIS down the Euphrates river valley where those targets present themselves," he added.

Turkey launched and then halted an offensive against the YPG, the main component of the US-backed SDF that helped the United States defeat Islamic State, which it sees as a terrorist group with links to Kurdish militants on Turkish soil.

Moscow, the main backer of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, said this week it was also in the process of deploying more Russian military police to northeast Syria, setting up field hospitals for civilians, distributing humanitarian aid and rebuilding infrastructure.

US Central Command chief General Kenneth McKenzie said on Saturday about 500 US personnel in east Syria are expected to resume operations against Islamic State in coming days and weeks.

US Central Command chief General Kenneth McKenzie said on Saturday about 500 US personnel in east Syria are expected to resume operations against Islamic State in coming days and weeks. Islamic State has lost nearly all its territory in Syria and US forces killed its former leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi last month, but the group that once controlled a third of Syria and neighbouring Iraq is still seen as a threat. The administration of President Donald Trump shocked US allies last December by saying Washington was pulling out all its troops from Syria. It said later it decided to keep a residual force in the northeastern part of the country, focusing on preventing Islamic State from staging a comeback and attacking the oilfields there. "Now I've got about 500 US personnel generally east of the Euphrates river east of Deir al Zor up to Hasaka, northeast all the way up into extreme northeast Syria," McKenzie told reporters on the sidelines of the Manama Dialogue security summit in Bahrain. "It is our intention to remain in that position working with our SDF (Syrian Democratic Forces) partners to continue operations against ISIS down the Euphrates river valley where those targets present themselves," he added. Turkey launched and then halted an offensive against the YPG, the main component of the US-backed SDF that helped the United States defeat Islamic State, which it sees as a terrorist group with links to Kurdish militants on Turkish soil. Moscow, the main backer of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, said this week it was also in the process of deploying more Russian military police to northeast Syria, setting up field hospitals for civilians, distributing humanitarian aid and rebuilding infrastructure.

US Central Command says anti-IS operations to pick up in coming days, weeks

A car bomb killed nine people including four civilians in a Turkish-held border town in northern Syria on Saturday, a Britain-based war monitor said.

Two children were among those killed in Tal Abyad, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights monitoring group said.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the bombing.

The area has been shaken by repeated such bombings since Turkish troops and their Syrian proxies seized a strip of border land including Tal Abyad from Kurdish forces in a cross-border operation last month.&nbsp;

The Turkish invasion against Kurdish-controlled areas saw Ankara's fighters seize a strip of land roughly 120 kilometres long and 30 kilometres deep on the Syrian side of the border.

The operation launched on October 9 displaced tens of thousands and left dozens of civilians dead, and forced Kurdish forces to retreat from some key towns.

On November 10, Turkey blamed Kurdish fighters for another bombing that took the lives of eight people in the village of Suluk southeast of Tal Abyad.

A week earlier, another car bomb killed 13 people in Tal Abyad, according to the Observatory.

Syria's Kurds have been a key ally of the US in fighting the Islamic State jihadist group in Syria, but Turkey sees them as "terrorists" linked to a Kurdish insurgency at home.

Kurdish-led Syrian forces expelled IS from its last patch of land in March, but the jihadists have continued to claim deadly attacks.

A car bomb killed nine people including four civilians in a Turkish-held border town in northern Syria on Saturday, a Britain-based war monitor said. Two children were among those killed in Tal Abyad, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights monitoring group said.

A car bomb killed nine people including four civilians in a Turkish-held border town in northern Syria on Saturday, a Britain-based war monitor said. Two children were among those killed in Tal Abyad, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights monitoring group said. There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the bombing. The area has been shaken by repeated such bombings since Turkish troops and their Syrian proxies seized a strip of border land including Tal Abyad from Kurdish forces in a cross-border operation last month. The Turkish invasion against Kurdish-controlled areas saw Ankara's fighters seize a strip of land roughly 120 kilometres long and 30 kilometres deep on the Syrian side of the border. The operation launched on October 9 displaced tens of thousands and left dozens of civilians dead, and forced Kurdish forces to retreat from some key towns. On November 10, Turkey blamed Kurdish fighters for another bombing that took the lives of eight people in the village of Suluk southeast of Tal Abyad. A week earlier, another car bomb killed 13 people in Tal Abyad, according to the Observatory. Syria's Kurds have been a key ally of the US in fighting the Islamic State jihadist group in Syria, but Turkey sees them as "terrorists" linked to a Kurdish insurgency at home. Kurdish-led Syrian forces expelled IS from its last patch of land in March, but the jihadists have continued to claim deadly attacks.

Car bomb kills 9 in northern Syria town: Monitor

A total of 657 children have been killed in Syria since the beginning of the year, UNICEF said on Thursday (November 21), making 2019 another bleak year for Syrian children after more 8 years of conflict.

Nearly 700 children killed in Syria since beginning of 2019 - UNICEF

In all the hand-wringing that critics and commentators have done since President Donald Trump announced the withdrawal of US troops from northern Syria, one of the common refrains emphasises the breach of trust between Washington and its Kurdish militia partners.

Some scholars of international relations put little stock in trust. Countries are selfish, after all.

Others see trust in impersonal terms, embedded in the rules, norms, institutions and alliances that bind countries to each other.

It turns out, though, that trust does matter in international relations. And in the Middle East, trust is often seen in personal terms.

For the American personnel who worked, ate and lived with the Syrian Kurds, trust-building was also a deeply personal experience. Trust underpinned the crucial intelligence cooperation between the US and its Kurdish partners. That cooperation helped plan and execute the raid that led to the capture killing of Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

As one former American special operator has written, “Trust is a powerful commodity that has saved many lives in shadowy battlefields across the Middle East. But it takes a long time to build and can be gone in an instant.”

By contrast, mistrust, even if it is based on perception alone, can linger for decades, thwarting Washington’s foreign policy goals.

Defeating the Islamic State

I observed the long-term consequences of broken trust next door to Syria, in Iraq.

I served as a US diplomat in the southern Iraqi city of Basrah during 2015 and 2016, the height of the war against the Islamic State group, also known as IS.

At the time, after years of sectarian strife, dishonest governments and their broken promises, Iraqis seemed united around the common purpose of defeating IS. The corrupt and sectarian regime of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had been ousted. And the US was leading an international coalition to help the Iraqi government in the fight against IS, providing hundreds of millions of dollars in humanitarian assistance.

You might think that a war that the US was fighting on behalf of the Iraqi people, a war that was truly an existential one for the majority Iraqi Shia, would have produced at least some goodwill toward the United States.

Instead, when I arrived in Basrah in 2015, I discovered that many Iraqis, including the majority Shia Muslim population among whom I lived, believed that the United States was somehow in cahoots with the Islamic State.

Mistrust for decades 
 
The Middle East is rife with conspiracy theories. But this one was particularly jarring given that the United States was then engaged in a costly and very public effort to defeat the Islamic State, a terrorist group which declared the Shia apostates and said they must be killed.

Over time, I began to understand the roots of these attitudes. Disinformation and propaganda, especially from Iran, fueled them to some extent.

But there were deeper issues at play.

“The United States defeated Saddam’s armies in a matter of weeks,” incredulous Iraqis I met would say to me. “So how is it that you can’t defeat a ragtag army of jihadists in two years?”

Iranian disinformation campaigns blaming the US for the Islamic State were effective because of a deep gulf of mistrust between the US and Iraqis, which led to widespread cynicism among ordinary Iraqis about US motives.

The origins of this mistrust go back decades, from tacit US support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980s, when Washington turned a blind eye to the dictatorship’s atrocities against Iraqi Kurds.

The lack of trust helps explain why the US had such a hard time stabilizing Iraq after 2003, despite toppling a feared despot and despite investing billions of dollars in the country.

Roots in betrayal

Iraqi Shia are the largest Muslim sect in the country, but have less political power than Sunni Muslims. The Shia in particular have painful memories of an event that they see as a massive breach of trust between them and the US.

In 1991, encouraged by then-President George HW Bush, the Shia rose up against Saddam, only to be abandoned by the US.

Tens of thousands of Iraqi Shia were slaughtered.

I visited a memorial to the victims of Saddam’s suppression of the uprising, where I saw a leaflet displayed that was dropped by US and coalition aircraft calling on Iraqi soldiers and civilians to “fill the streets and alleys and bring down Saddam Hussein and his aides.”

“We thought this meant that the Americans would help us,” my guide at the museum told me. &nbsp;Many Iraqis I met also recalled the devastating 1990s sanctions on their country that were championed by the United States. Others talked of Washington’s failure to stabilize the country after 2003. Then there was the perception that the Obama administration came late to the war against the Islamic State.

Other Iraqis I met – young ones – told me of their resentment at US&nbsp;support for a political class in Baghdad that is seen as deeply corrupt. Some of them are no doubt protesting in the streets and squares of Iraqi cities today.

I attended lots of meetings with Iraqi Sunni tribal leaders in the south. They saw the Obama administration’s 2011 withdrawal of U.S. troops and general disengagement from Iraq as a betrayal of trust. They saw it as handing over Iraq to Iranian influence, which they fear.

Ultimately, Iraqis did not see the US as a credible, consistent or committed partner. Some turned to Iran for assistance, while turning against the United States. Perhaps it is no surprise that polls taken at the time I worked in Basrah showed that Iraqis saw Iran and Russia as more favourable security partners.

Can’t escape the past

Iraq is by no means a perfect analogy for the shattered trust between Washington and its Syrian Kurdish allies. Yet the Iraqi experience shows that distrust of the United States has deep roots in past US actions.

In Syria, too, the US has left a legacy of mistrust since 2011, from Obama’s failure to follow through on his call for Assad to step down, to his failure to impose meaningful costs on the Syrian regime for its use of chemical weapons. Trump’s withdrawal is just one episode in a longer story.

Despite breaches of trust, Iraqis continued to need US support. But that need paired with a lack of trust makes things difficult for American diplomats in Iraq. For me, it was often overwhelming to be at the receiving end of the immense disappointment, frustration and more rarely, hope, that the Iraqis have in the United States.

The Syrian Kurds, like the Iraqis, will still need the United States and continue to work with Washington. But the breach of trust will complicate cooperation, as it did in Iraq.

Not everything that Iraqis blame the United States for is fair. And it would be impossible for even the best-crafted US policies to satisfy all of Iraq’s diverse people.

At times I tried to remind my unfailingly hospitable Iraqi interlocutors, especially those in the government, to be a bit more introspective about their own failings and responsibility for Iraq’s post-Saddam ills. I tried to remind them that the United States invested a lot in Iraq, with limited results.

In the end, the credibility of the message was undercut by a lack of trust in the messenger.&nbsp;

(Mieczysław P Boduszyński is Assistant Professor of Politics, Pomona College)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/broken-trust-how-iraqis-lost-their-faith-in-washington-long-before-the-kurds-did-125636">original article</a>) 
&nbsp; 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) &nbsp; 
&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

In all the hand-wringing that critics and commentators have done since President Donald Trump announced the withdrawal of US troops from northern Syria, one of the common refrains emphasises the breach of trust between Washington and its Kurdish militia partners.

In all the hand-wringing that critics and commentators have done since President Donald Trump announced the withdrawal of US troops from northern Syria, one of the common refrains emphasises the breach of trust between Washington and its Kurdish militia partners. Some scholars of international relations put little stock in trust. Countries are selfish, after all. Others see trust in impersonal terms, embedded in the rules, norms, institutions and alliances that bind countries to each other. It turns out, though, that trust does matter in international relations. And in the Middle East, trust is often seen in personal terms. For the American personnel who worked, ate and lived with the Syrian Kurds, trust-building was also a deeply personal experience. Trust underpinned the crucial intelligence cooperation between the US and its Kurdish partners. That cooperation helped plan and execute the raid that led to the capture killing of Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. As one former American special operator has written, “Trust is a powerful commodity that has saved many lives in shadowy battlefields across the Middle East. But it takes a long time to build and can be gone in an instant.” By contrast, mistrust, even if it is based on perception alone, can linger for decades, thwarting Washington’s foreign policy goals. Defeating the Islamic State I observed the long-term consequences of broken trust next door to Syria, in Iraq. I served as a US diplomat in the southern Iraqi city of Basrah during 2015 and 2016, the height of the war against the Islamic State group, also known as IS. At the time, after years of sectarian strife, dishonest governments and their broken promises, Iraqis seemed united around the common purpose of defeating IS. The corrupt and sectarian regime of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had been ousted. And the US was leading an international coalition to help the Iraqi government in the fight against IS, providing hundreds of millions of dollars in humanitarian assistance. You might think that a war that the US was fighting on behalf of the Iraqi people, a war that was truly an existential one for the majority Iraqi Shia, would have produced at least some goodwill toward the United States. Instead, when I arrived in Basrah in 2015, I discovered that many Iraqis, including the majority Shia Muslim population among whom I lived, believed that the United States was somehow in cahoots with the Islamic State. Mistrust for decades The Middle East is rife with conspiracy theories. But this one was particularly jarring given that the United States was then engaged in a costly and very public effort to defeat the Islamic State, a terrorist group which declared the Shia apostates and said they must be killed. Over time, I began to understand the roots of these attitudes. Disinformation and propaganda, especially from Iran, fueled them to some extent. But there were deeper issues at play. “The United States defeated Saddam’s armies in a matter of weeks,” incredulous Iraqis I met would say to me. “So how is it that you can’t defeat a ragtag army of jihadists in two years?” Iranian disinformation campaigns blaming the US for the Islamic State were effective because of a deep gulf of mistrust between the US and Iraqis, which led to widespread cynicism among ordinary Iraqis about US motives. The origins of this mistrust go back decades, from tacit US support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980s, when Washington turned a blind eye to the dictatorship’s atrocities against Iraqi Kurds. The lack of trust helps explain why the US had such a hard time stabilizing Iraq after 2003, despite toppling a feared despot and despite investing billions of dollars in the country. Roots in betrayal Iraqi Shia are the largest Muslim sect in the country, but have less political power than Sunni Muslims. The Shia in particular have painful memories of an event that they see as a massive breach of trust between them and the US. In 1991, encouraged by then-President George HW Bush, the Shia rose up against Saddam, only to be abandoned by the US. Tens of thousands of Iraqi Shia were slaughtered. I visited a memorial to the victims of Saddam’s suppression of the uprising, where I saw a leaflet displayed that was dropped by US and coalition aircraft calling on Iraqi soldiers and civilians to “fill the streets and alleys and bring down Saddam Hussein and his aides.” “We thought this meant that the Americans would help us,” my guide at the museum told me. Many Iraqis I met also recalled the devastating 1990s sanctions on their country that were championed by the United States. Others talked of Washington’s failure to stabilize the country after 2003. Then there was the perception that the Obama administration came late to the war against the Islamic State. Other Iraqis I met – young ones – told me of their resentment at US support for a political class in Baghdad that is seen as deeply corrupt. Some of them are no doubt protesting in the streets and squares of Iraqi cities today. I attended lots of meetings with Iraqi Sunni tribal leaders in the south. They saw the Obama administration’s 2011 withdrawal of U.S. troops and general disengagement from Iraq as a betrayal of trust. They saw it as handing over Iraq to Iranian influence, which they fear. Ultimately, Iraqis did not see the US as a credible, consistent or committed partner. Some turned to Iran for assistance, while turning against the United States. Perhaps it is no surprise that polls taken at the time I worked in Basrah showed that Iraqis saw Iran and Russia as more favourable security partners. Can’t escape the past Iraq is by no means a perfect analogy for the shattered trust between Washington and its Syrian Kurdish allies. Yet the Iraqi experience shows that distrust of the United States has deep roots in past US actions. In Syria, too, the US has left a legacy of mistrust since 2011, from Obama’s failure to follow through on his call for Assad to step down, to his failure to impose meaningful costs on the Syrian regime for its use of chemical weapons. Trump’s withdrawal is just one episode in a longer story. Despite breaches of trust, Iraqis continued to need US support. But that need paired with a lack of trust makes things difficult for American diplomats in Iraq. For me, it was often overwhelming to be at the receiving end of the immense disappointment, frustration and more rarely, hope, that the Iraqis have in the United States. The Syrian Kurds, like the Iraqis, will still need the United States and continue to work with Washington. But the breach of trust will complicate cooperation, as it did in Iraq. Not everything that Iraqis blame the United States for is fair. And it would be impossible for even the best-crafted US policies to satisfy all of Iraq’s diverse people. At times I tried to remind my unfailingly hospitable Iraqi interlocutors, especially those in the government, to be a bit more introspective about their own failings and responsibility for Iraq’s post-Saddam ills. I tried to remind them that the United States invested a lot in Iraq, with limited results. In the end, the credibility of the message was undercut by a lack of trust in the messenger. (Mieczysław P Boduszyński is Assistant Professor of Politics, Pomona College) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

How Iraqis lost their faith in Washington, long before the Kurds did

Turkey's Interior Minister said on Wednesday that around 100,000 Syrians living without approval in Istanbul had left it since early July, when the government set a deadline for Syrians not registered in the city to leave for other provinces.

As sentiment towards Syrian refugees among Turks began to sour in recent years, authorities said Syrians not registered in Turkey's largest city should return to the provinces in which they are registered by Oct. 30, or face forced removal.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/.../turkey-threatens-new-syria-operations-directs-us -russia-to-fulfill-agreement-263046">Turkey </a>hosts some 3.6 million refugees who fled the eight-year-old civil war, more than any other country. The Syrian population in Istanbul, home to some 15 million people, had swollen to more than half a million, more than those in any other Turkish city.

Syrians registered in other cities came to Istanbul, leading to an acculumation in the city, Interior Minister Suleyman Soylu told parliament.

"Around 100,000 Syrian have returned to provinces in which they are registered since July 12," he said, adding that a total of 200,000 migrants had left the city.

Turkey also houses migrants from other Middle Eastern and African nations.

On Friday, the Istanbul governor's office said more than 6,000 Syrian migrants in Istanbul were sent to temporary housing centres in other provinces since early July.

Ankara wants to settle some Syrian refugees in a swathe of land it now controls in <a href="https://www.wionews.com/.../erdogan-says-he-told-trump-turkey-will-not- give-up-russian-s-400s-263168">Northeast Syria</a>, after it launched an offensive last month against the Kurdish YPG militia.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/.../amnesty-international-says-turkey-deporting- syrians-to-planned-safe-zone-region-258214">Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch</a> last month published reports saying Turkey is forcibly sending Syrian refugees to northern Syria. Turkey's Foreign Ministry called the claims in the reports "false and imaginary."

Turkey has deported 86,625 illegal migrants so far this year, compared to 56,000 in all of 2018, Soylu said.

Turkey's Interior Minister said on Wednesday that around 100,000 Syrians living without approval in Istanbul had left it since early July, when the government set a deadline for Syrians not registered in the city to leave for other provinces.

Turkey's Interior Minister said on Wednesday that around 100,000 Syrians living without approval in Istanbul had left it since early July, when the government set a deadline for Syrians not registered in the city to leave for other provinces. As sentiment towards Syrian refugees among Turks began to sour in recent years, authorities said Syrians not registered in Turkey's largest city should return to the provinces in which they are registered by Oct. 30, or face forced removal. Turkey hosts some 3.6 million refugees who fled the eight-year-old civil war, more than any other country. The Syrian population in Istanbul, home to some 15 million people, had swollen to more than half a million, more than those in any other Turkish city. Syrians registered in other cities came to Istanbul, leading to an acculumation in the city, Interior Minister Suleyman Soylu told parliament. "Around 100,000 Syrian have returned to provinces in which they are registered since July 12," he said, adding that a total of 200,000 migrants had left the city. Turkey also houses migrants from other Middle Eastern and African nations. On Friday, the Istanbul governor's office said more than 6,000 Syrian migrants in Istanbul were sent to temporary housing centres in other provinces since early July. Ankara wants to settle some Syrian refugees in a swathe of land it now controls in Northeast Syria, after it launched an offensive last month against the Kurdish YPG militia. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch last month published reports saying Turkey is forcibly sending Syrian refugees to northern Syria. Turkey's Foreign Ministry called the claims in the reports "false and imaginary." Turkey has deported 86,625 illegal migrants so far this year, compared to 56,000 in all of 2018, Soylu said.

Turkey says about 100,000 Syrians left Istanbul since early July

The <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/we-carried-out-strikes-on-irans-quds-force-syrian-targets-israel-army-263308">Israeli army </a>carried out a "wide-scale" attack against Iranian forces and Syrian army targets in Syria Wednesday, killing at least 11 fighters, the Israeli army and a monitoring group said.&nbsp;

In a rare confirmation of their operations in Syria, the Israeli army said they carried out dozens on strikes against the Iranian elite Quds Force and the Syrian military, in response to four rockets fired at Israel a day before.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/israel-military-confirms-attack-on-syria-after-4-rocket-fired-by-syria-263330/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

At least eleven "fighters" were killed in the strikes, said Britain-based monitoring group the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR).

Seven were foreigners, its head Rami Abdel Rahman said, though he could not confirm whether they were all Iranian. Four civilians were also wounded, he added.

Iran has fought alongside Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces in the country's eight-year civil war, heightening Israeli concern over the presence of its arch foe along its border.

"Whoever hurts us, we will hurt him," Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a statement.

"This is what we did overnight vis-a-vis military targets of the Iranian Quds Force and Syrian military targets in Syria after a barrage of rockets was launched at Israel."

The Israeli army said they had targeted around a dozen military sites, including warehouses and military command centres.

"It was very intense," spokesman Jonathan Conricus told AFP said.

The most important target, he said, was a control facility at the main international airport in Damascus.

"It is the main building that serves the (Iranian) Revolutionary Guards... for coordinating the logistic facilities of transport of military hardware from Iran to Syria and from Syria onwards," he said.

'Heavy attack'&nbsp;

Israel has carried out frequent air and missile strikes against Iranian targets inside Syria since the country descended into civil war in 2011 but rarely comments on them.

On Tuesday four rockets were fired at Israel from Syria, with the army blaming an "Iranian force".

Israel's Iron Dome missile defence system intercepted the rockets.

Conricus said it was the sixth time Iranian forces had attacked Israel directly in recent years, most recently in August.

The Israeli attack Wednesday began in the early hours, with a series of large explosions rocking Damascus, an AFP correspondent in the city said.

Syria's state media SANA said Syrian anti-aircraft defences responded to a "heavy attack" by Israeli warplanes over the capital.

The Israeli army confirmed missiles were fired towards its jets but denied any were hit.

In response to the fire, it said, "a number of Syrian aerial defence batteries were destroyed".

"We hold the Syrian regime responsible for the actions that take place in Syrian territory and warn them against allowing further attacks against Israel," the army said.

SANA added that the strikes were carried out from "Lebanese and Palestinian territories". Israel sometimes launches its attacks on Syria from planes flying over neighbouring Lebanon.

Syria's civil war has been complicated by the involvement of multiple foreign powers, with Russian, Iranian and US forces on the ground backing various parties.

Flare-up&nbsp;

The SOHR monitoring group said Tuesday's rockets were fired from positions around the Syrian capital held by groups loyal to the Damascus government.

The flare-up follows a major escalation in and around Gaza last week when Israel killed a top commander of Palestinian militant group Islamic Jihad, which is allied with Damascus.

The killing was accompanied by a second strike, unconfirmed by Israel, on an Islamic Jihad leader in Damascus that killed his son and another person.

The hundreds of strikes carried out by Israel in Syria have mostly been against Iranian targets or positions of Iran's Lebanese ally, Shiite militant group Hezbollah.

Both are sworn enemies of the Jewish state and have backed the Syrian president's forces with advisers and fighters.

The war in Syria has killed more than 370,000 people and displaced millions.

The Israeli army carried out a "wide-scale" attack against Iranian forces and Syrian army targets in Syria Wednesday, killing at least 11 fighters, the Israeli army and a monitoring group said.

The Israeli army carried out a "wide-scale" attack against Iranian forces and Syrian army targets in Syria Wednesday, killing at least 11 fighters, the Israeli army and a monitoring group said. In a rare confirmation of their operations in Syria, the Israeli army said they carried out dozens on strikes against the Iranian elite Quds Force and the Syrian military, in response to four rockets fired at Israel a day before. At least eleven "fighters" were killed in the strikes, said Britain-based monitoring group the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR). Seven were foreigners, its head Rami Abdel Rahman said, though he could not confirm whether they were all Iranian. Four civilians were also wounded, he added. Iran has fought alongside Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces in the country's eight-year civil war, heightening Israeli concern over the presence of its arch foe along its border. "Whoever hurts us, we will hurt him," Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a statement. "This is what we did overnight vis-a-vis military targets of the Iranian Quds Force and Syrian military targets in Syria after a barrage of rockets was launched at Israel." The Israeli army said they had targeted around a dozen military sites, including warehouses and military command centres. "It was very intense," spokesman Jonathan Conricus told AFP said. The most important target, he said, was a control facility at the main international airport in Damascus. "It is the main building that serves the (Iranian) Revolutionary Guards... for coordinating the logistic facilities of transport of military hardware from Iran to Syria and from Syria onwards," he said. 'Heavy attack' Israel has carried out frequent air and missile strikes against Iranian targets inside Syria since the country descended into civil war in 2011 but rarely comments on them. On Tuesday four rockets were fired at Israel from Syria, with the army blaming an "Iranian force". Israel's Iron Dome missile defence system intercepted the rockets. Conricus said it was the sixth time Iranian forces had attacked Israel directly in recent years, most recently in August. The Israeli attack Wednesday began in the early hours, with a series of large explosions rocking Damascus, an AFP correspondent in the city said. Syria's state media SANA said Syrian anti-aircraft defences responded to a "heavy attack" by Israeli warplanes over the capital. The Israeli army confirmed missiles were fired towards its jets but denied any were hit. In response to the fire, it said, "a number of Syrian aerial defence batteries were destroyed". "We hold the Syrian regime responsible for the actions that take place in Syrian territory and warn them against allowing further attacks against Israel," the army said. SANA added that the strikes were carried out from "Lebanese and Palestinian territories". Israel sometimes launches its attacks on Syria from planes flying over neighbouring Lebanon. Syria's civil war has been complicated by the involvement of multiple foreign powers, with Russian, Iranian and US forces on the ground backing various parties. Flare-up The SOHR monitoring group said Tuesday's rockets were fired from positions around the Syrian capital held by groups loyal to the Damascus government. The flare-up follows a major escalation in and around Gaza last week when Israel killed a top commander of Palestinian militant group Islamic Jihad, which is allied with Damascus. The killing was accompanied by a second strike, unconfirmed by Israel, on an Islamic Jihad leader in Damascus that killed his son and another person. The hundreds of strikes carried out by Israel in Syria have mostly been against Iranian targets or positions of Iran's Lebanese ally, Shiite militant group Hezbollah. Both are sworn enemies of the Jewish state and have backed the Syrian president's forces with advisers and fighters. The war in Syria has killed more than 370,000 people and displaced millions.

Israeli strikes in Syria kill 11 fighters: Monitor

Israel Military confirms attack on Syria after 4 rocket fired by Syria. Reports claimed that at least 3 has been injured in Israeli counter-attack on Syria. Watch this video to know more in detail.

Israel Military confirms attack on Syria

A car bomb killed 19 people, 13 of them civilians, in the Turkish-controlled town of Al-Bab in northern Syria on Saturday, a war monitor said.

The bomb, which struck a bus and taxi station in the town, also wounded 33 people, some of them seriously, the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported.

Turkey and its Syrian proxies control several pockets of territory on the Syrian side of the border as a result of successive incursions in 2016-17, 2018 and 2019.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the bombing but the Observatory said there had been persistent security incidents in the town since its capture by Turkish troops from the Islamic State group in February 2017.

The town, some 30 kilometres (20 miles) northeast of Syria's second city Aleppo, was one of the westernmost strongholds of the jihadists' self-styled "caliphate" which was finally eradicated by US-backed Kurdish forces in eastern Syria in March.

Turkey blamed the car bombing on the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) against whom it launched a new invasion further east last month.

Kurdish fighters "continue to target innocent civilians using the same methods as Daesh," the defence ministry said on its official Twitter account using another acronym for IS.

There was no immediate reaction from the YPG, seen by Ankara as a "terrorist offshoot" of the Kurdistan Workers Party which has fought an insurgency inside Turkey for the past 35 years.

The latest Turkish invasion, which was aimed at creating a buffer zone the whole length of the border, sparked an outcry in the West because of the key role the YPG played in the US-led campaign against IS.

It paused after Turkey struck a truce deal with Russia, the main supporter of the Syrian government, to jointly patrol the border area and oversee the withdrawal of Kurdish fighters from a new Turkish-controlled pocket between the towns of Tal Abyad and Ras al-Ain.

A car bomb killed 19 people, 13 of them civilians, in the Turkish-controlled town of Al-Bab in northern Syria on Saturday, a war monitor said. The bomb, which struck a bus and taxi station in the town, also wounded 33 people, some of them seriously, the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported.

A car bomb killed 19 people, 13 of them civilians, in the Turkish-controlled town of Al-Bab in northern Syria on Saturday, a war monitor said. The bomb, which struck a bus and taxi station in the town, also wounded 33 people, some of them seriously, the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported. Turkey and its Syrian proxies control several pockets of territory on the Syrian side of the border as a result of successive incursions in 2016-17, 2018 and 2019. There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the bombing but the Observatory said there had been persistent security incidents in the town since its capture by Turkish troops from the Islamic State group in February 2017. The town, some 30 kilometres (20 miles) northeast of Syria's second city Aleppo, was one of the westernmost strongholds of the jihadists' self-styled "caliphate" which was finally eradicated by US-backed Kurdish forces in eastern Syria in March. Turkey blamed the car bombing on the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) against whom it launched a new invasion further east last month. Kurdish fighters "continue to target innocent civilians using the same methods as Daesh," the defence ministry said on its official Twitter account using another acronym for IS. There was no immediate reaction from the YPG, seen by Ankara as a "terrorist offshoot" of the Kurdistan Workers Party which has fought an insurgency inside Turkey for the past 35 years. The latest Turkish invasion, which was aimed at creating a buffer zone the whole length of the border, sparked an outcry in the West because of the key role the YPG played in the US-led campaign against IS. It paused after Turkey struck a truce deal with Russia, the main supporter of the Syrian government, to jointly patrol the border area and oversee the withdrawal of Kurdish fighters from a new Turkish-controlled pocket between the towns of Tal Abyad and Ras al-Ain.

Car bomb kills 19 in northern Syria: Monitor

At least nineteen&nbsp;people were killed and many others wounded in the town of Al-Bab in northern Syria.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-to-maintain-around-600-troops-in-syria-us-defence-secretary-mark-esper-261941">Turkish-controlled town of Al-Bab</a> is located 18 miles from the Syrian-Turkish border in the Aleppo province.&nbsp;

The bomb was planted in a car which was parked on the side of the road before a garage door when it exploded.

The blast struck a bus and taxi station in the town, the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported.

Watch: Did US smuggled Syrian oil?

<main role="main">
<form accept-charset="UTF-8" action="http://13.235.153.162/admin/structure/videoembed" data-drupal-selector="video-embed-form" id="video-embed-form" method="post">
<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/did-us-smuggle-syrian-oil-258306/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

It was not immediately clear who had carried out the attack.
</form>
</main>

Turkey and its Syrian proxies control several pockets of territory on the Syrian side of the border as a result of successive incursions in 2016, 2018 and 2019. 
 
(With inputs from agencies)

At least nineteen people were killed and many others wounded in the town of Al-Bab in northern Syria. Turkish-controlled town of Al-Bab is located 18 miles from the Syrian-Turkish border in the Aleppo province.

At least nineteen people were killed and many others wounded in the town of Al-Bab in northern Syria. Turkish-controlled town of Al-Bab is located 18 miles from the Syrian-Turkish border in the Aleppo province. The bomb was planted in a car which was parked on the side of the road before a garage door when it exploded. The blast struck a bus and taxi station in the town, the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported. Watch: Did US smuggled Syrian oil? × It was not immediately clear who had carried out the attack. Turkey and its Syrian proxies control several pockets of territory on the Syrian side of the border as a result of successive incursions in 2016, 2018 and 2019. (With inputs from agencies)

Car bomb explosion kills nineteen in northern Syria's Al-Bab

Russia landed attack helicopters and troops at a sprawling airbase in northern Syria vacated by US&nbsp;forces, the Russian Defence Ministry's Zvezda TV channel said on Friday.

Armed Russian military police were shown in footage aired on Zvezda flying into the Syrian airbase in northern Aleppo province near the border with Turkey and fanning out to secure the area.

The move comes after US&nbsp;President Donald Trump abruptly ordered the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/united-states-forces-withdraw-from-key-base-in-northern-syria-257070">withdrawal of US&nbsp;troops</a> from parts of Syria last month.

The facility will be used as a centre to distribute humanitarian aid for local residents and the military aerodrome is now controlled by Syrian government forces allied with Moscow, Zvezda said.

On Thursday, Zvezda said Russia had <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/russia-sets-up-helicopter-base-in-northern-syria-after-us-exit-262051">set up a helicopter base</a> at an airport in the northeastern Syrian city of Qamishli, a move designed to increase Moscow's control over events on the ground there.

Russia and Turkey are carrying out joint patrols along Syria's border with Turkey as part of a deal struck between Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Turkish counterpart Tayyip Erdogan.

"We entered the base and took the inner and external perimeter under control," a senior Russian military police inspector was quoted by Zvezda as saying.

"Now sappers are looking and going through every building to make sure there aren't some kind of explosive substances left behind or some kind of surprises here for us," he said.

Zvezda aired footage of US&nbsp;equipment such as medical supplies to treat sunburn that had been left behind as well as a gym and sleeping facilities.

Russia has two permanent military facilities in Syria, an air base in Latakia province used for air strikes against forces opposing President Bashar al-Assad, and a naval facility at Tartus on the Mediterranean.

Russia landed attack helicopters and troops at a sprawling airbase in northern Syria vacated by US forces, the Russian Defence Ministry's Zvezda TV channel said on Friday.

Russia landed attack helicopters and troops at a sprawling airbase in northern Syria vacated by US forces, the Russian Defence Ministry's Zvezda TV channel said on Friday. Armed Russian military police were shown in footage aired on Zvezda flying into the Syrian airbase in northern Aleppo province near the border with Turkey and fanning out to secure the area. The move comes after US President Donald Trump abruptly ordered the withdrawal of US troops from parts of Syria last month. The facility will be used as a centre to distribute humanitarian aid for local residents and the military aerodrome is now controlled by Syrian government forces allied with Moscow, Zvezda said. On Thursday, Zvezda said Russia had set up a helicopter base at an airport in the northeastern Syrian city of Qamishli, a move designed to increase Moscow's control over events on the ground there. Russia and Turkey are carrying out joint patrols along Syria's border with Turkey as part of a deal struck between Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Turkish counterpart Tayyip Erdogan. "We entered the base and took the inner and external perimeter under control," a senior Russian military police inspector was quoted by Zvezda as saying. "Now sappers are looking and going through every building to make sure there aren't some kind of explosive substances left behind or some kind of surprises here for us," he said. Zvezda aired footage of US equipment such as medical supplies to treat sunburn that had been left behind as well as a gym and sleeping facilities. Russia has two permanent military facilities in Syria, an air base in Latakia province used for air strikes against forces opposing President Bashar al-Assad, and a naval facility at Tartus on the Mediterranean.

Russia lands forces at former US air base in northern Syria

The United States will maintain around <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/turkeys-syria-operation-reveals-cracks-among-erdogans-political-foes-261786">600 troops in Syria</a>, Pentagon chief Mark Esper said on Wednesday, despite Donald Trump's desire to end US involvement in what the president calls "endless wars".

"We're still moving troops out of northeastern Syria," the US defence secretary said onboard a plane as he travelled to Seoul, where he begins a tour of Asia on Thursday.&nbsp;

"We're going to have about 500 to 600-ish troops there, at the end of the day," he said.

Asked if that figure included the approximately<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/eight-killed-in-bombing-in-turkish-controlled-northeast-syria-261218"> 200 troops deployed to the Al-Tanf base</a> near the southeastern borders with Jordan and Iraq, Esper said that he was referring to northeastern Syria, where Trump has instructed the Pentagon to secure oil fields.

There would be "600-ish" troops across the country, he then reiterated.

Esper said that the numbers could fluctuate, particularly if European allies strengthen their presence in the country.

"Things change. Events on the ground change. We could have, for example, partners and allies from Europe joining us," he said. "If they join us on the ground it may allow us the ability to redeploy further US forces out there."

Trump's abrupt announcement last month that he had ordered a full troop withdrawal drew angry rebukes at home and abroad.&nbsp;

Critics said it could allow a resurgence of the Islamic State group while leaving US-allied Kurdish fighters in Syria vulnerable to a Turkish invasion.

The US president later relented in part, saying he would leave some troops in the region to protect valuable oil fields.

The United States will maintain around 600 troops in Syria, Pentagon chief Mark Esper said on Wednesday, despite Donald Trump's desire to end US involvement in what the president calls "endless wars".

The United States will maintain around 600 troops in Syria, Pentagon chief Mark Esper said on Wednesday, despite Donald Trump's desire to end US involvement in what the president calls "endless wars". "We're still moving troops out of northeastern Syria," the US defence secretary said onboard a plane as he travelled to Seoul, where he begins a tour of Asia on Thursday. "We're going to have about 500 to 600-ish troops there, at the end of the day," he said. Asked if that figure included the approximately 200 troops deployed to the Al-Tanf base near the southeastern borders with Jordan and Iraq, Esper said that he was referring to northeastern Syria, where Trump has instructed the Pentagon to secure oil fields. There would be "600-ish" troops across the country, he then reiterated. Esper said that the numbers could fluctuate, particularly if European allies strengthen their presence in the country. "Things change. Events on the ground change. We could have, for example, partners and allies from Europe joining us," he said. "If they join us on the ground it may allow us the ability to redeploy further US forces out there." Trump's abrupt announcement last month that he had ordered a full troop withdrawal drew angry rebukes at home and abroad. Critics said it could allow a resurgence of the Islamic State group while leaving US-allied Kurdish fighters in Syria vulnerable to a Turkish invasion. The US president later relented in part, saying he would leave some troops in the region to protect valuable oil fields.

US to maintain around 600 troops in Syria: US defence secretary Mark Esper

Russia has begun setting up a helicopter base at a civilian airport in the north-eastern Syrian city of Qamishli, the Russian Defence Ministry's Zvezda TV channel said on Thursday, showing footage of helicopter gunships arriving there.

The new base is protected by Pantsir surface-to-air missile systems and three helicopters, including two Mi-35 gunships and a Mi-8 military transport helicopter, have already been deployed there, with more to follow.

Zvezda broadcast footage of Russian military police protecting the base. Armoured vehicles and ground support crews for the helicopters were also shown, as was a weather station and a small doctor's surgery.

"This is the first group of Russian military helicopters here in northern Syria... It's a historic moment. From this day onwards our aviation group will operate permanently at Qamishli's city airport," said Pavel Remnev, Zvezda's correspondent.

The Russian deployment comes less than a month after<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/united-states-forces-withdraw-from-key-base-in-northern-syria-257070"> US&nbsp;forces withdrawing</a> from the area were pelted with potatoes by local residents after President Donald Trump abruptly ordered them to pull back from parts of Syria.

Russia has previously started using military helicopters to patrol an area near Syria's border with Turkey in order to protect Russian military police working on the ground there.

The new base will allow them to do so more effectively, Zvezda said.

The patrols are carried out with Turkish forces and are designed to monitor an agreement struck by Moscow and Ankara after Turkey launched an offensive across its border with Syrian rebels in October, seeking to push out Kurdish YPG fighters it views as a national security threat.

Russia has begun setting up a helicopter base at a civilian airport in the north-eastern Syrian city of Qamishli, the Russian Defence Ministry's Zvezda TV channel said on Thursday, showing footage of helicopter gunships arriving there.

Russia has begun setting up a helicopter base at a civilian airport in the north-eastern Syrian city of Qamishli, the Russian Defence Ministry's Zvezda TV channel said on Thursday, showing footage of helicopter gunships arriving there. The new base is protected by Pantsir surface-to-air missile systems and three helicopters, including two Mi-35 gunships and a Mi-8 military transport helicopter, have already been deployed there, with more to follow. Zvezda broadcast footage of Russian military police protecting the base. Armoured vehicles and ground support crews for the helicopters were also shown, as was a weather station and a small doctor's surgery. "This is the first group of Russian military helicopters here in northern Syria... It's a historic moment. From this day onwards our aviation group will operate permanently at Qamishli's city airport," said Pavel Remnev, Zvezda's correspondent. The Russian deployment comes less than a month after US forces withdrawing from the area were pelted with potatoes by local residents after President Donald Trump abruptly ordered them to pull back from parts of Syria. Russia has previously started using military helicopters to patrol an area near Syria's border with Turkey in order to protect Russian military police working on the ground there. The new base will allow them to do so more effectively, Zvezda said. The patrols are carried out with Turkish forces and are designed to monitor an agreement struck by Moscow and Ankara after Turkey launched an offensive across its border with Syrian rebels in October, seeking to push out Kurdish YPG fighters it views as a national security threat.

Russia sets up helicopter base in northern Syria after US exit

Turkish forces conducting a joint patrol in northern Syria under a Russian-Turkish deal fired live rounds on Tuesday at protesters near the mainly Kurdish town of Kobani, a witness and a monitor said.

The UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights monitoring group said two people were killed and seven others injured near the town along the Syrian-Turkish border.

Turkey's military launched a <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/turkey-strikes-in-syrian-iraqi-border-ahead-of-planned-offensive-254608">cross-border offensive</a> into northeast Syria last month to target the Kurdish YPG militia in the region, seizing control of 120 km (75 miles) of land along the frontier.

Under a subsequent deal, Russia and Turkey agreed to push the YPG at least 30 km (19 miles) south of the frontier and to hold joint patrols. Ankara views the YPG as terrorists linked to a Kurdish insurgency on Turkish soil.

The Turkish Defence Ministry said a fifth joint land patrol with Russia took place in the border region on Tuesday "with due care and diligence for the safety of both civilians and our military personnel despite provocation by terrorists."

TASS news agency cited Russia's Defence Ministry as saying <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/bombings-kill-6-civilians-in-main-kurdish-city-in-syria-261463">Turkish forces</a> and Russian military police conducted the patrol north of Kobani without mentioning a shooting incident.

The witness said forces fired live rounds into the air to disperse residents who were pelting stones at the patrol in an attempt to block it. The forces then fired bullets and tear gas at the protesters, wounding three, he said.

Syrian Kurdish residents have protested during the patrols against the deal under which Turkish troops are entering the border region. The reported shooting on Tuesday appeared to be the first such incident since the patrols started last month.

The Turkish-Russian deal enabled Syrian government forces to move back into border regions held by Kurdish fighters and where the Syrian army had been absent for years.

Mustafa Bali, spokesman for the Syrian Democratic Forces, which the YPG spearheads, said in a tweet: "Turkish army is firing live bullets on Kurdish protesters and killing them in broad daylight."

Turkish forces conducting a joint patrol in northern Syria under a Russian-Turkish deal fired live rounds on Tuesday at protesters near the mainly Kurdish town of Kobani, a witness and a monitor said.

Turkish forces conducting a joint patrol in northern Syria under a Russian-Turkish deal fired live rounds on Tuesday at protesters near the mainly Kurdish town of Kobani, a witness and a monitor said. The UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights monitoring group said two people were killed and seven others injured near the town along the Syrian-Turkish border. Turkey's military launched a cross-border offensive into northeast Syria last month to target the Kurdish YPG militia in the region, seizing control of 120 km (75 miles) of land along the frontier. Under a subsequent deal, Russia and Turkey agreed to push the YPG at least 30 km (19 miles) south of the frontier and to hold joint patrols. Ankara views the YPG as terrorists linked to a Kurdish insurgency on Turkish soil. The Turkish Defence Ministry said a fifth joint land patrol with Russia took place in the border region on Tuesday "with due care and diligence for the safety of both civilians and our military personnel despite provocation by terrorists." TASS news agency cited Russia's Defence Ministry as saying Turkish forces and Russian military police conducted the patrol north of Kobani without mentioning a shooting incident. The witness said forces fired live rounds into the air to disperse residents who were pelting stones at the patrol in an attempt to block it. The forces then fired bullets and tear gas at the protesters, wounding three, he said. Syrian Kurdish residents have protested during the patrols against the deal under which Turkish troops are entering the border region. The reported shooting on Tuesday appeared to be the first such incident since the patrols started last month. The Turkish-Russian deal enabled Syrian government forces to move back into border regions held by Kurdish fighters and where the Syrian army had been absent for years. Mustafa Bali, spokesman for the Syrian Democratic Forces, which the YPG spearheads, said in a tweet: "Turkish army is firing live bullets on Kurdish protesters and killing them in broad daylight."

Turkish forces in patrol shoot at protesters in Syria's Kobani - Witness, Observatory

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/key-developments-in-turkeys-offensive-in-syria-256638">Turkey's military incursion in Syria</a> has given President Tayyip Erdogan a bump in opinion polls and exposed potential cracks in an informal political alliance that claimed surprise victories over his ruling party in local elections this year.

The operation in northeast Syria came after months of stagnant approval ratings for Erdogan, who had appeared vulnerable after his AK Party (AKP) lost control of Turkey's two biggest cities for the first time since he took power in 2003.

Opposition lawmakers told Reuters they suspected Ankara's decision to launch cross-border attacks on the Syrian Kurdish YPG militia was taken largely to revive Erdogan's political fortunes at home. The government denies any such motive.

Erdogan's popularity had come under pressure after last year's currency crisis caused a recession that sent unemployment soaring, and also from criticism by former prominent AKP members who are expected soon to launch new parties.

But some three-quarters of Turks support the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/eight-killed-in-bombing-in-turkish-controlled-northeast-syria-261218">Syrian incursion</a>, launched on October&nbsp;9, polls show, despite international condemnation, including by Ankara's NATO allies.

Erdogan's own approval rating rose last month to 48 per cent, a Metropole survey showed, its highest since shortly before the height of the currency crisis last year. His disapproval rating was at its lowest since a coup attempt in 2016.

Ankara says the YPG is a terrorist group with links to Kurdish militants at home. It has struck deals with Moscow and Washington to push back from the border region YPG fighters, who for years were US&nbsp;allies in the fight against Islamic State in Syria.

The incursion put the main opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) in a bind: its conditional support for the action put it at odds with the pro-Kurdish Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP) that helped it win the Istanbul and Ankara mayoralties.

The leftist HDP, mainly backed by Kurds who make up some 18 per cent&nbsp;of the population, is the only major party opposing the mission.

Earlier this year the HDP offered outside support to an alliance of the secularist CHP and the nationalist Iyi Party, who oppose what they see as Erdogan's authoritarianism and handed him stinging losses in March and June local elections.

Any splintering between these parties would be a further boon for Erdogan, though one CHP lawmaker said he expected their cooperation to continue.

"It is clear that the aim (of Erdogan)... is to demolish this democracy alliance that the CHP has formed... and to weaken the relationship that it has formed with Kurdish voters," said Sezgin Tanrikulu, who opposes the Syria operation.

"It has created a disenchantment but in my opinion, this is not irreparable. The period ahead of us will be a period in which... the relationship of trust will be established again."

Commenting on Erdogan's improved ratings, Lutfu Turkkan, deputy group chairman of the Iyi Party, said polling firms were confusing support for the troops with support for the president.

"The soldiers have succeeded but the politicians and diplomats have yet to achieve something (in Syria)," he said.

But Turkkan also dismissed the HDP's criticism of the incursion. "The HDP's rhetoric on this has no meaning for us" because removing terrorists from Turkey's borders is a matter of national survival, he said.

The CHP and Iyi Party have 139 and 39 seats respectively in Turkey's 600-seat parliament. They both backed a mandate extending military operations in Syria and Iraq while the HDP, with 62 seats, opposed it as a violation of international law.

The opposition cannot afford to splinter if it hopes to challenge Erdogan on a national level given roughly half of Turks have strongly backed him for years.

A source close to Erdogan's AKP said&nbsp;"it will be extremely important who sides with whom" in the next election, adding "there is a warming" between the Iyi Party and the AKP.

Iyi Party chairwoman Meral Aksener has previously denied the two parties were getting closer.

The incursion has deepened a sense of alienation among Turkey's Kurds, especially after Ankara ousted some HDP mayors and arrested dozens of people in the country's southeast.

Underlining the CHP's dilemma, a poll shared among its members and seen by Reuters showed some 46 per cent&nbsp;of its voters either disapproved of the Syria operation or were undecided. The CHP backed the mission even while it carved out policy differences from the AKP including calling for dialogue with Damascus.

"This support (from the CHP) was a lifeline for the AKP. That was what they wanted and they got it," said HDP lawmaker Meral Danis Bestas, adding that her party would now have to decide on its future cooperation with other parties.

Turkey's military conducted two other operations in northern Syria over the last three years. Shortly after each, Turks were sent to the polls for a referendum in 2017 and for nationwide elections in 2018.

"This pattern suggests this was the main motivation for the mission," said Unal Cevikoz, the CHP's deputy chairman.

Turkey's military incursion in Syria has given President Tayyip Erdogan a bump in opinion polls and exposed potential cracks in an informal political alliance that claimed surprise victories over his ruling party in local elections this year.

Turkey's military incursion in Syria has given President Tayyip Erdogan a bump in opinion polls and exposed potential cracks in an informal political alliance that claimed surprise victories over his ruling party in local elections this year. The operation in northeast Syria came after months of stagnant approval ratings for Erdogan, who had appeared vulnerable after his AK Party (AKP) lost control of Turkey's two biggest cities for the first time since he took power in 2003. Opposition lawmakers told Reuters they suspected Ankara's decision to launch cross-border attacks on the Syrian Kurdish YPG militia was taken largely to revive Erdogan's political fortunes at home. The government denies any such motive. Erdogan's popularity had come under pressure after last year's currency crisis caused a recession that sent unemployment soaring, and also from criticism by former prominent AKP members who are expected soon to launch new parties. But some three-quarters of Turks support the Syrian incursion, launched on October 9, polls show, despite international condemnation, including by Ankara's NATO allies. Erdogan's own approval rating rose last month to 48 per cent, a Metropole survey showed, its highest since shortly before the height of the currency crisis last year. His disapproval rating was at its lowest since a coup attempt in 2016. Ankara says the YPG is a terrorist group with links to Kurdish militants at home. It has struck deals with Moscow and Washington to push back from the border region YPG fighters, who for years were US allies in the fight against Islamic State in Syria. The incursion put the main opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) in a bind: its conditional support for the action put it at odds with the pro-Kurdish Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP) that helped it win the Istanbul and Ankara mayoralties. The leftist HDP, mainly backed by Kurds who make up some 18 per cent of the population, is the only major party opposing the mission. Earlier this year the HDP offered outside support to an alliance of the secularist CHP and the nationalist Iyi Party, who oppose what they see as Erdogan's authoritarianism and handed him stinging losses in March and June local elections. Any splintering between these parties would be a further boon for Erdogan, though one CHP lawmaker said he expected their cooperation to continue. "It is clear that the aim (of Erdogan)... is to demolish this democracy alliance that the CHP has formed... and to weaken the relationship that it has formed with Kurdish voters," said Sezgin Tanrikulu, who opposes the Syria operation. "It has created a disenchantment but in my opinion, this is not irreparable. The period ahead of us will be a period in which... the relationship of trust will be established again." Commenting on Erdogan's improved ratings, Lutfu Turkkan, deputy group chairman of the Iyi Party, said polling firms were confusing support for the troops with support for the president. "The soldiers have succeeded but the politicians and diplomats have yet to achieve something (in Syria)," he said. But Turkkan also dismissed the HDP's criticism of the incursion. "The HDP's rhetoric on this has no meaning for us" because removing terrorists from Turkey's borders is a matter of national survival, he said. The CHP and Iyi Party have 139 and 39 seats respectively in Turkey's 600-seat parliament. They both backed a mandate extending military operations in Syria and Iraq while the HDP, with 62 seats, opposed it as a violation of international law. The opposition cannot afford to splinter if it hopes to challenge Erdogan on a national level given roughly half of Turks have strongly backed him for years. A source close to Erdogan's AKP said "it will be extremely important who sides with whom" in the next election, adding "there is a warming" between the Iyi Party and the AKP. Iyi Party chairwoman Meral Aksener has previously denied the two parties were getting closer. The incursion has deepened a sense of alienation among Turkey's Kurds, especially after Ankara ousted some HDP mayors and arrested dozens of people in the country's southeast. Underlining the CHP's dilemma, a poll shared among its members and seen by Reuters showed some 46 per cent of its voters either disapproved of the Syria operation or were undecided. The CHP backed the mission even while it carved out policy differences from the AKP including calling for dialogue with Damascus. "This support (from the CHP) was a lifeline for the AKP. That was what they wanted and they got it," said HDP lawmaker Meral Danis Bestas, adding that her party would now have to decide on its future cooperation with other parties. Turkey's military conducted two other operations in northern Syria over the last three years. Shortly after each, Turks were sent to the polls for a referendum in 2017 and for nationwide elections in 2018. "This pattern suggests this was the main motivation for the mission," said Unal Cevikoz, the CHP's deputy chairman.

Turkey's Syria operation reveals cracks among Erdogan's political foes

Three simultaneous bombings killed at least six civilians in the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/500-troops-to-remain-in-syria-united-states-military-official-261225">Kurdish-majority city</a> of Qamishli in northeastern Syria on Monday, a Kurdish security source and a Britain-based monitor said.

There was no immediate claim for the bombings, but they occurred shortly after the Islamic State group said it was responsible for the killing the same day as a priest from the same city.

In Qamishli, an AFP correspondent saw charred cars and smoke rise from the site of the blasts.

Firefighters tried to put out the flames caused by the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/turkey-britain-france-germany-to-hold-syria-summit-260882">explosions</a>, as rescue workers carried away the victims.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights war monitor, which relies on sources inside Syria, said two car bombs and an explosives-rigged motorcycle blew up in a market and near a school in the city.

More than 20 people were wounded in the simultaneous attacks, said the Britain-based monitor said.

Watch: What's the reality on-ground in Syria?

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/whats-the-reality-on-ground-in-syria-258283/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The blasts come after IS claimed to have killed an Armenian Catholic priest from Qamishli.

The Observatory said the priest and his father were killed by gunfire as they made their way to the eastern province of Deir Ezzor to inspect the restoration of a church there.

Kurdish fighters have led the US-backed battle against IS in Syria, expelling the extremists from the last scrap of their proto-state in March.

But the jihadists have continued to claim deadly attacks in northeastern and eastern Syria ever since.

In July, IS said it was responsible for a massive truck bomb that killed at least 44 people in Qamishli.

A <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/eight-killed-in-bombing-in-turkish-controlled-northeast-syria-261218">Turkish cross-border attack</a> against Kurdish fighters on October 9 heightened fears that IS fighters could break out in mass from Kurdish jails.

But a fragile Turkish-Russian ceasefire deal has more or less halted that offensive, and seen Kurdish forces withdraw from areas along the Turkish border, except Qamishli.

Three simultaneous bombings killed at least six civilians in the Kurdish-majority city of Qamishli in northeastern Syria on Monday, a Kurdish security source and a Britain-based monitor said.

Three simultaneous bombings killed at least six civilians in the Kurdish-majority city of Qamishli in northeastern Syria on Monday, a Kurdish security source and a Britain-based monitor said. There was no immediate claim for the bombings, but they occurred shortly after the Islamic State group said it was responsible for the killing the same day as a priest from the same city. In Qamishli, an AFP correspondent saw charred cars and smoke rise from the site of the blasts. Firefighters tried to put out the flames caused by the explosions, as rescue workers carried away the victims. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights war monitor, which relies on sources inside Syria, said two car bombs and an explosives-rigged motorcycle blew up in a market and near a school in the city. More than 20 people were wounded in the simultaneous attacks, said the Britain-based monitor said. Watch: What's the reality on-ground in Syria? The blasts come after IS claimed to have killed an Armenian Catholic priest from Qamishli. The Observatory said the priest and his father were killed by gunfire as they made their way to the eastern province of Deir Ezzor to inspect the restoration of a church there. Kurdish fighters have led the US-backed battle against IS in Syria, expelling the extremists from the last scrap of their proto-state in March. But the jihadists have continued to claim deadly attacks in northeastern and eastern Syria ever since. In July, IS said it was responsible for a massive truck bomb that killed at least 44 people in Qamishli. A Turkish cross-border attack against Kurdish fighters on October 9 heightened fears that IS fighters could break out in mass from Kurdish jails. But a fragile Turkish-Russian ceasefire deal has more or less halted that offensive, and seen Kurdish forces withdraw from areas along the Turkish border, except Qamishli.

Bombings kill 6 civilians in main Kurdish city in Syria

US troop levels in <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/eight-killed-in-bombing-in-turkish-controlled-northeast-syria-261218">northern Syria</a> will probably stabilize around 500, a top American military leader said Sunday, weeks after President Donald Trump had announced a complete withdrawal.

"There will be less than 1,000, for sure," General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on ABC's "This Week." "Probably in the 500ish frame, maybe six."

Trump's abrupt announcement last month that he had ordered a full troop withdrawal drew angry rebukes at home and abroad, with critics saying it could allow a resurgence of the Islamic State group while leaving US-allied <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/everyone-deserves-second-chance-us-born-islamic-state-bride-appeals-again-to-come-home-from-syria-261101">Kurdish fighters in Syria</a> vulnerable to a Turkish invasion.

The US president later relented in part, saying he would leave some troops in the region to protect valuable oil fields.

Milley, who has commanded troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, told ABC that it was important for US troops to remain in Syria so long as IS has a presence there.

"There are still ISIS fighters in the region," he said, using an alternate term for IS. "Unless pressure is maintained unless attention is maintained on that group, there's a very real possibility there could be a re-emergence of ISIS."&nbsp;

Asked about the killing October&nbsp;26 of IS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi by a US special forces unit, Milley said it would have a "significant disruptive effect on the organization." He said the US had "a considerable amount of information on his successor," Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Quraishi.

"Where opportunities arise," Milley said, "we'll go after him."

Trump has said he wants to wind down US military entanglements abroad where possible, but Milley predicted that American troops, already in Afghanistan for 18 years, would remain there "for several more years."

He was also asked whether he knew Alexander Vindman, the army lieutenant colonel and White House Ukraine expert who has testified about his concerns over a controversial phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Milley declined to comment "on a witness to an active investigation", the House of Representatives' impeachment enquiry into Trump.

US troop levels in northern Syria will probably stabilize around 500, a top American military leader said Sunday, weeks after President Donald Trump had announced a complete withdrawal.

US troop levels in northern Syria will probably stabilize around 500, a top American military leader said Sunday, weeks after President Donald Trump had announced a complete withdrawal. "There will be less than 1,000, for sure," General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on ABC's "This Week." "Probably in the 500ish frame, maybe six." Trump's abrupt announcement last month that he had ordered a full troop withdrawal drew angry rebukes at home and abroad, with critics saying it could allow a resurgence of the Islamic State group while leaving US-allied Kurdish fighters in Syria vulnerable to a Turkish invasion. The US president later relented in part, saying he would leave some troops in the region to protect valuable oil fields. Milley, who has commanded troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, told ABC that it was important for US troops to remain in Syria so long as IS has a presence there. "There are still ISIS fighters in the region," he said, using an alternate term for IS. "Unless pressure is maintained unless attention is maintained on that group, there's a very real possibility there could be a re-emergence of ISIS." Asked about the killing October 26 of IS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi by a US special forces unit, Milley said it would have a "significant disruptive effect on the organization." He said the US had "a considerable amount of information on his successor," Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Quraishi. "Where opportunities arise," Milley said, "we'll go after him." Trump has said he wants to wind down US military entanglements abroad where possible, but Milley predicted that American troops, already in Afghanistan for 18 years, would remain there "for several more years." He was also asked whether he knew Alexander Vindman, the army lieutenant colonel and White House Ukraine expert who has testified about his concerns over a controversial phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Milley declined to comment "on a witness to an active investigation", the House of Representatives' impeachment enquiry into Trump.

'500 troops to remain in Syria,' says United States military official

A US-born woman who says she regrets having joined the Islamic State group has appealed again to come home from the refugee camp where she lives with her small son in Syria.

The government is refusing to let Hoda Muthana return to the US, arguing that she is not an American citizen.

In an interview with NBC News published Saturday, Muthana said she "regrets every single thing" done by IS, which she joined in 2014 after embracing extremist ideology while living with her family in Alabama.

"Anyone that believes in God believes that everyone deserves a second chance, no matter how harmful their sins were," Muthana said.&nbsp;

The interview was conducted in northeast Syria at the Al-Roj refugee camp, controlled by Kurdish forces, where Muthana lives with her two-year-old son Adam.

Muthana said she fears for her life because she could be targeted by people at the camp who have not renounced IS.

"I did not support the beheadings from (IS) from day 1, until now I do not support any of their crimes and suicide attacks," Muthana said.&nbsp;

The US government has repatriated several American women linked to the group, along with their children, but not Muthana.

Washington argues she is not a US citizen even though she was born in the US because she is the daughter of a diplomat serving for the Yemeni government at the time.

The children of US-based foreign diplomats do not enjoy citizenship by birthright.

Muthana has filed suit to try to return to the US. She had travelled to Syria on a US passport.

"I am a citizen and I have papers to prove it. I am as American as a blond-haired blue-eyed girl and I would like to stay in my country and do American things," Muthana told NBC.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has called her a terrorist.

Muthana married three IS fighters, all of whom died in combat.

She took part actively in IS propaganda, according to the Counter Extremism Project.

She had urged jihadists in America to "go on drive-bys, and spill all of their blood."

Muthana also hailed an attack in 2015 in France against the offices of the magazine Charlie Hebdo, which left 12 people dead.

In the interview with NBC she said "it was an ideology that really was just a phase." She refused to discuss those earlier comments.

She said she is willing to face the US justice system if she is allowed to return.

A US-born woman who says she regrets having joined the Islamic State group has appealed again to come home from the refugee camp where she lives with her small son in Syria.

A US-born woman who says she regrets having joined the Islamic State group has appealed again to come home from the refugee camp where she lives with her small son in Syria. The government is refusing to let Hoda Muthana return to the US, arguing that she is not an American citizen. In an interview with NBC News published Saturday, Muthana said she "regrets every single thing" done by IS, which she joined in 2014 after embracing extremist ideology while living with her family in Alabama. "Anyone that believes in God believes that everyone deserves a second chance, no matter how harmful their sins were," Muthana said. The interview was conducted in northeast Syria at the Al-Roj refugee camp, controlled by Kurdish forces, where Muthana lives with her two-year-old son Adam. Muthana said she fears for her life because she could be targeted by people at the camp who have not renounced IS. "I did not support the beheadings from (IS) from day 1, until now I do not support any of their crimes and suicide attacks," Muthana said. The US government has repatriated several American women linked to the group, along with their children, but not Muthana. Washington argues she is not a US citizen even though she was born in the US because she is the daughter of a diplomat serving for the Yemeni government at the time. The children of US-based foreign diplomats do not enjoy citizenship by birthright. Muthana has filed suit to try to return to the US. She had travelled to Syria on a US passport. "I am a citizen and I have papers to prove it. I am as American as a blond-haired blue-eyed girl and I would like to stay in my country and do American things," Muthana told NBC. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has called her a terrorist. Muthana married three IS fighters, all of whom died in combat. She took part actively in IS propaganda, according to the Counter Extremism Project. She had urged jihadists in America to "go on drive-bys, and spill all of their blood." Muthana also hailed an attack in 2015 in France against the offices of the magazine Charlie Hebdo, which left 12 people dead. In the interview with NBC she said "it was an ideology that really was just a phase." She refused to discuss those earlier comments. She said she is willing to face the US justice system if she is allowed to return.

'Everyone deserves second chance': US-born Islamic State bride appeals again to come home from Syria

Eight people were killed when a bomb exploded on Sunday in an area of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/turkey-britain-france-germany-to-hold-syria-summit-260882">northeast Syria</a> controlled by Turkish troops and their Syrian rebel allies, Turkey's defence ministry and local emergency workers said.

The ministry said the bombing, which it blamed on the Kurdish YPG militia, took place southeast of the Syrian town of Tel Abyad which Turkey captured in a military offensive that began one month ago.

Turkey halted its military advance when it struck deals with the United States and Russia calling for the YPG to be moved at least 30 km&nbsp;away from Syria's border with Turkey.

The village of Suluk, where Sunday's explosion took place, is around 10 km south of the border. A small truck exploded outside a bakery there, an emergency worker said.

Turkish soldiers and Syrian rebel fighters launched the incursion to clear the border region of the YPG, which Ankara has designated a terrorist group because of its ties to Kurdish militants waging an insurgency in southeast Turkey.

The offensive faced international criticism over fears that it could undermine efforts to prevent Islamic State re-emerging in Syria and unleash another humanitarian crisis in Syria's eight-year conflict.

The YPG was the lead force in the Syrian Democratic Forces, Washington's main ally in the battle against the Islamic State in Syria. US&nbsp;President Donald Trump has faced domestic criticism for announcing a troop withdrawal which was seen as a green light for Turkey's incursion.

Erdogan has said both Moscow and Washington have failed to meet their commitments under <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/syrian-talks-to-reconvene-in-geneva-on-november-25-un-envoy-260850">last month's agreements</a> for the YPG to withdraw from the border, and has said Turkey could resume its offensive if terms are not adhered to.

He spoke to Russian President Vladimir Putin by phone on Saturday and is due to meet Trump in Washington on Wednesday.

Eight people were killed when a bomb exploded on Sunday in an area of northeast Syria controlled by Turkish troops and their Syrian rebel allies, Turkey's defence ministry and local emergency workers said.

Eight people were killed when a bomb exploded on Sunday in an area of northeast Syria controlled by Turkish troops and their Syrian rebel allies, Turkey's defence ministry and local emergency workers said. The ministry said the bombing, which it blamed on the Kurdish YPG militia, took place southeast of the Syrian town of Tel Abyad which Turkey captured in a military offensive that began one month ago. Turkey halted its military advance when it struck deals with the United States and Russia calling for the YPG to be moved at least 30 km away from Syria's border with Turkey. The village of Suluk, where Sunday's explosion took place, is around 10 km south of the border. A small truck exploded outside a bakery there, an emergency worker said. Turkish soldiers and Syrian rebel fighters launched the incursion to clear the border region of the YPG, which Ankara has designated a terrorist group because of its ties to Kurdish militants waging an insurgency in southeast Turkey. The offensive faced international criticism over fears that it could undermine efforts to prevent Islamic State re-emerging in Syria and unleash another humanitarian crisis in Syria's eight-year conflict. The YPG was the lead force in the Syrian Democratic Forces, Washington's main ally in the battle against the Islamic State in Syria. US President Donald Trump has faced domestic criticism for announcing a troop withdrawal which was seen as a green light for Turkey's incursion. Erdogan has said both Moscow and Washington have failed to meet their commitments under last month's agreements for the YPG to withdraw from the border, and has said Turkey could resume its offensive if terms are not adhered to. He spoke to Russian President Vladimir Putin by phone on Saturday and is due to meet Trump in Washington on Wednesday.

Eight killed in bombing in Turkish-controlled northeast Syria

syria

Syria, News on Syria, stories on Syria, articles on Syria, Syria stories at Wion, Syria news, Syria latest news