Syria players’ next steps hinge on US withdrawal plans

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Military Policy ◽  
Content Type ◽  
North East ◽  
The North ◽  
Us Military

Significance Confusion still reigns over US military policy on Syria two months after US President Donald Trump’s announcement of a withdrawal. Washington is seeking a deal between Kurdish elements of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) -- its local allies -- and Ankara, which wants to invade areas of the north-east, but has not yet found one. Impacts Ankara will not engage in any offensive that could bring Turkish troops into conflict with US forces. If the United States leaves suddenly, the Turkish army will move quickly to seize priority targets. An emphasis on Kurdish identity by SDF elements could provoke unease among the north-east’s Arabs.

Arab gripes pose challenges for Syrian Kurds’ control

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Saudi Arabia ◽  
The United States ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Power Dynamic ◽  
North East ◽  
The North ◽  
North Eastern ◽  
Underlying Causes

Subject Kurdish-Arab tensions in north-east Syria Significance Significant protests between April and June by Arab tribes in north-eastern Syria against Kurdish governance have subsided in north-eastern Syria after Saudi Arabia intervened to encourage de-escalation. However, the underlying causes, including grievances over economic distribution, heavy-handed security methods and a lack of Arab representation in decision-making, have not been resolved. Impacts A deterioration in cooperation between Arab tribes and the SDF may facilitate the operations of IS sleeper cells. The United States and partners will look for further ways to alleviate the concerns of Arab tribes in the area. Ankara and Damascus, which both have designs on the north-east, will play up protests to justify intervention. A mooted Turkish invasion of the border area could radically shift the power dynamic in the region.

Syria's Kurds may be forced to align with Damascus

2018 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Middle East ◽  
The United States ◽  
Content Type ◽  
North East ◽  
The North

Significance This follows President Donald Trump's surprise decision to withdraw troops from Syria, where Washington has been supporting the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in fighting IS. Previously, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan had threatened to invade SDF-held areas in the north-east. Impacts US credibility as a partner in the region will be substantially diminished. Russian and Iranian influence in Syria and the wider Middle East will grow. If Washington disengages from Syria at diplomatic level, a Russian-led initiative to form a constitutional committee will likely succeed. The United States will assist Turkey in moving against the PKK in Iraq.

Turkey-US talks over Syrian ‘safe zone’ will drag on

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Safe Zone ◽  
Syrian Refugees ◽  
Content Type ◽  
North East ◽  
Us Military ◽  
Military Involvement ◽  
Social Tensions ◽  
The Subject

Significance The plans are currently the subject of intensive discussions with the United States. For Erdogan, the safe zone is seen as key to boosting his flagging domestic popularity and defusing growing social tensions over Syrian refugees in Turkey. The outcome will have major repercussions not only for the future of US military involvement in Syria but also for Turkish-US bilateral ties. Impacts A final deal would help protect US Kurdish allies against Turkey, damaging Erdogan’s support among ultranationalists. A threatened unilateral Turkish invasion would be hugely costly, both politically and militarily. Erdogan cannot relocate sufficient numbers of refugees to north-east Syria to defuse domestic social tensions. Although it is content to stoke US-Turkish tensions, Russia will want to avoid Turkey increasing the Syrian territory it occupies. If his ambitions are frustrated in north-east Syria, Erdogan will compensate with a domestic crackdown on Kurds.

Prospects for Syria to end-2019

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Content Type ◽  
North East ◽  
The North ◽  
North Western

Subject Prospects for Syria to end-2019 Significance Fighting is continuing in north-western Syria's Greater Idlib region between forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad and remaining rebels, despite recent Russian claims of a negotiated ceasefire. Meanwhile, the United States has not vacated the north-east, as US President Donald Trump indicated last December. The economic gains of 2017 and 2018 are foundering amid stiffened US sanctions on both Syria and Iran, a key economic partner.

Misusing historical analogies limits US policy options

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Middle East ◽  
The United States ◽  
Policy Options ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Content Type ◽  
White House ◽  
Decision To Leave ◽  
Us Military ◽  
The Future

Significance The Vietnam analogy implies that President Joe Biden’s decision to leave Afghanistan will have deeply negative consequences for the United States. However, Afghanistan is not Vietnam and the Biden withdrawal needs to be considered within the wider context of his administration’s review of US commitments abroad. Impacts The White House will be pressured to clarify the future of other US military commitments, particularly in Iraq. Biden will seek to reassure allies, particularly those in NATO, that his commitment to multilateralism will not diminish. Biden may seek an opportunity for a military show of force, possibly in the Middle East, to refute accusations of weakness.

scholarly journals Rethinking the Security Architecture of North East Asia

2010 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 273
Author(s):  
Michael J Kelly ◽  
Sean Watts
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
East Asia ◽  
North Korea ◽  
The United States ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Collective Security ◽  
North East ◽  
The North ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Cold War

In the aftermath of the Cold War, many began to question the continuing efficacy, or at least call for reform, of collective security structures such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the United Nations Security Council. Yet, North East Asia never enjoyed a formal, institutionalised collective security structure. As Russia and the United States recede and China emerges in North East Asia, this article questions whether now is the time to consider such an arrangement. Financially, Japan and South Korea are locked into a symbiotic relationship with China (as is the United States), while the government in Beijing continues to militarise and lay territorial and maritime claims to large areas of the region. Moreover, the regime in North Korea, with its new nuclear capabilities, remains unpredictable. Consequently, central components to the question of collective security in North East Asia are the equally vexing questions of what to do about North Korea and whether a new formalised security arrangement would include or exclude the People's Republic of China.

Codification and Automation of Psychiatric Data: the CAPRICE System

1973 ◽  
Vol 123 (575) ◽  
pp. 471-474 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Valentine
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Clinical History ◽  
The United States ◽  
Check List ◽  
North East ◽  
The North ◽  
Patient’S Experience ◽  
Comprehensive Listing ◽  
Psychiatric State

In the United States of America, many centres are now running automated data programmes in the psychiatric field (Kline and Laska, 1968; Ulett and Sletten, 1971). In Britain, such developments have been much more restricted; prominent examples however are the North-East Scotland psychiatric register, and the Maudsley Hospital—Institute of Psychiatry check-list, together with the Camberwell register. As a clinical itemization, the ‘Present Psychiatric State’ (Wing et al., 1967) presents a comprehensive listing of over 400 symptoms, the evaluation being confined to the previous four weeks of the patient's experience. This is a valuable research tool, but for routine clinical history requirements it would be both too detailed and, by definition, too limited in scope.

Syria action risks growing terrorism threat in Russia

2015 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Islamic State ◽  
North Caucasus ◽  
Security Cooperation ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The North ◽  
Terrorism Threat ◽  
State Group

Subject Terrorism risks to Russia. Significance The Islamic State group (ISG) called for jihad against Russia and the United States on October 13. ISG regards Moscow and Washington as fighting a 'crusader war' against Muslims. Concern in Russia is growing that President Vladimir Putin's Syrian intervention will increase the terrorism threat inside the country. Impacts Exodus of radicals to fight with ISG has improved the security situation in the North Caucasus but many may seek to return to attack Russia. Chechen leader Kadyrov's power will grow if North Caucasus terrorism increases, as Moscow will need him to help restore order. Russia will push for closer security cooperation with Western agencies, the Kremlin using the threat as an argument for defending Damascus.

Prospects for Mexico and Central America to end-2017

2017 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Central America ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The North ◽  
And Migration ◽  
Business As Usual

Subject Prospects for Mexico and Central America to end-2017. Significance The economies of Mexico and Central America will maintain a ‘business as usual’ stance until renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) formally starts later in the year. Growth momentum in the region is therefore likely to be maintained for the rest of 2017. Nonetheless, threats to trade and migration links with the United States, and to remittance income, will drive uncertainty.

India-Pakistan tensions will hit US military strategy

2018 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Indian Ocean ◽  
The United States ◽  
Military Strategy ◽  
Military Cooperation ◽  
Security Risks ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Us Military ◽  
The Indian Ocean ◽  
Support Fund

Subject Strategic entanglement of India, Pakistan and the United States. Significance Washington is slashing Coalition Support Fund (CSF) and Foreign Military Financing (FMF) payments to Islamabad, in the belief that Pakistan harbours the very militants that the United States is fighting in Afghanistan. Washington envisions deeper military cooperation overall with Delhi, which accuses Pakistan of sponsoring militants who act against India. Islamabad is being driven closer to Washington’s rival Beijing. Impacts Pakistan will step up efforts to complete an anti-militant fence on the disputed border with Afghanistan. India is likely to resist any calls from the United States to begin joint patrols in the Indian Ocean. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) will face security risks from Islamist militants and Baloch separatists.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document