US plans to shift military assets to Syria in Russia deal

[webfact]

US plans to shift military assets to Syria in Russia deal

By LOLITA C. BALDOR

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. military will have to shift surveillance aircraft from other regions and increase the number of intelligence analysts to coordinate attacks with Russia under the Syria cease-fire deal partly in order to target militants the U.S. has largely spared, senior officials say.

 

Senior defense and military officials told The Associated Press that they are sorting out how the U.S.-Russia military partnership will take shape and how that will change where U.S. equipment and people will be deployed. They said, however, that they will need to take assets from other parts of the world, because U.S. military leaders don't want to erode the current U.S.-led coalition campaign against the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria.

 

More military planners and targeting experts will be needed to identify and approve airstrikes against the al-Qaida-linked Jabhat Fatah al-Sham. The U.S. has rarely bombed the group, previously known as the Nusra Front, and the targeting is trickier because the militants are often intermingled with other U.S.-backed Syrian rebels.

 

Making matters more complicated are U.S. military concerns about Russian targeting. Unlike the U.S., which uses precision-guided munitions, Moscow has predominantly used so-called dumb bombs in its airstrikes over Syria.

 

The Syria cease-fire deal struck by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is designed to pause the civil war so that the superpowers' militaries can be jointly concentrated against the Islamic extremist groups operating within the chaos on the ground. The concerns reflect the U.S. military's broader skepticism about partnering with Russia, which it says it distrusts.

 

Senior U.S. defense and military officials familiar with the planning spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to talk about the matter publicly.

 

Under the deal, if the cease-fire holds for seven days and humanitarian deliveries are allowed into areas besieged by the Syrian army, the U.S. and Russia would set up a so-called Joint Implementation Center to focus on the militants and share basic targeting data.

State Department spokesman Mark Toner acknowledged the skepticism.

 

"I don't think that anyone in the U.S. government is necessarily taking at face value Russia's or certainly not the Syrian regime's commitment to this arrangement," Toner said. "I also think some of the comments from the Department of Defense were just about speaking to the fact that there's logistical challenges of setting up the JIC (joint center) and coordinating these airstrikes and that's going to require additional effort and additional time."

 

He added, however, "What really matters here is that the president of the United States supports this agreement, and our system of government works in such a way that everyone follows what the president says."

 

U.S. defense officials said they have begun working out some of the details, even though they are hamstrung by existing U.S. law that prohibits any military-to-military relations with Russia, as a result of Moscow's annexation of the Crimea region of Ukraine.

 

Defense Secretary Ash Carter must submit a waiver to Congress along with a report detailing why military cooperation with Russia is necessary. U.S. officials said Carter hasn't done that yet, and he likely won't until the required cease-fire and humanitarian aid conditions are met for the seven days.

 

Until then, officials said the U.S. military team setting up the JIC will not be able to meet with their Russian counterparts. The U.S. officials laid out a number of questions that must be resolved before any targeting could start, including how much control either country may have over strikes taken by the other, how will the review process unfold, do either have a veto over any target, and who would be the final arbiter in any disagreements.

 

Other officials have said they believe there is no veto authority on either side, and that the U.S. would bear no responsibility if a Russian strike kills civilians. And they have made it clear that the U.S. would end the cooperation if Russia violates the agreement and kills civilians or U.S. allies.

 

A key question will be where the military will get the additional surveillance aircraft needed. Drones, in particular, are in high demand around the world, and commanders in volatile regions including Asia and the Middle East, won't be eager to give up theirs.

 

The U.S. hasn't targeted much in some portions of Syria, including around Aleppo and regions where al-Qaida-linked militants are centered. The additional surveillance and analysis will be needed to identify and vet those targets to ensure friendly forces and innocent people aren't mixed in.

 

Military officials said that even once the center is set up, airstrikes won't start happening immediately. They said it will take time to share and analyze the recommended target data and make certain that innocent civilians or allies aren't hit.

 

It can take weeks for a particular enemy target to get approved and added to the air tasking order that the U.S.-led coalition uses to assign airstrikes in Iraq and Syria.

___

AP Diplomatic Writer Matthew Lee contributed to this report.

 

-- © Associated Press 2016-09-16

[xineohp]

US foreign policy has always been the subject of jokes and disbelief but this latest move defies logic and understanding. 

[ddavidovsky]

The Russians have really outsmarted the US on Syria policy. Now the US is reduced to tagging along - a suitably humiliating lesson for them, if only they were able to admit it.

 

Btw, notable how there's no more talk of bringing down Assad. They seem to have completed that U-turn, though, again, they would probably deny it.

[craigt3365]

9 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

The Russians have really outsmarted the US on Syria policy. Now the US is reduced to tagging along - a suitably humiliating lesson for them, if only they were able to admit it.

 

Btw, notable how there's no more talk of bringing down Assad. They seem to have completed that U-turn, though, again, they would probably deny it.

Not so sure outsmarted is the right answer.  The US doesn't want to get involved.  Nothing in it for them.  Syria is critical to Russia, so they are heavily involved.  Makes sense.

 

Regarding Assad, quite a few articles about how Putin might throw Assad under the bus when this is all over.  Who knows.  But it's a mess for sure.  Syria will never move forward with Assad still in control.  Over 1/2 the country hates him.

[Usernames]

Wasn't this what Trump recommended in the first place?  And Obama, Hillary, and all the "experts" rejected out of hand?  

[craigt3365]

11 minutes ago, Usernames said:

Wasn't this what Trump recommended in the first place?  And Obama, Hillary, and all the "experts" rejected out of hand?  

Not sure what you are talking about.  Trump is only a candidate, and has only been "involved" in politics for a short amount of time.  The mess in Syria started quite some time ago.

[Usernames]

4 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Not sure what you are talking about.  Trump is only a candidate, and has only been "involved" in politics for a short amount of time.  The mess in Syria started quite some time ago.

 

http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/trump-doubles-down-let-russia-lead-in-syria/

[geriatrickid]

19 minutes ago, Usernames said:

Wasn't this what Trump recommended in the first place?  And Obama, Hillary, and all the "experts" rejected out of hand?  

 

No.

[craigt3365]

10 minutes ago, Usernames said:

 

http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/trump-doubles-down-let-russia-lead-in-syria/

He's a presidential candidate.  He has no power.  Even if elected, he can't just do what he wants.  Luckily...

[Usernames]

1 minute ago, craigt3365 said:

He's a presidential candidate.  He has no power.  Even if elected, he can't just do what he wants.  Luckily...

 

Well, in this case, he wanted to keep us out of a direct confrontation with Russia and let Russia assume all the risks in Syria, which, upon months and months of review--and after condemning the very presence of the Russians in Syria as unacceptable and destablizing--the current administration has finally accepted as a good idea.  Luckily . . .

[Credo]

The fight has never been with Assad on the US side.   Assad is a side issue.   The fight has been with ISIS which had control of large stretches of Syria.   

 

There has been no significant change in policy direction on Syria.   

 

When ISIS is routed from Syria and Iraq, it will reconstitute itself under another acronym or many of the fighters will return to Western countries and raise havoc.   

 

[craigt3365]

17 minutes ago, Usernames said:

 

Well, in this case, he wanted to keep us out of a direct confrontation with Russia and let Russia assume all the risks in Syria, which, upon months and months of review--and after condemning the very presence of the Russians in Syria as unacceptable and destablizing--the current administration has finally accepted as a good idea.  Luckily . . .

Not sure they've accepted it as a good idea.  Only time will tell if it works out or not.  Hopefully it will, as Syria is a mess.

 

[craigt3365]

2 minutes ago, Credo said:

The fight has never been with Assad on the US side.   Assad is a side issue.   The fight has been with ISIS which had control of large stretches of Syria.   

 

There has been no significant change in policy direction on Syria.   

 

When ISIS is routed from Syria and Iraq, it will reconstitute itself under another acronym or many of the fighters will return to Western countries and raise havoc.   

 

I was kinda shocked when I read this.  Many are from Russia, but seems a lot from Europe.  Crazy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/29/iraq-and-syria-how-many-foreign-fighters-are-fighting-for-isil/

Quote

There are approximately 6,000 people from Europe - with the most fighters leaving France, Germany and the UK.

 

Yes, scary times ahead.

[Publicus]

42 minutes ago, Usernames said:

Wasn't this what Trump recommended in the first place?  And Obama, Hillary, and all the "experts" rejected out of hand?  

 

This has been in the works for a time.

 

Nor is it what Trump is trying to sell to the American people. Trump recognises Putin taking possession of Crimea by force, changing the borders of Europe by force, Putin's support of Iran against President Obama, and of the CCP Dictators in Beijing. Trump wants Russia to hack USA political party offices.

 

Putin knows he's going to have to concede that Assad & Co. must and shall be removed, relocated, taken care of if there's to be an even remotely credible Syria again. All of Putin's bombers and all of Putin's men can't put Assad & Co. back together again.

 

It is going to turn out very differently from what the Putin fanboyz are seeing in the present coordinated US-Russian approach. It is equally in each side's interest to commiserate in the Syria chaos to make it more manageable. 

 

The one thing Putin and Washington know is that, as Syria becomes more manageable Assad & Co. are goners. No way that family could remain in control of the remains of Syria to rebuild it in any respect. Anyone who might trust Trump The Ignoramus to manage or to give a new direction to the Syria mess would be as confused as is Trump himself, if not more so. 

[tonbridgebrit]

So, Washington has decided to get together with Russia and attack the Al-Qaeda guys at Jabhat Fatah al-Sham.  These people were previously called the Al-Nusra Front. As in, Al-Qaeda's branch in Syria.

Would it have been a better idea if Washington had of bombed the Al-Nusra Front EARLIER ?

Also, the Al-Nusra Front in Syria was previously being supported by Washington, Washington is now bombing these guys.

 

[Usernames]

36 minutes ago, Publicus said:

 

This has been in the works for a time.

 

Nor is it what Trump is trying to sell to the American people. Trump recognises Putin taking possession of Crimea by force, changing the borders of Europe by force, Putin's support of Iran against President Obama, and of the CCP Dictators in Beijing. Trump wants Russia to hack USA political party offices.

 

Putin knows he's going to have to concede that Assad & Co. must and shall be removed, relocated, taken care of if there's to be an even remotely credible Syria again. All of Putin's bombers and all of Putin's men can't put Assad & Co. back together again.

 

It is going to turn out very differently from what the Putin fanboyz are seeing in the present coordinated US-Russian approach. It is equally in each side's interest to commiserate in the Syria chaos to make it more manageable. 

 

The one thing Putin and Washington know is that, as Syria becomes more manageable Assad & Co. are goners. No way that family could remain in control of the remains of Syria to rebuild it in any respect. Anyone who might trust Trump The Ignoramus to manage or to give a new direction to the Syria mess would be as confused as is Trump himself, if not more so. 

 

Sure get rid of Assad, and all problems will be solved.  Just like when the US rid Iraq of Saddam and Libya of Gaddafi.  Brilliant people in the White House and State Department.  Sure.

[tonbridgebrit]

42 minutes ago, Publicus said:

 

This has been in the works for a time.

 

Nor is it what Trump is trying to sell to the American people. Trump recognises Putin taking possession of Crimea by force, changing the borders of Europe by force, Putin's support of Iran against President Obama, and of the CCP Dictators in Beijing. Trump wants Russia to hack USA political party offices.

 

Putin knows he's going to have to concede that Assad & Co. must and shall be removed, relocated, taken care of if there's to be an even remotely credible Syria again. All of Putin's bombers and all of Putin's men can't put Assad & Co. back together again.

 

It is going to turn out very differently from what the Putin fanboyz are seeing in the present coordinated US-Russian approach. It is equally in each side's interest to commiserate in the Syria chaos to make it more manageable. 

 

The one thing Putin and Washington know is that, as Syria becomes more manageable Assad & Co. are goners. No way that family could remain in control of the remains of Syria to rebuild it in any respect. Anyone who might trust Trump The Ignoramus to manage or to give a new direction to the Syria mess would be as confused as is Trump himself, if not more so. 

"This has been in the works for a time" ??  

How long has this been in the works ?  A few months ? A few years ? 
Roughly what point in time did Washington reckon it would be a good idea to bomb the Al-Qaeda guys in Syria ?  Washington has allowed "foreign aid" to support the Al-Qaeda guys in Syria. So, what's caused this new strategy of bombing them now ?



"Putin knows he's going to have to concede that Assad & Co. must and shall be removed ".  Really ?  How about, as far as Putin is concerned, the important thing is, is that Russia has a foothold in Syria ?

 

Edited September 16, 2016 by tonbridgebrit
Icon mistake

[craigt3365]

16 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

So, Washington has decided to get together with Russia and attack the Al-Qaeda guys at Jabhat Fatah al-Sham.  These people were previously called the Al-Nusra Front. As in, Al-Qaeda's branch in Syria.

Would it have been a better idea if Washington had of bombed the Al-Nusra Front EARLIER ?

Also, the Al-Nusra Front in Syria was previously being supported by Washington, Washington is now bombing these guys.

From the article:

Quote

The U.S. has rarely bombed the group, previously known as the Nusra Front, and the targeting is trickier because the militants are often intermingled with other U.S.-backed Syrian rebels.

No easy answers here.

[craigt3365]

9 minutes ago, Usernames said:

 

Sure get rid of Assad, and all problems will be solved.  Just like when the US rid Iraq of Saddam and Libya of Gaddafi.  Brilliant people in the White House and State Department.  Sure.

Syria is nothing like Iraq or Libya.  Completely different.

[tonbridgebrit]

2 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

From the article:

No easy answers here.

Craigt3365, I think this report, like so much of mainstream media, refuses to blatantly say what has actually happened.

Them rebels in Syria, there are the ISIS rebels, and there are rebels who are NOT ISIS.  Them rebels who are not ISIS, well, the Al-Nusra Front was the most effective group of all. Washington allowed foreign aid to get to the Al-Nusra Front, yes, Washington was backing them. The media doesn't actually want to say that a group that was previously backed and supported, well, the same group is now being bombed.

 

 

[craigt3365]

10 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Craigt3365, I think this report, like so much of mainstream media, refuses to blatantly say what has actually happened.

Them rebels in Syria, there are the ISIS rebels, and there are rebels who are NOT ISIS.  Them rebels who are not ISIS, well, the Al-Nusra Front was the most effective group of all. Washington allowed foreign aid to get to the Al-Nusra Front, yes, Washington was backing them. The media doesn't actually want to say that a group that was previously backed and supported, well, the same group is now being bombed.

Agree with what you've said.   Though this has been widely discussed in the mainstream media.  It's a complicated mess.  One not easily understood by us keyboard warriors!

[Publicus]

25 minutes ago, Usernames said:

 

Sure get rid of Assad, and all problems will be solved.  Just like when the US rid Iraq of Saddam and Libya of Gaddafi.  Brilliant people in the White House and State Department.  Sure.

 

Getting rid of Assad & Co. is the prerequisite and nothing more than that. Can't begin to start anything different or new while Assad & Co. remain in power. It's as plain as day to see and to know.

 

Putin was not involved in Lybia nor did Putin have to rely on Gaddafi for anything. Syria has the Russian base at the eastern Med, between the Suez Canal and the Bosporus Strait of Turkey. Close to Nato air and naval bases in Italy.

 

There is a point to knocking off (in one way or another) petty tyrant dictators and terrorist leaders one after the other over not such a long period of time. It's a business in which one does not have friends, only temporary practical and pragmatic relations during which you never sit with your back to the door. 

 

Syria needs to play itself out at this point so youse guyz over there need to hold your horses on this one.

[tonbridgebrit]

4 minutes ago, Publicus said:

 

Getting rid of Assad & Co. is the prerequisite and nothing more than that. Can't begin to start anything different or new while Assad & Co. remain in power. It's as plain as day to see and to know.

 

Putin was not involved in Lybia nor did Putin have to rely on Gaddafi for anything. Syria has the Russian base at the eastern Med, between the Suez Canal and the Bosporus Strait of Turkey. Close to Nato air and naval bases in Italy.

 

There is a point to knocking off (in one way or another) petty tyrant dictators and terrorist leaders one after the other over not such a long period of time. It's a business in which one does not have friends, only temporary practical and pragmatic relations during which you never sit with your back to the door. 

 

Syria needs to play itself out at this point so youse guyz over there need to hold your horses on this one.

Publicus, it's NOT just ISIS who are rebelling against Assad.  There's a whole load of guys who are NOT ISIS who are also rebelling against Assad.  You do accept, right, that those rebels who are not ISIS, well, the Al-Nusra Front is the most effective group of all ?

You're claiming that it is of huge importance that Assad is removed ?  Does Washington reckon this ?  Assad is still there. How about, just carry on directly or in-directly supporting the Al-Nusra Front, Al-Qaeda's branch in Syria, and do this until Assad is removed ?

I mean, the Al-Nusra Front has not yet completed it's job, it's job is to remove Assad. Why remove Al-Nusra Front when they haven't yet completed the job ?


Actually, Publicus, I can see a small problem here. Bombing the Al-Nusra Front and removing them might not be easy. Al-Nusra Front are experienced fighters, they've been fighting against Assad for ages.  There's ISIS, people have been bombing ISIS for ages, and ISIS are still there.  Maybe the Al-Nusra Front will be just as hard to remove as ISIS ??
 
 

[craigt3365]

Many rebels are not associated with IS.  They are just against Assad.  Sadly, they won't accept his long term involvement in Syria.  Never happen.  They won't accept anything less.  So until he is removed, the civil war will continue.  The problems in Syria are not all about IS.  It's also about the civil war.  Which created an opportunity for IS.  Just like in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, etc.

[tonbridgebrit]

On 16/09/2016 at 5:25 AM, Publicus said:

 

Getting rid of Assad & Co. is the prerequisite and nothing more than that. Can't begin to start anything different or new while Assad & Co. remain in power. It's as plain as day to see and to know.

 

Putin was not involved in Lybia nor did Putin have to rely on Gaddafi for anything. Syria has the Russian base at the eastern Med, between the Suez Canal and the Bosporus Strait of Turkey. Close to Nato air and naval bases in Italy.

 

There is a point to knocking off (in one way or another) petty tyrant dictators and terrorist leaders one after the other over not such a long period of time. It's a business in which one does not have friends, only temporary practical and pragmatic relations during which you never sit with your back to the door. 

 

Syria needs to play itself out at this point so youse guyz over there need to hold your horses on this one.

Those who think that Assad is going to go are living in a dream world.  The Al-Nusra Front (Al-Qaeda in Syria) were a major fighting force, trying to remove Assad. They were backed by Washington, but Washington has seen the futility of supporting these guys. Washington has now decide to not back them, and to bomb them instead.

Who is the other big rebel against Assad ?  Oh, ISIS, yes, them guys. And Washington and Russia are now co-operating with each other to bomb ISIS. 

So, Assad's enemies, the rebels against Assad, they're being bombed by Washington and Russia.


"Syria needs to play itself out at this point".
Yes, Syria is playing itself out. The Al-Nusra Front will hopefully not last long. Without Washington's support, and with Washington bombing them, the Al-Nusra Front will surely be removed ?  How long can ISIS survive with all these bomb attacks from Washington and ISIS ?

As for the theory that Washington has decided to support ISIS, surely, that's absurd ? 

 

 

[craigt3365]

7 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Those who think that Assad is going to go are living in a dream world.  The Al-Nusra Front (Al-Qaeda in Syria) were a major fighting force, trying to remove Assad. They were backed by Washington, but Washington has seen the futility of supporting these guys. Washington has now decide to not back them, and to bomb them instead.

Who is the other big rebel against Assad ?  Oh, ISIS, yes, them guys. And Washington and Russia are now co-operating with each other to bomb ISIS. 

So, Assad's enemies, the rebels against Assad, they're being bombed by Washington and Russia.

"Syria needs to play itself out at this point".
Yes, Syria is playing itself out. The Al-Nusra Front will hopefully not last long. Without Washington's support, and with Washington bombing them, the Al-Nusra Front will surely be removed ?  How long can ISIS survive with all these bomb attacks from Washington and ISIS ?

As for the theory that Washington has decided to support ISIS, surely, that's absurd ? 

It's a mess.  One reason all bombing should stop.  And all foreign powers should leave.

 

I seriously doubt rebels who are not aligned with ISIS are being bombed by the Western coalition.  No way.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front

 

Quote

 

On 10 December 2012, the U.S. designated Nusra a foreign terrorist organization and an alias of Al Qaeda in Iraq. That decision made it illegal for Americans to deal financially with Nusra. Days earlier, the American ambassador to Syria, R. Ford, had said: "Extremist groups like Jabhat al-Nusra are a problem, an obstacle to finding the political solution that Syria’s going to need".^[85]

.............

At least one Arab government^[181] has accused Qatar of helping al-Nusra.^[182] According to the Al-Ahram Weekly, "The Saudis and Qataris are to provide funding for 40 per cent of the [Army of Conquest] coalition’s needs".^[183] JaN has been cited as an example of groups in the Syrian Civil War that Saudi Arabia has supported that are "most in line with Wahhabi beliefs".^[2] The US Government has been sending weapons to rebels in Syria since at least late 2013,^[184] and perhaps as early as 2012,^[185] during the beginning phases of the conflict. These weapons have been reportedly falling into hands of extremists, such as al-Nusra and ISIL.^{[186][187][188]}

 

 

Place blame properly, please.

[Publicus]

On 9/20/2016 at 3:34 AM, tonbridgebrit said:

Those who think that Assad is going to go are living in a dream world.  The Al-Nusra Front (Al-Qaeda in Syria) were a major fighting force, trying to remove Assad. They were backed by Washington, but Washington has seen the futility of supporting these guys. Washington has now decide to not back them, and to bomb them instead.

Who is the other big rebel against Assad ?  Oh, ISIS, yes, them guys. And Washington and Russia are now co-operating with each other to bomb ISIS. 

So, Assad's enemies, the rebels against Assad, they're being bombed by Washington and Russia.


"Syria needs to play itself out at this point".
Yes, Syria is playing itself out. The Al-Nusra Front will hopefully not last long. Without Washington's support, and with Washington bombing them, the Al-Nusra Front will surely be removed ?  How long can ISIS survive with all these bomb attacks from Washington and ISIS ?

As for the theory that Washington has decided to support ISIS, surely, that's absurd ? 

 

 

 

US is bombing Al Nusra and Assad's troops.

 

Al Nusra has separated from Al Qaeda while Assad and Russia bombed the supply convoy the other day (no one says but everyone knows). The convoy being decimated busted up the cease-fire agreed by Russia and U.S., which means Assad's forces retaking Aleppo have to push on instead of resupply and take a breather.

 

Russia and US are bombing Daesh.

 

Dictators in Beijing have come down openly in support of Assad because Islamic militants across Asia are increasing their opposition to everything Chinese until the Muslims of the Xijiang region in far west CCP adjoining some of the stan countries get peace and independence. Neither of which will be granted by Beijing, which means Xi Jinping's New Silk Road project to the ME and Europe will have to fight its way through terrorists every step of the planned three routes.

 

Under current fighting in Syria, changing alliances, supported forces, neither Putin nor Assad can prevail and CCP Dictators in Beijing are the new kids on the block who can't either sing or dance. Neither will they be doing any shooting.

 

The up side of this is that out of confusion emerges chaos. All of it centered in Syria. Get back to me on it all ok?