U.S. sends Marines to support Raqqa assault

[webfact]

Syrian force a "few weeks" from Raqqa, U.S. Marines deploy

By Tom Perry

REUTERS

 

A U.S. fighter walks down a ladder from a barricade, north of Raqqacity, Syria, November 2016. REUTERS/Rodi Said

 

BEIRUT (Reuters) - U.S.-backed Syrian forces said on Thursday they were closing in on Islamic State-held Raqqa and expected to reach the city outskirts in a few weeks, as a U.S. Marines artillery unit deployed to help the campaign.

 

The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a militia alliance including the Kurdish YPG, is the main U.S. partner in the war against Islamic State in Syria. Since November it has been working with the U.S.-led coalition to encircle Raqqa.

 

SDF spokesman Talal Silo said: "We expect that within a few weeks there will be a siege of the city."

 

Coalition spokesman U.S. Air Force Colonel John Dorrian said the additional U.S. forces would be working with local partners in Syria - the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and the Syrian Arab Coalition - and would not have a front line role.

 

Some 500 U.S. personnel are already in Syria to help the fight against IS. A 400-strong additional deployment which arrived in recent days comprised both Marines and Army Rangers, Dorrian said, adding they were there temporarily.

 

Coalition airstrikes killed 23 civilians, including eight children, in the countryside north of Raqqa on Thursday, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a Britain-based war monitor said. The coalition said it was investigating the incident.

 

Islamic State is also being fought in Syria by the Russian-backed Syrian military, and by Syrian rebel groups fighting under the Free Syrian Army banner with Turkish backing in northern Syria and Jordanian backing in southern Syria.

 

On the other major flank of the assault on IS, Iraqi forces aim to dislodge the militant group from west Mosul within a month.

 

This week, the SDF cut the road between Raqqa and the jihadists' stronghold of Deir al-Zor province - the last main road out of the city which is bordered to the south by the Euphrates River.

 

Dorrian said the effort to isolate Raqqa was "going very very well" and could be completed in a few weeks. "Then the decision to move in can be made," he told Reuters by telephone.

 

The artillery will help "expedite the defeat of ISIS in Raqqa", he said, using another acronym for Islamic State. The Marines were armed with 155-millimetre artillery guns. Asked if they had been used yet, Dorrian said he did not believe so.

 

"We have had what I would describe as a pretty relentless air campaign to destroy enemy capabilities and to kill enemy fighters in that area already. That is something that we are going to continue and intensify with this new capability."

 

A Kurdish military source told Reuters that further U.S. reinforcements were expected to arrive in the coming days.

 

SDF RULED OUT TURKEY ROLE

 

The U.S. military alliance with the SDF and YPG has strained relations with U.S. ally Turkey, which views the YPG as an extension of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) which has waged a three-decade insurgency in Turkey.

 

Fearing deepening Kurdish influence in northern Syria, Turkey has been pressing Washington for a role in the final assault on Raqqa. SDF spokesman Silo said the SDF had ruled out that idea during a meeting with U.S. officials last month.

 

"The Turkish side is an occupation force and it cannot be allowed to occupy more Syrian land," he told Reuters. The meeting in northern Syria was attended by U.S. Senator John McCain and U.S. military officials, he said.

 

Dorrian said the Army Rangers were on a different mission to the Marines in a previously announced deployment near the city of Manbij to "create some reassurance" for Turkey and U.S. partners in Syria - a reference to the SDF.

 

Turkey says the Kurdish militia maintains a presence in Manbij. The YPG denies this.

 

Dorrian said a possible role for Turkey "remains a point of discussion at military leadership and diplomatic levels".

 

He added that a new shipment of armoured personnel carriers had been supplied to the Syrian Arab Coalition, part of the SDF which has been vetted by the U.S.-led coalition, since an earlier delivery was announced in late January.

 

(Writing by Tom Perry; Editing by Mark Heinrich and Toby Chopra)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-03-10

[Rhys]

////bring out the hogs...

[boomerangutang]

             Is this part of Trump's 'secret plan' to defeat ISIS?  He's going to find out soon what a tangled can of worms the M.East is when you start blowing things up.  He already got a taste of it when he ok'd a raid in Yemen (while he was eating dinner at a posh restaurant), and the raid went bad.  How much interest did Trump have in that raid?   Zero.  There wasn't even a 'Situation Room' to monitor what was happening.  

 

           P.S. that raid was not given the green light by Obama, because Obama wasn't convinced it was well-enough planned.  Trump has no such concerns.  Trump is impulsive and driven by his ego, his anger, his lust for adulation, and so on.   Not the characteristics you want for a Commander in Chief, particularly if you're one pair of the boots on the ground.

[Srikcir]

The Trump secret plan devised by the generals - US is bringing artillery to the field for the first time to assist anti-ISIS forces defeat of ISIS. Hardly a game changer and actually less effective in pinpoint attacks required within city areas. It will be best used if and when ISIS troops leave enmass  to escape defeat.

What has and is the major US military assistance in terms of direct involvement against ISIS has been the effective fixed wing and rotary aircraft bombing and ground support attacks that were initiated by Obama.

[craigt3365]

6 hours ago, Rhys said:

////bring out the hogs...

The hog is one bad ass plane! LOL

 

[simple1]

1 hour ago, Srikcir said:

The Trump secret plan devised by the generals - US is bringing artillery to the field for the first time to assist anti-ISIS forces defeat of ISIS. Hardly a game changer and actually less effective in pinpoint attacks required within city areas. It will be best used if and when ISIS troops leave enmass  to escape defeat.

What has and is the major US military assistance in terms of direct involvement against ISIS has been the effective fixed wing and rotary aircraft bombing and ground support attacks that were initiated by Obama.

US & French artillery had already been deployed against ISIS for the recapture of Mosul,  interesting the OP doesn't mention the French forces and artillery in Syria.

 

I was listening to a news report of an interview of a YPD officer (some of the more effective fighters against ISIS) , when asked he said the Turks are their primary enemy. Will the US eventually turn their backs on the  YPD?

Edited March 10, 2017 by simple1

[Grubster]

Do these US forces have to live under Iraqi law while there as was the stipulation if they stayed after the war.

[Grubster]

On 3/10/2017 at 1:05 PM, boomerangutang said:

             Is this part of Trump's 'secret plan' to defeat ISIS?  He's going to find out soon what a tangled can of worms the M.East is when you start blowing things up.  He already got a taste of it when he ok'd a raid in Yemen (while he was eating dinner at a posh restaurant), and the raid went bad.  How much interest did Trump have in that raid?   Zero.  There wasn't even a 'Situation Room' to monitor what was happening.  

 

           P.S. that raid was not given the green light by Obama, because Obama wasn't convinced it was well-enough planned.  Trump has no such concerns.  Trump is impulsive and driven by his ego, his anger, his lust for adulation, and so on.   Not the characteristics you want for a Commander in Chief, particularly if you're one pair of the boots on the ground.

The president is the commander in chief but he must rely on his generals and intelligence agency's to get it right, Remember Jimmy Carters failed attempt to rescue the hostages in Iran? Hardly his fault that the Military didn't know that the sand would foil the effort. Also I was not impressed that Obama didn't give strict orders to not kill Bin Ladin, I think he would have had a very interesting story to tell.

[thaibeachlovers]

58 minutes ago, Grubster said:

The president is the commander in chief but he must rely on his generals and intelligence agency's to get it right, Remember Jimmy Carters failed attempt to rescue the hostages in Iran? Hardly his fault that the Military didn't know that the sand would foil the effort. Also I was not impressed that Obama didn't give strict orders to not kill Bin Ladin, I think he would have had a very interesting story to tell.

Quite right about Carter. The generals get paid a lot of money to do their job, while the president may never have even served ( as per Obama ) a day in uniform, so can't know how to do the job. However, Obama was right not to order Bin Laden's capture, given how shakey the whole operation was. It was pretty impressive that it went as well as it did. Pity about the good Dr though.

[ilostmypassword]

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Hmmmm. The conflict in Vietnam has been going on for centuries, but it's apparent ( at least to me ) that he was referring to the US "advisors" sent by JFK to support the Diem regime.

As for the topic, IMO had Obama not withdrawn all US fighting troops in Iraq, IS would never have become the powerful army it is, and it wouldn't be necessary to be going to Raqqa at all.

In my opinion the Bush Administration should have negotiated a deal that would have allowed US troops to stay in Iraq past 2011.  But they couldn't get the Iraqis to grant US troops immunity from prosecution. So, in my opinion, Obama would have been very foolish to agree to a deal that  let US troops stay in a conflict riddled zone on the conditions that US troops could be subject to arrest and prosecution by Iraqi civil authorities.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 3/10/2017 at 8:55 PM, simple1 said:

US & French artillery had already been deployed against ISIS for the recapture of Mosul,  interesting the OP doesn't mention the French forces and artillery in Syria.

 

I was listening to a news report of an interview of a YPD officer (some of the more effective fighters against ISIS) , when asked he said the Turks are their primary enemy. Will the US eventually turn their backs on the  YPD?

Given Erdogan's behaviour recently, Turkey might even be thrown out of NATO, so I hope the US will not turn their backs. The Kurds deserve better than what they have been getting from Turkey.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

In my opinion the Bush Administration should have negotiated a deal that would have allowed US troops to stay in Iraq past 2011.  But they couldn't get the Iraqis to grant US troops immunity from prosecution. So, in my opinion, Obama would have been very foolish to agree to a deal that  let US troops stay in a conflict riddled zone on the conditions that US troops could be subject to arrest and prosecution by Iraqi civil authorities.

That's the excuse that the Obama administration gave, but politics means everything is negotiable. Anyway, without the US, the Iraq "government" of the time would not have even existed, so that would have been a powerful lever to use to get immunity.

BTW, it doesn't mean that the troops could commit crimes and get away with it- still subject to military law.

[simple1]

6 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Given Erdogan's behaviour recently, Turkey might even be thrown out of NATO, so I hope the US will not turn their backs. The Kurds deserve better than what they have been getting from Turkey.

Who knows the outcome, but I speculate the diplomatic spat will settle down as Turkey is an important partner for NATO & vice versa. Full EU membership is a different matter.

 

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

That's the excuse that the Obama administration gave, but politics means everything is negotiable. Anyway, without the US, the Iraq "government" of the time would not have even existed, so that would have been a powerful lever to use to get immunity.

BTW, it doesn't mean that the troops could commit crimes and get away with it- still subject to military law.

There's so many things wrong with your reply that it's hard to know where to begin. First off, "everything is negotiable" cuts 2 ways. An Iraqi could just as well say that about the Americans' demand for troop immunity. But more importantly you seem to have amnesia about who was the president of Iran at the time. It was  Nouri al-Maliki the hand picked choice of the Bush Administration. His chief aim was persecuting Sunnis and he feared, quite rightly, that  US troops would interfere with that program. In addition, he was very closely allied with the Iranians, who, you might be surprised to learn, share a 1458 kilometer border with Iraq. That's roughly 1458 kilometers longer than the border that the USA shares with Iraq. So no, there was virtually no chance that the US could have negotiated such an agreement. 

[craigt3365]

No easy answers here.

[keep it real]

On 2017-03-10 at 1:05 PM, boomerangutang said:

             Is this part of Trump's 'secret plan' to defeat ISIS?  He's going to find out soon what a tangled can of worms the M.East is when you start blowing things up.  He already got a taste of it when he ok'd a raid in Yemen (while he was eating dinner at a posh restaurant), and the raid went bad.  How much interest did Trump have in that raid?   Zero.  There wasn't even a 'Situation Room' to monitor what was happening.  

 

           P.S. that raid was not given the green light by Obama, because Obama wasn't convinced it was well-enough planned.  Trump has no such concerns.  Trump is impulsive and driven by his ego, his anger, his lust for adulation, and so on.   Not the characteristics you want for a Commander in Chief, particularly if you're one pair of the boots on the ground.

Meantime, NBC News reports, citing U.S. officials, that no significant intelligence was obtained from the raid, the missions brainchild being Obama,  another of his disasters.

[craigt3365]

5 minutes ago, keep it real said:

Meantime, NBC News reports, citing U.S. officials, that no significant intelligence was obtained from the raid, the missions brainchild being Obama,  another of his disasters.

Maybe you better read the entire report before posting incorrect info.  From the article:

 

Quote

Plans for the raid were begun during the Obama administration, but Obama officials declined to sign off on what officials described as a significant escalation in Yemen. Just five days in, Trump greenlighted the mission.

Another of Trump's disasters.

[ilostmypassword]

8 minutes ago, keep it real said:

Meantime, NBC News reports, citing U.S. officials, that no significant intelligence was obtained from the raid, the missions brainchild being Obama,  another of his disasters.

In the Trump administration, the buck stops with Obama.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, Grubster said:

The president is the commander in chief but he must rely on his generals and intelligence agency's to get it right, Remember Jimmy Carters failed attempt to rescue the hostages in Iran? Hardly his fault that the Military didn't know that the sand would foil the effort. Also I was not impressed that Obama didn't give strict orders to not kill Bin Ladin, I think he would have had a very interesting story to tell.

 

A bit of a problem there if the president sees himself as knowing better than his generals. And his intelligence agencies.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Given Erdogan's behaviour recently, Turkey might even be thrown out of NATO, so I hope the US will not turn their backs. The Kurds deserve better than what they have been getting from Turkey.

 

Not that I think Turkey will be "thrown out" of NATO - but if so, the US will have even less leverage, not more.

[Grubster]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Quite right about Carter. The generals get paid a lot of money to do their job, while the president may never have even served ( as per Obama ) a day in uniform, so can't know how to do the job. However, Obama was right not to order Bin Laden's capture, given how shakey the whole operation was. It was pretty impressive that it went as well as it did. Pity about the good Dr though.

Well its clear to me that they ordered him dead under any circumstance, and he was an easy capture. Like I said I think he had a story to tell about some connections he had in the US.

[Grubster]

4 hours ago, Morch said:

 

A bit of a problem there if the president sees himself as knowing better than his generals. And his intelligence agencies.

Thats true and Trump trusted his generals and intelligence on this one didn't he? Not all missions work do they?

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Grubster said:

Thats true and Trump trusted his generals and intelligence on this one didn't he? Not all missions work do they?

 

If Trump indeed knows better than the generals, and knows best about ISIS, as he claimed - he should have used this supposedly superior judgement. If his preposterous claims were never uttered, he'd be on firmer ground when trying to pass the blame to others. Trump does not seem to be the kind of person that can accommodate much responsibility for failure.

[ilostmypassword]

On 3/14/2017 at 8:23 PM, Morch said:

 

If Trump indeed knows better than the generals, and knows best about ISIS, as he claimed - he should have used this supposedly superior judgement. If his preposterous claims were never uttered, he'd be on firmer ground when trying to pass the blame to others. Trump does not seem to be the kind of person that can accommodate much responsibility for failure.

11 minutes ago, Grubster said:

What? 

 

 

[sanemax]

On 3/14/2017 at 8:23 PM, Morch said:

 

If Trump indeed knows better than the generals, and knows best about ISIS, as he claimed - he should have used this supposedly superior judgement. If his preposterous claims were never uttered, he'd be on firmer ground when trying to pass the blame to others. Trump does not seem to be the kind of person that can accommodate much responsibility for failure.

He didnt say that he said "I know more about ISIS than the generals"

He has more information than the generals

[ilostmypassword]

10 minutes ago, Grubster said:

Yes and its not about Trump and wether or not he knows more than his generals is it?

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

You mean discussing the person who is responsible for sending the marines to Raqqa to fight Isis and his knowledge of the situation is off topic?

Come to think of it, you may have a point. In the wake of the Yemen fiasco Trump said of this generals "They lost Ryan." He was referring to Ryan Owens, the Navy Seal who died. So maybe Trump isn't responsible for this one either.

 

[craigt3365]

5 hours ago, sanemax said:

He didnt say that he said "I know more about ISIS than the generals"

He has more information than the generals

He did say he knows more about ISIS than the generals.  Another lie.  NO way he has more info than the generals.  He doesn't attend security briefings, remember? LOL

[beechguy]

7 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Come to think of it, you may have a point. In the wake of the Yemen fiasco Trump said of this generals "They lost Ryan." He was referring to Ryan Owens, the Navy Seal who died. So maybe Trump isn't responsible for this one either.

 

What fiasco in Yemen? What I read, indicated that it was a normal, real world mission, without a Hollywood ending. Unfortunately, operators get killed, and the aircraft had mechanical difficulties, that caused a forced landing.

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, beechguy said:

What fiasco in Yemen? What I read, indicated that it was a normal, real world mission, without a Hollywood ending. Unfortunately, operators get killed, and the aircraft had mechanical difficulties, that caused a forced landing.

You forgot the part where Trump claimed it was a big success and that they got lots of very valuable information.

[sanemax]

4 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

He did say he knows more about ISIS than the generals.  Another lie.  

Are you aware of what Trump knows and what the generals know ?

You can not possible know what Trump knows and what the Generals know , so , you are in no position to claim that its a lie