Trump ends CIA arms support for anti-Assad Syria rebels - U.S. officials

[heybruce]

There was never an organized Syrian opposition, there were many competing opposition groups who were as likely to fight with each other as against the Assad government.  Obama was criticized for not doing enough, but no one had any good ideas about what should be done.  Trump said he would "Bomb the sh*t out of them", but other than a cruise missile strike of little tactical significance, he has largely continued the Obama policies.

 

Regarding this particular policy, I agree with the Trump administration in this rare instance.  In the absence of a credible, organized opposition, it makes little sense to add fuel to the flames.  The only opposition groups that have shown any ability are the Kurds, who are only interested in carving out a Kurdish homeland, not in toppling Assad.  Even the Kurds are likely to start fighting among themselves once they lose a common enemy.

[heybruce]

18 minutes ago, heybruce said:

The Ukraine government.

 

" President Barack Obama’s administration provided Ukraine with billions of dollars in aid along with non-lethal military equipment, such as night-vision goggles and bomb disposal robots, but stopped short of sending weapons. "   https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-28/nominee-for-pentagon-s-no-2-backs-sending-ukraine-some-weapons

 

6 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

But according to the link, it doesn't look like this is being done clandestinely. It doesn't seem that it's a CIA project.

True.  Since we are openly supporting the Ukraine government, why have the CIA covertly support it?

[boomerangutang]

3 hours ago, simple1 said:

Yes. Other Western troops also in Syria, at a minimum UK and French SF

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-usa-exclusive-idUSKBN1951YX

Bit more detail...

http://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_us_must_avoid_a_war_with_iran_in_eastern_syria

                            I perused the Reuters article, thanks. The pics reminded me what they're fighting for:  barren, rock-strewn land. Not a tree to be found.  At best, there are a few little weed bushes in the rubble.  Like Country Joe's song, ".....and it's one two three, what are we fighting for?"   there's essentially nothing there.  Nothing much of value, anyway.  

 

                                  And then there was the mention that US troops moved in a fancy-pants missile launch platform, that probably cost tens of millions.  It can shoot 300 km.  That probably puts Teheran within its range.  Assad and the Russians and Iranians aren't going to look kindly on that sort of escalation by the Yanks.   

 

                                   Trump makes noises about pulling troops out, but how believable is Trump.  Not at all.  A couple of months ago he told the world (and all his surrounding sheeple said the same pap) that a US carrier group was headed to Korean waters.   Only days later, did some of Trump's spokespeople acknowledge that the Carl Vinson was not headed there.   Trump gets confused about which of his orifices is emitting crap and which is expelling hot air.

[LannaGuy]

58 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Congrats!  There's a difference between understanding Russians and understanding their government. 

 

As for China, you are aware of what it takes to be a leader?  Not just a global economic powerhouse?  Where is China leading the way.  If they are, it's purely in pursuit of money.

 

Yes, Boris is a clown.  But what about the other countries.  I proved my point and could post the similar from many other countries.

 

yes, yes you are right there but I will say this Craig I think you are mistaken about Putin and the intentions of the Russian Government but we veer off topic

[selftaopath]

22 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Your saying that Assad attacked and killed his own people because of the Iraq war?  I do believe the trigger was the Arab Spring Uprising...

Not sure if demonstrations coincided with the Arab Spring, but Assad attacked peaceful demonstrators who asked - for years -  this dictator for a few freedoms. They peacefully demonstrated and Assad killed them then they eventually took up arms. So I hope we can remember who started killing whom.

 

This move by fat ass might be b/c he admires dictators. He wants to be one.

[selftaopath]

19 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

Trump adds, "Hey Vlad, say some more nice things about me."

Putin: "Mr. Trump, you're handsome, you're smart, you're a very good businessman."

Trump: "Thanks. Now I like you even more than I did an hour ago. I'll do anything you want.  You say nice things about me, so I'll say nice things about you." (that orange part is an actual earlier quote from Trump)

 

Where did you get that data from?  It could be true.  But, Trump's people have such abysmal track record re; telling the truth, that no-one can believe anything he or his people say.  I could write a partial list of the hundreds of lies he's thrown out, but it would take a lot of time, and I don't want to get carpal tunnel.

 

Speaking of finding truth:  It looks as though Mueller's investigation will rely as much (or more) upon intel from European countries, than from domestic US intel.  That's how bad it's gotten.  

And if 45 can, he will totally dismantle U.S. democracy. That's his and his regime's mission.

[craigt3365]

28 minutes ago, selftaopath said:

Not sure if demonstrations coincided with the Arab Spring, but Assad attacked peaceful demonstrators who asked - for years -  this dictator for a few freedoms. They peacefully demonstrated and Assad killed them then they eventually took up arms. So I hope we can remember who started killing whom.

 

This move by fat ass might be b/c he admires dictators. He wants to be one.

The demonstrations did coincide with the Arab Spring.  And you are right, he attacked peaceful protesters.  Just like his father did before him.

[tonbridgebrit]

I really do hope that this is something that Trump will actually do. Yes, ordering the CIA to not support the rebels is a good and sensible idea.


Some of Trump's ideas, like building a wall between America and Mexico, are a bit mad and crazy. And talking about moving America's Israeli embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem is also dangerous and reckless.

But telling the CIA to stop doing their stuff in Syria, yes, good idea. Let's be honest here.  Washington's support for the rebels has allowed the rebels to continue this senseless and useless war. If Hillary was in charge now,  support would probably continue. That might be because, Hillary simply won't accept that Obama and her got it wrong by backing the rebels in the first place. Or, it might be because, Hillary would rather Syria continue forever in a war, a war that the rebels can't win. 

Trump's here, Trump can actually say "look, that war in Syria, I wasn't the one who started backing the rebels, Obama/Hillary did, I'm now gong to stop this nonsense and useless war".  Thing is, the media, they're not going to give Trump any credit for doing this.

Edited July 21, 2017 by tonbridgebrit

[tonbridgebrit]

19 hours ago, Trouble said:

Happy to see this.  It was a stupid move to support these rebels anyway.  None of them are to be trusted and as the article said, many had defected to ISIS.  

Yes, but once the Obama/Hillary government started supporting them, well, it was always going to be difficult to accept that they'd got it wrong. Stopping support would have meant admitting that the whole thing was wrong.

[tonbridgebrit]

On 20/07/2017 at 9:21 AM, LannaGuy said:

Very pleased about this. Those groups were ISIS infested and it was madness for the US to arm them. Look what happened after Saddam and Gaddafi and the world (and Syria) are better off with Dr Assad for now.

Saddam, Gaddafi, Assad.
History repeats itself. Hopefully, Trump doing this will mean we won't see a painfull repeat.

Edited July 21, 2017 by tonbridgebrit

[Morch]

6 hours ago, heybruce said:

There was never an organized Syrian opposition, there were many competing opposition groups who were as likely to fight with each other as against the Assad government.  Obama was criticized for not doing enough, but no one had any good ideas about what should be done.  Trump said he would "Bomb the sh*t out of them", but other than a cruise missile strike of little tactical significance, he has largely continued the Obama policies.

 

Regarding this particular policy, I agree with the Trump administration in this rare instance.  In the absence of a credible, organized opposition, it makes little sense to add fuel to the flames.  The only opposition groups that have shown any ability are the Kurds, who are only interested in carving out a Kurdish homeland, not in toppling Assad.  Even the Kurds are likely to start fighting among themselves once they lose a common enemy.

 

Talking about "the Kurds" is a bit misleading, though. Several factions, and not always on best of terms or completely united when it comes to interests. I think that for one thing, they'll have much more firepower compared to earlier days. US promises to Turkey that arms will be retrieved....riiight. At least some of them (Talabani's people) aren't on bad terms with Iran. A possible give and take there. Other posters may have a better insight on that.

[Morch]

5 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

                            I perused the Reuters article, thanks. The pics reminded me what they're fighting for:  barren, rock-strewn land. Not a tree to be found.  At best, there are a few little weed bushes in the rubble.  Like Country Joe's song, ".....and it's one two three, what are we fighting for?"   there's essentially nothing there.  Nothing much of value, anyway.  

 

                                  And then there was the mention that US troops moved in a fancy-pants missile launch platform, that probably cost tens of millions.  It can shoot 300 km.  That probably puts Teheran within its range.  Assad and the Russians and Iranians aren't going to look kindly on that sort of escalation by the Yanks.   

 

                                   Trump makes noises about pulling troops out, but how believable is Trump.  Not at all.  A couple of months ago he told the world (and all his surrounding sheeple said the same pap) that a US carrier group was headed to Korean waters.   Only days later, did some of Trump's spokespeople acknowledge that the Carl Vinson was not headed there.   Trump gets confused about which of his orifices is emitting crap and which is expelling hot air.

 

Land is land, territory is territory. Seem to recall the US fought for possession of arid areas, nowadays states.

 

The "fancy-pants" missile system is called HIMRAS, costs about $5 million a unit and not "probably....tens of millions". Range is actually 480, which would make it just about able to reach the Iran-Iraq border from the area of deployment), and not "probably puts Teheran within it's range". Not really an escalation by itself, and not even the first time it was used in this conflict.

 

Iran's main concern is consolidating gains after it's involvement in Syria. US presence, Russian presence and any cooperation between the two do not align with their goals.

 

[tonbridgebrit]

On 20/07/2017 at 8:10 AM, Baerboxer said:

 

But it's ok for the CIA to interfere in other countries' politics including financing, training and arming insurgents and terrorists?

 

 

Great post. Trouble is, lots of people simply choose to ignore Washington's total hypocrisy on foreign matters.

[jaggiss]

No doubt about them, let put more guns in Syria for the boys to play with.
Less guns must be a plus, Maybe!!!

Sent from my SM-G930F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[YetAnother]

On 7/20/2017 at 0:39 PM, webfact said:

A downside of the CIA programme, one of the officials said, is that some armed and trained rebels defected to Islamic State and other radical groups,

just perfect

[boomerangutang]

12 hours ago, Morch said:

Land is land, territory is territory. Seem to recall the US fought for possession of arid areas, nowadays states.

The "fancy-pants" missile system is called HIMRAS, costs about $5 million a unit and not "probably....tens of millions". Range is actually 480, which would make it just about able to reach the Iran-Iraq border from the area of deployment), and not "probably puts Teheran within it's range". Not really an escalation by itself, and not even the first time it was used in this conflict.

Iran's main concern is consolidating gains after it's involvement in Syria. US presence, Russian presence and any cooperation between the two do not align with their goals.

Several things awry with your response, above, to my prior post.  For one, missile max range is not something we can expect military to be frank about.  Same for max speed of nuclear subs and other such military things that world power don't want their adversaries to know.

As for cost - those are always under-reported.  The cost for training/clothing/feeding/transporting/housing/paying/protecting each US soldier is around to 1 million/yr.  How many personnel are involved with one missile system?  We don't know, but it's at least several.  

 

The amount of money used to maintain the most powerful military in world history is immense. It costs about 13 times more to equip a US soldier than a Chinese soldier. Trump wants to wildly increase expenditures for the US military - even beyond what top brass at the Pentagon are asking for.   source

[craigt3365]

13 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

I really do hope that this is something that Trump will actually do. Yes, ordering the CIA to not support the rebels is a good and sensible idea.


Some of Trump's ideas, like building a wall between America and Mexico, are a bit mad and crazy. And talking about moving America's Israeli embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem is also dangerous and reckless.

But telling the CIA to stop doing their stuff in Syria, yes, good idea. Let's be honest here.  Washington's support for the rebels has allowed the rebels to continue this senseless and useless war. If Hillary was in charge now,  support would probably continue. That might be because, Hillary simply won't accept that Obama and her got it wrong by backing the rebels in the first place. Or, it might be because, Hillary would rather Syria continue forever in a war, a war that the rebels can't win. 

Trump's here, Trump can actually say "look, that war in Syria, I wasn't the one who started backing the rebels, Obama/Hillary did, I'm now gong to stop this nonsense and useless war".  Thing is, the media, they're not going to give Trump any credit for doing this.

The war would have been over long ago....or at least it would have caused less destruction, if Russia wasn't there.  No denying they've caused the most devastation.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-isis-civilian-deaths-united-nations-syria-2016-8

Quote

Report: In less than a year, Russia has killed more civilians than ISIS

 

[LannaGuy]

13 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Saddam, Gaddafi, Assad.
History repeats itself. Hopefully, Trump doing this will mean we won't see a painfull repeat.

First two what happened after the Yanks 'meddled' in their country?  hopefully they won't do it with Assad.

[craigt3365]

6 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

First two what happened after the Yanks 'meddled' in their country?  hopefully they won't do it with Assad.

Research how the Muslim Brotherhood started.  The US wasn't involved.  Later, yes, but it started much earlier.  Many of the conflicts in the ME are due to various European countries dividing up the area.  That's well documented.  Here's an excellent statement of why ISIS is around:

 

https://www.vox.com/2015/12/3/9837782/isis-one-sentence

 

https://twitter.com/KarlreMarks/status/671689425739456512/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.vox.com%2F2015%2F12%2F3%2F9837782%2Fisis-one-sentence

 

The Muslim Brotherhood:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood
 

Quote

 

Hassan al-Banna founded the Muslim Brotherhood in the city of Ismailia in March 1928 along with six workers of the Suez Canal Company, as a Pan-Islamic, religious, political, and social movement.^[60]

 

According to al-Banna, contemporary Islam had lost its social dominance, because most Muslims had been corrupted by Western influences.

 

Al-Banna was populist in his message of protecting workers against the tyranny of foreign and monopolist companies.

 

As its influence grew, it opposed British rule in Egypt starting in 1936,^[64] but was banned after being accused of violent killings^[65] including the assassination of a Prime Minister by a young Brotherhood member.^[66][67][68]

 

 

[craigt3365]

13 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

First two what happened after the Yanks 'meddled' in their country?  hopefully they won't do it with Assad.

P.S. The term Yanks is not appreciated by most Americans.  If you do some research, it's used as a derogatory term frequently.  Which is also against forum rules here.

[Morch]

4 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

Several things awry with your response, above, to my prior post.  For one, missile max range is not something we can expect military to be frank about.  Same for max speed of nuclear subs and other such military things that world power don't want their adversaries to know.

As for cost - those are always under-reported.  The cost for training/clothing/feeding/transporting/housing/paying/protecting each US soldier is around to 1 million/yr.  How many personnel are involved with one missile system?  We don't know, but it's at least several.  

 

The amount of money used to maintain the most powerful military in world history is immense. It costs about 13 times more to equip a US soldier than a Chinese soldier. Trump wants to wildly increase expenditures for the US military - even beyond what top brass at the Pentagon are asking for.   source

 

The system's seen combat use and reviewed in the past.It's specs are not all that hush hush. Instead of making up things, you could simply consult a map. Teheran is quite a ways away even if the system's range was double that. Obviously, the faux point about not trusting published specs didn't play in your original post. It is nothing like confidential as specs relating to nuclear subs, to put this in further context, system is operated by foreign armies - among them the UAE, which is far closer to Teheran, of course.

 

Referrals to system costs do not include all the elements cited above, just those specifically relating to the system itself. Nothing to do with clothing, feeding, housing, paying, protecting operating forces. These are expenditures that would occur regardless. System operational crew numbers 3, by the way.

 

[tonbridgebrit]

5 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

Several things awry with your response, above, to my prior post.  For one, missile max range is not something we can expect military to be frank about.  Same for max speed of nuclear subs and other such military things that world power don't want their adversaries to know.

As for cost - those are always under-reported.  The cost for training/clothing/feeding/transporting/housing/paying/protecting each US soldier is around to 1 million/yr.  How many personnel are involved with one missile system?  We don't know, but it's at least several.  

 

The amount of money used to maintain the most powerful military in world history is immense. It costs about 13 times more to equip a US soldier than a Chinese soldier. Trump wants to wildly increase expenditures for the US military - even beyond what top brass at the Pentagon are asking for.   source

Yes, the costs are huge.

Washington is acting on behalf of all those involved in the military. These companies make a lot of money, and it's being paid for by the US tax-payer. These companies, they want to see more war, and they want to demonize other countries. Got to make it look like that America has plenty of enemies, this justifies the massive military spending.

[metisdead]

Off topic deflection posts and replies have been removed:

 

Forum Netiquette

 

7. Please do not post off-topic responses in an attempt to hijack the thread. Such posts will be deleted. 

[tonbridgebrit]

5 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Research how the Muslim Brotherhood started.  The US wasn't involved.  Later, yes, but it started much earlier.  Many of the conflicts in the ME are due to various European countries dividing up the area.  That's well documented.

 

 

"Many of the conflicts in the ME are due to various European countries dividing up the area."

That's how it started. But, in the modern era, Washington has made things a lot worse with it's foreign policy.

[craigt3365]

2 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

"Many of the conflicts in the ME are due to various European countries dividing up the area."

That's how it started. But, in the modern era, Washington has made things a lot worse with it's foreign policy.

100% understood!  But the blame is not 100% due to the US.  Research where most of the foreign fighters in Syria come from that are fighting for ISIS.  Places Russia has tried to suppress the population.  Yes, you only blame the US.

[Morch]

Just now, craigt3365 said:

100% understood!  But the blame is not 100% due to the US.  Research where most of the foreign fighters in Syria come from that are fighting for ISIS.  Places Russia has tried to suppress the population.  Yes, you only blame the US.

 

I'll take it a step further. There's only so far US's (or any other country) foreign policy can be used as a standing excuse. Essentially it is a position which says locals aren't capable of sorting out their own affairs, or that if left to their own designs, all would be well. That's neither a very reasonable take, and possibly lacks moral merit.

[selftaopath]

19 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Yes, but once the Obama/Hillary government started supporting them, well, it was always going to be difficult to accept that they'd got it wrong. Stopping support would have meant admitting that the whole thing was wrong.

Are you saying American ought not assist people being killed by dictators to defend themselves? American ought not assist people who want freedom in their own country ruled by a family of dictators?

 

I guess that's why 45 is sitting idly by letting Russia do their take overs. 

 

WOW.

 

 

[heybruce]

19 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Saddam, Gaddafi, Assad.
History repeats itself. Hopefully, Trump doing this will mean we won't see a painfull repeat.

 

6 hours ago, LannaGuy said:

First two what happened after the Yanks 'meddled' in their country?  hopefully they won't do it with Assad.

You're half right.  The US took the lead in toppling Saddam.  The UK and France took the lead in toppling Gaddafi, and did even worse in the aftermath than the US did in Iraq.

[selftaopath]

8 hours ago, jaggiss said:

No doubt about them, let put more guns in Syria for the boys to play with.
Less guns must be a plus, Maybe!!!

Sent from my SM-G930F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Less guns must be a plus, Maybe!!!

Don't say that to the NRA. :-)

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

I'll take it a step further. There's only so far US's (or any other country) foreign policy can be used as a standing excuse. Essentially it is a position which says locals aren't capable of sorting out their own affairs, or that if left to their own designs, all would be well. That's neither a very reasonable take, and possibly lacks moral merit.

The blame rests with the leader of the country.  Assad.  He started this mess, didn't manage it properly, and responsibility lies with the leader.  It was in his power to stop the violence, which he didn't. 

 

He could have been more Japanese and just stepped down! LOL  Take responsibility.