obama advisers recommend us withdrawal from Syria

[other one]

http://sputniknews.com/us/20151009/1028289400/obama-advisors-recommend-us-withdrawal.html

 

High-level security advisors to US President Barack Obama recommended that the US should withdraw its military forces from Syria and abandon plans of Assad’s resignation, DWN wrote.

 

Instead, high-ranking White House officials suggest that the US should undertake steps to improve the situation of the Syrian population and stop the refugee flow, the newspaper reported.

Advisors argue that the overthrow of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is not enforceable anymore. Therefore, the Americans should pull back their military forces and contribute to the restoration of destroyed cities and the supply of the population instead. According to US officials, these steps would help to stop the massive waves of refugees from the region.

 

© AFP 2015/ STAFF

Never Give Up? US Devises New Approach to Replace Syrian Opposition Training Program

US President Barack Obama seems to have decided to follow this advice. On Friday, the President temporarily suspended a military program worth $500 million, designed to train Syrian fighters, the New York Times reported. 

 

This method of warfare has not proved to be successful: 54 fighters trained by the US have been recently attacked and captured by the terrorist organization Jabhat al-Nursa front, media reported.

Moreover, as Josh Rogin and Eli Lake wrote in their Bloomberg analysis, Barack Obama believes that further military involvement in Syria would result in high costs and numerous deaths. Therefore, it is quite likely that the US may now pursue a more discreet policy with regard to Syria and decrease its military activities in the country.

 

[MorningGlory]

The so-called 'moderate Syrians' never existed.  There is basically no one to arm that won't go over to Al Queda or ISIS so I'm for saving the lives of our people and the taxpayer's money.  All of the muslim countries hate us. We have no interests in the M.E. anymore, except for Israel.  Let Putin have at it.  He will come to regret it.  Probably sooner than later.

[missmuffet]

There is something strange about Putin and the M.E. thing I just have not figured out what yet.

[Steve_S]

The so-called 'moderate Syrians' never existed.  There is basically no one to arm that won't go over to Al Queda or ISIS so I'm for saving the lives of our people and the taxpayer's money.  All of the muslim countries hate us. We have no interests in the M.E. anymore, except for Israel.  Let Putin have at it.  He will come to regret it.  Probably sooner than later.

I don't know that he will come to regret it, honestly. Russia will be operating differently in the mideast than the US did. They aren't going to install democracy and they aren't going to put hundreds of thousands of troops in any given country for a decade. They will most likely prop up dictators and provide air support and some ground support when those dictators become threatened (just like they are doing with assad). This would probably involve short term troop surges. Another thing to remember, my guess is that the Russian rules of engagement there will be less than restrictive in comparison to that of the US. In other words, they aren't likely to care nearly as much about collateral damage and will probably be more successful at killing terrorists/insurgents as a result. Also, putin does not have to worry about domestic politics like US presidents do when sending troops somewhere. He will get what he wants from the duma anytime he wants it and the russian people will back him because they recognize that he is making them relevant again, internationally, in a big way and rapidly. One interesting aspect here that you don't see mentioned much is oil. Russia gains from limited amounts of instability in the mideast because this causes oil prices to increase and russia is in saudi arabia's area code on the amount of oil that they export, only being outproduced in total by the US and possibly saudi arabia. I don't really have a guess as to his long term strategic goals there, if he really has any. In the short term, though, over the next couple of years, I'm sure he will remain ever opportunistic, which is rapidly becoming his MO.

[MorningGlory]

The so-called 'moderate Syrians' never existed.  There is basically no one to arm that won't go over to Al Queda or ISIS so I'm for saving the lives of our people and the taxpayer's money.  All of the muslim countries hate us. We have no interests in the M.E. anymore, except for Israel.  Let Putin have at it.  He will come to regret it.  Probably sooner than later.

I don't know that he will come to regret it, honestly. Russia will be operating differently in the mideast than the US did. They aren't going to install democracy and they aren't going to put hundreds of thousands of troops in any given country for a decade. They will most likely prop up dictators and provide air support and some ground support when those dictators become threatened (just like they are doing with assad). This would probably involve short term troop surges. Another thing to remember, my guess is that the Russian rules of engagement there will be less than restrictive in comparison to that of the US. In other words, they aren't likely to care nearly as much about collateral damage and will probably be more successful at killing terrorists/insurgents as a result. Also, putin does not have to worry about domestic politics like US presidents do when sending troops somewhere. He will get what he wants from the duma anytime he wants it and the russian people will back him because they recognize that he is making them relevant again, internationally, in a big way and rapidly. One interesting aspect here that you don't see mentioned much is oil. Russia gains from limited amounts of instability in the mideast because this causes oil prices to increase and russia is in saudi arabia's area code on the amount of oil that they export, only being outproduced in total by the US and possibly saudi arabia. I don't really have a guess as to his long term strategic goals there, if he really has any. In the short term, though, over the next couple of years, I'm sure he will remain ever opportunistic, which is rapidly becoming his MO.

Good analysis, Steve.  I can see the logic in most of what you say.  The Russians are making one huge mistake here though.  They don't have the resources to squander them in the M.E. and once they engage ISIS they will find it very hard to get out of there.  Russians are people more like us than not; they  are not suicidal zealots and they are getting into tribal conflicts.  It's a losing proposition and our military leaders are right to back out of that quick sand while they can.

[other one]

Just keep in mind that the Russians would have taken care of all this in Afghanistan a really long time ago if our CIA hadn't created Al Queada and armed them with thousands of stinger missiles...

We may well pull our military out of there, but I would hope we would also pull the CIA out and let Putin do what needs to be done.....   Just would be really bad for Russia if they get cross with Israel...   I think Putin understands that.

[Steve_S]

The so-called 'moderate Syrians' never existed.  There is basically no one to arm that won't go over to Al Queda or ISIS so I'm for saving the lives of our people and the taxpayer's money.  All of the muslim countries hate us. We have no interests in the M.E. anymore, except for Israel.  Let Putin have at it.  He will come to regret it.  Probably sooner than later.

I don't know that he will come to regret it, honestly. Russia will be operating differently in the mideast than the US did. They aren't going to install democracy and they aren't going to put hundreds of thousands of troops in any given country for a decade. They will most likely prop up dictators and provide air support and some ground support when those dictators become threatened (just like they are doing with assad). This would probably involve short term troop surges. Another thing to remember, my guess is that the Russian rules of engagement there will be less than restrictive in comparison to that of the US. In other words, they aren't likely to care nearly as much about collateral damage and will probably be more successful at killing terrorists/insurgents as a result. Also, putin does not have to worry about domestic politics like US presidents do when sending troops somewhere. He will get what he wants from the duma anytime he wants it and the russian people will back him because they recognize that he is making them relevant again, internationally, in a big way and rapidly. One interesting aspect here that you don't see mentioned much is oil. Russia gains from limited amounts of instability in the mideast because this causes oil prices to increase and russia is in saudi arabia's area code on the amount of oil that they export, only being outproduced in total by the US and possibly saudi arabia. I don't really have a guess as to his long term strategic goals there, if he really has any. In the short term, though, over the next couple of years, I'm sure he will remain ever opportunistic, which is rapidly becoming his MO.

Good analysis, Steve.  I can see the logic in most of what you say.  The Russians are making one huge mistake here though.  They don't have the resources to squander them in the M.E. and once they engage ISIS they will find it very hard to get out of there.  Russians are people more like us than not; they  are not suicidal zealots and they are getting into tribal conflicts.  It's a losing proposition and our military leaders are right to back out of that quick sand while they can.

I'm not so sure they don't have the resources. Their military has greatly improved in the past ten years, particularly in the areas of special forces and air force modernization, which is precisely the sort of war they are going to fight here. Where I tend to disagree the most is with the idea that the Russians will bear the brunt of losses here. Two things are important to note in syria.

Firstly, you say that this is tribal and there is a tribal aspect, but nothing like Afghanistan. I think a more reasonable term would be sectarian. The Assads have been in power for two generations now. They are Alawites, which is a sect of Shia, which means they are natural allies of iran, particularly against any sunnis. It is important to note that the "free syrian army" (what the US is backing), Al Nusra (an offshoot of al qaeda, basically al qaeda in syria) and ISIS are all *sunni* organizations. This is why an Iranian general was killed in syria the other day. Iran has ground forces in syria, republican guard ground forces no less. Hezbollah has also sent, if i recall the number, at least 7000 fighters into syria. Russia is providing air support and logistical/technical expertise, along with probably special forces for reconnaissance and limited combat operations. There is talk that Russia is going to bring in a large ground force, but that may be misdirection or may be a planned surge if it becomes necessary. The point, though, is that Iran is a neighboring country with a vested interest in Syria not falling to sunnis. This means that Russia is probably going to be able to extra front line fighters from them and then use their superior technology to support them, while limiting their own exposure. Hezbollah is an extension of Iran's will, so they will participate in that capacity as well I'm sure, perhaps for some of the less internationally acceptable things that are deemed necessary, so as Russia can say "well, Hezbollah infiltrated and decided to act on their own volition, the country was full of terrorists at the time, what are you gonna do?" My point with all of this is that Russia can put trained troops on the front line from other countries while not risking their own unless it becomes necessary. If it does become necessary it's likely that both sides (Assad's loyal soldiers/Hezbollah/Iran versus ISIS/FSA/AL Nusra) will have already significantly damaged each other, which will make it a lot easier on russia to mop up. All of these guys leaving Syria for europe are mostly sunni. Every guy that leaves is one less potential terrorist/insurgent that Assad and Putin have to worry about in country.

Secondly, Putin is no fool. That much should be obvious to everyone at this point. He took crimea out from under the nose of the EU and US while the US government was leaking intelligence assessments that the Russian military did not have the assets in place to launch a genuine operation in Ukraine. This, if i remember correctly, happened with in 24 hours of each other. The US has been summarily underestimating Russia's military capability since 2005 and has drastically underestimated it in the past two years. At this point, quite honestly, it is wishful thinking. Are they were they want to be yet? No. Are they serious players on the world stage again? Obviously. Not a superpower yet, but Putin thinks he can get them there and right now if there were a world leader I would not bet against it is Putin. There are barely a handful of countries on earth that could unilaterally intercede in a conflict such as this from a distance and make a difference in a matter of weeks. The fact that this is happening is proof in and of itself. Power projection is incredibly difficult militarily (power projection meaning being able to actually sustain operations far away from your actual borders) and being able to do it in any capacity without the assistance of other world powers says a lot about where Russia is at right now, particularly their psychology. Putin is not a gambler, that I have ever seen, but he is shrewd and he knows how to capitalize on an opportunity.

[other one]

Could God be using Russia to protect Christians there since our own government will not