US To Increase Military Presence In Syria

Post Reply New Topic

Russia did up the ante when they brought two fleets into the Med, to stay.

There is no way they are giving up their Navel Base.

Worst case, a partition of Sryia, they still hold the coast, and the rest of the country is worthless..

That is the current move, Damascus to Allepo, secure borders, terrorist free.

The rest of the country is open ground, a few mud huts, and being rebel held, a free fire zone.

It is hard to resupply an open desert, and the only people to steal from are the ones you are supposed to be freeing.

The Jihadis have done some desert war, but the FSA are a bunch of city boys. They go into battle wearing white tennis shoes. A fifty mile march packing forty pounds will finish them.

No one wants to give them effective anti aircraft missiles, because they will get used in London. The US is out of Iraq, Jorden is blockaded at the border, and the Turks are feeling they have created a monster. Running guns into the neighbor country is an act of war.

The Turks were told that Assad would fall, but failed to buy Credit Default Swaps on American promises. Running in weapons now they have a good chance of falling into the hands of the Kurds.

The Kurd view, Saddam was a Sunni, so are the Jihadis, and they have sided with Assad. They live along the Turkish Border.

The Iraqi Shite government has been leaning hard on the Sunni minority, and it is turning to open warfare. That is cutting off supply lines to Sryia. It also blocks retreat. Rebels and Jihadis can go to Turkey.

Turkey just got over a million new citizens it does not want, and got some things blown up for trying to police the Jilhadis. They were found with enough Sarin to take out a city.

The push to Aleppo will send more over the border, as being a captured rebel is not much of a future, being a deserter is worse, and being from out of the country, well, there was no record you ever existed.

Black Flag towns taken by force will not be welcomed back into the country as loyal citizens, and there are neighbors with questions, and knives.

If all the Obama weapons were on the Turkish border, it would be too late. It would be arming people who are falling back into Turkey.

As defeat turns to route, the rebels will discover that people who take up arms can be killed in combat, and the Army is not taking prisoners.

Twenty-three million is down to twenty, and fifteen would be better. A lot of the poor housing is gone, getting government assistance will involve questions like, "Where have you been for the last few years?"

Why should the US supply guns? Have the Saudi run out of money? Who is going to support millions of people for generations to come?

Can the West Afford Not to Act in Syria?
"The civil war in Syria reveals many uncomfortable truths about today’s geopolitics. One of them is that the EU has made little progress on a common foreign policy in the last two decades. When, in the 1990s, the Balkans, once part of the Ottoman Empire, went up in flames, Europeans were divided in their approach and unable to extinguish the fire in their neighborhood.
Now another part of the former Ottoman Empire is going up in flames—Syria, with the conflagration spreading to the entire region—and Europeans are again divided and again unable to play a major role.
France and Britain, the powers that in 1916 drew the lines on a map that would become the new borders in the post-Ottoman Levant, have over recent months pushed for an end to the EU weapons embargo. Both Paris and London want to keep all options on the table, or at least to have a credible threat at their disposal in case the attempts to convene a peace conference fail.
Germany’s main goal, in contrast, is not to be sucked into a conflict that Berlin does not consider a strategic priority. Germany has resisted the push to end the weapons embargo. But it has not proposed a different policy.
The result of the split among the three major European powers is inaction. Even on the diplomatic track, Europeans are observers rather than actors; the United States and Russia are calling the shots. Yet this is a region that the EU has defined as its neighborhood and that is, of course, of major interest for European powers in many other ways, too.
When key European players do not agree on a policy, there is not much that Catherine Ashton, the EU high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, can do. Brussels therefore looks at the Syria conflict primarily through a humanitarian lens. José Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, has just announced €400 million in additional help.
European passivity can to a large extent be explained by the U.S. retreat from Europe and its neighborhood. In the past, it was often Washington that united Europeans, enlisting them as allies and leading them toward action: in the Balkans in the 1990s, or in Afghanistan in the early 2000s. Today, it seems that Washington does not want to play that role anymore. In the case of Libya, the United States was already very reluctant to engage; in Mali, it kept to a supporting role. In both cases, France was the force pushing for action. But Syria is too big a conflict for Paris.
France and Britain have at their disposal a range of options, from the diplomatic to the military. They also have the political will to act beyond Europe’s borders. But without support from allies they are unable to play a larger role. When it comes to challenges such as Syria, they can only become serious players if they bring on board both the EU and the United States. But so far, Germany has blocked any EU action, and President Obama seems to be too afraid of being sucked into another Middle Eastern war to act decisively in Syria.
Meanwhile, things are going from bad to worse in the wider region. After two years of civil war, Syria is becoming a battlefield in a regional proxy war between Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. Containing the conflict is becoming harder every day; Lebanon is already deeply affected and involved; Iraq may become even more unstable. The longer the killing goes on, the more all sides become radicalized and fanatic, making future reconciliation ever more difficult. And the chances for a peace conference are slim.
In the end, it may be impossible for Europeans and Americans to continue watching the conflict from the sidelines. The United States is still the only outside player that can turn things around. If America acts, it needs political, moral, and financial support from the Europeans. We are very likely to see a comeback of the transatlantic alliance, with both sides acting in concert over Syria. Sooner or later."
Ulrich Speck
Ulrich Speck is a foreign policy analyst based in Heidelberg and is the editor of the Global Europe Morning Brief. This piece first appeared on Carnegie Europe's Strategic Europe blog.

Iran has been involved at least since the civil war in Lebanon. So was Sryia.
The Russians have been around for a long time. The only new players are the Saudi Terrorists, and their CIA supporters.

In Sryia we give guns to non citizens, in Turkey we look the other way when riot police gas citizens. Or in Bahrain, where the protesters were met with Saudi Troops. We have a navel base there, so having a neighboring army deal with protests, when the government is losing, is what Freedom does.

Now Turkey is saying they will use their army to fight citizen protests.

Assad only called out troops after the police were killed, by snipers. Nothing like that in Turkey, just people gathering and speaking their mind. It was to protest a public park being sold to private interests.

The response was riot police, tear gas, and several protesters killed, just what the Americans did about the Occupy protests.

America has ruled there will be no Turkish Spring. Nor Bahrain. Our Puppet governments have too much Freedom, and need to be taught the cost of Freedom, with guns, clubs, gas, and bullets.

The people of Turkey also said they do not want their country sending guns and terrorists into Sryia, It is a Democratic country, so the army should enforce what people are allowed to think and say. The Governmented is supported by America, and the Saudis.

Next election may bring change, where America will declare, as they did in Egypt, that the army is in charge of everything, and the new government nothing.

It has long been a base for spying on the Russians, terror attacks on Iran, and Sryia is full blown, being trained and supported from several American bases in Turkey.

Turkey has the same percentage of Assad's sect as Sryia, 25%, They have long had close relations and trade. If that turns into 25% of the vote, only 26% more needed. I think they can count on the Kurds and Armenians.

As the terrorists are pushed out, they will fall back on their American bases in Turkey. Also a few million more refugees, None of them get to vote.

The Jilhadis will try to carve out an Califate in Turkey, as they are armed, and have no where else to go. The Saudis who caused this want Europe to pay for the refugees, forever. Once western Sryia is secure, a strike east along the Turkish border will seal it.

At one time the Iranians proposed a joint Iran Saudi force to defend the border, from the Turkish side, but now an Iranian Russian force from the Sryian side may work.

The American puppet government in Turkey seems doomed, soon to be replaced by one that looks more to it's own local neighborhood, Sryia, Iran, Russia. Iran supplies it's natural gas, and soon atomic electric. Their best interests are local interests.

American funded terrorism, spying on our allies, acting like they own the world, have created a situation known as FUBAR.

Yet another war we are bound to lose. Many Americans will again die for nothing.

Let the Syrians croak! Save American lives!

ruveyn

This might be PPR territory, but there's a quasi-acknowledged story out there that Bibi was talking about handing over the so-called "Golan Heights" and/or resumption of June 4, 1967 cease-fire lines in exchange for a peace treaty and/or joining the US geopolitical sphere.

Leaving aside the issue of a Parliamentary Democracy handing over sovereign territory, it would have made for a much more confused situation.

Anyone remember this guy?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/ ... 2820130328

Very murky stuff; evidently it is illegal to fight on the same side as al-qaeda, even though the US is plotting against the Syrian regime.

In my opinion, the Syrian conflict is a no win situation for the US. Which side should we support? The sunni rebels, backed by Jobhat al-Nusra, and supported by groups from al-qaeda and taliban? Or the minority government forces, backed by Hezbollah and the Shabiha?
Either way, we'd be helping groups that are labelled as terrorist organizations.

And neither side has any right to the high moral ground on this one. The atrocities are being committed on both sides at an alarming and escalating rate. Anything the US does is going to make the situation much worse in the long run. Whether Sunni or Shia ends up in power, the other side will be up sh*t creek. The fighting will not end any time soon because both sides know that if they lose, they might as well be dead. And if the US intervenes, we will just be rasining another entire generation of future extremists hostile toward the US.

Arming the rebel forces in Libya sure worked out well, didn't it? It helped get rid of the ruling government and replaced it with a country full of warring tribes, armed to the teeth by countries trying to help. Poor Muammar, trying to reform his violent ways, pissed off ultra conservative factions enough to unite by giving women the right to vote. If only he hadn't pissed off the west so many years ago, he may still be alive and in power.

I sure wish we would've paid attention to the parting words of George Washington and Dwight Eisenhauer, about getting ourselves stuck in foreign entanglements and giving the military/industrial/congressional complex too loose a leash, as both those conditions go hand-in-hand.

We did it, we get to live with it.

It is all about conflicting plans for an oil pipeline. Sryia is the land route from Saudi Arabia to a port on the Med.

The other pipeline runs from Iran, across Iraq, Sryia, to the Med.

Both make the Persian Gulf tanker route very expensive.

Being the gas station for southern Europe is the goal.

There is also an announced plan for a high speed rail line from Iran to the Med. It runs through the heart of Shia Country.

World War One, was about German plans to run a rail line to the Ottoman Empire, direct overland trade, that would be cheaper than British ships.

The Arch Duke was in favor, which gave the route the go ahead, and a terrorist was hired to kill him. He is always called and Anarcist, but British agent fits better. Somebody else supplied the guns and bombs.

The British had their own plans for the Ottoman Empire, and the Germans. They also gave modern arms to the Saud Tribe, who owned ten tents, twenty camels, and fifty sand dunes, and made them Kings of all Arabia, where they had been a minor tribe.

This is recent history in the area.

We support the terrorists, because we are terrorists, as are all of the dictators and armies we have supported. Saddam was our man. We over threw an elected Democratic government in Iran, and imposed a King. We are not happy with them because they threw the King out.

My view is, it would be nice if the killing stopped, and even if he does not look like Fabian, Assad makes up for it with his hot wife, and the general support of the people. The great majority would just like the shooting to stop. Compared to all other local governments, he is a Moderate.

No other group has the ability and regional support to govern. Twenty years of peace under Assad is the best that could happen.

While the Jews are often blamed, for everything, Assad is the least evil they could have on their border. The battle lines are within Islam, with some Christian allies. 600,000 fled Iraq, and were welcomed and resettled in Sryia, and they remember small favors. Kurds were tolerated, before it became popular.

We have seen the worst the The Saudi, Turk, and Americans could do. It was not enough, and strong and long term friends have come to Assads aid, Iran, Russia. Iraq.

No local street fighters or Jihadis from elsewhere could overthrow Sryia, much less the regional support. Three years, both major cities are firmly in government hands. All they did was get a lot of people killed, a lot more left homeless, and even more out of the country living in a tent.

If anyone but Assad wins, it starts a second war, on religious lines, with a side of slaughter the Christians and the Kurds. The FSA winning would then be at war with The Islamic State of Sryia Jihadis. If the Jihadis win, Israel is not going to wait and see about chemical weapons. They would then be at war with the Saudis.

The Russians are not leaving, the Turks government is leaning Islamic, Saudi style, but the people were westernized by Attaturk almost a hundred years ago, and they are not going back. The turkish government is the most likely to fall, they can call out the army, but calling off elections they are NATO, it would not stand.

After seeing a million killed in Iraq, a hundred thousand in Sryia, the next government may drop out of NATO. Remember, they did not allow the Americans to use their airspace in Iraq. American bases are training and arming the terrorists, and Russians are asking questions about terrorists going north. Guns and terrorists training camps have been tracked back to Turkey.

Georgia tried to start a war with Russia. Russia would support a change of government in Turkey. So would Iraq, Iran, Armenia, and Assad.

The next front Bahrain, where a Shia majority is being oppressed by a Saudi Puppet, and the American Fleet, a Free, Fair Open Election, would lead to a change of government.

A badly planned change of the power structure in the mid east has worked in the worst possible way for those who started it. They lost Turkey.

An Army run by Jocks, Intelligence run by Frat Boys, and Washington by the whores of Congress.