Official: US to lend support to Syrian rebels

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ahtman**

Article

After confirming the use of chemical weapons we are loading up to lend some support.

The US has said it will provide military support to the Syrian rebels after confirming it believed there was concrete evidence of limited nerve gas attacks by government forces against rebel groups.

The assessment, based on CIA tests on blood, urine and hair samples from dead or wounded rebel fighters, is the first time Washington has supported claims previously made by British and French intelligence services in recent weeks. Assad has repeatedly denied using any chemical weapons in the bitter civil war.

"Following a deliberative review, our intelligence community assesses that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons, including the nerve agent sarin, on a small scale against the opposition multiple times in the last year," said a White House statement.

"Our intelligence community has high confidence in that assessment given multiple, independent streams of information. The intelligence community estimates that 100 to 150 people have died from detected chemical weapons attacks in Syria to date; however, casualty data is likely incomplete. "

The White House believes its assessment means Syria has crossed the so-called "red line" that President Barack Obama established early in the conflict as a test for further western intervention to support the rebels.

The deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, said: "The president has made a decision about providing more support for the opposition and will be providing further support to the SMC (Supreme Military Council) and that includes providing military support. I can't detail what types of support yet."

He added: "We have not made any decision about a no-fly zone … The best thing we can do is help the opposition on the ground."

Senator John McCain, a leading US hawk who has been pushing for intervention, said: "I applaud the president's decision and I appreciate it."

**IronWarLeg**

Ill ask for my thread to be closed, yours has the article quoted, I honestly don't know what to think of this. I guess I will wait and see what our actual commitment is before I become either angry that we are spending more money in foreign countries while I am furloughed because we cant fund the IRS, or furious because our boys are losing their lives for a lose/lose situation.

**Dreadclaw69**

I'm curious to see what form this support will take.

**IronWarLeg**

I guess its also hard not to think about the other backlash that could come from our support in Syria, how is Russia going to react to this? Will we be fighting a "Puppet" war where Russia supplies the current Government and we throw our weight behind the rebels?

If you ask me this looks like a giant slippery slope for us, as I am sure has been discussed before, only now we get to sit back and watch it happen instead of speculate on what the results will be.

**Dr. What**

Umm...didn't we do this with Afghanistan during the Cold War by aiding the rebels (especially their terrorist camps)?

Oh boy...

**Jihadin**

Assad got a deadline now. Crush the rebels before support reaches them

**Dreadclaw69**

Dr. What wrote:
Umm...didn't we do this with Afghanistan during the Cold War by aiding the rebels (especially their terrorist camps)?

Oh boy...

Worked out really well for us too, didn't it... Besides, what coud go wrong with the DoJ's Fast & Furious, Syria Edition?

**Ahtman**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Dr. What wrote:
Umm...didn't we do this with Afghanistan during the Cold War by aiding the rebels (especially their terrorist camps)?

Oh boy...

Worked out really well for us too, didn't it... Besides, what coud go wrong with the DoJ's Fast & Furious, Syria Edition?

Actually it did work out well for us, the problems came afterward when we pulled out completely and left them with no infrastructure of any kind, leaving a power vacuum for other elements, like the Taliban, to come in to fill the void. If we had been willing to spend a few bucks on building schools instead of only on RPGs things would probably be quite different. We were so fixated on the Russians we don't think about about anything else or the repercussions. I honestly believe if we had stayed then and helped rebuild then in a peaceful environment we wouldn't have had to send in troops decades later into a hostile one.

**Dr. What**

Ahtman wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Dr. What wrote:
Umm...didn't we do this with Afghanistan during the Cold War by aiding the rebels (especially their terrorist camps)?

Oh boy...

Worked out really well for us too, didn't it... Besides, what coud go wrong with the DoJ's Fast & Furious, Syria Edition?

Actually it did work out well for us, the problems came afterward when we pulled out completely and left them with no infrastructure of any kind, leaving a power vacuum for other elements, like the Taliban, to come in to fill the void. If we had been willing to spend a few bucks on building schools instead of only on RPGs things would probably be quite different. We were so fixated on the Russians we don't think about about anything else or the repercussions. I honestly believe if we had stayed then and helped rebuild then in a peaceful environment we wouldn't have had to send in troops decades later into a hostile one.

I agree, but the potential for a repeat situation is there. The question is whether or not we will pay attention to our history...

My guess:

Spoiler:

**Dreadclaw69**

Ahtman wrote:
Actually it did work out well for us, the problems came afterward when we pulled out completely and left them with no infrastructure of any kind, leaving a power vacuum for other elements, like the Taliban, to come in to fill the void. If we had been willing to spend a few bucks on building schools instead of only on RPGs things would probably be quite different. We were so fixated on the Russians we don't think about about anything else or the repercussions. I honestly believe if we had stayed then and helped rebuild then in a peaceful environment we wouldn't have had to send in troops decades later into a hostile one.

Remind me again how much we've spent since 2001 trying to rebuild the country, especially schools, remind me how well our attempts at setting up a functioning government to oppose the Taliban have gone (there is a reason Karzi is known as "The Mayor of Kabul")?

**Ahtman**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
Actually it did work out well for us, the problems came afterward when we pulled out completely and left them with no infrastructure of any kind, leaving a power vacuum for other elements, like the Taliban, to come in to fill the void. If we had been willing to spend a few bucks on building schools instead of only on RPGs things would probably be quite different. We were so fixated on the Russians we don't think about about anything else or the repercussions. I honestly believe if we had stayed then and helped rebuild then in a peaceful environment we wouldn't have had to send in troops decades later into a hostile one.

Remind me again how much we've spent since 2001 trying to rebuild the country, especially schools, remind me how well our attempts at setting up a functioning government to oppose the Taliban have gone (there is a reason Karzi is known as "The Mayor of Kabul")?

You do realize trying to rebuild a country after the terrorists have taken over decade to entrench themselves is a world of difference from when there were no terrorists (as we see them now) and they actively asked for aid in building schools and hospitals, yes? We had a window of opportunity and I think we missed it.

**rubiksnoob**

It's been almost 18 months since we cleared out of Iraq, and shenanigans in Afghanistan will be wrapping up pretty soon, too. It was beginning to look like we might not have had another Middle Eastern war to occupy ourselves with for the next year or twelve! It warms the cockles of my heart to know that we'll be able to continue ineffectually throwing resources at conflicts between people that hate us for decades to come.

Turning Middle Eastern conflicts into expensive, military threeways: the Great American Pastime, since 1990!

**Dreadclaw69**

Ahtman wrote:
You do realize trying to rebuild a country after the terrorists have taken over decade to entrench themselves is a world of difference from when there were no terrorists (as we see them now) and they actively asked for aid in building schools and hospitals, yes? We had a window of opportunity and I think we missed it.

Bashar al-Assad has been in charge of that country for 13 years
His father, Hafez al-Assad, ruled the country for 30 years
So by your logic that means dealing with a regime that has been in power four times as long as Afghanistan, a country which we're still no closer to a resolution.

**Ouze**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I'm curious to see what form this support will take.

Ideally, we'll be supplying both sides, as that seems the fairest thing to do, and they both appear fairly equally awful.

**Dreadclaw69**

Ouze wrote:
Ideally, we'll be supplying both sides, as that seems the fairest thing to do, and they both appear fairly equally awful.

I'm reminded of a short story in the WD Codex Assassins for 3rd Edition 40K. The Imperium supported the weaker Ork Warlord against his rival, then when he started to grow powerful they switched their support to his rival. And they kept doing that as a sort of controlled burn to prevent a Waaagh forming against Imperial systems.

**Ahtman**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
You do realize trying to rebuild a country after the terrorists have taken over decade to entrench themselves is a world of difference from when there were no terrorists (as we see them now) and they actively asked for aid in building schools and hospitals, yes? We had a window of opportunity and I think we missed it.

Bashar al-Assad has been in charge of that country for 13 years
His father, Hafez al-Assad, ruled the country for 30 years
So by your logic that means dealing with a regime that has been in power four times as long as Afghanistan, a country which we're still no closer to a resolution.

The political realities were quite different in 1989 and in 2001. In 2001 the Taliban were in charge and 1989 the country was recovering from an invasion and occupation from Russia that we helped repel and were well liked for doing so. We had a chance to build bridges, both metaphorical and literal, and we only cared that Russia left, so we left.

**IronWarLeg**

rubiksnoob wrote:
It's been almost 18 months since we cleared out of Iraq, and shenanigans in Afghanistan will be wrapping up pretty soon, too. It was beginning to look like we might not have had another Middle Eastern war to occupy ourselves with for the next year or twelve! It warms the cockles of my heart to know that we'll be able to continue ineffectually throwing resources at conflicts between people that hate us for decades to come.

Turning Middle Eastern conflicts into expensive, military threeways: the Great American Pastime, since 1990!

I couldn't say it any better, quoted for truth in my opinion.

**Jihadin**

US to Assad "Hey we're going to establish a "No Fly" zone on your country."
Russia to Assad "Hey....would you be interested in some state of the art air defense system? Half Price?"

**whembly**

Jihadin wrote:
US to Assad "Hey we're going to establish a "No Fly" zone on your country."
Russia to Assad "Hey....would you be interested in some state of the art air defense system? Half Price?"

US to Assad "shoot our planes down and we'll shove a MOAB up your arse".

Russia to Assad "need a supple of enemas?"

**ironicsilence**

Nice to see the US goverment wants to arm Syrian rebels while disarming american citizens

**Krellnus**

Whilst I don't think we should support either side (its their confilct, not ours), if we have to support them, support both of them by selling arms to both sides.

**Ouze**

Jihadin wrote:
US to Assad "Hey we're going to establish a "No Fly" zone on your country."
Russia to Assad "Hey....would you be interested in some state of the art air defense system? Half Price?"

But seriously, what's the plan if when Russian ordnance shoots down our drones?

**Ahtman**

ironicsilence wrote:
Nice to see the US goverment wants to arm Syrian rebels while disarming american citizens

That is only happening in the minds of right wing fantasists, those who prey on them for fame and money, and the arms industry scaring people into stockpiling.

**Jihadin**

Seriously believe Putin already thinking of Syria as a "Test Bed" for their military top shelf weapon system. I seriously believe he already made the offer and get crews on the system to start training. He is not going to risk his troops in an engagement. If we support the No Fly with just logistical support then we really don't have a problem except at home as to how the hell we got the money to burn in a conflict. Whoever going to lead the wings into establishing and enforcing the No Fly going to literally earn it. UK? France? Germany? Italy? Coalition lead by who contribute the most aircraft. Hell if they get us to use Tomahawks then it best be worth while targets due to our cuts. I see small arms being turn over to the rebels....we do collect quite a bit of AK47's and AK74's in Afghanistan....plus we're arming them (Afghans) with M16's so more to send to the rebels. Next thing we know Iran going to have Volunteer Brigades coming into Syria along with Hezbullah contingents coming in. Rebels cannot win a war of attrition unless some western country willing to lead "boots on ground". Before that even happens or even close to kicking off........Russian peacekeepers.....excuse of their deployment.....some western missile hit their naval base or the rebels made an attempt to breach the perimeter.

**Ouze**

Well, in my opinion, more or less once a generation we fight a proxy war on some flimsy pretext, which is mostly an excuse to try out some of the new toys we have built in Easy Mode, before playing for reals. I understand that when you have pay yearly $682 billion dollars for a hammer, you're going to try and find some nails to pound.

Maybe Syria's this generation's table, and Russia's been looking for a game for a while. I sort of wish we'd play a better game instead, perhaps a nice game of chess.

**WarOne**

Ughh...no no no no no a thousand times NO.

Do we even realize that most of these weapons will go right into the hands of people who are our enemies...and they'll be killing lots of others who are also our enemies.....

Hmm....get on with it then.

**Mr. Burning**

Jihadin wrote:
......Rebels cannot win a war of attrition unless some western country willing to lead "boots on ground"....

Totally agree with this. Hostilities will only cease when a massive occupation force is landed on Syrian soil.

No Fly Zones, drone strikes, Cruise missile strikes against tactical and strategic targets are not a substitute for proper salting of the earth.

It'll be a nice shop window for the Russians to advertise in though.

although, we could revert back to the policy of the early cold war. Support Assad against the rebels and gain some kind of peace and security until he pops his clogs.

**Ahtman**

Didn't we help Libya just 2 years ago without ever putting 'boots on the ground'?

**Ouze**

Yes, but I think it remains to be seen how that worked out for us. I mean, helping the pious mujahideen brothers in the 80's seemed like a good idea at one point too, but it ultimately went... poorly.

The obvious response to this is, well, how long do we wait before we decide it was a good idea? Doesn't 20 years seem an unrealistic timetable? And to answer that, I have no idea. I don't know. I'm deeply concerned about repeating that, though.

**Mr. Burning**

Ahtman wrote:
Didn't we help Libya just 2 years ago without ever putting 'boots on the ground'?

Depends on what or who we have helped.

I would expect another tribal or religious schism to erupt in that part of Africa.