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.

**Dreadclaw69**

Ahtman wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:

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.

And now we're dealing with an embattled regime that has Russian support

And that's been in power 4x as long as the Taliban

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?"

Pretty sure Russia has already confirmed they were supplying this after Israel carried out a few strikes

**Ahtman**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Pretty sure Russia has already confirmed they were supplying this after Israel carried out a few strikes

And if we help oust both of them, do you not think they may think more favorably of us? I'm not saying that we will be best buds, but it is an opportunity. That isn't why we help out though, we help out because they are gassing their own people after being told not to, we stay to make sure we have an ally and not just help set up an extremist paradise.

I think the answer is obvious, drop in angry Legos.

**Frazzled**

Ahtman wrote:
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."

Well there goes the neighborhood. Obama does know intelligence identified at least a 100 Hezzbullah in the US and that was a decade ago right?
Libya is a suck bowl and now they have SAMs. What positive can we get from being involved in the ME AGAIN!
This will not end well.

**Dreadclaw69**

Ahtman wrote:
And if we help oust both of them, do you not think they may think more favorably of us? I'm not saying that we will be best buds, but it is an opportunity. That isn't why we help out though, we help out because they are gassing their own people after being told not to, we stay to make sure we have an ally and not just help set up an extremist paradise.

And who do we replace Russia and Assad with?
- the FSA that has shelled civilians, is suspected of using chemical weapons too (that would have been a get out of jail free card for Obama), slits the throats of captives and are all round charming people being sponsored by Saudi Arabia hoping to spread it's Wahhabi interpretation of Islam,
or,
- the AQ affiliated militias that are actually the most effective fighters, but they did execute a teenage boy in broad daylight this week for blasphemy. Perfect if you want Afghanistan 2 right by a lot of your allies, and want to run the risk of whatever you supply them with being used against you at a later date

Ahtman wrote:
I think the answer is obvious, drop in angry Legos.

Pretty sure that is considered a war crime

**Seaward**

This is as calculated as it gets, I think. The war in Syria's over. The rebels lost, Assad won. There's a few battles left to fight, but it's over.

Waiting until after it's already been decided, and then offering the bare minimum, is kind of brilliant in a way. Everyone who matters is going to see that Obama balked on the chemical "red line" a long time ago, but at least a lot of Americans will think he didn't, and that's probably all he cares about.

What a fething weiner.

**CptJake**

Seaward wrote:
This is as calculated as it gets, I think. The war in Syria's over. The rebels lost, Assad won. There's a few battles left to fight, but it's over.

Waiting until after it's already been decided, and then offering the bare minimum, is kind of brilliant in a way. Everyone who matters is going to see that Obama balked on the chemical "red line" a long time ago, but at least a lot of American voters will think he didn't, and that's probably all he cares about.

What a fething weiner.

Slightly modified that.

**Frazzled**

Great I just reallized I have to fly to Detroit in two weeks. I feel like dead man walking now. Well, at least its an excuse to pig out!

**Ouze**

This is a pretty awesome situation for the GOP, at least.

Obama offers support, he's embroiling us in another foreign fiasco, expending more blood and treasure, making a mockery of his Nobel Peace prize, and supporting Al Qaeda to boot. He doesn't, and he's weak on terror, kow-towing to the Russians, and doesn't keep the word of the United States of America. He waits a little to decide what to, and he's both. It's pretty awesome how that worked out.

**Dreadclaw69**

Ouze wrote:
This is a pretty awesome situation for the GOP, at least.

Obama offers support, he's embroiling us in another foreign fiasco, expending more blood and treasure, making a mockery of his Nobel Peace prize, and supporting Al Qaeda to boot. He doesn't, and he's weak on terror, kow-towing to the Russians, and doesn't keep the word of the United States of America. He waits a little to decide what to, and he's both. It's pretty awesome how that worked out.

He should have just said that while a question remained as to whether the rebels also used chemical weapons that the US was not going to involve itself.

**MeanGreenStompa**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Ouze wrote:
This is a pretty awesome situation for the GOP, at least.

Obama offers support, he's embroiling us in another foreign fiasco, expending more blood and treasure, making a mockery of his Nobel Peace prize, and supporting Al Qaeda to boot. He doesn't, and he's weak on terror, kow-towing to the Russians, and doesn't keep the word of the United States of America. He waits a little to decide what to, and he's both. It's pretty awesome how that worked out.

He should have just said that while a question remained as to whether the rebels also used chemical weapons that the US was not going to involve itself.

Then they would have accused him of inaction and failing to protect innocent civilians and failing the basic American world view on humanitarian action.

The guy is screwed whichever way he goes on this, I just personally wish he'd gone the other way and left it alone, because the majority on both sides of the partisan divide are fed up with foreign adventures for now.

Fingers crossed for some minimal direct involvement and instead some logistics and perhaps a couple of missile strikes or something.

**Dreadclaw69**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
The guy is screwed whichever way he goes on this, I just personally wish he'd gone the other way and left it alone, because the majority on both sides of the partisan divide are fed up with foreign adventures for now.

Fingers crossed for some minimal direct involvement and instead some logistics and perhaps a couple of missile strikes or something.

That's more or less what I'm hoping for too. Maybe he'll settle for sending a box of ammo, some bandages and a good luck card

**Dreadclaw69**

http://news.yahoo.com/u-says-assad-forces-used-chemical-weapons-against-000953375.html

ANKARA/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States is considering imposing a no-fly zone in Syria, its first direct military intervention of the two-year-old civil war, Western diplomats said on Friday, after the White House said Syria had crossed a "red line" by using nerve gas.

After months of equivocating, President Barack Obama's administration said on Thursday it would now arm rebels, having obtained proof the Syrian government used chemical weapons against fighters trying to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad.

Two senior Western diplomats said Washington is mulling a no-fly zone close to Syria's southern border with Jordan.

"Washington is considering a no-fly zone to help Assad's opponents," one diplomat said. He said it would be limited "time-wise and area-wise, possibly near the Jordanian border", without giving details.

Imposing a no-fly zone would require the United States to destroy Syria's air defenses, entering the two-year-old civil war with the sort of action that NATO used to help topple Muammar Gaddafi in Libya two years ago.

The area near the Jordanian border contains some of the most densely-populated parts of Syria, including the outskirts of the capital Damascus.

Washington has moved Patriot surface-to-air missiles, war planes and more than 4,000 troops into Jordan in the past week, officially as part of an annual exercise but making clear that the forces deployed could stay on when the war games are over.

Syria's civil war grew out of protests that swept across the Arab world in 2011, becoming by far the deadliest of those uprisings and the most difficult to resolve, with powers across the Middle East squaring off on sectarian lines.

Western countries have spent the past two years demanding Assad leave power but declining to take direct action like that taken in Libya, because of the far greater risk of engaging with a much stronger country that straddles sectarian divides at the heart of the Middle East and is backed by Iran and Russia.

Just months ago, Western countries believed Assad's days were numbered. But momentum on the battlefield has turned in his favor, making the prospect of his swift removal or an end to the bloodshed appear remote without outside intervention.

Thousands of seasoned fighters from Lebanon's pro-Iranian Hezbollah militia joined the war on Assad's behalf in recent weeks and last week helped the Syrian government recapture Qusair, a strategic town. Assad's government says its troops are now preparing for an assault on Aleppo, Syria's biggest city, mainly in rebel hands since last year.

Activists reported an intensified assault on parts of Aleppo and its countryside near the Turkish border overnight, sparking some of the most violent clashes in months.

The use of chemical weapons provides a straightforward reason for Washington to intervene. Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes said Washington now believed 100-150 people had been killed by poison gas.

"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," he told reporters.

"The president ... has made it clear that the use of chemical weapons or transfer of chemical weapons to terrorist groups is a red line," he said. "He has said that the use of chemical weapons would change his calculus, and it has."

Syria considers the rebels terrorists. Its foreign ministry called the U.S. decision to arm the rebels a "flagrant double standard" in its dealings with terrorism.

Syria's state news agency SANA said: "the United States affirmed once again its involvement in supporting the armed terrorist groups in Syria by announcing its intention to provide them with greater military aid".

COLLISION COURSE WITH MOSCOW

The implicit threat to openly join the conflict puts Washington on a diplomatic collision course with Moscow, which has used its U.N. Security Council veto three times to block resolutions that might be used to threaten force against Assad.

U.S. officials say Obama will try to persuade Russian President Vladimir Putin to abandon support for Assad. Obama and Putin will meet at a G8 summit in Northern Ireland next week.

The Kremlin did not immediately respond directly to the new U.S. posture but a Kremlin-allied Russian lawmaker said the chemical weapons data was fabricated and that Washington would use it to cook up a justification for joining the war.

"Information about the use by Assad of chemical weapons has been fabricated in the same place as the lies about (Saddam) Hussein's weapons of mass destruction," said Alexei Pushkov, head of the foreign policy committee in the lower chamber of the Russian parliament, in a statement on Twitter.

"Obama is taking the same path as George Bush."

The arrival of thousands of seasoned, Iran-backed Shi'ite Hezbollah fighters to help Assad combat a revolt led by Syria's Sunni majority has shifted momentum and raised the prospect of sectarian violence spreading across the Middle East.

The United Nations now estimates at least 93,000 people have been killed in Syria and millions driven from their homes.

Western powers have been reluctant in the past to arm the rebels, worried about the rising strength of Sunni Islamist insurgents among them who have pledged their loyalty to the global militant network al Qaeda.

The White House said Washington would now provide "direct military support" to the opposition. It did not publicly specify whether this would include "lethal aid", which would mark a reversal of Obama's previous resistance to arming the rebels. But a U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the package would include weapons.

Syrian rebels already receive light arms from Saudi Arabia and Qatar. They have asked for heavier weapons including anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles. European countries, in particular France, have argued that the solution is to provide more weapons for mainstream rebels to marginalize extremists.

U.S. and European officials are meeting the commander of a main rebel fighting force, the Free Syrian Army (FSA), on Friday in Turkey. FSA chief Salim Idriss is expected to plead urgently for more help.

Obama has been more cautious than Britain and France, which forced the European Union this month to lift an embargo that had blocked weapons for the rebels. French officials already said a week ago that they had firm proof Assad used nerve gas, while Washington continued to say it was unsure until Thursday.

REBELS DEMAND WEAPONS

Syrian rebel and political opposition leaders immediately called for sophisticated weaponry.

"We want anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons," George Sabra, acting leader of the National Coalition political opposition bloc, told Al-Arabiya television. "We expect to see positive results and genuine military support."

U.S. Senator John McCain, a hawk on Syria, said America needed to neutralize Assad's air power: "They (rebels) have enough light weapons. They've got enough AK-47s. AK-47s don't do very well against tanks," McCain told CNN. "They need anti-tank weapons and they need anti-air weapons."

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen welcomed what he said was a "clear U.S. statement". "The international community has made clear that any use of chemical weapons is completely unacceptable and a clear breach of international law," Rasmussen told reporters in Brussels.

Syria is not a signatory to the international treaty that bans chemical weapons but has said that it would never use them in an internal conflict. It has accused the rebels of using them, but Washington said it does not believe that the insurgents have access to them.

FIGHT FOR ALEPPO

Assad forces tried overnight to storm the rebel-held eastern districts of Aleppo, Syria's biggest city and commercial hub, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a Britain-based, pro-opposition monitoring group.

The move sparked some of the fiercest battles in months. Activists also reported artillery and air strikes in the rebel-held countryside in the north of the province.

Syrian state media have been touting plans for "Northern Storm," a looming campaign to recapture the rebel-held north.

Aleppo would be a far more difficult target than Qusair. Assad's forces only hold a few routes and pockets of territory in the province, mostly in isolated Shi'ite villages.

Assad's main advantage so far has been the ability to use air power to resupply troops and bomb rebel areas, along with its use of long-range missiles. But Western support or a no-fly zone would change the current balance of power.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323734304578543761501124132.html

Creating even a limited buffer zone that Syrian airplanes cannot enter will be expensive, costing an estimated $50 million a day. Still, officials say that a full no-fly zone covering all of Syria would cost far more money. Officials said the U.S. hopes the operation would be conducted with other allies, who could help pay for the cost of a no-fly zone.

Hows that sequester going? How many staff are being furloughed that this money could be paying??

**djones520**

Mr. Burning wrote:
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.

Tell that to Libya.

**SilverMK2**

America: Creating tomorrow's enemies, today!

**djones520**

SilverMK2 wrote:
America: Creating tomorrow's enemies, today!

I'll remember that when your aircraft are there beside ours.

**MeanGreenStompa**

We could be paying for teachers and infrastructure with that dough.

Instead we're going to throw cash, guns and protection to allies of Al Q and piss off Russia, so we can topple a nasty regime and replace it with... a nasty regime, who will likely hate us as much or more, once their sandy asses are comfortably in power.

**whembly**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
We could be paying for teachers and infrastructure with that dough.

Instead we're going to throw cash, guns and protection to allies of Al Q and piss off Russia, so we can topple a nasty regime and replace it with... a nasty regime, who will likely hate us as much or more, once their sandy asses are comfortably in power.

Exactly....

This is operation Wag the Dog.

**SilverMK2**

djones520 wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:
America: Creating tomorrow's enemies, today!

I'll remember that when your aircraft are there beside ours.

We like invading other countries; have you not read any of our history?

**Lord of Deeds**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
We could be paying for teachers and infrastructure with that dough.

Or perish the thought we could pay down debt or better yet return the taxpayer's money to the taxpayer.

Syria is a money pit. The only way the US gets any real mileage out of this conflict is by prolonging it to suck Assad, Hezbollah, and Iran dry. It also means they all collectively has less resources to attach US interests and her allies.

BTW, anyone want to think that maybe Obama and Putin both had a quiet telephone call (or some equivalent) where they both agreed that Syria's civil war is good for the arms business in both countries and accomplishes both countries strategic goals of reducing Islamic fundamentalists ability to engage in global terrorism.

**Jihadin**

Imagine the general public reaction if the US leads the effort of the "No Fly" zone and be generous towards Syrian refugee's.......we have to borrow money to finance this attempt....since we borrowed the money to run both OIF and OEF....

**Ouze**

Lord of Deeds wrote:
BTW, anyone want to think that maybe Obama and Putin both had a quiet telephone call (or some equivalent) where they both agreed that Syria's civil war is good for the arms business in both countries and accomplishes both countries strategic goals of reducing Islamic fundamentalists ability to engage in global terrorism.

You know, I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist but that doesn't really seem far-fetched to me. Besides, regardless of whether or not the call happened, that's going to be the de facto result anyway.

I still would prefer we'd not done anything. I don't think Syria's problems are in the national interests of the United States. I think we're damned if we do and damned if we don't there, so we should pick the option that doesn't apparently cost 50 million dollars a day FFS.

The only real argument for going (that matters to me) is that the President of the United States said we would if x happened, and x has happened.

Anyway, where are the other nations in this? Are we doing the whole UN, NATO thing or what? Or are we doing the renegade cowboy diplomacy thing everyone also hates us for?

**Jihadin**

If he does the renegade cowboy thing I bet state gov't...the people....basically everyone....will leave the gov't hanging out on a branch. Ever get the feeling...we might be doing a recall on the PoTUS lol

**Dreadclaw69**

Ouze wrote:
I still would prefer we'd not done anything. I don't think Syria's problems are in the national interests of the United States. I think we're damned if we do and damned if we don't there, so we should pick the option that doesn't apparently cost 50 million dollars a day FFS.

I could not agree more

Ouze wrote:
Anyway, where are the other nations in this? Are we doing the whole UN, NATO thing or what? Or are we doing the renegade cowboy diplomacy thing everyone also hates us for?

It's looking like everyone else is sitting on their hands until the US does something, as usual. That way when things go wrong the US can be blamed for dragging the world into another conflict. If it goes well then it shows what international cooperation can achieve....

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:
What positive can we get from being involved in the ME AGAIN!

You sound as though we stopped being involved in the Middle East at some point.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
And if we help oust both of them, do you not think they may think more favorably of us? I'm not saying that we will be best buds, but it is an opportunity. That isn't why we help out though, we help out because they are gassing their own people after being told not to, we stay to make sure we have an ally and not just help set up an extremist paradise.

And who do we replace Russia and Assad with?

Who says we're trying to replace the Assads? It wouldn't be the first time the US has artificially extended a conflict in order to weaken the desired victor.

Granted, in that instance the United States was supporting both sides, but in this case Syria has Russia and a sizable, existing advantage. Plus Israel would literally gak itself in rage if the US backed the Assads and, unlike Iraq, they would find out sooner rather than later.

**Seaward**

I'm still not at all certain why you guys are talking about this seriously. Syria's over. Assad's going to win. We waited until we knew that for sure before deciding to send some token arm shipments by way of saying, "Hey, we mean what we say about redlines!"

**Ouze**

A no fly zone doesn't sound like a few arms shipments to me.

**dogma**

Seaward wrote:
I'm still not at all certain why you guys are talking about this seriously. Syria's over. Assad's going to win. We waited until we knew that for sure before deciding to send some token arm shipments by way of saying, "Hey, we mean what we say about redlines!"

Of course the US did. There really isn't anything for us to gain in seeing Assad deposed. Weakened, yes. Deposed, no.

The devil you know, and all that.

**Seaward**

Ouze wrote:
A no fly zone doesn't sound like a few arms shipments to me.

Nor to me. We're not doing one of those, though, so I don't know how it's relevant.

**dogma**

Seaward wrote:
Ouze wrote:
A no fly zone doesn't sound like a few arms shipments to me.

Nor to me. We're not doing one of those, though, so I don't know how it's relevant.

If the arms shipments are coming through Jordan, and if the WSJ article is to be believed, then it sounds like a necessary precaution.

At any rate, Seaward is right, that doesn't appear to be what the US is doing as the article only discusses a proposal.

**Jihadin**

Assad has plenty of time to to go Defense in Depth with his Air Defense system. WIth the old system and the new system. Of course we can try to lanch tomahawks too to nail it down Pretty sure he brought a bunch of Surface to Surface missiles....for those who really don't know. Antiship missiles. Only takes one to get through to ruin a day. those to prevent a certain MEU to land no contest......damn,,,,now I wonder how many Bison Biplanes he has....those little quackerjack box plan are radarman nightmare.....wonder how beef up the Air Defense going to go up around the Russian naval base,.....Wonder if Russia going to fly cap over their naval base and fleet. Wonder if Russia going to establish a safe coorrigdor for their aircrafts coming in and going out.....maybe apply it towards Syrian aircraft. Wonder we be stupid enough to take out a Syrian aircraft while in Russian safe zone......Mig29 Fulrums...be interesting