President Obama moves to counter ISIS with free Syrian Army

2014-09-19T18:19:01-04:00

Just last week, President Barack Obama made an announcement on expanding the military campaign against ISIS, the Islamic State extremist group. About 40 countries have already agreed to provide military support to the U.S. in this campaign in Iraq and Syria. He hasn’t named the countries yet. Obama has stressed he is not looking to put troops on the ground. Our soldiers in Iraq will soon amass to 1,600, but were not sent to fight. Announcements will continue into the next week in New York at the United Nations General Assembly.

We will see how other countries’ support will move the military campaign forward. What’s concerning as the president moves forward with announcements is the divide between him and some lawmakers and military leaders.

The Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, says he might eventually recommend deploying ground troops in Syria if airstrikes were not sufficient to defeat the Islamic State extremists. But Obama clearly does not want to deploy combat troops. General Dempsey may have been talking about a possible contingency plan and some leaders may think the U.S. needs to be more aggressive with strategy, but the lack of alignment is an issue. Obama seems to be focusing on avoiding putting troops on the ground, and some are concerned the focus on eliminating the enemy isn’t strong enough.

Recently, the Senate authorized arming and training Syrian rebels to combat the Islamic State group. Obama says the vote shows the country is united in fighting ISIS and Americans don’t give in to fear.
No one can deny our country being united on fighting terrorism, but the president and some leaders still don’t quite see eye to eye on how to destroy our enemies. Obama says U.S. airstrikes against Islamic State targets will continue, but he stands strong at not allowing U.S. troops to have a combat role on the ground in Iraq or Syria.

Before the vote, the proposal faced two points of criticism. One was concerns with arming a group whose loyalties are uncertain. It could add to the conflict. Two was the group may not be aggressive enough to counter ISIS. Plus, the public in general is skeptical and afraid of another long conflict in the Middle East.

What do you expect to come from the recent approval? Will training and equipping the Free Syrian Army be an aggressive enough strategy? How can the president, lawmakers, and military leaders move forward and become aligned?

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Sep 19 at 2014 6:21 PM

2014-09-19T18:21:18-04:00

Too little too late. Additionally, no troops on the ground just means no troops on the ground yet.

Response by SSG Maurice P. made Sep 19 at 2014 6:56 PM

2014-09-19T18:56:24-04:00

PEOPLE IM NOT A MILITARY TACTICIAN IM A HIGH SCHOOL DROP OUT WITH SOME COLLEGE BUT I THINK IN MY HUMBLE UNEDUCATED SELF THAT WE THE UNITED STATES MILITARY OUGHT TO HIT ISIS JUST LIKE THE MARINES AND ARMY DID IN THE PACIFIC AND AT NORMANDY IN WORLD WAR 2 ASSAULT FROM THE DESERT BY TANKS AND AIRBORNE AND REGULAR INFANTRY EVERYTHING IN FRONT OF US WE KILL AND MAKE A PARKING LOT OUT OF IT SO WE NEED BOOTS ON GROUND AND TAKE THE GLOVES OFF...

Response by Cpl Craig Meaux made Sep 19 at 2014 7:28 PM

2014-09-19T19:28:32-04:00

Didn't the U.S. train Sadam Husein an Osama Bin Laden? That didn't end well.

Response by SGT Carole Shelton-Toney made Sep 19 at 2014 7:44 PM

2014-09-19T19:44:20-04:00

No boots on the ground, I'm all for it.

Response by SSG John Canizales made Sep 19 at 2014 8:58 PM

2014-09-19T20:58:49-04:00

Arm the FSA? only to fight them later on in the road and get fired upon with weapons provided by us.... Seems logical for someone sitting behind a desk. But for those of us that are in the field its a bit frustrating, not to mention the ones who lost their lives holding Iraq. The only freedom these fighters want is freedom to commit atrocities without fear of reprimand. I say, let Assad fight them and we support him with drones from Iraq. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Response by SFC James Barnes made Sep 19 at 2014 9:01 PM

2014-09-19T21:01:13-04:00

To little to late. And as far as no boots on ground it's all just more hey look I'm doing something. I will now slowly step away before I find the soapbox and go on a tyrade about this subject.

Response by A1C Tamir Robinson made Sep 20 at 2014 4:09 PM

2014-09-20T16:09:34-04:00

ISIS was part of the FSA before they gained such a powerful foothold in both countries, and if people think the FSA is an ally, they are sorely mistaken. I hope everyone here understands that. Say hello to another pointless war in Syria, and Iran afterwards.

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Sep 21 at 2014 6:38 AM

2014-09-21T06:38:28-04:00

Go to 26:10 in the below video. Congressman Duncan Hunter sums it up and explains why arming the Free Syrian Army is a bad idea.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/17/politics/pelosi-isis-congress/index.html

House approves plan to assist Syrian rebels - CNNPolitics.com

The House on Wednesday approved President Obama's request to arm and train Syrian rebels in the fight against ISIS.

Response by Capt Chris McVeigh made Sep 21 at 2014 3:38 PM

2014-09-21T15:38:53-04:00

Arming middle-eastern groups has a fantastic record of going well for the US down the road....the arms always seem to either end up in the hands of extremists or we end up fighting the group we just armed.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 21 at 2014 11:42 PM

2014-09-21T23:42:08-04:00

Maybe it's time to just side with Assad and let him deal with ISIS and the rebels. If we help with the rebels they would eventually turn on us. With Assad at least we know where we stand with his regime.

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Sep 22 at 2014 3:57 PM

2014-09-22T15:57:03-04:00

Free Syrian Army? How could something with 'Free' in the name cost so much? Must have played well with the focus groups?

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Sep 22 at 2014 4:36 PM

2014-09-22T16:36:19-04:00

ISIS; What's In A Name?

They aren't new, they have gone by various names over the past decade plus. Very few people heard of that acronym until a few months ago. We have heard of AQI, IS, ISIL, et als......and those are just some of our names. They go by many other names that are started by one faction and then when that leader gets killed, it gets rolled up into a different faction with different goals. The common goal is that it is awesome to kill anyone who doesn't think like they do, and anyone who believes something different than they do. When Americans and other infidels are present, they have a common enemy. When infidels are not obvious, they inflict their insanity on their own kind. These are the kinds of people that God wanted stomped out in the Old Testament.
Lets talk finances........
In mid-2014, Iraqi intelligence extracted information from an ISIS operative which revealed that the organization had assets worth US$2 billion,making it the richest jihadist group in the world. About three quarters of this sum is said to be represented by assets seized after the group captured Mosul in June 2014; this includes possibly up to US$429 million looted from Mosul's central bank, along with additional millions and a large quantity of gold bullion stolen from a number of other banks in Mosul. However, doubt was later cast on whether ISIS was able to retrieve anywhere near that sum from the central bank,and even on whether the bank robberies had actually occurred. "Show Me The Money!!!"
We are now raising a coalition to destroy ISIS. How do we determine victory when we have been down this road once or twice before? Do we just kill anyone who hides their face like the true cowards that they are? I understand that 100 militants peeking through a slit in their covered faces holding RPG's and RPK's, PKM's, AK's, and cruising around in Bongo trucks is a tasty target for a drone, but sooner or later, the spooky face wraps aregoing to be around their necks and the AK's will be under the floor mats in the "neighbors" hut. Is that a victory? When it is no longer cool to be called ISIS and the mentality remains the same, do they just change the name 4 years later? I didn't study Middle East political affairs so I learn my names and get my theories from the media. The uncorruptable, unbiased, uninfluenced media. I wore a uniform with pride and did everything my country asked of me. I'd put it right back on if they would let me and join the coalition. As a veteran, who is allowed to engage in free speech, I only ask the question of how we will determine victory this time?.?. Just because someone tells me that combat operations are over, that doesn't mean that we accomplished the mission. In no way do I mean this rant to be construed as not engaging in a course of action. These insane people are the bain of humanity. They are incredibly funded, battle hardened, and threaten all humanity, not just American interests. We get spooled up by the media into wanting to "Kill Em All!' and then the same media shows the "Attrocities" of military intervention and leaders are pressured into having scapegoats (and no, I won't go into specifics). Again, for the clarification of my own ignorant ass, what will we do differently THIS time? I wish I was in military intellignce or studied political science. I am of typical intellect of those who must fight in my stead. God help us all.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 22 at 2014 11:05 PM

2014-09-22T23:05:49-04:00

I don't know what will happen but for now all I can think about is our fellow brothers and sisters in arms jamming out to this classic!! MURICA!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siwpn14IE7E

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 23 at 2014 1:59 AM

2014-09-23T01:59:47-04:00

Just unleash Mad Dog Mattis and lets do this right. We had Marshal Law 2003-2006 in that shit hole and unleashed the hounds of hell. The streets got real quite real fast. I know I witnessed it first hand. These pansy ass Americans we fight for need a reminder of how this great nation became a super power in the first place. And these cowards we have been fighting the last 13 years have been exploiting our weakness (known as the liberal party).
I do not want to go to any more memorial services over a weak government who will not let us do what we are trained to do.
That is all.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 25 at 2014 11:02 PM

2014-11-25T23:02:45-05:00

Arming a group of rebels to do our fighting for us...Sounds like a sure-fire plan. This policy has NEVER bitten us in the ass before.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 25 at 2014 11:06 PM

2014-11-25T23:06:19-05:00

Here's an idea: How about we just leave the area and let ISIS, which hates the US, fight with Syria, which hates the US, and Iran, which hates the US?

Instead of getting involved in a three-front war, we just let our enemies fight each other for a while. Potentially we can intervene if one side appears to be gaining too much power and reach. For now, let them exhaust each other while we give our forces the break they so desperately need after a decade of non-stop combat.

Response by LCpl Steve Wininger made Nov 26 at 2014 12:06 AM

2014-11-26T00:06:37-05:00

Looks like the Free Syrian Army will be the next enemy of the United States. every time we help a group to defeat another group, we end up at war with them. Saddam Hussein in the war with Iran, and Bin Laden in the Afghanistan War against Russia.

The sad reality is, that we already know they hate us, they just hate someone else more right now. They will eventually turn their eye towards America.

Response by SSG Charles Coats made Dec 6 at 2014 12:08 PM

2014-12-06T12:08:49-05:00

The newest "threat" intended to scare 'murrica, take away more of our freedoms, and keep the coffers of the parasitic intn'l bankers full; this group is nothing more than a creation of Western/Israeli intel agencies...

Response by SPC Andrew Griffin made Nov 17 at 2015 1:28 PM

2015-11-17T13:28:59-05:00

This didn't work obviously!

Response by CPO Andy Carrillo, MS made Nov 18 at 2015 7:05 PM

2015-11-18T19:05:30-05:00

"As the self-proclaimed Islamic State terrorist group continues to gain ground in the Middle East, a newly released Defense Intelligence report shows that the US was fully aware of the dangerous consequences of its involvement in the Syrian Civil War. By arming “moderate” rebels, Washington knew it might then create a group of Salafist extremists.

The US government had no way of knowing that those arms supplies would, in fact, aid the extremist Islamic State, which rose from the wreckage of the wars in Syria and Iraq.

Washington had no way of predicting that Islamic State fighters would get their hands on the massive weapons stockpile left in Ramadi, Iraq, where “a half dozen US tanks were abandoned, a similar number of artillery pieces, a large number of armored personnel carriers, and about 100 wheeled vehicles – like Humvees,” according to Pentagon spokesman Col. Steve Warren.

But according to new documents from the Defense Intelligence Agency, obtained by Judicial Watch, the United States knew all too well that arming moderates would actually result in the arming of extremists, but looked the other way in the interest of undermining the Assad regime.

For starters, the documents show that the Pentagon was fully aware of al-Qaeda’s key placement within the Syrian opposition.

“AQI supported the Syrian opposition from the beginning, both ideologically and through the media.”

The report then shows that the Pentagon was briefed on the rise of the Islamic State.

“If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime,” reads the DIA report, dated August of 2012.

The documents also point out the opposition’s refuge in the chaos of the Iraqi borderlands.

“The opposition forces will try to use the Iraqi territory as a safe haven for its forces taking advantage of the sympathy of the Iraqi border population, meanwhile trying to recruit fighters and train them on the Iraqi side…” the report reads.

The documents also make mention of the possible collusion between various terrorist groups in the region.

“ISIL could also declare an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the protection of its territory.”

Response by SPC Andrew Griffin made Jul 13 at 2016 1:24 PM

2016-07-13T13:24:19-04:00

Will this Work?