Posted on Sep 19, 2014
President Obama moves to counter ISIS with free Syrian Army
9.3K
169
83
5
5
0
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?
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?
ISIS
Barack Obama
Command Post
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 21
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
CPT Ahmed Faried
exactly, this is no bueno. But we have this tendency to want immediate gratification and like our mistake with the Taliban (mujaheddin) of the 70s/80s, this too will likely come back to bite us.
(5)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
I have made the suggestion in other post that we should just side with Assad and let him get rid of ISIS and the rebels. At least we know where we stand with his regime.
(1)
(0)
CPO Andy Carrillo, MS
CPT Ahmed Faried - The 'bite' occurred in Benghazi when Amb. Stevens was negotiating arms deals with "moderate" rebel forces and the deal went south...so no one will say. "During an appearance on Fox News, General Thomas McInerney acknowledged that the United States “helped build ISIS” as a result of the group obtaining weapons from the Benghazi consulate in Libya which was attacked by jihadists in September 2012.
Asked what he thought of the idea of arming so-called “moderate” Syrian rebels after FSA militants kidnapped UN peacekeepers in the Golan Heights, McInerney said the policy had been a failure. “We backed I believe in some cases, some of the wrong people and not in the right part of the Free Syrian Army and that’s a little confusing to people, so I’ve always maintained….that we were backing the wrong types.”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/u-s-general-we-helped-build-isis-islamic-state-obtained-weapons-from-u-s-consulate-in-benghazi-libya/5399141
Asked what he thought of the idea of arming so-called “moderate” Syrian rebels after FSA militants kidnapped UN peacekeepers in the Golan Heights, McInerney said the policy had been a failure. “We backed I believe in some cases, some of the wrong people and not in the right part of the Free Syrian Army and that’s a little confusing to people, so I’ve always maintained….that we were backing the wrong types.”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/u-s-general-we-helped-build-isis-islamic-state-obtained-weapons-from-u-s-consulate-in-benghazi-libya/5399141
U.S. General: "We Helped Build ISIS” - Islamic State Obtained Weapons from U.S. Consulate in...
Photo: Hillary Clinton with the "Libyan rebels". During an appearance on Fox News, General Thomas McInerney acknowledged that the United States “helped build ISIS” as a result of the group obtaini...
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
I guess it's a cost-benefit analysis. Is it worth a three-front war, likely to last at least as long as OEF, for that group? If it is, then we should commit, and commit heavy. If it isn't worth it, then we stay out of the area. The half-hearted attempt to fight ISIS is going to end up poorly for us, with those weapons finding their way to people we don't want holding them.
(4)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
The Kurds aren't good people. They cause problems in Turkey and they don't get along with the native Iraqis. The Kurds have their own agenda. They, like the Palestinians, want their own country. Saddam kept them in check by sending his cousin (Chemical Ali) to gas them. Nobody really much cares for the Kurds and they seem to pride themselves in that.
As for the mess over there, I think we're simply reaping the rewards of what we had sown in that region way back when when we supported the Shah of Iran and meddled in everyone's business. If you talk to Middle Easterners, they will tell you the boundaries that the Europeans drew up are all artificial creations that didn't take into account who lived where and therefore are wrong. When Iran overthrew the Shah, we supported Saddam, who later turned on us. Iran is mostly Shiia Muslim, and Iraq's population likewise is mostly Shiia, but the Sunni's are who dominated Iraq under Saddam.
Those whom we ran through like crap through a goose during Desert Storm and again in the Gulf War are some of the same Sunni people whom we now face as ISIS. The difference being they are even more crazy, are armed with our weapons, and were trained by us so they know how we fight. Obama should have never given them a timetable for our troops leaving and we never should have left Iraq in a position where it wasn't ready to defend itself.
I think we should work on becoming more energy independent so that we aren't so dependent on the region remaining stable so that we can continue receiving oil imports from the region unimpeded including Saudi oil, of which a portion of the proceeds goes to fund jihad against us... We should work on fixing our country, paying off our national debts, securing our borders, and pulling ourselves up by the bootstraps. Our gov't is not being run very well by those elected. We need to elect a new crew to work on the problems our country is facing -- one not so entrenched in bureaucracy and beholden to the special interests that fund their reelection campaigns and keep them in office.
As for the mess over there, I think we're simply reaping the rewards of what we had sown in that region way back when when we supported the Shah of Iran and meddled in everyone's business. If you talk to Middle Easterners, they will tell you the boundaries that the Europeans drew up are all artificial creations that didn't take into account who lived where and therefore are wrong. When Iran overthrew the Shah, we supported Saddam, who later turned on us. Iran is mostly Shiia Muslim, and Iraq's population likewise is mostly Shiia, but the Sunni's are who dominated Iraq under Saddam.
Those whom we ran through like crap through a goose during Desert Storm and again in the Gulf War are some of the same Sunni people whom we now face as ISIS. The difference being they are even more crazy, are armed with our weapons, and were trained by us so they know how we fight. Obama should have never given them a timetable for our troops leaving and we never should have left Iraq in a position where it wasn't ready to defend itself.
I think we should work on becoming more energy independent so that we aren't so dependent on the region remaining stable so that we can continue receiving oil imports from the region unimpeded including Saudi oil, of which a portion of the proceeds goes to fund jihad against us... We should work on fixing our country, paying off our national debts, securing our borders, and pulling ourselves up by the bootstraps. Our gov't is not being run very well by those elected. We need to elect a new crew to work on the problems our country is facing -- one not so entrenched in bureaucracy and beholden to the special interests that fund their reelection campaigns and keep them in office.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
"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.”
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.”
(1)
(0)
CPO Andy Carrillo, MS
Declassified Pentagon Report: US Created ISIL as Tool Against Assad
We saw all this coming, not because we were military geniuses, but because it was so obvious.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
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...
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google