What do you think about the Obama Administration ending the program to train and arm Syrian rebels?

2015-10-09T09:27:22-04:00

“Training thousands of infantry was not the right model, I think that’s become pretty clear,” said another senior administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal planning.
The official said the training was “to be suspended, with the option to restart if conditions dictate, opportunities arise.” The official also said that support to Sunni Arab fighters in eastern Syria was an example of focusing on groups already fighting the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, “rather than using training to try to manufacture new brigades.”
The shift in strategy comes as critics in Congress have increasingly demanded that the administration make changes or face the elimination of the program altogether.
Update. I changed the hyperlink to the DoD News Release from October 9.
http://www.defense.gov/News-Article-View/Article/622663/pentagon-pauses-moderate-syrian-train-and-equip-mission?source=GovDelivery

Pentagon Shifts Focus in Syria

The Defense Department has shifted its focus in Syria and modified its program to train and equip moderate Syrian forces, according to a statement from Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Oct 9 at 2015 9:29 AM

2015-10-09T09:29:02-04:00

I am glad to learn that the program is ending and think it was somewhat misguided to train Syrian rebels to be infantry fighters.
I certainly hope that the arms that were sent from Libya to Syria were not used to kill friendlies anywhere. It was a travesty that Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen A. Doherty died during the negotiation process to transfer the arms.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 9 at 2015 9:39 AM

2015-10-09T09:39:15-04:00

Should have been ended a while ago. How many American homeless could have been fed with that wasted money?

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Oct 9 at 2015 9:44 AM

2015-10-09T09:44:31-04:00

No use throwing good money after bad, just because...sometimes its best to just cut your losses and the time is now...we have to have a shift in policy and shift in focus as the bear is moving in and we have to approach with different tactics.

We are going to revisit this decision within the next decade, we are seeing the fallout already with the exodus of 11,000,000 refugees already....

Response by SGM Steve Wettstein made Oct 9 at 2015 10:19 AM

2015-10-09T10:19:23-04:00

Thank God. It was a stupid idea from the get go.

Response by SSG James Arlington made Oct 9 at 2015 10:33 AM

2015-10-09T10:33:02-04:00

I don't know what the answer to this mess us, but we cannot fight civil wars for others who won't fight for themselves. Russia might just find out how difficult it is. Let them waste their money and lives.

Response by SFC Stephen King made Oct 9 at 2015 10:41 AM

2015-10-09T10:41:55-04:00

Needed to be done since inception...

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Oct 9 at 2015 10:50 AM

2015-10-09T10:50:16-04:00

After our training of the Iraqi's and Afgans and their performance for up to 14 years, why would we think this would be successful? Sounds like a plan drawn up by Jarrett, Rice and Powers. Certainly not from our top leadership in the military. I would bet that 90% or more on RP saw this coming.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 9 at 2015 10:55 AM

2015-10-09T10:55:13-04:00

Well it wasn't particularly working so there's that...

Additionally, continuing to arm them against the now Russian backed Assad regime was probably going to result in some crossfire between Russia and the US if only by proxy.

We will have to see where things go from here.

Response by CW3 Eric W. S. made Oct 9 at 2015 10:56 AM

2015-10-09T10:56:04-04:00

Are we sure this needs to be cancelled so soon, it worked so well in the past... Take Nicaragua, Iraq, Chechnya, Bosnia, Kosovo, Nigeria, Egypt...

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 9 at 2015 11:10 AM

2015-10-09T11:10:42-04:00

From a Civil Affairs perspective, this program failed to meet it's stated objectives, thus not meeting it's Measures of Performance.
What I would do in this situation is look to recapitalize the resources spent on this program to try another tack and see if that is more effective.
For those who would question this program in it's entirety (fair enough, I do too), keep in mind that the policy decision is made way up the food chain. Our job is to implement that policy.

Having said that, it is clear that this was becoming a political liability as well as an international embarrassment. I am pleased to see that we will discontinue squandering funds on this completely ineffectual program.

Response by 1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 9 at 2015 1:22 PM

2015-10-09T13:22:52-04:00

We need to stay the hell out of it.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 9 at 2015 1:29 PM

2015-10-09T13:29:10-04:00

http://news.yahoo.com/pentagon-change-training-program-syrian-rebels-120945061.html

Pentagon giving up on building new Syrian rebel force

LONDON (AP) — The U.S. is abandoning its goal of having America's military train a new force of moderate Syrian rebels, turning its focus to equipping, arming and supporting established groups already fighting against the Islamic State group inside Syria, officials said Friday.

Response by Lt Col Stephen Petzold made Oct 9 at 2015 3:27 PM

2015-10-09T15:27:50-04:00

It is a multi sided civil war which started with the people just fighting against Assad. Now you have ISIS and all these other groups fighting each other and Assad. So we gather some Syrians together and say we will train them and provide them with weapons, but they are only allowed to fight ISIS, not Assad or anyone else. Then we seem surprised when they take their training and weapons and run as soon as they get back in Syria.

We are in a ideological war against the radical Islam ideology. Can we win against an ideology? Yes, but it probably takes a total war, like we have not had since WWII. Bombed, killed, destroyed to the point of total unconditional surrender. Two problems with that. This ideology is not confined neatly to specific countries. And the western world does not have the stomach for total war anymore.

So not sure how best to fight the ideology, but the current strategy seems like "whack a mole" and the other side is not running out of moles.

Many have probably seen this video on Brigitte Gabriel's informative response on moderates, but the Muslim student at the beginning did ask a good question that goes to the heart of this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry3NzkAOo3s

Brigitte Gabriel gives FANTASTIC answer to Muslim woman claiming all Muslims are portrayed badly...

Finally! For years all we hear is that Islam has been 'hijacked' and that most Muslims are peaceful people: And that matters to the 270 million people who ha...

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Oct 9 at 2015 6:12 PM

2015-10-09T18:12:42-04:00

It just goes to show you we don't know crap about Syria.

Response by SSG Mannix Brooks made Oct 13 at 2015 2:13 PM

2015-10-13T14:13:14-04:00

What is a Syrian rebel in the first place because there seems to be a lot of them in groups that do not even like each other much less us, the Russians, Kurds or Assad's government. If they could not be trained to do what they asked us to train them for then they were just another terrorist organization claiming to be freedom fighters. Even before the civil war those in Syria who didn't like Assad didn't exactly like us either so it was a big waste of money. Keep bombing ISIS but stay out of the business with the rebels, Assad and Russia since the mess that results from that the Russians will inherent plus financial burden of defending themselves at home. We have interests in that part of the world but in Syria they are limited post civil war with Assad or without him.

Response by Col Mark Bednar made Oct 13 at 2015 3:14 PM

2015-10-13T15:14:45-04:00

Its just another Obama administration failure in the Middle East. Total ineptitude. The US should lead, not act half heartedly.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Oct 13 at 2015 4:34 PM

2015-10-13T16:34:57-04:00

ME: Sir we have 64 rebels willing to fight! GENERAL: You mean 64,000? ME: No sir! But it is an international coalition as there is Pedro and Yoshi ready to fight to the end. They are asking for 64 M-4s and 100,000 lbs. of ammo to commence their offensive against the Capital.

Response by LTC Mo Vanderslice made Oct 13 at 2015 5:10 PM

2015-10-13T17:10:27-04:00

Stephen, let's be honest. This plan was never going to work and would have been worse than the Bay of Pigs invasion if it had been executed. There was no plan beyond individual training; no collective training, NCO and junior leaders training, combined arms training, or MOUT training were ever laid out in the plan as briefed, as well as completely lacking any elements of command and control. That ill-trained herd would have been massacred.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 14 at 2015 1:06 PM

2015-10-14T13:06:20-04:00

As you seasoned veterans know, even the best instructor cannot train the will to fight. We cannot instill heart into the Soldier. If the Soldier doesn't come ready and willing to fight, we are only training a future target. For what we've been doing in Syria, the laws of diminishing returns apply. We may have had the best of intentions, but intentions don't win wars and they definitely don't justify political expedience over tried and true military leadership. It was a waste of resources and now the realization of zero political gain is in open.

Response by CWO3 Warren Gaudreau made Oct 14 at 2015 2:11 PM

2015-10-14T14:11:37-04:00

After the last few years, I would expect nothing less from the Evil Office than a waste like this !

Response by Sgt Jerry Genesio made Oct 14 at 2015 3:14 PM

2015-10-14T15:14:18-04:00

We were trained to defend our country and constitution in just 12 weeks and we were ready for combat. I believe it's 13 weeks now, but during WW II it was 8 to 9 weeks. I don't understand how we can spend millions of dollars training Afghan, Iraqi and Syrian men and after years they're still not ready for combat. I don't understand why so many of the refugees are Afghan, Iraqi and Syrian men fleeing from their country rather than fighting to defend it. If they had the will to fight for their country, they'd be ready and anxious to get on with it after three months, max. If they don't have the will, no amount of training will give it to them. We should be spending it on our troops for higher pay and better equipment. Instead, we give it to corrupt foreign politicians and military officers and waste it on those who motivated only by money.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 14 at 2015 3:25 PM

2015-10-14T15:25:27-04:00

we supported the wrong people there ... we should have supported the Kurd!

Response by SPC Byron Skinner made Oct 14 at 2015 4:03 PM

2015-10-14T16:03:07-04:00

Sp 4 Byron Skinner
The answer to your question is rather simple. We need to get pout of the Arab World
. Russia right now is talking a huge hit, over 1,000 KIA's week in week, over 50 T-72 taken out by TOES, estimate Russia will need 150,000 troops to do the job, country heading for bankruptcy. Let the crash and burn. What we have here is the Arab Spring doing what it has to do get rid of legacy corrupt Islamic governments, its an Arab vs. Arab conflict, there is not place for the US, We have no irreplaceable interests in the Arab World. Come back when they sort it out.

Response by SMSgt Sheila Berg made Oct 14 at 2015 4:04 PM

2015-10-14T16:04:10-04:00

A waste of funds that could have been used for our own troops.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Oct 14 at 2015 4:09 PM

2015-10-14T16:09:33-04:00

$500 million and they have 5 fighters to show for it. My plan is simple: Pay 50,000 unemployed grunts that much cash and provided the ammo & beer, the troubles would be all over.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Oct 14 at 2015 4:43 PM

2015-10-14T16:43:33-04:00

It's a cost saving decision. When POTUS brings 200,000 stateside, we can train them here while they wait for free medical/dental/welfare/housing and complimentary preselected ballot.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Oct 14 at 2015 6:22 PM

2015-10-14T18:22:37-04:00

What do I think? I try not to. Nothing is as frustrating as having an opinion that no one cares about.
How would I form a rational opinion? Our fearless leaders in Washington choose to treat citizens such as me like mushrooms. They keep us in the dark and feed us shit. And the news media are the audio/visual department of the political parties.
Should I go on? Okay. Sorry, I just have more questions...
Why is the establishment of democracy the avowed goal of US foreign policy?
Why didn't we support those who actually might have brought and kept stability in the region before they were annihilated?
Tired yet?
I am...

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Oct 14 at 2015 6:28 PM

2015-10-14T18:28:46-04:00

LTC Stephen F. I seems reasonable to me as the program to train US backed forces met with little success

Response by SSgt Michael Cox made Oct 15 at 2015 11:30 AM

2015-10-15T11:30:59-04:00

as the syrian rebel general said in one of the news interviews they would rather fight asad than isis and that was the problem. isis isn't fighting most of them so they are on the back burner when asad is bombing the cities were the rebels and there families live.

Response by PO1 Kenneth Cardwell made Oct 15 at 2015 1:31 PM

2015-10-15T13:31:32-04:00

No billion dollar wars! Wars cost money and lives!

Response by COL Ted Mc made Oct 16 at 2015 5:59 PM

2015-10-16T17:59:36-04:00

LTC Stephen F. - Colonel; I suspect that the "plan" (such as it was) would have been doomed to failure regardless of who the President was.

Simply put, the whole Syrian/ISIS mess was grossly underestimated, poorly understood, equivocally approached, and badly handled as far back as 2005 (maybe further).

Now the situation is that the US has to decide if it is going to support the fanatically violent Islamists who are trying to overthrow the legal government and wipe out the not so fanatically violent Islamists, the not so fanatically violent Islamists who are trying to overthrow the legal government and wipe out the fanatically violent Islamists, or the corruptly violent legal government which is clinging to power while trying to wipe out the not so violent Islamists (and possibly co-operating with the fanatically violent Islamists in order to stage manage a "terrorist crisis" so that it can get American aid).

I don't see that there is actually any good option left to pick here and possibly the best course of action is to let the Russians have the problem to deal with. But even that option is a bad one.

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Oct 19 at 2015 8:04 AM

2015-10-19T08:04:42-04:00

It was ineffective program to begin with and ultimately ended up wasting money and costing lives

Response by SPC David S. made Oct 19 at 2015 1:00 PM

2015-10-19T13:00:14-04:00

This idea was half cooked - The CIA has been working to topple Syria ever since 1956. There was once a plan to supply weapons to paramilitary groups including the Muslim Brotherhood in an effort to make Syria appear as the sponsor of plots, sabotage and violence directed against neighboring governments - mainly Iraq back in the 50's.

I still believe that ISIS was due to some spillover from an Assad regime change as the CIA had hired former Isis leader Omar al-Shishani to lead Chechen separatists to fight Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union as well the former plot of sponsoring paramilitary groups including the likes of the Muslim Brotherhood to engage in terrorist activity. There are too many coinkydinks with ISIS. Same Chechen guy, a very similar plot, same country we've been trying to topple subversively for 60 some years and all of a sudden ISIS shows up there? ISIS goes awry and now we're funneling arms from Libya to Syria to more or less any black flag that wants Assad (Russian Imperialism) out.

The current U.S. scheme rests on a misguided belief that a "moderate" militant faction exists on the ground in Syria in such numbers that, if adequately trained and equipped, they could topple Assad. The problem is finding the numbers in "moderate" fighters. As the more extremists militants are high jacking the resources being funneled this was doomed to fail. Obama had a opening with the crossing of the red line yet waned on this opportunity in large part by his over reach in Libya with a far less humanitarian crisis 25,000 vs the 200,000 in Syria.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/world/middle-east/article35322882.html

U.S. training helped mold top Islamic State military commander

The 15 Chechens looking to cross the border from Turkey to Syria didn’t strike Abdullah as particularly important or unusual.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Oct 20 at 2015 4:36 PM

2015-10-20T16:36:33-04:00

They don't have to put up 65 Rebels and $100,000,000 on the slides now.