Posted on Oct 9, 2015
What do you think about the Obama Administration ending the program to train and arm Syrian rebels?
10.2K
129
73
9
9
0
“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
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
Posted in these groups: 
Office of the President (POTUS)
ISIS
Office of the President (POTUS) ISIS
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 34
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
LTC Stephen F.
I wholeheartedly concur with your comments especially the lack of "collective training , NCO and junior leaders training, combined arms training, or MOUT training" and the likely result of their baptism of fire LTC Mo Vanderslice
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
Sgt Jerry Genesio
Apparently, with regard to the Syrian rebels the US has been training, the term "rebel" is synonymous with "refugee".
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
MSgt (Join to see) - Master Sergeant; Since the original plan - essentially - called for those being trained to abandon their tribal affiliations and this one doesn't this one might possibly work better.
To what effect I have no idea - especially considering that those who aren't being trained are quite capable of turning against the whole tribe of those who are being trained.
To what effect I have no idea - especially considering that those who aren't being trained are quite capable of turning against the whole tribe of those who are being trained.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
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
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.
(1)
(0)
LTC Stephen F.
What is a "coinkydinks" SPC David S. is that supposed to be coincidences?
Other that that, thanks for the well-reasoned post:-)
Other that that, thanks for the well-reasoned post:-)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SPC David S. - Spec; Don't sell Mr. al-Assad's manipulating of the situation in order to make the "terrorism" threat look worse than it actually was in order to sucker the US government into a position where it didn't really have much choice but to stop opposing him short.
(0)
(0)
SPC David S.
No sir I'm not at all trying to diminish Assad's role in the problems with Syria after all his policies are the catalyst behind the current bloodshed. Assad as well certainly played his part in drawing Russia into the fight. However when the US did nothing in his use of chemical weapons I feel that call on Obama's bluff embolden him as well as Putin in their sabre rattling.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
It was ineffective program to begin with and ultimately ended up wasting money and costing lives
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google