What's going on in Syria? Are the United States and Russia using it as a battle ground to promote their political agendas?

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 13 Oct 2015 11:38:46 -0400

Has anyone been paying attention to the back and forth between the United States and Russia in Syria?

Four years ago a nonviolent protest of the abusive Al Assad regime began there during Ramadan cumulating to a large protest on the event of the Eid. The people were protesting government corruption and human rights abuses.

These protests were met by the Al Assad regime with censorship and concessions. This should have been the end but the uprising created the opportunity for militant oppositions to move in and create more civil disturbance and led to the creation of the Free Syria Army. All of this escalated to what we now have.

The United States government giving Syrian Rebels 50 tons of ammunition and Russia bombing rebel positions in support of the Assad regime. After 100 Russian airstrikes it has become evident that they are not just targeting ISIS.

Russia is taking the position they are fighting anyone who is fighting Assad. Russia, has been concerned by what it sees as U.S. backed coups against pro-Russian governments in Ukraine, Georgia, and elsewhere. This would mean they are likely to see US backed rebels as a threat possibly even more of a threat than ISIS.

The U.S. calls Russia's continuing airstrikes against the rebels a "Fundamental mistake" and that the U.S. troops will not be cooperating with Russia because the Russians are moving forward with attacks which come from air, sea, and ground in support of Syrian ground forces.

Is our goal in Syria clear? While we give the rebels weapons and ammunition we are not willing to commit troops to support them or provide them with air cover. If we're not willing to commit to a strategy which will be supportive of winning is it worth continuing to arm and supply the rebels and to be supportive of the Kurdish backed movement against ISIS in eastern Syria?

Conclusion Russia will continue to fight all forces which are mounted against Al Assad's regime while the U.S. will continue to back all rebels and the Kurdish forces who are trying to defeat ISIS. The civilians will continue to suffer and bear the tragedy of being caught between them. Parallel wars or a political fight between Russia and the U.S.?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/13/middleeast/syria-civil-war/

SSG James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4" Maj Mike Sciales COL Mikel J. Burroughs SSG Toryn Green SGT Private RallyPoint Member Sgt Richard Buckner SSgt Terry P. SFC James Sczymanski CSM Michael J. Uhlig LTC Private RallyPoint Member LTC Stephen C. LTC John Shaw LTC Private RallyPoint Member MAJ Bryan Zeski @

U.S., Russia escalate involvement in Syria - CNN.com

After four years and 300,000 deaths, the Syrian civil war is getting more complicated. The U.S. and Russia are stepping up their roles -- on opposing sides.

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Oct 13 at 2015 11:43 AM

CSM Michael J. Uhlig — Tue, 13 Oct 2015 11:43:15 -0400

It sure looks like a political tug-o-war, and the people become the by-products of victims, It appears as though Russia might be more committed to the cause by adding armor and troops on the ground

Response by SCPO David Lockwood made Oct 13 at 2015 11:44 AM

SCPO David Lockwood — Tue, 13 Oct 2015 11:44:15 -0400

That truly would not surprise me in the least!

Response by SSgt Terry P. made Oct 13 at 2015 11:51 AM

SSgt Terry P. — Tue, 13 Oct 2015 11:51:07 -0400

CPT Private RallyPoint Member It certainly looks very similar to past situations between the U.S. and Russia.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Oct 13 at 2015 11:59 AM

MCPO Roger Collins — Tue, 13 Oct 2015 11:59:48 -0400

Fighter jets and S-300 systems are projection of power. The political part is we are viewed as impotent and that means others will follow suit.

Response by SGT Jeremiah B. made Oct 13 at 2015 12:19 PM

SGT Jeremiah B. — Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:19:55 -0400

On some level, yes. I think, however, this is Russia deciding enough is enough. Assad is a valuable ally to Russia and anyone who would replace him would be...less amenable to Russian influence. They are finally just taking sides because the US and it's allies have chosen theirs. That's working out to be a bit messy.

Frankly, I think Putin's nuts, but I'll give him credit for one thing - He pushes in places he knows the West isn't going to push back. It might come to it at some point, but most Americans have zero interest in mixing it up with Russia over Syria or Crimea.

Response by SGT Francis Wright made Oct 13 at 2015 12:24 PM

SGT Francis Wright — Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:24:19 -0400

Excuse my bluntness: It looks like a cluster fuck. Because BHO has no idea what he is doing. Putin is supporting his ally, with the the support of their legislative process.

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Oct 13 at 2015 12:36 PM

SSG Gerhard S. — Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:36:16 -0400

It looks a lot like the US called for the ousting of Assad.... and then did little, or nothing afterward.... It sounds like Pres Obama drew some red lines, and then when they were crossed, he, again, did little, or nothing. It sounds like President Obama underestimated Isis, "JV team", and then when the reality turned out to be something else, he called for "pin-pricks", and a serious campaign to "degrade" their effectiveness. It sounds like King Abdullah asked the US for bullets bombs and missiles to fight ISIS, and again, got little, or nothing.

In short, it sounds like others in the Region got tired of President Obama's aggressive use of inaction, and the Russians were more than happy to come in and fill the vacuum. I don't know why anybody would be surprised.

Response by COL Jon Thompson made Oct 13 at 2015 4:05 PM

COL Jon Thompson — Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:05:30 -0400

I don't think it is the Cold War revisited. I think Putin senses weakness from the U.S. and President Obama and is taking advantage of that perception to look strong at the expense of the U.S. I believe that he also senses that if Assad remains in power, he not only has that ally but also strengthens relations with Iran and then the Shi'ite leadership in Iraq. He is probably betting that the U.S. will not do anything close to what they did in Afghanistan in the 1980's.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Oct 13 at 2015 4:11 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:11:20 -0400

So let me get this straight. Russia is picking sides with the Traditional Bully named Assad, which makes ISIS an enemy. We backed the scrawniest kid in Syria which makes Assad and ISIS the enemy.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Oct 13 at 2015 5:15 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Tue, 13 Oct 2015 17:15:40 -0400

Glad to see we still have the money to govern the world. Team America. F!@# Yeah!

Response by Maj Mike Sciales made Oct 13 at 2015 5:28 PM

Maj Mike Sciales — Tue, 13 Oct 2015 17:28:00 -0400

I've been watching Syria for years, since 2000. Basha al Assad is the oldest son, educated, urbane, sophisticated. His father spent his life whipping Syria into shape. I have friends who grew up there and they said it wasn't all that bad. It was bad if you ran afoul of the secret police, but really, isn't that true anywhere after 9-11? During all these years Syria was a client state of the Soviets and now the Russians. Like him or not, al Assad is the President. Our single opportunity to stop things and do the most good would have been when he gassed those folks in Ghouta, in Aguust 2013 killing somewhere between 200 and 2000 folks. We KNEW it was a chemical attack and by rights we could have fired off a bunch of Tomahawks and blown up some facilities and made an instant painful message "Don't do that ever again." and it would have worked. Our allies in the middle East were disappointed in us. We looked weak. They all knew it was chems. They saw all the raw unedited live feed. I was in Australia and I saw it. There were debates in Parliament endorsing action and even Congress was in a mood, but by then the moment had passed. So, since we don't like Assad we watched the Arab spring go forward and were cheering and clapping in DC because we had a team we could fund and field. It would be the Syrian version of "Charlie Wilson's war" and we know how well Afghanistan worked out. So as ISIS/Daesh loomed large we became somewhat confused and distracted about who to support. We didn't want to support Daesh or any other "Muslim/Sunni" groups because Daesh is notionally "sunni" and we don't want to support any Muslim/Shi'ia groups because that's saddling up to the Iranians and we haven't done that since Ollie North sold guns to the Contras in Honduras to pay Israel for the F-4 parts they were selling to Iran so they could keep their aircraft flying in their war against Iraq. Got it?

So now it is all sort of crazy in Syria, because even though al Assad was offered the middle eastern golden parachute for dictators "Come live in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia for the rest of your days. Live in peace." These apply to a dictator's immediate family and entourage. The Saudis are happy to host them, to reduce trouble. Nobody in the GCC was willing to take his entire security apparatus and that was a show stopper because one of his brothers is the Chief of Security and his people went too far in repressing the population before the Arab Spring, so they are absolutely committed to fighting in place. Unlike the Iraqi army, the Syrians are well trained and motivated. They've been gaining experience and can first rout the rebels and then turn attention to Daesh and see what deal they can work with them, or else they'll simply hunt them down and kill them.

So ask yourself this. Given our track record in Afghanistan and Iraq - do we really think we understand this region, these people, well enough to come up with a cogent, workable plan for our operations in Syria? What would our goal be? Regime change? All I saw on the State dept site was an interest in those chems. Fine. Let the UN handle that because we missed out shot and he isn't using them anymore.

Do we want to enter into a proxy war with Russia? Putin is training his forces. He's projecting power to restore confidence at home because he made a mess of things in the Ukraine. He has a relationship with Syria that isn't unlike our relationship with Israel. Might not make sense to others, but it works for us. He's committed and will demonstrate unwavering loyalty to al Assad, while getting his advisors combat training and he can do live fire missile tests. So, why should we, the USA, take on a burden -- boots on the ground and Americans dying, when we really have no clear of idea of what we hope to accomplish beyond "regime change." We did a "regime change" in Iraq and got a useless, corrupt military force -- selling our gear to Daesh. So......what do you think we ought to do?

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Oct 13 at 2015 6:48 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Tue, 13 Oct 2015 18:48:25 -0400

The article started out well. The Syrian civil war is getting more complicated. However, I fear it went astray after that. Yes Russia is stepping up its role, but is the US? It seems to me that both are making massive mistakes in regards to that part of the world. The US has dropped the diplomatic ball like a hot potato. Russia is picking it up while their hands are being burnt. Both are attempting to choose sides (I suspect Russia's choice was merely to choose the opposite of that which the US seemed to be supporting, without any rational consideration.) Ultimately, both are like rookie cops who step between the Bickersons and the warring sides of a marital dispute will always turn on whomever attempts that. Ultimately, you need to apply enough force to dissuade both factions without showing favoritism to either side, at least long enough to get the children out of harm's way. Sadly, I'm beginning to think that the solution will be similar to one a major mentioned in Vietnam. Take all the good, peaceful Syrians and put them on boats in the middle of the Mediterranean and then bomb the nation into a glass tabletop. Then sink the boats and go home...

Response by SrA Art Siatkowsky made Oct 13 at 2015 8:26 PM

SrA Art Siatkowsky — Tue, 13 Oct 2015 20:26:24 -0400

Syria is an utter mess and I dont know enough about the political landscape to know if we are backing the right side. The trouble was always there but a massive drought destroyed 80percent of the farm land adding to the turmoil. The rebels may have been instigated by our cia and I wonder how much involvement our government had in the Egyptian revolt. Assad is committing war crimes but apparently so are the rebels and now add ISIS and I would say there needs to be stability for the peoples sake. What a mess and maybe Putin is doing the right thing…. For the wrong reasons im sure but these people are being slaughtered by all 3 factions.

Response by MAJ Bryan Zeski made Oct 15 at 2015 2:00 AM

MAJ Bryan Zeski — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 02:00:10 -0400

As I've said before, Syria is a move by Russia to draw the US into another ground war that we cannot "win." Russia has, in comparison, minimal costs associated with movement to and from that front. This is an attempt to distract the US and the world from Russia's continued occupation of the Ukraine. Eventually, Russia will also further occupy Syria and then set its sights on Turkey.

The US would be making a terrible mistake to send troops into Syria at this point. We'd essentially be depleting our resources by throwing them against Russian forces with reasonable expectation of reaching an objective or outcome that we want. We wouldn't be able to put in any kind of government without a large continuing presence and as soon as we left, Russia would support an overthrow of that government in a heartbeat.

The only way to win in Syria right now is not to get further involved.