Syria Thread

Marauder06

Intel Enabler
Moderator
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
9,352
Reaction score
11,642
Location
CONUS
SSMP
I still don’t understand why Assad would use chem, given the pearl clutching (and TLAM launching) that ensues after. The only thing I can see is if he thinks that it will scare the shit out of the people there so bad that they will bail en masse and save him the time and blood of an offensive.

Any one else want to speculate?
 

AWP

Formerly Known as Freefalling
Administrator
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
13,931
Reaction score
19,258
Location
Not Afghanistan
I still don’t understand why Assad would use chem, given the pearl clutching (and TLAM launching) that ensues after. The only thing I can see is if he thinks that it will scare the shit out of the people there so bad that they will bail en masse and save him the time and blood of an offensive.

Any one else want to speculate?
The Russians. Their presence restricts our ability to react and even the Israelis are exercising restraint because of the Sovi..Russians. Assad knows he can use them and he'll take a hand slap or two, not the total destruction he deserves.
 

Devildoc

Verified Military
Joined
Nov 3, 2015
Messages
3,078
Reaction score
3,411
Location
Durham, NC
The Russians. Their presence restricts our ability to react and even the Israelis are exercising restraint because of the Sovi..Russians. Assad knows he can use them and he'll take a hand slap or two, not the total destruction he deserves.
That's what I am thinking. Like Grover, from The Christmas Story, hanging out with the bigger bully Scut Farkus; without Farkus, he is exposed and not nearly as a bad ass.
 

Diamondback 2/2

Infantry
Verified Military
Joined
Jan 24, 2008
Messages
6,712
Reaction score
3,914
Location
Tejas
SSMP
Military Mentor
So I know everyone is butthurt about Trump withdrawal of troops from Syria and Mattis resigning... I have a theory though.

Who is a better alley Turkey a NATO member who has allowed us to use their country for military bases and staging our forces. Or the Kurds? Now I know the Kurds have been a great alley, they are great fighters and we have done them wrong for years, especially when Saddam gased them.

But what if we look at the core of this, they are very communist, they use revolution style terrorism against a NATO card carrying alley, and are highly militaristic in culture. Now whether they should have a autonomous region and self protected or governed is an interesting debate. But that's not where I'm going here, I think it's impossible for Turkey to allow them to exist on their borders.

Now, Turkey has the big military campaign planned out to finish off ISIS and take out sections of the Kurds that have conducted terror attacks in Turkey proper. Erdogan, tells Trump get your people out or they may be caught in the mess. Trump goes against his advisors and says pull our guys out. Why would he do that?

Turkey is no fans of Russia, remember they shot down that Russian jet a few years ago. Right now Turkey has a mess on their hands, they have Kurd attacks in their country, refugees and fighters bouncing across their borders, then Russia launching military campaigns, Iranian clowns, Syrian freedom fighters, an unstable Syrian government, etc.

Who is our better alley? Who should we be protecting, who is most likely to kick some shit off with Russia? Why would we want our people involved in that?

We have pretty well shit all over the region, destabilizing Iraq, Syria, etc. Iran is flexing, Saudi's are flexing, Russia is in the region, and Turkey is probably the only true effective military power in the region outside of Israel. More than likely, Turkey is about to establish itself as a regional power house. Which means they are about to get bloody with a few countries. Being they are NATO member, and that we are retracting our global image or controls, Trump told the whole world to get their houses in order, etc, told all of NATO to step up to the plate, while being committed to withdraw of forces. It only makes sense that Turkey would establish their dominance.

Anyway, trying to view this from a larger perspective than the media hype. Mattis wasn't with that program so he resigned, I get it, can support the man you work for and his policy, you move out and seek life else where. My question is, is it really a bad thing, if my theory is correct, that Turkey establishing dominance in the region. It's their back yard any damn way, outside of them about kill a bunch of Kurd's (which we have fucked over this way for years) is there any down side to this?
 

Ooh-Rah

Marine
Moderator
Joined
Sep 12, 2012
Messages
9,498
Reaction score
13,972
Trump goes against his advisors and says pull our guys out. Why would he do that?
If I am to believe the news, and the timing of Trump's tweets, he straight up made the announcement without even giving his military advisors a chance to balk.

Mattis wasn't with that program so he resigned,
Assuming Mattis didn't know the announcement was coming, I would think it has more to do with the fact that Mattis never even had a chance to argue his point, but instead had to find out about yet another presidential decision via twitter.
 

Diamondback 2/2

Infantry
Verified Military
Joined
Jan 24, 2008
Messages
6,712
Reaction score
3,914
Location
Tejas
SSMP
Military Mentor
If I am to believe the news, and the timing of Trump's tweets, he straight up made the announcement without even giving his military advisors a chance to balk.

Assuming Mattis didn't know the announcement was coming, I would think it has more to do with the fact that Mattis never even had a chance to argue his point, but instead had to find out about yet another presidential decision via twitter.
I'll have look for it, but the story I read a couple days ago, said Mattis was trying to convince Trump to not withdraw from Syria, when he announced the withdraw, Mattis handed Trump his resignation.
 

Ocoka

Combined Action
Verified Military
Joined
Jun 29, 2014
Messages
5,915
Reaction score
8,808
Location
Decisive Terrain
So what was Bolton doing trying to rewrite the plan? Trump needs to fire that hack.
POTUS shot his mouth off about a complete withdrawal in 30 days without thinking about the consequences of that decision. Now, his staff is having to back pedal and amend that decision even as POTUS begins to realize he may have been precipitous.

This is the harsh reality setting in. He's lost his SecDef and his Pentagon chief of staff over this, both of whom warned that a 30-day withdrawal was strategically unsound and logistically impossible.

There are conditions that have to be met: Iran has to be kept away from the oil fields; Turkey has to give assurances it will not wipe out the Kurds; and remnants of ISIS have to be rendered impotent. This will take time.

This is not some renegade action by Bolton; it's a concerted effort to rectify a rash announcement and clarify policy.
 
Last edited:

PDL

Former RN Submarines
Verified Military
Joined
Apr 4, 2018
Messages
54
Reaction score
31
POTUS shot his mouth off about a complete withdrawal in 30 days without thinking about the consequences of that decision. Now, his staff is having to back pedal and amend that decision even as POTUS begins to realize he may have been precipitous.

This is the harsh reality setting in. He's lost his SecDef and his Pentagon chief of staff over this, both of whom warned that a 30-day withdrawal was strategically unsound and logistically impossible.

There are conditions that have to be met: Iran has to be kept away from the oil fields; Turkey has to give assurances it will not wipe out the Kurds; and remnants of ISIS have to be rendered impotent. This will take time.

This is not some renegade action by Bolton; it's a concerted effort to rectify a rash announcement and clarify policy.
Those are impossible conditions that will never be met. Sounds like those conditions are just selected to ensure endless war.
 

Ocoka

Combined Action
Verified Military
Joined
Jun 29, 2014
Messages
5,915
Reaction score
8,808
Location
Decisive Terrain
Those are impossible conditions that will never be met. Sounds like those conditions are just selected to ensure endless war.
Good point and you may be right. There may have to be varying degrees of compliance with those conditions...and who can guarantee, for instance, that Turkey will abide by them indefinitely.

Nevertheless, a total disengagement and withdrawal in 30 days is also unreasonable, and, as it happens, impossible. I'll take Mattis's view on matters like this any day over Trump's.
 

ThunderHorse

Verified Military
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
2,924
Reaction score
1,269
Location
El Paso reminds me of Rancho Cucamonga
POTUS shot his mouth off about a complete withdrawal in 30 days without thinking about the consequences of that decision. Now, his staff is having to back pedal and amend that decision even as POTUS begins to realize he may have been precipitous.

This is the harsh reality setting in. He's lost his SecDef and his Pentagon chief of staff over this, both of whom warned that a 30-day withdrawal was strategically unsound and logistically impossible.

There are conditions that have to be met: Iran has to be kept away from the oil fields; Turkey has to give assurances it will not wipe out the Kurds; and remnants of ISIS have to be rendered impotent. This will take time.

This is not some renegade action by Bolton; it's a concerted effort to rectify a rash announcement and clarify policy.
60-180 days for on ground withdrawal, but maintaining air operations from Iraq under the current command structure in CJTF-OIR is more than reasonable.
 

Marauder06

Intel Enabler
Moderator
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
9,352
Reaction score
11,642
Location
CONUS
SSMP
Leaving always seems to take more time than going in.

Depending on how many people we have there, what stuff they've got, and how much of a power vacuum (and infrastructure) we want to leave behind, 60+ days seems reasonable to me. If we wanted to leave all of our infrastructure and most of our equipment in place, and divert all of our strat air to Syria, we could probably get everyone out in 30 days. Otherwise it's probably going to take a while.

I would rather the President have said, "In 30 days, I want a plan to withdraw...".
 

AWP

Formerly Known as Freefalling
Administrator
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
13,931
Reaction score
19,258
Location
Not Afghanistan
60-180 days for on ground withdrawal, but maintaining air operations from Iraq under the current command structure in CJTF-OIR is more than reasonable.
The problem is that air operations are supported by sites located in Syria. To make up for that we have to launch more AWACS sorties and the second and third order effects from that alone are staggering. We could go with procedural control over Syria but then lose SA on Russian and Syrian aircraft that are more than willing to aggressively manuver around our a/c. Russia has done some downright dangerous things over there like launching crusie missiles through an active ROZ, spiking our a/c, etc.

And before anyone drops the OPSEC hammer, if you think the Russians don't know where these sites are located and what they do, I'll be polite and say you don't know what you don't know.

ETA: Before anyone says "how do you know this", I'm not going to play the secret squirrel game. I work in one of the regional C2 nodes and watch this play out in real time.
 

DA SWO

SOWT
Verified SOF
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Messages
8,601
Reaction score
5,327
Location
San Antonio Texas
Leaving always seems to take more time than going in.

Depending on how many people we have there, what stuff they've got, and how much of a power vacuum (and infrastructure) we want to leave behind, 60+ days seems reasonable to me. If we wanted to leave all of our infrastructure and most of our equipment in place, and divert all of our strat air to Syria, we could probably get everyone out in 30 days. Otherwise it's probably going to take a while.

I would rather the President have said, "In 30 days, I want a plan to withdraw...".
My understanding is he said in six months I want a plan to withdraw, and Mattis didn't deliver, instead giving a slight draw-down and extended stay plan.
At which point Trump said no, 30 days.
 
Top