"US troops back in Syria; here we go again" Topic

link

The Syrian state news agency (SANA) reported that US troops and military and logistical equipment had entered Syrian territory through the Al-Waleed border gate from northern Iraq and were sent to the US military base in Hasaka province.

According to Sanaa, in the past few days, helicopters belonging to the International Coalition Against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) have transferred logistical equipment and heavy weapons to the Koniko oil field.

It should be noted that Brett McGurk, the former US representative in the anti-ISIS coalition, who was against the US withdrawal from Syria, is now the head of his country's security policy in the Middle East and North Africa. Given his background, McGurk is expected to increase the US military presence in Syria and strengthen Kurdish forces.

Well that didn't take long! It struck me as odd back in the early "oughts." when all the "anti (some) war" crowd kept quiet once GW was replaced with St. Barack of The East Side. He said he was going to end all these foreign misadventures and close Guantanamo Bay, but didn't get around to it, apparently. I was wondering who would be the first victim of the strategic trap we have created for ourselves would be. Iran? Not really practical. The Norks? Same thing. Russia? China? Those big dogs? Vanish the thought!

The Pentagon always get its way, Even if a President says No.

Didn't we JUST get out of there? What the heck?

I remember "MY" democratic party of the 60's and 70's when we protested war. What happened?

The Pentagon always get its way, Even if a President says No.

That is far from my experience. Back when I was on active duty and even now. We were/are always short of equipment in the Infantry and some other combat branches.

But IMO, However, if arming the Kurds means keeping ISIS at bay/regrouping/kill off more of the animals. Well that might be worth it.

Do not count of us arming the Kurds. Turkey is prepping another offensive to push them back using the FSA.

Yes, that is all part of the dynamics of the region. The only reason we don't we don't put too much pressure on the Turks is they have the 2d largest army in NATO. And with most of the rest of NATO downsizing. Then Turks may be more important to NATO. Even though they have become less secular and more religious. That does not bode well for the region … Or the Kurds. But can we depend on the Turks to eliminate as many ISIS as possible ?

The Pentagon always get its way, Even if a President says No.

Who runs the Pentagon? The President has a lot of say in the matter. He sets policy along with his chosen Secretary of Defense. I'd say the former National Command Authority did a pretty good job of keeping us out of war. I wonder about the current NCA.

It will be "interesting" to see how this turns out.

Wonder when the pallet-loads of cash flights restart?

Top US official admits lying to Trump on American troop levels in Syria.

link

link

From the second article;

" Jeffrey now says that Trump's "modest" and transactional approach to the Middle East has yielded a more stable region than either of his predecessors' more transformational policies."

So the President wanted troops out; and this guy lied to keep more in. Sounds like it worked to everyone's advantage. Officially we were out of Syria; the President and American people happy; but troops remained keeping pressure on ISIS and helping the Kurds. A win – win.

I see that only a few days after occupying the Oval Office, the new Biden regime has boldly reversed Trump's dangerous Middle East de-escalation policies by shipping in a convoy of weapons and moving several hundred US troops into Syria to protect the oilfields we will need to overcome our selfish "independence" issues with regards to domestic energy production…

Well let's see: Everyone screamed about the strategic blunder including Mattis and "voila!" we're back! The Kurds should really learn not to trust us.

You gotta be kidding me. 200 troops escorting a 40-truck convoy resupplying the Kurds constitutes a return to Syria? We have more troops than that in various parts of Africa on long-term missions to fight off illegal poachers protecting wildlife that don't even make the back page news.

The Kurds should really learn not to trust us.

Which "The Kurds" did you mean? The Kurdish peoples are not a monolithic entity, they are scattered across northern Iran, Iraq, and Syria, and southern Turkey in a dozen or more factions. So there is no "The Kurds" -- there's the PKK, KCK, KPC, PYD (a PKK offshoot in Syria), Tev-Dem, YPG, YPJ, KNC, DBK, KRG, Peshmerga, KDP, and the PUK.

Given the shifting alphabet soup of factions, forgive me if I err -- but I believe the primary faction of Kurds that the US worked with in the Gulf War is the KDP, and we worked with them in the fight against Al Qaeda. They are located hundreds and hundreds of miles away from the area in Syria we're talking about – they are in northern Iraq and still have good ties with the US.

The Kurds the US "abandoned" in Syria are one of several Syrian Kurdish groups, and this one -- the PYD is an offshoot of the PKK (militant Communist Kurdistan Worker's Party – which is an internationally recognized terrorist group). So why were we supporting them in the first place?

In any event, within 24 hours of the US "abandoning" them, this group announced an alliance with -- the Assad Regime.

You gotta be kidding me. 200 troops escorting a 40-truck convoy resupplying the Kurds constitutes a return to Syria?

The US had de-escalated operations in Syria. Now under the new Oval Office occupants we have reversed course, and has re-escalated US operations in Syria. It often starts off small…but when you have a chaotic array of major and minor powers all wheeling & dealing, allying one day and backstabbing the next any presence can be risky and explosive.

USAF & Thresher +1 ea.

200 troops escorting a 40-truck convoy resupplying the Kurds constitutes a return to Syria?

Well if you are one of those 200 Troops you are in a combat zone. So … Their mission may not be direct combat in nature. At this time. But that could change in seconds. And I'm sure they are prepared for it. Along with CAS on stand-by in the Med or even better yet in Israel. I hope …

So there is no "The Kurds" -- there's the PKK, KCK, KPC, PYD (a PKK offshoot in Syria), Tev-Dem, YPG, YPJ, KNC, DBK, KRG, Peshmerga, KDP, and the PUK.

Yes, that is the standard in that region. You need different colored numbered jerseys and a roster to tell who all the players are. And they will need a lot of colors.

As far as which Kurds the USA, short answer, IMO anyone that will kill off as many ISIS as possible. But again it's hard to know who is who, what they want, who are they "allied" with, etc., etc. And that is subject to change …

In any event, within 24 hours of the US "abandoning" them, this group announced an alliance with -- the Assad Regime.

That should be no surprise there. For them it's a matter of survival.

And the usefulness of all of this to a "miniatures" page discussion forum is what exactly?

Making up scenarios to game this conflict…?

The increase in traffic?

The Miniatures Page.

Making up scenarios to game this conflict…?

Regardless of comments … that is what I was thinking. "200 troops escorting a 40-truck convoy resupplying the Kurds", that could be a pretty good scenario.

I've played similar in other conflicts and other eras. Could be pretty challenging.

The guy(s) who lied to the President and kept troops in against his wishes should be brought up on charges, sent to Leavenworth for a VERY long time, and lose their pensions.
If the charges are serious enough, a firing squad shouldn't be off the table either.

This kind of thing should NOT be tolerated in any military.

Yes, but I doubt they would be shot. But regardless, there are civilians that work in the Pentagon too. If anyone would be more apt to lie IMO it would be them. And based on those links it looks like it was a civilian…

"And the usefulness of all of this to a "miniatures" page discussion forum is what exactly?".

Getting people to include the unwillingness of lower level troops to follow direct orders in their rules.

Sometimes they will go rogue and commit treason.

Talk about a chance card!

"Roll 1 on a 2D6 and draw for treason: Your civilian contractors move trucks of small arms ammo or breakfast cereal into a foreign country and precipitate…." A regional war? A stern talking to by the base commander from whence they came? Harsh denunciations by players of the presumably bad mistakes of previous administrations?

Now I just need to paint a few bases of shady looking FedEx drivers or Amazon drone operators. :-)

The guy(s) who lied to the President and kept troops in against his wishes should be brought up on charges, sent to Leavenworth for a VERY long time, and lose their pensions.
If the charges are serious enough, a firing squad shouldn't be off the table either.

This kind of thing should NOT be tolerated in any military.

Except for the getting shot part, I agree 100%.
Aren't we supposed to have civilian control of the military???
I don't care what "the military" think of the civilian leadership. That's totally out of line.

Aren't we supposed to have civilian control of the military???

It is and it does …

I don't care what "the military" think of the civilian leadership.

The military can think what they want of the civilian leadership. But took an oath to follow any legal orders from the elected and appointed leadership.

I never voted while on active duty. It really didn't matter, IMO. We took an oath to follow the orders of the POTUS, etc., regardless. So what I thought of the POTUS, etc., really was of little impact. As long as those orders are legal we have to follow them.

This discussion had me thinking about what the oath actually says. So for the record I've copied the oath below. Notice that the officers oath is slightly different than the enlisted oath.

Officer:
I, (state your name), having been appointed a (rank) in the United States Air Force, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution Of the United States against all enemies, Foreign and domestic, that I bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter. So help me God. (optional)

Enlisted:
I, (state your name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. (optional)

Unfortunately that is what or government has evolved in to. The establishment has its goals and what an elected president wants is unimportant if he goes against those goals. I would imagine the president knew about the whole thing, but what can he do . The establishment will drag their feet and like what just happen run out the election clock. This happens on the domestic side as well.

USAF +1

NavyVet, that is very true. And it does not look like it is going to get better anytime soon ….