"Syria Says It Will Drive-Out U.S. Soldiers From The Country" Topic

…If They Do Not Leave Voluntarily

"Syria's foreign minister on Monday vowed to drive U.S. troops out of his country if they do not leave voluntarily.

Speaking to the United Nations General Assembly in New York, Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad called the presence of Turkish and U.S. troops in northern Syria illegal and a flagrant violation of international law.

Hundreds of U.S. troops are stationed in eastern Syria and working with Kurdish-led fighters to combat the Islamic State militant group…"
Main page
link

Armand

Good luck with that … The Syrians generally don't well against other people with guns. This guy is trying to do a Syrian version of Baghdad Bob.

Well, drive the Turks out first, for practice and to see how good you are. Then try us.
They won't get by a single Turkish platoon.

But, realistically, leave it to the Turks to sort out. I can't think of a single reason to stay there, especially since we've already betrayed the Kurds, and have little credibility there. If the Administration can convince me why we're there, try. It boggles the mind why "we" were so eager to throw the Afghans under the bus, but are still in Syria. Or, is it Iraq? Since nobody seems willing to explain why we're there, why should I care?

I agree that they shouldn't be able to win, and drive us out, but stone age guys riding on mopeds with guns just defeated the new, woke, US Army, and took over Kabul AND the entire country of Afghanistan, so I wouldn't be surprised if we lose to the much better equipped Syrians too. They have jets and tanks, in addition to mopeds.

We have our own, far superior versions of Baghdad Bob. They are far more skilled at telling brazen lies, daily, than he could have ever hoped to be.

You have it all wrong! They meant drive them out of the country in the Uber sense- they are just offering offering,US troops a free ride! :)

Hey! Weren't we out of Syria at one time?

Syria was much better without America and friends trying to wreck the place.

Legion, Syria's best troops have far more experience in high intensity warfare than any Americans since Vietnam.

Issue against Turks isn't about troop quality, it is about Turkish air supremacy.

Note Turks got their butts kicked by jihadis and Kurds when they couldn't apply airpower properly.

I am sure Uncle Sam troops would also get massacred if they lost air and artillery superiority.

That is the nature of modern war.

"…Syria's best troops have far more experience in high intensity warfare than any Americans since Vietnam".

Ha, ha, ha, ardo. I appreciate the belly laugh this morning.

There HAVE been "little conflicts" our troops have been involved in, like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and I suspect a number of others which may need to remain secret, or at least officially unacknowledged.

I really doubt most of Syria's "best troops" are as capable, disciplined, and well armed as those of the US Army, Marines, and Special Forces units, including our USN Seals.

Oh…the troops Trump ordered withdrawn? You know, the order State and DOD ignored 'cause they felt they should be in charge of US foreign policy?

Thresher +1 E.g.

here HAVE been "little conflicts" our troops have been involved in, like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and I suspect a number of others which may need to remain secret, or at least officially unacknowledged.

I really doubt most of Syria's "best troops" are as capable, disciplined, and well armed as those of the US Army, Marines, and Special Forces units, including our USN Seals.

IMO Ardo's bias makes his comments of little/questionable worth IMO.
E.g. :

I am sure Uncle Sam troops would also get massacred if they lost air and artillery superiority.

I highly doubt this. Like many of the Armies of the Mid East the Syrians are not very well trained, etc. And their experience is not against the quality of the US troops.

And yes it is SOP. US troops call-in CAS & FA when contact is made generally. However, in many cases it is denied for fear of CD. Regardless I feel secure that the US Troops are superior to the Syrians … The Syrians have never been considered top level troops. Their ops in their own nation again demonstrates this. Based not only my readings, studies, etc., but former troops who were there …

Again ardo's biases vs. the US military/gov't etc. IMO is not that "accurate, etc., IMO …

Yes, the U.S. troops will use d20 and the Syrian will be using d8. That said, 1000 d8 will overwhelm 10 d20.

+1 Col. Regardless of how good US troops are vs Syrians I don't see any value of US troops being there and if Syria wants us out we either leave or declare war (yes I'm aware of how that 2nd item is so passe). I'm just a tad tired of "$19 a month because the gov't who ordered them there won't pay now" commercials. No US troops should be dying in Syria for a policy of "we don't know what we're doing but terrorists will be in your bathroom if we don't do it, keep very afraid".

(smile)

Armand

Yes, the U.S. troops will use d20 and the Syrian will be using d8. That said, 1000 d8 will overwhelm 10 d20.

Highly unlikely the Syrian (d8s) will mass and make that big of an attack. The US is not their only threat/problems in the area. The Syrians seem like most of the nations in that area. They don't do combined arms, etc., very well. Plus the USA does have combat multipliers i.e.: intel assets seeing. etc., what the Syrians are doing, along with CAS & possibly FA.

Also note, this not a game of RISK.

Will Assad risk US airstrikes from the Med & Iraq on his forces ?

Or worst yet … air assets going after him ?

Doesn't he have enough problems ?

But bottom line … do we know what will happen if the US pulls it's few troops out of Syria back into Iraq ?

Regardless … we have air assets in any event …

Assad does not want to end up like Suilimani …

Ha, ha, ha, ardo. I appreciate the belly laugh this morning.

There HAVE been "little conflicts" our troops have been involved in, like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and I suspect a number of others which may need to remain secret, or at least officially unacknowledged.

Obviously you weren't following anything in Syria. Too American centric.

The fighting in Syria was far more intense than Afghanistan or most of Iraq war. It was Fallujah except instead of 6 weeks, it went on for over 6 years and still flairs up.

The Syrian insurgents weren't motley rebels relying on hit and run. They were conventional forces equipped with heavy armour, artillery, modern ATGMs, in some cases operational air defences and in the case of the Turkmen, modern air support provided courtesy of the Turkish air force.

I really doubt most of Syria's "best troops" are as capable, disciplined, and well armed as those of the US Army, Marines, and Special Forces units, including our USN Seals.

I suspect in an even fight (if there is such a thing), an experienced Syrian unit would probably trash an American one. These guys have been fighting non stop for 10 years in a high intensity conflict.

Your average US unit has not experienced significant high intensity combat let alone against opponents that have parity in combat capability for a long time.

--

Of course US has air support and much like in Normandy where it was superior US air and artillery power that punched through the best quality German units, its firepower that will determine any fighting.

Having said that I do wonder how US and western troops would cope being under sustained and accurate artillery and airpower.

I suspect like the Wehrmacht in 1944 they would melt away.

Regardless … we have air assets in any event

And Assad has Putin, which both protects him and limits his course of action.

Lol, that's the funniest thing I've heard for years. Syrian troops are trash. Man for man , tank for tank , A US formation would rip an equivalent Syrian formation a new A-Hole and not even bat an eyelid.
The Syrian troops are more use to killing civilians and would break pretty quick.

I suspect in an even fight (if there is such a thing), an experienced Syrian unit would probably trash an American one. These guys have been fighting non stop for 10 years in a high intensity conflict.

Hmmm biased evaluation, IMO. Note: Saddam had the 4th largest military on the planet.

They had 10 + years fighting Iran …

They had home court advantage …

But the US and it's allies rolled them up in record time in GWI.

Never over or under estimate your enemy. Saddam based on some evals, should have beat the Coalition. One has to be careful not to let bias color their intel, evals, etc.

Again the Syrians have never showed tactical expertise on a battlefield. And again based on their performance in their decades long "civil war". They are a paper tiger at best. Am I underestimating them ? Maybe … but I'm not going to make them a more capable force than they are.

And Assad has Putin, which both protects him and limits his course of action.

Yep … so with that well known situation their civil war will continue.

Having said that I do wonder how US and western troops would cope being under sustained and accurate artillery and airpower.

I suspect like the Wehrmacht in 1944 they would melt away.

Very biased evaluation … That is more of a "guess" than anything else. Or "wishful" thinking … 🦄 With little to back up those biased comments.

backstab +2 …

"I suspect in an even fight (if there is such a thing), an experienced Syrian unit would probably trash an American one. These guys have been fighting non stop for 10 years in a high intensity conflict".

Um, we've been in Afghanistan for 20 years, e.g. TWICE as long as the Syrian conflict, and many of our troops have served multiple rotations there (4 – 5+ in some cases) and in Iraq, so…….

I really doubt a Syrian unit is going to "trash" anyone, since if so and they could, the USA, Turks, and even the Iranians wouldn't need to be in Syria, since they would have already defeated their enemies.

we've been in Afghanistan for 20 years, e.g. TWICE as long as the Syrian conflict, and many of our troops have served multiple rotations there (4 – 5+ in some cases) and in Iraq, so…….

Most US troops in Afghanistan never saw much combat. Biggest threat was IEDs, occasional sniping and the odd random 107mm rocket.

A lot of the fighting was extremely low scale.

That kind of low intensity COIN degrades high intensity operational capabilities.

That kind of low intensity COIN degrades high intensity operational capabilities.

Regardless … my money is on the US Military. And yes I am biased … Based on their past the Syrian forces never really performed that well in any conflict.

And the same thing can be said about the Syrians … the majority of their fighting has been against unarmed civilians and insurgents ( some who have been lucky enough to score an armoured vehicle or two )

Saddam had the 4th largest military on the planet.
They had 10 + years fighting Iran …

They had home court advantage …

But the US and it's allies rolled them up in record time in GWI.

Thanks for proving my point.

GW1 was won with aerial firepower. Literally the US and friends pent over a month pounding the Iraqis from the skies.

The Iraqis practiced tactics that were fine against Iran but poor against allied airpower with extensive guided weapons.

Ground troops saw very little combat and airpower and overall firepower superiority dominated.

Eg Iraqi incursion into Khafji – this was meant to be a a large offensive with a whole reinforced corps consisting of multiple divisions including 3 armored and mechanised ones and several infantry.

By this stage Iraqi air force was destroyed and air defences crippled.

Allied aircraft annihilated most of the Iraqi columns before they arrived.

What arrived into Khafji was pounded by allied airpower before the Saudis and Qataris counterattacked and recaptured the town.

In most other engagements the US had the firepower and numerical advantage (as well as airpower):

Battle of Al Busayyah – 1 US brigade with M1 Abrams versus an infantry batallion with a handful of T-55s.

Battle of 73 Easting/Battle of Norfolk – Superior US/British tanks supported by air support (AH-64/Lynx) and artillery support versus Iraqi T-55/-62s.

Literally the equivalent of attacking M26s Pershings with Panzer IIs.

Battle of Medina Ridge – Americans supported by A-10s and AH-64s

Battle of Rumaila – 25,000 US troops supported by large numbers of AH-64s and other airpower v 7,000 Iraqis

Battle for Jalibah Airfield – extensive American artillery barrage (and before that airstrikes).

And Americans did lose some tactical engagements eg Battle of Wadi Al-Batin and Battle of Phase Line Bullet.

ever over or under estimate your enemy. Saddam based on some evals, should have beat the Coalition. One has to be careful not to let bias color their intel, evals, etc.

Saddam's force was compromised before the war started – his airforce was obsolete (MiG-21 and -23 were mainstay fighters), his armour was garbage and his air defence system not only obsolete but thoroughly compromised as it's core network was French KARI system!

These were actually known by western intelligence before hand.

What wasn't known was the quality of the troops they'd be facing.

4th largest is meaningless. Yugoslavia liked to pretend it had a large military too but it was worthless waste of billions.

Again the Syrians have never showed tactical expertise on a battlefield. And again based on their performance in their decades long "civil war".

The better Syrian forces did show tactical expertise in the war against the western supported jihadis. Otherwise they would have lost the war well before the Russians came into help.

They are a paper tiger at best.

They're not a tiger of any sort, they're a third world army equipped with third world technology.

My point was they are battle hardened.

That is more of a "guess" than anything else. Or "wishful" thinking

WWII not your thing? A run down:

The Germans had managed to bog down the British and Americans despite allied air superiority, allied materiel superiority etc etc. The Americans busted through with Operation Cobra which featured a massive amount of firepower – literally they were using carpet bombing to destroy whole chunks of frontline to create holes to breakthrough.

Russians did same with Bagration etc.

Allied way of war has emphasised firepower since Second El Alamein. Westerners never quite got to grips with flexible manoeuvre warfare like the Germans practised it. The Soviets knew how to exploit breakthroughs but they still utilised massive prepared firepower to punch wholes in the frontline.

Both the Russian and the western Allies prefer time to carefully martial forces. They never pulled of capers like the Germans did eg Mannstein's backhand blow or some of Rommel's crazier exploits (Patton was an exception, his thinking was more German than methodical firepower orientation of other American generals).

Syria Says It Will Drive-Out U.S. Soldiers From The Country

That's thoroughly decent of them. Personally, I would just call them an Uber.

Syria Says It Will Drive-Out U.S. Soldiers From The Country<q/>

That's thoroughly decent of them. Personally, I would just call them an Uber.

In any case why are the US there anyway? They are violating international law by being in Syria. Hence no tears for dead Americans if it comes to it.

GW1 was won with aerial and overall overwhelming firepower. Literally the US and friends pent over a month pounding the Iraqis from the skies.

The Iraqis practiced tactics that were fine against Iran but poor against allied airpower with extensive guided weapons.

Yes I know what happened during GWI … I don't need a history lesson. But maybe you do ?

Ground troops saw very little combat and airpower and overall firepower superiority dominated.

Yes in this case, as the Iraqis did not fight. And you can't win any war without/until Infantry & Tanks supported by FA, etc., is on the ground. You should know that? You can't win a war with just airpower, at least not yet. So we will keep all those Infantry, Tank, FA, etc., units for the time being and in the near future.

The USA does not fight "fair" … we like overwhelming superiority in numbers & firepower. Generally we are never "outgunned" … We use combat multipliers, etc., everybody knows that … Especially those on the receiving end. E.g. the Iraqi, many jihadis, etc.

My point was they are battle hardened and probably far more adept at high intensity warfare than your average US unit.

You mean the Syrians … ? Still don't think that they would stand up to an all out US attack. Again we don't fight fair … Email the Pentagon and let them know you think the Syrians will best US combat units … I'm sure they'd like it know of your expertise, etc.

WWII not your thing? A run down:

Are you kidding ? I know very well about those WWII examples you stated. Studied, wargamed all of them and more. News Flash ! The Iraqis are not the WWII Germans. We know that the Germans gave the Allies a run for the money in many cases. Even outnumbered in men and equipment. Even with Allied air superiority in many cases.

(Patton was an exception, his thinking was more German than methodical firepower orientation of other American generals).

Old news … we all know that. And the US GENs were not the only Allied GENs that thought that way. The Germans showed everyone how to use combined arms mobile modern warfare. The US uses a type of a version of it with the Air-Land Battle Doctrine basically.

And again the WWII Germans were not the Iraqis … goggle it … if you don't believe me …

In any case why are the US there anyway? They are violating international law by being in Syria

International Law [IL]? The US is the least of many if you use that as a standard. So email the UN and tell them … but it may take time for them to reply. They have many, many, many emails, letters, etc., of nations, mostly in NA, Mid-East, A'stan, the Paks, etc. to go thru when it comes to violating IL.

Hence no tears for dead Americans if it comes to it.

Fortunately … maybe to your chagrin, very, very few US troops have died over past few years in these mostly 3d World holes/failed/failing states. Any US troops that have died I hope their 👻👻 visit you at night. 😦Vengeful soldier 👻👻 … you don't want to have anything to do with those ! 😨

I'm making light of some of your comments[not making light of you as that would get me DH'd!]as much of what you say, even trying to back it up, is again, biased, skewed, etc.

BTW … Salween is coming … 🎃☠👻

You can't win a war with just airpower

Actually you can – war against Serbia in 1999 was won solely with airpower. Not an infantryman in sight unless you count airbase guards.

As for US in Syria, nope they are not there under international law. Even some members of congress are worried US is there illegally under US law!

That was not considered by the US, IIRC, that airpower alone won. Even remember the GENs, etc., in the media, etc., saying it would be a wrong take away. To believe airpower alone can win. Of course those were US GENs, COLs, etc. So as you many times have posted … they are morons and you know better than they do. 🥱 Old news … I could post links … but why bother ?

they are not there under international law. Even some members of congress are worried US is there illegally under US law!

Well … has the UN said anything ?

Will/did they ?

Will anyone ?

Besides maybe Assad ? [Isn't he up on War Crime charges ?]

Putin ?

Talk about in violation of IL ?

Does anybody care ?

The US Congress … ? Don't get me started … 🤫🤐

Of course UN hasn't said anything- US has a veto.

As for Congresspeole concerned about US legal authority, I have posted links to this before.

And yes Kosovo was won with airpower alone. And you are right it is viewed as a one off.

Of course UN hasn't said anything- US has a veto.

So does Russia & China too …

As for Congresspeole concerned about US legal authority,

They seemed to be very concerned about so many "important things" these days … 'nuff said …

And you are right

WHAT ?!?!?!? 😨WDF !?!??!😱 You said I'm right !?!??!😵 How the did that happen ? 😬

Well it is probably a one off … 🤔

forper23 +10

And I too remember that interview with the Marine Cdr & Iraqi EPW.

US troops mostly with no combat experience, just doctrine, training and the best gear thanks to Reagan.

Yep ! That is the way I saw it !

many in Australia that have an irrational and dick hurt reaction to any hint of the truth of American military superiority.

Which makes little sense to me ? We were Allies …

The American soldier has a distinct difference to his or her opponent, free thought.

Yes we were trained and expected to use our initiative, critical thinking, the Air-Land Battle Doctrine, study military history, etc., etc.

anti-American extremism overpowers your ability to think logically and assess recent history fairly, as it happened.

I believed it was just me that thought that … 👍👍👍👍

Yes we were trained and expected to use our initiative, critical thinking, the Air-Land Battle Doctrine, study military history, etc., etc.

"So we like did the same thing for 20 years and the world is now a crappier place cause of it and we actually have four times more jihadis running around doing horrible things. We did win warz coz we blow up people. Accomplishing actual goals and objectives is namby pamby wussy talk.

And if it weren't for them wussies in the White House, we'd be winning in Afghanistan until the second coming of Jesus.

Go Murica."

American soldiers don't have anymore free thought than those Iraqis or Afghans or Belgians or Australians or whatever.

There is nothing culturally superior about America. In fact I view the north European states such as Denmark or Norway as inherently better to America or indeed Australia in terms of social values.

And when it comes to industriousness, the reward goes to the north Asians (Chinese, Japanese, Koreans).

You beat the Germans in 1945 cause you had better industry and because the Red Army (ie Russians, not units from Texas or Alabama) chewed up 75% of the Wehrmacht.

You beat Iraqi because you're a superpower at the height of your power and they're a third world country that had just replayed WWI for 8 years against Iran complete with trenches and gas warfare.

You beat Serbia and Libya because they had nothing in the first place. 16 MiG-29s versus an air armada of hundreds of combat aircraft or in Libya's case no functioning AD system and a mainly grounded air force dating from the 1970s.

You didn't beat North Vietnam nor the Taliban. Does that make them culturally superior to you with more "free thought"?

Again, biased, skewed and Anti-American …

And again To quote forper23 on another thread :

Your anti-American extremism overpowers you ability to think logically and assess recent history fairly, as it happened.

Couldn't have said it any better …

No I just stated some facts.

You just see anything that opposes those facts as anti-Americanism. It's like muslims getting offended at western cartoons of the prophet.

What's wrong for winning a war with crushing technological power? The USA won their wars avoiding terrible losses such as in WWI, think only Verdun or the Somme(20.000 DEADS in a single day!). Superior tech is essential in war, a fair fight in such a situation is not only suicidal, it's idiotic. The 'Nam was a colossal failure, more due to political meddling and generals too occupied to lick former boots (or worst), the USA got into this mess without a real politic HOW to win, with a nation divided and shocked by racial riots,civil rights struggles and a leadership not being up to the task.

No I just stated some facts.

Not my or many other's "facts". Seems there must be different versions of "the facts". Just like Joe Friday said … "Just the facts son, just the facts" … 🕵️‍♂️

You just see anything that opposes those facts as anti-Americanism.

Seems like you can't see anything other than your version of extreme anti-Americanism .

It's like muslims getting offended at western cartoons of the prophet.

Yes, that is a fact … for better or worse. It's one thing to get offend … it's a whole other thing to kill someone over cartoons/things like that. So …

But you missed an important point … NOT ALL Muslims THINK THAT WAY … only a small lunatic fringe, e.g. those that believe as ISIS, AQ, the Talis, etc. Small in numbers overall … BTW – that is a fact …

As far as cartoons … I liked Bugs Bunny, Foghorn Leghorn, Daffy Duck, Yosemite Sam, The Flintstones & the Jetsons. 😎

Oh yeah Loved Jonny Quest too !!! Race Bannon was/is the Man !!! I think he was Special Forces and/or CIA … so you may not like him ? link

What's wrong for winning a war with crushing technological power?

Well it seems to some since the USA does it that way … it must be wrong. 🤔

Superior tech is essential in war, a fair fight in such a situation is not only suicidal, it's idiotic.

Pretty much the way I was taught and history reflects that, generally.

As I said earlier … The USA does not fight "fair" … we like overwhelming superiority in numbers & firepower. Generally we are never "outgunned" … We use combat multipliers, etc., everybody knows that … Especially those on the receiving end. E.g. the Iraqis, many jihadis, etc.

So the thread went from and article where Syria wants US troops out (after previous US president ordered troops out), to a measuring contest of American and Syrian troops, to a defense of US military adventurism glossing over post WW2 failures.

Weird thread.

What seems to be missing is any clear reason *why* US troops are even there. The current administration has expressed a desire to end the forever wars, which is a good thing, and taken action in Afghanistan and Iraq. Syria seems to remain invisible, though. Other than the generic claim it is to counter Iranian or Russian influence (good luck with that) there doesn't seem to be much justification for the roughly 900 troops there. Especially given that they haven't been particularly active in any real capacity. Just seem to be targets.

Well you may want to write your Congressmen on why the troops are there, etc. And getting out of A'stan, well another POTUS of limited geopolitical capabilities, etc., pulled the US out of Iraq. Only causing the US to go back to try to clean up the mess made by that weak POTUS. And even gave an enemy failing state palette loads of cash. I think the Taliban are hoping the same …

Especially given that they haven't been particularly active in any real capacity. Just seem to be targets.

Generally most places the US goes the troops are targets.

US Military Will Not Be Exiting From Syria Anytime Soon

link

Armand

The Syrians and others there are not strong enough tactically, etc. Any major attack by ground forces, etc., would be repulsed and means more US troops may be deployed. Plus I don't think Turkey, our NATO partner, would stand by and watch.

Assad is just sabre rattling … Even if he knows Putin has forces there too. In one form or another …