Saddle up for Syria? Or Op Deny Christmas '13

[KState_Poke22]

2 hours ago, dream big said:

Okay so when does it end? 19 years in Afghanistan and the Taliban are still killing our soldiers.  20 in Syria? 40? 

That’s a fair question. One that I don’t have the answer to, and I bet no one does because it’s not an easy solution. 
 

What I do know is that the absolute worst way to end it would be to leave with little to no warning, thought, or preparation and to leave our former allies to fend for themselves while they get slaughtered by Turkey and opening the door for high value ISIS prisoners to escape. And well that’s about exactly what happened. 

[SFG]

not good.

______________________________

And over the weekend, State and Energy Department officials were quietly reviewing plans for evacuating roughly 50 tactical nuclear weapons that the United States had long stored, under American control, at Incirlik Air Base in Turkey, about 250 miles from the Syrian border, according to two American officials.

Those weapons, one senior official said, were now essentially Erdogan’s hostages. To fly them out of Incirlik would be to mark the de facto end of the Turkish-American alliance. To keep them there, though, is to perpetuate a nuclear vulnerability that should have been eliminated years ago.

“I think this is a first — a country with U.S. nuclear weapons stationed in it literally firing artillery at US forces,” Jeffrey Lewis of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies wrote last week.

For his part, Mr. Erdogan claims nuclear ambitions of his own: Only a month ago, speaking to supporters, he said, he said he “cannot accept” rules that keep Turkey from possessing nuclear weapons of its own.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-followed-his-gut-on-syria-calamity-came-fast/ar-AAILbg6

______________________________

 

[jice]

22 minutes ago, KState_Poke22 said:

That’s a fair question. One that I don’t have the answer to, and I bet no one does because it’s not an easy solution. 
 

What I do know is that the absolute worst way to end it would be to leave with little to no warning, thought, or preparation and to leave our former allies to fend for themselves while they get slaughtered by Turkey and opening the door for high value ISIS prisoners to escape. And well that’s about exactly what happened. 

Spot on, bro. Furthermore!

They’re not fending for themselves; as it turns out survival instinct has kicked in and they appear to have aligned themselves with the Syrian regime and Russia to attempt to prevent annihilation. (Just as they said they would under these circumstances.) Now Russia and Turkey are in the driver’s seat where Europe meets the Middle-East and we’ve got the diplomatically envied position of “it’s too difficult so we quit” from which to negotiate. Do we really want Russia and Turkey to be the primary voices in the endgame of this misadventure? 20 years? 30 years? On 9-12 any of us would have volunteered personally to go for 100; the long game is worth winning, considering the alternatives.

Edited October 14, 2019 by jice

[Bigred]

16 minutes ago, jice said:

On 9-12 any of us would have volunteered personally to go for 100; the long game is worth winning, considering the alternatives.

How do we sustain such an operation? I agree on principle but continual war is running our aircraft into the dirt and emptying our coffers. 
 

 

Edited October 14, 2019 by Bigred

[nsplayr]

Say what you will about endless land wars in Asia (and having participated in several I'm not a big fan!), but the small SOF footprint we previously held in north east Syria was absolutely critical to maintaining the somewhat stable situation that was to our advantage. The SDF fought and died for us against ISIS and we quite literally cut and ran on a whim.

How long to stay? Will there ever be an independent Kurdistan? What happens to the thousands of ISIS prisoners in the long-term? How do we deal with the reality that Assad is here to stay?  How do we handle a dictatorial & increasingly oppositional NATO "ally" in Erdogon's Turkey? Great questions all around and I don't have great answers.

But we literally chose the worst possibly path that answers none of those questions. The path we chose, with little to no planning or interagency process, forfeits all of our leverage in the region, cosigns the slaughter of some of best allies on the ground, potentially re-starts ISIS, and threatens our long-held forward-deployed nuclear forces posture. And for what?

Great job everyone, hit the showers!

Edited October 14, 2019 by nsplayr

[jice]

14 minutes ago, Bigred said:

How do we sustain such an operation? I agree on principle but continual war is running our aircraft into the dirt and emptying our coffers. 
 

 

Nsplayer answered this above pretty well. It doesn’t have to be thousands of troops or continuous rotations of airplanes. It does have to be stable for our allies, consistent for our adversaries, and give the diplomats something to work with.  It can even be assurances and threats. But what it cannot be is ceding the negotiating space to those who do not share our interests. Assurances are now worthless with that particular group and threats toward Turkey, Russia, or the Syrian Regime (Russia) don’t hold the same weight when we’ve taken our skin in the game elsewhere. “Your actions put American lives at risk” and “Your actions put our relationship at risk” are very different with regard to their implicit teeth.

[waveshaper]

"Groundhog Day" and I have absolutely no clue what the answer is to this Turk/Kurd dilemma. Turks invading Kurdish Turf  (Syria/Iraq)/US Caught in the Middle/Permanent Turkish Bases on Kurdish Turf (Syria- see west of the Euphrates River/Iraqi Kurdistan to many to count)/Safe Zones/Safe Corridors/ etc, etc - has been going on for decades. I imagine this is what Northeast Syria will look like in a few years (some of these Turkish bases have been in Iraqi Kurdistan for decades);

https://iraq.liveuamap.com/en/2018/13-february-there-are-14-turkish-military-bases-and-4-turkish

Short history on some of this crap;  Here's a few examples of the large scale operations/invasions the Turks have conducted in Iraq and Syria since 1991 (Note; there's to many small Turkish operations/incursions/etc to count, basically they have been ongoing almost continuously since 1984);

1. Operation "Shit" Sandwich; 1992/US Forces were on the ground in Iraqi Kurdistan. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-11-09-mn-162-story.html

2. Operation Steel; 1995/US Forces were on the ground in Iraqi Kurdistan. 35,000 Turkish troops invaded Northern Iraq.

3. Operation Hammer; 1997/No US Forces were on the ground because Clinton pulled US Forces out of Iraqi Kurdistan in 1996 (Note; this was the largest Turkish invasion of Iraqi turf since the Ottoman Turks invaded Iraq in 1533); Up to 50,000 Turkish Forces invaded Northern Iraq.

4. Operation Dawn; 1997/No US Forces on the ground; 15,000 Turkish Forces invaded Northern Iraq.

5. Operation Sun; 2007/8 - US Forces on the ground in Northern Iraq; Lots of Turkish airstrikes against Kurdish targets in Northern Iraq followed by lots more airstrike in 2008 and a Cross-Border invasion by 10,000 Turkish Armed Forces into Northern Iraq.

6. 2011; US Forces were still in Northern Iraq at this time but preparing to withdraw; Lots of Turkish airstrikes against Kurdish targets in Northern Iraq. The first six days of air raids, the Turkish Air Force attacked 132 PKK targets in northern Iraq which hit 73 shelters, eight stores and nine anti-aircraft positions. In addition to the 132 PKK locations targeted by the Turkish Air Force, 349 targets in Qandil, Hakurk, Avasin-Basyan, Zap and Metina regions were destroyed by artillery fire.

7. Operation Claw; Started on 28 May 2019 and it's still ongoing today and yes we have US Forces on the ground.

8. Turkish Operations/Invasions in Northern Syria (you can look them up and yes US Forces have been on the ground in Northern Syria during all these Turkish invasions); Operation Euphrates Shield (2016/2017), Operation Olive Branch (2018), and now (today/2019) Operation Peace Spring.

 

[hindsight2020]

2 hours ago, nsplayr said:

... potentially re-starts ISIS,...

Great job everyone, hit the showers!

I'm afraid as far as certain circles within the MIC is concerned, that's not the bug, that's the feature.

[Blue]

We need to evaluate all our overseas engagements against the Powell Doctrine.  If we can't answer in the affirmative to each and every question, then we need to go home.

Spoiler alert:  In the vast majority of cases, we need to go home.

Quote

 

Is a vital national security interest threatened?

Do we have a clear attainable objective?

Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?

Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?

Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?

Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?

Is the action supported by the American people?

Do we have genuine broad international support?

 

 

[uhhello]

49 minutes ago, Blue said:

We need to evaluate all our overseas engagements against the Powell Doctrine.  If we can't answer in the affirmative to each and every question, then we need to go home.

Spoiler alert:  In the vast majority of cases, we need to go home.

 

But if we don't fight them over "there", we'll fight them "here".....

[Clark Griswold]

5 hours ago, Bigred said:

How do we sustain such an operation? I agree on principle but continual war is running our aircraft into the dirt and emptying our coffers. 

Not advocating for this but if I were at the Puzzle Palace / Congressional Liaison and asked to make a slide(s) on how to do this (a national policy / mission to intervene in multiple long term humanitarian security/stabilization missions simultaneously):

1. Reinstate the draft but not implemented thru random selection and not necessarily skewed to only very young adults (18-21).  If this is to be an enduring national mission then it is an enduring national responsibility for all socio-economic, cultural, racial, regional groups.  Would recommend 1/5 of main ground combat forces be conscript members to balance mission objectives with human cost calculations by political & military leaders.

2. Establish military objectives and strategies that will be honored/adhered to over any changes in administration.  No legal mechanism to do this so it would have to be informal and understood by all relevant parties.

3.. Levy dedicated taxes as required to pay for these operations.  Funding vehicle authorized over multiple FYs to lessen administrative/political risk to sustained operations with likely political/administration changes.

4. Expand the size of the US military to accommodate high operational utilization.  30-50% expansion sounds about right/expensive.

4a. Reorganize the US military to execute these protracted / permanent missions.  Delete / Curtail some conventional military capabilities to allow for further expansion of COIN-LIC-Stabilization forces (infantry, light armor, ISR, etc...).

5. Reduce deterrence presence in militarily / economically capable allied nations.  Europe except for Poland, Batic countries and GB would have no significant US forces, only logistical ports/airfields.  SK & Japan would also have a reduction in garrisoned forces.

6. Expand agencies for rebuilding, establishing civil societies & economies.  Local populations engaged in productive labor with subsidized industries likely.

7. Temper expectations, tolerate some cultural practices that would be unacceptable in our country.  

8. Begin education, cultural exchange and information programs to promote values that would increase the probability of an end state after several generations that is acceptable.

9. Massive expansion of refugee resettlement.  Some situations would be impossible to stabilize, large scale resettlement would be required in some cases into the US homeland. 

Laundry list of things, some military some not but what I would say is required and again to my earlier posts, for leaders to be honest about what is it that we are trying to do in this conflicts, what it will likely cost and how long it will take.

I am not advocating for this necessarily but IMHO what would be required if the US decided that as country it was a national priority to intervene when it deemed necessary into conflicts for primarily humanitarian and not national interests.  

I did not even list attempting to cajole allies into this endeavor, no other country in the modern world as it is would even think about doing this.  

[nsplayr]

Was this a contest to list as many unconstitutional, unpopular, unwise and hugely costly policies in one post as possible? 😆

Edited October 15, 2019 by nsplayr

[Clark Griswold]

57 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

Was this a contest to list as many unconstitutional, unpopular, unwise and hugely costly policies in one post as possible? 😆

I'm not saying I think we should do those things unless we are honest with the public as to what these 40+ year missions will take and if we decide that this is something that we should do.  

[nsplayr]

Good / tough words here from the SDF commander Mazloum Abdi: https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/13/kurds-assad-syria-russia-putin-turkey-genocide/?fbclid=IwAR3g1yRISC71Ao951AwmjFS3fq9W67CIXVaF8Qz2kFmSY6Dtv04BI-LBoFI

Quote

The world first heard of us, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), amid the chaos of our country’s civil war. I serve as our commander in chief. The SDF has 70,000 soldiers who have fought against jihadi extremism, ethnic hatred, and the oppression of women since 2015. They have become a very disciplined, professional fighting force. They never fired a single bullet toward Turkey. U.S. soldiers and officers now know us well and always praise our effectiveness and skill.

I have always told our forces, this war is ours! The jihadi terrorists of the Islamic State came to Syria from all over the world. We are the ones who should fight them, because they have occupied our lands, looted our villages, killed our children, and enslaved our women.

We lost 11,000 soldiers, some of our best fighters and commanders, to rescue our people from this grave danger. I have also always instructed our forces that the Americans and other allied forces are our partners, and so we should always make sure that they are not harmed.

Amid the lawlessness of war, we always stuck with our ethics and discipline, unlike many other nonstate actors. We defeated al Qaeda, we eradicated the Islamic State, and, at the same time, we built a system of good governance based on small government, pluralism, and diversity. We provided services through local governing authorities for Arabs, Kurds, and Syriac Christians. We called on a pluralistic Syrian national identity that is inclusive for all. This is our vision for Syria’s political future: decentralized federalism, with religious freedom and respect for mutual differences.

The forces that I command are now dedicated to protecting one-third of Syria against an invasion by Turkey and its jihadi mercenaries. The area of Syria we defend has been a safe refuge for people who survived genocides and ethnic cleansings committed by Turkey against the Kurds, Syriacs, Assyrians, and Armenians during the last two centuries.

We guard more than 12,000 Islamic State terrorist prisoners and bear the burden of their radicalized wives and children. We also protect this part of Syria from Iranian militias.

When the whole world failed to support us, the United States extended its hands. We shook hands and appreciated its generous support. At Washington’s request, we agreed to withdraw our heavy weapons from the border area with Turkey, destroy our defensive fortifications, and pull back our most seasoned fighters. Turkey would never attack us so long as the U.S. government was true to its word with us.

We are now standing with our chests bare to face the Turkish knives.

President Donald Trump has been promising for a long time to withdraw U.S. troops. We understand and sympathize. Fathers want to see their children laughing on their laps, lovers want to hear the voices of their partners whispering to them, everyone wants to go back to their homes.

We, however, are not asking for American soldiers to be in combat. We know that the United States is not the world police. But we do want the United States to acknowledge its important role in achieving a political solution for Syria. We are sure that Washington has sufficient leverage to mediate a sustainable peace between us and Turkey.

We believe in democracy as a core concept, but in light of the invasion by Turkey and the existential threat its attack poses for our people, we may have to reconsider our alliances. The Russians and the Syrian regime have made proposals that could save the lives of millions of people who live under our protection. We do not trust their promises. To be honest, it is hard to know whom to trust.

What’s clear is that the threat of the Islamic State is still present in a network of sleeper cells capable of mounting an insurgency. The large number of Islamic State prisoners in inadequate confinement are like a ticking time bomb that might explode at any time.

We know that we would have to make painful compromises with Moscow and Bashar al-Assad if we go down the road of working with them. But if we have to choose between compromises and the genocide of our people, we will surely choose life for our people.

Syria has two options: a religious sectarian and ethnic bloody war if the United States leaves without reaching a political solution, or a safe and stable future—but only if the United States uses its power and leverage to reach an agreement before it withdraws.

The reason we allied ourselves with the United States is our core belief in democracy. We are disappointed and frustrated by the current crisis. Our people are under attack, and their safety is our paramount concern. Two questions remain: How can we best protect our people? And is the United States still our ally?

 

[jazzdude]

Do we really want Russia and Turkey to be the primary voices in the endgame of this misadventure? 20 years? 30 years? On 9-12 any of us would have volunteered personally to go for 100; the long game is worth winning, considering the alternatives.

And yet pretty much no one volunteers for AFPAK Hands... Which is focused on building up those 2 countries for the long term so we don't have to be there.

Talk is cheap. Someone eventually has to pay the bill.

[SFG]

4 hours ago, jazzdude said:And yet pretty much no one volunteers for AFPAK Hands... Which is focused on building up those 2 countries for the long term so we don't have to be there.

Talk is cheap. Someone eventually has to pay the bill.
 

 

Was. Was focused. My sources say that program is cancelled.

[gearhog]

6 hours ago, jazzdude said:

And yet pretty much no one volunteers for AFPAK Hands... Which is focused on building up those 2 countries for the long term so we don't have to be there.

Talk is cheap. Someone eventually has to pay the bill.

Exactly. You've paid more than your fair share of the bill and I've paid mine, as well as most of the people on this forum. When I read "we" should be staying continuously engaged in Syria, it seems "you" is implied. Some people are tired of being threatened with the worst possible outcome being realized if we suddenly end our 18+ year subscription to the Middle East Clusterf^&* Vacation Club. There's war when we're present, there will be war when we're absent. If Russia and Turkey want to wear that anchor around their neck for a change, good.

[BFM this]

11 hours ago, jazzdude said:

And yet pretty much no one volunteers for AFPAK Hands... Which is focused on building up those 2 countries for the long term so we don't have to be there.

Talk is cheap. Someone eventually has to pay the bill.

 

AFPAK Hands absolutely was cheap talk.  It was another in an endless line of pulling on your "service before self" chain to get you to invest yourself in something that top level leadership wasn't willing to materially back.  The "incentives", what little they were, turned out to be hollow, and they were clearly not substantial to begin with.

[jice]

11 hours ago, jazzdude said:

 

 

And yet pretty much no one volunteers for AFPAK Hands... Which is focused on building up those 2 countries for the long term so we don't have to be there.

Talk is cheap. Someone eventually has to pay the bill.
 

 

Sure, talk is cheap. The corollary is “influence is expensive.” In this case, in particular, given the relatively small footprint to sustain a relationship that provided outsized influence, IMO we’ve made a strategic error. 

Afghanistan, Iraq, Iranian deterrence, and Syria writ large is a different question. 

[brickhistory]

Say, why were we in the Middle East to start with?

Oh, yeah...

 

And now, our reason for being there trying to stop thousands of years of tribal warfare/slaughtering of each other is...?

[FLEA]

18 hours ago, K_O said:

Was. Was focused. My sources say that program is cancelled.

Heard the same. It was on the MAF FB page a while back that assignments to AFPAK hands were being pulled and notified members rolled to next VML. 

[Sua Sponte]

https://taskandpurpose.com/russian-base-syria-dick-drawings?utm_content=buffer594e7&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

[charlie141]

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/466192-kinzinger-challenges-trumps-defense-chief-on-syria-in-closed-door-meeting


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[waveshaper]

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi Killed or Captured in US Raid in Syria/Northwestern Idlib Province (Take with a grain of salt); 

[FLEA]

6 hours ago, waveshaper said:

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi Killed or Captured in US Raid in Syria/Northwestern Idlib Province (Take with a grain of salt); 

This dude is a cat. I remember the first time we killed him in an airstrike. Then there was the time Russia killed him in a mortar strike. Then when we killed him in an airstrike again. Then when the Brits did it. And the Russians one more time. I'm waiting on the DNA and dental.