Rebel fighters carry their weapons as they take positions in the town of Kafr Nabudah, in Hama province, Syria, on which forces loyal to Syria's President Bashar al-Assad are carrying out offensives to take control of the town, October 11, 2015. Reuters/Ammar Abdullah
FOX News: US military airdrops 50 tons of ammo for Syrian fighters, after training mission ends
The U.S. military airdropped 50 tons of small arms ammo and grenades in northern Syria on Sunday, a senior defense official told Fox News, representing the Pentagon's shift from training rebel fighters to equipping them.
Coming just two days after the Defense Department announced it was effectively ending its current training program, the airdrop delivery was made Sunday by four C-17 transport aircraft. The 112 pallets contained ammunition for M-16s and AK-47s.
"All the pallets reached friendly forces," the official said, adding that the drop "looked similar to what we did in Kobani." This referred to one of the few bright spots in the war against the Islamic State when the U.S. military dropped weapons to Syrian Kurdish fighters, known as the YPG, who successfully expelled ISIS from the Turkish-Syrian border town of Kobani earlier this year.
Update #1: Syria Regime Advances, US Drops Ammunition to Anti-Islamic State Rebels -- AFP
Update #2: U.S. air drops ammunition to Syria rebels -- Reuters
WNU Editor: 50 tons is a lot of ammo and grenades. This air drop also falls on the heels of Syrian rebel groups announcing that they have joined forces to form a new rebel alliance .... New Syrian rebel alliance formed, says weapons on the way (Reuters). More here on this alliance .... Syria Kurds, Arabs Form Joint Military Force (Military.com/AFP).
As to who got these weapons and ammo from this specific U.S. air-drop .... after reading this VOA post .... Analysts: US Syria Proxy Army Not Reliable (VOA) .... I can only assume it is the worst of the worst in Syria.
8 comments:
WNU Editor,
So, the U.S. is now directly arming ISIS and Al Quida,
I give it two months tops before the U.S. puts "boots on the ground" to protect Al Quida and ISIS.
The media has worked over time to discredit any Syrian opposition to Assad and the Russians are the best in the world at using the media to advance their narrative. It's hard to know what's true here.
With Assad being backed up by Iran "death to America" and with both being backed up by Russia it's easy to understand why America would be looking for anyone who might possibly help them/us.
With that said I don't think anyone in Syria is reliable as an American ally and it does not seem to a good idea to engage in any actions that would further inflame relations with the Russians. Also, the US military barely has enough ammo and weapons for itself let alone to sending to anyone else much less a less than reliable "ally."
As for "boots on the ground", the US does not have such boots to spare right now and the American people are not going to support it. Furthermore Al Qaeda and ISIS don't really need such protection. ISIS at least has captured and held territory faster and at a more efficient rate than the US military ever could have. As such, even if the US could, would, or wanted to offer such assistance it would have no utility for ISIS. Furthermore with Russian intelligence closely monitoring all US activities to insert such troops into this would have negative utility for ISIS as it would give away their positions. As such, I wouldn't expect ISIS to request this even if the US were willing to offer it.
The best approach for the US might be to try and enter this coalition as a junior partner to Russia. Unfortunately this may mean assisting Iran "death to America." With Russia's support for Iran it seems reasonable to conclude Russia's leadership holds the same view as "death to America." Even if the US could enter the coalition, it has little to offer Russia.
the best outcome for America would be for its enemies on both sides of this conflict to tear each other apart. This is probably not going to happen though. As such, it would be best to withdraw all forces and personnel from the Middle East, redeploy those forces to defensible positions along our borders and off of our coasts to at least give us a fighting chance of defending America, and plan for the Russian victory in this conflict.
Hopefully the combination of making America well defended and staying out of the way of the world's top power will help to minimize conflict and, in the long term, hopefully help to improve relations with them.
Havent been able to fully rationally agree with basically any of your comments.
America has alot of problems, most are, I think rooted to a mentality (In society/culture) that is currently allowed to be acceptable/normal.
I wouldnt consider it a smart move to underestimate the USA when operating with motivation, correct priorities, faith, and rational asessments/plans. Leadership.
But thats just my opinion, kind of like your opinion saying the USA doesnt have ammunition.
Also I'm pretty sure the U.S. took all of Iraq significantly faster than ISIS. In total war I believe the insurgency would be annhilated. With politics and casualties, the insurgency lives. Ultimately, I hate to say it, but I think as far as losses to both sides and having a general respect to human life, not resorting to 100% total war probably prevented ALOT of losses to both sides.
Again, just an uneducated opinion here trying to filter the media news over the years with logic and reason.
Anonymous,
I think your reply is directed at me. Thank you for the reply to my post. As for the ammunition aspect, the US military is terrible shape right now in terms of training, leadership, strategic thinking, tactics, morale, and equipment. As such, the assessment is fair. We don't need to be giving out and/or selling ammo and weapons to anyone when we barely, if at all, have enough for our own needs.
In the second to last paragraph of your first post, I think you nailed it. Unfortunately these things are lacking in pretty much all areas right now.
Now as for taking Iraq, the US never really took Iraq. While the government of Saddam Hussein was removed, the US never really established control over any of Iraq. In contrast, ISIS has managed to capture and hold large swaths of Iraq in a manner the United States was never able to. Furthermore given the depleted nature of America's military today it seems unlikely the US could duplicate what ISIS has done here.
The last paragraph of your second post pretty much describes me as well. We try to do these things but, at least in my case, I don't always get it right.
Just let the Russians and Arabs deal with it.
And never mind playing refugee camp.
I'm struggling with this now. There are opinions or positions expressed on this forum worth exploring. However uncomfortable they make me.
I still believe my country can (but wont) contribute to a resolution but right now protecting home is a good idea.
WNU,
For real, for sure, it's the worst of the worst. Just like Afghanistan.
Soon in the hands of ISIS. Shame!
Post a Comment