The West has ‘lost’ in Syria and is being ‘outsmarted’ by Putin and Assad
THE West has “lost the war” in Syria and is being “outsmarted” by Vladimir Putin and Bashar Assad, a former head of Britain’s Armed Forces believes.
from the Express By John Ingham
Lord Richards said the coalition forces should now focus on winning the peace and crushing Islamic State whose HQ is in Syria.
The former chief of the defence staff said David Cameron and Westminster MPs had missed chances to stop President Assad in 2012 and again in 2013 – before Russia sent in its bombers to bolster the Damascus regime.
Lord Richards spoke out today as Russia said Assad’s forces had completed the takeover of the last rebel-held zones of Aleppo – a claim disputed by the rebels.
A bid to launch peace talks between Assad and the rebels is being brokered by Turkey and the Kremlin.
A fighter from the Syrian pro-government forces mans a riffle inside a damaged house in the recently recaptured village of Joubah during an offensive towards the area of Al-Bab in Aleppo province, on November 25, 2016.
Meanwhile, at least 40,000 people remain trapped in Aleppo after the latest attempt to evacuate thousands of civilians was scrapped after Iran demanded similar treatment for its besieged allies further south.
The UN has accused Assad and his backers of war crimes in the recapture of the city.
But Lord Richards said the West “wrings its hands” but is not ready to resolve the humanitarian crisis. He said: “I am afraid we have lost the war, but that does not mean, if we get the right strategy, that we need to lose the peace.”
US Confirms More Ground Troops Sent to Syria
New Figure Includes Troops for Manbij, Raqqa Marines
from AntiWar by Jason Ditz
Officials familiar with the situation say that the United States is deploying an “additional” 400 ground troops to Syria to fight against ISIS. The new figure includes the troops sent to Manbij and the artillery Marines sent to Raqqa recently, as well as some other, yet-to-be-deployed forces.
All told, this will slightly more than double the number of US troops in Syria, as when President Trump took office, estimates were of 300 or slightly more. The formal US cap on troops in Syria is 503, which basic math will show they have since far exceeded. This is true in Iraq as well, where the Pentagon long deliberately lied about the “official” deployment to Iraq to stay under the cap by labeling thousands of troops as “temporary,” but open-ended deployments.
It does not appear that this is the total escalation proposed in the plan delivered by the Pentagon early last week, but may be the first stage. This also does not include the “reserve” deployment of over 1,000 troops to Kuwait, which could be accessed at will by commanders in both Iraq and Syria for escalations.
Details on the Pentagon’s plans suggest that the goal is “rapid” progress against ISIS on the ground, particularly in Syria, though the rapidity appears purely optional since, particularly in the case of Iraq, officials say the deployments are basically permanent, and the troops will stay long after the war is over anyhow.
All we have to do is to send in more soldiers and that will take care of that...
Actually, up to this point in time, nothing has gone 'right'. Our judgements have led us down the wrong path each and every time we send in the troops... whether that refers to our invasion of 'this' country or our invasion of 'that' country... we just can't seem to get it right.
There is no need to list our mistakes, we are all familiar with the list. What needs reviewing is our thinking process. How do we constantly come to the erroneous decision to attack other countries?
We seem to never win these wars. The pattern is consistent. We attack some third rate nation defending itself with a fourth rate military. We claim, in the beginning, that the entire operation will be over in a very short while and then years later, and trillions of dollars later we are handed our ass in a casket.
Often, in an effort to 'save face' we declare that we won the war... 'mission accomplished' or some other silly expression to deceive.
More troops into Syria seems questionable. It seems possible that our decision to send in more troops will not bring us the results we anticipate.
If one observes an archer shooting arrow after arrow at a target and sees that the archer never hits the target much less hitting the bullseye, one would not bet very much in favor of a bullseye for this next arrow...
It is much the same with Unites States foreign policy and military intervention... how much would one be willing to bet on this next arrow?
of Various Subjects