Syrian Rebels Trained by CIA and U.S. Troops - for Months

[Reality Check]

By David S. Cloud and Raja Abdulrahim Tribune newspapers

June 21, 2013, 1:56 p.m.

WASHINGTON — White House officials refused to comment Friday on a Los Angeles Times report that CIA operatives and U.S. special operations troops have been secretly training Syrian rebels with anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons since late last year, saying only that the U.S. had increased its assistance to the rebellion.

The covert U.S. training at bases in Jordan and Turkey began months before President Obama approved plans to begin directly arming the opposition to Syrian President Bashar Assad, according to U.S. officials and rebel commanders.

“We have stepped up our assistance, but I cannot inventory for you all the elements of that assistance,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said. “We have provided and will continue to provide substantial assistance to the Syrian opposition, as well as the Supreme Military Council.”

The Supreme Military Council is the military arm of an umbrella group that represents more moderate rebel factions, including the Free Syrian Army.

The training and Obama’s decision this month to supply arms and ammunition to the rebels have raised hope among the beleaguered opposition that Washington ultimately will provide heavier weapons as well. So far, the rebels say they lack the weapons they need to regain the offensive in Syria’s bitter civil war.

...

http://www.latimes.com/news/world/world ... 6686.story

.
.
.

[Trevor]

Doesn't surprise me that we're training them, but in all honesty, the role of America and the West as a whole is largely unimportant. The peace process is a joke. Assad will not stop slaughtering people, Iran and Russia will not stop supporting him, and Turkey and Saudi Arabia will not stop supporting the rebels. Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been the biggest supporters, both in money and in weapons.

It was mentioned earlier that there's a major push by the Syrian Army to end this war, and based on a variety of maps, I think I know what the plan is. Homs has four smaller towns surrounding it. With Al-Qusayr now in Assad's hands, two of them belong to the Syrian Army and according to the latest reports, they're starting to take the third, Talaklakh. I don't think it's going to take too long to grab the remaining two. Once they do, the rebels will be surrounded.

Aleppo will be more difficult. It's longer and the rebels control most of the city, not to mention all of the surrounding areas. That, I believe, is where the decisive battle will be fought, and despite the new weapons, Hezbollah and the Revolutionary Guard joining, it's going to be difficult. Still, I would expect that if things remain unchanged, the Syrian Army will succeed. If the rebels lose in Homs, and especially in Aleppo, they're finished.

Question is: what will be done if rebels in Aleppo are surrounded and on the verge of defeat, especially if outside support in the form of arms and foreign fighters is insufficient. Aleppo is only about fifty miles from the Turkish border and I guarantee they've got plenty of troops along it. Iran and Hezbollah opened the door to actual troops being sent, and there's been a consistent tit-for-tat exchange among the Middle Eastern nations.

I think by the end of the year, we'll know whether this will simply end in an Assad victory or if this will indeed be the trigger for the coming war in the region.

[John]

> Question is: what will be done if rebels in Aleppo are surrounded
> and on the verge of defeat, especially if outside support in the
> form of arms and foreign fighters is insufficient. Aleppo is only
> about fifty miles from the Turkish border and I guarantee they've
> got plenty of troops along it. Iran and Hezbollah opened the door
> to actual troops being sent, and there's been a consistent
> tit-for-tat exchange among the Middle Eastern nations.

Turkey's Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said in an interview this
week, when asked what Turkey would do if the Syrian army attacks
Aleppo, said: "I think it will be a huge mistake. If they do such a
mistake, I'm sure there will be a huge resistance."

In other words, he dodged the question, and seemed to be saying that
Turkey would do nothing. That's just as well, since Turkey has made
so many empty threats in the past two years that no one would believe
him anyway.

> I think by the end of the year, we'll know whether this will
> simply end in an Assad victory or if this will indeed be the
> trigger for the coming war in the region.

That's really going out on a limb, Trevor.

[Reality Check]

It was mentioned earlier that there's a major push by the Syrian Army to end this war, and based on a variety of maps, I think I know what the plan is. Homs has four smaller towns surrounding it. With Al-Qusayr now in Assad's hands, two of them belong to the Syrian Army and according to the latest reports, they're starting to take the third, Talaklakh. I don't think it's going to take too long to grab the remaining two. Once they do, the rebels will be surrounded.

Aleppo will be more difficult. It's longer and the rebels control most of the city, not to mention all of the surrounding areas. That, I believe, is where the decisive battle will be fought, and despite the new weapons, Hezbollah and the Revolutionary Guard joining, it's going to be difficult. Still, I would expect that if things remain unchanged, the Syrian Army will succeed. If the rebels lose in Homs, and especially in Aleppo, they're finished.

Some very good analysis, but it over states the value of the victories you describe. Unless the Syrian government army and their Syrian militia and Lebanese militia allies actually surround and annihilate the rebels, just taking Aleppo will not end it, provided Turkey, Jordan, and the United States keep the supply lines for food and arms open to Rebel forces along the Southern and Northern borders and along the river valley in the Eastern half of the county. The rebel fighters are battle hardened and they can retreat to other areas of Syria, or even into Turkey or Jordan, to return at other places. As long as Saudia Arabia, the Gulf Sunni States, Europe and the United States are willing to keep sending food and arms this civil war can continue for a very long time.

What the Assad forces are on the verge of doing is to reopen, and secure, the ground supply lines between the Capital, Aleppo, Lebanon's Bekka Valley, and the Christian and Alawite regions of Western Syria.

Russia's nightmare scenario is that Syria turns in to another Chechnya, only with U.S. allies surrounding it on three sides and supplying the rebels. This could end more like Afghanistan, than Chechnya for the Russian military.

I am not sure Obama, or the leaders of Western Europe, have the stomach to support that kind of war effort. But if they keep the supply lines open for more Sunni fighters from around the world to join the fight, demographics indicate Assad will lose.

[Trevor]

Homs they will certainly be able to take. It's close to Lebanon and Assad controls about 80 percent of the city anyway.

Aleppo will be a lot more difficult, true. I just read an article describing how they're making sure of the new anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons that Saudi Arabia sent them. The rebels are also well entrenched and since it's the largest city, Assad's not going to be able to simply flatten every building in sight the way he did in Al-Qusayr. But one of the big problems is still the same: a lack of heavy weapons.

But it's a lot more than a military defeat for the rebels: it's been a huge blow to morale and many of them are losing hope. Morale makes a big difference, especially in a non-crisis war where they're more reluctant to fight and you'll have fewer people willing to do so, at least domestically. If they can regain momentum, or at least force the Syrian Army to another standstill, then they might have a chance. If they keep losing, though, there's a good chance of them collapsing. This is just guesswork, I'll admit, but the next month or two might give us an idea as to which it'll be, and it was mentioned here:
** 6-Jun-13 World View -- Syria and Hezbollah gloat over victory in town of Qusair
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/ ... tm#e130606 that it could lead to collapse.
. I'll be watching the situation in Aleppo unfold.

[Reality Check]

But it's a lot more than a military defeat for the rebels: it's been a huge blow to morale and many of them are losing hope. Morale makes a big difference, especially in a non-crisis war where they're more reluctant to fight and you'll have fewer people willing to do so, at least domestically.

That is always true. When one side quits, that side loses.

And the generational argument would hold a lot of weight with me, if Syria was really a nation. But you need a lot more than arbitrary lines drawn on a map, less than 100 years ago, by people who do not share the culture, language, ethnicity or religion of over 80% of the people who live there, to make a geographic area on a map a nation.

The relevant nation here is the Sunni Arab Nation, and they are in a crisis period, and they are the group you suggest are just going to quit, when the government only holds half the country. As long as they are receiving support and promises from the rest of the Sunni Arab world, and Europe, and the United States and the Sunni Muslim Islamist leaders of Turkey ( the giant neighbor of the region ) they will have both a logical rational reason, and hope of ultimate victory, to keep them fighting.

And remember, even if the Sunni rebels do lose Aleppo, Assad will not hold much over 50% of the country. Attempting to take the Eastern and northern parts of Syria with overwhelming heavy weapons will expose those heavy weapons to devastating air attacks by Turkey, Jordan, Nato and/or the United States. That was the mistake the former dictator of Libya made, and it cost him first his heavy weapons, and then his life.

Someday this will be over, but I am not seeing any end, other than a temporary cease fire for peace talks ( a low probability ), between now and the end of the year.