Syria/Assad is next

[Michael Welch]

100% -- okay then 99.9!...

[A159]

Word has it that Assad may be on the ropes ..... and at the time I began this thread, I wasn't thinking ISIS being the one who thumped Assad's azz, but the US/Israel pulling that trigger. This past week ISIS has been making huge gains on the ground in Syria. The 4 yr inner conflict vs Western backed Syrian Rebels in Syria burdening Assad's Forces has taken it's toll on them. They can no longer kick ISIS's azz. So, in a round about way, the NeoCon West appears to be accomplishing their initial goal ...... to oust Assad and his Forces.







http://www.debka.com/article/24625/Assad-pulls-air-force-out-of-Deir-ez-Zour-the-third-Syrian-air-base-surrendered-to-ISIS
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report May 27, 2015, 6:34 PM (IDT)

Just a week after losing the big Palmyra air base to the Islamic State – and with it large stocks of ammo and military equipment - Syrian military and air units Wednesday, May 27, began pulling out of the big air base at Deir ez-Zour. This was Bashar Assad’s last military stronghold in eastern Syria and the last air facility for enabling fighter-bombers to strike ISIS forces in northeastern Syria and the western Iraqi province of Anbar.
.
.
.
debkafile’s military sources report that the Islamic State now has in its sights the Syrian army’s biggest air facility, T4 Airbase, which is located on the fast highway linking Homs with Damascus 140 km away.
.
.
.
In the space of a week, therefore, Bashar Assad has lost three of his major air bases, including Palmyra, where Iranian and Russian air freights had been landing regularly with fresh supplies of ordnance and spare parts for his army.
Our military experts say that this bonanza frees ISIS to cut off the eastern, northern and central regions from the capital, and deprive the Syrian and Hizballah units battling for control of the Qalamoun Mts of air support against rebel and Islamist forces.
If they manage to take T4 as well, the Islamists will be able to prevent US jets from taking off for strikes against them in Syria, or bombing the their forces which have seized long stretches of the fast highway from Homs to Damascus.

[Michael Welch]

Suddenly yes it appears that the Assad regime is vulnerable -- but to IS/ISIS/ISIL!!!!

What a conundrum for the United States eh! Ostensibly we want Assad "out" but hardly to be replaced by sunni extremists! What an irony that would be!

Obama's "caution" appears more and more uh "wise" to me...

[A159]

Welp ..... this is the stuff that leads to US war against a country's president, and much like what this thread suggests ..... Assad is next. I can see Assad's Forces retaliating back at our bomber jets that eventually then leads to an all out fight between US and Syria (Assad's Forces). This is a huge mistake on Washington's part! IMHO





http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/03/us-mideast-crisis-syria-usa-idUSKCN0Q803Y20150803
World | Mon Aug 3, 2015 2:25pm EDT

U.S. to defend Syrian rebels with airpower, including from Assad
WASHINGTON | By Phil Stewart


The United States has decided to allow airstrikes to defend Syrian rebels trained by the U.S. military from any attackers, even if the enemies hail from forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, U.S. officials said on Sunday.

The decision by President Barack Obama, which could deepen the U.S. role in Syria's conflict, aims to shield a still-fledging group of Syrian fighters armed and trained by the United States to battle Islamic State militants -- not forces loyal to Assad.

.
.
.

U.S. officials have long played down the idea that Assad's forces - which have not fired on U.S.-led coalition aircraft bombing Islamic State targets inSyria - would turn their sights on the U.S.-backed Syrian rebels. But they cannot rule out the possibility, perhaps in an unintentional clash.

[A159]

Here comes more Western bombers. Sure, this should be a good thing, but then, I still want to see Arab nations bomb bomb bomb ISIS in Syria.

This article kinda confuses me some. There's reassurance by Britain (Philip Hammond, the foreign secretary) that Assad wouldn't be ousted, but in the rest of the article, there looks to be just that. A little help from my friends with your interpretation of it all would be appreciated.






http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/09/no-10-plans-limited-syria-strikes-isis-transition-assad

Military action would be narrowly defined to remove terrorist threat of Isis, while Bashar al-Assad could be allowed to stay in power for six months

Philip Hammond, the foreign secretary, made clear on Wednesday that the government would like to widen its involvement in the airstrikes over Syria. But the government is making clear that it has three clear goals designed to win support in a possible parliamentary vote, which will become more challenging if Jeremy Corbyn is elected Labour leader on Saturday.

The three goals are:

    * Military – the defeat of Islamic State.
    * Political – strengthening the Iraqi government.
    * Diplomatic – helping to lead a new initiative in Syria, with the blessing of Russia and China, that would see the installation of a government of national unity. As a way of getting Assad’s two great patrons, Russia and Iran, on board, Britain and other western powers would agree to a transitional period of up to six months in which Assad would remain in office. But his security apparatus would be shut down.

Hammond repeatedly stressed to MPs on the Commons foreign affairs select committee that any planned British involvement in military action in Syria would be limited to disrupting Isis command and control in Raqqa. The aim would not be to change the balance of power in the deadlocked four-year civil war, the government’s purpose when it last asked parliament to endorse military action.

[countryguy]

As I see it, Assad wouldn't be militarily overthrown.  Rather, he would be allowed to step down after six months, in which time a new government would be installed, apparently by a "democratic process", involving representation from all of the warring factions (except DAESH/ISIS/ISIL, I would guess).

This is meant to appease Russia, primarily, but also China, who are opposed to overthrowing the Assad regime.  Notice that it also involves the immediate shutdown of Assad's security apparatus, which is the arm of the government responsible for most of the oppressive and repressive actions of the Assad regime.

The goals - suppress DAESH, ease the oppression of the Syrian people, oust Assad, and ease the refugee crisis in Europe - haven't really changed, except for the six-month period given to Assad, while a transition government is formed.

[A159]

Thanks for another opinion to this story, cg. I read it as basically ..... beginning steps (election or physically) with ousting Assad after this 6 mth period. Even tho Britain's Philip Hammond stated no, not gonna happen ...... once the West is firmly inside Syria and ready to roll Assad to the curb, I think it will happen. Of course, that's why Russia is in there now too ..... and this my friends may very well be what brings the West at war with Russia. Here we thot it would be directly over Crimea.

[A159]

It's time to mark another landmark for which the Cheney NeoCons will push harder for US war against Assad..... the recent Paris Attack(s). This opened the door really really wide to arm twist Congress Critters to war war war with Assad under the guise of going after ISIS in which at some point, Assad forces will hit US/NATO forces inside Syria (per future reports by the MIC propaganda machine). Mcbombbombbombiran and Graham had already began their 'add more US boots on the ground' campaign the morning of the Paris Attacks.

[A159]

We've threatened Assad before, but this time ..... I feel this threat may be real. Keep in mind that August seems to always provide hot military actions. SoS Kerry just told Assad to give up power or else by August 1. Maybe this is something that Obama wants to tidy up before handing over the keys of the WH bus to HRC. What's your gut?









https://news.vice.com/article/the-us-just-told-assad-he-needs-to-start-giving-up-power-in-syria-by-august-or-else
The US Just Told Assad He Needs to Start Giving Up Power in Syria by August — Or Else

By VICE News and Reuters
May 4, 2016 |



Secretary of State John Kerry imposed an August deadline for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to transition out of power, warning the Damascus-based government and its Russian and Iranian backers that non-adherence to the ultimatum will prompt a new US approach to ending the five-year-old war.

"The target date for the transition is 1st of August," Kerry said in a press conference at the State Department on Tuesday. "So we're now coming up to May. So either something happens in these next few months, or they are asking for a very different track."

It's not clear how much weight Kerry's ultimatum has. The US has issued a number of threats against Assad since the civil war first erupted five years ago, including Kerry's warning that Assad's days were "numbered" in 2011, and President Barack Obamas declaration that chemical weapons were a "red line" that, if used by Assad's regime, would prompt decisive US action. Assad proceeded to use chemical weapons and the US walked back from its threat.
.
.
.
"If Assad does not adhere to this, there will clearly be repercussions, and one of them may be the total destruction of the ceasefire and then go back to war," Kerry said. "I don't think Russia wants that. I don't think Assad is going to benefit from that. There may be even other repercussions being discussed."

[A159]

I'm sure by now, many here know what has happened in Syria 3 days ago...... prompting anger from the West. just when we thot that Trump would kinda forget Assad and Syria, he appears to feel a war burn coming on. I'd be surprised if there isn't something in a military way that ticks upward in the US vs Syria crises...... soon.




http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/06/politics/trump-syria-military-options/
By Laura Smith-Spark, CNN

Updated 12:31 PM ET, Thu April 6, 2017



 (CNN)US President Donald Trump faces perhaps his toughest foreign policy challenge yet amid calls for the United States to take a stand following a chemical attack on a rebel-held town in Syria that killed scores of civilians.

Trump said that Tuesday's attack "crossed a lot of lines" for him and that his "attitude towards Syria and Assad has changed very much." And Trump told some members of Congress that he's considering military action in Syria in response, a source familiar with the calls told CNN on condition of anonymity.

[hoosier88]

Trump intervene in Syria?  & cross his mentor KGB Lt. Col. Putin (in handling the press, dissidents, political opposition, even if it's merely too far to the Right?)  I don't see that happening.  After/during our efforts in Afghanistan, Iraq, unnamed places in Africa, Philippines, the Middle East - not enough scope for the Trump's spleen.  Maybe in the case of the Spratly's (the contested islands in the South China Sea - although that might make the Philippines' head case look good - or @ least better.)

Hard to say. N. Korea has dangerous (& nuclear-armed) allies with actual delivery systems.  So they're pretty much off the table.  Isn't there some nice little island in the Caribbean that we could invade & liberate à la St. Reagan?  It would be helpful if they had scads of bauxite or something that we could usefully claim.

   

[Michael Welch]

I can't help but "applaud" Trump's new attitude toward Assad and his regime and I wish well uh that "we" would bomb the hmmm out of Assad and company but I recognize that is a rather reflexively "primitive" sense in myself. Trump says he'll "do something" but he isn't telling. As per above I don't see an "intervention" but I wonder 'cuz well the prez said "it" crossed all sorts of lines, "red" and otherwise.

Call Vladdie? "Hey your guy is a war criminal, a monster!" Vladdie: "Oh yeah Donald?! I will look into that! And how's your uh portfolio lately?"

I never thought Obama's "red line" non response was very um "uplifting" but I recognized that the "public" and the Congress for that matter didn't much want to do anything actually and the "agreement" of Assad -- "I promise never to do it again -- not that I ever did it!" -- and his supposedly turning over all his "stuff" (apparently he withheld some eh) would be enough.

Sigh! It never is...

[Plato Potato]

Trump has spent a lot of time thumping that America First drum, meaning "let those guys sort out their own problems." However, this seems (seems!) to be a new wrinkle. I hate to believe anything he says, but he sounded genuinely moved by the horrible pictures of children dying of poison gas. He might be several notches closer to some kind of military action in Syria.

The Great Deal Maker also is talking about nudging Xi Jin Ping into reining in North Korea's mad dictator.

(shrugs) Who knows? We'll watch it happen.

[Michael Welch]

William F. Buckley once said re Franklin Roosevelt "Even a stopped clock is right twice a day!" Well an analog clock now huh. So maybe Trump can be hmmmm...

[hoosier88]

William F. Buckley once said re Franklin Roosevelt "Even a stopped clock is right twice a day!" Well an analog clock now huh. So maybe Trump can be hmmmm...

The Trump?!  With those tiny digits - likely the reason he prefers petite women ...

So many targets, so little ... time