Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

jsr

(7,712 posts)
Fri Mar 15, 2013, 09:53 PM Mar 2013

CIA begins sizing up Islamic extremists in Syria for drone strikes

Source: Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON — The CIA has stepped up secret contingency planning to protect the United States and its allies as the turmoil expands in Syria, including collecting intelligence on Islamic extremists for the first time for possible lethal drone strikes, according to current and former U.S. officials.

President Obama has not authorized drone missile strikes in Syria, however, and none are under consideration.

The Counterterrorism Center, which runs the CIA’s covert drone killing program in Pakistan and Yemen, recently shifted several targeting officers to improve intelligence collection on militants in Syria who could pose a terrorist threat, the officials said.

The targeting officers have formed a unit with colleagues who were tracking Al Qaeda operatives and fighters in Iraq. U.S. officials believe that some of these operatives have moved to Syria and joined Islamic militias battling to overthrow President Bashar Assad.


Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/middleeast/la-fg-cia-syria-20130316,0,3989647.story

37 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
CIA begins sizing up Islamic extremists in Syria for drone strikes (Original Post) jsr Mar 2013 OP
Heads up mallard Mar 2013 #1
Is the world becoming a Monopoly board where killing wins the country? Coyotl Mar 2013 #2
It's not our fight. We're not at war with jihadis in Syria. Comrade Grumpy Mar 2013 #3
Oh! NOW Obama's got money. But not for grandma. grahamhgreen Mar 2013 #4
This is just the kind of news I was hoping we'd start hearing ucrdem Mar 2013 #5
Well, there are reports popping up that the US is training rebels across the border in Jordan. Selatius Mar 2013 #6
Good point! another_liberal Mar 2013 #9
The obvious question, what about the al-Nusra backers in KSA/GCC? Will they be targeted, too? leveymg Mar 2013 #10
Yes, I imagine the political consequences could be significant ucrdem Mar 2013 #12
The shift in policy was necessary. Either we're fighting Sunni terrorism or helping it. We can't leveymg Mar 2013 #13
We can't openly do both, I suppose, or we shouldn't, ucrdem Mar 2013 #14
John Kerry deserves much of the credit for this shift. leveymg Mar 2013 #15
I never would've guessed you'd be supportive of drone strikes. joshcryer Mar 2013 #16
I have a hunch "al Qaeda" isn't going to require any actual drone strikes ucrdem Mar 2013 #17
Pakistan and Afghanistan dispell that idea. joshcryer Mar 2013 #20
Possibly but we're talking about al Qaeda in Iraq ucrdem Mar 2013 #21
Their effect in Libya was minimal at best. joshcryer Mar 2013 #22
Al Qaeda aside I suppose there's some truth to that. ucrdem Mar 2013 #23
My point is that we gave AQ safehaven from drone attacks in Libya and Syria leveymg Mar 2013 #25
"not different" "we're more inclined to use" joshcryer Mar 2013 #26
The number of Jihadi fighters in E Libya is many thousands. Their usefulness in external conflicts leveymg Mar 2013 #27
Your source agrees with me. "Under a thousand." joshcryer Mar 2013 #28
Their significance is as Jihadi militia in regional conflicts. leveymg Mar 2013 #29
You said they got "safe haven." joshcryer Mar 2013 #30
I'm not arguing in favor of drone strikes in Libya so much as to point out there were none until leveymg Mar 2013 #33
I think they viewed them as insignificant. joshcryer Mar 2013 #35
I'm very glad to see Kerry on the team ucrdem Mar 2013 #18
Big Mistake. Steviehh Mar 2013 #7
The Pentagon announced recently . . . another_liberal Mar 2013 #8
Nope. No overt unitarian exectutive over reach here. Arctic Dave Mar 2013 #11
I'll give you a hint John2 Mar 2013 #19
Yet, we continue to coddle the Saudis (the bankrollers of radical Islam) JCMach1 Mar 2013 #24
The predators are sizing up their targets. Ash_F Mar 2013 #31
Drones will need a fighter escort which will turn into a no fly zone Franker65 Mar 2013 #32
Interesting point. That need not be the case, however, if the Syrian military understands leveymg Mar 2013 #34
They wouldn't trust our drones in their airspace without open policy. joshcryer Mar 2013 #36
The US will never openly support Assad, but the policy seems to be prevent the complete collapse of leveymg Mar 2013 #37

mallard

(569 posts)
1. Heads up
Fri Mar 15, 2013, 10:40 PM
Mar 2013

Here's fair warning that there could be an attack inside the US by Syrian radicals (tied to the Assad regime) which would then draw us in ... as justification for direct military action ... to oust yet another evil dictator, as the Arab spring goes into it's third year.

Strange though how the only extremists available for comment in Syria at present are already working (for pay) on the anti-gov't side.

 

Coyotl

(15,262 posts)
2. Is the world becoming a Monopoly board where killing wins the country?
Fri Mar 15, 2013, 11:13 PM
Mar 2013

I sure feel sorry for the people of Syria. Let's not add fuel to this conflagration. Didn't we learn something from Bush and Iraq?

 

Comrade Grumpy

(13,184 posts)
3. It's not our fight. We're not at war with jihadis in Syria.
Fri Mar 15, 2013, 11:14 PM
Mar 2013

In fact, one could even say they're our de facto allies in that Washington and the jihadis both want an end to the secular Assad regime.

Still, this would be an unwise and unwarranted expansion of that perverse drone program.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
5. This is just the kind of news I was hoping we'd start hearing
Sat Mar 16, 2013, 01:30 AM
Mar 2013

after the new cabinet got down to business. If I'm not mistaken (and I easily could be, as I was more or less bedridden this week recovering from surgery), this is a major reversal of fortune -- upward -- for the Assad regime, which up unto; now has had Russia and Iran in its corner, period. Oh yes and Hezbollah we're told.

Meanwhile the US, UK, France and NATO have spared no effort to support in every overt way (and probably a few covert ones) the Syrian opposition or FSA, which has never had much of an identity or even a cause outside of that support, most visibly from Britain and France. The Obama administration has claimed that the US has not overtly or covertly supplied arms to the FSA, and if that really turns out to be the case, I'll be even more impressed. Because someone has been heavily arming and propagandizing for the FSA, and demonizing Assad, and for that demonization to quietly morph into promises of US drone support is, again if I'm not mistaken, a remarkable change of policy and as far as I can tell a commendable one.

Selatius

(20,441 posts)
6. Well, there are reports popping up that the US is training rebels across the border in Jordan.
Sat Mar 16, 2013, 02:39 AM
Mar 2013

They're apparently being trained in the use of anti-tank weapons to use against Assad's fleet of T-72 tanks. It's by no means established that these American instructors are doing it at the behest of the US government or are doing it because some right wing guy or group of men on Wall Street wants to make sure a pro-business government wins against Assad.

 

another_liberal

(8,821 posts)
9. Good point!
Sat Mar 16, 2013, 08:31 AM
Mar 2013

"Blackwater" is operating under a different name now, but it is still operating, and available to work for anyone with the money.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
10. The obvious question, what about the al-Nusra backers in KSA/GCC? Will they be targeted, too?
Sat Mar 16, 2013, 09:31 AM
Mar 2013

Doesn't that put the US into a position where we should, as a matter of military efficacy, spread the war to the money centers of the Arab Penninsula? What are the political and economic consequences of this? Not insignificant.

Given the murky track record of bringing accountability to the major funders of AQ after 9/11, one has strong reason to doubt that the US will now actively pursue Jihadi funding to its source, unless something really major has changed.

But, if we target the Salafists after cultivating them in Libya and Syria, we should expect someone will again turn Jihad on us.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
12. Yes, I imagine the political consequences could be significant
Sat Mar 16, 2013, 11:07 AM
Mar 2013

if this in fact is our new policy respecting Assad and the forces allied against him. If I'm reading it correctly it looks like we're now on record as considering overt military assistance to Assad, not against him, albeit by CIA drones, with no explicit quid pro quo like "only if you promise to vanish immediately," at least per the LAT report in the OP. And it looks like this has been in the works since at least December, when according to wiki quoting Al jazeera, we put al-Nusra on a terror blacklist :

"the most aggressive and successful arm of the rebel force" {David Igatius, WaPo}, it was designated by the United States as a terrorist organisation in December 2012.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front


Also per the LAT story:

The State Department says one of the strongest militias, Al Nusra Front, is a terrorist organization that is indistinguishable from the group Al Qaeda in Iraq.


So somewhere between the election and now our official posture toward Assad seems to have pulled a 180 and Public Enemy #1 is now an ally in our war on al Qaeda. This strikes me as a reasonable policy as Assad strikes me as a reasonable head of state, a secular technocrat of the type we're supposed to be encouraging, not flattening. As for turning Jihad on us, if you mean 9-11 type blowback, that doesn't seem to have concerned us much since Bush and Cheney got their wars launched, does it?

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
13. The shift in policy was necessary. Either we're fighting Sunni terrorism or helping it. We can't
Sat Mar 16, 2013, 11:51 AM
Mar 2013

do both -- providing safe areas in Libya and Syria where AQ is safe to rearm and reconstitute with our help, direct or indirect, so they could go on and fight the Shi'ia in Syria, Lebanon and Iran -- without realizing the inevitable consequences of blowback, including our involvement and taking sides in an expanding regional religious war. Benghazi was the first shock of that blowback, and that's what triggered the reversal of policy.

I've been writing about this since two days after Benghazi -- it wasn't well received on this and similar boards, initially (see, http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021333915 ; http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/14/1131854/-Blowback-in-Benghazi-Attack-Linked-to-Regime-Change-Operations-in-Libya-and-Syria ) -- but, the Administration has indeed come around to the same understanding, ejecting the principal champions (Clinton, Petraeus) of the previous policy in the process.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
14. We can't openly do both, I suppose, or we shouldn't,
Sat Mar 16, 2013, 02:24 PM
Mar 2013

but when has our foreign policy ever matched our professed ideals? If Obama is trying to bring official US rhetoric in line with our unofficial habit of profitable military adventurism, and making some real adjustments as appears to be the case with Syria, I'm seriously impressed. I've hoped, as most posting in this thread apparently have, that Obama would get us the heck out of the international shakedown business which is what US foreign policy has amounted to with few exceptions since 1946, and cooling the Assad assault seems an important step in the right direction.

Benghazi, well I'm going to leave that one to those who know more about it, but I will say that I find your analyses intriguing and well-informed. Also charitable. I would personally call Benghazi blowback alright, maybe even just desserts, but I suspect it had little to do with Islamic militants upset a movie or about Gaddafi either. To me it looked like a straight-up political hit job.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
15. John Kerry deserves much of the credit for this shift.
Sat Mar 16, 2013, 03:29 PM
Mar 2013

Most Americans have no idea that until early 2011, when the uprising was sparked by western-backed exile groups and the Sunni clergy, Kerry had been deeply involved in trying to engage Asad in a diplomatic shift that might have allowed a comprehensive accord between Israel, the Palestinians, Syria, Hezbollah, and Iran. Any chance for that went up in smoke when armed insurrection broke out and it became immediately apparent that the US was one of the outside parties involved in fueling the attempt to overthrow the Alawite regime.

So, Kerry has an ongoing role as a regional peacemaker, and some credibility with Damascus, upon which he might be able regain an American foothold. The Syria regime change operation (using Libyan fighters and weapons) pushed by Clinton and Petraeus just about destroyed those efforts. It will be a long climb back, but I hope a clear change in US policy -- including going after the wealthy Salafists who have been funding terrorist groups in Iraq, Afghanistan, as well as Syria and Libya -- will result in a more effective, even-handed US role in the Mideast, as well as stemming the slaughter and rising tide of religious warfare in the region.

Susan Rice was not the right persons to pursue such diplomacy, but she does reflect a side of Obama's approach that remains ready to launch military intervention in Syria if all other means fail. See, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/27/1165147/-The-Selling-of-Susan-Rice-Dog-Whistles-and-Unlikely-Republican-Allies , along with the comments.

Ultimately, it clearly is not in the US national interest to reduce Syria into another failed state, like Afghanistan or Somalia, and this appears to be the most promising way to do that.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
17. I have a hunch "al Qaeda" isn't going to require any actual drone strikes
Sat Mar 16, 2013, 09:45 PM
Mar 2013

to conveniently disperse. Sometimes it really is thought that counts, or the announcement of the thought.

joshcryer

(62,276 posts)
20. Pakistan and Afghanistan dispell that idea.
Sat Mar 16, 2013, 10:06 PM
Mar 2013

They will continue operating, and drone strikes are an effective recruitment tool.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
21. Possibly but we're talking about al Qaeda in Iraq
Sat Mar 16, 2013, 10:37 PM
Mar 2013

who proved themselves helpful in Libya and, until this latest development, in Syria.

joshcryer

(62,276 posts)
22. Their effect in Libya was minimal at best.
Sun Mar 17, 2013, 02:32 AM
Mar 2013

And in Syria they are only compounding the sectarian violence.

Either way drone strikes aren't going to dissuade them.

It will decidedly make them stronger, especially if the FSA really is allied with them. Pow, you just made the entire FSA against us as well as sympathizers in the west (the UK in particular). Talk about a powerful recruitment tool; having UK Syrian expats turn. Good luck tracking that terrorist down.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
23. Al Qaeda aside I suppose there's some truth to that.
Sun Mar 17, 2013, 04:04 AM
Mar 2013

Certainly Britain seems to be the opposition's strongest supporter, and this will doubtless be seen as a thankless betrayal of our "special relationship" with our former colonial overlords, but so what? We helped them out in Iran in 1953 and look where it got us: 60 years later and we still haven't extricated ourselves from that wretched business, and if Obama hadn't come along in 2008 we'd probably be carpet bombing their date farms and waterworks 24/7 this very day.

I imagine the Obamas will have to endure withering witticisms from the Oxbridge set and low-rent racism from the tabloids, and maybe they won't get an invite to the next royal wedding, but it will be Britain's loss and they'll have to get over it. Ditto conservative elements in Israel and France. And I don't think it will have any more effect on domestic terrorism than detente with Cuba had in the US.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
25. My point is that we gave AQ safehaven from drone attacks in Libya and Syria
Sun Mar 17, 2013, 09:46 AM
Mar 2013

until the Benghazi attack forced reconsideration of the regime change program. We've also given the funders of AQ in Riyadh and Doha a pass, as well.

As for the use of drones, more generally, it's the targeting that I find most problematic (particularly their use for extrajudicial executions of US Citizens). Otherwise, drones are not different from other means to carry out airstrikes, using F-16s or cruise missiles. However, we're more inclined to use (and overuse) drones because they're cheaper, and for some reason, some foreign states don't object to them as much as they have alternative weapons delivery systems.

joshcryer

(62,276 posts)
26. "not different" "we're more inclined to use"
Sun Mar 17, 2013, 07:41 PM
Mar 2013

OK.

To be sure the AQ elements in Libya were under a thousand fighters. Most were common Libyans. In fact the eastern Libyans didn't break the lines from Benghazi to Adjabiya until very late in the game. The allies effectively kept them isolated and rendered their actions in the revolution minimal at best (the allies could've easily broke the Adjabiya line and allowed the islamists / AQ elements to have a more substantial effect on the war, but they didn't, for that reason).

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
27. The number of Jihadi fighters in E Libya is many thousands. Their usefulness in external conflicts
Mon Mar 18, 2013, 12:05 AM
Mar 2013

was made apparent during the Iraq War, at which time according to a US study conducted at the Center for Study of Terrorism at West Point, during 2007 about a thousand jihadis were estimated to have infiltrated into Iraq. The prominent role being played by Eastern Libyans in Iraq was also fully appreciated by US Ambassador Chris Stevens, who in 2008 had a role in studying these groups.

The overall numbers of foreign fighters in Iraq and their countries of origin were reported as follows: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2008/0107/p02s01-usmi.html

The (West Point) report, which is based on data compiled by Al Qaeda and captured by coalition forces last fall, shows that the most violent acts in Iraq are typically carried out by foreign fighters. Their goals sometimes align with the group Al Qaeda in Iraq, which, estimates suggest, has between 5,000 and 8,000 people associated with it. The foreign fighters, however, represent just a small fraction of that group.

"We don't mean to imply that the bulk of the organization is foreign," says Lt. Col. Joseph Felter, who co-wrote the analysis for the Combating Terrorism Center at the US Military Academy at West Point, N.Y. "But what you can take away from this is that it seems very likely that the vast majority of the suicide bombers do seem to be committed by non-Iraqis."

The US military discovered documents and computer data that belonged to Al Qaeda after conducting a raid in Sinjar, which is along the Syrian border in western Iraq and was thought to be an entry point for many of Iraq's foreign fighters. The documents and computer data offered a unique look at the flow of foreign fighters.

US military officials note that they don't know precisely how many foreign fighters are in Iraq; even this report does not indicate one way or another. Some accounts have suggested that the number is no more than a few hundred at any one time.

But while the total number is unknown, US military officials have determined that the fighters' flow into Iraq is decreasing – from as many as 110 per month in the first half of 2007 to about 40 per month this past fall.

Although it remains unclear the degree to which Shiite-dominant Iran is influencing the violence in Iraq, the analysis indicates that most of the foreign intervention is Sunni-based, which includes Al Qaeda.

The more than 750 personnel records obtained at the raid site showed that Saudi Arabia was the country of origin for 41 percent of the records analyzed, or 244 fighters. Libya was the source for 18 percent, or 112 of the fighters. Syria, Yemen, and Algeria were the next most common, according to the 29-page report, titled "Al-Qaida's Foreign Fighters in Iraq: A First Look at the Sinjar Records."


A more precise breakdown of the percentage of Libyans, and their precise origins, was published here:

The resulting study permits us to make important findings about the mentality and belief structures of the northeastern Libyan population that is furnishing the basis for the rebellion, permitting important conclusions about the political nature of the anti-Qaddafi revolt in these areas.

The most striking finding which emerges from the West Point study is that the corridor which goes from Benghazi to Tobruk, passing through the city of Darnah (also transliterated as Derna) them represents one of the greatest concentrations of jihadi terrorists to be found anywhere in the world, and by some measures can be regarded as the leading source of suicide bombers anywhere on the planet. Darnah, with one terrorist fighter sent into Iraq to kill Americans for every 1,000 to 1,500 persons of population, emerges as suicide bomber heaven, easily surpassing the closest competitor, which was Riyad, Saudi Arabia.

According to West Point authors Joseph Felter and Brian Fishman, Saudi Arabia took first place as regards absolute numbers of jihadis sent to combat the United States and other coalition members in Iraq during the time frame in question. Libya, a country less than one fourth as populous, took second place. Saudi Arabia sent 41% of the fighters. According to Felter and Fishman, “Libya was the next most common country of origin, with 18.8% (112) of the fighters listing their nationality stating they hailed from Libya.” Other much larger countries were far behind: “Syria, Yemen, and Algeria were the next most common origin countries with 8.2% (49), 8.1% (48), and 7.2% (43), respectively. Moroccans accounted for 6.1% (36) of the records and Jordanians 1.9% (11).”

This means that almost one fifth of the foreign fighters entering Iraq across the Syrian border came from Libya, a country of just over 6 million people. A higher proportion of Libyans were interested in fighting in Iraq than any other country contributing mujahedin. Felter and Fishman point out: “Almost 19 percent of the fighters in the Sinjar Records came from Libya alone. Furthermore, Libya contributed far more fighters per capita than any other nationality in the Sinjar Records, including Saudi Arabia.”

(1) Joseph Felter and Brian Fishman, “Al Qa’ida’s Foreign Fighter in Iraq: A First Look at the Sinjar Records,” (West Point, NY: Harmony Project, Combating Terrorism Center, Department of Social Sciences, US Military Academy, December 2007). Cited as West Point Study.

(2) Op. cit.

(3) West Point Study, pp. 8-9.

Also, see, Daya Gamage, “Libyan rebellion has radical Islamist fervor: Benghazi link to Islamic militancy, U.S. Military Document Reveals,” Asian Tribune, March 17, 2011. http://www.asiantribune.com/news/2011/03/17/libyan-rebellion-has-radical-islamist-fervor-benghazi-link-islamic-militancyus-milit



Josh, if you're going to state numbers, please cite your sources and explain the relevance of your data.

joshcryer

(62,276 posts)
28. Your source agrees with me. "Under a thousand."
Mon Mar 18, 2013, 12:48 AM
Mar 2013

I don't know what your problem is with my argument. Because they didn't have a substantial impact on the revolution (it was mostly Misratan's and Berbers who toppled Gaddafi; yes, Benghazi was the birth place of the armed uprising, it was most certainly not the finality of it).

If you're going to claim that the Libyan revolutionaries were composed mostly of islamists or AQ, I would like for you to substantiate it.

I simply stated a material fact of the war. Benghazians and the eastern Libyans (which one would typically slander as islamists) did not break through the Ajdabiya line (they did so briefly but I'm talking about taking it and moving forward). This is a fact.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
29. Their significance is as Jihadi militia in regional conflicts.
Mon Mar 18, 2013, 01:04 AM
Mar 2013

They are widely acknowledged to be among the most effective opposition fighters in Syria.

I never claimed al-Qaeda was the major factor in the overthrow of Ghadafi. Where did you get that notion?

joshcryer

(62,276 posts)
30. You said they got "safe haven."
Mon Mar 18, 2013, 02:14 AM
Mar 2013

Which tells me that you believe we should've been bombing Libyan revolutionaries with AQ in their midst and not "given them safe haven."

To me it feels like you're suggesting their presence was more significant than it was. As it likely is in Syria.

Regardless, the reason I'm shocked by your drone support is that they're ineffective at rooting out terrorists. They merely produce more terrorists. They're quite a good recruitment tool.

Let's say you agree that the Libyan AQ elements were insignificant (which I doubt you believe). If we were to have blown them up with drones and not given them "safe haven" then, well, I think obviously the non-AQ elements would've been rather peeved and would have been easy converts.

I don't think intelligence in Syria or Libya is or was effective enough to actually root out specific AQ elements. When we strike armed actors in Pakistan I think we simply ask Pakistan (usually) if their guys are at a given location, when the answer is no, we blow up whoever has rocket launchers and guns (that's what I think is the case anyway). I don't think we have specifics except in a few special cases. Which is why so many damn strikes is even more frustrating. If it was one a year and it took out top guys then maybe I might have a different opinion. But, no, when they were reporting them it was weekly and lots of civilians were caught in the crossfire.

As I say, a very good recruitment tool.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
33. I'm not arguing in favor of drone strikes in Libya so much as to point out there were none until
Mon Mar 18, 2013, 07:48 AM
Mar 2013

Benghazi, which suggests that for some unstated reason US policymakers viewed known AQ-allied militants there differently than those in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Mali and elsewhere who were targeted. Similarly, known AQ units inside Syria -- a large percentage of which are made up of Saudis and Libyans -- have up until now been spared.

The message to be gained from that pre-Benghazi policy is if you were involved in U.S.-backed regime change operations, we won't target you, no matter who you are. That appears to be about to change in Syria.

joshcryer

(62,276 posts)
35. I think they viewed them as insignificant.
Mon Mar 18, 2013, 08:09 AM
Mar 2013

As opposed to other countries where their presence is more significant.

As far as Syria is concerned I think they felt it was like Libya but as more information is gathered (in part because of how long this thing is lasting), they are beginning to see that it's not the same situation.

If the US sides with Assad your assessment may turn out correct.

If the US sides with Assad then it will be following a long tradition of being friendly to dictators (remember, Gaddafi did rendition for the US and opened his oil fields to western countries).

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
18. I'm very glad to see Kerry on the team
Sat Mar 16, 2013, 09:53 PM
Mar 2013

and very glad Obama got the team he asked for, finally, including Hagel and Brennan.

 

another_liberal

(8,821 posts)
8. The Pentagon announced recently . . .
Sat Mar 16, 2013, 08:28 AM
Mar 2013

The Pentagon announced recently that it will no longer release information on its drone strikes, and I'm sure that goes for the CIA as well. That being so, how would we know if they start using them over Syria? I guess the surviving rebels could report a suspected drone strike themselves, but that would merely elicit an official denial from our generals and spooks. Just rest assured:

If the Pentagon is not yet using drones to assassinate unfriendly Syrian rebels, they will be soon.

 

Arctic Dave

(13,812 posts)
11. Nope. No overt unitarian exectutive over reach here.
Sat Mar 16, 2013, 11:04 AM
Mar 2013

WTF makes obama think he can bomb anyone he feels like even though it has NO threat to our country.

Obama is indeed bush by another name.

 

John2

(2,730 posts)
19. I'll give you a hint
Sat Mar 16, 2013, 10:01 PM
Mar 2013

and let you connect the Dots. Our Interests are not to just defend this country but also certain interests in the Middle East very important to Congress. Obama can do nothing alone unless he has powerful allies in Congress. They have the soul authority to declare War on anything they see fit without the consent of the people. You can start connecting your dots after World War II when Congress changed its authority to defend other countries besides the United States. Just go look it up and see how the U.S. got involved in the Middle East and connect those dots.

Franker65

(299 posts)
32. Drones will need a fighter escort which will turn into a no fly zone
Mon Mar 18, 2013, 07:38 AM
Mar 2013

The Syrian military will shoot down any drones that enter its territory in the same way they shot down the Turkish F-4. This isn't the same as drone strikes in Yemen or Afghanistan. And Predators operating over Syria would require the dismantling of the air defense network through SEAD aircraft and a fighter escort. So don't expect to see this happening unless there is a huge shift in western policy on this conflict.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
34. Interesting point. That need not be the case, however, if the Syrian military understands
Mon Mar 18, 2013, 07:52 AM
Mar 2013

that the target list is restricted to AQ-linked commanders.

joshcryer

(62,276 posts)
36. They wouldn't trust our drones in their airspace without open policy.
Mon Mar 18, 2013, 08:13 AM
Mar 2013

ie, we say that we support Assad and are "against the terrorists."

That poster does have a point though.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
37. The US will never openly support Assad, but the policy seems to be prevent the complete collapse of
Mon Mar 18, 2013, 09:09 AM
Mar 2013

the Syrian State and military, for fear of the country's arsenals being looted, as were Ghadafi's, and the entire country falling into a cycle of chaos and genocide, as did Somalia. That would indeed be a very dangerous thing for a nation that borders on five states in that region.

I believe the original hope was that a military coup would take down Assad quickly, but that didn't take into account the fact that the Alawite regime is clan-based, and the Sunnis have always viewed this as a religious war of revenge for the suppression of the last Sunni uprising (the "Long War of Terror", 1976-82), which they lost despite the backing of Saudi Arabia. This time, the Saudis and Gulf States operate with considerably greater impunity and lessened restraints, because of the events of the last decade. The fear of extermination held by the Shi'ia and Christian minorities inside Syria is well-founded.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»CIA begins sizing up Isla...