It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: pheonix358
Seems the same rhetoric they used to get troops into Vietnam. You can slide right into a full blown war that way.
I think they should just STFU and fix up their own back yard .... say, enforce their own leaky borders for starters.
Everything they have touched in the Middle East has turned into a pile of dog poop.
US to deploy 400 troops to train Syrian rebels
originally posted by: daaskapital
The Pentagon has announced that it will be sending approximately 400 soldiers to Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia in order to train moderate Syrian rebels. While the USA has allegedly been training rebels in Jordan, these announcements seem to indicate that the upcoming exercises have a different goal in mind.
A defence official stated that the "The goal for the train and equip program is to build the capabilities of the moderate Syrian fighters to defend the Syrian people; stabilize areas under opposition control; promote the conditions for a negotiated settlement of the conflict in Syria; and empower trainees to go on the offensive against ISIL."
Indeed, it would seem that the Obama administration is now less focused on overthrowing Assad, and is instead intending to bolster the rebels' capability against ISIS.
I personally do not agree with the training of third parties, as we have seen how much it has 'helped' in the past. From Vietnam to Afghanistan and Libya, things don't always turn out well for the policies...I would much rather see the USA negotiate a temporary truce between the Syrian government and moderate rebel fighters in order for a combined offensive against ISIS. The likelihood of such an action is minimal, but i still think the Syrian government should be involved in the destruction of ISIS. Indeed, it has indicated that it would like to help many times. The best course for Syria would be a Syrian government victory, followed by a democratic election. Both of which would negate much of the problems surrounding the state and allegations against the current government. It would likely result in a stable Syria, rather than a second Libya. That discussion is for another time, however.
originally posted by: abe froman
Hey, we did it with Al Queida and that worked out just fine. What happened with that other group of Syrian rebels we were going to finance to the tune of half a billion dollars a year ago? Real nice guys, what was their name again...oh yeah, ISIS.
US foreign policy needs a tune up.
1. make or become less extreme, intense, rigorous, or violent. "I shall not moderate my criticism" synonyms: die down, abate, let up, calm down, lessen, decrease, diminish; More antonyms: increase, exacerbate, aggravate
Boko Haram has massacred thousands of civilians in Nigeria, but US officials' response towards the horrific crimes have been strangely muted. RT’s Manila Chan explores a potential link to oil, which the US no longer receives from Nigeria.
To many, the lack of Washington's strive to aid the people of Nigeria – the biggest African economy – seems to follow simple geostrategic logic: no oil, no security support. While diverting funds to fight the Islamic State in Iraq, the US seems unwilling to address Boko Haram insurgents in Nigeria.
As US is trying to master shale gas exploitation; it has moved away from some of its traditional trade partners, with Nigeria – an OPEC-member state – becoming the first country to stop selling oil to the US, statistics from the US Department of Energy reveal. Nigeria was one of the top five suppliers to the US at the height of trade, less than a decade ago supplying it with 1.3 million barrels of oil every day.