It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump administration wants Arab allies to send troops to Syria to replace US forces

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 11:35 PM
link   
From the Wall Street Journal via Marketwatch.com

Trump administration wants Arab allies to send troops to Syria




The Trump administration is seeking to assemble an Arab force to replace the U.S. military contingent in Syria and help stabilize the northeastern part of the country after the defeat of Islamic State, U.S. officials said. John Bolton, President Donald Trump’s new national security adviser, recently called Abbas Kamel, Egypt’s acting intelligence chief, to see if Cairo would contribute to the effort, officials said.


What do you think of this proposal. I kinda like it . Makes more sense for these countries to do the fighting in Syria than the US. It is time for the US to stop being the policeman for the world. Let the other Arab countries decide the region's fate.




posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 11:39 PM
link   
For sure, right, like that's gonna happen. They will send paid mercenaries but troops? Not a chance.
edit on 16-4-2018 by CharlesT because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-4-2018 by CharlesT because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 11:41 PM
link   
I am for anything that gets us out of these third-world hell holes. We have plenty of problems to work on right here at home. I don’t really care what happens on the other side of the world when my water is full of lead and the bridges are collapsing.

Let them clean up their own countries. Trump is spot on once again. I hope it happens.



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 11:43 PM
link   
So send regular troops from the nations that have already been helping send Al Qaeda and their ally mercs there to blow the place up.

Well that is an improvement from certain angles, but its still waging war on them; its the agenda still in action but with a different plan.



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Sounds like a strategy.

I'll wait for RT's next rebuttal story however.

😎



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 11:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
I am for anything that gets us out of these third-world hell holes. We have plenty of problems to work on right here at home. I don’t really care what happens on the other side of the world when my water is full of lead and the bridges are collapsing.

Let them clean up their own countries. Trump is spot on once again. I hope it happens.


Syria isnt Iraq how it was when Obama pulled out completely.

We could just pull out of there completely and Assad & Russia can handle it.

US being there powering the radical islam merc types is the whole source of the problem.

Putting regular army of different stripes in their place doesnt change much, especially not when those nations already been busy powering said mercs.

Just give the Kurd's a bunch of weapons (instead of Al Qaeda & ISIS, for a change), and GTFO.



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 11:47 PM
link   
We only have about 2,000 troops there. Replacing them (in part or in total) should be a piece-of-cake.



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 11:48 PM
link   
a reply to: feldercarb

This is an example of Nationalism.

But nationalism = racism right?



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 11:50 PM
link   
a reply to: feldercarb

This actually has the potential for brilliance or disaster. From the link in the OP:

John Bolton, President Donald Trump’s new national security adviser, recently called Abbas Kamel, Egypt’s acting intelligence chief, to see if Cairo would contribute to the effort, officials said.

The initiative comes as the administration has asked Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates to contribute billions of dollars to help restore northern Syria. It wants Arab nations to send troops as well, officials said.

He's basically asking Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar to invade and occupy Syria. If they were stupid enough to do it directly, it could turn the GCC's cold war with Iran & its allies into a hot war.

But on the other hand, it could brilliantly call the bluff of the GCC, who's always asking the West to fight their battles for them. Their current military alliance can't even beat Yemen, which is the poorest country in the Gulf, so how can they defeat Assad with Iran and Hezbollah's help?

Many of their citizens don't even have the stomach for the current Yemen war, yet now they're going to occupy Syria? And let's not forget that Syria's civilian population is about 75% Sunni, yet they overwhelmingly support Assad. So the Saudis can't even pretend that they're protecting Sunnis there as a pretext.

(note: I'm against the wars in general, but especially against the current Yemen and Syrian wars. So all of these warmongers can go screw themselves.)



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 11:54 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant



I'm against the wars in general, but especially against the current Yemen and Syrian wars. So all of these warmongers can go screw themselves.


I couldn’t agree more. Nice to find some common ground.



posted on Apr, 17 2018 @ 01:08 AM
link   
a reply to: feldercarb

It's a great idea. Weaponry would still be a BOOMING business, just Arab flesh and blood protecting and dying for Arab security and societies instead of American and Western.

It is the kind of thinking I like. It is using their energy as their own karma. As it stands it was our troops and pilots risking their necks and their heads. It is a proxy's wet dream of an idea.

There are big problems with it though, too. It may end up that they have to send troops in to deal with the troops they sent in because the worm turns? It also takes away the political control. All politics will be done by proxy concerning military boots on the ground. It hands power to Arab governments when the whole point is that these governments are failing to deliver security and that is why we have to step in in the the first place because it spills over in to our areas of interest.

It's a nice try, but I don't think it can get any better than it is. We have excellent drone capabilities now. I think in theory we could conduct a whole campaign with robots, aircraft and tanks. It's amazing. I was kind of hoping we could have robot wars instead of human battles.

Lol, even the battles could go virtual. Why not? The earth would love it. War could go all Sony, X Box, Bitcoin and Blockchain. However, the loser would never capitulate if they lost virtually. We all know you must hit where it hurts to make a person change their course of actions and dictators are the most stubborn of all.


edit on 17-4-2018 by Revolution9 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2018 @ 01:13 AM
link   
Easy peasy.


Sort of like Mexico paying for the Wall.


edit on 4/17/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2018 @ 02:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
I am for anything that gets us out of these third-world hell holes. We have plenty of problems to work on right here at home. I don’t really care what happens on the other side of the world when my water is full of lead and the bridges are collapsing.

Let them clean up their own countries. Trump is spot on once again. I hope it happens.


Yeah, let them clean up all the debris and dead and maimed and infrastructure which we destroyed.

The next wave of generations growing up in Syria without parents or homes or anything to claim , those people sure are going to not become radicalized and exact some sort of revenge however they can....

"Why do they hate us.."
edit on 17-4-2018 by odzeandennz because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2018 @ 02:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
We only have about 2,000 troops there. Replacing them (in part or in total) should be a piece-of-cake.


In a just world those 2,000 troops would be captured and dealt with by the Syrians.



posted on Apr, 17 2018 @ 03:26 AM
link   
Where does Trump come up with this nonsense?

What incentive do these Nation's have to do so?

You're exactly right ∆ .. it's like asking Mexico to pay for a wall with money they don't have when it doesn't benefit them in any way.

He's delusional.

These countries are busy policing and maintaining their own nations... They don't have the resources to do this



posted on Apr, 17 2018 @ 04:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
a reply to: feldercarb

This is an example of Nationalism.

But nationalism = racism right?



This is not nationalism at all. It's asking other nations to invade another nation because Trump doesn't want to put boots in Syria or replace the ones there already. Yet he will gladly throw millions of dollars of missiles into it.

Just because they live in the same area of the world doesn't mean they all get along or have the same laws and what not. At the end of the day Syria is not their problem, it's more the US's problem if anything else at this point.



posted on Apr, 17 2018 @ 04:58 AM
link   
a reply to: feldercarb

Yeah its a great idea. Let an Arab nation run cover operations for the flagless mercenaries on the ground.

I say leave Assad to continue killing ISIS and co as they have been.

We havent fought radical terrorists in Syria..Assad has.

He is doing fine.
edit on 4 17 2018 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2018 @ 05:17 AM
link   
The only real Arab allies we have is Saudi Arabia who have the same principles and ideals as isis, despite them opening one cinema and allowing women to legally drive(although they are harassed for doing so).

So we want to replace Isis with, well Isis basically.


The stupidity never ends.



posted on Apr, 17 2018 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: feldercarb

One other aspect not mentioned. It would cool off a U.S.- Russian confrontation. It would change it to a Russian vs multiple Arab nations. Instead of two 'interloping nations' it becomes one interloping nation vs locals....

edit on 17-4-2018 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2018 @ 09:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: feldercarb

One other aspect not mentioned. It would cool off a U.S.- Russian confrontation. It would change it to a Russian vs multiple Arab nations. Instead of two 'interloping nations' it becomes one interloping nation vs locals....


Why not just leave Syria alone? The Syrian government and Russia can work together to rebuild the country and expel unwanted foreign nationals. What gives Trump the right to suggest that others invade Syria too? The USA was never supposed to be there in the first place. No shame at all from an 'exceptional' nation regards the destruction and death that it has wrought in yet another country.
It would suit the US well to have it's allies in the region to further tie up and drain Russia's military and economic resources. The US won't release it's foothold in Syria without others to take it's place. We all know who they are...

I have no fear of a direct confrontation between the US and Russia because that's a war the US knows it can't win.

edit on 17-4-2018 by midicon because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join