U.S. Equipment, but Not Troops, Begins Exiting Syria in Chaotic Withdrawal

The New York Slimes ^ | January 11, 2019 | Eric Schmitt, Thomas Gibbons-Neff and Ben Hubbard, Chaos Desk

[Navy Patriot]

The American military has started withdrawing some equipment, but not yet troops, from Syria as part of President Trump’s order to wind down that battleground against the Islamic State, two Defense Department officials said on Friday amid continuing confusion over plans to disengage from one of the Middle East’s most complex conflicts.

The officials said the number of American troops might actually increase slightly in Syria, to help protect the final process of pulling out — an operation that is still expected to take at least four to six months to complete.

There are currently about 2,000 troops — mostly Army soldiers and Marines — in northeast Syria or in the Middle Euphrates River Valley to oust the remaining pockets of Islamic State fighters and secure newly-liberated areas from their return. A vaguely worded statement from the American military headquarters in Baghdad, which is overseeing the fight against the Islamic State, said the withdrawal process from Syria had begun.

[Zhang Fei]

[When the British withdrew from Afghanistan, their entire force of 26,000 men was slaughtered on the way out. Only three (!!!) survivors made it back.]

---

4,500 troops, 12,000 camp followers. They were shadowed by Afghans with superior firepower, in the form of a longer-ranged rifle. In no shape or form can it be said that any of the other parties in the Syrian imbroglio has superior firepower. The British force ran out of supplies. Thanks to the miracle of air dominance, air strikes, air drops and air lifts, US forces will run out of supplies when the Democrats decide to let an American expeditionary force be slaughtered, and fail to appropriate the funds necessary for them to obtain the supplies needed to feed and defend themselves, i.e. never, if Democrats want to stay in office.

[Parley Baer]

The NYT has zero credibility with me.

[fortheDeclaration]

If the equipment is leaving, the troops will be leaving soon as well.

[flamberge]

You are of course correct in your remarks.

The British withdrawal was incompetently planned and conducted. It went about as bad as such an operation can go. That is the reason for mentioning it.

Presumably the American withdrawal will be more competently done. And if so, we won't hear accurate descriptions of the operation until it is completed.

[flamberge]

US forces will run out of supplies when the Democrats decide to let an American expeditionary force be slaughtered, and fail to appropriate the funds necessary for them to obtain the supplies needed to feed and defend themselves, i.e. never, if Democrats want to stay in office.

I would not be so confident about the Democrats' sanity.

Many appear to be self-destructive and willing to take down everybody else with them. They must not be given the chance to try it.

[grobdriver]

Because, of course, if the troops leave, the equipment will take care of itself.

At least they're consistent - hardware (eg. guns) have a mind and will of their own, in the mind of a lib.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

There's that word again: "chaos". When the "opposition party" uses it, they betray their complete ignorance of modern management principles. In the case of the NYT, they also betray their ignorance of their own best-sellers list (albeit from a couple decades ago).