Skip to comments.Report: As Obama administration knowingly armed Islamic State in Syria, Joint Chiefs passed US
Posted on 12/29/2015 4:46:52 PM PST by Nachum
Barack Obamaâs repeated insistence that Bashar al-Assad must leave office â and that there are âmoderateâ rebel groups in Syria capable of defeating him â has in recent years provoked quiet dissent, and even overt opposition, among some of the most senior officers on the Pentagonâs Joint Staff. Their criticism has focused on what they see as the administrationâs fixation on Assadâs primary ally, Vladimir Putin. In their view, Obama is captive to Cold War thinking about Russia and China, and hasnât adjusted his stance on Syria to the fact both countries share Washingtonâs anxiety about the spread of terrorism in and beyond Syria; like Washington, they believe that Islamic State must be stopped.
The militaryâs resistance dates back to the summer of 2013, when a highly classified assessment, put together by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, then led by General Martin Dempsey, forecast that the fall of the Assad regime would lead to chaos and, potentially, to Syriaâs takeover by jihadi extremists, much as was then happening in Libya. A former senior adviser to the Joint Chiefs told me that the document was an âall-sourceâ appraisal, drawing on information from signals, satellite and human intelligence, and took a dim view of the Obama administrationâs insistence on continuing to finance and arm the so-called moderate rebel groups. By then, the CIA had been conspiring for more than a year with allies in the UK, Saudi Arabia and Qatar to ship guns and goods â to be used for the overthrow of Assad â from Libya, via Turkey, into Syria. The new intelligence estimate singled out Turkey as a major impediment to Obamaâs Syria policy. The document showed, the adviser said, âthat what was started as a covert US programme to arm and support the moderate rebels fighting Assad had been co-opted by Turkey, and had morphed into an across-the-board technical, arms and logistical programme for all of the opposition, including Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamic State. The so-called moderates had evaporated and the Free Syrian Army was a rump group stationed at an airbase in Turkey.â The assessment was bleak: there was no viable âmoderateâ opposition to Assad, and the US was arming extremists.
Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, director of the DIA between 2012 and 2014, confirmed that his agency had sent a constant stream of classified warnings to the civilian leadership about the dire consequences of toppling Assad. The jihadists, he said, were in control of the opposition. Turkey wasnât doing enough to stop the smuggling of foreign fighters and weapons across the border. âIf the American public saw the intelligence we were producing daily, at the most sensitive level, they would go ballistic,â Flynn told me. âWe understood Isisâs long-term strategy and its campaign plans, and we also discussed the fact that Turkey was looking the other way when it came to the growth of the Islamic State inside Syria.â The DIAâs reporting, he said, âgot enormous pushbackâ from the Obama administration. âI felt that they did not want to hear the truth.âBut what's more shocking is what the Joint Chiefs decided to do about it.
âOur policy of arming the opposition to Assad was unsuccessful and actually having a negative impact,â the former JCS adviser said. âThe Joint Chiefs believed that Assad should not be replaced by fundamentalists. The administrationâs policy was contradictory. They wanted Assad to go but the opposition was dominated by extremists. So who was going to replace him? To say Assadâs got to go is fine, but if you follow that through â therefore anyone is better. Itâs the âanybody else is betterâ issue that the JCS had with Obamaâs policy.â
The Joint Chiefs felt that a direct challenge to Obamaâs policy would have âhad a zero chance of successâ. So in the autumn of 2013 they decided to take steps against the extremists without going through political channels, by providing US intelligence to the militaries of other nations, on the understanding that it would be passed on to the Syrian army and used against the common enemy, Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamic State.
Germany, Israel and Russia were in contact with the Syrian army, and able to exercise some influence over Assadâs decisions â it was through them that US intelligence would be shared. Each had its reasons for co-operating with Assad: Germany feared what might happen among its own population of six million Muslims if Islamic State expanded; Israel was concerned with border security; Russia had an alliance of very long standing with Syria, and was worried by the threat to its only naval base on the Mediterranean, at Tartus. âWe werenât intent on deviating from Obamaâs stated policies,â the adviser said. âBut sharing our assessments via the military-to-military relationships with other countries could prove productive. It was clear that Assad needed better tactical intelligence and operational advice. The JCS concluded that if those needs were met, the overall fight against Islamist terrorism would be enhanced. Obama didnât know, but Obama doesnât know what the JCS does in every circumstance and thatâs true of all presidents.â
Once the flow of US intelligence began, Germany, Israel and Russia started passing on information about the whereabouts and intent of radical jihadist groups to the Syrian army; in return, Syria provided information about its own capabilities and intentions. There was no direct contact between the US and the Syrian military; instead, the adviser said, âwe provided the information â including long-range analyses on Syriaâs future put together by contractors or one of our war colleges â and these countries could do with it what they chose, including sharing it with Assad. We were saying to the Germans and the others: âHereâs some information thatâs pretty interesting and our interest is mutual.â End of conversation. The JCS could conclude that something beneficial would arise from it â but it was a military to military thing, and not some sort of a sinister Joint Chiefsâ plot to go around Obama and support Assad. It was a lot cleverer than that. If Assad remains in power, it will not be because we did it. Itâs because he was smart enough to use the intelligence and sound tactical advice we provided to others.â
The list, Ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
Wow, we still have some in the General Staff who are willing to defy obastard, even is only behind the scenes? Kind of surprised — thought Obama had put his LGBTWOEOPJSJD (OK, just guessing there, can’t remember the whole string) people in charge there...
Oh, one more thing: Anyone surprised that Obama helped arm the Islamic State is a MORON!
I suspect that Obamatron is very much afraid of our military, including the ones who no longer are in uniform.
Which is why he purged the top dogs no doubt.
Yep. Which is why he femenized them.
Report: As Obama administration knowingly armed Islamic State in Syria, Joint Chiefs passed US intel to Assad
Check out article and # 5 , # 6 .
Why isn’t this treason?
Thanks for the ping; post.
WOW! T R E A S O N
We, the people of the United States of America, can even survive T R E A S O N from within. Witness current events. Witness American exceptionalism.
THANKS founding fathers.
(DEPOPULATE T R E A S O N O U S punks and their enablers from the body politic)
It’s easy to -
live - free - republic
Didn’t we ‘accidentally’ drop them a shipment of armaments?
Hillary is also involved in all this. Benghazi was a weapons drop operation for a militant group, but it blew up on them. We still haven’t heard the full scandal. Emails have been emphasized instead.
Politics are great and always play a part in what these communists do but I often wonder if there isn’t a money trail we are missing here. Especially with the clintons involved. It’s all they respect.
One more little factoid that came up recently.Supposedly the US and Russia are both going after ISIS on bombing runs. We know better with ozero but putin probably wouldn’t mind taking out some opposition to Assad. Just suppose we have intel that can help the ruskies and we don’t give it to them. How does our regime finesse that one?
Let Republicanprofessor know if you want on or off this ping list.
However, the Generals that Obama got rid of are classified “warriors” .. or those who HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN KEEPING AMERICA SAFE; AND KILLING THE ENEMY.
But, the Generals that have retired were given a choice: Will you fire on American Citizens ..?? If they would not agree to do that .. they were told to resign or they would be fired. I’ve had this confirmed, so it’s no joke. But, I believe that once the word got around as to what Obama was doing, he suddenly stopped doing it; because when you expose a RAT to sunlight .. they always scurry for cover.
The fact that there are still some Generals who oppose Obama is really amazing.
I think you are really onto something here. I think this has happened far more than we know. Once they got caught doing something really illegal, destructive of the country, which is their goal, they stopped doing it.
And .. part of the goal to get rid of certain Generals and/or Admirals .. was only a portion of the damage; the other part was the breakdown of moral within our military.
That told me Obama hated our military because he was so afraid they would try to overthrow him .. so tearing the military apart, or introducing LGBT or Gay into the military was also part of the goal.
I believe Obama was expecting a whole lot of our military to resign when the changes were put in place (because he thinks our guys/gals are so macho they wouldn’t want to be around a lot of different people); and when they didn’t, he started shutting down certain units; and we all know he feared the SpecOps more than the others .. so a helicopter full of them really turned the light on .. and he quit the assault on our troops. Some of the families are still trying to find out the truth about the “accident”.
You may be reading too much into it. Could be a lot simpler.The goal of the regime,IMHO, is to covertly destroy the entire country. Gutting the military is key to achieving that goal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.