Joseph Trevithick, The Warzone/The Drive: Massive US Counterstrike Against Assad's Forces Signals New Stage Of Syrian Civil War
Three hour battle with Assad's forces is a reminder that other parties may not give the US the choice of staying out of Syria's civil war.
The U.S. military has now offered additional details about the withering firepower it employed during a three hour battle to beat back a battalion-sized force that threatened American troops and their local partners at a remote base in northern Syria. Coming as the United States is trying to draw down in Iraq and Syria and shift its attention to Afghanistan, the incident underscores how difficult it might be for the remaining U.S. troops to not to get wrapped up in the broader Syrian conflict.
According to the Pentagon, the incident began after approximately 500 troops allied with Syrian dictator Bashar Al Assad crossed to the eastern side of the Euphrates River near the city of Deir ez-Zor with tanks, artillery, and other heavy weapons on Feb. 7, 2018. That force passed over a formal de-confliction line that the United States and Russia have set up to try and separate their activities and avoid these skirmishes. It subsequently used tanks or artillery to fire at least 30 rounds at a headquarters run by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a U.S.-backed local force, the bulk of which are Kurds. American advisers, likely special operations forces, were also at the site and subsequently called in a flurry of air and artillery strikes.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: Bottom line. This was an all-out battle with heavy air and ground assets being used.
3 comments:
Trump did the rght thing letting military make decisions.
Jim,
I am immensely pleased beyond measure that our people and our "allies" won this round. Not only that but it appears that none of our people or our "allies" were hurt or killed. The problem is OUR PEOPLE NEVER SHOULD'VE BEEN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE!!
By not IMMEDIATELY pulling the plug on the Syrian adventure Donald Trump has messed up. Unfortunately it seems our government is more interested in toppling Assad than in fighting ISIS. Meanwhile others (Russia, the Syrian military, Iran, and Iranian backed militias) do the heavy lifting in fighting ISIS.
Perhaps my assessment in paragraph 2 is wrong. I hope so.
B.P., from what I have read in this blog and others the Kurdish groups were the heavy hitters in dealing with ISIS. At least the ones we trained and supported. Russia appears to have done more to preserve Assad and Russia's bases in Syria by destroying Syrians and their infrastructure if it was felt they were not in support of him and left the heavy work to others. Despite Putin's recent using of Bush's notorious mission accomplished statement way back when, it appears he is mistaken and hasn't assimilated the fact that these muslim groups are tenacious and will likely continue on for generations despite a flagging enthusiasm on the part of those fair weather volunteers who flocked to the caliphate when things were easier and less costly and the pay was much better.
I do not feel I need to refresh you about ISIS' goals. Had we not stepped in I do not doubt a far larger and perhaps still growing area would still be under their sway and more countries in far greater conflict with them than is now the case. This appeared to be the future had the allies not interceded in the area. Certainly the reincarnation of the old idea of a perpetual motion machine, the jaw muscles of the woefully inadequate and cadaverous Johnny K, and that well known international performance artist, known for his red water color line on the burning, shifting sands of Syria, weren't up to the task. The same could be said of the Arab militaries whose effectiveness was not much of a deterrent.
That's my 10 cents worth.
Roger
Post a Comment