Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

eridani

(51,907 posts)
Sat Sep 20, 2014, 06:58 AM Sep 2014

Reported US-Syrian Accord on Air Strikes

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/25959-focus-reported-us-syrian-accord-on-air-strikes

The Obama administration, working through the Russian government, has secured an agreement from the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad to permit U.S. airstrikes against Islamic State targets in parts of Syria, according to a source briefed on the secret arrangements.

The reported agreement would clear away one of the chief obstacles to President Barack Obama’s plan to authorize U.S. warplanes to cross into Syria to attack Islamic State forces – the concern that entering Syrian territory might prompt anti-aircraft fire from the Syrian government’s missile batteries.

The usual protocol for the U.S. military – when operating in territory without a government’s permission – is to destroy the air defenses prior to conducting airstrikes so as to protect American pilots and aircraft, as was done with Libya in 2011. However, in other cases, U.S. intelligence agencies have arranged for secret permission from governments for such attacks, creating a public ambiguity usually for the benefit of the foreign leaders while gaining the necessary U.S. military assurances.

In essence, that appears to be what is happening behind the scenes in Syria despite the hostility between the Obama administration and the Assad government. Obama has called for the removal of Assad but the two leaders find themselves on the same side in the fight against the Islamic State terrorists who have battled Assad’s forces while also attacking the U.S.-supported Iraqi government and beheading two American journalists.
8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

jambo101

(797 posts)
2. I dont get it.
Sat Sep 20, 2014, 07:10 AM
Sep 2014

Assad is under attack by rebel forces, why is he so reluctant to have the USA help him destroy the rebels?

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
3. He isn't and that's why the agreement got signed. He was just trying to use the issue as leverage
Sat Sep 20, 2014, 07:11 AM
Sep 2014

to have the US promise not to try to get him out of power.

KurtNYC

(14,549 posts)
6. Because the US also wants to oust Assad and has spent billions arming the rebels to do so.
Sat Sep 20, 2014, 08:06 AM
Sep 2014

The official stories don't line up with actions and events. I think we have to look back to something like the 8-year long Iran vs Iraq war (1980-1988) when the US was selling arms to both sides and seemed to be most interested in an on-going stalemate that weakened both sides, for a model that could apply here.

OPEC was a disaster for the US. Weak governments and cheap oil work much better for us. When General Wes Clark revealed our plans to take out 7 governments in 5 years -- Iraq, Libya and Syria were high on the list.

Good overview of ISIS and a timeline of events:
http://www.vox.com/cards/things-about-isis-you-need-to-know/what-is-isis

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Reported US-Syrian Accord...