"The Syrian rebels" is a meaningless term in this context. Which Syrian rebels? ISIS, the other Salafists, the various secular groups that the government & ISIS have ganged up against . . .
That's a very good point. I'm not well versed on the extent or nature of US support. Perhaps you could elucidate what exactly is being done, and for whom? I'm sure public info is limited, but even your best guess would be appreciated.
ISIS is mutilating people, public hangings, public executions, suicide attacks, and burying women and children alive, what are the other groups doing that is so much worse?
Hmm. I haven't been following the Syrian mess too closely as of late, but when I was the islamists had, in at least two cases, executed the entire population of a small town or village for refusing to cooperate with the rebels. Has ISIS been involved in systematic mass murder as well? That would bode all kinds of bad things for the future of Iraq.
A lot of Syrian 'rebels' have been killed by ISIS in Syria, I doubt they'd agree they are on the same side, even Al-Qaeda is distancing themselves. Just seems like an oversimplification of the various factions fighting in West Asia.
Well once again, who is physically getting the benefits provided by US training and supplies? Unless there is a very clear answer to this question, the policy is at the very least irresponsible.
Doubtful. I've trained on the M119 and the M198 howitzers briefly before I went into self propelled artillery on a M109A6, it takes a considerable amount of training and coordination at several levels to get good effect on a target using indirect fire with a M198. The M198 is the type of howitzers we supplied the Iraqi's with. Unless they have people who are familiar with these systems, I don't see them using it beyond a point and shoot role or a direct fire role.
Yes I figured the answer was something of that sort. Even crew-served infantry weapons require a level of training and coordination that makes their effective use by insurgent forces uncommon. I guess it would depend on whether they
could get some Iraqi army artillery officers to help. Either way, I'm glad they're being taken out of the equation. I was just mildly amused by the pattern.
There are groups in Syria fighting Assad, and fighting ISIS. In fact there is talk amoung certain intelligence circles that Assad and ISIS cooperate on some level, despite the fact they are officially enemies. Reports of payments from Damascus to ISIS and other groups to protect the oil infrastructure, and that Assad can use ISIS to discredit anyone who opposes his regime as a heart eating Jihadists radical. They do not go hand in hand.
Do you have any further reading on this subject? I certainly wouldn't put it past Assad to do this, but given that he's pushing hard to re-stablish solid (authoritarian) control over his country, I doubt ISIS is someone he would want to share power with. Does it look more like a cooperation of convenience, or the makings of something more long-term?
Just because they are "rebels" doesn't mean they are all fighting for the same cause. One could argue that the very lack of support for moderate factions have given rise to more radical elements. They are typically better armed and organized. In this area of the world, people typically bet on the winning horse, and as bad as they are for your stomach, MRE's were not going to help the now defunct FSA do very much at all.
Maybe. But providing support for anyone in this mess only makes sense if you're prepared to go the full length and make sure they come out on top, otherwise you're just tossing logs in the fire. You said it yourself, radical groups are taking out the more moderate rebels. In the process of doing so they take their equipment and supplies, and I wouldn't be surprised if a few defectors pass between the factions as well, potentially taking with them know-how on said equipment.
