U.S. weighs expanded CIA training, arming of Syrian allies struggling against Assad

I certainly hope the CIA will take a comprehensive UW approach to the problem.  I hope they will focus on the underground and auxiliary and not just on training and equipping fighters.  It is only through a comprehensive UW approach can we gain and sustain access and influence, the important task being the ability to have sustained influence over the leadership whom we are supporting.  But of course I would not expect the press to understand this and ask the right questions.

And of  course the question should be asked why are their separate CIA and DOD efforts? (if what is implied in the article is accurate).

The proposed CIA buildup would expand a clandestine mission that has grown substantially over the past year, U.S. officials said. The agency now vets and trains about 400 fighters each month — as many as are expected to be trained by the Pentagon when its program reaches full strength late next year.

Why is there not a single integrated strategy?  Why are their separate "programs?"

U.S. weighs expanded CIA  training, arming 

of Syrian allies struggling against Assad

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-weighs-expanded-cia-training-arming-of-syrian-allies-struggling-against-assad/2014/11/14/227abfe4-6c17-11e4-9fb4-a622dae742a2_story.html?wprss=rss_national-security

A rebel fighter readies a mortar during clashes with regime forces in the northern Syrian city of Aleppo on October 31, 2014. Syria accused Turkey on October 30, of a "flagrant violation" of its sovereignty, as Ankara allowed Iraqi Kurdish peshmerga fighters and opposition rebels to cross its border to battle jihadists. AFP PHOTO/KARAM AL-MASRIKARAM AL-MASRI/AFP/Getty Images (Karam Al-Masri/AFP/Getty Images)

By Greg Miller and Karen DeYoung November 14 at 7:45 PM   

The Obama administration has been weighing plans to escalate the CIA’s role in arming and training fighters in Syria, a move aimed at accelerating covert U.S. support to moderate rebel factions while the Pentagon is preparing to establish its own training bases, U.S. officials said.

The proposed CIA buildup would expand a clandestine mission that has grown substantially over the past year, U.S. officials said. The agency now vets and trains about 400 fighters each month — as many as are expected to be trained by the Pentagon when its program reaches full strength late next year.

The prospect of expanding the CIA program was on the agenda of a meeting of senior national security officials at the White House last week. A White House spokesman declined to comment on the meeting or to address whether officials had reached a decision on the matter.

Others said the proposal reflects concern about the pace of the Pentagon’s program to bolster moderate militias, which so far have proved no match for al-Qaeda offshoots including the Islamic State.

“We need a little more urgency in helping the moderates, and the agency was viewed as the best way to get that going fast,” said a senior U.S. official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the Syria debate.

A decision to expand the CIA program would deepen U.S. involvement in Syria, where the United Nations says 200,000 people have been killed during more than three years of civil war. The agency’s mission is a central but secret component of a broader U.S. effort that also involves airstrikes and an influx of U.S. military advisers into Iraq.

(Continued at the link below)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-weighs-expanded-cia-training-arming-of-syrian-allies-struggling-against-assad/2014/11/14/227abfe4-6c17-11e4-9fb4-a622dae742a2_story.html?wprss=rss_national-security

Syrians to be trained to defend territory, not take ground from jihadists, officials say

Then why bother?  I guess we can only train them in our image and if we cannot provide them all the support we give our own forces they will never be as capable as ISIS who do not have the luxury of having all the same support we have.  What are we thinking?  

The Syrian opposition force to be recruited by the U.S. military and its coalition partners will be trained to defend territory, rather than to seize it back from the Islamic State, according to senior U.S. and allied officials, some of whom are concerned that the approach is flawed.

“We have a big disconnect within our strategy. We need a credible, moderate Syrian force, but we have not been willing to commit what it takes to build that force,” said a senior U.S. official involved in Syria and Iraq operations who, like others cited in this report, spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the training program.

Military commanders are reluctant to push Syrian fighters into full-scale battles with well-armed militants if they cannot summon close air support and medical evacuations, mindful of how fledgling forces in Iraq and Afghanistan crumbled without that assistance during the early years of the wars in those nations. But U.S. military aircraft cannot provide that aid without American or allied troops in close proximity to provide accurate targeting information on secure radio channels.

If we cannot provide training to forces that is commensurate with their abilities and in accordance with their customs, traditions, and capabilities and can only train them in our image then we have no business training them at all.

National Security

Syrians to be trained to defend territory, not take ground from jihadists, officials say

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/syrians-to-be-trained-to-defend-territory-not-take-ground-from-jihadists-officials-say/2014/10/22/8ca13cf2-5a17-11e4-bd61-346aee66ba29_story.html?hpid=z1

 

Rebel fighters run during a battle against Syrian government soldiers in Handarat, on Oct. 20. ModerateSyrian fighters have been deemed essential to defeating the Islamic State under the Obama administration’s strategy. (Fadi Al-Halabi/AFP/Getty Images)

By Rajiv Chandrasekaran October 22 at 8:57 PM  

The Syrian opposition force to be recruited by the U.S. military and its coalition partners will be trained to defend territory, rather than to seize it back from the Islamic State, according to senior U.S. and allied officials, some of whom are concerned that the approach is flawed.

Although moderate Syrian fighters are deemed essential to defeating the Islamic State under the Obama administration’s strategy, officials do not believe the newly assembled units will be capable of capturing key towns from militants without the help of forward-deployed U.S. combat teams, which President Obama has so far ruled out. The Syrian rebel force will be tasked instead with trying to prevent the Islamic State from extending its reach beyond the large stretches of territory it already controls.

“We have a big disconnect within our strategy. We need a credible, moderate Syrian force, but we have not been willing to commit what it takes to build that force,” said a senior U.S. official involved in Syria and Iraq operations who, like others cited in this report, spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the training program.

Military commanders are reluctant to push Syrian fighters into full-scale battles with well-armed militants if they cannot summon close air support and medical evacuations, mindful of how fledgling forces in Iraq and Afghanistan crumbled without that assistance during the early years of the wars in those nations. But U.S. military aircraft cannot provide that aid without American or allied troops in close proximity to provide accurate targeting information on secure radio channels.

Military officials also want U.S. and allied special operations troops to advise opposition forces if those forces are thrust into combat, helping them to fight effectively and reducing the chances that the new units will disintegrate in the heat of battle.

 

Army Lt. Gen. William Mayville Jr. speaks about the operations in Syria during a news conference at the Pentagon in this Sept. 23 file photo. (Cliff Owen/AP)

“You cannot field an effective force if you’re not on the ground to advise and assist them,” said a senior U.S. military officer with extensive experience in training the Iraqi and Afghan militaries.

Obama’s unwillingness to deploy ground combat forces is rooted in concern that American troops would be drawn into a long, bloody war in the Middle East.

In announcing the campaign to confront the Islamic State, the president said the United States would “strengthen the opposition as the best counterweight to extremists.” The Pentagon subsequently announced that the U.S. military would seek to train as many as 5,000 Syrian fighters a year, aiming to build what Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel called an “effective opposition force, not just a hit-and-run group of rebels.”

The Obama administration’s plan calls for U.S. Special Operations troops to recruit moderate Syrianopponents of the Islamic State from refugee communities in Jordan, Turkey and other nations. They will be flown to Saudi Arabia, trained for about eight weeks, and then sent into the small enclaves of Syriaalready controlled by the Free Syrian Army and other moderate opponents of the Islamic State. The first units are expected to be deployed in roughly six months.

“The plan is for them to safeguard cleared areas,” said a senior official of an Arab nation that is part of the U.S.-led coalition and who has been briefed on the training program. “They will end up being a defensive force more than an offensive force.”

(Continued at the link below)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/syrians-to-be-trained-to-defend-territory-not-take-ground-from-jihadists-officials-say/2014/10/22/8ca13cf2-5a17-11e4-bd61-346aee66ba29_story.html?hpid=z1

Is there anyone on Obama's team (his closest advisers who have been through the "crucible" of the 2008/2012 campaigns who really sufficiently understands unconventional and political warfare as is being practiced today? (and I am not talking about partisan political warfare which admittedly the administration is well qualified to conduct).  I know there are experts in the Pentagon and perhaps even on the NSC who could really explain the difficulty that we face in conducting effective unconventional warfare and the folly of a simplistic train and equip program with the objective of hoping that a trained and equipped Syrian force will on its own (or with US air power) defeat ISIL/IS sometime in the future.  But if, as I have heard but of course do not know for sure,  the only people with credibility on the national security staff are those who have been through the election crucible my fear is that the President may not be getting the best advice (despite the Chairman and Joint Chiefs attempting to do so by giving their best military advice).

As an example I am hearing from people on the ground who really have insights into the situation that there is no "moderate opposition" and despite the attempts at training forces over the past months there are no actual vetted Syrian opposition forces.  Yet we hear from Administration officials that there are and our plans are dependent on them to achieve our objectives:

“The moderate opposition is key to both being able a counterweight on the ground to ISIL, and then, over time, also being a counterweight to Assad,” he added.

The quote below cries out for effective unconventional and political warfare.  But I have to ask again - is there a really a feasible unconventional and political warfare solution and do we have Administration officials who really understand what such a campaign and strategy would entail?  

“Building them up enables us to have forces on the ground that can deal with ISIL as we use our air power and other unique assets,” Blinken said. “At the same time, if you’re going to change the dynamics in Syria, if you’re going to get to a political transition that moves Assad out, you’re going to have to have a strong moderate opposition.”

I truly hope  Mike Nagata is doing a thorough assessment of the situation to include the true resistance potential and the feasibility of conducting an unconventional and political warfare campaign and if he finds it unfeasible I hope that people will listen to them.  And if he finds it feasible I truly hope that he will be properly resourced and supported for the duration plus six months so he can accomplish his mission. (my turn to invoke the hope COA)

Obama adviser: Trained Syrian rebels could fight Assad

By Timothy Cama - 09/28/14 09:43 AM EDT

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/219116-obama-adviser-trained-syria-rebels-could-fight-assad
 

A top adviser to President Obama said the military intends for Syrian rebels to use their training to fight President Bashar al-Assad after they fight the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

Deputy national security adviser Tony Blinken laid out the strategy in response to criticism from Fox News’s Chris Wallace that the United States’ involvement in Syria is alienating anti-Assad rebels who see the fight against ISIS, also known as ISIL, as helping Assad.

“We’ve seen strong expressions of support from the Syrian opposition for the effort that we’re making against ISIL,” Blinken said on "Fox News Sunday," using another acronym for the terror group.

“The moderate opposition is key to both being able a counterweight on the ground to ISIL, and then, over time, also being a counterweight to Assad,” he added.

Wallace said anti-Assad Syrians were protesting around the country Friday against the U.S. airstrikes that started last week in an attempt to hit ISIS. Those protesters represent the same moderate Syrians that the U.S. is training and arming to fight ISIS on the ground, so that it does not have to send American troops.

But Blinken was certain that the moderate Syrians support the U.S. mission.

“Building them up enables us to have forces on the ground that can deal with ISIL as we use our air power and other unique assets,” Blinken said. “At the same time, if you’re going to change the dynamics in Syria, if you’re going to get to a political transition that moves Assad out, you’re going to have to have a strong moderate opposition.”

Wallace asked if the military is planning to enforce a no-fly zone over Syria to protect civilians from Assad’s forces.

Blinken did not endorse the idea, but said the White House is considering it among a suite of options in its efforts in Syria.