Live data from Hacker News

The Pentagon Is Spending Up To $2.2B on Soviet-Style Arms for Syrian Rebels

occrp.org

151–160 of 206 posts

Re: The Pentagon Is Spending Up To $2.2B on Soviet-Style Arms for Syrian Rebels

#151

It always surprises me that those intelligence agencies obviously think this is worth it, considering they certainly must be aware of all the potential drawbacks that occur when you fuel war and instability like that. They must operate with totally different views of what constitute "good" and "bad" outcomes of the whole conflict. I guess you can justify all of that by just being cynical enough, but I'd like it if th…

It's not very surprising. It's very simple. They serve people who benefit as long as there is conflict.

If there is conflict:

- there will be multiple groups who want to defeat each other

- you can sell weapons to the richest of those groups

- you can sell weapons to third party governments (who use money collected forcefully from the public) to "fix the problems" caused by the conflict

Re: The Pentagon Is Spending Up To $2.2B on Soviet-Style Arms for Syrian Rebels

#152
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still a conflict of interest.

If you're a conspiracy theorist, sure. Why would WaPo write negatively about the CIA if that were the case?

>Why would WaPo write negatively about the CIA if that were the case?

To distract from something else or to downplay their ill deeds or to explain what they did in completely different context so that the real intent can be hidden.

Re: The Pentagon Is Spending Up To $2.2B on Soviet-Style Arms for Syrian Rebels

#153
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At this point, is anybody surprised by this? It's quite clear that when it comes to sponsoring groups in the Middle East, we just throw money/weapons at anyone, no matter who they are.

US is giving weapons to PKK in Syria. PKK has been considered a terrorist organization both by US and EU for a very long time, I mean decades. They are giving weapons under the pretext of fighting ISIS. Among the weapons given there are surface to air anti-aircraft missiles. Strange thing is that ISIS does not have any aircraft to shoot down. The amount of weapon delivery as of last week is about 13,000 containers. H…

The PKK is a far more complex issue. Their mission is self-determination for Kurdish people. After WWI, the Allied powers split the region where the Kurds reside, their hoped-for Kurdistan, between Turkey, Iraq, and Syria. They have faced oppression and worse (e.g., Iraq murdered Kurdish civilians with chemical weapons in the 1980s) from these governments for generations.

In Iraq: In the contest with Saddam Hussein, at least beginning in the 1990s, the U.S. built a strong relationship with the Kurds there. The Kurds used U.S. support to create de facto autonomy from the Iraqi government (something they are voting on in a couple of weeks - potentially a major event in Kurdish history). They became a skilled combat force and strong allies of the U.S., fighting alongside the Americans through the Iraq War and now in the fight against ISIL.

In Syria: My impression is that the relationship between the U.S. and the Iraqi Kurds extends now, with the Syrian civil war, to the Kurds in Syria. Like those in Iraq, the Syrian Kurds also have used their government's weakness to establish some autonomy.

In Turkey: There is no government weakness and no autonomy, but an ongoing contest with crackdowns, terrorist attacks, and more. The Turkish government calls the PKK 'terrorists', but the government's hands are hardly clean. The Turkish government does not want autonomous Kurdish regions in Syria and Iraq, both of which would border the Kurdish region in Turkey and would encourage and support Turkish Kurds.

Are the PKK terrorists? Freedom fighters? Some of each? I can't tell you. But certainly they have some argument for seeking self-determination in the face of oppression, and unlike groups such as ISIL their goal is self-determination for their own people, not to bring down governments and to take land and liberty from others.

Re: The Pentagon Is Spending Up To $2.2B on Soviet-Style Arms for Syrian Rebels

#154
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone got a tl;dr about the motive behind all this? What does the US government gain by flooding the middle East with weapons?

Broadly, America has traditionally supported Sunni leaning states, most notably Saudi Arabia. Russia has traditionally supported Shia Iran, and both the powers are competing for influence within the region. In the course of the Arab Spring, the legitimacy of many ME leaders/dictators was questioned, among the most notable of these was the rule of Bashar al-Assad of Syria. A popular local outpouring of resentment agai…

Oh wow.

The refugee crisis unfolded years before Russia even entered the conflict. Accusing them of creating it now is silly. Nor did Russia have a large air base in Syria until last year. Nor did the Russians supply or use chemical weapons. In fact, they earnestly tried to do the opposite - take Assad's chem weapons away (though they obviously failed).

The thing about Russia targeting civilians is curious to me. Is Russia killing civilians in Syria? Sure. Are Russians doing it on purpose, as part of their strategy? That I am not so sure about. I suspect it has more to do with urban nature of the conflict, low-precision bombs, bad intel, and yes - I have to admit - the traditionally lower value Russians place on human life (including their own). But as a part of some grand genocidal strategy that Western press attributes to the Russians? Probably not.

Case in point, when US aviators were bombing Mosul, they were also killing hundreds of civilians in the process (see links below). Despite the fact, no one has accused the US of specifically targeting civilians. All civilian deaths were chalked up to mistakes, rather than evil intent.

But in Russia's case, it's a strategy. Beats me why.

[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-syr...

[2] https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-07-13/were-high-civilian-ca...

Re: The Pentagon Is Spending Up To $2.2B on Soviet-Style Arms for Syrian Rebels

#155
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wars are a business for the US military industrial complex, plain and simple. The longer US is funding these wars, the more profit these people make.

I thought as you do. That's why I invested in Haliburton when Trump was elected. I figured the Military/Industrial complex was about to do VERY well. I'm down 20% since Trump was elected. Not saying we are wrong, necessarily. But its good to check these theories against reality whenever possible. http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/hal

Should have gone with Raytheon, up ~35% since the election. Why HAL anyway, it's more of an oil company than a MIC company?

Re: The Pentagon Is Spending Up To $2.2B on Soviet-Style Arms for Syrian Rebels

#156
post #4

The same documents confirm the CIA has been arming Al Qaeda in Syria. Scroll down to the last map[1] which shows CIA weapons went directly to Idlib province (northwest section in green) and the Golan border region (south). Both of these areas were and continue to be occupied by Al Qaeda. Idlib specifically is where genocidal cleansing of religious minorities was confirmed to be conducted by Al Qaeda "rebels" directly…

Are those locations occupied exclusively by Al Qaeda? The only evidence you've shown is that the CIA has given arms to rebels in areas where Al Qaeda and its affiliates are known to operate. I see no evidence that the CIA directly gave weapons to Al-Nusra or other Al-Qaeda affiliates. And zero evidence of any direct funding or support of ISIS as conspiracy theorists and Putin propagandists love to assert. It's possib…

> Are those locations occupied exclusively by Al Qaeda?

They aren't; there are even areas controlled by the Syrian government. Here's a map of Idlib that someone tried to make recently[1]; HTS is the group that includes al Qaeda/al Nusra (though it should be noted that al Nusra is officially no longer part of al Qaeda). I don't think any Idlib groups are currently being aided by the U.S. either (unless I missed something); the CIA program was ended, and the DoD program seems to mostly support SDF (and I believe a small amount of support to other groups like the al Tanf rebels).

There are plenty of reasons to criticize the CIA effort to arm various rebel factions, but it's a shame that misinformation stating that the CIA armed al Qaeda is being spread around and accepted uncritically.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/syriancivilwar/comments/6yovaq/map_...

Re: The Pentagon Is Spending Up To $2.2B on Soviet-Style Arms for Syrian Rebels

#157
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Toyotas. Lots of Toyotas. https://journal-neo.org/2015/10/09/the-mystery-of-isis-toyot...

Fwiw, a site having months, even years-old, mostly conspiratorial articles promoted on their sidebars and front page should be a huge red flag. Nevermind the shoddy writing.

"US Officials Ask How ISIS Got So Many Toyota Trucks" http://abcnews.go.com/International/us-officials-isis-toyota...

Re: The Pentagon Is Spending Up To $2.2B on Soviet-Style Arms for Syrian Rebels

#158
It's a valuable story to tell, but I wouldn't leap to any conclusions:

Why shouldn't the Pentagon be arming allies in the Syrian civil war? Speaking very generally, I hope they do support those resisting Assad, Iran, and Russia. There is nothing necessarily nefarious in arming allies, and it's better than sending your own people to fight and die.

However, I'm surprised it's going on:

First, the Obama administration was accused of being too cautious in arming anyone, not only in Syria but in Ukraine. (I read that they studied the issue, and concluded that the tactic of arming insurgents rarely worked out well, and often resulted in the arms falling into the wrong hands. I don't know how much that study influenced their decisions, however.) Obama was in office until January, so Trump would only have had a few months to setup and execute this multi-billion dollar program, including procurement, international logistics, and more.

Second, the Trump administration has announced they are abandoning the rebels, except when they are fighting ISIL, and accommodating Assad and the Russians (and as a result, their ally the Iranians).

So under what and whose policy are the Syrian rebels being armed?

Re: The Pentagon Is Spending Up To $2.2B on Soviet-Style Arms for Syrian Rebels

#159

This is a damned if we do damned if we don't sort of situation. People are horrified by Assad's regime, so the US is called to take action. Arming rebels is one way it has taken action. Unfortunately in a situation as complex as Syria some of those weapons inevitably fall into the hands of rebels groups we do not want to be associating with. On the other hand if the US were to do nothing, people would decry the injus…

It's not people are horrified by Assad's regime at all. That's just a line to sell a war in newspapers. There are much much worse governments than Assad in the world. Some are nominally our friends. Some we just ignore because they aren't in strategically important locations or don't have resources of interest. I thought it was commonly understood at this point that "spreading democracy and human liberty" translated…

You're much too cynical. We support democratic nations and try to set up democracy and liberal institutions when situations present themselves. We don't completely shut out nations like Saudi Arabia because there is more to be gained by working with them than against them. What would you want the US to do, invade Saudi Arabia because we disagree with it?

Re: The Pentagon Is Spending Up To $2.2B on Soviet-Style Arms for Syrian Rebels

#160
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US has been supporting the Kurds longer than trump's term in office

Not sure what you mean by "Kurds". Why is PKK still a designated terrorist group?

Because NATO.
Post reply on HN