ISIS, or ISIL, or Islamic State, has been almost completely defeated in Syria, but the U.S. Department of Defense is requesting an increase instead of a decrease in funding to support “Vetted Syrian Opposition,” or fighters in Syria against Syria’s Government, and it refers to these fighters as being part of America’s “strategy to defeat ISIS,” instead of as being what they now obviously are: fighters for regime-change, or to overthrow Syria’s Government (which is headed by its President Bashar al-Assad, who received 89% of the votes cast throughout Syria in the internationally monitored 2014 Presidential election).
The Trump Administration’s “Department of Defense Budget Fiscal Year (FY) 2019” funding-request to Congress calls for “III. Requirements in Syria” of:
a Coalition campaign to degrade, dismantle, and ultimately defeat ISIS in Syria. One key element of DoD’s strategy to defeat ISIS is to train, equip, sustain, and enable elements of the Vetted Syrian Opposition (VSO) eligible for support under current law. By the end of FY 2018, these forces are projected to total approximately 60,000 to 65,000; 30,000 to conduct ongoing combat missions against ISIS in the MERV, and 35,000 Internal Security Forces in liberated areas (to provide approximately 20 police/security forces for every 1,000 civilians).
Here is the:
SUMMARY
The FY 2019 request fully funds the Syria T[rain]&E[quip/arm] program based on requirements to sustain a 35,000 Internal Security Force together with a 30,000 combat personnel partner forces (as required) to liberate, secure, and defend territory previously controlled by ISIS [but now no longer ISIS-controlled]. The following is a summary of the requirements in Syria by category:
Category FY 2018 Request FY 2019 Request ($ in Millions) [FY2018, then FY2019]
Weapons, Ammunition, Vehicles and Other Equipment $393.3 $162.5
Basic Life Support $6.1 $8.0
Transportation and Staging $40.0 $28.0
Operational Sustainment $60.6 $101.5
TOTAL $500.0 $300.0
In other words: for the 2018 FY, $500 million is being sought, and for the 2019 FY, $300 million is being sought, for this campaign to overthrow Syria’s democratically elected (but in any case legitimate) President, and thus successfully to culminate the former U.S. President Barack Obama’s active military support of Al Qaeda in Syria to achieve this overthrow-objective.
If U.S. air-support is required in this “Coalition campaign” from the United States and its Coalition of the Saud family and other fundamentalist-Sunni Arab oil monarchies, then even a single U.S. plane that could be shot down by enemy fire (either Syrian, or Russian) could cost far more than the $800 million that this budget-request is calling for. Consequently, this is clearly a low-ball figure, which is normal for any Government request for a military invasion and occupation that American voters oppose by two-to-one. This has long been U.S. public sentiment regarding the issue. For example:
|
United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Sept. 5-8, 2013. N=1,002 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.6. | ||||||
|
“As you may know the Obama Administration has concluded that the government of Syria used chemical weapons, including nerve gas, to kill over 1,400 civilians last month. Which of the following best describes what you think the U.S. should do in response? Do nothing and stay out of the Syrian civil war. Launch a LIMITED military strike, using only air power, to punish the Syrian government for using chemical weapons. Launch a MORE SUSTAINED military strike, using only air power, to help rebels overthrow the Syrian government. Launch a FULL-SCALE military strike, including both air power and U.S. ground troops, to help rebels overthrow the Syrian government.” | ||||||
|
Do nothing and stay out |
Limited airstrike |
More sustained airstrike |
Air power and ground troops |
Unsure/ Refused | ||
|
% |
% |
% |
% |
% | ||
|
9/5-8/13 |
55 |
21 |
6 |
6 |
12 | |
Consequently, this is a budget-request that — though it may sail through Congress — is almost certainly opposed by the voters. The only scientific study that has ever been done on the question of whether the preferences of the U.S. electorate correlate at all with the legislation that ends up passing into law in Congress found that there was no significant such correlation but that the preferences of the wealthiest Americans did significantly correlate with what gets passed into law. If wealthy Americans favor continuation and increase of Obama’s military invasion and occupation of Syria, then Trump’s budget-request for this increased invasion-and-occupation there will likely be passed and signed into law by the President, in this ‘democracy’. Certainly, based upon all of the polling, both in the United States and in Syria, the likelihood that Trump will win another term as the U.S. President is lower than that Assad will win another term as Syria’s President, and this isn’t because Syria is a dictatorship and America isn’t. It’s because a far higher percentage of Syria’s voters support their President than the percentage of America’s voters who support our President. That’s what all of the polling, at least up to the present time, shows.
Throughout Trump’s campaign for the White House, he had attacked his ‘opponent’ Hillary Clinton’s neoconservative (i.e., imperialist) foreign-policies, and also President Obama’s neoconservative policies. Even after Trump won election, he said, in a 1 December 2016 rally in Cincinnati, that, “we will pursue a new foreign policy that finally learns from the mistakes of the past. We will stop looking to topple regimes and overthrow governments, folks. Our goal is stability, not chaos because we wanna rebuild our country. It’s time.”
Poster Comment:
#1: rlk To: Deckard (#0)
Assad is one of the most secular men in the area. If he is knocked off it makes islamic jihad free to move in a five hundred mile radius. If this announcement is true, Trump is completely nuts.
rlk posted on 2018-03-09 09:59:52 Reply Private Reply
#2: Liberator To: rlk (#1)
True.
Assad is not a good man. He is evil. BUT...not nearly to the extent that we should prefer a replacement (which might presumably as you suggest, merely whack the jihadi hornet's nest.) OR WOULD IT?
US Spec Op and military have been slaughtering ISIS, ISIL, Muzzie Brotherhood and whomever challenges them. Challenging TRUMP'S military (with its completely changed RoE) is a suicide mission for Muzzies.
If this announcement is true, Trump is completely nuts.
Q: Why presume the title ("Trump Seeks Congressional Funding for 60,000-Man Army to Overthrow Assad") to be true? Sounds way over the top to me. LIKE 99% of the stories reported featuring the name, "Trump".
How can one possibly put much stock in Media "reports"? Why not assume Trump has a cogent, logical productive plan in Syria? After all, Israel is in on whatever move is desired. Moreover, this isn't the 0bama/Hillary DoS whose plan was to torch the entire Middle East and depose AND replace EVERY secular leader as the MSM celebrated the "Arab Spring."
Why not reject the bait to knee-jerk from the title off-hand and instead step back and let a President and admin who puts America First do their thing?
Liberator posted on 2018-03-09 13:04:25 Reply Private Reply
#3: Deckard To: Liberator (#2)
You can read it for yourself here:
“Department of Defense Budget Fiscal Year (FY) 2019”
How can one possibly put much stock in Media "reports"?
The source, Washington's Blog is not what you'd call a liberal Trump-hating site.
Deckard posted on 2018-03-09 13:09:13 Reply Private Reply
#4: Liberator To: Deckard (#0)
HUH?? Is the author serious?
0bama and Hitlery AND Brennan conspired with Muslim Terrorist groups (like the Muzzie Brotherhood) to torch the entire Middle East, THEN assassinate/depose AND replace their sovereign leaders (Qaddafi/Mubarak.)
How is THAT a "neoconservative" policy??
The author is a liar AND tool AND a sh*tty little disinfo-propagandist. I despise fake reporting and media that take the rest of us for senile fools.
...after Trump won election, he said, in a 1 December 2016 rally in Cincinnati, that, “we will pursue a new foreign policy that finally learns from the mistakes of the past. We will stop looking to topple regimes and overthrow governments, folks. Our goal is stability, not chaos because we wanna rebuild our country. It’s time.”
But aaah, I see. Quotes from Trump. But NONE from 0bama and Hitlery. Very convenient.
Trump's statement above: STILL TRUE. Despite the author's twisting of history and facts.
Do you or the author know exactly what's going on in Syria (other than it is mired in absolute chaos?) Answer: NO.
And one last observation that is ignored by an ignorant lying author:
Unlike Assad's Syria, Mubarak's Egypt WAS stable. Qaddafi's Libya WAS stable. (That is BEFORE 0bama and Hitlery and Brennan destabilized them.)
Liberator posted on 2018-03-09 13:17:21 Reply Private Reply
#5: Liberator To: Deckard (#3)
Tells me zip nada about what's going down in Syria, the extent of clean up of 0bama-Hitlery mess, and the Ulterior Plan.
The source, Washington's Blog is not what you'd call a liberal Trump-hating site.
No, but they are still dependent on hits that that help sustain it monetarily. And aren't so ideologically committed that the truth isn't For Sale. Thus if that means throwing Trump and his name under the bus (for a buck or applause from Dem-Prog talking heads/outlets) there's no real compulsion to report truth; Just the unscrupulous compulsion to sensationalize and exploit any "report" connected with the name of "TRUMP."
You see -- FEW of these outlets scrutinized 0bama to within .0001% of the extent they do Trump.
Liberator posted on 2018-03-09 13:25:24 Reply Private Reply
#6: Hondo68 To: rlk, regime change, nation building destroying, had to kill them to save them, Deckard, *Neo-Lib Chickenhawk Wars* (#1)
It's the neocon foreign policy of John F. Kerry, Hillary, Obama, and John McCain. Regime change, chaos, winning!
"We came, we saw, he died" ~Hillary Rodham Clinton
Former Secretary of State John Kerry reportedly supports President Donald Trump's April 2017 attack on Syria. (THIBAULT CAMUS/AFP/Getty Images)
Hondo68 posted on 2018-03-09 14:36:12 Reply Private Reply
#7: A Pole To: rlk (#1)
One person cannot change the system. In his place you would do exactly the same.
A Pole posted on 2018-03-09 15:06:37 Reply Private Reply
#8: A Pole To: Liberator (#4)
Syria was quite stable and happy country. Qaddafi's Libya was also very prosperous and good for its citizens. It was a beacon of hope for Africa.
A Pole posted on 2018-03-09 15:09:28 Reply Private Reply
#9: rlk To: Liberator (#2)
You need two courses of study: 1)How to read thoroughly and effectively. 2) A rigororous coarse in classical aristotelean logic.
The proper presentation of the statement is, "IF(A, then B." It is conditional, not assertive. IF, IF, IF, determines limits on the application of the statement. It is not a signal to arbitrarily cross it out at convenience for purposes of developing hysteria.
rlk posted on 2018-03-10 08:59:21 Reply Private Reply
#10: rlk To: A Pole (#7)
What system. The solar system? You have no idea what I'd do or why. Do you believe you are psychic? You show signs of grandiosity combined wth cognitive slippage.
rlk posted on 2018-03-10 09:11:06 Reply Private Reply
#11: rlk To: hondo68 (#6)
That is an area worth examining.
rlk posted on 2018-03-10 09:34:37 Reply Private Reply
#12: A Pole To: rlk (#10)
Yes, I know for example, that you will not be able to make a u-turn of a tanker in few minutes.
A big political system with all appendages has great inertia.
A Pole posted on 2018-03-11 09:12:56 Reply Private Reply
#13: rlk To: A Pole (#12)
And A is for apple. True, but irrelevant to the subject at hand. Typical response from you.
rlk posted on 2018-03-11 12:02:52 Reply Private Reply