A previous report said: “The main problem thus far has been finding enough Syrian recruits untainted by extremist affiliations or disqualified by physical or other flaws.” And so currently there are only 60 men receiving this training. No one, however, is willing to examine the larger implications of this. The Pentagon is pouring money into this program anyway, and will continue to do so.
More on this story. “US only training 60 Syrian fighters, far below expectations,” by Phil Stewart and David Alexander, Reuters, July 7, 2015 (thanks to Thomas):
WASHINGTON: The United States was only training about 60 Syrian opposition fighters to battle Islamic State as of July 3, far below expectations, Defense Secretary Ash Carter told Congress Tuesday, citing rigorous U.S. vetting of recruits.
The program, which launched in May in Jordan and Turkey, was designed to train as many as 5,400 fighters a year and seen as a test of President Barack Obama’s strategy of engaging local partners to combat extremists.
Carter’s acknowledgement of the low number of recruits will give ammunition to critics who say Obama’s strategy is too limited to have any influence on Syria’s brutal civil war….
Some Syrian rebel leaders say the force the United States is training risks sowing divisions and cannot succeed without directly targeting Syrian government forces, who are currently off-limits for U.S. offensive operations.
But fighting Assad will only strengthen the Islamic State, not weaken it.
The top Democrat on the committee, Senator Jack Reed, said ISIS “remains the dominant force in western Syria.”
“Absent a moderate opposition that is willing to and capable of taking territory from ISIS and holding it, any change in the status quo is unlikely,” he said, using an acronym for the group.
Obama was briefed by his top military commanders at the Pentagon Monday. He said at a news conference later that “we will do more to train and equip the moderate opposition in Syria” but did not offer details.
Carter told Congress the number of recruits would increase as the United States learned how to better streamline vetting.
“We are also refining our curriculum, expanding our outreach to the moderate opposition, and incorporating lessons learned from the first training class,” Carter said….
Expanded outreach, yes, that will fix everything.
Angemon says
I expected them to find none – 60 is way above my expectations.
Lioness says
Right, it’s probably an inflated number, in reality they may only be 6.
jewdog says
Once again we see the futility of trying to defeat jihadist forces by proxy. Sure, we can arm the Kurds and Egypt, something we haven’t done enough, but until we admit that Islam itself is the problem than we will continue this fruitless policy. Either we arm the losing side, hoping the chaos will keep the jihadis distracted, or we conquer those lands permanently. Unfortunately, the Christians of this world are not willing to take back land lost to Islam.
Donovan Nuera says
…And they probably overcounted a few of the recruits twice on account of having misspelled a name or several had the same name and looked similar…..hey, it happens.
So…. put into perspective, we have spent millions (billions?) of dollars equipping a force about as big as a typical American public high school football team…(that probably is not in as good physical shape (or working like a team!) as an average American public high school football team)….(do they at least have a team mascot?)
duh_swami says
Once the 60 realize that they are alone against 50,000, they will fight really hard…to desert and join up with ISIS if they can. If you can’t beat em, join em…ISIS needs men who are already trained…
Champ says
Of the “60 moderates” I wonder how many will experience sudden-jihad sydrome and shift sides and join IS? This isn’t a crazy concern. Recruiting “moderate” muslims is a horrible plan, imo. I think it’s a foolish, risky and dangerous endeavor.
RonaldB says
It could be argued that the US bears a major responsibility for the whole problem: destroying the brutal, autocratic, but functioning government of Iraq, supporting the breakup of Libya, providing weapons, territory, and incentive for ISIS, and supporting the Syrian rebels who weakened the brutal, hostile, but functioning Syrian government in the first place.
But, even thought the US was a major contributing factor to the tragedy doesn’t mean we have to continue blunderbussing our way through like a blind rogue elephant.
We have no business trying to train and arm an opposition army in Syria that is as likely to fight the Syrian government as it is to fight ISIS. And, without an ideological basis for our security vetting (the US eliminated experts in Islam from its training since 2011), how are we going to vet the rebels anyway? If, by any chance, the US-supported rebels don’t turn out to be Islamist fanatics, they will soon enough get beheaded by ISIS.
A cynical person would speculate the purpose of all the US-initiated chaos in the region is to create hundreds of thousands of Muslim refugees for admission to the US and other Western countries.
It’s obvious that the region is going to be split between Iran, ISIS, and Saudi Arabia spheres of influence. The overarching danger of Iran is nuclear weapons development, which is a vital interest of the US to prevent. Our “ally” Saudi Arabia will be very unhappy at the influence of Iran in the region, but Saudi Arabia is an ally of convenience, and our interest is not to make them happy, but to assure their survival as a force countering the influence of ISIS.
I don’t mean to imply the US ought to play a detailed role in the politics of the region, but we ought to encourage the formation of ethnic enclaves like the Kurdish Republic, Shi’ite Iraq, Sunni Iraq, even a Christian and Yazidi enclave if the denizens of the US State Department can keep from holding their noses. Perhaps we could try making a deal with the Syrian government whereby it will not assist Iran in any nuclear developments, and the US stop opposing weapons shipments to Syria.
Angemon says
RonaldB posted:
“It’s obvious that the region is going to be split between Iran, ISIS, and Saudi Arabia spheres of influence. The overarching danger of Iran is nuclear weapons development, which is a vital interest of the US to prevent. Our “ally” Saudi Arabia will be very unhappy at the influence of Iran in the region, but Saudi Arabia is an ally of convenience, and our interest is not to make them happy, but to assure their survival as a force countering the influence of ISIS.”
Egypt could be the best, maybe even perfect, “ally” on the area – strategical location (easy access to the Mediterranean Sea and Europe, Africa, near East and Middle-east), seemly strong army and a leader who is not trying to impose the same ideology as the islamic state – but the Obama administration seems to want to alienate it as long as the MB is not in power.
Matthieu Baudin says
Perhaps regime change in Syria is a higher priority to the administration than effectively combating ISIS.
shams78 says
But fighting Assad will only strengthen the Islamic State, not weaken it.
Not according to Zionists
Correction: it should be Rebels being cheered on by Zionists
http://www.timesofisrael. com/yaalon-syrian-rebels-keeping-druze-safe-in-exchange-for-israeli-aid/
http://www.algemeiner. com/2015/06/29/israel-confirms-aiding-syrian-rebels-in-exchange-for-keeping-druze-community-safe/
The zionist were celebrating what they predicted to by the imminent downfall of Assad
http://www.jpost. com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Barak-Assad-will-be-toppled-within-weeks
http://www.haaretz. com/print-edition/news/ehud-barak-in-vienna-assad-s-downfall-will-be-blessing-for-the-middle-east-1.400880
http://www.washingtonpost. com/world/middle_east/israeli-officials-say-assad-is-doomed/2011/12/14/gIQAYBuEuO_story.html
Here are the Zionists whining about how the world isn’t attacking Assad
http://www.timesofisrael. com/barak-israel-learned-a-lesson-from-global-failure-to-stop-assad/
Netanyahu praising Saudi Arabia
https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=kvJMJcVb3ZA
zionist preisdent’s praise for Saudi King Abdullah.
http://www.jpost. com/Middle-East/Analysis-Secret-Israeli-Saudi-ties-likely-to-continue-despite-Abdullahs-death-388784
http://www.jpost. com/Middle-East/Past-and-present-Israeli-presidents-eulogize-Saudi-King-Abdullah-388727
While Jwatch constantly bashes Obama for alleged support of the Syrian rebels (actually Turkey and the Gulf countries were doing most of the support and Obama has consistently tried to throttle the supply), Zionists openly gloat over the rebels attacks on the Assad regime and express joy. israel does not give a damn about Syrian Christians. Obama has consistently rejected a no fly zone for the Syrian rebels and is alarmed by the current rebel coalition.
http://www.voanews. com/content/us-officials-alarmed-at-new-syrian-rebel-alliance/2765724.html
The israeli Rabbi Nir Ben Artzi claimed “God has sent isis against nations that want to destroy israel”
israel only cares about hurting Iran. israel would gladly watch Middle Eastern Christians being subjected to mass slaughter and rape as long as it is in israel’s benefit.
RonaldB says
Shams,
I’m afraid your hatred for the Israelis has affected your perspective a bit, although some of what you say makes some sense. I’ll try to separate the sense from the nonsense.
You refer to Israel and Israeli actions only as “Zionists”. Israel has heavy populations of Christians and Muslims. Furthermore, as Christians in Israel see the alternatives in store for them under virtually any government in an Islamic country, they have increased their support for the Israel government.
Furthermore, you take any statement whatsoever by an Israeli “The israeli Rabbi Nir Ben Artzi claimed “God has sent isis against nations that want to destroy israel”” as typical of the Israel point of view. Your report of the Obama administration’s hesitancy in imposing a no-fly zone doesn’t mention the fact, cited in one of your links, that the Obama administration simply doesn’t want US forces involved: “One major factor pulling against any U.S.-enforced no-fly zone is the Obama administration’s concern of being dragged militarily into the conflict. ”
Having said that, it’s probably true that Israel sees Assad and his alliance with Iran as a greater threat currently than ISIS. The Assad government is a coherent country with a conventional military army and air force, and has been waiting in the wings for any sign of weakness on the part of Israel. Israel knows it has enemies in the North, West, and East armed and waiting for the opportunity to converge on Israel. So, it’s not surprising that Israel would prefer the overthrow of the Assad government.
I don’t think the US should support the Israeli preference that Assad be deposed. It’s quite sufficient that the US prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, which it seems to be failing on. The failure of the US to halt the Iranian nuclear program has been a big driver to the Israeli-Saudi alliance of convenience, in which both of them see Iran as a deadly enemy.
Do you deny the role of the US in fragmenting Iraq, overturning the government of Libya, and supporting the original rebellion against the Assad government, all of which provided fertile ground for the rise of ISIS?
Baucent says
What a farcical situation. 3,000 US advisors and only 60 “moderate rebels” trained. Where is this “Free Syrian Army” John McCain keeps talking about? The truth is the time is past to try and find non-Islamist rebels. They don’t exist in significant numbers any more. More worrying is the tendency of rebels to migrate between groups. So those 60 could end up with al-Nursa Front before long.
RG says
Talk about the blind leading the blind!!!