Pentagon knew since 2012 that 75,000 GROUND TROOPS needed to secure Syria's chemical weapons

[avaistheone1]

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has told the Obama administration that any military effort to seize Syria’s stockpiles of chemical weapons would require upward of 75,000 troops, amid increasing concern that the militant group Hezbollah has set up small training camps close to some of the chemical weapons depots, according to senior American officials.

The estimated size of the potential effort, provided to the White House by the military’s Central Command and Joint Staff, called into question whether the United States would have the resources to act quickly if it detected the movement of chemical weapons and forced President Obama, as he said in August, to “change my calculus” about inserting American forces into Syria. So far Mr. Obama has avoided direct intervention into the most brutal civil conflict to emerge from the Arab Spring uprisings, and the Pentagon assessment was seen as likely to reinforce that reluctance.

The White House on Thursday declined to comment on the Defense Department’s assessment.

The Pentagon has not yet been directed to draft detailed plans of how it could carry out such a mission, according to military officials. There are also contingency plans, officials say, for securing a more limited number of the Syrian chemical weapons depots, requiring fewer troops.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/16/world/middleeast/pentagon-sees-seizing-syria-chemical-arms-as-vast-task.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[Tx4obama]

1. Interesting article. Everyone take note - BEFORE tweeting this out - that this is NOT new news.

[frylock]

31. and...?

[KittyWampus]

34. DU'ers who are ignorant find old information and start freaking out & spinning CT's.

[frylock]

36. this seems to support the freaking out and spinning of "CTs"

it certainly doesn't comport with Obama and Kerry's sunny stories of blow-n-go.

[99th_Monkey]

2. Why is this even being discussed? WTF HAPPENED TO "NO BOOTS ON THE GROUND"?

This sounds more like 150,000 boots.

on edit: yes i see it's a year old article.

[Ichingcarpenter]

5. I think its relevant.

Plans and policy are needed for any military scenarios

[99th_Monkey]

6. I just don't want you giving Obama any ideas, ok? eom

[Ichingcarpenter]

9. Kerry portrait of Syria rebels at odds with intelligence reports

(Reuters) - Secretary of State John Kerry's public assertions that moderate Syrian opposition groups are growing in influence appear to be at odds with estimates by U.S. and European intelligence sources and nongovernmental experts, who say Islamic extremists remain by far the fiercest and best-organized rebel elements.
At congressional hearings this week, while making the case for President Barack Obama's plan for limited military action in Syria, Kerry asserted that the armed opposition to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad "has increasingly become more defined by its moderation, more defined by the breadth of its membership, and more defined by its adherence to some, you know, democratic process and to an all-inclusive, minority-protecting constitution.

"And the opposition is getting stronger by the day," Kerry told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday.

U.S. and allied intelligence sources and private experts on the Syrian conflict suggest that assessment is optimistic.

While the radical Islamists among the rebels may not be numerically superior to more moderate fighters, they say, Islamist groups like the al Qaeda-aligned Nusra Front are better organized, armed and trained.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/05/us-syria-crisis-usa-rebels-idUSBRE98405L20130905

[woo me with science]

27. This is worthy of a separate OP. nt

[Ichingcarpenter]

3. Here is another report with more

That estimate comes from a secret memorandum the U.S. Department of Defense prepared for President Obama in early 2012.

U.S. Central Command arrived at the figure of 75,000 ground troops as part of a written series of military options for dealing with Bashar al-Assad more than 18 months ago, long before the U.S. confirmed internally that the Syrian dictator was using the weapons against rebel factions within his borders.
'The report exists, and it was prepared at the request of the National Security Advisor's staff,' a Department of Defense official with knowledge of the inquiry told MailOnline Wednesday on condition of anonymity.

'DoD spent lots of time and resources on it. Everyone understood that this wasn't a pointless exercise, and that eventually we would be tasked with going and getting the VX and sarin, so there was lots of due diligence.'

The logistical difficulties of bringing Syria's chemical warfare infrastructure under control stands in stark contrast with the text of a resolution passed Wednesday by a powerful Senate committee, and with assurances Secretary of State John Kerry has given committees in both houses of Congress.







BTW this photo of Kerry is not photoshopped.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2411885/Syrias-chemical-weapons-Pentagon-knew-2012-75-000-ground-troops-secure-facilities.html#ixzz2e0LbIEUT
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[Tx4obama]

4. It appears that The Daily Mail has been digging up a bunch of old news lately..

... trying to make it look like something new (when it is not) in order to TRY to make the Obama Administration look bad.

[Ichingcarpenter]

7. So you deny troops are needed to secure chemical weapons?

which may end up elsewhere?

[KittyWampus]

35. Do you deny the goal is to get Assad out without regime change?

[frylock]

37. wait... what?

how do you effect regime change without a regime change?

[Ichingcarpenter]

40. I'm not playing you game

with changing the subject.

Answer my question first.

[Union Scribe]

42. Not according to the resolution

altered by Obama's new buddy. We're gonna spread some more democracy!

[woo me with science]

10. So it's not "new." That's very different from its being *false.*

Could you *possibly* focus on the discrepancy between these reports and what the administration is telling us now, instead of leaping immediately to a reflexive focus on how it makes Obama "look"?

This sounds fucking important.

[Turborama]

14. Is the adminstration telling us they want to "secure Syria's chemical weapons"?

The Mail headline and story seem to be implying they are.

[Ichingcarpenter]

15. What are the military objectives of the US military?

To send a message?
Well I'm sure the military likes clear objectives like that

To stop the use of chemical weapons?

Now if its that then how do you do that without securing them.

What are the military objectives?

[woo me with science]

16. Of course they aren't telling us that

yet.

"I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks, or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that."
--Donald Rumsfeld, November 14, 2002

"It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months"
-- Donald Rumsfeld, February 7, 2003

"I think it will go relatively quickly. Weeks rather than months."
-- Dick Cheney, March 16, 2003

"No one is talking about occupying Iraq for five to ten years."
-- Richard Perle, March 9, 2003

Source: The War in Quotes, by G.B. Trudeau, p. 40-41 Oct 1, 2008
http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/Doonesbury_Quotes_Donald_Rumsfeld.htm

[Turborama]

17. Right, so The Fail is repeating something which was reported a year ago and making it look like new

news, because....?

'The report exists, and it was prepared at the request of the National Security Advisor's staff,' a Department of Defense official with knowledge of the inquiry told MailOnline Wednesday on condition of anonymity.

So, they were told this information - which the world has known about for a year - on Wednesday by an anonymous DoD official? See how they're trying to make it look like they are breaking a news story, when in fact they are not?

It can't be a surprise to anyone that the Pentagon has contingency plans for "doomsday" scenarios.

[woo me with science]

20. You are avoiding the substance of the report.

You are fixated on the fact that it's a year old, which is utterly irrelevant.

The relevant point here is that we are being fed weird assurances of no boots on the ground, even though the administration's planned attack bizarrely has no clear stated military goal *and* appears to risk destabilizing control of the weapons and *creating* a situation in which the neocons/neolibs can argue later that "boots on the ground" will be needed after all.

[Turborama]

22. No I'm not.

See the other replies I've made.

This story is only "relevant" because The Fail has brought it back to the surface, but no-one has said that they want to secure Syria's chemical weapons. So they/and you are adding 1 and 1 together and coming up with 3. But it is all just speculation, a you've previously said.

You are avoiding the points I made about the (seemingly successful) manipulation campaign that The Fail is carrying out.

Again, it's not news, anyone who's been paying attention knows about this story that was reported a year ago and it can't/shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that the Pentagon has contingency plans like this for "doomsday" scenarios.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

24. You know what else is a year old?

The President's red line comment.

So, when he made the comment that has brought to where we are today the Pentagon was apparently being asked to see how many troops would be required on the ground in Syria.

[Turborama]

25. Good point

It's not a surprise they'd do that after that comment was made.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

26. Perhaps the Joint Chiefs' way of saying, "Hey boss! Ixnay on the ed-ray ine-lay."

[frylock]

38. what's to prevent assad from (allegedly) using CW again unless they're secured?

you honestly believe that the "shot across the bow" (whatever that entails) will be sufficient to cow Assad from (allegedly) using his stockpiles again?

[Union Scribe]

44. "no-one has said that they want to secure Syria's chemical weapons"

Which is part of why this misadventure would be so stupid of the U.S.

[woo me with science]

18. Speculations in the papers about where the US will bomb.

Apparently it's inadvisable to target the chemical sites directly.

BBC news suggests that the targets are likely to include "headquarters and other buildings associated with units linked to the chemical weapons programme."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23946071

The AP also indicates that the US will bomb Syria's "military complex."

So they will most likely be targeting command and control. And what happens when the "control" is gone?

Anyone who insists this won't escalate into a demand for boots on the ground to secure these weapons is extremely naive.

[Turborama]

19. Specualtion

Key word.

There are all manner of scenarios we could come up with with a huge variety of endings, if we went off on a speculation spree.

But at the end of the say, it's still speculation.

Let's look at this logistically.

Where are these 75,000 troops? Not next door to Syria right now.

Which country would they be shipped into, Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq, Israel?

How long would it take to get that many of them there and set up for an invasion?

Do you really think Obama would go that far?


Look, the main point I've been trying to make is be very careful when reading things from The Fail and look for the same sort of shady tactics Faux use. They have been successfully manipulating the British public for years and do not have anyone's best interest at heart, apart from themselves & their shareholders and the Conservative party & the 1% who they serve.

[woo me with science]

21. 'Do you really think Obama would go that far?'

Last edited Thu Sep 5, 2013, 04:08 PM - Edit history (3)

So it comes down to "Trust Obama." And dismiss uncomfortable articles out of hand.

You say, "It's all speculation." Yet your own argument is for trust, even though this proposed bombing has bizarrely undefined and constantly shifting goals, is based on "evidence" we aren't allowed to see, and, according to this article, appears remarkably likely to create a situation in which the Pentagon can come back later and say that boots on the ground are needed after all.

Put it all together, and it spells a high risk of another major war in the Middle East, that it is tragically not at all clear the Pentagon does not want.

No, you don't trust on justifications for war. The Military Industrial Complex has squandered trust yet continues to demand more. You pretend that we are dealing with just one man, with honest eyes. What we are dealing with is a deeply entrenched, systemic corporate corruption in our government and military industrial complex, that has already lied us into war, killed thousands of innocents, and deeply damaged this country. Wars bring billions in profit to those situated to receive it. That hasn't changed under Obama.

Trust is exactly the wrong approach here. This smells to high heaven.

[Turborama]

23. No, I'm not asking you to trust Obama. Don't put words in my mouth.

That was the last question you have to get to after answering all the other ones.

If you can answer all the other ones, ask yourself that question.

I can't answer all those questions as I'm not sure about any of them (apart from I know it would have to be Turkey, if they'd even let it happen), particularly the last one.



You ignored my main point at the end, but nevermind.

[avaistheone1]

29. Yes, it states so in the govt's own Congressional Research Service report on Syria

U.S. officials hope to achieve a negotiated political settlement to establish a new government that can keep the Syrian state intact, secure its chemical weapon stockpiles, secure its borders, and prevent or combat terrorism.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/R43201.pdf

[Turborama]

30. Thanks for that

a negotiated political settlement to establish a new government that can .... secure its chemical weapon stockpiles.

So, they're not saying the US needs to send troops in to secure Syria's chemical weapons, then.

[frylock]

39. how would that be accomplished otherwise?

[Turborama]

41. "a negotiated political settlement"

[frylock]

43. nice words..

"a negotiated political settlement" with whom? Assad? perhaps the puppet we install after regime change errrrrrrrr..... limited kinetic military action?

[Turborama]

45. I don't see using 75,000 troops to do it in that document, do you?

[frylock]

47. document? it's in the article..

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has told the Obama administration that any military effort to seize Syria’s stockpiles of chemical weapons would require upward of 75,000 troops, amid increasing concern that the militant group Hezbollah has set up small training camps close to some of the chemical weapons depots, according to senior American officials.

[Turborama]

48. Yes, the document we were discussing

That was posted at the top of this subthread you jumped into: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3602862

[frylock]

49. third base..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3604319

[Union Scribe]

46. Surely we can trust

the guy we're "punishing" for using chemical weapons not to do so again. Or his rational and peace-loving opponents. I can't see how this could go badly at all!

[RC]

28. "...TRY to make the Obama Administration look bad."

They're doing a pretty good job of that all by themselves. Unless we are deploying medical supplies, food and shelter, there is no good reason we are even there.

[frylock]

32. obama makes obama look bad when he sez no boots on the ground..

do you have anything to add regarding the article other than confirming the date of publication? for instance, how does this comport with Obama's assurance that we are not putting boots on the ground?

[99th_Monkey]

8. I swear Kerry looks more like Lurch every day. eom

[Turborama]

11. How do you know for certain the Daily Fail didn't photoshop that?

Do you really trust them that much?

The Daily Mail (aka, Daily Fail, Daily Heil, and so on), is a reactionary tabloid rag masquerading as a "traditional values," middle-class newspaper that is, in many ways, the worst of the British gutter press (only Rupert Murdoch's Sun is worse). Its weighty Sunday counterpart is the Mail on Sunday.

The Daily Mail is to the U.K. what the New York Post is to the United States, and what the Drudge Report is to the Internet: to wit, gossipy tabloid "journalism" for those who cannot digest serious news, with a flippantly wingnut editorial stance.

=snip=

It is also notorious for its frequent harassment of individuals, campaigns of hate directed at various minorities, and willfully deceiving and lying to its readers.

More: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Daily_Mail

[Ichingcarpenter]

12. See photo from Reuters article I posted

in this thread.... I think he's puffy from botox as pointed out by another thread
that he didn't look the same.

I added this WP article:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/reliable-source/wp/2013/09/04/john-kerrys-face-looks-different-exhaustion-illness-botox/


As far as the Daily mail goes

So now you don't like the NYT for stating the same thing?

[Turborama]

13. No, I didn't mention the NYT

But now you mention it, why give The Fail extra clicks when another publication had the same story?

[nashville_brook]

33. k and r