The Middle East (general catch all)

[Bill Moore]

I only read your excerpt, but the potential outcomes for Syria surely involve more than the al-Nusra, ISIL, or U.S. trained surrogates (moderates) leading Syria in the future. It seems a couple of other potential options are:

1. Syria as a we know it no longer exists, it breaks down into a number of real or pseudo-states.

2. Assad is replaced, but the Assyrian regime remains in power.

3. The Syrian military conducts a coup, and with help from Iran establishes a harsh military dictatorship (not a major deviation from where they're at now, but Assad would be gone).

I suspect there are other possible outcomes, to include Assad staying in power, because it is the lesser of the evils.

[OUTLAW 09]

I only read your excerpt, but the potential outcomes for Syria surely involve more than the al-Nusra, ISIL, or U.S. trained surrogates (moderates) leading Syria in the future. It seems a couple of other potential options are:

1. Syria as a we know it no longer exists, it breaks down into a number of real or pseudo-states.

2. Assad is replaced, but the Assyrian regime remains in power.

3. The Syrian military conducts a coup, and with help from Iran establishes a harsh military dictatorship (not a major deviation from where they're at now, but Assad would be gone).

I suspect there are other possible outcomes, to include Assad staying in power, because it is the lesser of the evils.

Now I will provoke as always--there is then the Obama version not mentioned here--of "we need Russia to get a solution approach".

My pushback is we get nothing from Russia--Russian GRU intel troops are on the ground there, Russia has naval port presence and Russia has been the single largest weapons suppliers to Syria thus in fact pushing the war along in order to sell more weapons and without Russian aircraft and technical support Assad would have not had the abilities to constantly bomb his own civilians AND Russia has blocked in the UNSC countless UN humanitarian moves.

So my question is why does this Administration "claim to need Russian diplomatic support" when they are part and parcel of the problem AND here is the kicker--regardless of what Obama does and or does not do the anti Assad forces regardless of political flavor are actually "winning" which was not the case one year ago. Russia also sees the handwriting on the wall as they are attempting to get some kind of non Assad solution before the ground reality kicks in and blocks them as well.

Another key question we miss in US media is "who in the heck has trained a large number of TOW hunter killer teams and WHO is supplying them to the so called Moderates???? I have seen in their TOW battle videos attacks and hits on targets that even a well trained US Army could not pull off. They are firing roughly 20-30 TOWs a week now all hits and are part and parcel of every major attack.

The TOW is winning the ground fight much as the stingers did in AFG --so who is behind them??--there is your answer for what the future will look like.

As the TOW has been successful we are seeing a more coordinated attack campaign forming among the top 10 groups of all political flavors ---so who is driving that unification?? Because surprise surprise it is working.

So if it is the CIA then why does Obama "claim" to need the Russians when the CIA is "winning" now on the ground?? --if KSA/Jordan and the UAE then after Obama's Iranian deal he has a serious credibility problem with them.

MAYBE that is the sudden interest by Obama to get a "Syrian solution" before facts on the ground tell him he has absolutely no influence.

That "influence" lies with the suppliers of the TOW.

JMO----

[davidbfpo]

Cited in part:

Another key question we miss in US media is "who in the heck has trained a large number of TOW hunter killer teams and WHO is supplying them to the so called Moderates???? I have seen in their TOW battle videos attacks and hits on targets that even a well trained US Army could not pull off. They are firing roughly 20-30 TOWs a week now all hits and are part and parcel of every major attack.

The TOW is winning the ground fight much as the stingers did in AFG --so who is behind them??--there is your answer for what the future will look like.

As the TOW has been successful we are seeing a more coordinated attack campaign forming among the top 10 groups of all political flavors ---so who is driving that unification?? Because surprise surprise it is working.

So if it is the CIA then why does Obama "claim" to need the Russians when the CIA is "winning" now on the ground?? --if KSA/Jordan and the UAE then after Obama's Iranian deal he has a serious credibility problem with them.

MAYBE that is the sudden interest by Obama to get a "Syrian solution" before facts on the ground tell him he has absolutely no influence.

That "influence" lies with the suppliers of the TOW.

Well this article by a blogger assembles open source info, mainly from photos and points the finger at Iran. Note it is not the Iraqi military who have them, rather the PMU:http://aerohisto.blogspot.fr/2015/07...w-atgm-in.html

Backed up by the anonymous posting of a 2009 video of an Iranian TOW production line:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G5eBx_8aJ4