How stupid, militarily, of the Russians. Did they not know that the American military is firmly entrench with manpower and technology in that part of the world? Did they think the Americans were just going to be standing still?...Trump is the president not Obama. This engagement shows the capabilities of US forces when the leash is taken off...you play with fire, you get burned.
18
Our military industrial complex loves this: great work by the US Army beating up one of our many enemies, great propaganda article in the NYT and, best of all, the expenditure of millions of defense dollars.
And many people are questioning why we are in Syria. It's obvious.
18
One more incident like this, and we may unintentionally start World War 3. The thing is, this fight was a direct combat between USA and Russia since I don't know when... like when Soviet warplanes were attacked on 1945 by American ones on Balkans (we won then, btw). But you Americans, still think that you can get away with anything. To us this was a national humiliation, even though those were just mercenaries. What if some Russian colonel or general says "screw orders and this false patriot Putin, I will shoot down those F-35s that just bombed one of my companies that supported Syrian army" and gives such an order? And another idiot on American side retaliates? Shooting down one plane can be solved by diplomatic means. Even killing mercenaries and military instructors can be overlooked. You don't seem to be complaining about us killing YOUR mercenaries and even CIA agents during 2008 war in Georgia and war in Donbass. What if there are, like, five planes shot down and two hundred dead soldiers on the ground?
8
I am glad that our military personnel came away unharmed. If only our school children here in the U.S. could say the same. #parkland #santafe
15
The article is OK, but the headline is silly:
Why do you call Russian soldiers "mercenaries," knowing full well that pay in the US armed forces is much higher than in Russian ones?
6
Wagner Group = Blackwater. Same thing, different country of origin.
23
3, 30, 300, 3,000 or even more so-called mercenaries are nothing but expendable grind meat for the Kremlin. Putin's strategy is to simply use proxy warriors whenever he doesn't have an upper hand and either be blamed or more importantly to him, have his arrogance be militarily humiliated and defeated.
But the US military high command, should be weary that Putin is using these mercenaries from the Wagner Group to "LEARN" how the US fights and like in every chess game, use the opponent's tactics to their advantage. So the US better step up the war game everyday to be ahead of these for-hire thugs.
5
Please explain why US troops are holding oil fields in Syria and why they are fighting in a civil war that is not our business.
14
I'm a liberal democrat but understand the American military presence in Syria is not about a gas station or oil. It's about geo-political influence. The Russians would love for our people to leave and so would Assad. A lot of people would die at the hands of Assad and Russia would take it's usual position that they don't like outside interference in Syria and never mind about Russian Troops assisting Assad. The Russian mercenaries get paid to secure oil so their motivation in the attack was money. In the fight against ISIS the Kurds did most of the heavy lifting. I agree the U.S. has a history throwing people under the bus, but if we don't learn from the mistakes of the past we're doomed to repeat them. The Kurds need their own safe and secure state and have provided invaluable assistance to the U.S. That having been said, until that matter is addressed with Turkey, and it should be made clear that the U.S. supports the Kurds, I have no problem with a continued U.S. military presence in Syria. I believe even more of a military presence in Syria would send Putin a signal that this time around, it's not going to be easy like it was in the Ukraine. Putin is a thug and Assad is a deranged murderer. If we let this go and leave, sooner or later we'll have to return. That's not good policy. More of a U.S. presence makes the region less volatile and discourages aggression. We can't surrender influence in the area. That's exactly what Putin wants.
162
Yet another liberal democrat cheering for Imperial America! Well done. It worked so well in Vietnam and Iraq. The absolute willingness to learn nothing from the past. Pathetic.
22
InSeptember 2017 the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) captured the major Conoco gas field, near the city of Deir al-Zou from from ISIS, as they raced with the Syrian regime forces to regain control over the energy-rich region.
It’s unclear who led the “ill-fated” attack on February 7. An estimated “200 to 300” of the “pro-regime" troops were killed. Moscow admitted the deaths of dozens of Russians, but they were “mercenaries”, fighting on behalf of the Assad regime. The Russian high command in Syria gave the Americans its approval to „annihilate” the pro-regime fighters, even knowing there were Russians among them.
It’s interesting because it raises the question how much the Russian defence minister, Sergei Shoigu is in charge. The Russia-based Wagner Group that hires the mercenaries doesn’t coordinate closely with the Russian military in Syria, “although Wagner’s leaders have reportedly received awards in the Kremlin, and its mercenaries are trained at the Russian Defense Ministry’s bases.”
But then Russia’s defence and intelligence ministries are among the state’s most corrupt institutions. In 2017, they were involved in 1,300 of a total of 12,000 corruption cases – one in nine.
7
All controversies aside I would stand for the National Anthem as a mark of respect for these soldiers who demonstrated valor, skill and courage.
9
Nothing catastrophic happens vis-a-vis the Russians unless it goes nuclear. You start to get the feeling that it will not.
Again, we could all be wrong and the end of the world is nigh. You might say, well it's amazing that Americans and Russians could risk it.
The next use of nuclear weapons in warfare will likely be an accident, just like everything else.
6
Could someone enlighten me why are our troops in Syria?
7
Syria is a dystopian wasteland. You may have read about the refugee crisis in Europe. It's largely to blame for the UK's withdrawal and the center-right political resurgence across Europe. Those refugees are mostly Syrian. While Merkel and Germany dither and appease Russia, worried for their energy supplies and wracked by misplaced guilt lingering from the mid-last century, someone must act! A third of Syrians have left their homeland. Would you leave the rest to Putin and al Assad?
5
So that an oil line can be build through Syria. It's a war about resources. Both the us as Russia ar involved as proxy partners of opposing sides. One day these wars will be fought for water and food.
3
To keep generals and foxes defense contractors employed.
7
Are we warming up the audience for the”easy” prospects of winning a war with Iran or the DPRK?
2
We mopped the floor with some of Russia's best hired guns.
8
A more apt heading would be .."...battle between American mercenaries and Russian Commandos.."
2
Those were Anerican soldiers. Lets not get too far from reality here. Thise are young people serving in our military.
8
This risks perpetuation of war as entertainment. It starts with a headline clearly intended to trigger the reader's adrenaline about a military confrontation between Russia and the US. That's followed by a cinematic description of how a force outnumbered on the ground fended off the bad guys (who happened to be working for the execrable but still legitimate government of Syria to claim a Syrian-owned asset). Only some three dozen paragraphs in does the reader learn that Russian mercenaries only "loosely coordinate with the Russian military in Syria" and it's not even clear that they did so in this case. What, exactly, then, was the risk of a military confrontation between the US and Russia?
1
Amen, nor does it mention that we probably spent half a million dollars per enemy combat death, the enemy shows up mostly in beat up Toyota trucks, we throw million dollar misses at them from 500 million dollar aircraft.
5
So the US undoubtedly killed Russians, official or not. "Took aim," huh? What would we be saying if the Russian military killed US mercenaries?
3
Thomas Gibbons-Neff: This is incredible reporting. It was incredibly 'real'. I literally felt like I was there when it happened. Excellent job. All of the comments (at least the NYT picks) were great, too.
I'm glad to know about this. This is war, even though it's not technically declared.
4
From the sounds of these battles, I would not want to be fighting against the USA. We control the air and big weapons. We control the ground. We control the sea. I'm glad we're on our side!
6
So the US establishes an illegal post in a sovereign country and kills scores of local forces and calls that "Self Defence"?
International law and war conventions call that terrorism for which the US and all of its forces and responsible politicians should be tried in The Hague.
And yes, it is time to allow free firing on US forces in Syria as there is no reason why US forces should be there as an invasion force.
The US has become the largest terror force in the region by far.
2
Why are American Soldiers being put in "Harm's Way"
without adequate support. Under no circumstances should
Air Power not bee overhead and of sufficient quantity to
destroy any attack at any time by this attacking force.
I would like to remind people that U.S commandos are there in Syria illegally, suspiciously guarding an oil rich region. We are de facto invading a foreign country. Certainly, Putin and Assad aren't pleasant people, but they are defending their country from foreign invasion.
5
As far as "overwhelming force" goes, that was with the US. In a desert area, ground forces without air defence have absolutely no show. The question I ask is, why is the Syrian government not allowed to be around oil fields in Syria? Unless they are Syrians, or somebody there paying royalties to the Syrian government, taking the oil or gas is simply theft. Can somebody please explain what is going on there regarding to the oil?
4
This skirmish calls to mind what the Spanish Civil War was to WWII- a laboratory of sorts for newly developed weapons and their field applications The US is being observed using the latest enhanced offensive weapons and tactics and the Russians are observing and taking notes for countermeasures if and when the need may arise in the future.
The Pro-Assad /mercenaries are throwaways pawns in this type of intelligence gathering. Remember our largest field tank is still vulnerable to a RPG when hit near its exhaust port. Our infantry have been exposed to death and dismemberment via low-tech IEDs. One should worry when relying on high tech during war. Electronic warfare countermeasures exist and if systems collapse at critical and crucial points, our troops can be exposed . We spent thousands to engineer a pen that will write in a zero gravity environment in space when all the Russians did was to bring pencils.
4
We didn’t spend thousands on a space pen:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-write-stuff/
Try checking your facts before you pollute the internet.
6
Why are we guarding a Conoco plant in Syria?
12
This was not a stupid mistake. The Russians threw up some pawns...why? My guess: To record every bit of electromagnetic communications - for example, the new f-22 electronic warfare platform, testing their air defense systems, and developing jamming capabilities. This was a huge surveillance operation disguised as an easy Trump victory.
8
Tell me again why our troops are over there? I forget...
8
It's nice to know that at least one agency of our government is capable of handling Russian meddling effectively.
12
The US forces are there to fight IS but the region happens to be oil rich! Count me skeptical on real US intentions and priorities in the region.
2
"The artillery barrage was so intense that the American commandos dived into foxholes for protection...." Thomas Gibbons-Neff, are we to assume that in less intense artillery barrages our commandos would not seek foxhole protection?
4
When those guys "dive" into a fox hole, it's head first. One guy hangs back so he can pull others out of foxholes when the coast is clear.
Why no pictures of the vehicles after the strike, always found it weird there was so much destruction and zero aftermath footage.
5
After reading about the bravery of our troops - basically cleaning up the bad choices made by politicians...my thoughts turned to another news story about the VA. If we are going to be continually sending our troops into harms way, shouldn't it be a priority to get the best person possible to head the VA?
5
Thank you, Rufus. The VA needs leadership.
2
America versus Trump's friends.
11
We have received credible information that the BUK missile that shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was operated and fired by Russian troops. Putin initially claimed that the "green men" in Crimea were local defense forces who, mysteriously, were all similarly attired and equipped. He then admitted that they were Russian Special Forces. Putin claimed that rebels fighting in eastern Ukraine were indigenous, but that claim has been proven false as well. Russia shot down Korean Air 007, shot down Malaysia Air Flight 17 and goes unpunished. It is now that we need a strong President who would effectively deal with the thug tat rules Russia. Instead, we have a clueless, self-absorbed collaborator. Maskirovka is working perfectly for Putin. As for the Syrian battle where the US killed hundreds of Russians, well, pardon me if I don't shed a tear for the "Wagner Group".
11
Lift the sanctions off Russia if they move out of Syria. Syria is a wasteland. You have to work both sides of the street when dealing with authoritarian figures. Trump would gladly host the Middle East chest-masters. He would lift the sanctions off Russia and go for economic development across the board from Syria to Iran. The Euphrates alone could attract millions from around the world. Theirs oil and gas that Europe needs.
When is the movie coming out?
7
It's refreshing to hear how well our military performed. They are clearly courageous, smart, well equipped, well trained, and able to integrate air and ground forces as well as communicate with the adversary to try and avoid the fight.
But out of the scope of the story are the biggest questions: Why are we there (objective)? Are we making a difference? Is the violence we inflict on our adversaries going to perpetuate or help stop the violence? I hope the answer is better than, "We're there because Russia/Iran/various "terrorists" groups are there.
79
I ask this question too, just as I asked why we sent so many soldiers to the former Yugoslavia in the 1990's, but both times, we got no convincing answers.
My guess is that Clnton then and Trump now don't feel all that sure that straight answers always work.
5
my son asked me how many countries have military bases in the US? I answered with a straight face...Turkey has 20K troops in New Jersey, to protect their interests...Germany has 10K troops in El Paso to make sure Mexico and the US act properly at the border...etc etc....just kidding...only the US has military bases around the world. Why does the NYT in this article not ask...where did these brave US soldiers get the right to be in Syria? Did Syria attack the US?
13
The brave US military troops are in Syria because the Russian so called mercenaries are in Syria. I Remember how Nazi Germany helped the fascists in the Spanish civil war. it was a preview of their conquest of Europe !
6
We need a universal draft, so that the American people and, eventually Members of Congress will pay serious attention to where, how, and why we are involved militarily. There's nothing like having skin in the game to focus one's attention.
Regarding the comments referencing Russian (and other) trolls: I believe that dynamic shows up primarily in the Recommends moreso than in comments themselves.
5
Do you really believe Mr. Bone Spurs would initiate a draft?
1
It is worth noticing that US intervention in Syria began with Obama and is being continued by Trump.
1
Abu Dhabi [The National] reported that the Feb. 7th attack was defended by U.S. "special forces (that) responded by calling in artillery strikes, ground attack jets and B-52 bombers, which all but wiped out the "battalion sized force" in front of them."
There appears to be a discrepancy in the body count. The same article in The National quotes Kirill Mikhailov, a researcher with the Conflict Intelligence Team (CIT), " a respected group of Russian online researchers". The CIT named 10 citizens killed in the US air strikes.
Mikhailov's CIT claims that the mercenaries "weren't actual Russian soldiers, and .. the operation was allegedly not reported to or approved by Russia's command in Syria,"
The (Russian) foreign ministry admitted that "five of its citizens were among the dead". Mikhailov said medical sources inside Syria put the dead count up to about 100.
The learning here is that in the "fog of war" the victor tends to shape and embellish narratives of victory while the defeated discount their losses.
Consider the Niger firefight that resulted in the Oct-2017 death of four Green Berets. The initial report of the operation was unclear until investigators queried senior commanders. The findings were a series of missteps of commanders who may have tried to cover-up of a mission gone wrong at the get-go.
The moral? We should take military information releases with a grain of salt and a pound of skepticism in the Age of Trump.
4
Our military professionals delivered a message not only to Putin and his corrupt generals but also to the tea party and other republicans who are so intent on destroying our democracy.
Did Trump call the Kremlin to apologize? I would not be surprised if he did.
This action in Syria may help prepare us for the measures we may take in response to the cyber attack on our country. The attack our president dismisses so... effortlessly.
Last episode of The Americans next week. What a nail biter.
It seems that President Trump may be fast approaching the final season of his dog and pony show. No nail biting there, he is just about done.
5
What happened to the mercs is that they were caught in a hailstorm. You can't run. You can't hide. You can't make it stop.
2
Dear Russian Military,
We are NOT the Ukrainian Army.
Sincerely,
The Pentagon
12
These were mercenaries, not regular Russian military.
Don't underestimate the Russians.
3
So, maybe it is time the US simply pulled out and let whom ever take over. Not our fight. Time to save tax dollars and lives.
7
There was something hinky about this article. It didn't quite make sense. It seemed like a propaganda piece; like it was fake and stretched the facts to create illusion and support conclusions that aren't warranted.
6
This kind of article stokes the idea that American Forces will not suffer terrible losses whenever/wherever and leads to a tacit support for military action over diplomacy and constructive, respectful engagement.
Don't be lulled by the relative peace of the last fifty years into thinking world wars can't happen again.
55
Since Putin and Russia benefit if oil exports from the Middle East drop due to conflict in the region, Putin is probably perfectly happy to risk ratcheting up the conflict through such incidents. And I suspect that the deaths of those Russian mercenaries at the 'hands' of American weapons helped with military recruiting at home. Oh, and it also conveniently disposed of a bunch of mercenaries whom Putin probably never wanted to see return to Russian soil.
29
We were lucky this time. Frantic fighting between U.S. forces and Syrian fighters augmented by Russian mercenaries and no American casualties.No hard questions will be asked in Congress or posed to Sarah Huckaby Sanders under the "no harm, no foul" rule.
As such, the American public carries on, blissfully unaware on the eve of Memorial Day, that American solders, sailors, Marines and airmen or going in harms way in a war that has no discernible purpose and has not been ratified by the only legitimate body with the ability to do so, the U.S. Congress. Sad to say but do we have to have dead Americans in order to ask "why are we here"?
52
Is this the same as the undeclared war in Iraq? Bush never asked Congress to declare war on Iraq. Trump has not asked Congress to declare war on Syria. What happened to the old benchmark when we didn't go to war without a Declaration of War against an enemy? FDR had to wait for the attack on Pearl Harbor he knew was coming before he could declare war on Japan. Are we moving into political wars of choice in search of resources? Does the Executive Power of the Presidency allow whoever holds that Office to wage war on the basis of "advisors"? If that is the case, get ready for Bolton's war on Iran.
6
Russia attacks our forces and Trump still wants to call Putin his friend Doesn't our military leadership see a problem with that?
5
It is always a pleasure knowing our Defense Dept dollars are well spent training and arming our troops to obliterate attacking enemy combatants, especially of the Russian persuasion.
6
"American military officials repeatedly warned about the growing mass of troops. But Russian military officials said they had no control over the fighters assembling near the river — even though American surveillance equipment monitoring radio transmissions had revealed the ground force was speaking in Russian."
Russian officials denying something. I'm absolutely shocked.
4
The political situation in Syria is so messed up that I won't even try to decipher it. What I'd like to point out instead is once again the great skill and bravery of US forces on the ground - even when faced with overwhelming numbers of enemies, they kept their cool and beat them soundly without suffering a single casualty.
It is shameful that "chickenhawk" politicians like Bolton and Trump keep on playing dangerous and dumb political games with people's lives, as they seriously consider escalating into unwinnable major conflicts in Iran and North Korea, in which thousands of brave men and women will die for absolutely nothing.
49
Trump avoided the Draft due to fake "bone spurs"; he played golf while those 58 names on a Wall went to Vietnam and died there. Bolton avoided active combat during his entire service in the military. These are the draft/combat dodgers who will lead Americans into war? Eisenhower wouldn't have a cup of coffee with either one of them.
10
Somehow I think that the world would be better off if neither Russian nor US troops were in Syria.
5
Well done to the 40 troops who would not back down to 500 Russian fighters , So very brave , and a strong message , that if and when you attack you will be hammered into the ground.
Russians are very guilty of sending rockets into hospitals stacked with defenceless and injured children ,you could not give an inch to people with so little care for humanity .
3
Allegedly.
Zero confirmation or images or corroboration. meh.
2
It's worth noting that the Russian journalist who exposed the mercenary fatalities, Maxim Borodin, "fell" from his fifth floor balcony last month.
It's also worth noting that the U.S. military was not defending one of the countless villages of innocents being wiped out, but rather a petrol facility.
The white hats are conspicuously absent from this battle.
10
The first question, as mentioned here, is obvious. Are these really mercenaries? Russian proxy fighters were used to accomplish Russian aims in the invasions of Ukraine and Crimea. The Kremlin disavowed those fighters but they received considerable Kremlin support. In Syria, there is a strong connection between these so-called Russian mercenaries and the Russian government. The troops were trained at Russian military bases, and the leaders of the group have received awards from the Kremlin.
7
Well, the opening maneuvers were classic Russian mass invasion battlefield tactics; mass artillery bombardment, initially striking the static US forces, then walking the artillery in front of the advancing tanks with the Syrian forces advancing directly behind the tanks. One fault with the plan, no air support or anti aircraft batteries.
16
The Syrians and mercenaries made a big mistake by attacking the US forces. We should all be glad that the full range of US power was available. Having air power, artillery, and a quick reaction force distinguishes this battle from other recent incidents where our troops lacked access to them and suffered well publicized losses.
However although the Syrian government has done awful things in the civil war our preventing them from taking possession seems questionable if defeat of ISIS was our only goal.
It's pretty clear that our being there has other aims such as hindering potential Iranian access routes.
Ideally there should be more public explanation and consideration of our aims. It is complex and one wonders if the goals served are our own or if we are being manipulated by the Arab states and or Israel to do things that really aren't in our interest.
Iran is no sweetheart, but should we be using our forces to block it in Syria? Maybe so, but I'd like to have the reasons explained well.
38
This is great reporting. I am proud of our soldiers who bravely fought off this attack. But I do have to wonder, why is this not a much bigger story in Washington? Why hasn't the president or any of our Congressional leaders publicly addressed this combat engagement between, essentially, the U.S. and Russia?
If this had occurred during any other presidential administration, of either political party, this would have been a much bigger news story.
16
We need a tough negotiator to come to an agreement ...
2
Sounds like Putin was using mercenaries to test our war-fighting capabilities and tactics ... and whatever EW capabilities he needs to stop us.
15
Trump and his coterie should be tried for treason. "whats wrong with being friends with Putin?"
11
Does it not rate mentioning that the Wagner Group is linked to Yevgeny Prigozhin, the oligarch indicted by Mueller for interfering in the US election?
20
Putin uses proxies in Syria and Ukraine, some of them Russian mercenaries. If anything goes wrong he can claim ignorance and position himself as peacemaker. Life is cheap. Only his popularity at home matters.
6
“Nothing matters but his popularity at home.” Sounds frighteningly like another President we have come to know all too well.
4
Under what legal premise does the USA have forces in Syria?
8
Under the premise of defeating Isis and because the Syrian government is illegitimate murdering its own citizens. What does any of that have to do with the fact that the US thoroughly trounced the Russians?
1
The legal premise is the USA's finanical and strategic interests in the entire region. Interests that serve not only those of the USA but every Western European allie of ours as well.
1
Exactly what is the United States doing in Syria? Are we attacking ISIS? Are we supporting the Syrian rebels? Are we testing out new weapons in the nearest hot war?
And who authorized the deployment of troops into another sovereign country? Was it done by an act of Congress, as required by the Constitution, or by presidential fiat? When was it done and how long is the authorization regardless of who made it?
And how many U.S. troops are there in Syria? One hundred? Two hundred? A thousand? More? And how many others are involved with supporting these troops? Another thousands?
Does this mean we invaded another Arab country? And are we going to occupy that country until there is a change of government? What is our endgame? What determines when we leave that country?
It is exactly this kind of behavior that I'm sure makes the countries in that region mistrust our government. It also makes it hard for Americans to support our actions when they are done in secret.
10
We're never really leaving the region. Obviously, our general interests are petroleum and access to it. To be fair, we installed the infrastructure and have invested heavily over the past century so there's zero chance we'll ever leave–not as long as we and our Western European allies have a need for those resources.
Consider that the USA is the tip of the spear for the entirety of Western Europe. Additionally, the strategic reason for our involvement is to simply keep the fight in the ME and prevent it from spreading Stateside. Russian is testing us, so there's that too.
If it's not the USA, it will be the UK or other allies. A country from one of the Western powers will always be engaged in this region. . . it just makes the most sense for this to be handled by the USA right now.
21
Keep the fight from spreading stateside? Since when did the Syrian government have forces in Mexico and Canada, primed to invade the United States? Is the Syrian navy sitting off the Eastern Seaboard, ready to invade us if we withdraw from the Middle-East?
The only people from the Middle-East who might attack the United States are the same radical Islamists America is supplying with arms on behalf of Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
Europe and Japan benefit quite a lot from our presence in the Middle-East. That is, they would if our meddling didn't constantly mess with the world price price of oil. Who benefits from that? Russia and Saudi Arabia. Some appreciation the Europeans and the Japanese have for all of our efforts over there with their protectionist trade policies. We expend trillions of dollars, Europe becomes a Saudi puppet instead of a Russian one. That's not much better for us, Saudi Arabia is the control center of every major Islamic terrorist organization of the last 50 years, including ISIS and Al-Qaeda. Why should we lift a finger for Saudi Arabia?
can you explain why it 'just makes the most sense for the USA (to be engaged in this region) for now'? I get the rest of your comment but need help to understand this point.
We are in a hot war with Russia in everything but name. Putin is a calculating leader who is trying, with the consent of his fellow Russians, to re-establish what was the Soviet Empire. But he has been much more successful in doing it by not declaring his intentions, and the people of Russia know and appreciate that. They are also supportive of his successful efforts within the USA to disrupt our society and forms of government by swinging the election to incompetent Trump (who still insists Putin is a good guy). And the Republicans who have benefited by Russia's victory within the USA have so little love for our freedom that they are embracing the fruits of the actions of Putin's Fifth Column. Shameful.
18
Isadore:
"with the consent of his fellow Russians, to re-establish what was the Soviet Empire."
Got any evidence to back up this assertion?
"They are also supportive of his successful efforts within the USA to disrupt our society and forms of government by swinging the election to incompetent Trump>"
There's no evidence Russia did anything of the sort.
1
Putin certainly has revealed through his actions and words that he would love to restore the Soviet Union to its former glory. Invasion of Georgia and Ukraine, and stealing Crimea from a sovereign nation are only two of the most obvious examples.
As for Russian interference in our presidential election, the only people who don't believe this happened are those who ingest an unhealthy diet of Fox News every day and night.
2
No evidence yet.
Americans once again won a brilliant victory. On paper. Maybe soon in the movie. They even managed to destroy 200 people in a company of 100! Another Bravo 2.0. In view of the complete absence of victories over terrorists, Americans boast of imaginary victories over the Russians. This is the pinnacle of idiocy. Idiotic Everest.
9
Trump's buddy in action. Reminds me of when Muammar Gaddafi attacked us in the Mediterranean. That time it was U.S. 2, Libya 0. This time it is U.S. 200-300, Russia 0.
1
The U.S. and Russia in a bloody military conflict.
You can bet Don Jr. and Eric will not be conscripted.
Scions of Red States? Prepare for an involuntary middle eastern vacation.
7
According to "executive director" PMC "Wagner" Colonel (ret) Troshev was killed 14 Russians mercenaries.
The investigation of the magazine "Der Spiegel" confirmed this information.
2
This incident really comes down to this: directly, or using mercenaries, the Syrian government was in its legal right to try to take back ('liberate') another part of its sovereign territory, which, by the way happens to be the center of oil production. No wonder ISIS was there; but what business the Americans have in Syria is rather dubious.
10
Is this the first of many such incidents with the lying, denying Russkies to come?
1
This of course gives lie to the Russian propaganda put out consistently by the Putin regime.
40 Americans wiped out 500 Russians without taking any casualties. the bonded Russian anti-aircraft system was completely missing in action.
it couldn't be any clearer unless you're delusional or a patent liar.
2
"40 Americans wiped out 500 Russians without taking any casualties."
Doubly wrong:
1. The US used overwhelming air power.
2. 'The documents obtained by The Times estimated 200 to 300 of the “pro-regime force” were killed.'
Awesome performance by our warriors. The Russians’ objective was to capture US and British Special Forces operatives protecting that plant. The Russian military planners will think twice next time they try something like this if they ever do. Don’t mess with the US, bro.
6
Yuri:
"Don’t mess with the US, bro."
You know the US has no legal standing to by anywhere in Syria? Nor of course to the British.
1
"Don’t mess with the US, bro."
Wrong lesson. The right lesson is "Know your enemy".
4
- Trump's side lost bigly on this one.
Maybe he should defect to Russia- can keep permanent company with Putin.
3
The motivation of both armed factions appears to be control of (privately-owned) fossil fuel assets.
The lives and resources wasted here are a powerful argument for increased development of renewable power and electric-fueled vehicles.
12
Personally I like walking.
2
The geopolitical naïvety of so many commenters - those that aren’t Russian bots, that is - is stunning. The US is in Syria to fight ISIS, but also to counter Russian great power politics. I, for one, find it pretty foolish to cede the fate of the Middle East to Vladimir Putin and/or Bibi Netanyahu. While I detest the policies of the Trump Administration, this is a far bigger geopolitical issue for the US. Extracting ourselves from the ME at this time and reducing American influence over the region would be exceedingly short-sighted. We can only wish there was a more sane hand at the tiller than that of Trump or Bolton.
32
Syria has been in the Russian sphere of influence since the 1960s. Somehow, prior to 2011, that wasn't much of an issue.
It's only when the Syrians put the kibosh on the Qatar-Turkey gas pipeline to Europe that suddenly it became absolutely vital for America to meddle in Syrian affairs. It would be immensely important to Turkish and Qatari interests for the Assad government to fall so that they could get their pipeline, and we need both Turkey and Qatar to cooperate with us if we are to retain our toehold in the Middle-East after the Saudis made us leave their country in 2003. The Saudis hopped they could topple Assad with their proxies, aka, ISIS, but unfortunately we just couldn't tolerate that, either.
Geopolitical analysis is fine, but geopolitical analysis might lead to some conclusions that you wouldn't expect: that Russia is behaving defensively in Europe and the Middle-East and that it's the United States and the Gulf Arabs who are the aggressors.
4
Tim:
"The US is in Syria to fight ISIS, but also to counter Russian great power politics."
Under what legal reasoning or authority?
2
Plenty.
This article makes quite clear this war is about oil, oil, oil. The cost of switching to solar 100% is a small fraction of what it costs to fight these stupid pointless wars in the mid-east. At least somebody is making money though, unlike the other stupid pointless wars in the mid-east fought at the behest of various magical sky beings.
39
Whose side is the US on? Isis’?
If you are wrecking havoc in other countries and invading their sovereign territory you shouldn’t get mad when one of them return the favours.
3
"Baba," it is not a secret that in fact Putin and Kadyrov sent many Chechens (with Russian passports) to help the jihadist extremists, specifically Al-Baghdadi's "Caliphate" forces, in order to make them a bigger challenge so that Assad could have a pretext for killing more of his "enemies" (real & imagined). The war in Syria is not a war over oil at all: it is merely a war being fought by Assad, with the help of barbaric hired armies assembled by Iran from Shia mercenaries, and with Russian mercenaries as well as regular troops, to exterminate any political opposition to his continued brutal dictatorship. No one "invaded" Syria: Assad invited his friends to help kill and torture Syrians. Others, such as the US or Turkey, intervened in a very limited capacity only to try to rescue at least some groups from Assad's murderous rampage. The Turks are there because there are Turkmen in Syria that they feel are their people (from the time when Syria belonged to the Ottoman Empire). The Americans are there because the Kurds, who have no land of their own yet really, helped out fighting the jihadists in the hope of being themselves protected from Assad & the Turks. And that would only be fair, frankly. There are 20 million Kurds: the world's largest population without a country of their own. As for the Russian presence: it is not actually in Russia's interest, not even remotely. Russians have exacerbated the mass killings & atrocities. Putin's plan was really unintelligent.
1
"At the plant, the commandos were pinned down by enemy artillery and burning through ammunition. Flashes from tank muzzles, antiaircraft weapons and machine guns lit up the air."
The article doesn't mention any enemy aircraft, so why was the US using "antiaircraft weapons"?
Anti-aircraft weapons were used by the "attackers" or enemy against US aircraft.
4
Paul: 'Anti-aircraft weapons were used by the "attackers" or enemy against US aircraft.'
You could be right, but the quote I posted suggests that it was the "commandos" who were using "antiaircraft weapons".
The Times's editors should have insisted on a clarification. Details matter in war reporting.
1
In case you dont know we are mostly fighting for the Kurds at this point. And we should be fighting for them.
The Kurds government is radically secular and equal. They dont have a religious theocracy like everyone else in the area. They are the largest ethnic group in the world without a home nation. They have also allied with us every time we asked. They have fought for our national interests since the 1980s.
We watched Saddam gas these people and we did nothing. We have an obligation to help them now. They have carved out a safe and flourishing enclave in Rojava, and we should not abandon them.
The Kurds deserve even more help then they are getting. Assad is going to slaughter them by the thousands and then erase their culture if he retakes Rojava. Mark my words. If we leave Syria we will be leaving the Kurds to he slaughtered. The only thing keeping Turkey and Assad from an all out assault on Rojava are about 2,000 US soldiers.
I for one hope they stay and I hope one day the Kurds can have an internationally recognized home.
148
The US alliance with the Kurds was purely opportunistic. They were the only ground forces the US could use to fight ISIS. The US has no commitment to establishing an independent Kurdistan and it is a fantasy to think that is what US forces are there for, no matter how desirable that outcome would be. The Kurds know that the greatest threat to them is not from Assad, but from the alliance of Turkey and de facto US armed Salafist militias. They will likely cut a deal with Assad for a measure of autonomy within in exchange for assistance in crushing the Salafists now crowding Adrian and Idlib province.
9
If we are fighting for the Kurds then why don't we force Turkey and Iraq to give the Kurds a sovereign state? The truth is that we won't because the airbases in Turkey and the oil in Iraq are worth more to us than Kurdish sovereignty. We are cynically using the Kurds to give us the pretext to be power-brokers. When the time comes, America will sell them out, just as America has always sold out similar groups when their struggles were no longer in our national interest.
6
I'm glad to read this story, but it would be better I think if it was them killing each other rather than us having to do it.
Two assumptions; Salafi Sunni, Kurds, and Iranian and Shia Sadrists in Iraq don't want what we have and will kill us or try to make us submit if given the chance. Historically, when we've given their world stability, their bad actors have used the breathing space to hurt us. But if they're threatened more by each other, this is where they direct their fury.
Which explains the unintentional genius of Bush, Obama, and Trump's foreign policy. Instead of "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here," all three have destabilized the entire region and stirred the pot so much, that the locals are too busy killing one another to send their bad actors our way. Consider how long this has been going on! Afghanistan, Iraq, surge and pull out. Libya, Tunisia, support the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and then support Sissi and Morsi. Now it's Sadr in Baghdad, goading the Palestinians, keeping Syria off balance, and now squeezing Iran.
Add Tump's logic of not importing more of them, and it seals the deal. They'll be so busy killing one another for the next three decades that we should have a really nice run of no 9/11's.
Is this "proportional?" No, and it doesn't need to be. International law allows the use of maximum force to protect oneself. If millions of these people (or 400) need to die to ensure no dead US citizens, then so be it.
6
We needed the practice.....
We taught the lesson....
I don’t agree with being the world’s policeman, but these adventures do provide live fire training.
6
Once again, the American military owns the hight with imaging and electronics thatgive us sontrol of the setting.
China's adventurism around the Spratley Islands will likely face the same outcome.
God Liberals forget about the Kurds so fast as soon as they see an opportunity to be Anti-Trump. The Kurds are the only bright spot in a horrible Middle East.
I suggest you remember the Kurds and the fact that they have a secular government that has allied with us every time we have asked for the last 30 years before you start saying that we need to exit Syria.
You know what's in the desert? Nothing. The only substantial infrastructure in the region is oil facilities. So it's pretty obvious why a group of American soldiers were guarding a billion dollar oil plant. The reason is that it's the only substantial thing to guard in the desert. Plus oil revenue is essential for the Kurds if they have a shred of hope of avoiding slaughter at the hands of Assad.
The commenters on this article have literally blown my mind, especially when you read a article specifically on the Kurds and see it filled with supportive responses in this same newspaper. It's like a reflex in liberals now to say that we need to do the exact opposite of what Trump is doing at all times.
I mean, even a broken clock is right twice a day. I just hope Trump doesn't pull everyone out and leave the Kurds to Assad/Russia/Irans war machine.
12
@jaqueline
Of course you neoconservatives never said anything negative about President Obama during his two terms in office.
Right?
So listen up.
This Liberal approves of any type of operation in the Syrian Theater that ultimately gives Vladimir Putin a hotfoot, while reserving the right to criticize Mr. Trump 24/7 for his serial malfeasance.................
5
I also have a favorable view of the Kurds and wish there would be more discussion of how to create a stable future for them given that the Turks every other nearby state is so much against them.
However I'm not sure that oil revenue for them was the cause for US troops being in this particular location or battle.
Let the U.S. win the hegemony fight in the region. Because that's exactly what it's all about.
1
Shades of Ia-Drang in 1965, where vastly out-numbered units of Air Cavalry were overrun by NVA regulars, who executed the wounded where they lay.
The "Broken arrow" call sign went out.
In response, every military aircraft in the South-East Asia theater of operations was summoned to, and converged, on the enemy, ultimately blunting and then routing their offensive, with massive loss of life.
I only wished we showed such unity and resolve in our domestic politics.
9
There is such unity and the call sign has gone out. Now we are just waiting for red state America to be taken out.
1
Kudos to our troops, who did an excellent job. Thumbs down to our government though: we are in Syria illegally, while the Russians and their private security contractors are there legally at the behest of the internationally recognized Syrian government.
Oh, please. Stop clutching those pearls, and catch your breath. The internationally recognized Syrian government has been slaughtering its own people for the last 60-70 years.
6
Putin's use of his mercenary Wagner Russian forces in Syria, is just another means for denial, regardless of the outcome. Just like his little green men in Ukraine.
His aim is not just to protect the Russian fleet in Syria, but to engage the US on all fronts around the world to prove his greatness and humiliate us, for his alleged negative treatment he felt that Russia received after the Soviet Union fell.
And Trump, kompromat, graft and all, will do anything to terminate Mueller's investigation, which would prove Russian interference in the 2018 election, and graft, which Trump is trying to hide.
This is broader than just one battle in Syria. In the long road it is to prove the fallibility of the US, and the primacy of Putin and Russia. And for Trump to dismantle democracy in the US.
10
Quandry:
"Putin's use of his mercenary Wagner Russian forces in Syria, is just another means for denial, regardless of the outcome. Just like his little green men in Ukraine. "
You know the New York Times had to retract the laughable green men story?
Russia was in Syria by government invitation; we were not.
25
Invited by a war criminal dictator.
Assad-BAD!, Putin-BAD! What is your point? I guess it's wherever Russia is invited to oppress and kill we should respect, ignore, or even support that arrangement? C'mon!!
2
Invitation of a totalitarian and murderous government which is slaughtered its own people for many decades. your article is like making the argument that Bulgarian troops fought with the axis in World War II while we invaded a country ruled by a legitimately elected government. in other words your argument is garbage.
2
it is highly unlikely the Russian "mercenaries" were such, but rather Russian soldiers dressed as combat civilians. It is very common for Russians to use this type of metric..much like in Eastern Ukraine.
The end state is that one day if this close combat situation continue, US military will take KIA's. But, moreover, the conclusion is that the US and Russian are in combat on the ground. This fact is worrisome!
6
RH:
"it is highly unlikely the Russian "mercenaries" were such, but rather Russian soldiers dressed as combat civilians."
Evidence?
1
Evidence: Crimea and eastern Ukraine.
Where were the A-10's? This sounds like a perfect environment for the Warthogs to do their thing--attack tanks, armor, ground troops, artillery. Where were they?
8
Cody, because the military's campaign to sideline the A-10 in favor of more expensive (and post career money makers) and less effective weapon systems continues despite the push back from some members of congress and others. For more info see Project on Government Accountability website for more of the following "To put this all in perspective, the Air Force leaders have repeatedly attempted to shrink or cancel outright the A-10 fleet for at least the past twenty-five years which is particularly striking since the A-10 has consistently proven its battlefield worth in every war since 1991. The reason for this is simple: Air Force generals don’t like the airplane because it lacks the complexity and expense to justify ever-expanding budgets. Furthermore, they despise the mission: it places them in a supporting role to ground forces. http://www.pogo.org/straus/issues/weapons/2018/air-force-leaders-deliber... Interesting reading and a good insight on how policy is often not about combat readiness or support.
13
Yea, why weren't they invited to the party?
2
An AC-130 will out gun a wart hog, but your question is a good one. I suspect they were to far from the fight to get there in time.
lso, I do not see where Congress approved military action in Syria. Is this McCain's private little war?
10
Umm, it was Obama who deployed forces to Iraq and Syria. Nice try. And nice attack on a dying American legend.
1
I think McCain's war now is staying alive longer. The action in Syria of US is strictly Trump and Republicans saving face for pouting and spouting during Obama's admin. Remember how they beat the drums about Obama's red line?
The quote, "A team of about 30 Delta Force soldiers and Rangers from the Joint Special Operations Command were working alongside Kurdish and Arab forces at a small dusty outpost next to a Conoco gas plant, near the city of Deir al-Zour." What exactly were they working on together? Reading between the lines, sounds like this was a setup. This out post was a thumb in the side of this pro-Assad group. The location looked weak and vulnerable, but in reality, the plan was to use overwhelming force to obliterate these mercenaries and pro-Assad Syrian fighters who were probably just a bunch of kids. The way the U.S. explain it, they were just minding their own business.
5
Well, I don’t blame the US military for responding promptly and forcefully against threats to their ground assets. While I dislike US interventions overseas in general, in this case from a pure military standpoint, WOW.
8
They repeatedly contacted the Russians and warned them not to attack.
6
My thoughts exactly
"The American commandos took cover, then ran behind dirt berms to fire anti-tank missiles and machine guns at the advancing column of armored vehicles."
"Machine guns" may or may not be effective against "armored vehicles". The Times should be more specific about the vehicles and weapons involved.
"Others [Green Berets and Marines] remained in their trucks, using a combination of thermal screens and joysticks to control and fire the heavy machine guns affixed on their roofs."
What are those "trucks" and "heavy machine guns"?
"... three Russian-made T-72 tanks ... moved within a mile of the Conoco plant."
The article mentions "Javelin missile launchers". Javelins are anti-tank weapons. How well did they work against the T-72s?
1
Those vehicles were probably MRAPs with remotely controlled machine guns on the roof. Remember, some trucks and light armor can be penetrated with .50 caliber fire. Either way, it keeps the infantry's heads down.
3
This is a news article, man, not a military report.
Want to know more about combat? Join the military.
This article is heavy on the details of the battle but unfortunately light on background history of the conflict. Admittedly that background is complicated, but it seems that many people commenting here are poorly informed (dare I say, ignorant) about the Assad regime, Syrian demographics, and the reason why the US has a presence there.
Trump, for anyone who remembers, called for Assad to be left alone, as did Bernie Sanders. The US put forces into Syria to fight ISIS, not the Assad regime. Israel stayed out of this conflict (and has actually been discretely treating the Syrian wounded) until Iran started to have more of a significant presence in the fray, and evidence surfaced of Iran providing munitions to Hezbollah. Remove Iran and Hezbollah, and Israel returns to the decades long detente it has had with the Assad regime.
Assad is Alawite, a non-Sunni minority with some affinity for Shiite Iran. The majority population of Syria is Sunni. Syria is a sovereign state, but it is also a repressive dictatorship. The Assad family has ruled Syria for almost 50 years, and ISIS had been able to operate in Syria in no small part because they are the co-religionists of the Sunni majority in Syria. Russia has a dog in this fight because the Assad regime has ALWAYS been backed by Russia/USSR, which maintains a naval base in Latakia. Russia also sees that Assad does a better job of protecting Syrian orthodox Christians (their co-religionists) than a Sunni-led regime would.
17
Well, if you are going to give us background, don't forget to mention the tens of millions of his own people that Assad and his father have killed. Also don't forget the millions of Syrians he has displaced, men and women who have been forced to flee to Turkey and the EU.
6
Oakwood, your comment demonstrates my original point.
The people who have fled Syria, by and large, aren't Assad's people (Alawites), but rather Sunni Arabs, who make up the majority of the country and of the anti-Assad forces. Also, Syria is a country of roughly 26 million, an estimate taken before the civil war there began. Thousands have been killed, and millions have been displaced, but it is inaccurate to state that Assad (or his father Hafez) have killed "tens of millions" as you assert.
1
Wow, slow down … “tens of millions … killed”? Really? Check out the population of prewar Syria first before busting out.
4
People seem from their comments, to be much better informed than they are given credit for, and they certainly ask more direct questions than I hear our media asking power. Why do you suppose that is?
14
A few weeks later, "pro-regime" forces were similarly massing near a US outpost. The US commander contacted his Russian counterpart and told him that if he had control over these troops, they should withdraw. If they didn't withdraw, they would be annihilated. Within hours, these forces had retreated. At least the Russians aren't so stupid as to make the same mistake twice.
19
Dear Vladimir : with friends like Trump, you will learn to miss your enemy Obama and Hillary.
2
Really? Delta works for both parties. Wake up.
3
The story says "Reaper drones, F-22 stealth fighter jets, F-15E Strike Fighters, B-52 bombers, AC-130 gunships and AH-64 Apache helicopters" were used. That's a stunning amount of firepower. How did anyone survive?
8
Seems like they were locked and loaded waiting for this very thing to happen. Like it was a setup.
1
Yeah Mike. Before you drop a bunch of Rangers and Green Berets and Marines into an area, you make sure they have backup. Especially if you have spent millions of dollars training these men. I’m pretty sure it’s the job of the military to have prepared for war....in a war zone. Of course there air assets on call. As a regular dime a dozen grunt in Afghanistan, we had air assets on call. You think special forces guys wouldn’t?
We did not in Africa and 4 Green Berets died.
You have to wonder what the Russians thought they were doing. Did they expect us not to shoot? Because it sounds a lot like the charge of the light brigade here.
Somebody blundered.
8
No, infantry accompanied by tanks and artillery does not categorize as “light brigade”.
The attacking Russians’ real mistake? No air dominance/cover, apparently.
2
Jiacheng, he’s referencing a poem from the brits in their afghan war. His claim is valid.
Jiacheng Wu: 'No, infantry accompanied by tanks and artillery does not categorize as “light brigade”.'
The OP was referring to a misguided attack on a superior enemy as exemplified by the British cavalry brigade that was destroyed when it charged Russian artillery during the Crimean War:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_of_the_Light_Brigade
See, also, the poem, "The Charge of the Light Brigade", by Tennyson.
1
We were in Syria under Obama and it continues under Trump, but why? We will have no influence as long as Assad is in power. Instead, it is the Russians and the Iranians. The Americans had to defend themselves in this battle and did, but now what? That has to be addressed. Maybe our UN ambassador can tell us. She is bright. Maybe they have her in the loop on this one.
1
If you were wondering why Putin helped Trump to capture the presidency - this is reason #1. Putin wants to be able to dominate the Middle East, and he can't wait until his agent in Washington hands it to him on a golden platter. That's why Trump is constantly asking Pentagon to prepare to withdraw from Syria - because that's what his paymasters wan
7
Goes to show you that 300 men can't overrun , or even killed one, US Marine.
Putin can test all he wants, he'd be silly to go toe to toe with us.
14
The Russian military has a significant presence in Syria, with advanced SAM systems and considerable air power.
American soldiers were fighting against mercenaries with no air cover, not the mass of Russian military.
4
Can we please not test this idea out any further than this engagement?
2
"Goes to show you that 300 men can't overrun , or even killed one, US Marine."
Obviously, you missed the part about overwhelming air power being used by the US. Based on the article, the enemy had no anti-aircraft defenses, much less air power.
From the article: "American warplanes arrived in waves, including Reaper drones, F-22 stealth fighter jets, F-15E Strike Fighters, B-52 bombers, AC-130 gunships and AH-64 Apache helicopters."
1
A detachment of Rangers, Green Berets, Marines, and a full CAP of Air Force assets on call?
What were those knuckleheads thinking?
8
Rumors in China claim that even a foot soldier in the US Army has the authority to call in air strikes. The People’s Liberation Army is working towards this level of air-ground coordination.
They were thinking oil money, it seems.
2
Jiacheng Wu: "Rumors in China claim that even a foot soldier in the US Army has the authority to call in air strikes."
You shouldn't listen to "rumors". Calling in air strikes requires specialized training and equipment. That would imply an NCO or an officer.
See, for example, "One bullet away : the making of a marine officer" by Nathaniel Fick.
I see Putin's troll army is launching an assault on the NYT comment s
125
Yup. The Putin Troll Army attacks on the Reuters comment section a few years ago forced Reuters to take action: They shut down the comment section...site-wide. The NY Times moderators seem to be more active and effective. Let's hope that the outcome is different here.
10
We live in an environment of propaganda warfare. This article is propaganda intended to get Americans used to “battle reports” from a war they largely don’t want to be in and wonder how and when it was decided to put US troops there in the first place. Does Russia pay people to care moment here? Undoubtedly. Just as US intelligence is undoubtedly doing the same elsewhere. But this practice of calling all opponents of US military action “Russian Trolls” is it’s own sort of propaganda.
What precisely were those US soldiers doing in Syria in the first place? In whose name are we protecting that oil field, which after all belongs to the Syrian government whatever we may think of it?
It looks increasingly like Israel is hoping to drag the US into a conflict with Iranian forces in Syria. It is time to bring the troops home.
13
People, here is an article that someone neutrally explains our support of the SDF as a stabilizing force in the region. Agree or not, at least get informed.
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/8-reasons-why-america-supports-the-s...
2
The SDF is a fairy tale. They fell apart a long time ago. We are trying to pretend that the local Kurds are the SDF - but basically the SDF is just another lie from the Pentagon.
Do you remember back at the start of the Syrian civil war when we were training Syrian and supplying them with weapons to go an defeat Assad, but millions of dollars later the Syrian defected to al Quaeda, sold the weapons we gave them, and the rest were killed. A great Pentagon waste of money.
There is no stablilizing force in the region and the region does not need the US military who will only make things worse.
5
WOW. What a great story. AC-130 "Spooky" is not something you want to mess around with. Wish we had more!
https://tinyurl.com/y8plgp8g
A LOT of resources for this counter attack though. What if this group had been larger?
More importantly, what if the electronic data had been neutralized?
2
I don't really understand "what if" questions...
If the "group" was larger then there would be more US air strikes. US military power is unmatched, period.
Data hasn't been neutralized... because they know what they are doing. End of story
4
"Data hasn't be neutralize"
The missing word is YET. If this wasn't a rouge operation, I suspect Russia would have made an effort to neutralize the data.
Appears the mercenaries were just in it for the money and Russia stayed out of the fight.
Strange, don't you think? A victory like this, you'd think the Commander and Chief would be crowing about it from the rooftops. After all, he crows over just about every other "success", real or imagined, that the administration notches.
Either he doesn't want to embarrass his bosom buddy, Putin, or he truly doesn't want the American public to know the full extent of our involvement in Syria.
67
I'll take door #1, AJ! After all, the Wagner Group is linked to Yevgeny Prigozhin, who was indicted by Mueller for interfering in the 2016 election on Trump's behalf.
6
Yes, the former rather than the latter. Trump is silent because our forces bloodied the Russian mercenaries. The Kurds have our assistance because the Syrian leader wants to extinguish all opposition to his regime - the Kurds are just that. The Kurds, stateless, are a stabilizing force in Iraq, as well and are allies.
1
Excellent comment.
As with most 'blood and guts' war reporting (good job, btw, NYT!), this article raises more questions than it answers. One of them is why Trump has been so discreet about this overwhelming victory of American arms. And a possible explanation is indeed that he is in the awkward position of having embarrassed his Russian handlers.
3
I'd really like to know why the reporter said that Wagner is the name of one of the Generals who runs the PMC - that's not anything that has come up in reporting before, and I'm suspicious of its origin -
That said, the real missing story here is how this entire debacle has been utterly squashed inside Russia - it is a completely unreported story in state media - my Russian friends three weeks ago were shocked when I told them, and only one had any clue : his main news source is Facebook, by the way -
The question is : why is the Kremlin afraid of this getting out ? I would like to suggest that's because the specter of such an enormous loss would haunt the Russian people - and the Kremlin is incredibly wary of dealing with a haunted Russian populace, because the narrative they have sought to construct throughout their Syrian adventure is one of justified, upstanding and brave professionalism against the blood-thirsty and spoiled Pentagon warmongers - a sudden, new interpretation would mean that the Kremlin has lost control of the spin, and loss of control by the Kremlin is feared as an open invitation to opposition overthrow -
The Russians lost 27 million in WW2 - they didn't talk openly or celebrate their victory publicly until the mid-60s - to lose so many so quickly in Syria is part of the same psychosis -
7
The Wagner name has been mentioned frequently before this.
3
27 million is the highest figure I have ever seen, possibly it includes civilians, generally the number of military losses is guessed at 9 to 12 million, though no one knows because the Russians weren't keeping track.
Of course it is only because of those numbers that the Nazis were defeated, it was not due to our 500K or so casualties in that arena and the Allies / Eisenhower's bumbling leadership, though even now that fact is never acknowledged.
1
It was all over Russian social media, voices recorded. Survivers of the U.S. attack telling actual stories of the combat situation and aftermath.Particularly shoking was reaction of the Russian commanders: same as Zhukov during the WWII "no problem they will give birth to many more"
The Russians continue to test Trump, as they tested Bush. Would they have tried this with Hillary? Hard to say, but I doubt it.
3
You've got to be kidding. The Defense Industry pulls the strings, the politicians (and it doesn't matter who, Dem or Rep, will do what they wish, or they will not get any more money) will do their bidding. Remember all the talk about Change? Out of Iraq? We got out of Iraq alright. Right into Afghanistan and Syria. Hilary would do the exact same thing.
4
Simultaneously, back at the WH or more likely Mir-a-Lago, our Commander-in-Chief was lavishly praising Putin, the CiC of Russia's fighters against American soldiers in Syria.
8
He has to! The Wagner Group is linked to Yevgeny Prigozhin, who was indicted by Mueller for helping Trump win the election . . .
There are four bad acting sectors in the American economy at the moment, draining our society: military-industrial (including prisons), energy, medical, and finance. None of them are intrinsically bad, but they're not playing properly.
Three of them are at clearly work here. That's why we're in the Middle East - to burn armaments and funnel money to those who make them, and to hoard control of fossil fuels. Who gets rich? The guys who funded it all in the first place.
As an example: Lockheed's biggest stock owners? State Street, Capital World, Vanguard index funds, Black Rock, BoA.
/twirls finger
13
"Who gets rich? The guys who funded it all in the first place. As an example: Lockheed's biggest stock owners? State Street, Capital World, Vanguard index funds, Black Rock, BoA." -
The investment funds you named don't own the stock, investors do. That's you and me...in our retirement portfolios. We are all complicit in this debacle.
5
I do not agree with people who say we should cut and run. We're fighting alongside the forces that helped defeat ISIS. How can America ever project power if we get a reputation for turning tail and abandoning allies every time our own objectives are complete?
17
Fne, but the phrase "cut and run" is political propaganda. If you want to present an idea, use neutral terms like "withdraw forces". Otherwise, we will think you are a media consultant for US armament manufacturers just trying to stir up the voters to get more profits from armaments.
3
Hmmm.... looking at some of the posts below....Seems like the "Russian Troll Army" is out here today.
6
Sounds like mercenary ops theoretically not assigned to the gov't but in fact are. Funded and supplied with arms and munitions from Syria and Russia. The propaganda spin in Russia must be really strong or threatening for people to support Putin or maybe they just don't know or care. Scary stuff.
5
Russian Mercenaries, U.S. Black Water private contractors, what are the difference? We are fighting a war in proxy.
4
The US openly hired the black water contractors to fight in Iraq, the Russians say they have "nothing to do with" the mercenaries. That is the difference.
5
Interesting to see so many concerned about why we are there in Syria and seemingly much less concerned (if at all) about the welfare of our troops.
The former is a political question and open to debate. The latter should never be in question. Call your elected representatives about the first but do try and express some gratitude that our troops, who don't decide where they go, were not harmed when they were assaulted.
38
The troops get paid, including combat pay, and they get huge veteran benefit packages. That being said, they probably should get paid more since apparently serving your country means nothing to US defense contractors whose profit margins are even higher than the work they do outside of the military. The US defense contractors worship the almighty dollar and have no patriotism. Starting right with Dick Cheney and his Halliburton/BrownRootKellogg profit machine in Iraq. The US taxpayer is always being played, as are the soldiers who believe they are serving country, rather than the Industrial-Military-Congressional Complex which Ike warned about.
10
For sure.
As another man said a while ago in a different context, "How do you ask a man to be the last one to die for a mistake?"
4
The real way to support troops is to oppose our foolhardy military adventures in countries that don't threaten us, where our presence and actions wreak havoc and invite blowback. These missions put them in harms way for unachievable or undeclared goals.
Enough of the corporate media/government nexus of propagandistic military hero-worship. It's done to neuter public opposition to strategic decisions that are costly and self-defeating. Those serving in the military should demand that members of the Bush (mostly) and Obama (somewhat) administrations be brought to justice for putting them in harms way using lies and misinformation, to send a message that such conduct is unacceptable.
11
In proxy wars, here between the US and Russia fought is Syria, neither side has a stake in minimizing civilian causalities of the inhabitants of the country in which the proxy war is fought.
Hence the hundreds of thousand Syrian refugees.
2
Russian involvement with Assad the butcher is not comparable to the US which restricts itself (except in defense) to hitting ISIS. Different.
2
It was originally reported as a some sort of weapons lobbed at the US in which the US responded killing 500 Syrians and Russian contract workers is turned into a heroic battle in which the US won. The contract workers is turned into mercenaries just like the people killed by insurgents in Libya guarding the US ambassador. The carton villain aspect of this story is disturbing.
9
Contract workers...with tanks, artillery, and mortars.
9
What are mercenaries except contract workers?
3
I'm glad the American forces were victorious in the field, but I have to ask, why were they even in the field? This is not our fight, this is not our war. It's never been authorized by the American people, and any argument that it's been authorized by Congress rings hollow by now. We don't belong in this never-ending war, and it's well past the time we should acknowledge that fact and leave.
59
Exactly. These "mercenaries" that US similarly use in many missions are meant to be seen as slimy bad guys. And the NYTs is determined to think Syria is a no man's land and a free fire zone for the US.
6
Jim, we have been fighting ISIS for years in Syria and Iraq. Of course this is our fight. We have tried to stay out of the civil war, but the ISIS fight is legit and above board.
Congress does not do anything, for several administrations, and they cannot be relied upon. It is because of the structure of their campaign financing and re-election strategies.
As cars got twice the mileage, Congress cannot even change the federal gas tax from 18 cents a gallon, now not even enough to repair (let alone improve) our famous interstate highway system. Just one example of Congress....
6
Will Hogan - Read the article again. Those weren't ISIS forces, they were Syrian, supported by Russian mercenaries and Russian-built equipment.
"The firefight was described by the Pentagon as an act of self-defense against a unit of pro-Syrian government forces."
The chutzpah: US soldiers setting up bases on the soil of a foreign country, engaging militarily with forces from that country -- who have never posed a threat to the US -- claim to be acting in self-defense?
The US military occupation of Syria is illegal, immoral and dangerous. Wait til the blowback from this one comes.
66
So you're good with Iran military build-up in Syria?
2
"So you're good with Iran military build-up in Syria?"
WHO CARES. Syria has been friendly with Iran for four decades now. Israel has nukes and is not in any danger. Saudi Arabia is armed to the teeth courtesy of the US military-industrial complex. A handful of Iranian troops in Syria changes nothing.
This obsession with Iran has become a psychological disorder. Russia isn't the only country that runs influence campaigns in the United States: Iran's geopolitical enemies, Israel and Saudi Arabia, also do the same. Makes you wonder.
Mercenaries, Russian troops or not, the ammunition is real and dead is dead. When those brave young men come back home they will bring back with them their first hand experiences of what it means to be in conflict and what the price truly is. Hopefully they and others can influence future military policy before their own kids ship out.
5
This was an act of war by Russia against the United States. It doesn't matter that Putin tries to cloak his military as ''little green men" -- an attack is an attack.
24
So...US troops invading an independent country is not an act of war? Since a declaration of war requires an act of Congress, and none has been passed, I guess this is just doing a favor for Conoco.
4
This was a setup by the US to draw the Russians into an ambush to decimate their mercenary force in the region
The Russians are there at the invitation of the Syrian government. It is the US forces that are the invaders.
Let's see, how can we spin this to promote the Russia - Trump collusion narrative?
5
It cannot be said frequently enough: This is really none of our business and we shouldn't be there. They are having themselves a good old-fashioned civil war which we are exacerbating and extending. The justifications for entering Syria were cooked up by Obama (I know, no one remembers. To remind you, Obama started screaming about chemical weapons use. It turned out the information on the use was muddled and there was general public questioning of the wisdom of getting into a new war. He backed down and waited, then fortunately there was some tribe stuck on a mountain having a rough time, and the only answer, conveniently, was to start bombing stuff! (What ever happened to that tribe? Who cares! They served their purpose). When people continued to question, the hawks would point to headless journalists to highlight the 'evil' of the people we were fighting. Still not a justification!) [PS - for some reason the liberals were outraged (Outraged!!!) that Trump also decided to start bombing Syria recently. Trump derangement syndrome or Obama deification syndrome?]
Now we have created what is called a 'meeting engagement' - a small meeting of forces which neither side can back away from so continue to invest in up the ante. We have no strategy except to keep doing what we're doing and Not Lose. Get out now!
Cut and run!
8
Thank you for proving how right we are for being there.
The stupid US war in Iraq created ISIS, and the US is going to destroy ISIS, and the voters approved. Clotario, your memory is failing, or you are a revisionist.
Excuse me, but hasn't ISIS been defeated? Even then, who invited the Americans to Syria? Russia has every right (and UN support) to shoot down American planes. If Saudi Arabia and Israel want to deal with Iran in Syria, let them. They have the finest American made weapons money can buy and in one case bought with US taxpayer money. At least Americans won't have to die for foreign reasons.
14
No, IS has not been defeated. They're alive and well in y emen, Libya, Afghanistan...
4
“They’re testing us every day.” I can’t help wondering if our White House occupant knows this. He’s so consumed with “Spygate” and other idiotic tactics of his own war on America, that the real wars seem to get little attention… or even interest.
On the other hand… maybe this engagement ended as well as it did precisely because Trump doesn’t care about it. I can’t help wondering how long the Dumb Luck strategy will keep working for us.
4
"The firefight was described by the Pentagon as an act of self-defense against a unit of pro-Syrian government forces."
Syria is a sovereign nation. The United States has invaded and occupied it, defying international law. Syria and its allies - who have been invited by Syria into their country, unlike the United States - defend themselves. The Pentagon defines Syria's attack as aggression, and the US invaders and occupiers as defenders. The NY Times, acting as a stenographer for the Pentagon, doesn't even question this absurdity.
Is it any wonder why so many people flock to alternative news sites?
War is Peace.
Ignorance is Strength.
Freedom is Slavery.
38
Edit to my own comment: It should read "The Pentagon defines Syria's DEFENSE as aggression, and the US invaders and occupiers as defenders."
2
Oh, a sovereign nation, led by a leader of the people?
Assad was supported by only 10% of syria until the russians air force bombed the rest into submission. Stop pretending that the govt of Syria is legit. And the US is in Syria killing ISIS with broad support from US voters and from the UN.
10
Long live the U.S. invaders.
2
This would be better if we knew the number of attackers. With 200 dead, does that suggest 800 to a 1000, with a 25% fatality rate?
1
Could be the Americans are pursuing Trump's dictate to seize the oil (and gas) resources of countries invaded by the US
5
I understand well enough why the Russians are in Syria. It is to them what Central America is to us. They are angling to put a naval base near Aleppo, just as we have them in the Caribbean.
What I do not get is why we are militarily involved there. What is there that we might need? I remember visiting there once on business; also once in Iran. I could not wait to get out, and that was when the Middle East was still relatively quiet. I seriously considered resigning if asked to go there again by my employers.
Does our being there have something to do with the ridiculous notion that Israel is our 51st state?
9
Was it you who wrote essay "Israel and the elephant problem"?
1
I think the last line said by Gen. Thomas is the most revealing about the intent of this encounter and it's implication of who the US is actually fighting.
6
Sounds like war games 'deluxe', to me. Maybe this was truly unavoidable, but anytime our military gets to put in operation such expensive equipment without even an injury they must be delighted (in a muted way, of course). "American warplanes arrived in waves, including Reaper drones, F-22 stealth fighter jets, F-15E Strike Fighters, B-52 bombers, AC-130 gunships and AH-64 Apache helicopters." So this billion dollar deployment was applied to 500 paramilitary soldiers and 27 vehicles? Strikes me as a particularly senseless waste of life. On our side, I guess our soldiers were "in harm's way"...."At least one Marine exposed himself to incoming fire as he used a missile guidance computer..." Being the only military superpower now, we may need to ask the question at what point does asymmetry in battlefield outcomes become immoral. (If nothing else, it seems bad form to act like heroes here.) As long there is intense social stigma for appearing "unpatriotic", such questions will not likely be addressed.
8
russian mercenaries do not make it assymetric.
2
What? 250-300 to ZERO is a tad asymmetric. No surprise, though. Mercenaries don't have the full weight of their government's armed forces behind them.
The question that desperately needs to be asked is what exactly has the blood and treasure expended by the U.S. military actually accomplished in the last 50 years? How about the last 10?
Our expenditures are equal to the combined total of the next 7 most militarized governments in the world, almost 10X that of Russia.
England sustained global power by shrewdly investing in as little military mite as possible to fulfill goals, and they were dominating whole countries for economic exploitation.
I assume their government was not taking large sums of money from military contractors as "campaign contributions".
World powers come and go at the speed of developing corruption. Corruption in this country is easily gauged by the relative expense of our military, health care and criminal justice system. What we can't know is exactly when it all comes crashing down.
5
Why U.S. commandos in Syria? Can't we pay our own U.S. mercenaries like we did in Iraq?
1
Why did U.S. forces allow the enemy to collect their dead? Wouldn't the casualties have provided evidence that Russians were in the attacking group?
2
Because there are some things you don’t do. You don’t shoot someone who is there simply to get a body back to an awaiting family. Before I start getting lectured on war by people who have never been there, I was a Marine grunt in afghan in 2010 and 2011/2012. I can’t say for sure what happened, but I know that most American troops would NOT fire on unarmed people recovering their dead. By most I mean 99 percent.
2
Terrifically done. To increase everyone's situational awareness with reporting like this about what our brave service members in harm's way are doing around the world is a great public service. Ignorance is not bliss on the critical issue of how our foreign deployed military is being committed to battle, which too often is shrouded in excessive secrecy.
109
Could you explain how such deployments serve the public?
16
What I've read from independent Russian sources, the mercenaries from the groups allegedly affiliated with "Putin's chef", Evgeny Prigozhin, grossly miscalculated American tactics.
Russian army command structure is highly centralized, whilst American troops put most decision making to the commander in the field and grant authority over artillery, air force him/her, and this commander might be of the considerably low rank.
Mercenaries may have believed that for whatever "geopolitical reasons" small group of U.S. troops would avoid the armed confrontation and would be recalled, and would leave the lucrative oil field and plant. But instead this field commander exercised its authority and struck back, leaving hundreds dead.
It is against the Russian military's shared belief and logic that the mere field commander can call a massive air strike without calling a bunch of four-star generals for approval.
P.S. There is a grim version of events circulating in the social networks that allegedly the mercenary company practices "disposing of" the fighters in such a manner to avoid bringing them home and paying the salaries. In that case the fact that few hundred fighters were supported by just a handful of vehicles and zero anti-aircraft missiles supports this rumor.
186
Alexander, I first heard of this battle from a dissident news source, Sotnik TV. Russians reporting on it showed the footage & audio recording of eyewitness reports that was eventually shared by major global news companies. Russian reports describe "from 200 to potentially as many as 600 dead, with many fighters vaporized, so nothing could be retrieved." The goal of the attacking force was of course to kill the Americans present & to seize the Conoco facility, "returning" it to Assad (who likes to believe he owns everything Syrian as if he were a feudal landowner with absolute power over every living thing & object). Had the Russian attack been successful, Americans would be lamenting their dead while Putin would be trumpeting his "great victory." In the last few days, Putin has tested 4 of those so-called "invincible, unstoppable" new missiles he boasted of at his "re-election." They all failed. Russia's vaunted military is nowhere near as able as the Kremlin would like to pretend it is, and thank God for that. It is only perhaps because of the weakness of that Russian military that the crazy Russian leadership will refrain from starting any catastrophic wars. Because, in any war scenario, as we can all see, Russia will lose.
34
First, Asad is a feudal warlord, duh.
Second, I wonder what this battle cost us, I would bet tens of millions of dollars, in equipment and arms. Gladly no one on our side was killed, but if I got to choose between spending our money on schools in West Virginia and killing Russians for no real gain I’d vote for schools pretty much every day.
The Mideast has been at war for, oh, I don’t know, maybe the last three thousand years? And we are gonna fix that how?
3
Although no reasons have been stated by the administration, it is this incident that caused Trump recently to say that US ground troops will be withdrawn from Syria. However, US ground forces in Deir e Zour province are the main barrier to Iran's land corridor across Iraq to Syria & Lebanon (Hizballah). Perhaps the theory is that Iran can be stopped by air alone. Air alone will not suffice. Perhaps it is the foolish "no boots on the ground" idea of the Obama years. That is still foolish as there is no difference between boots on the ground and boots in the cockpit - they are all in combat. In light of the US withdrawal from the JCPOA, withdrawing US ground forces from Syria would contradict the purpose of stopping Iranian aggression. Of course, Trump's declaration about withdrawing US ground forces from Syria may have been just another impulsive, unknowing misstatement. If Iran is to be stopped in Syria, and it must be stopped, those small, competent and brave ground forces have to stay to complement equally competent and brave air troops.
19
Iran has approx. 1M in her military forces. And, why, again are we in conflict with Iran? Are we aligned with the Saudis and the Israelis who want to keep Iran from becoming a regional power without risking their own men, or political reputations? Are we the proxy fighters on behalf of OPEC and Israel? If yes, why is that?
6
Mr. Obama would have ordered his commanders to retreat. I do not support Mr. Trump however I strongly support the decision to give commanders in the field and the Commander of the Joint Chiefs the ability to make decisions to defend American forces without agonizing for days or even weeks. The American forces in the field saw the gathering of the Russian forces and more than adequately warned them not to advance. They not only advanced upon the small American force but they opened artillery and tank fire intending to slaughter the Americans. The order to "annihilate" the enemy force was 100% correct and the responsibility for the slaughter is with the Russian commanders. Had this same resolve been used by Obama when ISIS began its first assault on Mosul the bloody conflicts throughout the Mid-East for the last several years would have been totally avoided.
Mr. Trump and Mr. Mattis did the right thing.
77
To what decision are you referring, exactly? Decentralized command has been American military doctrine for about as long as we've had a military. This incident unfolded exactly the way it would have under Obama or any other president.
64
Jesse, the Obama administration required that all military actions be reviewed and approved before being carried out. A major response by a commander on the ground would have had to be cleared in the White House under Obama. That was part of the terrible micro-management of Mr. Obama who was loathe to take any risks. Certainly he did not want any boots on the ground as fear of that overwhelmed him. He agonized for days before even ordering the raid to kill Osama Bin Laden. The Pentagon requested 3 heavy armored brigades to roll up ISIS when their first offensive began but Obama adamantly refused to any deployment. He did not understand that allowing the attack to proceed by ISIS gave them confidence that the Americans would stand by and not interfere. The same thing occurred in Crimea and in the ongoing conflict in Georgia. The militarizing of sand islands in the Pacific also began on Obama's watch and he did nothing to deter China hence heavily armed islands and claim by China to all of the South China Sea. Power vacuums once they occur give heart and power to our enemies. This action by this administration has made the Russians think twice. There are no Russian tanks advancing on American positions today. Or tomorrow.
2
Jay, I think you are confusing several levels of command and control within the military. Any new military campaign is approved by the Commander in Chief. Once a *strategic* decision has been made by the Commander in Chief, the tactical and theater wide decisions are, and have been, left to the Combatant Commander and his group specific chain of command. In short, you are wrong. The Obama admin may have labored for some time over whether it was *strategically* correct to reengage in Iraq against ISIS, but the White House would not be involved in a decision on self defense once ground troops have been authorized in said campaign. Since the Russians were involved in this circumstance, this event made it to SecDef, who then decided best COA, but to say that Obama decided every time a rifleman fired his weapon is foolish and an oversimplification.
14
The Russians wanted the Conoco facility intact. The Americans could defend it with air power and artillery but the Russians could use only artillery and infantry. It would appear that Russian doctrine still places no value on saving lives in projecting force. It reflects the weakness in Russian thinking when addressing risks, they tend to think that long odds are not to be considered seriously when they want something badly.
31
Well at the very least Russian jets would have been a pretty obvious giveaway that this was no ordinary mercenary group.
4
The Russian military has historically not really cared about casualties, especially their own.
7
Wars of neo-colonization and appropriation of other people's assets.
1
It seems inevitable that the contest in machismo between Trump and Putin will lead us into another Vietnam-style disaster.
4
I thought the Americans were there to fight ISIS. Bring the troops home now.
51
They can fight back against anyone who attacks them. It's called self-defense.
9
If Syrian troops somehow occupied an oil field in the US, would they be acting in “self-defense” if they called in air strikes against US forces trying to dislodge them?
This is Orwellian Newspeak of the worst sort.
This article relies only on military sources. Hardly a sign of balanced reporting.
The German Spiegel actually spent two weeks in the region talking to people. Their conclusion was that this was an attack by local Arab tribes who don't like to be dominated by Kurds. Most were killed when they tried to retrieve their killed comrades in one the US army's infamous double dip attacks. The few Russians who were killed were stationed in the region and had nothing to do with the attack.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/american-fury-the-truth-about-...
42
Those “Arab tribes” you refer to are well-armed. Armored personnel carriers, T-72 Tanks weighing 50 tons and 125-mm guns, mortars of various kinds. My goodness. You don’t see that amount of firepower often with local tribes.
Now that’s a story!
5
If you want to apply skepticism I would do that to the story in this article: how does it come that despite the devastating attack no US soldier had so much as a scratch? Sounds to me like the classical veteran talk in which each time the story is retold the fight was more ferocious.
It is well known that the Syrian army is divided in rather independent groups that often fight together but have a great degree of independence. One of those groups consists of tribal members in the Deir Ezzor region. It can be expected that they are most concerned with their region. By mass murdering them the US may have made a big mistake alienating the local population.
Note that there has also been a later report about similar militias occupying a few villages in the same region from which they were later expelled again by the Kurds.
Let me get this straight. Our invasion of Iraq caused the creation of ISIS, since we wrongheadedly dismissed their Sunni military. In Syria Sunni Saudi Arabia is supporting fighting Assad with al-Qaeda aligned rebel groups. The US is friends with Saudi Arabia. Israel also supports ISIS by acting as their medics. The US had until recently supported al-Qaeda-aligned rebel groups. Russia and Iran have been invited by Syria to fight ISIS, the US has not been invited.
68
Steve,
Provide a source that indicates that Israel supports ISIS. Otherwise that is a fantastical statement.
4
Billy Baynew:
Israel ‘giving secret aid to Syrian rebels’, report says
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-giving-secre...
Israel Gives Secret Aid to Syrian Rebels
https://www.wsj.com/articles/israel-gives-secret-aid-to-syrian-rebels-14...
How much of the cost of this defense of an oil field is being paid by Conoco rather than by tax-paying civilians? Who authorized our being in Syria? Not Congress.
98
Right you are Jim. Like in many, many instances since the Korean War the US public won't even know we are in a War until too many of our boys to ignore start getting shipped home in full metal jackets.
13
We certainly don't belong there. Of course, members of Congress (systemically corrupt in both parties) are not about to stand up in public and say one way or another whether the US should maintain military involvement in Syria.
14
Y'know, This starts to look like everyone was getting real excited about this. Start up the patriotic songs. And wait for the unintended consequences.
8
A classic strategy: send our military into areas of great conflict, then claim "self-defense" when attacked.
51
The whole situation is just a complete nightmare, stupid of Russia to attack though, perhaps the Kremlin was testing how the USA would respond.
Hopefully the show of force may be enough to deter future direct actions against American troops in the region.
14
Bravo! Our guys are the best!
24
who are our guys?
3
Yes, U.S. troops are excellent. They just don't belong in the Middle East. No true national interest is at stake in the perpetual wars in that region.
8
As mentioned, collect information on American combined weapons techniques. A small amount of hardware and many gullible cannon fodder Syrians are sacrificed with a few malcontents from Russia also lost. A small price to pay for the intelligence-- and cost savings on defense investment for the Russians, leverage the American investment. Russian involvement? Plausible deniability, the official Russian military said they had no control. The backstory would be interesting, what did the Americans learn about the Russian monitor sites loitering in the rear? Of course we are looking for what they are collecting, in mirror after mirror after mirror of the proxy shadow conflict.
19
We do not need to be in another war, and Trump, through his incompetent and idiotic tough guy behavior, is making this a certainty. It is only through the grace of God that no Americans lost their lives. If we truly want to help the Syrian people, then accept their refugees.
8
why are these troops there? who ordered it and who pays for it?
4
Kudos to our military.
37
For what? Killing hundreds of Syrian soldiers trying to reassert control over their country’s oil fields? Who authorized this war?
3
I suspect this battle cost tens of millions of dollars, for what?
NYT - do some real journalism and figure out how much we spent in this fiasco.
Wagner group v Blackwater a/k/a Academi. Who do these outsourced mercenaries work for? We have lost our moral authority when our battles are fought by these groups who answer to no one, except their CEOs.
The NBA recruits in lower schools. Do these groups? Instead of art class for the non-readers, Betsy De Vos could send them to weapons training and pass the results on to her brother. Can't shoot a three? How about a missile launcher? No wonder kids like video games. It's a training ground to be a for profit warrior.
4
Only the American military would attempt to characterize military action on foreign soil against a hostile regime as a “defensive measure”.
35
Reads like a movie script.
4
So Russian Mercenaries are fighting and there to protect the oil fields for Assad's government. Who exactly are we fighting for? The rebels, whoever that is? ISIS? The Saudis? Israel? ... I mean I'm just asking. It be nice to know why our soldiers are there killing people. This is one of those NYTimes military propaganda type articles. You know with all the lingo about the fancy jets, etc. Playing it up. Maybe we not on anyone's side. We'll just hang out there, in Syria, wait till someone attacks us by mistake. Or pick some random target to hit. Yes, your tax dollars at work. Bettering the world we live in.
169
It's true the list of participants is long - US, Israel, Russia, Turkey, France, Iran, Assad forces, Kurdish Forces, ISIS, Hezbollah, and other assorted terrorist groups to name a few.
A recent NY Times story - has a great series of maps which explains why with so many participants (with different goals), peace is elusive. See: "Why is the Syrian Civil War Still Raging On" February 8, 2018.
5
If you wondered if it's all about oil, yes it is. And it's all about oil at a time when U.S. production of energy has made us independent of Middle East oil. So what are we doing? What national interest is served here?
81
You do understand that the US is one of the top oil producers in the world, and we import mostly from Canada, Venezuela and Mexico, while middle eastern oil mostly goes to Europe and Asia?
The oil story would make sense. We're simply there to wage war. ..or that it's too hard NOT to be there when the choice is between using our military toys or sitting on them. Why should everyone else have all the fun?
18
Perhaps mostly to keep daesh from selling oil from this facility?
1
You can't be too rich, too thin, or have too much oil.
9
Skilled and brave US soldiers win every battle, but the country still loses every war (except Grenada, I guess, which is very, very small). Time for a re-think?
6
This is probably "ditto" the situation in the Ukraine. Who knows what the West's response to Putin is going to be. It's not pretty.
2
I thought the US army deployed to defeat ISIS in Syria and Iraq - I guess I misunderstood thier objective
7
What is this ? ... an in depth article about a mistake. We killed a bunch of mercenaries. Are we supposed to be proud of that? They thought they were fighting rebels and maybe ISIS, were they? This is why we should just leave Syria to the Russian and Iranians. They can salvage something and maybe stabilize the country from this mess. We don't need to be there. What are we just killing for sport?
9
Warfare by Proxy: Wagner, the Russian mercenary operation that mirrors Erik Prince's Blackwater, was hung out to dry by Putin.
3
We have no business in Syria. We should pull out and not set up a base as I have read that the Defense Department wants to establish.
The reasoning behind our presence is once again the US is going for regime change. They are hoping to bring Assad down by denying Syria the use of its oil and gas fields which the US is occupying.
Forget Assad = let him have his oil and gas fields. It is not our fight and we should not be trying to make it outs. We lost the war in Syria, or rather our Proxies ( aka the terrorists we supported) lost the war. Lets not go in by the back door. Pull our troops out of the country.
Lets try and bring our troops home instead of building new bases and expanding our presence. It is costing more than it is worth.
28
Why the heck are we even in Syria?
I don't see the end game.
10
This entirely transparent war in Syria shouldn't result in any blowback or soldiers left to be tortured and killed or anything.
Gripping tale. Looks like Syria has become the latest testing ground for advanced electronics warfare research. Hard to imagine that this started as a civil war.
6
There are certainly broad based questions regarding American strategy in Syria. Yet I can’t help but feel pride in seeing Putin’s Forces hammered. Who does he think he’s kidding here? That these guys aren’t Russian soldiers operating at the behest of Moscow? Just as in Crimea, it’s Russian troops, I don’t care if they cover their faces and paint over their tank insignias. THEY ARE RUSSIANS. Any questions? Let them eat bullets.
8
Who authorized US intervention in Syria? What are our objectives and what is the exit strategy? US regime change operations in Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq have been absolute disasters but our presence in Syria adds the danger of a confrontation with Russia-as this article shows.
96
The objectives are to secure as much oil as possible, and keep enormous sums of money flowing to the military, their contractors and suppliers, and the politicians who depend on their handouts.
16
Q: Who authorized? A: War hawks intent on foolhardy goal of reshaping the region to our advantage and/or exploiting natural resources. The net result has be the opposite - to empower radicals and enemies alike and stir up hatred/blowback for our tactics.
Q: What objectives? A: Nothing rational orachievable presented to the American public who are bankrolling our multi-trillion dollar military adventures. Contrast with complete absence of funding or political will to address domestic gun carnage, a far greater threat to general wellbeing.
Q: What exit strategy? A: None. Additionally, no containment strategy, no occupation strategy, no escalation/de-escalation strategy, no rebuild strategy, no strategy for filling political/leadership vacuums, no strategy to prevent disenfranchised/unemployed Sunnis from forming ISIS and other terror groups.
21
1) Trump authorized it.
2) We have no real objectives or exit strategy.
3) U.S. regimes change operations have been great successes. Haven't you heard? Ask George W. Bush (Afghanistan and Iraq) and Barack Obama (Libya).
In conclusion, our "confrontation" with Russia is all for show. Donny has to do something bold to hide his warm friendship with Vlad. The danger is that our soldiers in the field may not like this. But why would Donny care about them? They are ALL just pawns for Donny's and Vlad's great criminal enterprise.
10