Trump ends covert CIA program to arm anti-Assad rebels in Syria, a move sought by Moscow

In a move that reflects his interest in working with Russia, President Trump has decided to end a covert CIA program supporting Syrian rebels fighting President Bashar al-Assad. (The Washington Post)

President Trump has decided to end the CIA’s covert program to arm and train moderate Syrian rebels battling the government of Bashar al-Assad, a move long sought by Russia, according to U.S. officials.

The program was a central plank of a policy begun by the Obama administration in 2013 to put pressure on Assad to step aside, but even its backers have questioned its efficacy since Russia deployed forces in Syria two years later.

Officials said the phasing out of the secret program reflects Trump’s interest in finding ways to work with Russia, which saw the anti-Assad program as an assault on its interests. The shuttering of the program is also an acknowledgment of Washington’s limited leverage and desire to remove Assad from power.

Just three months ago, after the United States accused Assad of using chemical weapons, Trump launched retaliatory airstrikes against a Syrian air base. At the time, U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, said that “in no way do we see peace in that area with Assad at the head of the Syrian government.”


Officials said Trump made the decision to scrap the CIA program nearly a month ago, after an Oval Office meeting with CIA Director Mike Pompeo and national security adviser H.R. McMaster ahead of a July 7 meeting in Germany with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Spokesmen for the National Security Council and the CIA declined to comment.

After the Trump-Putin meeting, the United States and Russia announced an agreement to back a new cease-fire in southwest Syria, along the Jordanian border, where many of the CIA-backed rebels have long operated. Trump described the limited cease-fire deal as one of the benefits of a constructive working relationship with Moscow.

The move to end the secret program to arm the anti-Assad rebels was not a condition of the cease-fire negotiations, which were already well underway, said U.S. officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the secret program.

Trump’s dealings with Russia have been under heavy scrutiny because of the investigations into the Kremlin’s interference in the 2016 election. The decision on the CIA-backed rebels will be welcomed by Moscow, which focused its firepower on those fighters after it intervened in Syria in 2015.

Some current and former officials who support the program cast the move as a major concession.

“This is a momentous decision,” said a current official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a covert program. “Putin won in Syria.”

With the end of the CIA program, U.S. involvement in Syria now consists of a vigorous air campaign against the Islamic State and a Pentagon-run train-and-equip program in support of the largely Kurdish rebel force that is advancing on Islamic State strongholds in Raqqa and along the Euphrates River valley. The Trump administration’s long-term strategy, following the defeat of the Islamic State, appears to be focused on stitching together a series of regional cease-fire deals among the U.S.-backed rebels, the Syrian government and Russia.



Syrian President Bashar Assad speaks to the Associated Press at the presidential palace in Damascus in 2016. The Trump administration is ending a CIA program to arm anti-Assad rebels. (Syrian presidency via AP, File) (AP/AP)
Some analysts said the decision to end the program was likely to empower more radical groups inside Syria and damage the credibility of the United States.

“We are falling into a Russian trap,” said Charles Lister, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, who focuses on the Syrian resistance. “We are making the moderate resistance more and more vulnerable. . . . We are really cutting them off at the neck.”

Others said it was recognition of Assad’s entrenched position in Syria.

“It’s probably a nod to reality,” said Ilan Goldenberg, a former Obama administration official and director of the Middle East Security Program at the Center for a New American Security.

U.S. intelligence officials say battlefield gains by rebels in 2015 prompted Russia’s direct military intervention on the side of the Assad regime. Some U.S. officials and their allies in the region urged President Barack Obama to respond by providing the rebels with advanced antiaircraft weapons so they could better defend themselves. But Obama balked, citing concerns about the United States getting pulled into a conflict with Russia.


Senior U.S. officials said that the covert program would be phased out over a period of months. It is also possible that some of the support could be redirected to other missions, such as fighting the Islamic State or making sure that the rebels can still defend themselves from attacks.

“This is a force that we can’t afford to completely abandon,” Goldenberg said. “If they are ending the aid to the rebels altogether, then that is a huge strategic mistake.”

U.S. officials said the decision had the backing of Jordan, where some of the rebels were trained, and appeared to be part of a larger Trump administration strategy to focus on negotiating limited cease-fire deals with the Russians.

Earlier this month, five days into the first cease-fire in southwest Syria, Trump indicated that another agreement was under discussion with Moscow. “We are working on the second cease-fire in a very rough part of Syria,” Trump said. “If we get that and a few more, all of a sudden we are going to have no bullets being fired in Syria.”

One big potential risk of shutting down the CIA program is that the United States may lose its ability to block other countries, such as Turkey and Persian Gulf allies, from funneling more sophisticated weapons — including man-portable air-defense systems, or MANPADS — to anti-Assad rebels, including more radical groups.

Toward the end of the Obama administration, some officials advocated ending the CIA program, arguing that the rebels would be ineffective without a major escalation in U.S. support. But the program still had the support of a majority of top Obama advisers, who argued that the United States couldn’t abandon its allies on the ground and give up on the moderate opposition because of the damage that it would do to U.S. standing in the region.


Even those who were skeptical about the program’s long-term value, viewed it as a key bargaining chip that could be used to wring concessions from Moscow in negotiations over Syria’s future.

“People began thinking about ending the program, but it was not something you’d do for free,” said a former White House official. “To give [the program] away without getting anything in return would be foolish.”

SOURCE:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...821a62-6beb-11e7-96ab-5f38140b38cc_story.html

_________________________________________________________


Let's here it from our stupid republicans first:



Yes, pretty much sounds like what you would hear from total traitors but what else could you expect out of these brainless "party-over-everything-including-ma-wife-who-used-to-be-ma-cousin-before-I-raped-ma-way-through-marriage" type of retards?

Bigly pathetic...

 

Not getting involved in Syria is a good thing. Quit crying.

 

After witnessing the CIA successes in Libya & Iraq it seems like a good move.

And Egypt, reprieved with by a military man brought in to secure Egypt from the
democratic Morsi error created by the over throw of Mubarak.

Remember when "nation building" was a bad thing?

Moi

r > g

Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic,
regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us. ​

 

Yeah go ahead and keep those blinkers on dude. Those make you feel safer on the road as you got little chance to be aware of what's on the sides... Lol...

 

Yea, it's not like the war is Syria is causing millions of refugees to flood into Europe and the US or anything.

 

A good decision. Anyone informed knows that all those arm deliveries eventually ended in ISIS or Al-Nusra hands.By the way, the USA has picked a moderate side.They are arming the Kurds now.No wonder the Turks are squealing!

 

It really astounds me how quickly the antiwar become rabidly prowar.

Assad is a detestable guy, but he is NOT imperialistic. He doesn't seek conquest of neighbouring nations. Therefore, he should be left alone.

I couldn't give a flying f*** what Russia wants, I've been saying this since day one. Russia is not innocent in this either.

 

At least Russia is invited by the legitimate government of the country. The US is not. It invades Syria in yet another display of military aggression.

 

Not Kurds, PKK which they officially recognize as a terrorist organization... Just like ISIS. Kurds are our citizens, we love them and they show their appreciation by celebrating with Turkish flags in their hands how Turkish army fooled the stupid CIA retired officers on July 15th of last year.

 

Lol.. So you suppose that's the reason the "illegal coalition" invaded the lands of Syrians?

 

What do you mean?

 

Nothing to be proud of to win in a butcher contest

 

No such thing, ruthless dictators can claim authority (not legitmacy) if at least they control the land, he doesnt even has that.

 

Pissing... We call it a "pissing contest"... Like who's gonna pee farther... Apparently I did... lol...

By the way, I'm not surprised by you calling it "butcher contest" tho... Explains well the way you look at things in the Middle East...

Butcher'em all boy... hahah...

 

Bombing civilian areas till nothing is left is a butcher job, I guess you might as well pee on them.

 

Checkmate.

 

He is slowly regaining control of the land, after his Russian ally came in with military assistance.

The reason he lost so much of the land is because Israel and the US committed military aggression, however covertly, against his legitimate government.

Russia fights for the rule of law and sovereign government, the US works against those principles by practicing unrestrained, if covert, military aggression.

 

No, he lost land to the FSA that defected from his own army, before you tell me those soldiers were paid by US/Isr/KSA - think about it, what it tells about a regime whose soldiers can be paid off to fight the regime and if that's what you meant by "legitimacy".

 

No, by legitimacy, I mean that by some form of the democratic process, the people of Syria voted in favor of Assad. Just as by a similar process, the people of Crimea voted to be in the Russian Federation.

 

I dont recognize such elections in middle of crises after Millions have already fled the state and hunderds of thousands are dead, that is if elections in dictatorships can be trusted at all,
I do accept - without elections - the truth that Assad does protect Damascus and its close area, but not that he is legitimate, I think a solution would involve replacing him after the mess is sorted because the Millions are supposed to return at some point, till I read a better solution....

 

Thank you for a thoughtful post. I've never been to Syria or the Middle East.

Why do you think he is not legitimate?

 

Democrats should be happy about this since they have over and over complained about giving certain groups weapons. I haven't read these posts yet, but I will be very disappointed if Lefties use this to attack Trump since they hate him and Russia so much.

 

There is no difference between Dems and Republicans, ESPECIALLY on this matter of the GWOT. They are all invested in the military industrial complex, and equally bribed by the lobbyists for that group.

 

Because he even failed as a dictator....what else does he got left with? just protect Damascus at the moments and when that's done with better think of retirement.