Remember that battle with the Russian "Mercenaries" in Syria?

[Gil Bang 25822]

Holy shit

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/world/middleeast/american-commandos-russian-mercenaries-syria.html

 

By Thomas Gibbons-Neff

• May 24, 2018
• WASHINGTON — The artillery barrage was so intense that the American commandos dived into foxholes for protection, emerging covered in flying dirt and debris to fire back at a column of tanks advancing under the heavy shelling. It was the opening salvo in a nearly four-hour assault in February by around 500 pro-Syrian government forces — including Russian mercenaries — that threatened to inflame already-simmering tensions between Washington and Moscow.

In the end, 200 to 300 of the attacking fighters were killed. The others retreated under merciless airstrikes from the United States, returning later to retrieve their battlefield dead. None of the Americans at the small outpost in eastern Syria — about 40 by the end of the firefight — were harmed.

The details of the Feb. 7 firefight were gleaned from interviews and documents newly obtained by The New York Times. They provide the Pentagon’s first public on-the-ground accounting of one of the single bloodiest battles the American military has faced in Syria since deploying to fight the Islamic State.

The firefight was described by the Pentagon as an act of self-defense against a unit of pro-Syrian government forces. In interviews, United States military officials said they had watched — with dread — hundreds of approaching rival troops, vehicles and artillery pieces in the week leading up to the attack.

The prospect of Russian military forces and American troops colliding has long been feared as the Cold War adversaries take opposing sides in Syria’s seven-year civil war.

At worst, officials and experts have said, it could plunge both countries into bloody conflict. And at a minimum, squaring off in crowded battlefields has added to heightened tensions between Russia and the United States as they each seek to exert influence in the Middle East.

 

Commanders of the rival militaries had long steered clear of the other by speaking through often-used deconfliction telephone lines. In the days leading up to the attack, and on opposite sides of the Euphrates River, Russia and the United States were backing separate offensives against the Islamic State in Syria’s oil-rich Deir al-Zour Province, which borders Iraq.

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.

 

Image

Syrian fighters who support the government of President Bashar al-Assad at a hospital in the eastern city of Deir-al Zour in February. The fighters were reportedly wounded in a United States airstrike near the city.CreditAgence France-Presse — Getty Images

The documents described the fighters as a “pro-regime force,” loyal to President Bashar al-Assad of Syria. It included some Syrian government soldiers and militias, but American military and intelligence officials have said a majority were private Russian paramilitary mercenaries — and most likely a part of the Wagner Group, a company often used by the Kremlin to carry out objectives that officials do not want to be connected to the Russian government.

ADVERTISEMENT

“The Russian high command in Syria assured us it was not their people,” Defense Secretary Jim Mattis told senators in testimony last month. He said he directed Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “for the force, then, to be annihilated.”

“And it was.”

Amassing forces

The day began with little hint of the battle that was about to unfold.

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.

Roughly 20 miles away, at a base known as a mission support site, a team of Green Berets and a platoon of infantry Marines stared at their computer screens, watching drone feeds and passing information to the Americans at the gas plant about the gathering fighters.

At 3 p.m. the Syrian force began edging toward the Conoco plant. By early evening, more than 500 troops and 27 vehicles — including tanks and armored personnel carriers — had amassed.

In the American air operations center at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, and at the Pentagon, confounded military officers and intelligence analysts watched the scene unfold. Commanders briefed pilots and ground crews. Aircraft across the region were placed on alert, military officials said.

Back at the mission support site, the Green Berets and Marines were preparing a small reaction force — roughly 16 troops in four mine-resistant vehicles — in case they were needed at the Conoco plant. They inspected their weapons and ensured the trucks were loaded with anti-tank missiles, thermal optics and food and water.

At 8:30 p.m., three Russian-made T-72 tanks — vehicles weighing nearly 50 tons and armed with 125-millimeter guns — moved within a mile of the Conoco plant. Bracing for an attack, the Green Berets prepared to launch the reaction force.

Image

Russian trucks heading to Deir al-Zour, an oil-rich Syrian province that borders Iraq, last year.CreditOmar Sanadiki/Reuters

At the outpost, American soldiers watched a column of tanks and other armored vehicles turn and drive toward them around 10 p.m., emerging from a neighborhood of houses where they had tried to gather undetected.

A half-hour later, the Russian mercenaries and Syrian forces struck.

The Conoco outpost was hit with a mixture of tank fire, large artillery and mortar rounds, the documents show. The air was filled with dust and shrapnel. 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.

For the first 15 minutes, American military officials called their Russian counterparts and urged them to stop the attack. When that failed, American troops fired warning shots at a group of vehicles and a howitzer.

Still the troops advanced.

From the horizon, a barrage of artillery

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. For the next three hours, American officials said, scores of strikes pummeled enemy troops, tanks and other vehicles. Marine rocket artillery was fired from the ground.

The reaction team sped toward the fight. It was dark, according to the documents, and the roads were littered with felled power lines and shell craters. The 20-mile drive was made all the more difficult since the trucks did not turn on their headlights, relying solely on thermal-imaging cameras to navigate.

As the Green Berets and Marines neared the Conoco plant around 11:30 p.m., they were forced to stop. The barrage of artillery was too dangerous to drive through until airstrikes silenced the enemy’s howitzers and tanks.

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.

At 1 a.m., with the artillery fire dwindling, the team of Marines and Green Berets pulled up to the Conoco outpost and began firing. By then, some of the American warplanes had returned to base, low on either fuel or ammunition.

The United States troops on the ground, now roughly 40 in all, braced their defenses as the mercenaries left their vehicles and headed toward the outpost on foot.

A handful of Marines ran ammunition to machine guns and Javelin missile launchers scattered along the berms and wedged among the trucks. Some of the Green Berets and Marines took aim from exposed hatches. Others remained in their trucks, using a combination of thermal screens and joysticks to control and fire the heavy machine guns affixed on their roofs.

A few of the commandos, including Air Force combat controllers, worked the radios to direct the next fleet of bombers flying toward the battlefield. At least one Marine exposed himself to incoming fire as he used a missile guidance computer to find targets’ locations and pass them on to the commandos calling in the airstrikes.

An hour later, the enemy fighters had started to retreat and the American troops stopped firing. From their outpost, the commandos watched the mercenaries and Syrian fighters return to collect their dead. The small team of American troops was not harmed. One allied Syrian fighter was wounded.

Who led the ill-fated attack?

The number of casualties from the Feb. 7 fight is in dispute.

Initially, Russian officials said only four Russian citizens — but perhaps dozens more — were killed; a Syrian officer said around 100 Syrian soldiers had died. The documents obtained by The Times estimated 200 to 300 of the “pro-regime force” were killed.

The outcome of the battle, and much of its mechanics, suggest that the Russian mercenaries and their Syrian allies were in the wrong part of the world to try a simple, massed assault on an American military position. Since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the United States Central Command has refined the amount of equipment, logistics, coordination and tactics required to mix weapons fired from both the air and ground.

Questions remain about exactly who the Russian mercenaries were, and why they attacked.

American intelligence officials say that the Wagner Group, known by the nickname of the retired Russian officer who leads it, is in Syria to seize oil and gas fields and protect them on behalf of the Assad government. The mercenaries earn of a share of the production proceeds from the oil fields they reclaim, officials said.

The mercenaries loosely coordinate 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.

Russian government forces in Syria maintain they were not involved in the battle. But in recent weeks, according to United States military officials, they have jammed the communications of smaller American drones and gunships such as the type used in the attack.

“Right now in Syria, we’re in the most aggressive E.W. environment on the planet from our adversaries,” Gen. Tony Thomas, the head of United States Special Operations Command, said recently, referring to electronic warfare. “They’re testing us every day.”

 

Reporting was contributed by Eric Schmitt from Washington; Ivan Nechepurenko from St. Petersburg, Russia; and C.J. Chivers. Kitty Bennett contributed research.

Edited May 25, 2018 by Gil Bang
none

[SDG 3319]

God damn is that hard to find the cesspool of the political board?  You’re not new here..

[Michael Knight 12835]

How is that political

[Gil Bang 25822]

11 minutes ago, SDG said:

God damn is that hard to find the cesspool of the political board?  You’re not new here..

how about you go fuck your mother?

[F250 28597]

14 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

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. For the next three hours, American officials said, scores of strikes pummeled enemy troops, tanks and other vehicles. Marine rocket artillery was fired from the ground. 

I could hear "Ride of the Valkyries" when I read this part.

 

24 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

The outcome of the battle, and much of its mechanics, suggest that the Russian mercenaries and their Syrian allies were in the wrong part of the world to try a simple, massed assault on an American military position.

America, fuck yeah! When you mess with the bull, you get the horns.

[F250 28597]

21 minutes ago, SDG said:

God damn is that hard to find the cesspool of the political board?  You’re not new here..

Your face is political.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

29 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

Holy shit

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/world/middleeast/american-commandos-russian-mercenaries-syria.html

 

By Thomas Gibbons-Neff

• May 24, 2018
• WASHINGTON — The artillery barrage was so intense that the American commandos dived into foxholes for protection, emerging covered in flying dirt and debris to fire back at a column of tanks advancing under the heavy shelling. It was the opening salvo in a nearly four-hour assault in February by around 500 pro-Syrian government forces — including Russian mercenaries — that threatened to inflame already-simmering tensions between Washington and Moscow.

In the end, 200 to 300 of the attacking fighters were killed. The others retreated under merciless airstrikes from the United States, returning later to retrieve their battlefield dead. None of the Americans at the small outpost in eastern Syria — about 40 by the end of the firefight — were harmed.

The details of the Feb. 7 firefight were gleaned from interviews and documents newly obtained by The New York Times. They provide the Pentagon’s first public on-the-ground accounting of one of the single bloodiest battles the American military has faced in Syria since deploying to fight the Islamic State.

The firefight was described by the Pentagon as an act of self-defense against a unit of pro-Syrian government forces. In interviews, United States military officials said they had watched — with dread — hundreds of approaching rival troops, vehicles and artillery pieces in the week leading up to the attack.

The prospect of Russian military forces and American troops colliding has long been feared as the Cold War adversaries take opposing sides in Syria’s seven-year civil war.

At worst, officials and experts have said, it could plunge both countries into bloody conflict. And at a minimum, squaring off in crowded battlefields has added to heightened tensions between Russia and the United States as they each seek to exert influence in the Middle East.

 

Commanders of the rival militaries had long steered clear of the other by speaking through often-used deconfliction telephone lines. In the days leading up to the attack, and on opposite sides of the Euphrates River, Russia and the United States were backing separate offensives against the Islamic State in Syria’s oil-rich Deir al-Zour Province, which borders Iraq.

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.

 

Image

Syrian fighters who support the government of President Bashar al-Assad at a hospital in the eastern city of Deir-al Zour in February. The fighters were reportedly wounded in a United States airstrike near the city.CreditAgence France-Presse — Getty Images

The documents described the fighters as a “pro-regime force,” loyal to President Bashar al-Assad of Syria. It included some Syrian government soldiers and militias, but American military and intelligence officials have said a majority were private Russian paramilitary mercenaries — and most likely a part of the Wagner Group, a company often used by the Kremlin to carry out objectives that officials do not want to be connected to the Russian government.

ADVERTISEMENT

“The Russian high command in Syria assured us it was not their people,” Defense Secretary Jim Mattis told senators in testimony last month. He said he directed Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “for the force, then, to be annihilated.”

“And it was.”

Amassing forces

The day began with little hint of the battle that was about to unfold.

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.

Roughly 20 miles away, at a base known as a mission support site, a team of Green Berets and a platoon of infantry Marines stared at their computer screens, watching drone feeds and passing information to the Americans at the gas plant about the gathering fighters.

At 3 p.m. the Syrian force began edging toward the Conoco plant. By early evening, more than 500 troops and 27 vehicles — including tanks and armored personnel carriers — had amassed.

In the American air operations center at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, and at the Pentagon, confounded military officers and intelligence analysts watched the scene unfold. Commanders briefed pilots and ground crews. Aircraft across the region were placed on alert, military officials said.

Back at the mission support site, the Green Berets and Marines were preparing a small reaction force — roughly 16 troops in four mine-resistant vehicles — in case they were needed at the Conoco plant. They inspected their weapons and ensured the trucks were loaded with anti-tank missiles, thermal optics and food and water.

At 8:30 p.m., three Russian-made T-72 tanks — vehicles weighing nearly 50 tons and armed with 125-millimeter guns — moved within a mile of the Conoco plant. Bracing for an attack, the Green Berets prepared to launch the reaction force.

Image

Russian trucks heading to Deir al-Zour, an oil-rich Syrian province that borders Iraq, last year.CreditOmar Sanadiki/Reuters

At the outpost, American soldiers watched a column of tanks and other armored vehicles turn and drive toward them around 10 p.m., emerging from a neighborhood of houses where they had tried to gather undetected.

A half-hour later, the Russian mercenaries and Syrian forces struck.

The Conoco outpost was hit with a mixture of tank fire, large artillery and mortar rounds, the documents show. The air was filled with dust and shrapnel. 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.

For the first 15 minutes, American military officials called their Russian counterparts and urged them to stop the attack. When that failed, American troops fired warning shots at a group of vehicles and a howitzer.

Still the troops advanced.

From the horizon, a barrage of artillery

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. For the next three hours, American officials said, scores of strikes pummeled enemy troops, tanks and other vehicles. Marine rocket artillery was fired from the ground.

The reaction team sped toward the fight. It was dark, according to the documents, and the roads were littered with felled power lines and shell craters. The 20-mile drive was made all the more difficult since the trucks did not turn on their headlights, relying solely on thermal-imaging cameras to navigate.

As the Green Berets and Marines neared the Conoco plant around 11:30 p.m., they were forced to stop. The barrage of artillery was too dangerous to drive through until airstrikes silenced the enemy’s howitzers and tanks.

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.

At 1 a.m., with the artillery fire dwindling, the team of Marines and Green Berets pulled up to the Conoco outpost and began firing. By then, some of the American warplanes had returned to base, low on either fuel or ammunition.

The United States troops on the ground, now roughly 40 in all, braced their defenses as the mercenaries left their vehicles and headed toward the outpost on foot.

A handful of Marines ran ammunition to machine guns and Javelin missile launchers scattered along the berms and wedged among the trucks. Some of the Green Berets and Marines took aim from exposed hatches. Others remained in their trucks, using a combination of thermal screens and joysticks to control and fire the heavy machine guns affixed on their roofs.

A few of the commandos, including Air Force combat controllers, worked the radios to direct the next fleet of bombers flying toward the battlefield. At least one Marine exposed himself to incoming fire as he used a missile guidance computer to find targets’ locations and pass them on to the commandos calling in the airstrikes.

An hour later, the enemy fighters had started to retreat and the American troops stopped firing. From their outpost, the commandos watched the mercenaries and Syrian fighters return to collect their dead. The small team of American troops was not harmed. One allied Syrian fighter was wounded.

Who led the ill-fated attack?

The number of casualties from the Feb. 7 fight is in dispute.

Initially, Russian officials said only four Russian citizens — but perhaps dozens more — were killed; a Syrian officer said around 100 Syrian soldiers had died. The documents obtained by The Times estimated 200 to 300 of the “pro-regime force” were killed.

The outcome of the battle, and much of its mechanics, suggest that the Russian mercenaries and their Syrian allies were in the wrong part of the world to try a simple, massed assault on an American military position. Since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the United States Central Command has refined the amount of equipment, logistics, coordination and tactics required to mix weapons fired from both the air and ground.

Questions remain about exactly who the Russian mercenaries were, and why they attacked.

American intelligence officials say that the Wagner Group, known by the nickname of the retired Russian officer who leads it, is in Syria to seize oil and gas fields and protect them on behalf of the Assad government. The mercenaries earn of a share of the production proceeds from the oil fields they reclaim, officials said.

The mercenaries loosely coordinate 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.

Russian government forces in Syria maintain they were not involved in the battle. But in recent weeks, according to United States military officials, they have jammed the communications of smaller American drones and gunships such as the type used in the attack.

“Right now in Syria, we’re in the most aggressive E.W. environment on the planet from our adversaries,” Gen. Tony Thomas, the head of United States Special Operations Command, said recently, referring to electronic warfare. “They’re testing us every day.”

 

Reporting was contributed by Eric Schmitt from Washington; Ivan Nechepurenko from St. Petersburg, Russia; and C.J. Chivers. Kitty Bennett contributed research.

Finally something I can fap to.

[SDG 3319]

14 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

how about you go fuck your mother?

I mean she’s 82 so hope u have lube and can send her out with a bang.  

[SDG 3319]

7 minutes ago, F250 said:

Your face is political.

Hey dumb ass, Hugo is posting here, so think about that and get back to me...   

Edited May 26, 2018 by SDG

[Judge Roybeanbag 11768]

Hey shitheap, Gil has some family invested.  So fuck off.  This is a war story, not a knock on your precious dotard.  Shit.  

[Dahobbs 17314]

Is 0 to 300 bad? It sounds bad. 

Edited May 26, 2018 by Dahobbs

[Art Vandelay 1705]

Is 0 to 300 bad? It sounds bad. 

It's a little like 77-0 bad, 'cept worse.

 

 

 

[SDG 3319]

19 minutes ago, SDG said:

Hey dumb ass, Hugo is posting here, so think about that and get back to me...   

@Dahobbs you proved my point..  

[LongestHorn 759]

It is my understanding this was the result of Wagner having the incentive of collecting a cut of that oil but the bad intel.  They did not bargain for the American military combat experience.  IMO they did not think we were still there.  We watched Russian vehicles cross the Euphrates on pontoon bridges back in September.  I'm not sure, but I believe Russians were simply going for broke.

 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

1 hour ago, Gil Bang said:

In the end, 200 to 300 of the attacking fighters were killed. The others retreated under merciless airstrikes from the United States, returning later to retrieve their battlefield dead. None of the Americans at the small outpost in eastern Syria — about 40 by the end of the firefight — were harmed. 

[Dahobbs 17314]

47 minutes ago, SDG said:

@Dahobbs you proved my point..  

Ok? It is an interesting article about a battle. Your posts were stupid. 

Back on topic, I wonder how much damage was actually done by any of the troops weapons. I would have to think the air support took out almost all of the vehicles, but I would be really curious if the javelins actually scored some kills. 

[bolverk 29186]

8 minutes ago, LongestHorn said:

It is my understanding this was the result of Wagner having the incentive of collecting a cut of that oil but the bad intel.  They did not bargain for the American military combat experience.  IMO they did not think we were still there.  We watched Russian vehicles cross the Euphrates on pontoon bridges back in September.  I'm not sure, but I believe Russians were simply going for broke.

 

I dunno, man. It seems intentional:

The firefight was described by the Pentagon as an act of self-defense against a unit of pro-Syrian government forces. In interviews, United States military officials said they had watched — with dread — hundreds  of approaching rival troops, vehicles and artillery pieces in the week leading up to the attack.

[Aqua Buddha 14450]

Why do we have ground forces in Syria?  Whose side are we on?  What outcome are we hoping for?  What is our endgame?

Edited May 26, 2018 by Aqua Buddha

[Parliament 14062]

We've been at war, a non-symmetrical war no less, for 17 years, and we've poured billions of dollars into our military since then.  Suffice it to say, we're pretty good at it.

It helps that the people we send there have balls that drag on the ground.  

[Aqua Buddha 14450]

1 hour ago, SDG said:

God damn is that hard to find the cesspool of the political board?  You’re not new here..

If you're too fragile to discuss global politics, you don't have to click on this thread.  We're all adults here.  We should be able to discuss international affairs.  

[Aqua Buddha 14450]

1 minute ago, Parliament said:

We've been at war, a non-symmetrical war no less, for 17 years, and we've poured billions of dollars into our military since then.  Suffice it to say, we're pretty good at it.

It helps that the people we send there have balls that drag on the ground.  

It always ends badly for us, though.  It's only a matter of time.

[bolverk 29186]

I can't recall the response to the question, but when this incident initially happened I asked if this was the first time that Russian and American forces had ever gotten into a fire fight. Did we ever actually fight a direct battle against Russians during the Cold War?

Yeah, I recognize they were just "mercenaries", but the question still stands.

[TwiceHorn 30969]

 

[Pato del Muerto 52184]

So...we put a boot up their ass, it’s the American way. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

38 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Why do we have ground forces in Syria?  Whose side are we on?  What outcome are we hoping for?  What is our endgame?

Containment.

We want to suppress ISIS forces in Syria while also subverting the Russian and Iranian influence it the region.  We also what to defend the strategic positions we hold with the Kurds.

Yeah it seems dumb but the entire Middle East is a geopolitical quagmire and if we don’t take a bite our enemies will grow stronger and lead to bigger more catastrophic confrontations down the road.

This is a very complicated case, Maude. You know, a lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what-have-you's. And, uh, lotta strands to keep in my head, man. Lotta strands in old Duder's head. Luckily I'm adhering to a pretty strict, uh, drug regimen to keep my mind, you know, limber.

[Eastwood 4394]

It is my understanding this was the result of Wagner having the incentive of collecting a cut of that oil but the bad intel.  They did not bargain for the American military combat experience.  IMO they did not think we were still there.  We watched Russian vehicles cross the Euphrates on pontoon bridges back in September.  I'm not sure, but I believe Russians were simply going for broke.
 

I suspect Wagner knew who was there, did the numbers game in their head, then decided they could go get some high level JSOC skins on their wall. After all, the US has had issues in the past supporting their JSOC units with air support on short notice in the region. Well, one, we've been there long enough to get that shit ironed out. Thanks for providing the scenario to prove it. Two, the Russians telegraphed absolutely everything. Gave out the damn playbook, practically. Even still, I'm surprised they got smoked that bad.

[Aqua Buddha 14450]

7 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Containment.

We want to suppress ISIS forces in Syria while also subverting the Russian and Iranian influence it the region.  We also what to defend the strategic positions we hold with the Kurds.

Yeah it seems dumb but the entire Middle East is a geopolitical quagmire and if we don’t take a bite our enemies will grow stronger and lead to bigger more catastrophic confrontations down the road.

This is a very complicated case, Maude. You know, a lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what-have-you's. And, uh, lotta strands to keep in my head, man. Lotta strands in old Duder's head. Luckily I'm adhering to a pretty strict, uh, drug regimen to keep my mind, you know, limber.

Yeah, I get all that but in your example, we're on both sides.  We're fighting ISIS who is fighting Assad but we're also fighting Assad.

This story will end like it always ends.  There will be some event that results in mass American casualties and most of America will be surprised that we're there to being with.  At that point, there will be outrage and we'll pull out.

That being said, every move in the ME is the wrong move.  Obama was wrong to abandon Syria.  Trump is wrong to be involved in Sryria.  Every move is wrong.

What's the downside for letting the Russians have it again?

[bolverk 29186]

1 minute ago, Aqua Buddha said:

every move in the ME is the wrong move.

Nothing truer has ever been spoken. It's been that way since the Crusades.

[Homercles 10205]

That’s why I usually played as GDI in CnC Generals.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

8 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

What's the downside for letting the Russians have it again?

Do we really want an economically strong Russia?  Seems like they’re politically owning us right now with an economy the size of Italy.

Just imagine what they could do if they became an economic and conventional military powerhouse again.

Keeping them weak seems like a good long term objective.

Edited May 26, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[F250 28597]

10 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Do we really want an economically strong Russia?  Seems like they’re politically owning us right now with an economy the size of Italy.

Just imagine what they could do if they became an economic and conventional military powerhouse again.

Keeping them weak seems like a good long term objective.

The Russians don't have the dinero for a long engagement in the Middle East.

[Aqua Buddha 14450]

12 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Do we really want an economically strong Russia?  Seems like they’re politically owning us right now with an economy the size of Italy.

Just imagine what they could do if they became an economic and conventional military powerhouse again.

Keeping them weak seems like a good long term objective.

They'll never be an economic power, though.  They never were.  

Only three countries view themselves as having a predestined place on the world stage.  That is the US, China, and Russia.  Economically, one of those is not like the other two.  Russia simply can't afford to be a world player, not matter what they think.  That's one reason Saudi Arabia has always been our friend.  They can manipulate the price of oil to fuck with the Russians.  The world oil market is different now and more diverse so their influence waned but I digress.

Letting the Russians try to run the ME would end in a spectacular failure for them.

[Aqua Buddha 14450]

4 minutes ago, F250 said:

The Russians don't have the dinero for a long engagement in the Middle East.

Yeah, what he said.

[bolverk 29186]

5 minutes ago, F250 said:

The Russians don't have the dinero for a long engagement in the Middle East.

And they're vulnerable to Chechen retaliation, who comprised a significant percentage of ISIS fighters from what I read. If push came to shove, I wouldn't count out Erdogan's support for them.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

5 minutes ago, F250 said:

The Russians don't have the dinero for a long engagement in the Middle East.

The Russians want a land bridge from Iran to the Mediterranean Sea to move their oil and other goods (weapons). That’s how they get the jobs, then they get the khakis..

 

 

We are currently fucking that up.

[atomheartbevo 89286]

44 minutes ago, Eastwood said:

1 hour ago, LongestHorn said:

It is my understanding this was the result of Wagner having the incentive of collecting a cut of that oil but the bad intel.  They did not bargain for the American military combat experience.  IMO they did not think we were still there.  We watched Russian vehicles cross the Euphrates on pontoon bridges back in September.  I'm not sure, but I believe Russians were simply going for broke.
 

Even still, I'm surprised they got smoked that bad.

I’m not surprised. This is one of those scenarios where they call “Broken Arrow” (or whatever the term is these days when an American unit is about to be overrun) which means that every available air asset drops what they are doing and is put under command of whoever is handling targets in that area. 

And given that they knew Russians were involved, it probably took on even more added significance. 

[Aqua Buddha 14450]

6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The Russians want a land bridge from Iran to the Mediterranean Sea to move their oil and other goods (weapons). That’s how they get the jobs, then they get the khakis..

 

 

 

Good luck with that. 

[Armybrat 40622]

1 hour ago, bolverk said:

I can't recall the response to the question, but when this incident initially happened I asked if this was the first time that Russian and American forces had ever gotten into a fire fight. Did we ever actually fight a direct battle against Russians during the Cold War?

Yeah, I recognize they were just "mercenaries", but the question still stands.

The USAF fought Soviet pilots head to head in the Korean War. Of course the Rooskies were "volunteers" flying "North Korean" MIGs.

[bolverk 29186]

Just now, Armybrat said:

The USAF fought Soviet pilots head to head in the Korean War. Of course the Rooskies were "volunteers" flying "North Korean" MIGs.

That's right. I vaguely recalled it was you who had responded, but I didn't want to misattribute or misconstrue something you might have said. Thanks, Brat.

Does this mean it was the first engagement between American and Russian ground forces then? Just looking for some historical perspective to understand whether this was a "first".

[Armybrat 40622]

As a part of the 1918-1925 Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War, the US sent 11,000 troops to Eastern Siberia to fight the Red Rooskies. Several hundred dead GIs resulted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War

[atomheartbevo 89286]

15 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

As a part of the 1918-1925 Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War, the US sent 11,000 troops to Eastern Siberia to fight the Red Rooskies. Several hundred dead GIs resulted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War

Thank you for your service.  You guys probably didn’t get much of a parade when you came back home since the WWI vets probably overshadowed you. 

[Parliament 14062]

9 hours ago, bolverk said:

I can't recall the response to the question, but when this incident initially happened I asked if this was the first time that Russian and American forces had ever gotten into a fire fight. Did we ever actually fight a direct battle against Russians during the Cold War?

Yeah, I recognize they were just "mercenaries", but the question still stands.

Somehow, we found ourselves entwined in the Russian Revolution after WW1.  Not sure why.

[El Diablo 4232]

9 hours ago, Eastwood said:

10 hours ago, LongestHorn said:

It is my understanding this was the result of Wagner having the incentive of collecting a cut of that oil but the bad intel.  They did not bargain for the American military combat experience.  IMO they did not think we were still there.  We watched Russian vehicles cross the Euphrates on pontoon bridges back in September.  I'm not sure, but I believe Russians were simply going for broke.
 

I suspect Wagner knew who was there, did the numbers game in their head, then decided they could go get some high level JSOC skins on their wall. After all, the US has had issues in the past supporting their JSOC units with air support on short notice in the region. Well, one, we've been there long enough to get that shit ironed out. Thanks for providing the scenario to prove it. Two, the Russians telegraphed absolutely everything. Gave out the damn playbook, practically. Even still, I'm surprised they got smoked that bad.

Wagner overestimated his power and painted himself into a corner. 

Wagner Power Painter, on sale at Lowe's this Memorial Day weekend.

[Helobious 9456]

I'm about as big of an anti-war liberal snowflake as they come. But goddamn. 

[Smax 3799]

next time make the text smaller

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

I just hope we left some Russians alive to tell the tale of what they saw that day on the battlefield.

Edited May 26, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[F250 28597]

27 minutes ago, Helobious said:

I'm about as big of an anti-war liberal snowflake as they come. But goddamn. 

Politically I mostly lean anti-war but having been raised on Cold War action movies, this story gives me a chubby.

 

[Parliament 14062]

The Military-Industrial Complex is bad. And we spend too much on National Defense.

But damn if our guys can't wreck serious shit.

[Bernard 879]

How come our enemies' paid fighters are always called "mercenaries", but our own well compensated fighters are simply referred to as soldiers?

Bernard

[NeverMarryAStripper 21768]

We call ours contractors