Syria Superthread [merged]

[Fishbone Jones]

Of course the Islamists will also be hostile to the West, and try to carry the battle to us as well, but as Maritime Powers, we can contain them in Eurasia, and their overall resources are so much smaller than the Western world's that they will only be able to use a small fraction of the effort they will be putting into cleansing the Islamic world of "apostates" and attacking other enemies closer to home, leaving us with a fairly managable defense problem.

I'm sure the families of the victims in the Twin Towers may take issue with your synopsis.

We won't contain these fanatics anywhere.

If they want to come here to do harm, an ocean, our military, border security or otherwise, won't stop them.

That's been proven more than once already.

 

[a_majoor]

Fairly managable is not equal to "easy" or 100% effective.

Since the Islamists are already involved in a civil war, and we are already working to contain them and defend our borders, what I wrote upthread is more an extrapolation of existing trends, and I doubt that we could do much more than to "direct" the attentions of the various Islamic combatents elswhere.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

As much as the demographic bulge is against us in the ME now, in 20 years time it may be for us. By the time the new generation comes, they be asking dad (or must likely Mom, as dad is dead) Can I go kill the enemy and who is that anyways, Hezbollah, Hamas, HIG, Uzbek, Kurds, Balch, Iranians, Sunni, Shiite or the West?

 

[57Chevy]

                          Article from Press TV is shared with provisions of the Copyright Act
‘Real’ US-trained al-Qaeda ‘to wage war on US’
Gordon Duff, 11Dec

In the lead up to the Geneva peace conference, the world is now hearing of terrorist armies dedicated to turning Syria into an al-Qaeda state.

The European Union is in panic; Jihadists returning from Syria are setting up terror cells in nation after nation, and those who now claim to have been “duped” into supplying and training al-Qaeda are throwing their hands in the air and screaming out, “How did this happen?”

What they should be screaming out is, “How did we get caught?”

Will the real “mother of al-Qaeda” please stand up?

Intelligence sources in the region report that al-Qaeda terror groups are, in fact, not just getting weapons and support from the same sources as the Free Syrian Army but far more dangerous weapons.

Al-Qaeda can now shoot down airliners anywhere in the world, use mini-guns on crowds, killing thousands or deploy poison gas or bio-toxins.

Americans have supplied all of that and more to al-Qaeda.

Weapons transfers to al-Qaeda are tied to not just American political leaders and members of the Israel lobby, but powerful defense groups in the US that, during “Sequestration” cut backs, have “gone rogue.”

Investigations prove conclusively that the “al-Qaeda” Europe is cowering in fear of being armed by American contractors.

From a Henry Kamen article published in New Eastern Outlook:

“A Georgian film studio house is now producing an independent documentary film which will explore the role of the United States in the Caucasus region, the plot being based on documents which are now part of criminal investigations. It will also investigate serious allegations of weapons trafficking which are supported both by documentation and a leak which originated from the US Department of Homeland Security.”

Georgia has long been recognized as a transit point for illegal trade, not only in arms but in drugs and other contraband, a transit hub for criminals who wish to move goods between Asia and Europe, and more recently the rest of the world. Investigating the people involved can provide us with deeply important information regarding the links between certain “interest groups,” including terrorist networks and al-Qaeda fighting in Syria, and the Georgian special services - for example, the head of al-Qaeda in Syria happens to come from Georgia, and was recruited and trained there, with the help of Georgian and American special services.

Our own investigation discovered an American firm, one paid by the Department of Defense to supply both the Iraqi and Afghan forces with Russian weapons (assembled with several minor American parts), to be the primary source of al-Qaeda’s arsenal in Syria, that and biological and chemical weapons sourced from Georgia.

Kamen’s continues:

“Much of the information cited here was shared with Georgian investigative bodies approximately 6 months ago. It includes a two-hour long film which shows a US weapons manufacturer, Dillon Aero, (“allegedly” author’s note) negotiating to illegally ship a cache of weapons from Arizona to Turkmenistan via Georgia and Azerbaijan by means of various ruses and fake documents.
Legal counsel Mark Barnes and Associates wrote last year, November 27, 2012,
‘We realize that you are interested in an evidently sensationalist Youtube video… In light of the fact that a Federal Investigation is still ongoing, that is Dillon’s only comment on the matter.’
Strangely, the attorney failed to note in this threatening letter his own involvement in arms imports.”

Al-Qaeda

As we are being told, the al-Qaeda-backed forces, the ones kidnapping nuns, burning churches and raping women, are infiltrating through Turkey, Jordan and Iraq.

Minimally, this means they are receiving weapons, training and tactical support from the same sources that supply General Idris and the Free Syrian Army.

Publicly, this is the CIA, US Army Special Forces under former Vice President Dick Cheney and his Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Also operating in the region is MI6, French groups and, less publicly, a Turkish/Israeli front tasked with luring Kurdistan out of Iraq with the promise of, not just full autonomy but control of the Kirkuk oil fields.

Technically, all of these groups are al-Qaeda “affiliates,” including and especially the US and Israeli groups operating across the region, not just under total secrecy but fully in support of terrorist groups.

In Turkey, this is Israel along with US-based contacting firms, “Google”-based, and suppliers from Georgia, the Ukraine, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan.

Advanced weapons, including mini-guns, a devastating US weapon used in Iraq and Afghanistan, have been supplied using forged “end user certificates” or smuggled by intelligence services.

The mini-guns sent to al-Qaeda were mounted on three US-built Denali SUVs in a deal brokered by close business associates of Senator John McCain.

Other weapons have included Sarin gas and American-built Stinger missiles.

Similarly, US and Israeli forces operating in Jordan, while claiming to support the FSA, have been flying al-Qaeda recruits in from around the world, Saudi-financed, “Wall Street” weapons and Israeli radios and transport.

Some of that armament is being used in Iraq against the government there. Whenever Assad’s forces push back, al-Qaeda heads “home” to Iraq or Kurdistan, using American and Israeli training and weapons to maintain the continuing level of terrorist activity that has kept Iraq at the edge of civil war.

Chickens come home to roost

This “al-Qaeda” will be real. They will be using those mini-guns on crowds at shopping malls or at football games, perhaps even at a political convention.

The war on terror, the Bush-era imaginary war on terror, may well be a reality now with a real nation of “evildoers,” armed and trained by America and Israel, financed by Saudi Arabia, wreaking havoc around the world.

Does America have the national resolve to go to war again, this time against its own monstrous orphans?
                                        _______________________________________________

Gordon Duff
is a Marine Vietnam veteran, a combat infantryman, and Senior Editor at Veterans Today. His career has included extensive experience in international banking along with such diverse areas as consulting on counter insurgency, defense technologies or acting as diplomatic representative for UN humanitarian and economic development efforts. Gordon Duff has traveled to over 80 nations. His articles are published around the world and translated into a number of languages. He is regularly on TV and radio, a popular and sometimes controversial guest.

 

[57Chevy]

An interesting article from The New York Times, shared with provisions of The Copyright Act,
shows positive logistical cooperation amongst Nations regarding the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons.

Chemical Weapons Agency Unveils Plan for Destroying Syria’s Stockpile
NICK CUMMING-BRUCE, 18Dec

GENEVA — Helped by a flurry of offers from Russia and China as well as the United States and European countries, the international watchdog agency overseeing the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons unveiled details Wednesday of a multinational effort to get toxic agents out of the country but warned that the program faced delays.

Following an offer from the United States last month to destroy the chemical weapons at sea, the Syrian government will start transporting hundreds of tons of toxic agents to the port of Latakia around the end of the year, according to a plan approved by the executive council of the watchdog, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

The removal starts a new phase in an agreement reached by Russia and the United States in September that calls for the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons capabilities by June. Despite initial doubts about the cooperation they could expect from President Bashar al-Assad’s government, international inspectors have confirmed that Syria has already destroyed the means of producing chemical weapons and the munitions for delivering them.

But the proposal that Ahmet Uzumcu, director general of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, presented to the executive council in The Hague warned that “technical factors have caused delays regarding some aspects of removal operations and may also affect future implementation activities.” The plan was approved late Tuesday and announced on Wednesday.

Russia has agreed to provide security for loading operations at Latakia’s port but has not said whether it intends to provide troops for that purpose, a European diplomat following developments at the agency said on the condition of anonymity, in line with diplomatic practice. “The plan now has a lot more offers and a lot more parts to it, but we are realistic that there will be challenges,” the diplomat said.

Schedules have already been disrupted by a range of factors, including a lack of security in a country convulsed by civil war and bad weather, Mr. Uzumcu reported to the executive council on Tuesday. Clashes in the strategic Qalamoun area and along the key road from Damascus to Homs “pose risks to the timely execution of the operation,” he said.

In an operation that would be sensitive under any circumstances and becomes particularly hazardous carried out in the middle of a civil war, the Syrian government will be responsible for packing, transporting and protecting the convoys carrying its deadly chemical agents from 12 sites around the country to Latakia, according to the plan Mr. Uzumcu presented.

To mitigate the risks, Syria will use armored vehicles from Russia, thousands of special containers supplied by the United States, decontamination equipment and GPS locaters, the agency said.

China will provide 10 ambulances and surveillance cameras and Finland has offered an emergency response team in case of accidents, the agency said.

Denmark and Norway are providing two roll-on, roll-off ships to transport the chemical weapons and two naval vessels to escort them, and Russia and China have also agreed to provide naval escorts, the diplomat said.

The cargo ships will link up at an unnamed port in Italy with the American vessel, the Cape Ray, which is being specially fitted with mobile laboratories for destroying the chemicals at sea. Italy’s offer to make the port available, received last week, avoids the risky task of trying to transfer the chemical agents on the high seas.

In the meantime, Mr. Uzumcu said, the organization will seek offers from commercial companies on Thursday for destruction of the less toxic chemical agents and the effluent the Cape Ray’s operations will produce. The European diplomat said the agency had received 42 expressions of interest from commercial companies.

The agency had previously planned to complete removal of Syria’s most deadly chemicals by the end of the year and all the remaining chemical weapons precursors by early February. It still hopes to finish those tasks by February, and Mr. Uzumcu is to meet the organization’s 41 council members again on Jan. 8 to update them.

“The plan might slip by a few days,” the European diplomat said. “I don’t think any of us really knows how big the delay is likely to be.”

 

[tamouh]

I can be anything but cynical right now about Syria. Are they friends, are they foes? It seems when they needed our help the most, when perhaps there were a glimpse of hope Syria could have been a good ally. We turned our back. Then we put our hands up in the air and decried Mujahedin. All a while, we're watching men, women and children being targeted by snipers, indiscrimnately bombed by airplanes, bombarded by artillery. Even medical establishment have become a routine and favorite target.

After all, we wonder how come these people are becoming extremists?! If we were just to put ourselves in these kids shoes. When one is left to defend for themselves, they're going to look for the first ray of hope offered to them, and that was definitely not modern Western Democracy.

 

[Jed]

I can be anything but cynical right now about Syria. Are they friends, are they foes? It seems when they needed our help the most, when perhaps there were a glimpse of hope Syria could have been a good ally. We turned our back. Then we put our hands up in the air and decried Mujahedin. All a while, we're watching men, women and children being targeted by snipers, indiscrimnately bombed by airplanes, bombarded by artillery. Even medical establishment have become a routine and favorite target.

After all, we wonder how come these people are becoming extremists?! If we were just to put ourselves in these kids shoes. When one is left to defend for themselves, they're going to look for the first ray of hope offered to them, and that was definitely not modern Western Democracy.

Now that is a pretty flawed segue Tiamo. Many of us care deeply for the people of Syria. We of the West have had our hands tied from the start and about all we can effectively do is try to support the various relief organizations. The big problem is the flood of arab world, non Syrian, sh!t disturbers flooding in for gits and shiggles.

 

[a_majoor]

If you look back over the tread Tiamo, you will see that there were never very good choices for the West, and the political and social will to devote the massive amount of resources needed to actually occupy Syria for the prolonged period needed to tear down and rebuild the Assad regime's institutions into something acceptable to the West and usable by the people of Syria was never in the cards.

Sometimes the least worst choice is to step back and not get involved.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I can be anything but cynical right now about Syria. Are they friends, are they foes? It seems when they needed our help the most, when perhaps there were a glimpse of hope Syria could have been a good ally. We turned our back. Then we put our hands up in the air and decried Mujahedin. All a while, we're watching men, women and children being targeted by snipers, indiscrimnately bombed by airplanes, bombarded by artillery. Even medical establishment have become a routine and favorite target.

After all, we wonder how come these people are becoming extremists?! If we were just to put ourselves in these kids shoes. When one is left to defend for themselves, they're going to look for the first ray of hope offered to them, and that was definitely not modern Western Democracy.

Here was my answer, 30 months ago, to the question: "Why don't we, foreigners (the US led West, he meant to say) do something?"

You might want to define "foreign."

Who has a vital interest in settling Syria's problems? Who has the resources and political will to intervene? Does anyone want to intervene when it will look like it, the intervenor, is doing Israel's bidding? What does Responsibility (R2P) to protect really mean?

My short answer is: No.

Nothing has transpired, including thousands of dead and hundreds of thousands of displaced innocent civilians, to change my strategic rationale.

There is a temporary solution to the Middle Eastern situation: we ignore the whole place ~ massive non-intervention. No Middle Eastern Peace processes, no Israel/Palestine peace initiatives, no standing between Iran and the Saudis. Yes to some, not many, military bases (fewer than today, all in Bahrain, Qatar and UAE). Yes to buying oil. Yes to selling weapons. No to giving a shit about how many of them are killed by one another in the pursuit of whatever.

That, cruel as it sounds, is a sane, achievable, strategy.

 

[CougarKing]

There is a temporary solution to the Middle Eastern situation: we ignore the whole place ~ massive non-intervention. No Middle Eastern Peace processes, no Israel/Palestine peace initiatives,

So essentially, abandoning Israel? In spite of Prime Minister Harper's announced, coming visit to Israel next year, when it seemed our relationship with them will be re-affirmed?

(...)

Harper announced his trip -- which will also include visits to Jordan and the Palestinian Authority -- during the Negev Dinner in Toronto, an annual event honouring community leaders and supporters of Israel.

The Jewish National Fund of Toronto hosted the event Sunday, raising $5.7 million to build a bird sanctuary in Israel to be named after Harper.


(...)


“We understand that the future of our country and of our shared civilization depends on the survival and thriving of that free and democratic homeland of the Jewish people in the Middle East," Harper told attendees. "And I’ll tell you friends, we understand that, and that’s why Israel will always have Canada as friend in the world.”

(...)

Read more: CTV link

 

[tamouh]

I'm sure we as individuals have our hearts with those innocent civlians trapped in the midst of the war. We may not be able to do alot, but our institutions could have made a difference.

I beg to differ that we can isolate the ME from our current life. They are the largest oil supplier. Even on the assumption that we do become oil independent from the ME, the continued turbulance in the region will spill over to neighbouring countries. This will lead to greater humanitarian suffering that will require more of our resources both in terms of immigration, aid and security monitoring.

The other point here, that if we do turn our back on the ME, there are other countries who'll jump on that opportunity. This would be counter intuitive to our national interests. It may on the long term shift the balance of allies in the ME. In a global economy, this could pose potential threat to the West.

When we can no longer support our allies in the region, then they'll look somewhere else. This will have large impact on the balance of power, and the viability of a country.

Last, notwithstanding the above. I try to think of it from a humanitarian side. Do we have a responsibility to help those in need? If a God didn't or "couldn't" help a human. Should a fellow human take on that role?

I do understand that no matter what decision we take as a nation, the consequences are not going to be all positive. Nevertheless, there are two sides for every coin. What is difficult to observe that innocent people are murdered on mass scale while we continue watching. Knowing fully well that our inability to decide will continue to increase the suffering of the region.

EDIT: The West have had a good option from the beginning in regard to Syria that would have worked much better than our current situation. There were a time before artillery were used, and before airplanes were used. There could have been a time when we could have supported the FSA from its beginning before all the foreign fighters have found the opportunity to join in.

Turkey & Saudi were no fan of the Assad regime. We had allies willing to do something about it. The problem in my view that the US did not want to interfere in the first place for whatever reason. This poorly made decision ended up being the more costly option.

 

[Edward Campbell]

With respect, Tiamo, the US "did not want to intervene" for the very best of reasons: there was, and still is, nothing to be gained. Assad is a thug; the people who replace him ~ no matter what fine words they might utter ~ will also be thugs. It's the Middle fucking East for heaven's sakes; it needs, urgently, a long, bloody series of brutal internecine wars followed by a serious, thoroughgoing religious reformation and then an enlightenment. Call me round about Dec 2263, 250 years from now, when that might have come to pass. In the interim: send money to the Red Cross etc and feel sad for the fate of the people but, at a national level, sit it all out.

 

[Edward Campbell]

S.M.A.: there is no reason why Canada should not continue to support Israel, diplomatically and so on, but there is nothing for the larger, US led West to do about "bringing peace to the Middle East." Peace, real peace, follows big, brutal, bloody wars; they need to come next ... then peace.

 

[tamouh]

With respect, Tiamo, the US "did not want to intervene" for the very best of reasons: there was, and still is, nothing to be gained. Assad is a thug; the people who replace him ~ no matter what fine words they might utter ~ will also be thugs. It's the Middle ******* East for heaven's sakes; it needs, urgently, a long, bloody series of brutal internecine wars followed by a serious, thoroughgoing religious reformation and then an enlightenment. Call me round about Dec 2263, 250 years from now, when that might have come to pass. In the interim: send money to the Red Cross etc and feel sad for the fate of the people but, at a national level, sit it all out.

Completely disagree and find your argument contradicting to another post regarding the support of Israel. Your arguments may have had a merit back in 15th century, but not today. We can't support Israel then say hands off because this will simply point the finger back at us.

As I've emphasized earlier, complete hands off in the ME will wreck havoc in the region and more importantly will allow other nations with ambitions to control large amount of area and resources to sweep in. Guess what you can do with 1 billion radicals and infinite amount of oil/gas?

The ME requires a delicate balance of work to ensure it trends on stability until a time comes when the people do realize what matters most in this life. We're not necessary going to export our ideals and judicial law to them. But we need to bring enlightenment in the form of democratic process. Military coups and monarchies are not the solution. Although, Monarchies seem to have had much more success in the ME than Military governance.

If we do leave the ME with complete hands off (sell weapons and buy oil), you'll likely end up without selling any weapons and not buying any oil, why? Because we are not going to sell them weapons that eventually can be used against us, so someone else will sell them these. Further, we're not going to be able to buy any oil because we don't control the routes anymore!

The ME needs help mentally, medically, politically and militarily. This is what advanced nations like the West can do. If we can't accomplish that, then we'd have failed at bringing stability to our selves. The radicals in the ME must be contained. More wars will lead to more radicalisation. They'll eventually run over the area, and Israel. Guess who's next?

To give you an example,

Iran/Iraq war gave further support/rise to the Khomeini, and whom are we trying to contain now?

Lebanon 20 years war ended up with the rise of one power house Hezboallah. How was that in our best interest?

Bosnian 5 years war ended up with the rise of radical Islam in central Europe. Before 1990, many Bosnian though identified as Muslim were of little to any connection to Islam. I personally didn't hear of Muslims in central Europe until the Bosnian war.

Chechnyan vs Russian war gave rise to Jihdaist groups that are roaming around Asia, Europe and Americas looking for the next big Jihad.

US led invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan had also created a hot bed for radicals.

Now we have the Syrian war, again, it is following the same path as the previous ones.

From what I've observed, radicals are attracted to war. Yes, some get killed. However, much more get recruited in the process. Nothing easier than motivating a youngster to fight when he is convinced the whole world around him is unjust.

 

[GR66]

I think you've got both an overly bleak view of the results of non-intervention and an overly rosy view of the results of intervention.

You point at wars where the West (supposedly) didn't intervene and suggest that later problems resulted.  How about the many times we DID intervene and had very negative results for our interests in the long term?

The underlying problem is that there are conflicts between various groups and interests in the Middle East.  We didn't create these differences, they are long standing, historical, religious and ethnic conflicts and any intervention by the West is not going to eliminate these.  At best it will paper over the differences for a short period of time and allow them to simmer/fester in the background.  At worst they blow up in our faces put us in the middle of conflicts that at their heart don't really have anything to do with us.

There is no way we can "bring enlightenment in the form of democratic process" as you suggest.  The very heart of that concept requires a culture that at its core fully internalizes everything that "democracy" really means.  We (the collective "West") only internalized that through a very bloody process that took years of religious and political wars in Europe, civil wars in Europe and North America, civil rights protests, constitutional challenges and labour unrest. 

When you try and transplant our own system and ideals into a culture that hasn't gone through the same trials that we have you don't get democracy.  At best you get a "de-mock-racy" where you have the outward appearance of our system but none of the real benefits.  Having a parliament, police force, courts and constitution do not a democracy make.  They may have elections but people will try and fix them.  You may have a parliament but dissenting ideas are not permitted.  You may have courts but they make decisions on a political basis.  You may have police but they are corrupt.  Even if they "sort of" work for the most part, when things get really tough they are quickly abandoned for the old system of strongman rule (martial law, one party "democracy" or feudalism). 

If you REALLY want to help the people of the Middle East you need to stop patronizing them and treating them as colonialists, patting their heads when they behave as we like or swatting their butts when they get out of hand.  We've help retard their development and keep them living in an artificial past.  Like restless teenagers we need to let them grow up.  It's not going to be pretty and they might not end up exactly as we had hoped, but they can't live in the past forever.

:2c:

 

[tamouh]

There is no way we can "bring enlightenment in the form of democratic process" as you suggest.  The very heart of that concept requires a culture that at its core fully internalizes everything that "democracy" really means.  We (the collective "West") only internalized that through a very bloody process that took years of religious and political wars in Europe, civil wars in Europe and North America, civil rights protests, constitutional challenges and labour unrest.

When you try and transplant our own system and ideals into a culture that hasn't gone through the same trials that we have you don't get democracy.  At best you get a "de-mock-racy" where you have the outward appearance of our system but none of the real benefits.  Having a parliament, police force, courts and constitution do not a democracy make.  They may have elections but people will try and fix them.  You may have a parliament but dissenting ideas are not permitted.  You may have courts but they make decisions on a political basis.  You may have police but they are corrupt.  Even if they "sort of" work for the most part, when things get really tough they are quickly abandoned for the old system of strongman rule (martial law, one party "democracy" or feudalism). 

Nicely said. However, me and you may agree on what you've stated. But you won't get the rest of the world to agree on that. Through out history, there were allies and foes. Before Britain had become an empire from ocean to ocean, different factions were and remained supported by one group or another during turbulant times (french, spaniards). Even the US civil war had supporters on both sides, most notably the Russian CZar for the North and British for the South.

We've also came a long way from 19th century. We (the West) do know where wars will lead. I'm not assuming that democracy is the solution. On the contrary, I believe democracy in its current form is a stage that sooner or later is going to be replaced by another system. What we should be doing is help secure our national interest. Should we leave the ME as it is, there can only be two outcomes in the short term. Radical Salafists (think Taliban) or Radical Shiite (think Hezboallah).

I'm almost certain in 100 years from now, the generation of radicals will slowly become moderated. But before then, I'm as certain few major wars would have broken between east and west.

The reason foreign fighters are drawn into Syria right now in large numbers is due to the belief that this is one of the largest battles. Every Jihadi knows the Hadith by the prophet regarding a war at the end of times its location is Syria. What we're having here is a fulfillment of a prophacy for many of the Jihadist groups. The prophecy states they're going to win the battle (whatever!).

So when you say don't do anything, I'm thinking what about all these Jihadis? If you think Hezboallah or Bashar going to weaken them, then you're likely mistaken. They are going to continue fighting until they win. When that is accomplished, then to them the prophecy has been fulfilled and they can begin establishing their own government. Their prophecies will become self fulfilling as they continue. To leave that unchecked, will be the biggest mistake we can do.

Unless of course, God turns out to be whoever book is claiming he is.....then that side wins and everyone else is screwed!

 

[a_majoor]

Back to the future. The 106mm Recoiless rifle makes an appearance on the various battlefields of Syria. Where these are coming from is a bit murky (see article), but the effectiveness of these is not in question when dealing with hard targets at close range (I have an ancient template which lists the engagement range of the 106mm as 1800m).

Although the 106 was quite popular and common, it isn't the last word in this technology. Russian recoiless rifles are quite common (although they tend to be much smaller: 82mm seems to be a common calibre), and I would expect to see these in action as well.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/05/ancient-us-weapon-in-syria/

Ancient U.S. Weapon Makes a Surprise Reappearance in Syria
BY BRENDAN MCNALLY05.31.136:30 AM

Watch enough YouTube videos of the fighting in Syria, and you’ll start to notice it: a long-tubed gun, mounted on the back of either a jeep or large, fast pickup. Usually it’s blasting bunkers, blockhouses, fortified positions, or places where snipers are hiding. It even goes after tanks. And whenever it fires, the gun seems to kick up way more hell behind it than what it sends out the barrel’s front end. It’s the M40 106mm recoilless rifle, an American-made, Vietnam-vintage weapon that got dropped from the Army and Marine inventory back during the early 1970s. Until recently, the 106mm hadn’t seen much action in the irregular wars that have swept the globe. Then M40s somehow came into the hands of rebels in Libya and Syria. Suddenly, the 106mm – light, cheap, easily transportable, simple to operate, and packing a punch all out of proportion to its modest size — has emerged as a possible Great Asymmetric Weapon of the Day.

Although the U.S. military no longer officially uses the M40, they still keep some around. A few found their way to Afghanistan where they were put to use by certain Special Forces units. The Danish and Australian armies, which acquired them from the U.S. decades ago under the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program, used them extensively during their ground operations there.

In Libya, the M40 was used primarily in urban warfare, killing tanks and fortified positions. How exactly it found its way into the hands of the rebels there is a bit of a mystery. The M40s showed up in Libya along with thousands of brand new Belgian FN rifles, apparently from Western arsenals. That lead many to suspect they were supplied by Western intelligence. The M40s currently being seen in Syria might be coming either from the same sources that supplied the Libyan rebels or even from the Libyans themselves.

There is also a strong possibility that these weapons might actually be of Iranian origin. Iran’s state-owned weapons arsenal, the Defense Industry Organization, has been manufacturing what was originally a licensed-version of the M40. Now called the “Anti-Tank Gun 106,” it is being offered on the open market, and are probably being supplied to the Syrian Army, which have since lost them to the rebels.

While the M40 makes a big comeback in the Middle East, dozens of other armies all over the world never stopped using it. The Danish and Australian armies have used the 106mm in Afghanistan with excellent results. It turns out that in many instances they have outperformed the expensive, high tech, anti-tank rockets like the TOW,  the Javelin and others that were supposed to replace the M40 four decades ago.

While no one is suggesting the replacements aren’t good weapons, all have their shortcomings. Some, like the TOW, don’t operate well in extreme environments. Others, once fired, sometimes require too many rotations before they arm; that limits their effectiveness in close-in situations. Probably the biggest problem is that whenever targets are inside mud-walled buildings (which, in places like Afghanistan, is much of the time), the explosion’s force tends to get seriously dampened. Enter the M40: a home-grown weapon, already in stock, developed and manufactured at the Watervliet Arsenal, the U.S. Army’s own gun factory, and at Benet Laboratories, which has quietly continued the weapon’s advancement during the decades it’s been out of use.

As weapons go, the M40 is almost amazingly crude. The first thing you notice about the back of the gun is that, unlike conventional cannon, the breech block has big openings. The rounds it fires look different too; the shell casings are also open, more like cages than canisters. But what makes it so different from conventional artillery is its way of dealing with recoil. Rather than try to contain it, as conventional guns do, recoilless rifles endeavor to balance it by offering the propellant gasses the easiest escape possible. That’s why the breech mechanism is vented and open, functioning like a rocket nozzle. It is also why recoilless rifles generate the massive and deadly back blast that can make them such a frightening weapon to be around.




Though the idea behind the recoilless rifle goes back five hundred years, it wasn’t until the late 19th Century that the key technologies were developed to actually make recoilless rifles practical. The Germans built a 75mm recoilless rifle used by their airborne troops during the invasion of Crete that proved to be a decisive weapon in that campaign. The U.S. developed its own version of the 75mm gun, but it did not reach the battlefield until the last weeks of the European war.

The present-day M40 106mm was developed following the Korean War and used extensively during the Vietnam War. Since the North Vietnamese almost never used their tanks, the M40 found other tasks for the weapon besides hitting armor. Sometimes it got used against enemy bunkers, but mostly, following the introduction of a steel dart-laden “beehive” round, it became a fearsome anti-personnel weapon. But in Vietnam, the M40 is best remembered for its association with the Ontos, possibly the most downright eccentric armored vehicle ever concocted for the U.S. Military. It was a tiny tank, armed with six M40 recoilless rifles, which were mounted externally on its tiny turret. The Ontos fought in countless skirmishes, but where it became part of Marine legend was in the battle for Hue during the Tet Offensive. There it was involved in some of the fiercest urban fighting in the Corps history. According to one source, the only reason the Fifth Marine Regiment survived Hue was because of the Ontos and the 106mm recoilless rifle.

And then the U.S. military moved on — or so it seemed. While the M40 was technically replaced, the Army’s scientists, like Dark Ages monks, have continued preserving and even improving it until the day comes for its resurrection.

Brendan McNally is a defense writer and author endlessly bouncing between Texas and the Czech Republic.

 

[vonGarvin]

I'm almost certain in 100 years from now, the generation of radicals will slowly become moderated.

Probably not.  They have infiltrated the west, and are breeding at alarming rates.  Soon they will outnumber "us", and will supplant our systems from within.  Why?  Because we value things like flat screen TVs and want to live our lives without the "burden" of children.  Think of what happened to South Africa, but on a global scale.

(In south Africa, the settlers arrived at an essentially un-populated part of Africa, built a civilization, and then through immigration from the north, the country became much like many other failed and failing states in central Africa)

 

[YZT580]

In Obama's address to the American people prior to taking flight to Hawaii for his vacation, he refers to Syria as one of his successes.  Would someone please, please define success?  I always thought that it was a 'positive' achievement.  I must be wrong.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

In Obama's address to the American people prior to taking flight to Hawaii for his vacation, he refers to Syria as one of his successes.  Would someone please, please define success?  I always thought that it was a 'positive' achievement.  I must be wrong.

Repeat a lie enough times..................