| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Pentagon Militias, CIA Militias Turn On Each Other In Syria |
| 2016-03-27 |
| [Daily Caller] Rebel militias in Syria backed by both the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency are starting to turn on each other in a most gruesome and farcical fashion, as U.S. military planners scramble to regain some semblance of control. The rebel groups are fighting near the Turkish border in Aleppo, Syria, and while the fighting has already gone on for several months, it’s now taking a turn for the worse in this now five-year-old civil war, The Los Angeles Times reports. The Pentagon is mostly funneling resources to Kurdish troops in northern Syria, while the CIA is providing TOW missiles to rebel groups from its base of operations out of Turkey. Kurdish troops are mainly focused on taking out the Islamic State, but the CIA is covertly keeping the pressure on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Both groups are now skirmishing as they close in on Aleppo. |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #15 Over zealous Clinton diplodink and deal maker gone bad is more likely. Actually, he'd been Foreign Service since 1991. Fairly good record, mostly in the Middle East. Spoke Arabic and French She did hand-pick him for the job, though. And she knew him personally. So, your theory too has "merit." Though I'd wipe the flecks of spittle off it before presenting it, myself. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2016-03-27 23:42 |
| #14 It's likely that he liked playing "spy". That State took the actions it did prior to the attack indicates that it was cooperating (at the least) with Langley. Your theory certainly has merit. The one man who could validate Stephens as a "spy" would be the Chief of Station, whom of course, we've not heard from. Nor will we ever. My gut feeling is, if he was 'spying,' he was doing so for DoS, the Beest, her internal intelligence and CT apparatus, and not the Klingons. Over zealous Clinton diplodink and deal maker gone bad is more likely. Buggered the Klingon work project as well, so their sympathy meter never left it's peg. No argument it got "back burner-ed." Stephens may have not even been cold yet when that decision was made. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2016-03-27 17:42 |
| #13 Methinks that Stephens was about to blow the trumpet on a big CIA arms deal and got himself in the middle of it... I believe the Foggy Bottom vs. Klingon is exactly what happened. I take the opposite tack. Stephens got the ambassadorship due to his relationships with the various groups that rose to fight Qadaffi. It's likely that he liked playing "spy". That State took the actions it did prior to the attack indicates that it was cooperating (at the least) with Langley. Bengazi got back burner-ed but not because of a Foggy Bottom vs. Klingon intramural. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2016-03-27 16:49 |
| #12 Stephens became an "inconvenient" ambassador. |
| Posted by: Bill Clinton 2016-03-27 14:48 |
| #11 I believe the Foggy Bottom vs. Klingon is exactly what happened. Posted by Bill Clinton And so do I. Some indication or evidence might be found in Obama's actions and hand-off immediately following the attack. Hoping to escape the blast radius of warring parties Clinton and Brennan, Obama takes flight to the campaign fund raising circuit where he is most comfortable. Former Director CIA, then SECDEF Leon Panetta takes charge of the ugly details. Brennan and the Klingons were the physical, or 'on-site' clean up team. Notice how seldom Brennan has discussed Benghazi. Foggy Bottom became the media and damage control component, whilst POTUS attempted to secure his role as sympathetic adult and enforcer of silence and inaction among senior military leaders. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2016-03-27 13:46 |
| #10 Besoeker, Methinks that Stephens was about to blow the trumpet on a big CIA arms deal and got himself in the middle of it. Because what the CIA was doing was highly sensitive, the POTUS and SECSTATE pulled the plug on his security and let things play out. I believe the Foggy Bottom vs. Klingon is exactly what happened. |
| Posted by: Bill Clinton 2016-03-27 13:15 |
| #9 So not only do we provide assistance to two separate militias that have decided to fight each other but we are borrowing money at an unsustainable rate to do it. |
| Posted by: Abu Uluque 2016-03-27 11:39 |
| #8 If you wanted to destroy a country, a good way to do it would be to somehow place into power some leader who could actually get different parts of the military/security apparatus to openly engage in combat against one other .... ..... oh, wait ...... |
| Posted by: Lone Ranger 2016-03-27 11:03 |
| #7 This strategy appears to be something Pakistan would do. |
| Posted by: Airandee 2016-03-27 10:05 |
| #6 My militia can beat up your militia! |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2016-03-27 09:40 |
| #5 Foggy Bottom and the Klingons? Could this have been what took place in Benghazi? |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2016-03-27 08:17 |
| #4 Khaki on Peach? |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2016-03-27 08:12 |
| #3 None at all, Besoeker, at least to the one to whom it should matter. Zero checked out before he checked in. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2016-03-27 07:31 |
| #2 Governmental agency goals malalignment, lack of focus, absence of long-term predictive analysis, lives U.S. gov't personnel placed at risk? But "at this point, what difference does it make?" |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2016-03-27 05:11 |
| #1 Remember, if you elect Trump, the whole World will laugh at you! |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2016-03-27 04:58 |