Logistics 101: Where Does ISIS Get Its Guns?

Since ancient times an army required significant logistical support to carry out any kind of sustained military campaign. In ancient Rome, an extensive network of roads was constructed to facilitate not only trade, but to allow Roman legions to move quickly to where they were needed, and for the supplies needed to sustain military operations to follow them in turn.

n the late 1700's French general, expert strategist, and leader Napoleon Bonaparte would note that, "an army marches on its stomach," referring to the extensive logistical network required to keep an army fed, and therefore able to maintain its fighting capacity. For the French, their inability to maintain a steady supply train to its forces fighting in Russia, and the Russians' decision to burn their own land and infrastructure to deny it from the invading forces, ultimately defeated the French.

Nazi Germany would suffer a similar fate when it too overextended its logical capabilities during its invasion of Russia amid Operation Barbarossa. Once again, invading armies became stranded without limited resources before being either cut off and annihilated or forced to retreat.

And in modern times during the Gulf War in the 1990's an extended supply line trailing invading US forces coupled with an anticipated clash with the bulk of Saddam Hussein's army halted what was otherwise a lighting advance many mistakenly believed could have reached Baghdad had there been the political will. The will to conquer was there, the logistics to implement it wasn't.

The lessons of history however clear they may be, appear to be entirely lost on an either supremely ignorant or incredibly deceitful troupe of policymakers and news agencies across the West.

ISIS' Supply Lines

Continue . . . http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2015/06/logistics-101-where-does-isis-get-its.html

 

The government (and MSCM) have been silent for a good reason. They're afraid of what would happen if they admitted "ISIS" gets their guns and butter from the U.S. government and it's middle eastern allies.

 

Recently declassified Pentagon documents confirmed West's role in using radicals to topple Syria.

The Pentagon announced Monday that it has begun paying “moderate” Syrian rebels up to $400 per month to fight ISIS and eventually the Syrian government.

The program, deemed “critical” by Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, aims to equip as many as 5,400 fighters within the next 12 months, reports USA Today.

According to Pentagon spokeswoman Elissa Smith, roughly 6,000 Syrians have already expressed interest in the program, with more than half preparing to be vetted.

The program has reportedly taken months to move forward due to a lack of fighters willing to “adhere to laws of war and pledge to conduct themselves properly.”

The announcement raises several red flags given recently declassified Pentagon documents confirming Western governments’ regional support of al-Qaeda, a terrorist organization now deceptively labeled “moderate.”

Continue . . . http://www.infowars.com/pentagon-paying-syrian-rebels-400-per-month-to-eventually-fight-assad/

 

Judicial Watch, a US-based foundation seeking “transparency” in government, released a 7 page document dated 2012, detailing the background and status of the Syrian conflict. It admits that the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda form the basis of the “opposition.” It then admits that (emphasis added):

Development of the current events into proxy war: with support from Russia, China, and Iran, the regime is controlling the areas of influence along coastal territories (Tartus and Latakia), and is fiercely defending Homs, which is considered the primary transportation route in Syria. On the other hand, opposition forces are trying to control the eastern areas (Hasaka and Der Zor), adjacent to the western Iraqi provinces (Mosul and Anbar), in addition to neighboring Turkish borders. Western countries, the Gulf States and Turkey are supporting these efforts.

It also admits that terrorists are entering Syria from Iraq, hardly what one could call a “civil war,” and clearly instead an invasion.

The document also admits that (emphasis added):

The opposition forces will try to use the Iraqi territory as a safe haven for its forces taking advantage of the sympathy of the Iraqi border population, meanwhile trying to recruit fighters and train them on the Iraqi side, in addition to harboring refugees (Syria).

If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered t he strategic depth of the Shia Expansion (Iraq and Iran).

That “Salafist principality” mentioned by the DoD in 2012 is of course now known as the “Islamic State.” The DoD at the time openly admitted that the opposition’s foreign sponsors supported the creation of such a principality, and clearly ISIS must have had such support to maintain its hold on vast expanses of territory in both Syria and Iraq, while propping up a military machine capable of fighting the combined forces of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. Indeed, the DoD’s admissions in this document explain precisely how ISIS has been able to perpetuate its activities throughout the region – with “Western countries, the Gulf States, and Turkey” supporting these efforts.

Narratives of a US “war on the Islamic State” are meant clearly to obscure this admitted and documented conspiracy, and serve as a means for US troops to directly violate Syrian airspace and territory incrementally until US forces are able to openly begin dismantling the Syrian military and government directly

http://journal-neo.org/2015/05/25/washington-confesses-to-backing-questionable-actors-in-syria/

June 26, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Unbeknownst to the general public, their elected politicians do not create the policy that binds their national destiny domestically or within the arena of geopolitics. Instead, corporate-financier funded think tanks do - teams of unelected policymakers which transcend elections, and which produce papers that then become the foundation of legislation rubber stamped by "legislators," as well as the enumerated talking points repeated ad naseum by the corporate-media.

Such a policy paper has been recently written by the notorious US policy think-tank, the Brookings Institution, titled, "Deconstructing Syria: Towards a regionalized strategy for a confederal country." The signed and dated open-conspiracy to divide, destroy, then incrementally occupy a sovereign nation thousands of miles from America's shores serves as a sobering example of how dangerous and enduring modern imperialism is, even in the 21st century.

Continue . . . http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/


Deconstructing Syria: Towards a regionalized strategy for a confederal country

http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2015/06/23-syria-strategy-ohanlon?cid=00900015020089101US0001-06241

 

Updated 6:34 PM ET, Thu September 4, 2014

Obama on ISIS in Syria: 'We don't have a strategy yet'

"I don't want to put the cart before the horse," Obama told reporters during a White House news briefing. "We don't have a strategy yet."

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/28/world/meast/isis-iraq-syria/

Evidently they did have a strategy.