Nusra Front, Other Syrian Rebels, Evacuating Bases Amid U.s. Airstrikes

[Sally]

The latest from the Front.

CBS/APSeptember 24, 2014, 3:59 PM

Nusra Front, other Syrian rebels, evacuating bases amid U.S. airstrikes

Supporters of al Qaeda's Syria affiliate al-Nusra Front hold placards calling Syrian President Bashar al-Assad a "terrorist" and denouncing Arab states that have joined anti-Islamic State group campaign, as they demonstrate in the northern city of Alepppo on September 24, 2014. Nusra has fought against ISIS in parts of Syria, and has also battled alongside moderate and Islamist rebels against the regime of President Bashar al-Assad. ZEIN AL-RIFAI/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

• Al Qaeda's official affiliate in Syria evacuated its bases in populated areas in the northwest of the country after U.S.-led forces conducted airstrikes on the group, its leaders said Wednesday, according to multiple reports.

The Nusra Front found itself the target of some the earliest airstrikes in a broader military campaign to take on extremists who have beenoperating in Syria during the country's three-year-old civil war. The Pentagon said the group was targeted because of a cell called Khorasan, a group of hardened al Qaeda veterans, was close to carrying out attacks on targets in Europe and the U.S.

"Heavy weapons have been moved out of the bases. We do not want civilians to be harmed because of us," one Nusra fighter said in an online message, according to Reuters.

Continue reading at:

Nusra Front other Syrian rebels evacuating bases amid U.S. airstrikes - CBS News?

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "Dat's right - Obama in between a rock anna hard place...

For Obama, enforcing no-fly zone in Syria would mean war or cooperation with Assad government
October 11, 2014 WASHINGTON – The Obama administration is boxed in by its promise to limit U.S. military engagement against Islamic State extremists, making it tough to agree to Turkey's condition for joining the fight in neighboring Syria.

Turkey and other U.S. allies want the U.S. to create a no-fly zone inside Syrian territory. Doing so would mean embracing one of two options President Barack Obama has long resisted: cooperating with Syrian President Bashar Assad's government or taking out its air defenses, action tantamount to war. Airstrikes alone might not prevent Islamic militants from carrying out a massacre at a Kurdish border town, but for now the U.S. isn't steering a new course in its expanded, one-month counterterrorism effort in Iraq and Syria.

Demands are rising for the creation of a secure buffer on the Syrian side of its frontier with Turkey as the U.S. and its coalition members plead with the Turks to prevent the fall of Kobani, where the United Nations is warning of mass casualties. A "safe zone" would require Americans and their partners to protect ground territory and patrol the skies, meaning it would have to enforce a no-fly area. Turkey, an American NATO ally, is demanding such a step for a variety of reasons. A buffer might stem the flow of refugees into Turkish territory. It also could provide Syrian opposition fighters with a staging ground for their rebellion to oust Assad — something that Turkey wants to see happen. The U.S., wary of the implications, wants the focus to remain on defeating Islamic State militants who've captured large areas of northern Syria and Iraq. Yet some of America's closest partners and Obama's fiercest foreign policy critics at home are sympathetic to Turkey's request.

France issued a statement this week announcing its support. The Republican head of the House Foreign Affairs Committee believes Arab countries would shoulder the load. Even Secretary of State John Kerry is describing a no-fly zone as worth examining. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has shown little enthusiasm for the idea. American leaders are open to discussing a safe zone, he said this week, but creating one isn't "actively being considered." "When it comes to the so-called buffer zone, no-fly zone, they've proposed these for some time," State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said Friday. "We are not considering the implementation of this option at this time." For the U.S. military, creating a protected corridor in Syria safe from the Islamic State group's ground attacks and Syria's air force raises obvious red flags. Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has estimated the endeavor would require hundreds of U.S. aircraft and cost as much as $1 billion a month to maintain, with no assurance of a change in battlefield momentum toward ending the Syrian civil war. That means U.S. enforcement could become open-ended.

The Pentagon learned that lesson in Iraq when it established a no-fly zone over northern Iraq to protect Iraqi Kurds and another over southern Iraq to protect Shiites — both in 1991 in the aftermath of the Gulf War. Those protective zones were enforced by U.S. Air Force and Navy pilots for a dozen years, until the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. Implementing such zones in Syria would create a direct confrontation with one of the Middle East's most formidable air defenses, a system bolstered in recent years by top-of-the-line Russian hardware. The Syrians possess multiple surface-to-air missiles providing overlapping coverage and thousands of anti-aircraft guns capable of engaging attacking aircraft at lower levels. Moscow infuriated Washington last year when it confirmed that it would sell to Syria its S-300 anti-aircraft missiles, considered to be the cutting edge in aircraft interception technology.

MORE

 

[Bleipriester]

What a huge demo...
I want to mention that anti-government demos always lack of women...