Do US and Russian Special Forces even train alongside each other? I don't seem to recall any publicised training events.
War Against ISIS
- Thread starter spikehades
- Start date
gazzzwp
Member
The comment referred to the possibility of mistakes in an already crowded war theatre. In the same way that the two powers have reached agreements on air identification.
I would have thought this was obvious?
From my understanding, a good part of bilateral training often involves each side learning how the other side communicates i.e. 'speak each other's language' for the purpose of avoiding friendly-fire incidents that you might anticipate.
I don't see such bilateral training exercises taking place, and nothing publicly announced about ground forces RoEs, so I'd say there's always the risk.
Apparently the US has air dropped weapons to rebels in the town of Marea, Aleppo region of Syria, who are fighting Daesh. These drops are reputed to have included small arms, ammo, light weapons and anti tank weapons. Meanwhile the Kurds are increasing pressure on Daesh near Mosul, with the UNHCR fearing that up to 50,000 Iraqis are fleeing from Mosul into Syria because of reports that Daesh are executing men and boys in Fallujah. Daesh are still holding out in Fallujah, slowing down the Iraqi advance into the city and inflicting casualties on the Iraqi forces.
gazzzwp
Member
Any thoughts regarding ulterior motives here? Weapons used to fight IS can be used to fight the regime also.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Would this thread discussion even exist if Paul Bremer hadn't disbanded Saddam's army? I can't see how leaving Saddam's army in place (with a major culling of his RG) was an inferior solution to what we ended up with. For that matter, Saddam was caged pretty much after the first Gulf War. Saddam was bad news but IMHO nowhere near as bad as ISIS. They could never have been spawned with Saddam present. The same applies to Libya. Should have left its dictator alone as well. I guess the argument could be made that this horror show would just have been delayed until these two SOS died of natural causes. Maybe later would be better?
We can go even further back than that and ask what did the 2003 invasion of Iraq actually achieve? It was officially intended to make the region more stable and remove the [supposed] threat Saddam posed to the free world but did it? We can also ask whether the situation in Afghanistan would be better now had the U.S. not switched its attention to Iraq during a period when the Taliban was defeated and the Afghan population welcomed the presence of foreign troops in the hope that it lead to better things. And lets not even get into the ouster of Gaddafi which was supposed to have led to a free, stable and democratic Libya.
The Iranians to be sure are extremely thankful to Bush and Blair. After failing to topple the Baathist regime during the 8 year long war which Saddam initiated; Iraq is now ruled by a majority Shia government and Iranian influence in Iraq is at an all time high. And we wonder why IS and AQ still can attract volunteers to their cause from disgruntled and misguided Sunnis?
Well yes. And Sturm is right about the distraction from Afghanistan.
GWB & his acolytes have much to answer for.
Thanks for the updates Feanor.
They can also be captured by ISIS. Who knows what will happen, still the decision was made to make it rain guns ... :soldier
Syrian troops have crossed into Raqqa province. Reports indicate that ''moderate'' rebels are collaborating with Syrian government troops. It'll be interesting to see what the reaction of the West and the Sunni Arab states will be if the Syrian government, with Russian support, retake Al Raqqa. The loss of IS's capital will unfortunately not lead to IS disintegrating but it will be a huge blow for the movement.
Syrian army 'crosses into Raqqa province' - AJE News
Syrian army 'crosses into Raqqa province' - AJE News
In the past; weapons supplied to ''moderate'' rebels have been seen in the hands of rebels that are not seen as ''moderate''. No doubt, some were captured but in some cases; rebels that were seen as ''moderate'' joined other groups and by doing so ceased to be called ''moderate''. It's important to note that the West and the Sunni Arab states have a slightly different definition as to what constitutes a ''moderate'' rebel group. As far as I'm concerned; I don't care if those causing hurt to IS are ''moderate'' or not because it is IS that poses the greatest danger.
This advance towards Al Raqqah looks to me to be an unsound gambit. I believe they want to reach the city and start the siege, even though they probably do not have the forces to take it. If they can somehow be the first to lay siege, it will legitimise Assad.
But that can only happen if there is a ceasefire with the main rebel groups, otherwise the regime will suffer setbacks elsewhere. Outside of a widespread ceasefire or a russian ground operation, the best they can hope is just to siege Al Raqqah.
It seems so costly and risky, I would think they would try to clear up Damascus where they are having success, reach Deir Ezzor from the Palmyra road which would be a great morale boost (right?), completely surround Aleppo which is the largest city in Syria ... there is plenty to do.
Why are they willing to suffer so much attrition? Are the russians dictating the overall strategy or Assad?
EDIT:
But that can only happen if there is a ceasefire with the main rebel groups, otherwise the regime will suffer setbacks elsewhere. Outside of a widespread ceasefire or a russian ground operation, the best they can hope is just to siege Al Raqqah.
It seems so costly and risky, I would think they would try to clear up Damascus where they are having success, reach Deir Ezzor from the Palmyra road which would be a great morale boost (right?), completely surround Aleppo which is the largest city in Syria ... there is plenty to do.
Why are they willing to suffer so much attrition? Are the russians dictating the overall strategy or Assad?
EDIT:
Bremer felt the need to immediately and totally ban the Baath party and totally disband the iraqi army. He wanted to show that he ... means business.
Aren't you convinced by such robust measures? What about training and equipping moderate allies? Airdropping ammunition/guns? Destroying the libyan regime? Doesn't get more robust than that. :devil
The taking of Al Raqqa or being the first to reach the city will not legitimise Assad's government; the reason being that his government is recognised by the UN as the legitimate government of Syria; despite his lack of human rights, calls for his ouster and the fact that like most governments in the region; Assad's wasn't elected to office. What Assad can say if Al Raqqa falls; is that with Russian help, he's doing more to roll back IS than anyone else and that his opponents [i.e. the West] should be cooperating with him to defeat a common enemy instead of trying to oust him by supporting so called ''moderates'' who occasionally turn out not to be ''moderate''.
Not sure what Bremer was thinking when he decided to disband the Iraqi army but whatever excuse he gives will be of little consolation to the Iraqi civilians killed in the subsequent slaughter that took place. At one point in the civil war an average of 3-200 Iraqis were dying daily - Iraq's new rulers simply didn't have manpower to cope.
Not sure what Bremer was thinking when he decided to disband the Iraqi army but whatever excuse he gives will be of little consolation to the Iraqi civilians killed in the subsequent slaughter that took place. At one point in the civil war an average of 3-200 Iraqis were dying daily - Iraq's new rulers simply didn't have manpower to cope.
Last edited:
2007yellow430
Active Member
IN my reading, I came across this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm
The posting may be political, so Mods if you decide to delete it I apologize. I think this may provide an explanation.
Art
Yeah, & by doing so he proved that he's an idiot.
In a system where party membership was necessary to reach certain ranks, it's likely that most party members won't be ideologically committed to the party, or loyal to it. Ban the party, & many of them won't give a damn, & some will even be relieved that they can escape from it without losing anything.
To treat every member of such an organisation as an enemy of the new regime is extremely foolish indeed. It shows a failure to understand the nature of either the Baath party, or one-party states in general. It's extraordinary that Bremer proposed it, & the US & UK governments agreed to it (apparently, he had to get approval).
De-Baathification was necessary, but that should have meant removing ideologues, personal supporters of Hussein, & the like, not everyone in an administrative position.
Same with the army. Apart from the Republican Guard, odds are that for the most part it would have been loyal to any government that appeared to have the national interests of Iraq in mind & a commitment to keeping the country intact, & didn't discriminate against Sunnis.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Agree and receiving a paycheck on a regular basis would also have gone a long way to keep the army in check.
Equally idiotic and shortsighted was the idea that a liberated Iraq would quickly get back on its feet without much foreign and UN help and that oil revenues would help pay for reconstruction. There was little consideration to the fact that Saddam was the glue that kept the country together and that a long marginalised Shia community would try to gain power.
One would have thought that the invasion planners would have learnt something from Afghanistan. After seeing off the Talibs the Americans were under the impression that the Afghans would unite and quickly get their country back on its feet with minimal foreign assistance. They were so sure of this that they declined help from the UN, EU and NGOs but off course when things started to go wrong; help was requested from these organisations.
Some interesting videos -
Analyst on battle for Fallujah: 'This is not a strategy to defeat ISIL'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ebKS0KDfy4
[Inside Story - Retaking Fallujah]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4I-vPCCBoU
Iraqi forces meet fierce resistance from IS in Falluja - BBC News
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzY23Ci3r10
What is the actual situation in Falluja and what is symbolic about the city?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxRuWUOqOCA
Robert Fisk - Life after ISIS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gzq_uPzGfw
Patrick Cockburn: Chaos and Caliphate/US-UK Policy on Syria
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiD_9qi-W60
Last edited:
Is anyone else surprised by the rapid advances of anti-ISIS operations? It has been about 10 days and the SDF have besieged Manbej and taken a lot of territory.
The Syria Democratic Forces besiege Manbej city completely and more than 180 killed during 11 days of fighting | Syrian Observatory For Human Rights
The regime forces are 15km kilometers from Tabqa
About 100 fighters killed during clashes in al-Raqqa countryside | Syrian Observatory For Human Rights
The rebels that were pushed back into Marea made an alliance and pushed back against IS, de-blockading themselves
?Not just talk?: New north Aleppo rebel alliance breaks Islamic State blockade - Syria Direct
In the meantime Al Nusra and allied rebels have concentrated in Aleppo and are having some success and are shelling especially the kurdish section of the city. And the russians are bombing the rebels hard ... civilians are also paying the price. The russians seem pretty concerned and I think they are covering their asses regarding the civilian death count proactively by issuing "warnings".
TASS: Military & Defense - Russia to provide active support for Syrian army to prevent terrorists from seizing Aleppo
A T-90 was captured by rebels, oops
Rebels take a T90 tank in northern Aleppo | Syrian Observatory For Human Rights
RT has been whining about an Aleppo Al Nusra concentration recently:
https://www.rt.com/news/344161-nusra-6000-terrorists-aleppo/
https://www.rt.com/news/345894-alnusra-terrorists-aleppo-turkey/
The Syria Democratic Forces besiege Manbej city completely and more than 180 killed during 11 days of fighting | Syrian Observatory For Human Rights
The regime forces are 15km kilometers from Tabqa
About 100 fighters killed during clashes in al-Raqqa countryside | Syrian Observatory For Human Rights
The rebels that were pushed back into Marea made an alliance and pushed back against IS, de-blockading themselves
?Not just talk?: New north Aleppo rebel alliance breaks Islamic State blockade - Syria Direct
In the meantime Al Nusra and allied rebels have concentrated in Aleppo and are having some success and are shelling especially the kurdish section of the city. And the russians are bombing the rebels hard ... civilians are also paying the price. The russians seem pretty concerned and I think they are covering their asses regarding the civilian death count proactively by issuing "warnings".
TASS: Military & Defense - Russia to provide active support for Syrian army to prevent terrorists from seizing Aleppo
A T-90 was captured by rebels, oops
Rebels take a T90 tank in northern Aleppo | Syrian Observatory For Human Rights
RT has been whining about an Aleppo Al Nusra concentration recently:
https://www.rt.com/news/344161-nusra-6000-terrorists-aleppo/
https://www.rt.com/news/345894-alnusra-terrorists-aleppo-turkey/
The saying that ''history always repeats itself'' is often true. After the Brits marched into Baghdad in 1917; they dismissed Iraqi civil servants who had long been running Mesopotamia for the Turks. Focus was on the need to maintain lines of communication with the Persian Gulf, keeping British troops adequately supplied and strengthening Britain's position in Mesopotamia [oil had already been discovered in Mosul] against rival France and Arab nationalists. Like British troops who later faced an insurgency after the 2003 invasion; British troops in 1917 also had to deal with disgruntled locals and had to deal with a local population that was divided over the Shia/Sunni schism.
For those interested in the history of the Middle East, including how decisions made by outsiders played a large part in the mess that is the Middle East; I highly recommend this book. It's very telling that upon reaching the Iraqi/Syrian border; IS knocked down the sand berms dividing both countries. The sand berms off course being a legacy of the Sykes/Picot agreement which artificially created Syria and Iraq. As part of the agreement; the Arabs were promised [in return for turning against the Turks in WW1] Syria but the problem is that the Arabs weren't told that Syria had already been promised to the French by Britain.This book has lot information that remains largely unknown, including how France supplied arms to Jewish groups who had taken up arms against the British in Palestine and about an attempt to poison London's water supply in retaliation for Britain's actions in preventing Jewish refugees from entering Palestine.
A Line in the Sand by James Barr | The Sunday Times
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/9279ad20-cd6c-11e0-b267-00144feabdc0.html