War Against ISIS

ngatimozart said:

The Guardian has run a story regarding leaked Daesh papers pertaining to be instructions for the institution and management of a government infrastructure. Another is a Der Speigel article claiming that Daesh was the brain child of a group of embittered Iraqi intelligence officers from the former Saddam Hussein regime who found themselves unemployed when the Iraqi government and armed forces were dismissed and dissolved by decree in 2003. According to the article a blueprint was crafted by one Haji Bakr, who was in reality an ex Colonel Samir Abd Muhammad al-Khlifawi an Intelligence officer from Saddam's Air Force. He was killed in a firefight in January 2014 but Daesh still follow the blueprint religiously. The article claims that whilst Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is seen as the leader of Daesh, he may in fact be controlled by the real leaders, the embittered intelligence officers.

These articles may in fact be reasonably accurate, however I believe that whilst they may offer insight into the structure and driving force of Daesh, they have to be treated with caution until there is independent verification of the authenticity of the source documents.

Click to expand...

Personally, this sounds a little to good to be true; DAESH, or its leaders, have shown that they play their cards very close to the chest, and this would be a big informational breach. My instincts say that this is misinformation, but I hope I am wrong. A geographically based DAESH can be fought much easier than the global caliphate franchise I fear.

swerve said:

I thought that it had blocked the sale of Leopard 2.

Click to expand...

Germany is still selling fifteen 44m "patrol boats" to Saudi Arabia.

ngatimozart said:

The Guardian has run a story regarding leaked Daesh papers pertaining to be instructions for the institution and management of a government infrastructure. Another is a Der Speigel article claiming that Daesh was the brain child of a group of embittered Iraqi intelligence officers from the former Saddam Hussein regime who found themselves unemployed when the Iraqi government and armed forces were dismissed and dissolved by decree in 2003. According to the article a blueprint was crafted by one Haji Bakr, who was in reality an ex Colonel Samir Abd Muhammad al-Khlifawi an Intelligence officer from Saddam's Air Force. He was killed in a firefight in January 2014 but Daesh still follow the blueprint religiously. The article claims that whilst Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is seen as the leader of Daesh, he may in fact be controlled by the real leaders, the embittered intelligence officers.

These articles may in fact be reasonably accurate, however I believe that whilst they may offer insight into the structure and driving force of Daesh, they have to be treated with caution until there is independent verification of the authenticity of the source documents.

Click to expand...

I think it is a critical and often overlooked point. The out-governing, not least because the low level and poor standard of governance from the actual government is a critical factor in insurgencies and rebellions gaining any traction. It is a central point that speaks to both governance levels, as well as the mechanisms that allow it to occur and continue. One thing we never speak about in regards to Daesh is the actual governance in the states where it exists. If Baghdad could govern properly, and by that I don't just mean apply and have a monopoly of force, then daesh would have had little chance. Broken States being the Petri dishes daesh and the like can grow is not just a question of state powerlessness, but poor governance. This pattern exists in just about all insurgencies. It is also a strong point in the argument that military solutions alone do not work.

Either way, it is clear daesh are governing, and able to our govern in areas. This goes beyond the military. One would hope this info is real, and that it allows an insight into how to disrupt their governance of areas, and points to how Baghdad is falling so short in governance.

I've been researching the role of governance and insurgent/rebel governance in insurgency in an academic capacity for some time now as a part of something else, and the role of governance is critical but so often overlooked.

Update.

Aleppo

Significant gains made around Kuweiris, a slow push westward through the Chemical plant, and several towns and villages to the south east, have fallen to the SAA. In the south-west of Aleppo, a rebel counter-offensive stemmed the Iranian and Hezbollah push for the Damascus-Aleppo highway, but after reinforcement arrived on Dec 7th, government forces are on the offensive again. The goal is of course taking the highway, and destroying as many rebel forces in the fight as they can.

North of Aleppo a brief counter-attack by rebels against ISIS pushed them back somewhat, but it didn't last. Kafra, which fell to ISIS iirc two days ago. ISIS is clearly pushing for Azaz.

Latakia

Reports that Salma is surrounded, or almost so, are untrue. The SAA is still pushing north, slowly, mainly to the east and west of Salma.

Hama-Homs-Palmyra

The front has stabilized, and while the government offensive failed, the rebels couldn't counter-attack. They had to redeploy their reserves to Aleppo.

The last few rebels in the city agreed to leave, provided they were given a safe corridor to exit with their weapons. They are now in the rebel held area around Ar-Rastan, where government troops are trying but so far failing to open the Homs-Hama highway.

At Palmyra, Assad's forces have reached the approaches to it, and it's eventual liberation will be significant, but it doesn't look likely right now.

Damascus-DeZ-Deraa

Little changes in any of them, except some tiny gains in Damascus area, literally single houses or occasionally blocks.

Kurds

The Kurds have cut a major highway from Iraqi Mosul to Syria, and are pushing for Shaddadi. Their rapid gains threaten ISIS ability to move troops between Iraq and Syria.

Ð’Ð¾ÐµÐ½Ð½Ð°Ñ Ð¾Ð±Ñтановка в Сирии к 08.12.2015 - Colonel Cassad

Meanwhile Iraq is preparing for the Assault of Ramadi, having given final notice to civilians to leave. They're slowly clearing outer settlements around it.

They've also joined Russia's accusation, saying that most of ISIS oil goes through Turkey. Meanwhile Turkey doesn't expect to withdraw their trainers from Iraq, though it seems they've halted sending more. Even the US has said that they don't support the Turkish action.

ИракÑкий Ñпецназ проводит зачиÑтку вблизи наÑеленного пункта Рамади | Военный информатор
Ð’ Багдаде не вÑе Ñпокойно - Colonel Cassad

Russian jets are reported to be flying over Syria army positions to protect them from coalition air strikes. Meanwhile Syria called the strike an act of aggression

Personal comment, I think this has been overstated. It's likely some fighters flew over the Deyr-ez-Zor camp after the air strike, but Russia doesn't have enough planes, especially with the need to escort their own strikers, to do what this article claims.

РоÑÑийÑкие иÑтребители взÑли под охрану ÑирийÑкие войÑка поÑле Ð½Ð°Ð¿Ð°Ð´ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ Ð¿Ñ€Ð¾Ð°Ð¼ÐµÑ€Ð¸ÐºÐ°Ð½Ñкой коалиции | Военный информатор
[urp://military-informant.com/airforca/mid-sirii-nazval-neprikryitoy-agressiey-raketnyiy-udar-aviatsii-ssha-po-armeyskomu-lageryu-v-rayone-deyr-ez-zora.html]МИД Сирии назвал “неприкрытой агреÑÑией” ракетный удар авиации СШРпо армейÑкому лагерю в районе Дейр-Ñз-Зора | Военный информатор[/url]

wittmanace said:

I think it is a critical and often overlooked point. The out-governing, not least because the low level and poor standard of governance from the actual government is a critical factor in insurgencies and rebellions gaining any traction. It is a central point that speaks to both governance levels, as well as the mechanisms that allow it to occur and continue. One thing we never speak about in regards to Daesh is the actual governance in the states where it exists. If Baghdad could govern properly, and by that I don't just mean apply and have a monopoly of force, then daesh would have had little chance. Broken States being the Petri dishes daesh and the like can grow is not just a question of state powerlessness, but poor governance. This pattern exists in just about all insurgencies. It is also a strong point in the argument that military solutions alone do not work.

Either way, it is clear daesh are governing, and able to our govern in areas. This goes beyond the military. One would hope this info is real, and that it allows an insight into how to disrupt their governance of areas, and points to how Baghdad is falling so short in governance.

I've been researching the role of governance and insurgent/rebel governance in insurgency in an academic capacity for some time now as a part of something else, and the role of governance is critical but so often overlooked.

Click to expand...

The problem is that bad governance is a staple across the third world. If ISIS can get a foot hold anywhere where governance is bad and there is a significant number of Muslims, then ISIS has dozens of countries on it's list. Essentially bad governance is more common then good governance, assuming of course we're using accepted standards. The question becomes, what does ISIS actually do?

I mean you say they outgovern. Do they build roads? Schools? Hospitals? Factories? What is good governance when we're talking about ISIS?

Feanor said:

The problem is that bad governance is a staple across the third world. If ISIS can get a foot hold anywhere where governance is bad and there is a significant number of Muslims, then ISIS has dozens of countries on it's list. Essentially bad governance is more common then good governance, assuming of course we're using accepted standards. The question becomes, what does ISIS actually do?

I mean you say they outgovern. Do they build roads? Schools? Hospitals? Factories? What is good governance when we're talking about ISIS?

Click to expand...

It's a good point. The bar for governance is so low, set by Baghdad in this case, that your bar for governance is much higher than what we are talking about. I'll find some good readings on the topic if you want, but it is a consistent issue. William Reno's classification of rebels and his work on out governance as an issue is a good starting point for a lot of this. I looked at various examples in my study of it, including countries that will be at risk in future if the pattern isn't reversed.

The low level of the standard of governance means it is not hard for rebel groups to do so. A complimentary point is that the government can lose the interest or in many cases doesn't actually seem to seek to govern....but rather just wants the advantages of sovereignty, power and being recognised as government.

This is even recognised in the infamous "greed and grievance" series of papers on civil war causality and motivation when one reads it carefully, though it contradicts the central thesis of the first two papers.

Let me know if more sources or literature is of interest...I'm just afraid of derailing the thread.

wittmanace said:

It's a good point. The bar for governance is so low, set by Baghdad in this case, that your bar for governance is much higher than what we are talking about. I'll find some good readings on the topic if you want, but it is a consistent issue. William Reno's classification of rebels and his work on out governance as an issue is a good starting point for a lot of this. I looked at various examples in my study of it, including countries that will be at risk in future if the pattern isn't reversed.

The low level of the standard of governance means it is not hard for rebel groups to do so. A complimentary point is that the government can lose the interest or in many cases doesn't actually seem to seek to govern....but rather just wants the advantages of sovereignty, power and being recognised as government.

This is even recognised in the infamous "greed and grievance" series of papers on civil war causality and motivation when one reads it carefully, though it contradicts the central thesis of the first two papers.

Let me know if more sources or literature is of interest...I'm just afraid of derailing the thread.

Click to expand...

If you could PM me the works and authors, I would appreciate it. If they are books, give me title and author, if articles or papers, I also need to know where I can find them. Thanks in advance.

Feanor said:

If you could PM me the works and authors, I would appreciate it. If they are books, give me title and author, if articles or papers, I also need to know where I can find them. Thanks in advance.

Click to expand...

No problem, I'll get a list together and send it to you.

Edit: do you have access through an institution or the like? I'm just thinking of where you'd access the papers, for some I know various/multiple places you'd find them depending your access type. The books are easy enough to get hold of.

Feanor said:

Update.

4 US jets hit a Syrian army camp in Deyr-ez-Zor. 3 dead, 13 wounded. It certainly could be a mistake, given how hard it is to distinguish some of the "Syrian Army" units from rebels, based on appearance.

Ðвиаудар Ñил коалиции по ÑирийÑким войÑкам - Ð”ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ ÐœÐ¾ÐºÑ€ÑƒÑˆÐ¸Ð½
Íîâîñòè NEWSru.com :: Â Ñèðèè îò àâèàóäàðà êîàëèöèè ïîãèáëè òðîå ñîëäàò ïðàâèòåëüñòâåííîé àðìèè

Click to expand...

Just an FYI, The pentagon is saying they are certain it was russian jets.


Washington denies U.S.-led coalition hit Syria army camp

But a U.S. military official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the United States is certain that Russia was responsible for the deadly strike on the Syrian army camp.

The official flatly dismissed claims that U.S.-led coalition jets were responsible.

Russia, a key ally of Syria, is waging its own air campaign in support of President Bashar al-Assad, and has also been striking in Deir al-Zor.

A second U.S. military official said indications pointed to a strike carried out by a Russian TU-22 bomber.


Like you said, everything is such a mess, identification has to be difficult.

swerve said:

I thought that it had blocked the sale of Leopard 2.

Click to expand...

Yes this was one year ago though and the exporting nation would have been Spain and not Germany itself anyway. There have been quite some discussion about the topic back then and there were considerable efforts undertaken by parts of the government to get the deal through despite the pressure from the media / public in consequence of the arab spring and saudi's participating in oppressing the people with their armed forces.

It is the more or less official stance of the CDU / CSU that Saudi Arabia represents a stabilizing Factor in the ME and should be supported in this role by weapon exports and there are people openly questioning Gabriels position in the media asking for less restrictions explaining that the export of weapons is a vital part of german foreign politics.

Since CDU / CSU are the leading faction in the german Government (they are the party of chancelor Merkel which is currently 10 years in office if I'm not mistaken) and the SPD of Gabriel has decayed in power and voters favor constantly since Schröder he is in a weak spot to start with. The cancelling of the Leopard deal was rather opportunistic since germany hasn't bothered to continue selling software and training components.

In April the export of 100 Drones, EW components and spare parts for armored vehicles with a volume of 12,8 Million Euro has been aproved of by the government and in the February and March a volume of 16 Million Euros have been greenlighted containing mostly the export of tank parts and ammunition as well as equipmenst for g2a rockets.

In June the export of 15 Typ-44m patroal boats to Saudi Arabia has been greenlightes, at the same time Omar and Katar will recive one Leopard 2A7 for testing which implies the readiness of the government to export larger quantities to these countrys... right after Gabriel visited SA.

The public is very critical of the exports to Saudi Arabia but the government dosn't bother with it, the narrative presented by the Gov. at this time is that the weapons delivered to the Saudis could help to fight ISIS and are mostly defencive. Yes, that is what the german government is actually claiming, they help Saudi Arabia to defend against / fight ISIS with their weapon exports and that spin tells you all you need to know about the feeling the german government has towards Saudi Arabia and why Gabriel will not succeed even if he would try to stop the exports.

Twain said:

Just an FYI, The pentagon is saying they are certain it was russian jets.

Click to expand...

Interesting and entirely possible. I was under the impression that long range aviation operations had come to an end, but I may be wrong. The MoD isn't quite as forthcoming with giant press briefings as it used to, presumably because the interest in day to day operations has died for all except a few like us. But Russian sources are claiming the strike used rockets not bombs, which (if true) would rule out the Tu-22 for sure.

GermanHerman said:

The public is very critical of the exports to Saudi Arabia but the government dosn't bother with it, the narrative presented by the Gov. at this time is that the weapons delivered to the Saudis could help to fight ISIS and are mostly defencive. Yes, that is what the german government is actually claiming, they help Saudi Arabia to defend against / fight ISIS with their weapon exports and that spin tells you all you need to know about the feeling the german government has towards Saudi Arabia and why Gabriel will not succeed even if he would try to stop the exports.

Click to expand...

Hell Germany was still selling weapons and dual-use materials to Russia, despite the open sanctions. Iirc there was some scandal in the Bundestag over it, and the sums of money involved were much smaller. What are the chances they'll forgo on the much larger amounts to be made here?

Feanor said:

But Russian sources are claiming the strike used rockets not bombs, which (if true) would rule out the Tu-22 for sure.

Click to expand...

Would also rule out western aircraft too. Missiles are not rockets.

SouthernSky said:

Would also rule out western aircraft too. Missiles are not rockets.

Click to expand...

The Russian ракеты can refer to either missiles or rockets.

SouthernSky said:

Would also rule out western aircraft too. Missiles are not rockets.

Click to expand...

As an example the French have Mirage 2000s which can fire rockets from pods.

Feanor said:

The Russian ракеты can refer to either missiles or rockets.

Click to expand...

And I suspect those on the ground would struggle to distinguish what it was that struck in their near vicinity. Plausible deniability comes into play with this one.

SouthernSky said:

And I suspect those on the ground would struggle to distinguish what it was that struck in their near vicinity. Plausible deniability comes into play with this one.

Click to expand...

Presumably all the sides should know who did it. That's a rather packed airspace. I find it hard to believe that anyone of the players should be ignorant. Either Russia and Syria are lying and pointing the finger, or the US carefully, through an anonymous source, are trying to play innocent. After the tensions the shootdown of the Russian jet caused, I don't think it's impossible.

Feanor said:

Presumably all the sides should know who did it. That's a rather packed airspace. I find it hard to believe that anyone of the players should be ignorant. Either Russia and Syria are lying and pointing the finger, or the US carefully, through an anonymous source, are trying to play innocent. After the tensions the shootdown of the Russian jet caused, I don't think it's impossible.

Click to expand...

All sides would know what happened with the Su-24 too but we'll never get a definitive answer on that either.

Stating it was one side or the other at this early stage is fraught with danger.

I was just researching NATO bolstering the Turkish defenses and came across this:

Suffice it to say, NATO has decided to send a stark message to Moscow that it cannot hope to dominate Syria (or Iraq), and if it persists on the present path, Turkey will resist Russia (and Iran) on the ground under NATO protection. Thus, in rapid moves, British, French and German warplanes are being deployed in Incirlik; hundreds of German military personnel are arriving in Incirlik; Italy has decided to deploy Patriot missiles in Turkey (a similar move by Spain is expected); Denmark is dispatching frigates to protect Turkey from Russia’s S-400 missiles and to provide electronic intelligence through jammers; US has decided to keep the USS Donald Cook in the region (equipped with Aegis missile defence systems and Tomahawk missiles that can protect Turkey from ballistic missile attacks).

NATO taunts Russia, Turkey makes hay | Asia Times

As usual I take these articles with a pinch of salt until independently verified. It seems to be implying that this is conflict is turning more and more toward a NATO versus Russian stand off.

Lots of other media are reporting that Russia is objecting to the bolstering of Turkish defenses.

Any thoughts please?

NATO decision makers are criminally stupid or just criminal. To support and embolden someone like Erdogan and supply Turkey with the best western equipment ... it boggles the mind. They are one of the nine main partners in the F-35 program for example.

Russian leadership is making a lot of correct decisions. The Syrian intervention is one of them, Crimea is another ... the Sarmat is another.

NATO is just dominated by the USA, it is a shame that there isn't a strictly European military alliance in its place. Then there could be a semblance of balance in global politics and the USA couldn't disrupt whole regions with the liver punches it is delivering every few years to the non-conformist countries and rebel movements.

They said in SKAI TV greece that they found a Syrian who was anti Assad but declared himself not an ISIS.. Journalists said that he had a lot of suspicious photos in his mobile