War Against ISIS

Feanor said:

Update.
The Iraqis say they have central Ramadi surrounded. However given the complex urban environment, and the less then capable Iraqi forces, I have some doubts as to just how tight the net is.

Íîâîñòè NEWSru.com :: Èðàêñêàÿ àðìèÿ îáúÿâèëà îá îêðóæåíèè áîåâèêîâ ÈÃ â öåíòðå Ðàìàäè

Click to expand...

Several news sources are announcing that the Iraqi Army has taken complete control of the government complex in Ramadi and ISIS has 'been defeated in Ramadi.'

Iraqi soldiers entered the complex after sniper fire from the area had stopped and ISTAR assets showed no movement. It appears that despite the Army's cordon IS militants have escaped to the Northeast of the complex.

This seems to be in keeping with previously observed defensive actions in which ISIS declined to fight an intensive urban battle. Urban areas are denied with the use of IEDs and attackers delayed and attrited by suicide bombers and snipers, with main body forces withdrawn rather than risking decisive engagement.

Whether we see ISIS re-infiltration once Iraqi Army forces have handed over to police and local forces and moved on towards Mosul is another question. From what I've seen it would appear neither side are prepared to invest heavily in defending urban centres.

Iraqi forces 'retake Islamic State Ramadi stronghold' - BBC News
Iraqi forces seize Islamic State stronghold in Ramadi: spokesman | Reuters
https://www.stratfor.com/situation-report/iraq-troops-enter-government-compound-ramadi

Feanor said:

1) Syria will receive the S-300 very soon, thus gaining the ability to close it's sky to intruders. All planes that don't coordinate with Damascus will be considered hostile. Countries fighting terrorism will be granted air corridors.

Click to expand...

I think Assad has enough enemies at the moment without shooting down US or NATO aircraft. Maybe there's wisdom in finishing the war your on before starting another one, one the Syrian military is ill prepared to fight.

ZeonChar said:

If need be, they can re-route all their planes and equipment via Iraq to Iran, then back over the Caspian. Though, I think Russia would consider it an actor of war if anything were to happen, where their supplies are cut like that. They've made that clear.

Click to expand...

Flying bombs in by air on cargo aircraft and fuel for that matter is extremely inefficient. Best way to move lots of military gear is by ship/rail.

I believe the Bosphorus Strait can only be closed in times of war, so it would take a major war or a serious crisis to close it.

Feanor said:

There certainly could be a response. NATO is quite sophisticated, especially the USAF. They could start an all out bombing campaign, and then do their best to not hit Russian assets. There's a good chance they would even pull it off (the not hitting Russian assets part). All Putin could do in response to that is make angry statements, and try for asymmetric response in other areas. However, at the end of the day the problem is getting agreement for an action of that sort, even in the US government alone, nevermind the Europeans. And that's where the real issue lies. Not in their inability to respond but their profound unwillingness. And of course the fact that the whole thing would just make a bad situation worse.

Click to expand...

Well given the scenario you painted where the Turkish F-16 was the one to go over the border, then no, NATO will not start a bombing campaign. I can assure you, there is very little enthusiasm within the defense/intelligence community in the US over Turkey being in NATO. Many see them as more trouble than they are worth and they have been unreliable Allies in times of need.

If we start bombing Assad's forces or Russian forces (let's hope we don't live to see such a day) I feel confident we will do so with a far better reason than "they shot down a Turkish F-16 over Syria."

But, if that S-400 battery shoots down a Turkish aircraft inside Turkey, I'd say all bets are off, expect a NATO response. It really depends on the exact circumstances.

Rimasta said:

Well given the scenario you painted where the Turkish F-16 was the one to go over the border, then no, NATO will not start a bombing campaign. I can assure you, there is very little enthusiasm within the defense/intelligence community in the US over Turkey being in NATO. Many see them as more trouble than they are worth and they have been unreliable Allies in times of need.

Click to expand...

Maybe you are right about the defense/intelligence community. But the grand scale decisions are made by politicians. And of course USA are the NATO leader and their incessant appeasement of that aggressive and militaristic state of Erdogan is standard in their policies. That's my biased personal opinion of course. Some deep info in this article:
Seymour M. Hersh · Military to Military · LRB 7 January 2016


About the Syrian S300: Banning operations of specific countries and designating air corridors doesn't mean you will shoot down trespassers. Assad has zero political capital, any aggressive action will have dire consequences.

Belesarius said:

I'm curious to hear what the folks on this board think of Turkeys role in the conflict.. With the mounting evidence of oil smuggling going into Turkey and Turkey's sabre rattling with Russia I'm... not their biggest fan lately.

Click to expand...

With the strong evidence that much of the oil produced in Daesh-controlled territory is being sold in government (Assad) controlled territory, I presume you're not exactly a fan of Assad & his backers, either.

The failure to take Kobani seems to have made a deep impression on ISIS. They no longer seem as willing to throw waves of reinforcements into a fight against a determined ground force backed up by Coalition Air. Tikrit, Sinjar, Ramadi have followed a different model and one wonders if Raqqa, Mosul, etc. will follow suit. Will ISIS put up a major fight to preserve it's Caliphate or slowly dissipate into a Taliban-style insurgency?

Rimasta said:

I think Assad has enough enemies at the moment without shooting down US or NATO aircraft. Maybe there's wisdom in finishing the war your on before starting another one, one the Syrian military is ill prepared to fight.

Click to expand...

To clarify, I'm translating the article I linked to. I also find this whole thing unlikely. The PMUs originally slated for Syria are being sold to Iran instead. So the only quick candidate would be an S-300P or S handover from Russian inventory. Besides, they already have the Buk-M2, which they're apparently playing with around Azaz.

swerve said:

With the strong evidence that much of the oil produced in Daesh-controlled territory is being sold in government (Assad) controlled territory, I presume you're not exactly a fan of Assad & his backers, either.

Click to expand...

Well his backers are.... Putin and Iran. So... :

swerve said:

With the strong evidence that much of the oil produced in Daesh-controlled territory is being sold in government (Assad) controlled territory, I presume you're not exactly a fan of Assad & his backers, either.

Click to expand...

I was hoping for rational discussion rather than deflection. Turkey is a nominal ally and if they are funding terrorists by buying oil, I think that's a legitimate point of discussion. I realize that the whole damned area is hopelessly corrupt.

Edit: According to Global Security/Sputnik Kurdish led forces have cut off an important supply route across the Euphrates River into Raqqa by capturing the Tishrin Dam. This puts Raqqa under threat. The forces are apparently a mix of Kurds, Assyrians and Arabs backed up by US airstrikes.

Belesarius said:

I was hoping for rational discussion rather than deflection. Turkey is a nominal ally and if they are funding terrorists by buying oil, I think that's a legitimate point of discussion. I realize that the whole damned area is hopelessly corrupt.

Click to expand...

Turkey is more than just a nominal ally, it has been an important NATO member state since 1952, the SE anchor of NATOs line of containment against Russia and key to access to the Black Sea. Turkey has a long history of conflict and competition with Russia for influence in the Caucasus, SE Europe and the Black Sea, the current tension is nothing new.

They haven't always been the greatest of NATO allies; invasion of Cyprus, etc. but the same can be said of a number of NATO members. They are all pursuing their own national self interest after all, and their goals will not always be in alignment, and are sometimes wildly divergent.

This has been the problem with the 'anti ISIS' effort, the opposing positions of the different actors undermine their broader opposition to ISIS . The key participants in the conflict are fixated primarily on enemies other than ISIS. The primary focus of the rebels and the Assad regime is on each other, while both claim to oppose ISIS. The majority of Russian efforts are focused on rebel forces other than ISIS, Turkey's primary focus is the Kurds (both within Turkey as well as Syria and Iraq), it's secondary concern Assad. Iran's is it's sectarian Sunni enemies, the FSA and Al-Nusra as much as ISIS, and the Saudis and Gulf states the reverse. The West has been paralyzed by indecision, wanting both Assad and ISIS gone but realising this is probably a mutually exclusive outcome.

The funding of terrorists (indeed actors in the conflict in general) is a legitimate discussion point. Whether Turkey as a nation state is party to this, or just hosting opportunistic criminal elements, albeit well connected in some cases, is another question. No one disputes the fact that a significant quantity of oil from ISIS controlled fields is being sold via Turkey, but as both swerve and yourself have acknowledged, there are many parties involved, aided by corruption and a general lack of governance in the region.

colay1 said:

The failure to take Kobani seems to have made a deep impression on ISIS. They no longer seem as willing to throw waves of reinforcements into a fight against a determined ground force backed up by Coalition Air. Tikrit, Sinjar, Ramadi have followed a different model and one wonders if Raqqa, Mosul, etc. will follow suit. Will ISIS put up a major fight to preserve it's Caliphate or slowly dissipate into a Taliban-style insurgency?

Click to expand...

ISIS haven't demonstrated much of an ability to defend the Caliphates territory these last few months. They have lost in almost all the defensive actions they have fought, and shown no willingness to accept decisive engagement. An article in todays 'Times' says their territory has shrunk 14% this year alone, since peaking in August last year.

Most of their initial offensive success was in Sunni majority areas, and relied heavily on sectarian support and PSYOP to dislocate their opponents prior to launching attacks. They have been reliant on the weakness of their enemies to retain control of what they conquered, I just don't think they have enough fighters available to mount a protracted defence now that the Iraqis and others seem willing to fight. That may be down to overreach, an increased rate of attrition or an economy of force effort in Iraq while they concentrate on ops elsewhere.

The appeal of ISIS was in it's vision of holding ground and imposing a religious structure to create a Caliphate, and it's subsequent success in doing so. IMHO that's what rejuvenated the jihadist movement and attracted so many foreigners to it's ranks. Not sure if 'ISIS' could survive the loss of it's territory to re-emerge as an insurgency, as it is conceptually different to organisations like the Taliban or Al-Qaida. Someone else here is undoubtedly more attuned to the theological differences and can shed more light/correct me if required.

Hone C said:

They haven't always been the greatest of NATO allies; invasion of Cyprus, etc. but the same can be said of a number of NATO members. They are all pursuing their own national self interest after all, and their goals will not always be in alignment, and are sometimes wildly divergent.

Click to expand...

Turkey is the only NATO member that has threatened war against another member state (Greece). There is a difference between pursuing national interests and threatening war. Turkey's value to NATO is diminishing with each passing day.

Hone C said:

ISIS haven't demonstrated much of an ability to defend the Caliphates territory these last few months. They have lost in almost all the defensive actions they have fought, and shown no willingness to accept decisive engagement. An article in todays 'Times' says their territory has shrunk 14% this year alone, since peaking in August last year.

Most of their initial offensive success was in Sunni majority areas, and relied heavily on sectarian support and PSYOP to dislocate their opponents prior to launching attacks. They have been reliant on the weakness of their enemies to retain control of what they conquered, I just don't think they have enough fighters available to mount a protracted defence now that the Iraqis and others seem willing to fight. That may be down to overreach, an increased rate of attrition or an economy of force effort in Iraq while they concentrate on ops elsewhere.

The appeal of ISIS was in it's vision of holding ground and imposing a religious structure to create a Caliphate, and it's subsequent success in doing so. IMHO that's what rejuvenated the jihadist movement and attracted so many foreigners to it's ranks. Not sure if 'ISIS' could survive the loss of it's territory to re-emerge as an insurgency, as it is conceptually different to organisations like the Taliban or Al-Qaida. Someone else here is undoubtedly more attuned to the theological differences and can shed more light/correct me if required.

Click to expand...

Agreed, I think it's a matter of time until the box around Deash closes. Between the Russians in Syria and Iraqi(US supported) push from the East they're getting eradicated.

I agree I see them dissolving into less of a "Caliphate" and more into a Tali style insurgency. One has to wonder how long they can sustain regular style combat ops simply based on the bombing campaigns toll on its equipment and total number of troops available.

Spain keeping PAC-2s in turkey until 12/16

Madrid — Spain will stay in Turkish soil with its Patriot air and anti-missile defense system despite the withdrawals of United States and Germany units.

After eleven months of deployment, the Spanish government decided to extend its participation in the NATO operation "Active Fence" until Dec. 31, 2016, MoD told Defense News.

The Patriot PAC-2 unit, with six launchers of 4 missiles in each one, is located near the airport of the southeastern city of Adana, the fifth most populated city in Turkey and 63 miles from Syrian border.

Last October, Turkey appealed to its NATO allies to shore up missile defenses in the country aimed at shooting down Syrian rockets, as United States and Germany decided to withdraw their batteries from the cities of Gaziantep and Kahramanmaras.

NATO is considering an extra deployment of Italian anti-missile defense system Samp/T. The US Navy will offer one of the four "Arleigh Burke class," based out of Rota,Spain, to be deployed in a constant basis in the Black Sea.

"This could be the new NATO architecture of the anti-missile defense in Turkey after the withdrawal of the Patriot unit of US and Germany," military sources told Defense News.

Update.

More footage from Ramadi, where the Iraqis have apparently announced victory. The fall of Ramadi is a major success. And while a lot of the credit goes to coalition efforts to build up and support the Iraqi army, I wonder how much of it is due to ISIS being pressured on multiple fronts.

Про взÑтие Рамади - Colonel Cassad
Íîâîñòè NEWSru.com :: Ïåðâàÿ ñåðüåçíàÿ ïîáåäà íàä "Èñëàìñêèì ãîñóäàðñòâîì" â Èðàêå: ïðàâèòåëüñòâåííûå âîéñêà îñâîáîäèëè Ðàìàäè

Some footage of Syrian troops near Mahin. Note the T-72B and BMP-2s. These are recent Russian deliveries, not matching the units or paint scheme or Syrian BMP-2s.

СирийÑкие войÑка в районе Мхина - Юрий ЛÑмин

The US has captured Omar ash-Shishani. A chechen terrorist, who has been fighting as part of ISIS forces in Iraq. He hails from Georgia, namely the Pankisi gorge area, and allegedly fought against Russia during the Georgian war.

Íîâîñòè NEWSru.com :: Ñïåöíàç ÑØÀ ñõâàòèë òåððîðèñòà Îìàðà àø-Øèøàíè, óãðîæàâøåãî îòîìñòèòü Ðîññèè çà êîíôëèêò ñ Ãðóçèåé

Russian marines in Sevastopol receiving awards for their actions during their deployment to Syria. It appears that they deploy in 3-month rotations. That's pretty short. Granted the small size of the deployment makes it easy to sustain.

ÐÐ°Ð³Ñ€Ð°Ð¶Ð´ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ Ð·Ð° Сирию - Ð”ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ ÐœÐ¾ÐºÑ€ÑƒÑˆÐ¸Ð½

Additional Russian sanctions against Turkey broaden the list of organizations and companies that are restricted in doing business in Russia.

Íîâîñòè NEWSru.com :: Ïóòèí ïîäïèñàë óêàç î ñïåöèàëüíûõ ýêîíîìè÷åñêèõ ìåðàõ ïðîòèâ Òóðöèè

John Fedup said:

Turkey is the only NATO member that has threatened war against another member state (Greece). There is a difference between pursuing national interests and threatening war. Turkey's value to NATO is diminishing with each passing day.

Click to expand...

Interesting development:

NATO to deploy AWACS surveillance planes to Turkey – Germany

https://www.rt.com/news/line/

My guess is that NATO will be embracing members resources anywhere it can at this time while strained relations with Russia persist.

Could the AWACS deployment be more about data gathering (EW warfare etc) as opposed to direct defense of Turkey ?

John Fedup said:

Turkey is the only NATO member that has threatened war against another member state (Greece). There is a difference between pursuing national interests and threatening war. Turkey's value to NATO is diminishing with each passing day.

Click to expand...

As I recall, Greece & Turkey fought each other three times in the 20th century. Twice, Greece invaded Turkey (won one, lost one), & once Greece overthrew the government of Cyprus & installed a violently anti-Turkish puppet, thus provoking Turkish intervention.

I don't agree with Turkish policy, & particularly not the current government, but while Greece kept stripping Greek citizens of Turkish ethnicity of their citizenship if they got a job abroad (or sometimes, if they just travelled abroad - & then they'd be refused permission to go home), & still refuses to return the citizenship of those deprived of it, & similar undesirable behaviour, one can understand Turkey being twitchy.

Stripping ethnicity of those who migrated to another country? I could counter that with genocides of millions by the turks and so on ... but it would be offtopic.

What is ontopic is everyday violations of greek airspace, their fellow NATO ally:

Forbes Welcome

Nice infographic here:
Turkey buzzes weakened Greece – POLITICO

There has been danger of grecoturkish war in the Aegean Sea for decades and trust me, it's not the Greeks that want to pick a fight with a country 8 times their size that throws their military around at the first chance it gets. I mean, we were just talking about their Iraqi invasion, the bombings of kurds inside other countries, the military control of turkokurdish towns, the illegal downing of the russian plane... jesus

John Fedup said:

Turkey is the only NATO member that has threatened war against another member state (Greece). There is a difference between pursuing national interests and threatening war. Turkey's value to NATO is diminishing with each passing day.

Click to expand...

Didn't realise this would arouse such tensions. Agreed that the Turks are acting provocatively towards the Greeks with illegal overflights, etc. and that this should be considered unacceptable behaviour between allies.
You are wrong to suggest Turkey-Greece is the only example of this kind of thing within NATO however. The Guardia Civil and Spanish Navy infringe on Gibraltar's territorial waters constantly; the Cod Wars saw warships deployed, shots fired, boats rammed and the deaths of sailors; An MP in the Slovak government threatened to send tanks into Budapest, etc. etc.
The original point was simply that with every participant fixated on their own national goals, both the broader effort against ISIS and a stable post-ISIS regional framework is being undermined.

Although not a fan of the direction the AKP is taking Turkey, the countries value is in it's strategic position, not it's code of behaviour, and this remains undiminished. A (relatively) stable ally in the Middle East, gatekeeper to the Black Sea, and possibly key to future efforts to open up Central Asia.
Rather than Turkeys value diminishing every day, with the rising tension between Russia and the West, and the instability in the Arab states, one could argue the opposite.

Toblerone said:

Stripping ethnicity of those who migrated to another country? I could counter that with genocides of millions by the turks and so on ... but it would be offtopic.

What is ontopic is everyday violations of greek airspace, their fellow NATO ally:

Forbes Welcome

Nice infographic here:
Turkey buzzes weakened Greece – POLITICO

There has been danger of grecoturkish war in the Aegean Sea for decades and trust me, it's not the Greeks that want to pick a fight with a country 8 times their size that throws their military around at the first chance it gets. I mean, we were just talking about their Iraqi invasion, the bombings of kurds inside other countries, the military control of turkokurdish towns, the illegal downing of the russian plane... jesus

Click to expand...

Timing, mate, timing. Greece was making its ethnic Turkish (but calling them that was banned) citizens stateless up to 1998, & it's still denying citizenship to those it did it to. And it wasn't just those who migrated to another country. Got a job in Germany, meaning to come back, & sending money to your family? Stateless! Go to university in Istanbul? Stateless! IIRC some were even made stateless while on holiday. But someone of Greek ethnicity could move abroad with no intention of ever returning, living abroad for decades, without losing citizenship.

Nobody alive now is responsible for the horrors of 100 years ago. Current Greek politicians are responsible for ethnicity-based legal discrimination. Putting it right is the right thing to do just because it's morally right, & it would also give Greece the moral high ground. Pointing to things done by people who are all dead does not justify current actions. Nor does pointing to actions unconnected to yours. Two wrongs do not make a right.

And note that the only one of the two countries which actually picked a fight in the last 90 years (albeit not one it meant to, expecting to get away with the overthrow of the government of a sovereign country & utter humiliation of Turkey - doh!) isn't Turkey. Bulent Ecevit took the opportunity he was handed by Greece's dictators in 1974, but he wouldn't have done anything without it.

Of course it'd be crazy for Greece to pick a fight again, but there won't be one unless Greece does. Turkey's not going to attack Greece (but it may keep pushing Greece around to see if Greece is stupid enough to react), because it'd lose more than it could possibly gain, however victorious the war. And the better Greece behaves, the harder it is for Turkey to bully it. If Greek politicians had the sense to play the injured innocents card convincingly (which means being nice to that Turkish minority), they'd have a hell of a lot more support internationally.