War Against ISIS

Toblerone said:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CbVT-uMW4AAcDuB.jpg:large
Wow that is some serious kurdish progress...

I have been reading some new articles on the ISW blog. Factually they have always been on the money I think but their fully americanized ideas for the next steps that should be taken gave me some laughs. Their solution consists of giving humanitarian aid to some specific non-radical groups so they don't get assimilated into the radical coalition. While allowing them to coordinate with the terrorist groups for the defence of Aleppo.

And providing food and a TOW or two will, according to these analysts, convert them from "potential powerbrokers" to "powerbrokers" and "US clients". And later USA can use them to fight ... ISIS

It's amazing how easy this "partner-building" seems to americans, just bring some trucks all the way around from Turkey to Aleppo city, throw some stale sandwiches and a dollar or two to those unwashed rebels' face. Now we bought them and they fight for us like loyal dogs. 'merica!

What do you think about this way of "partner building"? Are there any legitimate rebel groups that would willingly fight for USA interests? It is my understanding that they are universally hated.

If there is one force that can fight with USA assistance and beat ISIS, while not throwing gasoline in the fire within Syria, it is the kurds. But that would mean displeasing the sultan Erdogan.

Seeing the russians working with the kurds and having such success actually proves that the USA decision making is lacking. And it will probably get worse as the US elections get closer. Then it may get fully anti-interventionist after Sanders becomes president.

EDIT:
Turkey is basically providing artillery support to Al Nusra Front, an Al Qaeda affiliate, not even hiding it. They are actually proud of their "success" in halting the kurd advance. Wake up USA ...
Turkey will not allow Syrian town of Azaz to fall to Kurdish militia: PM | Reuters

Click to expand...

The ISW blog will be analysing the data and reaching their conclusions through an American lense. Remember that it is written and produced primarily for an American audience hence it being American centric. However having said that, I think that the Americans have dropped the ball on the Syrian war and left the field wide open for the Russians to utilise effectively. IMHO all the Americans can really do now is try to play catch up until the Russians, in turn, drop the ball. In this the Americans only have themselves to blame and there is enough blame to cover both sides of the Congressional divide and the White House. IMHO when definite leadership and policy was required, it was noticeably lacking. Maybe it is time for Europe to stand up and take the lead, sideling the Americans.

Stemming from that, is the lack of US and European pressure on Turkey regarding its continued attacks on the Kurds, especially when the Kurds are achieving successes against Daesh and al Nusra. IMV, the shelling of the Kurds when they were advancing against al Nusra, was aiding and abetting the enemy. Maybe it is time for the Americans, the EU, Europe and NATO to undertake a comprehensive reassessment of the political, diplomatic, strategic and economic viability of Turkeys continued membership of NATO and any other European centric organisations.

Today Assad's forces have captured Kansaba in northern Latakia.

ngatimozart said:

The ISW blog will be analysing the data and reaching their conclusions through an American lense. Remember that it is written and produced primarily for an American audience hence it being American centric. However having said that, I think that the Americans have dropped the ball on the Syrian war and left the field wide open for the Russians to utilise effectively. IMHO all the Americans can really do now is try to play catch up until the Russians, in turn, drop the ball. In this the Americans only have themselves to blame and there is enough blame to cover both sides of the Congressional divide and the White House. IMHO when definite leadership and policy was required, it was noticeably lacking. Maybe it is time for Europe to stand up and take the lead, sideling the Americans.

Stemming from that, is the lack of US and European pressure on Turkey regarding its continued attacks on the Kurds, especially when the Kurds are achieving successes against Daesh and al Nusra. IMV, the shelling of the Kurds when they were advancing against al Nusra, was aiding and abetting the enemy. Maybe it is time for the Americans, the EU, Europe and NATO to undertake a comprehensive reassessment of the political, diplomatic, strategic and economic viability of Turkeys continued membership of NATO and any other European centric organisations.

Click to expand...

Agree, a serious review on Turkey is necessary. It is long overdue.

ngatimozart said:

The ISW blog will be analysing the data and reaching their conclusions through an American lense. Remember that it is written and produced primarily for an American audience hence it being American centric. However having said that, I think that the Americans have dropped the ball on the Syrian war and left the field wide open for the Russians to utilise effectively. IMHO all the Americans can really do now is try to play catch up until the Russians, in turn, drop the ball. In this the Americans only have themselves to blame and there is enough blame to cover both sides of the Congressional divide and the White House. IMHO when definite leadership and policy was required, it was noticeably lacking. Maybe it is time for Europe to stand up and take the lead, sideling the Americans.

Stemming from that, is the lack of US and European pressure on Turkey regarding its continued attacks on the Kurds, especially when the Kurds are achieving successes against Daesh and al Nusra. IMV, the shelling of the Kurds when they were advancing against al Nusra, was aiding and abetting the enemy. Maybe it is time for the Americans, the EU, Europe and NATO to undertake a comprehensive reassessment of the political, diplomatic, strategic and economic viability of Turkeys continued membership of NATO and any other European centric organisations.

Click to expand...

I propose that that will never happen. The reason being that Turkey is too strategically important to NATO and this explains why Russia is keen to see Turkey become isolated from the pack.

What needs to happen is that the US needs to step in and do deals; an example being to act as intermediary between the Kurds and Turkey. Try and get them both around the table so that mutual interests can be secured. That's the only way forward imho. Any other option sees Russia getting more of it's way.

gazzzwp said:

I propose that that will never happen. The reason being that Turkey is too strategically important to NATO and this explains why Russia is keen to see Turkey become isolated from the pack.

Click to expand...

Russia and Turkey had great relations prior to the Syrian mess. Turkey even sent a trade delegation to Crimea "unofficially", after the Russian annexation. Turkey also maintains trade relations with the unrecognized republic of Akhazia (a Russian protectorate), though they don't officially recognize Abkhazian independence. They were even re-routing the South Stream pipeline to go through Turkey. They still have a 20 bln USD deal for building nuclear powerplants in Turkey, and before this Turkish companies had a huge presence on the Russian construction market.

What needs to happen is that the US needs to step in and do deals; an example being to act as intermediary between the Kurds and Turkey. Try and get them both around the table so that mutual interests can be secured. That's the only way forward imho. Any other option sees Russia getting more of it's way.

Click to expand...

Opposing Russia is not the only or even the primary geopolitical interest of all parties. The Kurds primarily want independence from Turkey (as well as Iraq and Syria, but there they already have very wide autonomy). They are enemies and will remain so. At best, they can maintain a tentative truce. At worst, we have what we have now. Turkey would rather side with Islamists then with the Kurds. Granted, given Erdogan's policies, this isn't too surprising.

gazzzwp said:

I propose that that will never happen. The reason being that Turkey is too strategically important to NATO and this explains why Russia is keen to see Turkey become isolated from the pack.

What needs to happen is that the US needs to step in and do deals; an example being to act as intermediary between the Kurds and Turkey. Try and get them both around the table so that mutual interests can be secured. That's the only way forward imho. Any other option sees Russia getting more of it's way.

Click to expand...

Turkey may be so important to NATO and all that but if the US keeps keeping a blind eye to the criminal activities of its friends then it becomes hard for the US to tell India, China or let's say Pakistan to stop whatever bad they my do in future. Already Russia is bombing terrorists and civilians put together and the US can't really take solid action because they also kill civilians in their previous bombing campaigns and the Russians are always waiting to remind them when they complain...

Turkey says Syrian kurds are responsible for the Ankara bombings.
The Guardian carries it, it won't let me post a link

I think the USA should abandon all attempts at "partner building" and hoping they will establish a western-friendly democratic government at this point.

They should facilitate amnesty and surrender for the non-jihadi rebels while establishing refugee camps in Syria as the Assad coalition takes back control. To minimise the refugee flow which is a top priority for Europe and Turkey.

And I believe they can get guarantees that the Assad coalition will keep attacking ISIS (as they have been and are doing currently) and not just focus on the opposition.

They can also deescalate the situation after these agreements by removing Patriot missiles from Turkey, signalling the end of the possibility of a Russia-Turkey/NATO confrontation.

After Erdogan loses his wings and is instructed to not fire across the goddamn border, the Kurds can keep up their progress against ISIS territories with air support from whoever.

Basically I believe that:
1) The first priority is to beat down ISIS because they are metastasizing in other countries. This is *infinitely* more important than regime change in Syria.

2) USA interventionism in the past has made it very hard to deploy troops to beat ISIS, so they have to allow other forces to do it for them. (The iraqis and the afghans amount to nothing.)

3) Turkey has proven to be a dangerous actor that can lead only to bad outcomes. From mass kurdish genocide and/or exodus ... to ww3. You think I'm overreacting about ww3? They very easily took the first step. Not to mention that any possible invasion by them will also flood even more millions to Europe. Jesus.

4) Putin is much more agreeable than the West would like to admit. I think he will jump at an opportunity to be recognised as a legitimate force for stability and reduce Russia's isolation and polemic from the western media. I think they can get concessions from him.

I think I am being much more realistic here than buying fighters with sandwiches, or toppling regimes. Or trying to isolate anti-jihadi forces while appeasing pro-jihadi forces.

loco said:

Turkey says Syrian kurds are responsible for the Ankara bombings.
The Guardian carries it, it won't let me post a link

Click to expand...

In Russia all the terrorists are ISIS, in Turkey they're all Kurds.

On a serious note, here's the link.

Turkey says Kurds in Syria responsible for Ankara car bomb | World news | The Guardian

Toblerone said:

Putin is much more agreeable than the West would like to admit. I think he will jump at an opportunity to be recognised as a legitimate force for stability and reduce Russia's isolation and polemic from the western media. I think they can get concessions from him.

Click to expand...

It would appear that Putin is indeed hungry for recognition of any sort from the west.

https://www.rt.com/news/332867-russia-major-military-obama/

Interesting to know why this is the case? I even wonder if this is really what Russia's intervention in Syria has been all about. Is Mr P desperate to recapture the stature that the USSR once had? Is he desperate to gain some kudos with the West as a step towards getting sanctions lifted? Is part of this regret over Ukraine and Crimea?

Whatever is the truth, I think it is a shame that Russia does not try and improve it's domestic situation but instead concentrates on external shows, that cost the country in no small ways. A good example in my previous post is the cost of that high tech spy plane. Should a country with the economic output of Russia really be spending money like that?

True the same logic could equally apply to the US, but at least the US is still the No1 world economy.

gazzzwp said:

I even wonder if this is really what Russia's intervention in Syria has been all about. Is Mr P desperate to recapture the stature that the USSR once had? Is he desperate to gain some kudos with the West as a step towards getting sanctions lifted? Is part of this regret over Ukraine and Crimea?

Click to expand...

It's about a base in the Mediterranean. Russia was pulling out of Syria (they even reduced staff at the Tartus naval station) and at the same time desperately looking for anyone willing to host a Russian naval base or station. The best they could get was a victualing agreement with Cyprus. This is when they turned around and first threw serious resources into supporting Syria, then direct intervention.

Whatever is the truth, I think it is a shame that Russia does not try and improve it's domestic situation but instead concentrates on external shows, that cost the country in no small ways. A good example in my previous post is the cost of that high tech spy plane. Should a country with the economic output of Russia really be spending money like that?

Click to expand...

Russian economic output isn't that small. While Russian defense spending is too large, they could still afford something like the Tu-214R. And they do try to improve the domestic situation. It's just harder to do then backing Syria to get Russia a base in the region.

Feanor said:

It's about a base in the Mediterranean. Russia was pulling out of Syria (they even reduced staff at the Tartus naval station) and at the same time desperately looking for anyone willing to host a Russian naval base or station. The best they could get was a victualing agreement with Cyprus. This is when they turned around and first threw serious resources into supporting Syria, then direct intervention.



Russian economic output isn't that small. While Russian defense spending is too large, they could still afford something like the Tu-214R. And they do try to improve the domestic situation. It's just harder to do then backing Syria to get Russia a base in the region.

Click to expand...

Early on in the course of Russia's campaign in Syria I too used to think that the Tartus figured largely in Russia's thinking. However, given the cost of the campaign and Putin's preparedness to bear it, raise some doubts as to whether this is all about Tartus.

Russian navy, now and in foreseeable future is too small to be in desperate need of a base in the Mediterranean. One might say that there are lots of Russian ships there now, hence the importance of Tartus. Yet they are primarily there only because of the events in Syria.

That of course, raises the question as to what the Russians are doing there then. I would partly explain this by a genuine fear of ISIS and other lesser extremists and the threat they pose to Russia's Muslim republics. Primarily however, I think this is sheer opportunism on the part of Putin. Namely, he saw a chance for Russia to become the dominant player in the Middle East at the expense of the US.

Arguably, he seems to be succeeding in this thus far. Even the Soviet Union could not, simultaneously, have good relationships with Iran and Iraq and at the same time, maintain a degree of cordiality with the Gulf states, despite the latter's stance on Syria. The extent to which Putin endorses the Kurdish problem into his geopolitical thinking would no doubt, contribute to the scope of Russia's involvement in the region especially in light of America's shameful volte-face regarding the YPG.

I've always thought that Putin didn't intervene earlier because of Crimea and the Donbass insurgency. If you remember the general climate during that period, a syrian intervention would be a *grand* escalation. Many months later ... the focus had shifted to immigration, ISIS etc.

It's interesting how the human mind assigns significance to events, heh. Very temporary.

Anyway, I think that played a role. And the military setbacks that Assad was having of course ...

A.V. Berg said:

Early on in the course of Russia's campaign in Syria I too used to think that the Tartus figured largely in Russia's thinking. However, given the cost of the campaign and Putin's preparedness to bear it, raise some doubts as to whether this is all about Tartus.

Russian navy, now and in foreseeable future is too small to be in desperate need of a base in the Mediterranean. One might say that there are lots of Russian ships there now, hence the importance of Tartus. Yet they are primarily there only because of the events in Syria.

Click to expand...

Russia has a definite plan for resurrecting the Mediterranean squadron. The Black Sea Fleet received 4 new warships last year, and 5 more planned this year. One of the Mistrals was meant as the centerpiece for it. This isn't just about the current war in Syria.

GermanHerman said:

( Seymour Hersh has a nice write up on that whole situation: Seymour M. Hersh · Whose sarin? · LRB 19 December 2013 )

Click to expand...

Hersh's article has been thoroughly discredited (and was even at the time). The only people who believe it are idiots, both of the unwitting and useful kind.

Note that Hersh doesn't do much long-form investigation journalism anymore. There's a reason for that.

He's also a testimony of the fact that in the journalism world, you do one (or two, in his case) good work and you'll never go hungry again.

Kurds are attacking Daesh north of Al Shaddadeh, supported by US air strikes.

Feanor said:

Russia has a definite plan for resurrecting the Mediterranean squadron. The Black Sea Fleet received 4 new warships last year, and 5 more planned this year. One of the Mistrals was meant as the centerpiece for it. This isn't just about the current war in Syria.

Click to expand...

Apart from the plans they had about their Mediterranean squadron I still think they got involved deep into Syria because the west touched Ukraine, if the west didn't go into Ukraine, Assad will have been toppled by now, in my opinion, Putin is so angry about Ukraine that the nearest place he could take revenge is in Syria, plus he gets to keep the base if he wins...

Feanor said:

Russia has a definite plan for resurrecting the Mediterranean squadron. The Black Sea Fleet received 4 new warships last year, and 5 more planned this year. One of the Mistrals was meant as the centerpiece for it. This isn't just about the current war in Syria.

Click to expand...

Agreed 100% and holding Tartus is a centerpiece. This has more to do with strategic defense than Assad It fits with VPPs goals toward reestablishing the old Soviet footprint

Blackshoe said:

Hersh's article has been thoroughly discredited (and was even at the time). The only people who believe it are idiots, both of the unwitting and useful kind.

Note that Hersh doesn't do much long-form investigation journalism anymore. There's a reason for that.

He's also a testimony of the fact that in the journalism world, you do one (or two, in his case) good work and you'll never go hungry again.

Click to expand...

Kinda rude on your end, but also you would propably have realised that I was talking about his first article and not the ludacrise second piece.

I still think his thoughts about the way the US Govt reacted to the attack are worth considering.

Also why is it impossible that rebels might have captured a volcano system?

" It seems undeniable that the Syrian government has been using these types of Volcano rockets for over the year, and there's been no evidence of Syrian opposition forces capturing or using this type of Volcano rocket. "

Is not a final proof of anything, it only suggests or hints to a proability.

Untill Snowden there was no evidence of the US Govt spying on the entire freaking world...

Reuters says that Kurdish-led SDF have already taken al-Shadadi from Daesh.