War Against ISIS

Was reading highlights on US Presidential Debate lastnight. It would seem Clinton reaffirmed her support for a no-fly zone in Syria. Im voting for her (who wouldnt at this point?) but ill be the first to say thats a dangerous game. She dodged clarifying what she would do should a Russian aircraft violate the zone. My stomachs already in knots -- is this how people felt in the 70s all the time? Sheesh

Feanor said:

Russia is making a humanitarian pause in Aleppo for 8 hours, to allow civilians and fighters to leave, if they so choose. So far a small group of fighters from Ashrar Ash Sham has decided to take the offer. It appears that this will be the last opportunity for the rebel fighters to leave. Meanwhile the US, France, and Britain, blocked the Russian proposed Security Council, that encouraged. . .

Click to expand...

I dont understand what you mean here. Russia brought up the Humanitarian Pause to the UNSC but it was rejected, but Russia is going through with it anyway? If so i wonder if its because Western Europe is nore afraid of a migrant wave than i thought, or more naive maybe if they think they cant negotiate something else in Aleppo soon

PO2GRV said:

Was reading highlights on US Presidential Debate lastnight. It would seem Clinton reaffirmed her support for a no-fly zone in Syria. Im voting for her (who wouldnt at this point?) but ill be the first to say thats a dangerous game. She dodged clarifying what she would do should a Russian aircraft violate the zone. My stomachs already in knots -- is this how people felt in the 70s all the time? Sheesh


I dont understand what you mean here. Russia brought up the Humanitarian Pause to the UNSC but it was rejected, but Russia is going through with it anyway? If so i wonder if its because Western Europe is nore afraid of a migrant wave than i thought, or more naive maybe if they think they cant negotiate something else in Aleppo soon

Click to expand...

Russia and Syria don't need UN approval to halt their advance on the rebels in Aleppo. They tried to put in a UN resolution to encourage the rebels and civilians to leave. It got shot down. Probably out of little more then spite.

@Feanor
I think the Tel Rifaat engagement was between the FSA and the kurds, not the SAA.

There is a race for Al Bab it seems. And of course turkish-allied FSA fighters are trying to throw a spanner at the works at that strategic town. There is no way the turks will allow the kurds to reach that town first, they will move mountains to avoid that embarassment.

https://southfront.org/map-update-race-al-bab-syrias-aleppo-province-october-20-2016/

Toblerone said:

@Feanor
I think the Tel Rifaat engagement was between the FSA and the kurds, not the SAA.

There is a race for Al Bab it seems. And of course turkish-allied FSA fighters are trying to throw a spanner at the works at that strategic town. There is no way the turks will allow the kurds to reach that town first, they will move mountains to avoid that embarassment.

https://southfront.org/map-update-race-al-bab-syrias-aleppo-province-october-20-2016/

Click to expand...

Thank you, it was a typo. In Russian the FSA is spelled SSA, and the SAA is spelled SAA. Somehow the wires got crossed when translating.

Also, Turkish involvement is more then that now. The Turkish military has shown up in a corner of Idlib province, positioning themselves against an assault on the Kurds from the other side. I'll try to update tomorrow or Saturday, depending on how much time I have.

Update.

As a parry to the assault on Mosul, ISIS attacked and managed to take some nbuildings, in Kirkukk.

Meanwhile the push on Mosul continues. The Turks have been left out of the offensive on Mosul, as the Iraqis continue to complain about Turkish presence in northern Iraq.

МоÑул, Киркук, Ðлеппо - Colonel Cassad

The Turks and Turkish-backed fighters have begun a two-sided attack on the Kurdish enclave north-west of Aleppo. They've made relatively modest gains, but Turkish armor is now deployed in Azaz, and their red berets SoF as well. Turkish armor and troops have also entered Idlib province from the other side of the Kurdish enclave.

Гонка к Ðль-Бабу и курдÑкий Ð²Ð¾Ð¿Ñ€Ð¾Ñ - Colonel Cassad

In response to all this Turkish activity, Syria has warned Turkey that airstrikes against SAA positions will cause Syria to shoot down Turkish jets.

Íîâîñòè NEWSru.com :: Ñèðèÿ ïðèãðîçèëà, ÷òî áóäåò ñáèâàòü ñàìîëåòû ÂÂÑ Òóðöèè íàä ñâîåé òåððèòîðèåé

3 Russian officers were wounded due to rebels firing at one of the humanitarian corridors.

Ð’ Ðлеппо ранены 3 роÑÑийÑких офицера - Colonel Cassad

And the humanitarian pause in Aleppo is now over, after having been extended by one more day. Air strikes have resumed.

Íîâîñòè NEWSru.com :: Ðîññèéñêèå è ñèðèéñêèå ÂÂÑ âíîâü íà÷àëè áîìáàðäèðîâêè Àëåïïî

An interesting column of up-armored vehicles from the Syrian 4th Armored Division.

Бронетехника 4-й дивизии ÑирийÑкой армии - Юрий ЛÑмин

The Kurds shot down a US UAV.

http://panzerbar.livejournal.com/3645181.html3

OSINT geo-location of recent Turkish airstrikes against the Kurds.

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2016/10/21/geolocation-turkish-airstrikes-ypg-positions/

A look at some old armor and artillery being restored back to service by the Iraqis.

ВоÑÑтановление Ñтарой техники и Ð²Ð¾Ð¾Ñ€ÑƒÐ¶ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ Ð² Ираке - bmpd

Russia has decided to establish a permanent naval base at Tartus, and has fenced off part of the harbor with a floating barrier.

Análisis Militares: Barrera de seguridad en el puerto de Tartus

The EU summit ended without any new sanctions against Russia, with very strong opposition from Italy being key.

Íîâîñòè NEWSru.com :: Íà ñàììèòå ÅÑ íå ñòàëè ââîäèòü íîâûå ñàíêöèè ïðîòèâ Ðîññèè çà áîìáåæêó Àëåïïî

ISIS seems to have executed 284 men and boys near Mosul, and dumped the bodies into a mass grave with bulldozers.

Íîâîñòè NEWSru.com :: Áîåâèêè Èà êàçíèëè 284 ÷åëîâåêà îêîëî Ìîñóëà, ñâàëèâ òåëà â ìîãèëó áóëüäîçåðàìè

Ranger25 said:

The Russian IADS is a Vaunted system in paper yet fully unproven.

Click to expand...

That's true but the same would apply to the latest Western systems too wouldn't it?

Ranger25 said:

Western Air Forces are well practiced at attacking similar IADS with both TLAMS as well as air packages.

Click to expand...

And the Russians would have taken that into account; taking several measures including the use of decoys, jamming and possibly radar emitters [these were apparently used with some success by the Serbs in 1999].

Apparently Erdogan is pushing for Turkey to be involved in the liberation of Mosul and the Iraqi Govt is pushing back. This is just inflaming the tension between the two nations and the Turks are even now trying to claim that Mosul is actually part of Turkish territory based on some record of the last Ottoman govt cabinet meeting. They are also using the Sykes-Picot agreement to bolster their claim to Iraqi territory, in that they were not a party to the agreement because it was foisted upon them.

My own view is that the US needs to tell Erdogan to leave Iraq because he is there against the will of the Iraqi govt and failure to do so will result in serious consequences. Access to Incirclik is important but as long as Erdogan knows that he has control over US actions by granting continued access to the base, then he has them over to the barrel. The US has to prove to him otherwise; that they are not totally dependant upon Turkey and that they can operate out of, say Greece which would rub it Erdogans nose. In the long run if Turkey was cut loose from US ties and NATO it might actually be better for all concerned because then it will not be a liability. Anyway Greece could do with the money.

ngatimozart said:

In the long run if Turkey was cut loose from US ties and NATO it might actually be better for all concerned because then it will not be a liability. Anyway Greece could do with the money.

Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more and no F-35s for Turkey would be a positive result of such a divorce.

Why not Cyprus which is much closer to Syria?

Anyway the infinite appeasement to the Turks is backfiring. They are attacking the kurds directly again, they have invaded Syria and Iraq. Also, after the coup Erdogan has begun dealing with Putin.

Can't the iraqi army and the Peshmerga take military action against turkish forces and their allies?

I would think that the Iraqi army has it has full at the moment to want to take on the Turks. It's priority is defeating IS and that should not change. The Iraqis having a go at the Turks would really benefit IS. There is a limit to how much pressure the U.S. can apply on Turkey as putting too much pressure on the Turks might drive them closer to Russia - despite all the problems, Turkey is still vital to U.S. long term interests. It would help if the Gulf States could apply some pressure on Turkey but we know this won't happen. As for Erdogan ''dealing'' with Putin; if he feels it's in his country's interests who are others to complain? It's not as if others are acting purely because they have the interests of ordinary Syrians and Iraqis in mind.

Looking at the bigger picture; what will happen after Mosul falls? Lt. Gen Stephen Townsend has said that Mosul and Raqqa will fall on ''his watch'' but what happens after that? Neither Iraq or the West appears to have any plan on how to defeat IS's ideology. Even if 90 percent of the territory IS now holds is eventually retaken and even if another 10,000 IS people are killed; the battle is still not won as long as IS still can attract people to its cause. As long as sectarian issues in Iraq are not sorted out, as long as outside powers continue to meddle for their own benefit and as long as the West has no clear and realistic policy over Syria; IS will continue to survive.

When Mosul falls, Isis will flee to the safety of Syria. But what then? | The Independent

Compare the coverage of Mosul and East Aleppo and it tells you a lot about the propaganda we consume | The Independent

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/10/battle-mosul-beginning-161023050933878.html

Mosul braces itself for next bloody chapter having been ravaged by 13 years of war | The Independent

Iraq’s ‘ramshackle’ Mosul offensive may see Isis defeated but it will expose deep divisions between the forces involved | The Independent

STURM said:

I would think that the Iraqi army has it has full at the moment to want to take on the Turks. It's priority is defeating IS and that should not change. The Iraqis having a go at the Turks would really benefit IS. There is a limit to how much pressure the U.S. can apply on Turkey as putting too much pressure on the Turks might drive them closer to Russia - despite all the problems, Turkey is still vital to U.S. long term interests. It would help if the Gulf States could apply some pressure on Turkey but we know this won't happen. As for Erdogan ''dealing'' with Putin; if he feels it's in his country's interests who are others to complain? It's not as if others are acting purely because they have the interests of ordinary Syrians and Iraqis in mind.

Click to expand...

I agree that pressure from the Gulf States would help but they are busy grinding their own axes and I would suggest that Erdogans posturing and actions suits their plans and needs.

I came across this article by Gen C F Wald, USAF (Ret) Get Ready to Walk Away from Incirlik in which he states that "... the best way to ensure continued access to this large and well-located base is to prepare to do without it." He suggests that Turkey will either cooperate once it realises that it can't have it both ways or that the US and the Coalition can just as easily operate from a base in Jordan, Cyprus or even within Iraq. In the case of Iraq he suggests "... specifically, in territory controlled by the Kurdistan Regional Government." His first preference is for the latter and the other two if Baghdad and / or Kirbil didn't agree. I think that he is very much on the nose with it and whilst I agree with you that Erdogans first responsibility and duty is to his own country, it does not give him the right or authority to be in Iraq uninvited nor to operate against Kurds in Iraq, nor to demand that Turkey be included in the liberation of Mosul.

ngatimozart said:

I agree that pressure from the Gulf States would help but they are busy grinding their own axes and I would suggest that Erdogans posturing and actions suits their plans and needs.

I came across this article by Gen C F Wald, USAF (Ret) Get Ready to Walk Away from Incirlik in which he states that "... the best way to ensure continued access to this large and well-located base is to prepare to do without it." He suggests that Turkey will either cooperate once it realises that it can't have it both ways or that the US and the Coalition can just as easily operate from a base in Jordan, Cyprus or even within Iraq. In the case of Iraq he suggests "... specifically, in territory controlled by the Kurdistan Regional Government." His first preference is for the latter and the other two if Baghdad and / or Kirbil didn't agree. I think that he is very much on the nose with it and whilst I agree with you that Erdogans first responsibility and duty is to his own country, it does not give him the right or authority to be in Iraq uninvited nor to operate against Kurds in Iraq, nor to demand that Turkey be included in the liberation of Mosul.

Click to expand...

Well this gets at the bigger question. Is the US invited in Syria? Is Russia invited in Ukraine? How about France in Libya? Many of the major players are uninvited in the areas they operate. Turkey, like Russia, I think, is taking their cues from the way others behave. The difference being that they're not nearly as good at media manipulation, and have significantly less experience in doing things like these.

I don't know if you can realy blame the media manipulation skills of russia.

At least in gemany Russia has been painted as the bad guy since 1914, that is more than a century and after world war 2 the allied powers just continued the same music.

True, the tone changed from "untermensch" and blaiming the jews for communism but non theless the USSR was openly considered the "Empire of Evil" until its late collaps while the western Allies and especialy the USA took over the narrative to be the good guys, saving freedom.

After that came Tchetchnia, once again media started portraing russia as an unforgiving, cruel oppressor and since then not too much changed.

Russia could never compete with this narrative and present itself as a good and moral player. But it also dosn't have too, the thing is that ever since Vietnam people start doubting the narrativ of the US and russia is aiming more at deteriorating the "we are the good guys" narrative of the US instead of competing with it.

And I think it is a fair approach, if you look at how many people blamed the US goverment for 9/11 there seems to be a huge distrust which can be capitalized by such propaganda approaches.

After all, you can't just undo a century of propaganda just like that...

GermanHerman said:

I don't know if you can realy blame the media manipulation skills of russia.

At least in gemany Russia has been painted as the bad guy since 1914, that is more than a century and after world war 2 the allied powers just continued the same music.

True, the tone changed from "untermensch" and blaiming the jews for communism but non theless the USSR was openly considered the "Empire of Evil" until its late collaps while the western Allies and especialy the USA took over the narrative to be the good guys, saving freedom.

After that came Tchetchnia, once again media started portraing russia as an unforgiving, cruel oppressor and since then not too much changed.

Russia could never compete with this narrative and present itself as a good and moral player. But it also dosn't have too, the thing is that ever since Vietnam people start doubting the narrativ of the US and russia is aiming more at deteriorating the "we are the good guys" narrative of the US instead of competing with it.

And I think it is a fair approach, if you look at how many people blamed the US goverment for 9/11 there seems to be a huge distrust which can be capitalized by such propaganda approaches.

After all, you can't just undo a century of propaganda just like that...

Click to expand...

Good point I grew up in the 80's looking at this on TV movies. It will be hard to change century of negative of Russia. I always remember how Putin said they don't want NATO next to them. But back to ISIS they been able to survive because of many players in the Syrian Civil War. Now you know something weird when Israelis helping rebels. This was already plan to have Syria destroyed by mossad and CIA. The only country that stood up to Israeli was Syria

surpreme said:

Good point I grew up in the 80's looking at this on TV movies. It will be hard to change century of negative of Russia. I always remember how Putin said they don't want NATO next to them. But back to ISIS they been able to survive because of many players in the Syrian Civil War. Now you know something weird when Israelis helping rebels. This was already plan to have Syria destroyed by mossad and CIA. The only country that stood up to Israeli was Syria

Click to expand...

Clean Break doctrine. Mr. Perle's work,I think.Worth reading 1996 I think.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm

Art

surpreme said:

But back to ISIS they been able to survive because of many players in the Syrian Civil War.

Click to expand...

IS has been able to survive because its enemies are divided. If the West, Iran, Russia, Turkey and the Gulf States decided to put all their differences and rivalries aside and focus on defeating IS; then things would get better a lot faster.

ngatimozart said:

I agree that pressure from the Gulf States would help but they are busy grinding their own axes and I would suggest that Erdogans posturing and actions suits their plans and needs.

Click to expand...

The Gulf Arabs won't help because they have nothing to gain from helping the Iraqis. For one thing the Iraqis are mainly Shia and are close to Iran. And why get involved when the West will do what's needed? Even with Libya, the only Gulf country that took part in the air effort was Qatar. Despite spending billions on the RSAF, Saudi Arabia decided to sit it out.

Many years ago at an Arab League meeting Gadaffi lambasted the Gulf Arabs. He said all they were focusing on was scheming and trying to outdo each other, staying in power and making money. Now I'm no fan of Gadaffi - because of him Libyans died for nothing in Chad and Uganda and under his watch Libya was wrecked - but there is a lot of truth in what he said about the Gulf States. As for Syria the only reason they want Assad gone is because a Syria without Assad would leave Iran alone and isolated. The biggest joke is that the Gulf States keep mentioning the lack of democracy and human rights in Syria yet none of the leaders there were elected. And now they're stuck in Yemen having failed to achieve any of their objectives; serves them right.

STURM said:

and under his watch Libya was wrecked

Click to expand...

Not quite. The Libya he took over was a backwards ex-colony. The Libya that was wrecked in 2011 was a relatively developed country. From his water infrastructure, to electrification of the country, and a drastic rise in the level of education, Gaddafi was not too bad. As far as African dictators go, anyway. Given the fate of many ex-colonies, one could say that Libya was fortunate. Until Arab Spring that is.

That's true, compared to several other countries in the region, Libya was better off, thanks to its oil revenues. It had quite good standards of living and decent education levels. The fact remains that Gadaffi wasted billions on various ''excursions'' [if that's the right word] that resulted in nothing but disaster. Libyans found themselves fighting in Chad and Uganda and Gadaffi supported numerous groups around the world; from the IRA to the MNLF to Arab groups - all this brought no benefit for Libya. In the 1990's he even sent huge arms shipments to Charles Taylor; much of it was diverted to Angola to be used by Savimbi's people. Another country that was on the right path and could have done better had it not been for its leader was Iraq. In the early 1980's, whilst Iraq was locked in a bitter war with Iran, Saddam received praise from the UN and NGOs for raising the standards of education in the country and compared to even the Gulf States; Iraq was better off in several areas.

[Eric Margolis On Moammar Gadhafi]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-hPum5tk7U

Iraqi Forces Attempt First Push Into Mosul As Offensive Enters Third Week | Huffington Post

Iraqi forces begin assault on Mosul today Monday following Shia militias joining the battle Saturday

Erdogan vows to "act" should Shia militias start violence on Turkmen villages or peoples in Iraq which would bring this proxy war to another level. Lets hope the Iranians have great control overe these forces

The iranian-backed militias aren't there for tourism. I'm pretty sure they have some plans to demographically "fix" those areas.

Erdogan with his nationalistic drivel about Mosul, the Aegean islands is making things worse. Trying to spark dreams about a new Ottoman empire, seriously.
Turkey's President Erdogan wants Mosul and Greek islands for his own | World | News | Daily Express

If I was a shia I know what my goal would be when advancing in those sunni lands, if we're being sincere. And if I was a turkman I would migrate to Turkey.

Meanwhile in Syria the pockets around Damascus are dangerously small now. I am waiting for a settlement, there is no hope for them there to defend...