'Democratic free elections', good one.
You're talking about a family (the Assads) who have been in control for 40-50 years.
You're talking about a family (the Assads) who have been in control for 40-50 years.
ISIS in Iraq and Syria
- Thread starter Suli
- Start date
Just as easily, if the rebellion wasn't sponsored and supported by Saudi Arabia and the US, it would have been squashed long time ago. The question isn't whether Assad is guilty of various atrocities, because those he's fighting are just as bad and some are worse. The point is, whether removing Assad is going to resolve anything and it's not, it'll only make matters worse. Take a look at Iraq and Libya after they were 'freed' from their horrible dictators.
Last edited:
They must have been doing something right if they've stayed in power that long. As for free democratic elections, we can watch and enjoy all the benefits the newly arrived democracy has brought to Libya and Iraq. Those Libyans are so overjoyed at the recent changes they swim en masse to the European shores to spread the good news.
Yep.
Assad is a scum, Gadafi was worse and Sadam was the worst of them all. But the point is that Syria is considerably worse than it was before the war, while I am not sure that terms Lybia and Iraq have a meaning now. In all these three countries, there are large reasons which are being lead by Islamic radicals, groups like IS and AQ.
Point is, the situation is far worse than it was before. And while for Iraq the entire blame resides in the shoulders of the previous US leadership, in Syria and Libya a lot of blame is in the shoulders of European countries, who have supported (to not say initiated) the rebel groups.
I wouldn't say that the dictators in Middle East were doing things right, but those were stable countries. Now they are a hell.
Possible conspiracy theory:
I've been thinking about the timing of this recent 'flood' of Syrians from the camps in Turkey. Those camps have been packed for three years at least, yet it feels like the last few months have seen a massive increase in Syrians leaving Turkey for Europe - almost like, for want of a better term, the Turkish government has opened the floodgates.
So the theory is that Erdogan, with elections coming in November, needs a positive development in Syria to sell to the electorate. For four years the AKP has been pushing NATO to get directly involved in Syria to set up safe and no-fly zones in the north, to no avail. A sudden, massive increase in Syrians entering the EU might be enough to pressure NATO into embracing Turkey's plan. Already seeing an upturn in interest in 'solving' the Syrian war in the last week. If the EU states play nice with Turkey, Erdogan may find a way to stem the flow.
Obviously I could be totally wrong on the 'sudden massive increase' bit, perhaps the flow has been consistent with general refugee numbers.
I've been thinking about the timing of this recent 'flood' of Syrians from the camps in Turkey. Those camps have been packed for three years at least, yet it feels like the last few months have seen a massive increase in Syrians leaving Turkey for Europe - almost like, for want of a better term, the Turkish government has opened the floodgates.
So the theory is that Erdogan, with elections coming in November, needs a positive development in Syria to sell to the electorate. For four years the AKP has been pushing NATO to get directly involved in Syria to set up safe and no-fly zones in the north, to no avail. A sudden, massive increase in Syrians entering the EU might be enough to pressure NATO into embracing Turkey's plan. Already seeing an upturn in interest in 'solving' the Syrian war in the last week. If the EU states play nice with Turkey, Erdogan may find a way to stem the flow.
Obviously I could be totally wrong on the 'sudden massive increase' bit, perhaps the flow has been consistent with general refugee numbers.
No - they stayed in power due to corruption and nepotism and Hafez kept all his old buddies in positions of power where they wouldn't have to entertain opposition parties. Any opposition were massacred a la Hama massacre.
Well, welcome to the Middle East, pal, that's how it works down there. Perhaps, if the western leaders finally realized that some countries and nations simply aren't ready or willing or even meant for democracy at this point of their history and change their approach in dealing with those states/nations we all would be better off.
So don't give me nonsense about free democratic elections and what the people want etc! It's not the case and never has been the case. The people don't get what they want. Now, support for the rebel forces is what the people want.
Isn't ISIS the leading rebel force there?
No - there are multiple groups warring in Syria. You have the pro gov't guys, the opposition rebels, and IS...and to be honest, you can include Al Nusra as a 4th faction. The rebels needed support from day 1 from the west. The blathering and dilly dallying and inaction allowed the likes of IS to hijack any inroads made by the opposition rebels.
I know that there are other anti-government groups bar ISIS, but I would say that ISIS is the main one, right?
It is like a four-way civil war (in fact five, count Kurds too), but ISIS winning it.
A lot of the Kurds are fighting with the rebels.
The majority of the land IS controls is desert/barren land. They aren't as powerful as is being made out in the media. It fits the media narrative to make them seem the biggest player in the pot, but in reality (in Syria) they aren't all that. The media however won't say anything negative about Bashar even though he's been arguable worse and committed more atrocities than IS. I said in another thread, by any quantifiable metric you want to use about who is worse out of IS and Bashar, Bashar always comes out worse.
IS has killed more rebels then it has killed Assad troops.
I know that. But by definition they are rebels too.
While in theory helping the other rebel groups sounds nice, in practive this isn't the case. Helping the other rebel groups (with weapons) has resulted in IS getting stronger, cause in many cases they are getting those weapons in the end (either by defeating the other rebel groups or by some black market trade).
The only other rebel group who has been succesful have been the Kurds, and I am all for helping them.
I may be wrong but I don't think Kurds have aim or any political agenda to gain territory apart from what they have or the one they consider theirs.
One of their aims is to unite the three Rojava territories. They've already managed to link Kobane and Jazira, but any attempt to join Kobane to Afrin is going to bring them into direct conflict not only with ISIS, but with the main Syrian rebel groups in the north such as Ahrar Al-Sham.
All want the removal of Assad. That's the one unifying factor between the rebels, Al Nusra and IS, and the Kurds. The differences lie in what will happen post Assad, or how the land should be governed post Assad. It's what I've been saying all along, before you chimed in half way through.
Think of it like this - there is pro gov't v anti gov't. The anti gov't section can be further divided into FSA/Levant Front + Some of the Kurds + Free Alawites etc (and some Druze actually), IS, Al Nusra (and smaller 'Islamist' factions). Even though the anti gov't groups fight between themselves, they do have an ultimate aim of removing Assad.
Last edited:
Ok. Does any of their territory lies in government stronghold ?
As far as I know, government forces have withdrawn from the Kurdish territories entirely, with the exception of Hasakah in Jazira, where a three-way ISIS-Kurdish-Assad struggle is continuing.
You mentioned pro-govt faction, so I assume they don't want him out, and neither does a solid percentage of population. Also, all of those other groups want Assad out because they want to take over and they're killing each other, too, just like one poster mentioned earlier.
Thanks. So arming Kurds wouldn't have much of an effect on helping overall Syrian situation.
IS have taken the gov'ts last oilfield.
-----------
The other groups aren't warring as openly as they are with the gov't forces. There have been truces and uneasy alliances built up, and they are collaborating in the north and SW.
-----------
The pro gov't factions include Hezbollah (non Syrian), Russia (non Syrian) some Iranian militias (again, non Syrian). Even some of the other pro gov't militias moved in after it all kicked off. They are not Syrian. Obviously, there are some pro gov't people that are Syrian such as Shabiha and the army guys. The Syrian people want him out.
The other groups aren't warring as openly as they are with the gov't forces. There have been truces and uneasy alliances built up, and they are collaborating in the north and SW.
Last edited:
Not if the idea is to use them to defeat Assad. They have a long frontline with ISIS, but they're not going to expand significantly beyond those areas with a predominantly Kurdish population that they already control anyway.
The grey area for them is that stretch of territory along the Turkish border between Kobane and Afrin that you can see on the map above. This area has a mixed Arab-Kurdish population, but I think Kurds are a minority. It's been out of government control for a long time now and is currently divided between ISIS and Ahrar Al-Sham who are fighting each other there. Any move by the Kurds to capture it in order to unite their areas will be met with resistance by all the other factions there.
It's a clusterfeck.
Do you have any data on how many soldiers (and entire population) do the fractions have? I guess that IS despite controlling 80% of population or so, doesn't lead in numbers, right?
Also, how does the government support their soldiers in strongholds deep into enemy territory (like Deir ez-zor or Camishlo). They seem to be hundreds of kilometers away from the part when the government has the control.
ISIS doesn't control 80% of the population, not even close.
I don't think reliable figures exist. All factions seem to exaggerate their numbers. The rebel factions belong primarily to two conglomerations of dozens of smaller groups, the Free Syrian Army and the Islamic Front. The latter seems bigger and more organised and effective, and is dominated by Ahrar Al-Sham in the north and I think Jaysh al Islam around Damascus. It works with the FSA but also with Jabhat Al-Nusra, which is al-Qaeda's official wing in Syria. But there are also many links between Ahrar Al-Sham and Al-Qaeda. Wikipedia has estimated forces for all these groups, but I'd take them with a pinch of salt.
The government has air bases in Deir ex-Zor and Hasakah which ISIS have been unable to capture.
I think maybe Revan was trying to say despite having ~80% of the land they wouldn't have 80% of the population.
Again with the generalizations. Stop talking as if you represent all Syrian people. I talked with a few Syrian students living in my hometown and apparently, while the country is divided, there are still plenty of people siding with Assad, perhaps some not because they love Assad but rather they're rightfully terrified of the alternative. As far as I can tell, everyone is fighting everyone in Syria at the moment. Do all Syrians want ISIL? Or do they all want FSA to come to power? Or any other faction? There isn't a single group that can unite the country and its people at the moment and there are two reasons for that: 1) Assad's regime antagonizing part of the population and 2) outside players, mostly Saudis and their American and European friends undermining Assad at every turn and supporting anyone who opposes him.
The result is quite predictable: a fairly stable country is rapidly going to hell in a basket and soon those who take over after Assad's removal will make the dictator look like a great humanitarian.
Sorry, meant 80% of the territory. But most likely not even 30-40% of the population.
For that I was asking.
Ah ok, yeah as @Uzz mentioned above, most ISIS held territory in Syria is empty desert. Unlike in Iraq, they seem very dependent on foreign fighters in Syria. Really hard to estimate their actual forces.
Bulgaria denies air access to Syria-bound Russia planes
NATO member refuses permission to unspecified number of aircraft amid fears Moscow stepping up military aid to Assad.
08 Sep 2015 14:51 GMT |
Russia has been sending flights to Syria throughout the conflict, which it says have been delivering aid [AFP]
NATO member Bulgaria said it had refused permission to an unspecified number of Russian aircraft to cross its airspace late last week, amid growing US fears that Moscow is boosting its military support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
"The planes were said to carry humanitarian aid but we had information, that we had every reason to trust, that the declared cargo was not the real one," foreign ministry spokeswoman Betina Zhoteva told AFP news agency on Tuesday.
Concern as Russia reportedly increases presence in Syria
Zhoteva said the decision was taken late last week but did not give details about the number of the planes.
She said the decision was taken independently without pressure from NATO partners.
Moscow sent Athens a request 20 days ago to allow access to Greek airspace for humanitarian aid flights to Syria, Rodolfos Moronis, spokesman for Greece's interim government, said on Tuesday.
The Russian foreign ministry declined immediate comment.
However, the US on Monday had asked Greece, also a NATO member, to ban Russian supply flights to Syria from its airspace.
Washington is concerned that Moscow could be increasing its military support to Assad, an issue raised by US Secretary of State John Kerry with Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov at the weekend.
Aid delivery
Russian newswire RIA Novosti said on Monday that Russia was seeking permission to run the flights up to September 24.
But it was not immediately clear why Russia had made the request and how it related to the flights it is already running into Syria.
Russia now planned to use a route east of Greek airspace for the flights, Moronis said.
Moscow has been sending flights to Syria throughout the conflict, which it says have been delivering aid and helping evacuate Russian nationals from the country.
The Russian foreign minister said Moscow "has never concealed that it delivers military equipment to official Syrian authorities with the aim of combating terrorism".
Pavel Felgenhauer, a Russian defence analyst, said Moscow has been trying to avoid Turkish airspace since a 2012 incident in which Ankara forced a Russian civilian jet en route to Damascus to land in Turkey and confiscated its cargo.
Ankara said at the time the plane was carrying Russian-made munitions destined for Syria's armed forces. Moscow denied that and said a legal shipment of radar equipment was on board.
NATO member refuses permission to unspecified number of aircraft amid fears Moscow stepping up military aid to Assad.
08 Sep 2015 14:51 GMT |
Russia has been sending flights to Syria throughout the conflict, which it says have been delivering aid [AFP]
NATO member Bulgaria said it had refused permission to an unspecified number of Russian aircraft to cross its airspace late last week, amid growing US fears that Moscow is boosting its military support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
"The planes were said to carry humanitarian aid but we had information, that we had every reason to trust, that the declared cargo was not the real one," foreign ministry spokeswoman Betina Zhoteva told AFP news agency on Tuesday.
Concern as Russia reportedly increases presence in Syria
Zhoteva said the decision was taken late last week but did not give details about the number of the planes.
She said the decision was taken independently without pressure from NATO partners.
Moscow sent Athens a request 20 days ago to allow access to Greek airspace for humanitarian aid flights to Syria, Rodolfos Moronis, spokesman for Greece's interim government, said on Tuesday.
The Russian foreign ministry declined immediate comment.
However, the US on Monday had asked Greece, also a NATO member, to ban Russian supply flights to Syria from its airspace.
Washington is concerned that Moscow could be increasing its military support to Assad, an issue raised by US Secretary of State John Kerry with Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov at the weekend.
Aid delivery
Russian newswire RIA Novosti said on Monday that Russia was seeking permission to run the flights up to September 24.
But it was not immediately clear why Russia had made the request and how it related to the flights it is already running into Syria.
Russia now planned to use a route east of Greek airspace for the flights, Moronis said.
Moscow has been sending flights to Syria throughout the conflict, which it says have been delivering aid and helping evacuate Russian nationals from the country.
The Russian foreign minister said Moscow "has never concealed that it delivers military equipment to official Syrian authorities with the aim of combating terrorism".
Pavel Felgenhauer, a Russian defence analyst, said Moscow has been trying to avoid Turkish airspace since a 2012 incident in which Ankara forced a Russian civilian jet en route to Damascus to land in Turkey and confiscated its cargo.
Ankara said at the time the plane was carrying Russian-made munitions destined for Syria's armed forces. Moscow denied that and said a legal shipment of radar equipment was on board.
Can't see how Assad can still be viewed as the "President of Syria", since he has lost a vast majority of land, public sentiment, and international legitimacy. Wouldn't be surprised to see him finished off as the rebels begin to advance in the coming year.
Been hearing that for four years now.
With the partial exception of Aleppo, he still controls the major population centres of the country, the crucial Aleppo-Hama-Homs-Damascus axis, the supply lines to Hezbollah (ensuring his continued value to Iran), and the coast (likewise with Russia).
Be that as it may, he doesn't have the resources to indefinitely retain control of those areas with major rebel pockets around the main population centers. Syria can't be viewed as anything but a failed state mired in a protracted civil war as opposed to a functioning country with a legitimate President.
He'll have the resources for as long as Moscow and Tehran need him to. Unlike the US, they know exactly what side they're on in this conflict and are going all in. Things might change after Obama goes, but for the time being Washington is showing zero interest in turning the tide against Assad.
I doubt the dictators in Tehran and Moscow have the resources or political will to see this out until the end, when their own economies are on the line. At some point this entire thing will hit a tipping point where Assad will either flee or get caught, Qaddafi style. That's when the real carnage will begin where a variety of rebel groups with different interests begin cannibalizing one another for power, which will probably result in a ground invasion from an outside power to help "stabilize" things.
I think when Assad inevitably goes, the remaining groups will mobilise against IS. The presence of IS there doesn't serve any of the other group's interests. We're also starting to see instances of this occurring anyway.