But they do exist, and bombing them isn't going to make them go away since they don't align in tidy WW2 type formations. They are disparate and asymmetrical in nature and, much like ISIS and other armed groups, can easily disperse and hide from bombings, which is why the Russian campaign is doomed from the beginning .
ISIS in Iraq and Syria
- Thread starter Suli
- Start date
But they do exist, and bombing them isn't going to make them go away since they don't align in tidy WW2 type formations. They are disparate and asymmetrical in nature and, much like ISIS and other armed groups, can easily disperse and hide from bombings, which is why the Russian campaign is doomed from the beginning .
So why take the risk arming and training them? Especially considering there's a history of it backfiring.
The Russian bombing will complement the mobilisation of Iranian and Hezbollah fighters as well as existing SAA soldiers and its allies. It won't win the regime this war but it'll gently turn the ride enough to give them stronger negotiating leverage should the inevitable partition talks materialise. That's clearly been Russia's gameplan all along.
I'm not a fan of it myself. Its piecemeal feelgood policy that politicians use to claim they are doing something about Syria. The only way as I've been harping on about, is an international force that gets rid of ISIS, with a possible negotiated exit (or else forced removal) for Assad, followed by a UN peacekeeping force to create humanitarian corridors where all Syrians can receive humanitarian aid, and the UN can meet with representatives of all Syrian stakeholder groups to form a new government and elections to allow citizens to decide who they want to lead the country. Anything short of this will result in indefinite violence with great and regional powers using Syria as a proxy for their own preferred strategic outcomes (the US and Europe for one outcome, Russia/Iran for another, Turkey and the Gulf states for yet another).
That's not what will happen, it will only create a longer, more splintered and protracted conflict that incentivizes the gulf states and Turkey to double down on supporting anti-Assad forces and possibly consider offering ground troops. Definitely a bad outcome for Syria.
The Gulf Arab states have already blundered by getting involved in the Yemen mess, which they can't back out of anytime soon. I don't expect them to be able to concurrently step up efforts in Syria. Turkey's too busy fighting the Kurdish factions.
It's a bad outcome for Syria, but it puts the regime in a slightly stronger position.
They are no different than the Russia/Iran axis in that they are merely attempting to influence the outcome based on their strategic interests. Introducing Hezbollah and now Quds force troops into Syria was destined to draw a lot of support from the gulf states to balance Iranian influence.
And how do they intend to balance that? Send in their own troops? Carry out their own airstrikes?
By all means, the Saudis and others would not hesitate to send their troops in if Iranian troops are introduced into Syria. You can't expect them to stand idly by while Iranian troops launch a ground campaign on a majority Sunni nation.
Well most likely Huston to do the med stages, then any school that'd accept my application to specialize in something.
Well take care of yourself and get out of there as soon as possible.
Moscow says Syria air strikes sow 'panic', 600 'militants' flee
https://news.yahoo.com/moscow-says-syria-air-strikes-sow-panic-600-150148206.html
Moscow (AFP) - Russian air strikes Saturday targeting the Islamic State group in Syria have sown "panic", forcing some 600 "militants" to abandon their positions and head to Europe, Moscow claimed.
"Our intelligence shows that militants are leaving areas under their control. Panic and desertion have started in their ranks," Colonel General Andrei Kartapolov, a senior Russian General Staff official, said in a statement.
"Some 600 mercenaries have abandoned their positions and are trying to find their way into Europe," Kartapolov said.
"Over the past three days we have managed to undermine material and technical resources of the terrorists and significantly reduce their combat potential," he added. "We will not only continue the strikes by our air force but also will increase their intensity."
He said Russia had managed to destroy IS command posts, warehouses storing ammunition and explosives, communication hubs, training camps as well as "mini-factories that made weapons for suicide bombers".
US Senator John McCain claims Russian jets killed rebel soldiers trained and funded by the CIA.
The United States and its allies have slammed Moscow's intervention, accusing the Kremlin of seeking to buttress Syria's embattled leader Bashar al-Assad and targeting moderate rebels.
Kartapolov said Russian officials had contacted their foreign counterparts and recommended that they pull their personnel from the region.
Russia also recommended that Washington pull out "those valuable employees who were trained at the expense of American taxpayers," Kartapolov said with heavy irony.
US Senator John McCain had earlier claimed that Russian jets killed rebel soldiers trained and funded by the CIA.
"By the way, during these contacts Americans informed us that no one but terrorists are present in this region," the Russian official added.
He also said that a task force Russia is setting up with Iraq, Iran and Syria had begun its work in Baghdad but expressed regret that the West had not moved to share intelligence.
"We have to admit openly that as of today we are receiving such data only from our colleagues at the centre," Kartapolov said.
"We are still open for dialogue with all interested parties."
Washington has accused Russia of making little distinction between IS militants and other factions.
https://news.yahoo.com/moscow-says-syria-air-strikes-sow-panic-600-150148206.html
Moscow (AFP) - Russian air strikes Saturday targeting the Islamic State group in Syria have sown "panic", forcing some 600 "militants" to abandon their positions and head to Europe, Moscow claimed.
"Our intelligence shows that militants are leaving areas under their control. Panic and desertion have started in their ranks," Colonel General Andrei Kartapolov, a senior Russian General Staff official, said in a statement.
"Some 600 mercenaries have abandoned their positions and are trying to find their way into Europe," Kartapolov said.
"Over the past three days we have managed to undermine material and technical resources of the terrorists and significantly reduce their combat potential," he added. "We will not only continue the strikes by our air force but also will increase their intensity."
He said Russia had managed to destroy IS command posts, warehouses storing ammunition and explosives, communication hubs, training camps as well as "mini-factories that made weapons for suicide bombers".
US Senator John McCain claims Russian jets killed rebel soldiers trained and funded by the CIA.
The United States and its allies have slammed Moscow's intervention, accusing the Kremlin of seeking to buttress Syria's embattled leader Bashar al-Assad and targeting moderate rebels.
Kartapolov said Russian officials had contacted their foreign counterparts and recommended that they pull their personnel from the region.
Russia also recommended that Washington pull out "those valuable employees who were trained at the expense of American taxpayers," Kartapolov said with heavy irony.
US Senator John McCain had earlier claimed that Russian jets killed rebel soldiers trained and funded by the CIA.
"By the way, during these contacts Americans informed us that no one but terrorists are present in this region," the Russian official added.
He also said that a task force Russia is setting up with Iraq, Iran and Syria had begun its work in Baghdad but expressed regret that the West had not moved to share intelligence.
"We have to admit openly that as of today we are receiving such data only from our colleagues at the centre," Kartapolov said.
"We are still open for dialogue with all interested parties."
Washington has accused Russia of making little distinction between IS militants and other factions.
How do the ruskies know that 600 men fled, seeking to go to Europe?
This should clear some of your doubts.
Syrian imbroglio: US machinations forced Russian military intervention
October 3, 2015, 6:32 pm IST Rudroneel Ghosh
The Russian military intervention in Syria is increasingly drawing the ire of the US and its allies for attacking militant groups other than the Islamic State (IS). This is not to say that Russian jets haven’t bombed IS targets in Syria at all. In fact, over the last three days Russian air force sorties have hit command posts, local headquarters and ammunition depots belonging to IS. True, in addition to this non-IS militants have also been targeted. What has the US perturbed is that many of these militants have been trained and armed by its own CIA and Sunni Arab allies.
Washington wants Moscow to stay clear of these so-called moderate militants that are ostensibly fighting both IS and the Bashar al-Assad government in Damascus. From day 1 the American strategy in Syria has been to effect a regime change by supporting an armed insurgency. First, as part of the Friends of Syria Group the US supplied weapons to anti-Assad forces. There’s reason to believe that a significant amount of such hardware found its way to IS jihadis. And when the latter became a serious international threat, Washington decided to vet the militants they were helping and aid only those it thought would fight both Assad and IS.
Such tactics are downright ridiculous and only reflect the fact that the US hasn’t given up its old habit of carrying out regime change in foreign countries through any means necessary to preserve its own strategic interests. From Iran to Panama, history bears testimony to American machinations that resulted in the overthrow of popular elected leaders. Yet, Washington doesn’t appear to have learnt from past lessons.
In Syria, the Americans have blindly accepted the version of events narrated by their Sunni Arab allies. The latter, motivated by sectarian hatred, want the Shia-Alawite regime of Assad to go. But the fact remains that Assad is the legitimate head of the Syrian government. Of course, there can be a debate about the quality of Assad’s leadership. There’s no denying that the Assad regime stands guilty of discriminating against a certain section of the Syrian population. Such grievances were articulated during the Arab Spring movement. And it’s because Assad failed to effect significant political reforms that resentment against his regime provided a springboard to armed insurgents.
But should the US as a responsible global power have actively supported and armed the insurgents against Assad? Isn’t Washington’s actions completely contrary to UN norms? Should the American leadership have fuelled the civil war in Syria instead of trying to end it? Having significantly contributed towards the Syrian imbroglio, today Washington is trying to play its own version of ‘Good Taliban, Bad Taliban’ by supporting the so-called moderate rebels. In reality the latter have been reduced to a joke with many of them either defecting to IS or simply leaving the battlefield. In fact, in several cases IS has simply snatched away the American-supplied weapons from the moderate rebels.
In such a scenario, the international community needs to ask itself – What is the best way to end the conflict in Syria? The American way of bolstering moderate rebels simply won’t work. This strategy is actually helping IS and other jihadi groups such as al-Qaida’s Nusra Front. The only viable option available is to back the Assad regime for the time being and rid Syria of all the different militant groups to restore stability. That’s step No.1. When stability is finally restored, then a political dialogue needs to be mediated by the UN between Assad and all the Syrian opposition factions.
Assad has to be part of any new political settlement in Syria. Even today he enjoys support from diverse ethno-religious Syrian groups. That’s why he has been able to hold on so long. Of course, nobody is saying that he should remain Syria’s president forever and things should go back to the way they were before. There cannot be a return to the status quo. But Assad has to be part of the transition process. This is why the Russian plan of working with Assad is the most optimistic strategy till date to end the conflict in West Asia.
http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatime...nations-forced-russian-military-intervention/
Saudi troops? They have no battle experience whatsoever, up until now they've had the US and other Arab states fight their wars for them. And judging by how clumsily they're handling the war in Yemen against a bunch of young tribesman, they'll be sending lambs to the slaughter in Syria.
You're missing the point, which is that the Saudis, Turks, other gulf Arabs etc won't idly allow Iranian troops into a majority Sunni nation without either sending their own troops or pouring a lot more money into funding the opposition. This tit for tat interventionism will only result in further destabilization without a viable solution.
They're already pouring a stupid amount of funding for the opposition. Sending their own troops would be disastrous for them and will possibly be their undoing.
Also finally, we're looking to actually get a genuine anti-ISIS coalition:
Russia also now has an airbase in Baghdad
Russia also now has an airbase in Baghdad
There's a massive difference between a few wealthy Saudis sponsoring various individuals in the opposition movement and the Saudi nation sending troops in. It would take the destabilization and humanitarian crisis to a new level. That's why this hackneyed plot by the Russian/Iranian axis is doomed to fail.
You seem to be happy Russia has an air base in Baghdad?Russia also now has an airbase in Baghdad
They all presumably had US passports.
Well in truth they're using a base previously used by the US. At least this way I'm convinced they'll actually be hitting terrorists. So yes I'm delighted in that respect.
Which base are you talking about ?
Al Taqaddum
You've always questioned the definition of a terrorist, and foreign troops being in those lands in the past when and where the US and it's allies have been involved in the conflict. It seems you're giving Russia a free pass due to them supporting and propping up those you support.
Your bias is just too transparent.
Last edited:
There are two ways to justify your military presence in another country: UN mandate or official request from the coutnry's leadership.
Russians are there because they were asked by the legitimate government and the president of the country. They have a right to be there.
Well with all due respect Sults, the US and Russia have had very different histories in the middle east. I see the Russians as a buffering force which counter-balance the axis of the US, Saudi and other Islamist factions in propping up radical Islamists simply for the goal of isolating Iran. And considering the US's history in utterly devastating Iraq, I welcome the Russians coming in and helping rid the region of the terrorists the US has helped prop up. Don't get me wrong, if it were the Russians who had invaded and destroyed Iraq and then go on to try overthrowing other countries while propping up Islamists, I'd harbour the very same sentiments towards them that I currently do to the US,
The only bias I have and I'll admit to is my preference towards secular movements in the region as opposed to Islamist factions.
Edit: When did I hit 20k posts?!
In a civil war, there is no legitimate government. Especially, that the government (in this case Assad family) were never democratically chosen, and currently the majority of population is in war against them (and other parties in the war).
The moment when a government asks some other state to intervene in order to keep them in power from rebel groups, is the moment when that government has lost any legitimicy they might have had.
You could argue the same for the rebel groups - if they hadn't received millions of dollars of funding and advanced weaponry, they would have not survived this far, thus somewhat clouding their legitimacy.
Islamists and jihadis tend to have longer memories than most, and these may be sparked by this Russian operation. Tsarist Russia spent a century and a half eating away at the Ottoman Empire, interfering in its domestic politics and a few times came within a day's marching distance of Istanbul. Basically if it wasn't for British and French intervention, most of the Middle East would have been incorporated into the Russian Empire during the nineteenth century. The Russians were similarly involved in a two-and-fro with Britain over Iran at the same time.
I understand you're talking about more recent stuff, but Russia needs to understand how they're going to be perceived by many in the region, and the potential for blow-back. For a long time they were regarded a public enemy number one in the Middle East.
I'm sorry, but that's just nonsense. So if any time anywhere somebody decides to rebel against authority that alone makes the ruler of the country illegitimate and gives a green light for everyone and their mother to join in and wage war? Just because they weren't democratically chosen, doesn't mean they weren't legitimate, either. The majority isn't against them, it's more of a everybody vs everybody at the moment and virtually every side has foreign backers.
The government has every right to ask for help from whoever they choose, especially since those that challenge their authority are clearly supported and sponsored by other countries.
Last edited:
You still have a soft spot for certain groups/people which has been obvious in your posts. I'm not saying that's wrong. I'm just pointing out you need to be consistent.
I'm not sure the ME is ready for secular governance.
I don't think the Russians particularly care how they're perceived. They'll be regarded as enemy number one for the Islamist elements - alongside Iran, Assad and Hezbollah, but I don't think they'll lose any sleep over it, nor will it really put them in any precarious position.
I'm more than happy to try and explain any inconsistencies you may find in my posts. You may be completely right, in which case highlighting these inconsistencies allows me to introspectively consider my positions too.
The ME was almost entirely secular in the last 50 years until the West had decided to covertly support Islamist groups to undermine the secular Pan-Arab nations, and helped overthrow the secular democracy in Iran, the events of which led to the Islamic revolution. If anything this wave of Islamist governance is a new development, which for the sake of the region should not be allowed to grow.
Last edited:
Obviously, it is the same situation. What I am saying is that Assad asking for Russia help doesn't make the Russian attacks any more legitimate than other parties asking for help to other countries.
At the end of the day, it is a proxy war, and there isn't legitimicy there.
As have the other groups. It is a civil war with the majority of citizens (and population) in uprisign. Some against government, most against each other. When Assad started brutally killing his citizens, he lost any legitimicy there (if he ever had). Him calling two other dictators to help him doesn't make their actions anymore legitimate than other groups asking for help from other countries.
Agree they won't care, my point is that this attitude may be a problem for them as/if they become further involved in the region. The Americans have been rightly lambasted for years now for failure to understand how the West is perceived in the Middle East and how it affects developments there.
And if there's one thing we've learned recently it's that there are always unintended consequences when you bomb the Middle East. At the very least I believe this campaign will drive more and more Sunnis into the arms of Nusra and ISIS, who will be very happy to explain it in terms of the ancient Russian enemy the same way they refer to the modern West as Crusaders. If your village is unlucky enough to suffer a Russian bombardment, such an explanation is likely to have a lot of appeal.
Beyond that there is the possibility of Russian troops winding up in orange jumpsuits on liveleak, and a resumption of Beslan-style attacks in Russia itself. Apparently Ahrr al-Sham have already begun discussing how to hurt Russia at home in reprisal. These are all things I wish the Western coalition had seriously taken into consideration in the last fifteen years. If the Russians have considered it all and decided the risk is worth it, then fair play. But in the event they do suffer some blow-back, they can't expect much more than the same "what did you expect?" response that they've been giving the West recently.
You say ME was almost entirely Secular. Then you go onto naming just Iran as a beacon of Secularism. Shah might have been a secularist. Still, Iran had institutions which were the opposite to secularism as we know in the West. The Millions of supporters out in support of Ayatollah when he landed indicates they were happy to accept him and his vision of the future.
Its remarkable how blatant the sectarianism is in some of these posts. If these things were said in Catholic/Protestant context, some of the posters would've been out of here ages ago.
Great post. Highlights the absurdity of attempting to prop up a failing dictator when the proverbial genie is already out the bottle and can never be put back in. Assad has murdered so many of his own citizens that he will never be allowed in a post-war Syria, let alone farcically be its President. Russia and Iran are both deeply insecure back home with shit economies and their leaders are playing up to nationalism and foreign conquest to take their citizens minds off how rubbish their own economic lives have become. Fortunately for everyone, including their own citizens, these dictatorships will no longer be with us in the coming years.
The sectarianism is not a factor in this thread. You're the one who's trying to put a sectarian spin on this thread, just like Saudi Arabia is trying to do in the conflict, to gather some support and to cover for your flawed and dangerous "logic".
Sisi is also a Sunni dictator, but the same people who are against ISIS in this thread are not against Sisi. Nothing was said against other Sunni dictatorships that are not supporting terrorism either. Added to the fact that (even though I'm not sure of this), I don't even think we have any Shia in this thread (also, for your information, neither Assad nor the Houthis are actually 'Shia').
On the other hand it looks like some of the posters here that are putting level headed opinions about the conflict are actually Sunni, and some are christians. However, I know where you're going with this. You're just trying to derail the thread with personal side-discussions, to distract from the reality that's proving you wrong day after day.
Now please go back to discussing the topic of this thread.