Syria under Bashir Assad (closed end 2014)

[Bill Moore]

To clarify my position, I am an advocate of UW when it is part of an effective strategy; however, too many, especially UW fans outside of the military, over estimate the efficacy of UW to achieve strategic ends regardless of the context. This is little different than the advocates for strategic bombing prior to WWII who thought they could win the war by themselves with their deeply flawed theories on air power. It is refreshing to see that most airmen no longer accept that myth, but of course there remains some who hang on to flawed theories like Warden. The CIA and SOF also need to relook their theories regarding the efficacy of UW through an honest study of history to determine what works, what doesn't, what conditions determined success or failure, etc.

The following Congressional Research Study points to the fact that a Free Syrian Army does not actually exist. If our civilian leaders (I'm confident our military planners understand this) are proposing strategies based on supporting a mythical army, we're off to bad start. We need to be leery about the high volume of misinformation on blogs, twitter, etc. (that often intended to be little more than propaganda to garner support for a particular group or individual in Syria) that attempt to paint another picture. At a minimum trust but verify, but better yet marginalize the talking heads in our media who insist on accepting myths as facts. Plans based on myths will fail when they confront reality.

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33487.pdf

As of September 2014, the term “Free Syrian Army” does not correspond to an organized command and control structure with national reach and unified procurement, intelligence, logistics, or sustainment capabilities. Since 2011 uprising, there has been and continues to be no single military leader of the movement. At first, a number of Syrian military defectors identifying themselves as leaders of the “Free Syrian Army” attempted to provide unified leadership and build these types of capabilities for emergent opposition forces across Syria but were unable to exert control over the actions of individual brigades. Regional and personal rivalries, the ascendance of Islamist armed groups, and competing foreign patrons continue to undermine these efforts. A Supreme Military Council (see below) formed in an attempt to overcome these challenges has proven incapable of overcoming them to date.

This doesn't mean that an external power can't eventually integrate and more effectively organize these resistance forces. This must be one of the first steps, and until that is accomplished little will be accomplished by providing arms without U.S. or other foreign advisors on the ground to direct operations based on a coherent plan. This casts doubt on the logic of those who advocated support for the "FSA" when the conflict first emerged. It explains why Sen McCain posed with al-Nusra fighters, based on a lack of understanding (a continuing thorn in our side when it comes to developing strategy). Even if one of the many resistance groups, or one of the fleeting coalition of groups, got lucky (chance is a key element in war) and removed Assad, the different groups would quickly turn on one another, which is hardly the better peace and regional stability I suspect we desire.

The next report is an article on a classified CIA report that states "their" efforts to arm rebels in the past has failed in most instances. Hopefully the actual report provides more than statistics and analyzes why many efforts failed and some succeeded. They did identify in the article, that the presence of U.S. (or other foreign) advisors were helpful.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/15/us...orks.html?_r=0

C.I.A. Study of Covert Aid Fueled Skepticism About Helping Syrian Rebels

The C.I.A. review, according to several former American officials familiar with its conclusions, found that the agency’s aid to insurgencies had generally failed in instances when no Americans worked on the ground with the foreign forces in the conflict zones, as is the administration’s plan for training Syrian rebels.

Noted exception in Afghanistan when we supported the Muj against the USSR,

That covert war was successful without C.I.A. officers in Afghanistan, the report found, largely because there were Pakistani intelligence officers working with the rebels in Afghanistan.

“It’s a very mixed history,” said Loch K. Johnson, a professor of public and international affairs at the University of Georgia and an intelligence expert. “You need some really good, loyal people on the ground ready to fight.”

In my opinion, the CIA has proven over the years to be astrategic when it comes to supporting resistance movements, insurgencies, etc., they tend to throw money and arms at a problem without thinking it through. While the military has a reduced capability in developing strategists and good operational planners compared to WWII, it still retains the majority of those trained to develop strategy, and it has an education system that be adapted to support developing strategists for this type of conflict. Perhaps there is a need to develop a "joint" command for special warfare that develops this expertise at the strategic and operational levels. SF already has the doctrine for the tactical level, of course that must continuously evolve based on changes in political and social systems, technology advances, etc.

Bottom line we need to do this better.

[CrowBat]

Bill...

The following Congressional Research Study points to the fact that a Free Syrian Army does not actually exist.

What's new about that?

The 'Free Syrian Army' was always an idea of a non-religious, non-sectarian insurgency against Assadists. For Syrian insurgents, it's a trademark, like meanwhile there is a trademark of the Free Syrian Police (actually a neutral service organized by former police officers that are controlling civilian life and security in most of insurgent-held areas). In the West, the term was foremost used by the media that was in trouble with explaining all the various groups fighting under that title - even more so once all the possible foreign powers began conditioning provision of aid on insurgents declaring their political and religious intentions (which was precisely what caused the rift within insurgency and disunited the original FSyA into about 6,400 different militias organized into some seven umbrella groups).

Ever since, it's foremost used by everybody with similar levels of cluelessness like the media.

If our civilian leaders (I'm confident our military planners understand this) are proposing strategies based on supporting a mythical army, we're off to bad start.

If US civilian leaders can't see the FSyA, then for following reasons:

- regime gased it again (using CWs it promised to destroy) and there is still too much smoke but to see,

- they're intentionally looking the other way, or

- insist on a standpoint that every Moslem (including all those looking like a Moslem) = al-Qaida.

But you know, frankly: I can perfectly understand this position. Really. Imagine Obama, all his advisers and all the others insisting on this POV having to explain three separate uprisings of supposed 'extremist Islamists' (see Dayr az-Zawr area) against the Daesh in August this year, emergence of such groups like White Shroud (anti-Daesh insurgency in same area, ambushing and assassinating idiots), even the Salafist Ahrar ash-Sham fighting the Daesh - just not the regime they insist not to bomb etc.?

Let just start with a guess about who between them might happen to know about this all?

And then try to find out how many American citizens in total know about such facts?

Hand at heart: explaining this is pure horror. Nobody in the DC can do that. So, better say, 'FSyA is a myth' and voila: everybody is happy!

We need to be leery about the high volume of misinformation on blogs, twitter, etc. (that often intended to be little more than propaganda to garner support for a particular group or individual in Syria) that attempt to paint another picture. At a minimum trust but verify, but better yet marginalize the talking heads in our media who insist on accepting myths as facts. Plans based on myths will fail when they confront reality.

Let me see if I understand this clearly: the 200 or so TOW-kills scored by Harakat Hazm only and this in the area between Hama and Moarek since January this year alone (i.e. this is not to talk about dozens of others), all nicely documented on videos - are a 'myth'?

Ah yes: Harakat are about 5,000 former Syrian military officers, no 'farmers, students and doctors', and thus not fitting in Obama's (& CO's) argumentation.

Never mind: forget me mentioning them.

This doesn't mean that an external power can't eventually integrate and more effectively organize these resistance forces. This must be one of the first steps, and until that is accomplished little will be accomplished by providing arms without U.S. or other foreign advisors on the ground to direct operations based on a coherent plan.

...which is the reason why the USA are now making air-drops to Kurds that are listening to command of PKK-leadership, which is considered 'terrorists' not only by Turkey, but half the EU/NATO too and is fighting for something that is against US interests, namely an independent state?

Makes sense...

This casts doubt on the logic of those who advocated support for the "FSA" when the conflict first emerged. It explains why Sen McCain posed with al-Nusra fighters, based on a lack of understanding (a continuing thorn in our side when it comes to developing strategy). Even if one of the many resistance groups, or one of the fleeting coalition of groups, got lucky (chance is a key element in war) and removed Assad, the different groups would quickly turn on one another....

How do you want to know? Right now, these 'different groups' are working together very well. Otherwise, the insurgent frontlines would've collapsed long ago.

The next report is an article on a classified CIA report that states "their" efforts to arm rebels in the past has failed in most instances.

Is this serious?

So, Hazm, SRF and others haven't got the US-made TOWs (most are from lots manufactured just 3-4 years ago) that can be seen on so many videos...?

Fantastic. I'm therefore extremely proud to - for the first time in history ever - present video-evidence of a 'myth'. See here:

Non-existing Free Syrian Army using TOWs:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ede_1412871065

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8d8_1412954857

Harakat using TOWs:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f3a_1413312384

Southern Front using TOWs:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a74_1413328282

13th Division (ex-FSyA now Army of Mujahideen) using TOWs:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a97_1413403410

...and Islamic Front using TOWs:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e08_1413208929

Yes, ladies and gentlemen: all you can see here has never happened - at least not according to US Congress and the CIA.

In my opinion, the CIA has proven over the years to be astrategic when it comes to supporting resistance movements, insurgencies, etc., they tend to throw money and arms at a problem without thinking it through.

And in my opinion CIA can't do anything if there is a pres that's micro-managing this cluster-f..k although entirely clueless about what and why is he doing - and who insists on interrupting the flow of supplies every time the IRGC-led regime gangs are on offensive.

Bottom line we need to do this better.

Finally something I can agree with.

[CrowBat]

Contrary to CIA's own reports to the Congress, the agency appears to be doing quite well with its 'vetting' of Syrian insurgents.

Here an excellently-prepared, really 'authoritative' Complete and Growing List of Vetted Groups of Syrian insurgents that either already have, or are about to get US military aid.

Summary of 'mythical' groups in question:

- V Corps FSyA (including 13th Division; Knights of Truth, 101st Division; Falcons of Mt Zawiya; 1st Infantry Brigade; Harakat Hazm; Nouradin az-Zanki; Ahmad al-Abdo Martyrs Brigades; Falcons of al-Ghab Brigade and Brigade of the Chargers)

- Qunaitra Military Council FSyA & SRF (Grandons Brigade, Youth of Sunnah Brigade; al-Anfal Brigade; 1st Brigade; and Damascus Martyrs Brigade)

- Jaysh al-Mujahideen (Syrian Martyrs' Brigades; Omari Brigades; Yarmouk Brigade; Partisans of Islam Front; Hamza Division; Sword of ash-Sham; Martyrs of Islam Brigade; Dawn of Islam Brigade; Helpers of Sunnah Brigade; Helpers Brigade, Amoud Horan Brigade; Emigrants and Helpers Brigade; One-ness Battalion of Horan; and 1st Artillery Battalion)

Of course, all of these are presently fiercely attacked by the SyAAF: Syrian Air Force Carries Out 200 Strikes in 36 Hours

...The Syrian air force carried out more than 200 air strikes around the country in the past 36 hours, a group monitoring the war said on Tuesday, a rapid increase in government raids as U.S.-led forces bomb Islamist insurgents elsewhere.

The intensified strikes by President Bashar al-Assad's forces will add to the fear among his opponents that the government is taking advantage of the U.S. raids on Islamic State to attack other foes, including opposition groups that Washington backs.

Analysts say the increase could be because the Syrian military wants to weaken rebel groups before they get training and equipment promised by the United States.

Since midnight on Sunday, the Syrian military carried out at least 210 raids, including barrel bombings, on provinces in the east, north and west of the country, the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said. It said there were many casualties but did not give an exact figure.

The military concentrated the strikes in the "western corridor" that stretches from the southwest up through Damascus towards the Mediterranean, according to the information from the the Observatory, which says it gathers details from all sides of the conflict.

The air raids struck areas in the Hama, Daraa, Idlib, Aleppo and Quneitra provinces as well as the Damascus countryside, it said. It also hit the eastern Deir al-Zor province where U.S.-led forces have also been bombing Islamic State, the Observatory added.
...

At least there are no new reports about deployment of chemical weapons, sigh... at least not by the regime.

Namely, the Daesh is back to attacking Ayn al-Arab/Kobane in force. According to a YPG-release from yesterday, it has brought reinforcements from Raqqah, Jarabulus, Manbij and Tel Abyad and launched an all-out attack from several directions. They should have attempted to attack with two suicide car bombs, but both vehicles were destroyed before reaching Kurdish positions. The YPG claimed 11 idiots KIA in the east, 13 in the south, 19 in the south-west and 14 in the west, in exchange for 11 own KIA.

As should be known, two days ago the YPG was 'reinforced' by a typical US 'shot from the hip' style of nonsensical action: i.e. through air-drop of bundles with AK-47s, ammo and hand grenades. It doesn't matter if one JDAP parachute failed and a box ended in Daesh hands - which is now widely becried by the media.

But, what should matter is: why offending what should be a crucial ally in the area (Turkey) and who to hell is 'vetting' the YPG?

Plus: this morning there is a flood of reports about the Daesh launching some sort of chemical weapons attack in Kobane area, and about a number of injured YPG combatants.

[Bill Moore]

Crowbat

Here an excellently-prepared, really 'authoritative' Complete and Growing List of Vetted Groups of Syrian insurgents that either already have, or are about to get US military aid.

Why do you believe this Marxist propaganda site is authoritative? This looks like little more than propaganda directed against English speaking nations to gain support for different resistance movements, that by the way embrace a Marxist ideology. All photos of the Syrians throughout the articles show them holding up signs in English (target audience), and holding up drawings of President Obama.

There is nothing authoritative about this site. That doesn't mean everything in it is inaccurate, or that any of it is inaccurate, but it is clearly intended as propaganda. It also tells a story that agrees with your view, so obviously you embrace it. That is a human tendency we all embrace, and have to consciously fight to get closer to objective and further from subjective.

Your authoritative site is in George Sabra's name, a noted Syrian communist who is now the head of the Syrian National Council (SNC). Clearly an a non bias source that wouldn't twist the facts to achieve a political objective.

Who are the real puppet masters in Syria? Here is one view

http://news.az/articles/region/92937

Turkey and Qatar have been vocal supporters of the Syrian opposition and have been heavily engaged in efforts to coordinate the fragmented Sunni-majority Syrian rebels. The two states contributed jointly to the formation of the Syrian opposition’s civilian wing, the Syrian National Council, and its military wing, the Free Syrian Army (FSA).

Both countries have also been criticized for supporting the al-Nusra Front, the majority of whose militants later joined the ranks of ISIL.

The Qatar-Turkey line has occasionally deviated from the U.S.-Saudi approach in restructuring the opposition like the Syrian National Coalition and FSA into the Higher Military Council.

Nonetheless, the propaganda is well done. Give every organization a Facebook page, a flag, and a few photos to create the illusion of a real army in being.

War has always been propagandized with half-truths and lies, the only difference now is that it has exponentially increased with the web and social media.

[CrowBat]

Crowbat
Why do you believe this Marxist propaganda site is authoritative?

Because ideology of the owner of that website does not matter in the case of the work by two guys that sat down and really did their homework.

Besides, what kind of problem have you got with Syrian Marxists?

If nothing else, from your standpoint the only thing that should matter here would be that Marxists certainly can't be 'Islamist extremists'...

All photos of the Syrians throughout the articles show them holding up signs in English (target audience), and holding up drawings of President Obama.

Yes, that's perfectly right. Guess, you've never seen all the similar photos from Kfarnabel at earlier times?

There is nothing authoritative about this site.

I'm not talking about the site, but the list of vetted insurgent groups posted on it. No matter whether one likes the site and its owner, or not, the list is correct (at worst, affiliations of specific groups would be better re-grouped the way I've posted them here).

That doesn't mean everything in it is inaccurate, or that any of it is inaccurate, but it is clearly intended as propaganda.

Oh, excuse me.

Then please help me understand you correctly:

- posting lists of Syrian insurgent groups the sheer existence of which is declared a 'myth', but which actually have been vetted by the CIA and either already have got TOWs or are about to get them, is 'propaganda';

- while, realizing the correct nature of the 'FSyA' title as a trademark three years too late is... exactly what?

Alternatively, you can explain me your view of what's going on here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hmx48qsBQz4

It also tells a story that agrees with your view, so obviously you embrace it.

Sure: it confirms my information, which is good for me - and very bad for everybody explaining something else.

That is a human tendency we all embrace, and have to consciously fight to get closer to objective and further from subjective.

Exactly that has brought me at this standpoint.

Difference is: contrary to 12 years ago, this time I'm not going to shut up.

Your authoritative site is in George Sabra's name, a noted Syrian communist who is now the head of the Syrian National Council (SNC). Clearly an a non bias source that wouldn't twist the facts to achieve a political objective.

And the funny thing here is: more than half the groups in question can't care less about the SNC - and this precisely because they do not want to subject themselves to the control of Turkey/Qatar-supported Moslem Brotherhood.

Of course, in order to know about this one should 'consciously fight to get closer to objective and further from subjective'.

So, as you can see, we're even in agreement here.

Who are the real puppet masters in Syria? Here is one view...

I'm not surprised you're posting a source offering just the usual set of generalizations. But what never stops making me wondering about people like you is the following:

1.) Why are you throwing together groups like those listed above, which are clearly US-Saudi supported, and refusing to accept the SNC and Turkish-Qatari line - between others because the later was so far primarily providing aid to Islamist and extremist groups, like the JAN, Ahrar etc.?

2.) Why are you blaming me for 'spreading Marxist propaganda' while failing to realize that your problem is the same like all those that share your ignorance about 'details' of the Syrian insurgency?

3.) Why are you limiting yourself to reading such 'mainstream' stuff and generalizations? Why don't you check reports by the US Treasury citing specific Iranian nationals (here too) right next to Kuwaiti nationals (alternatively here, and more precisely here), and Qatari nationals instead?

These are not only clearly identifying specific persons that are providing funding and recruitment for the al-Qaida and Daesh in Syria, but also making it clear: the above-listed Syrian insurgent groups have never received any kind of funding from sources listed by the US Treasury.

And overall: why is it so hard for people like you nowadays to activate their brains, start collecting information, start thinking and connecting dots?

Nonetheless, the propaganda is well done. Give every organization a Facebook page, a flag, and a few photos to create the illusion of a real army in being.

...and still - and obviously - that's nothing in comparison to the Daesh and the Assadist regime.

Then, without the USA (and entire West) misunderstanding Daesh's videos of beheading its US and British hostages, the USA and allies wouldn't get involved against it.

And, without skilful manoeuvring and propaganda of the regime, everybody would know what's actually going on in Syria.

War has always been propagandized with half-truths and lies, the only difference now is that it has exponentially increased with the web and social media.

Very nice. Then I'll offer you the following promise: in order to distinguish propaganda from reality, henceforth I'll post every single video of TOW-use by above-listed groups I can put my hands upon.

Let's start with non-existing Harakat Hazm, which never destroyed this 2S1 Gvozdika:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6d5_1413895155

...nor has it ever hit this T-55 in northern Hama province:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8yTG0VcRC0

[Bill Moore]

Crowbat

Only the blind would argue that resistance elements are not fighting bravely against Assad, whigh is all the videos demonstrate. They don't prove who is doing the fighting. As for using main stream news as sources I readily admit that is a shortfall, but it is no worse than citing resistance websites. Clearly you understand we can't post classified information on a blog? Unless you are a former member of the Obama administration. You are certainly knowledgeable on the situation. You are also a biased source of information. Nonetheless I enjoy reading your posts. You should keep in mind that America's interests will not always align with yours.

[CrowBat]

Bill,
after posting my last post above and while preparing few artworks ('colour profiles') of SyAAF MiG-21s captured by the Daesh at Tabqa AB for one of my future publications.... it dawned upon me that I failed to express my appreciation for you about one (or even 'a few') fact(s).

Namely, you are now in exclusive club of about 0,0001% of total US population that knows there is something like 'Syrian Marxists'.

It might sound silly at the first look, and it's certainly going to sound 'patronizing', although what I'm going to write as next is not meant that way: but, I think this is an important step forward.

If you wonder why: because this means you're one of very, very, very, very, VERY few Americans not considering all the Syrians either for 'crazy Islamist terrorists' or for 'fans of that lesser-evil, named Bashar'.

IMHO, this is important for the next reason you mentioned in your reply too: yup, only the blind would argue there is no resistance against Assad. This stands precisely in opposition to what the US government, most of US political establishment, large parts of the IC and especially most of the military are arguing.

That said, and because you 'still insist' that this 'doesn't prove who is doing the fighting', I guess I'll have to keep on posting videos of TOW-kills. Reason is rather simple: just to show you how many of them are used in combat, and how many Assadists are blown up by them.

Regarding sources: nope, my primary sources are no mainstream media, internet etc. And nope: at least from my standpoint I can say I'm not posting plenty of 'sensitive' stuff I do happen to know. I do not demand anybody to do something of that kind either.

But, I do happen to have contacts to people serving with (what is left of) the Syrian military, to people that joined the insurgents etc. and I also do happen to be in a position to...let's say 'monitor'... let's say 'discussions' within certain, 'quite influential' circles in the DC. Of course, all of this is completely unofficial by nature and some of stuff they say sometimes proves wrong. Therefore, nobody is obliged to 'believe' anything I say. Yet, the point is this: primary reason why I'm - sometimes - posting links to specific media/blogs or other sorts of internet websites is solely to point at sources confirming what I've heard from somewhere else.

Am I biased?

I'm staunchly against any regime that's terrorising its population. But especially against one that has caused the death of 400,000 people and forced 10 million of others to become homeless refugees, that's purposedly destroying most of Syrian cities, regularly using chemical weapons, and then depending on two major (and several minor) terrorist organizations for own survival.

If that's making me 'biased', oh my dear Sir: yes, I am.

On the contrary, the end of your post is leaving me not a little bit bamboozled: precisely what kind of 'US interests' here are then 'not align' with mine?

Would you like to say the US is now curious to ignore regimes doing all of what I listed?

***********

That all said, here one example of what you're not going to find in any kind of media: the top ranks of the Assadist military (that is: the few old farths left over from the former SyAA) are presently (and seriously) considering official re-designation of military services from 'Syrian Arab Army' to something like the 'Syrian National Army'. I.e. the droppin 'Arab' from the official designation.

Local IRGC-QF commanders were a lil' bit stunned about this (then the IRGC is eagerly Arabizing even the official Iranian history since years), but they've meanwhile joined related discussions with suggestion of something like: 'Syrian Peoples' Army'.

Should you wonder where have I got this: sorry, I can't say more than I have already said.

Whatever, I am a great fan of sarcasm, and thus cannot fail observing few things:

- That with 'Syrian People's Army' would be the gem - even more so because half the 'people' in question either do not speak Arabic with Syrian accent, or do not speak any Arabic at all.

- I'm eagerly waiting for reaction of such regime's combatants like those from the Ba'ath Party Militia, Arab National Guard (the latter are primarily Egyptians, but few Lebanese and other Arabs too), and then the Syrian Socialist Party Militia (the standpoint of which is that Arabs are better than even Nazi's Arians) - once they realize the regime for which they are fighting has decided to drop not only 'Arab', but even pan-Arabism from its agenda.