Syria in 2017 (January-April)

[OUTLAW 09]

Outlaw,

I cannot think of a period when the American mainstream media didn’t “get it wrong”. Their audience are the laity who prefer to be entertained rather than informed, and whose interest is piqued by controversy and shock. Complex and interconnected events unbounded by time, geography or interpretation must be distilled into short, simple and moral stories. Moreover, the American media has often seemed to collude with the government when intervention is being justified and has ignored those crises where the government desires no involvement.

As I have stated previously, I am not going to wade into the sewer of U.S. presidential politics. Your objections to the current president have been duly noted. I can go on at length about Kennedy, Johnson, Clinton and Obama, but this is the SWC thread on Syria. Would you rather tangle with me on Disqus?

The Syrian Civil War is not a key national interest of the U.S. in and of itself, except insofar as it overlaps with the ongoing containment and attrition of anti-Western Islamist terrorists. Note that the ongoing civil wars in D.R. Congo/Burundi, Sudan, South Sudan, Myanmar, Central African Republic and Turkey have received no significant U.S. attention; those in Nigeria, Libya, Somalia and Yemen have received very little. This lack of action and interest can be attributed to any previous presidential administration. In the case of Lebanon, Western involvement was intended to counter the Soviets, Iranians and Syrians; in the case of Yugoslavia, action was intended to preserve the Western alliance.

Despite riding high on the commodity boom as Australia, Brazil, Canada and other countries did, Russia is still for all intents and purposes, “Upper Volta with rockets”. Aside from its nuclear deterrent, very limited power projection capabilities and handful of defense products, Russia is not even a near-peer competitor to the U.S. The primary American rival and potential future adversary is in fact China. If history does indeed rhyme, Russia will eventually become an ally of the West as part of a coalition to contain Chinese aggression.

Your personal biases cause you to focus on Russia exclusively and to ignore China, when it comes to American grand strategy, even though Russia too desires: “to be on the world’s political stage as an equal co-speaker”.

Note that since securing mainland China after World War II, the Chinese Communist Party has:

• Murdered roughly 10% of the Chinese population to consolidate power
• Invaded South Korea
• Attacked the Soviet Union
• Invaded Vietnam
• Supported the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia that murdered 25% of its population
• Supported the Kim dynasty in North Korea that murdered 10% of its population
• Attacked and threatened Taiwan
• Developed nuclear weapons
• Improved and increased its nuclear arsenal specifically to target the U.S.
• Developed offensive weaponry to specifically target the U.S. and its allies
• Imprisoned, tortured and murdered dissidents, and continues to do so
• Maintained the largest slave labor force of any country
• Executed more people per year, legally and extra-judicially than any other country
• Partnered with countries hostile to the U.S., including Russia, North Korea, Venezuela, Iran, Nicaragua and Pakistan

These facts should place the PRC in the proper perspective, despite my digression from the topic of Syria. The PRC was never reconstructed in the way that the Soviet Union was partially in 1956, 1987 and 1991.

In the end, the civil wars in Iraq and Syria revolve around Sunni-Shia relations, Arab-Kurdish relations and the Iranian bid for mastery in the Middle East. Certainly, Russia has played spoiler to American initiatives in Syria and has gained some much needed combat experience there. The Damascus-Teheran plan to reduce the Sunni Arab population, and thereby the pool of opponents to Assad, will continue whether Russia is deployed in Syria or not.

Have we then if you are in fact correct...as an assumption...then we are just as complicit in genocide as is Assad and Putin because we could have stopped if that had been any interesting in stopping it which I have not seen since 2012....the argument has always been ...it is not of a strategic importance to the US...but in the end it has become in fact "strategic important" as this turmoil will go on for another decade of so....

So yes based on the IHL and international treaties we are in fact complicit in genocide...

[Azor]

Have we then if you are in fact correct...as an assumption...then we are just as complicit in genocide as is Assad and Putin because we could have stopped if that had been any interesting in stopping it which I have not seen since 2012....the argument has always been ...it is not of a strategic importance to the US...but in the end it has become in fact "strategic important" as this turmoil will go on for another decade of so....

So yes based on the IHL and international treaties we are in fact complicit in genocide...

Unfortunately, international "law" isn't your strong suit. In terms of applying the "Responsibility to Protect" to the case of the Syrian Civil War:

1. There must be "reasonable prospects" of success using military intervention. I doubt that this case can be made.
   
   
2. The military action has to be authorized by the UN Security Council. Yeah, right.

Do countries with no military power projection capabilities have a duty to establish militaries solely for the purposes of intervening in foreign countries to protect civilians? What of Iceland?


So what of D.R. Congo and Burundi? Should the West not intervene there first as the area of greatest need?

[davidbfpo]

Citing Azor in part:

So what of D.R. Congo and Burundi? Should the West not intervene there first as the area of greatest need?

There was a debate here on DR Congo and Rwanda, with separate threads. IIRC no-one advocated a Western R2P at time, although there was a debate afterwards and Canadian General Dalliare appeared.

We then had several SME and "boots on the ground" members who added their experience and weight: Tom Odom & Stan Reber come to mind.

There is a thread open now on Burundi, which is a simmering small war. No-one here IIRC has advocated a Western R2P. To be fair I somehow expect we are paying in part some of UN / African Union involvement there (as we are elsewhere in Africa).

[Azor]

From the BBC: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39708909

The US has expressed "deep concern" at Turkish air strikes that killed about two dozen Kurdish fighters in Syria and Iraq.

The US-backed Popular Protection Units (YPG), fighting against IS, said their positions were hit multiple times.

Turkey regards the YPG as linked to outlawed Kurdish separatists. Iraqi Kurdish Peshmerga, friendly to Turkey, also reportedly suffered fatalities.
The Iraqi government condemned the strikes carried out on its territory.
US state department spokesman Mark Toner said: "We are very concerned, deeply concerned that Turkey conducted air strikes earlier today in northern Syria as well as northern Iraq without proper co-ordination either with the United States or the broader global coalition to defeat IS."
He added: "We have expressed those concerns to the government of Turkey directly."

Iraqi government spokesman Saad al-Hadithi said: "The Iraqi government condemns and rejects the strikes carried out by Turkish aircraft on Iraqi territory."

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan defended the air strikes, telling Reuters: "We are obliged to take measures. We must take steps.
"We shared this with the US and Russia and we are sharing it with Iraq as well. It is an operation that (Iraqi Kurdistan President Massoud) Barzani has been informed about."

The number killed has not been confirmed but reports suggest about 18 YPG and five Iraqi Kurdish Peshmerga members died.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a UK-based monitoring organisation, said a dawn strike on Tuesday targeted Kurdish positions in Hassakeh province in north-east Syria, hitting a media centre and radio station.

A separate series of strikes hit a base near Sinjar in northern Iraq, close to the Syrian border.

Mr Erdogan said he regretted the death of the Peshmerga, saying it was "absolutely not an operation against [them]".

In a statement, the Peshmerga said that while the attack was "unacceptable", it blamed forces from the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) in the area and called on them to withdraw.

The PKK is a Turkish-Kurdish rebel group that has been fighting an armed struggle against the Turkish government since the 1980s.

The strikes reflect how complicated the situation is in the battle against so-called Islamic State in Syria and northern Iraq.

The US is relying heavily on Kurdish forces on the ground but its ally, Turkey, views the YPG as an extension of the PKK.

A ceasefire between Turkey and the PKK ended last year and clashes have since claimed hundreds of lives on both sides.

A commander for the Kurdish forces in Syria called on its international allies to defend their forces from further attacks.

"We are asking the international coalition to intervene to stop these Turkish violations," the unnamed commander told the AFP news agency.
"It's unthinkable that we are fighting on a front as important as Raqqa while Turkish planes bomb us in the back," he said, referring to the IS stronghold in northern Syria.

A US military commander met Kurdish fighters after the attack to show solidarity.

[Azor]

There was a debate here on DR Congo and Rwanda, with separate threads. IIRC no-one advocated a Western R2P at time, although there was a debate afterwards and Canadian General Dalliare appeared.

We then had several SME and "boots on the ground" members who added their experience and weight: Tom Odom & Stan Reber come to mind.

There is a thread open now on Burundi, which is a simmering small war. No-one here IIRC has advocated a Western R2P. To be fair I somehow expect we are paying in part some of UN / African Union involvement there (as we are elsewhere in Africa).

Yes, I am aware of the D.R.C. thread, and I mentioned Burundi only because of spillover. I brought this particular conflict up because Outlaw had asserted that the Syrian Civil War involved genocide against Sunni Arabs and demanded foreign intervention under international law.

I countered on the legal or diplomatic aspects, and suggested the ongoing D.R.C./Burundi War as a more worthy mission for humanitarian intervention, given:

• The far higher death toll
• Most fatalities being civilians (whereas in Syria they are combatants)
• More fatalities per year
• A far longer time period

It was a tongue-in-cheek suggestion as clearly Outlaw is more interested in ending the Syrian Civil War (as well as the Russo-Ukrainian one) and on his terms, rather than say ending all ongoing wars or saving the most people, irrespective of location or the country(ies) involved. It is one thing to be more interested in what Russia and Iran are up to - a bias I share - it is quite another to cry genocide selectively...

[CrowBat]

This, 'for the records'....

The THK flew at least 24 air strikes on PKK's positions in NW Syria and N Iraq yesterday. This strike was announced 1 hour in advance to the USA and Russia - both of which objected to it. Many of air strikes concentrated on the area around Tel Rifa'at, in northern Aleppo - where, between others, the THK hit the Rojava Radio and the CIRA-FM (plus the YPG HQ in Karacoke, in Derik, in Iraq).

According to Turkish officials, 40 YPG and 30 PKK were killed there. The YPG confirmed the death of 'most of its media centre', then the death of 20 of its combatants, plus that 18 were WIA, of which 3 in cricial condition.

Adding to its 'standard absurdism', the Pentagon complained that 'these air strikes were not approved by the Counter-ISIS-Coalition and led to the unfortunate loss of life of our partner forces.' Actually, the PKK/PYD/YPG in the area that was hit has NEVER fought the ISIS (on the contrary: it cooperated with it at least as often as if attacked local Syrian insurgents), it is enjoying support of Assadists and Russians - and was never a part of the SDF (it only declared itself as such, which is the same as if I would declare myself the citizen of Andorra).

Involved TSK's UAVs can sometimes be tracked on FR24

[CrowBat]

...and this, too:

This is a link to a particularly important piece of research - filling plenty of gaps.

It leads to a diagram summarizing results of interviews with a number of FSyA and HTS combatants involved in the recent offensive on northern Hama.

Essence is: the FSyA had a sound plan for assaulting Hama (city) - which could have worked (they hit an area without centralized Assadist command, and then directly at the joint of two different frontlines: that's always a recipe for success). But, the HTS decided to go for Qamahana instead.

The HTS not only failed to take Qamahana, but then began sabotaging the operation, even forcing FSyA units to withdraw - and the AAS (Ahrar ash-Sham) joined it in such efforts.

Russian air strikes were 'only partially the reason for the failure'.

If only a part of this is true (and there are no reasons to have doubts about this: each time the IRGC and the V Corps broke through, it was on the eastern - HTS-controlled - side of the frontlines), it is nothing short but a treachery. This even more so in the light of reports about the FSyA suffering minimal losses early on - until the HTS attacked their injured and slaughtered hundreds.

[OUTLAW 09]

...and this, too:

This is a link to a particularly important piece of research - filling plenty of gaps.

It leads to a diagram summarizing results of interviews with a number of FSyA and HTS combatants involved in the recent offensive on northern Hama.

Essence is: the FSyA had a sound plan for assaulting Hama (city) - which could have worked (they hit an area without centralized Assadist command, and then directly at the joint of two different frontlines: that's always a recipe for success). But, the HTS decided to go for Qamahana instead.

The HTS not only failed to take Qamahana, but then began sabotaging the operation, even forcing FSyA units to withdraw - and the AAS (Ahrar ash-Sham) joined it in such efforts.

Russian air strikes were 'only partially the reason for the failure'.

If only a part of this is true (and there are no reasons to have doubts about this: each time the IRGC and the V Corps broke through, it was on the eastern - HTS-controlled - side of the frontlines), it is nothing short but a treachery. This even more so in the light of reports about the FSyA suffering minimal losses early on - until the HTS attacked their injured and slaughtered hundreds.

Azor...CrowBat is trying to show you the way forward right now in Syria and no one in the US is "seeing and understanding" the big picture around HTS....

Try going back and rereading a number of the articles that I have posted on IS/Assad and now HTS.....from say Lister...Hassan Hassan and or Ortan...

No one of any reputation on understanding Syria who resides in the US is actually writing on this subject..why is that?

And BTW how is Trump doing on the "I will eradicate IS from the face of the earth thingy"?

A headline here in Germany today quoted an unnamed member of the Trump WH that Trump is executing on his Syrian strategy....

That was needless to say a "do what moment"?....

Why because what was being explained was no different than Obama's strategy which really was a full tilt to Iran and that was about it....but we know what Trump's view on Iran is....so something has to be different somewhere but it was not.....

But since he is a real estate professional..he is selling you and me a "grand strategy" I guess"? They are trying to repackage an outhouse and selling it as Trump Tower...

We will just have to wait to see if it is "finally built and is paying property taxes"....with no corruption along the way.

[OUTLAW 09]

...and this, too:

This is a link to a particularly important piece of research - filling plenty of gaps.

It leads to a diagram summarizing results of interviews with a number of FSyA and HTS combatants involved in the recent offensive on northern Hama.

Essence is: the FSyA had a sound plan for assaulting Hama (city) - which could have worked (they hit an area without centralized Assadist command, and then directly at the joint of two different frontlines: that's always a recipe for success). But, the HTS decided to go for Qamahana instead.

The HTS not only failed to take Qamahana, but then began sabotaging the operation, even forcing FSyA units to withdraw - and the AAS (Ahrar ash-Sham) joined it in such efforts.

Russian air strikes were 'only partially the reason for the failure'.

If only a part of this is true (and there are no reasons to have doubts about this: each time the IRGC and the V Corps broke through, it was on the eastern - HTS-controlled - side of the frontlines), it is nothing short but a treachery. This even more so in the light of reports about the FSyA suffering minimal losses early on - until the HTS attacked their injured and slaughtered hundreds.

CrowBat..actually extremely interesting in that AQ leader recently released a video pleading with the FSA to join HTS as only HTS is able to defeat Assad.....

Interesting as well for Sham playing the HTS game ....

Had seen often the account @BosnjoBoy but had not followed him....

[OUTLAW 09]

Unfortunately, international "law" isn't your strong suit. In terms of applying the "Responsibility to Protect" to the case of the Syrian Civil War:

1. There must be "reasonable prospects" of success using military intervention. I doubt that this case can be made.
   
   
2. The military action has to be authorized by the UN Security Council. Yeah, right.

Do countries with no military power projection capabilities have a duty to establish militaries solely for the purposes of intervening in foreign countries to protect civilians? What of Iceland?


So what of D.R. Congo and Burundi? Should the West not intervene there first as the area of greatest need?

BUT WAIT...THEN you really do need to read your international law..especially the International Humanitarian Law on the use of chemical weapons and cluster incendiaries which are in fact covered ..since 1929...

SO let me get this straight...my bashing Trump on his use of TLAMS really for a "Wag the Dog" effect ACTUALLY set another US precedent...one you seemed to have overlooked in your cut and paste comments....

He acted actually under the guise of "UNSC failed to take any action even when warned the US would"....

THEN if I understand Putin correctly he has repeatedly accused the US since 2004 of getting involved in Bosnia and Kosovo without UNSC support...which Trump has now done...

NOW go exactly back to the CrowBat comments you also tend to clash on and "listen" to what he has been saying as well....

IF the US redline had been in effect implemented and the entire Assad AF grounded in 2013 including copters...then we would not have the following......

1. chemical attacks via barrel bombs and bombs
2. no further use of barrel bombs against civilians
3. Russia would not have had the opportunity to enter Syria THUS
4. no Russian cluster incendiaries/bunker busters against civilians
5. no Russian air strikes against food...water infrastructures and no hospital bombings....
6. no Russian troops and PMCs on Syrian soil
7. mass refugee/IDP flows from totally destroyed towns/villages/cities

AND certainly no recent major Russia oil/gas deal to repay Russia for all of their support...

And more importantly no Assad.....

Now back to IHL which apparently you feel I do not understand....BY not holding to and enforcing that 2013 red line the US has actually become "complicit" on the violations being committed under IHL by both Assad and Putin.....

Now check that out with a local IHL Professor..he/she will agree with me....

Emphasis placed on the word "complicit"...

[OUTLAW 09]

Unfortunately, international "law" isn't your strong suit. In terms of applying the "Responsibility to Protect" to the case of the Syrian Civil War:

1. There must be "reasonable prospects" of success using military intervention. I doubt that this case can be made.
   
   
2. The military action has to be authorized by the UN Security Council. Yeah, right.

Do countries with no military power projection capabilities have a duty to establish militaries solely for the purposes of intervening in foreign countries to protect civilians? What of Iceland?


So what of D.R. Congo and Burundi? Should the West not intervene there first as the area of greatest need?

1. Last time I seriously checked Iceland politics....they need no "saving" outside of their driven into the ground banking system that massively invested in US driven real estate deals that almost bankrupted the entire country..but that was US criminal activity driven.

The PanamaPapers have done more for Iceland than anyone else....

2. D.R Congo and related countries.........

IMHO right now there are far more serious issues....namely 20-30M starving literally starving people now in Africa and other areas of the world which pose a far greater threat to people losing their lives which can in fact be answered with simply "food" and no military actions...

Which if I understand the latest Trump WH budget he is cutting virtually all foreign aid...which includes that given to Ukraine....

BUT WAIT...the US has had two back to back BUMPER crop years in say just corn so ship it to Africa....stamp it foreign aid and pay US producers a fair price because right now the price is in the basement globally...win win....

BUT WAIT...because the greedy US farmers decided to park their BUMPER year in the open unprotected from moisture or in just covered storage sheds also not protected from moisture because they though the global market price would rise that entire BUMPER crop is contaminated with fungus making it unfit for consumption even by animals......

They cannot even sell it to pet food manufacturers...not even for ethanol production...

But hey I am not knowledgeable in farming am I?