- Leaked video purports to show YPG/SDF forces in Raqqa countryside going into civilian houses looking to loot/steal, Raqqa Governorate, Syria
- Clashes between the Free Syrian Army and the YPG/SDF on the axis of A'zaz -Maranaz, north of Aleppo
Turkish-YPG Fighting
- Turkish artillery pounding YPG positions in Afrin with artillery
- Howitzers and T-122 Sakarya MLRS is reportedly pounding YPG positions in Afrin
Perhaps Washington will come to the realization that there are no angels here, except the White Helmets.
Neither the YPG nor the FSA should be fighting in Sunni Arab and Kurdish areas, respectively, and any operations in mixed areas should come under strict joint oversight to prevent cleansing.
Last edited by Azor; 05-02-2017 at 01:14 AM.
According to SIPRI, Russia provided more than 50% of the value of the arms transferred to Syria from 1992 to 2013, with data being scarce for 2014 and unavailable for 2015-2015. Russia was the single largest transferor in 2002-2003 and 2009-2013, or for one third of that period. Has the Syrian account been up to date? Certainly not. But such is the cost of doing business in the arms trade, and neither Yeltsin nor Putin have had problems providing corporate welfare to Russian defense contractors.Originally Posted by CrowBat
With regard to Tartus, it is effectively a glorified dock. Russia has been unable to even thinly spread its assets across its existing bases, let alone take advantage of naval facilities in Syria and Vietnam. Recently, the Russian Navy had to cannibalize its Black Sea Fleet to reinforce its Baltic Fleet, and deploying the naval group off of Syria has been a strain.
As stated previously, I referred to “client” in a very loose sense given that Russia’s international relationships are far fewer and far weaker than those of the United States, and I won’t belabor the point further.
What new ROEs have been introduced? Thus far Russia has offered to turn transponders on if all NATO aircraft (i.e. spy planes) will do likewise.Originally Posted by CrowBat
In 2017, there were at least six incidents of Russian military aircraft flying in international Baltic airspace with their transponders off.
In 2016, there were 110 intercepts in the Baltic area, including at least four where Russian transponders were off, and six violations of Estonian airspace. In addition, there were ten violations of Bulgarian airspace and at least one unsafe interception by Russia over the Black Sea. NATO intercepts were lower for 2016 than 2014 and 2015, but are still far above 2013 levels.
Well, Russia may be “Upper Volta”, but it still has “rockets”, does it not? This country has directly challenged American interests since 2008, and has invaded and partitioned two prospective American allies.Originally Posted by CrowBat
Regardless, you continue to have difficulty reading what I actually write. I never said that Russia would attack American or Coalition forces in Syria. What I did assert was that Russia probably would ignore a no-fly zone, no-drive zone and/or a blockade, and dare the Coalition to fire on it first. Despite lacking true allies, Russia would certainly have allies of convenience in Damascus and Teheran.
Consider the Berlin Airlift, when American and British forces were faced with overwhelming Soviet quantitative and qualitative superiority, frayed lines of communication and only perhaps two dozen atomic bombs were available to the U.S. once the B-29s had been deployed. The Allies violated the blockade peacefully, adhered to pre-blockade arrangements as much as possible, and were prepared to lose men and machines to Soviet aggression and the weather, if need be. The airlift was a logistical feat for the British and French, and humiliated the far stronger Soviet Union.
After the fall of Qaddafi and the refusal of Obama to treat him as an equal partner, Putin has been determined to humiliate the U.S. despite Russia’s weaknesses. Were the U.S. to establish a blockade or NFZ/NDZ, I believe that Putin would move heaven and earth to violate it and risk the lives of Russian sailors and pilots doing so.
And? It all boils down to whether the U.S. would fire upon Russian and Iranian blockade runners.Originally Posted by CrowBat
Of course Moscow cared. It just had bigger fish to fry. Assuming that the blockade did not include airstrikes on Assad’s ground forces, it would have taken the rebels some time to defeat Assad, during which Moscow and Teheran could have tried to run men and materiel through the blockade, by air, sea and overland through Iraq, which was not exactly an American ally in 2013.Originally Posted by CrowBat
If Obama had launched TLAMs or established a blockade in 2013, Assad would have been screaming for help.Originally Posted by CrowBat
Right. We are talking about your alternate timeline where Obama launches TLAMs and establishes a blockade.Originally Posted by CrowBat
The Iranians would have had this prerequisite long before the JCPOA was drafted, and would have signaled Obama if he had intervened in Syria in 2013.Originally Posted by CrowBat
Russia could take an alternate air route with refueling, rely upon sealift or transit via Iraq, which was led by Maliki, who would probably have allowed it. After all, Iraq currently hosts Iranian special forces and has sent Iranian-led Iraqi Shia militias to Syria.Originally Posted by CrowBat
BUT when you pick the wrong bar...the wrong friends...have no chair and no beer...will you then realize you might in one heck of a serious problem....THIS is where SOF and CENTCOM are now and yet I do not think they even realize it...
AND that is sad....
Maybe if they read SWC/SWJ more often????
The following testimony was presented to the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs on April 27, 2017, by Charles Lister
http://www.mei.edu/content/article/t...policy-options
Selected excerpts and my comments - Part 1/2:
In August 2013, Assad had at least 1,000 tons of chemical weapons, including several hundred of Sarin. According to the DOD (https://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R42848.pdf), securing Assad’s stockpiles by force would have required the deployment of up to 75,000 soldiers, including thousands of regular and special forces on the ground in Syria, and an air and naval campaign far larger than the 60 aircraft and 7 ships required for Operation Odyssey Dawn in 2011. Not only did the 2013 “Framework” destroy or remove nearly all of Assad’s CWs, it dismantled their infrastructure and delivery systems. The deal prevented Assad’s formidable arsenal from being transferred to Hezbollah for use against Israel, or falling under Al Qaeda or Daesh control, which U.S. military intervention may not have been able to achieve. Unfortunately, the deal ensured Assad’s survival and continued war against his own citizens, with increased Iranian and Russian support.Originally Posted by Charles Lister
I agree. Yet behind Assad is Iran, much as Iran was behind Maliki’s efforts to marginalize the Sunni Arabs of Iraq. Therefore, we arrive at the second humanitarian compromise in order to minimize the threat of WMDs: permitting Iran to pursue a sectarian war in Iraq and Syria in return for an agreement on Iran’s nuclear weapons program.Originally Posted by Charles Lister
I doubt Assad is comfortable, as he sits only at the pleasure of Teheran, whose calculus may well change. His recent use of Sarin was an unambiguous test of the new U.S. administration’s interest in Syria and resolve.Originally Posted by Charles Lister
This is in addition to Syria’s invasions of Israel and Lebanon, ties to U.S. adversaries Iran and North Korea, support for designated terrorist group Hezbollah, and attempt to develop nuclear weapons.Originally Posted by Charles Lister
Specifics will be needed. Is the U.S. supposed to partition the country into ethnic and sectarian enclaves and then use force to prevent one group from aggressing against another? What about the mixed areas on the frontlines? Should the U.S. be neutral except where Al Qaeda and Daesh are concerned, but ignore the foreign Shia mercenaries marauding on behalf of Assad? How can the U.S. ensure compliance from Iran and Russia? Currently, the regime is determined to reconquer the country, despite being reliant upon foreign funding, manpower and materiel to do so. How can its calculus be changed without changing the regime itself?Originally Posted by Charles Lister
Exactly. Moscow will tolerate a slap on the wrist that does not materially alter the balance of forces, but not a decapitating blow.Originally Posted by Charles Lister
Agreed.Originally Posted by Charles Lister
Russia is likely interested in a negotiated settlement and a partitioned country with a “frozen conflict”, whereas Iran is determined to secure total victory over every inch of Syria.Originally Posted by Charles Lister
They may not have a choice. The Sunni Arab majority will not accept minority Alawi rule; neither will the Alawis, Christians and Druze accept a possible tyranny of the majority by way of democracy (such as in Iraq). Moreover, the Kurds are not about to surrender a de facto independent Rojava, which ideology aside is not dissimilar to Iraq’s KAR.Originally Posted by Charles Lister
The following testimony was presented to the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs on April 27, 2017, by Charles Lister
http://www.mei.edu/content/article/t...policy-options
Selected excerpts and my comments - Part 2/2:
Washington will go with choice “b”. Even if a commitment on the order of Western Europe, Japan and South Korea is the most sensible choice, Americans will balk at the up-front costs. The war in Afghanistan is not even over, but according to the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, development aid to Afghanistan has already cost the U.S. more than the Marshall Plan in equivalent U.S. dollars. That is a damning indictment of “leading from behind”, leaving a “light footprint” or whatever American bureaucrats call a limited and restricted intervention. Note that today, Japan, Western Europe and South Korea are all American allies and host U.S. forces; they all contribute to American and global freedom, peace and prosperity. Conversely, we all know what losing the peace meant in the former Confederate states, Germany, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, and what limiting the war effort meant in South Vietnam.Originally Posted by Charles Lister
Regarding:Originally Posted by Charles Lister
(2) What about the existing pro-Assad zone around Aleppo and the Kurdish zone around Afrin? Assad would have to give up Aleppo to Turkish/FSA forces and the Kurds would be surrounded by Turkish or FSA forces on all sides of their enclave.
(3) Yet there is evidence of ethnic and sectarian cleansing by the YPG against non-Kurds, and Turkey would not be particularly tolerant about a PKK-aligned statelet bordering its restive southeastern Kurdish region.
(4) Why Israel? Nothing brings Syrians of all ethnicities and faiths closer together than the presence of Israeli forces on their soil.
(5) This is a terrible idea. Having Shias and Kurds occupy Sunni Arab areas is a recipe for endless insurgency. It would be preferable to cede this area to Jordan as well. Assad should be confined to his western enclave.
Yet confronting Iran brings with it serious risks, such as the abrogation of the JCPOA with the looming cloud of war to disarm Iran, as well as a spoiling of the anti-Daesh efforts in northern Iraq, which are dependent upon Shia militias subject to a great deal of Iranian influence. In addition to Iraq, Iran could also make life difficult for the U.S. in Afghanistan and turn Hezbollah’s attention back toward Israel.Originally Posted by Charles Lister
Azor...I had already seen the Lister comments via social media...BUT here is the interesting thing...outside of social media comments...US MSM and the Trump WH NSC basically ignored his comments...
AND neither Trump WH NSC nor CENTCOM nor US MSM is actively questioning the American support to and for a Communist inspired and led Kurdish PKK a US named terror group...
Example it took social media pointing out that a proRussian mercenary who had fought in the Russian mercenary army in eastern Ukraine and joined the US Army and was on active duty...then finally a single MSM outlet picked it up...and it ended there...
As long as the Trump WH and Trump himself is in total chaos there will be no US FP on just about anything.....
Trump called Obama weak on #SouthChinaSea patrols. 100 days in, he seems to have halted them entirely.
Fmr AG Yates warned WH Jan26 that Flynn could be compromised by Russia. Did Trump lie on Feb10 when asked about it?
Sally Yates to contradict White House about Flynn & Russia. She told WH on Jan 26; Feb 10 Trump said he knew nothing
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/02/politi...y-contradict/#
Lies..bluffs and "Wag the Dog moments" are not FP....and Assad is still using chemicals...
Playlist of videos relating to the April 2nd 2017 bombing of Maaret al Numan national hospital
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...gvDw66-1bYnGr#
US military official suffers slip of the tongue and says PKK is part of the SDF
Ah, speaking truth is now called 'slip in the tongue' in Pentagon's jargon?...In response to a question regarding the Turkish attitude against the YPG during press briefing on Wednesday, Colonel John Dorrian, the spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition against Daesh, accidentally acknowledged that the PKK was part of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).
"But with regard to the PKK, they are a part of the Syrian Democratic Forces, and the Syrian Arab Coalition is a part of the Syrian Democratic Forces as well. The forces that are isolating Raqqa are now largely made up of Syrian Arabs, but they are a part of the Syrian Democratic Forces," he said.
...
Good to know that.
Guess, this happened to the CENTCOM Because they are in a rush. Namely, the CIA seems to be active in Syria again:
Analysis: The Free Idlib Army’s Role in the U.S. Battle Against Al-Qaida in Syria
...and that's 'no good news' for any of generals currently trying to run the US foreign politics in the Middle East.
I will remain on my soap box as long as US FP is operating under the Trump Principle of "Wag the Dog".....which is neither a strategy or a FP and simply uses any action to deflect and or direct attention away from a lack of a strategy and or FP....on anything!
Weeks After Massive US Bomb, IS Still on Air in Afghanistan
by Voice of America
An article here in SWJ.....
THIS Azor is exactly what I posted previously ..you simply cannot "defeat IS militarily on the ground".....they will simply fade as they did in Iraq back into guerrilla warfare....Almost three weeks after the United States dropped its most powerful non-nuclear bomb in Eastern Afghanistan, the Islamic State group continues to show battlefield resilience as well as run its FM radio channel in the area.
Actually if one really does reread Mao and his writings on guerrilla warfare....IS is in a phase two actually possibly a full phase three and when pushed hard simply backs back down to a phase two and or phase one guerrilla war..if pushed harder.
AND here is the key in both Iraq and Syria...there will be a lot of disaffected Sunni's remembering the ethnically cleansing by Shia militias or sectarian genocide conducted by Shia's in general and West standing by doing nothing and they will then support quietly that new guerilla war...
Last edited by OUTLAW 09; 05-03-2017 at 04:37 PM.
Azor...back on my soap box for this morning in a very rainy Berlin.....while we have sparred a lot over the Russian Trump connections and the Steel Dossier...we are slowly seeing the FBI close in on indictments...
If you noticed yesterday Comey did admit to three ongoing investigations....
A social media poster had pointed to three grand juries in progress with two being close to and or finished with indictments/warrants coming out of them...
Many bashed him and his sources for being incorrect, BUT Comey did in fact confirm yesterday what he had posted...
THEN he posts this....
I now have 2 sources within legal community confirming that a D.C. area judge has signed 2 warrants related to Comey's Trump investigation.
(Warrants could be to force someone to testify in a grand jury and or actual arrest warrants...although normally a person would not refuse to testify unless there is something to hide and a GJ can provide immunity to get you to testify).
So exactly if you are the Trump WH on the verge of being charged with obstruction and or worse just how do you conduct FP...ANY FP?
"Wag the Dog" takes over as the easiest way to deflect from his "troubles" does it not........???
Even yesterday the Chinese were warning the US to stop their bomber overflights hardening their line actually and coming to the open support of NK which many said they would in the end...."as a cause for potentially triggering a war".
In Syria if you have read the CrowBat postings and mine from today... Trump/CENTCOM/US SOF are now in one hell of a mess....
With Trump/CENTCOM/US SOF now supporting openly terrorists of multiple stripes and all Shia based...and supporting FIVE US named terrorist groups when they are suppose to be fighting two terrorist groups?
SEVEN terrorist groups and the US is in the middle of all SEVEN?
What in the hell did Trump get the US into in his "rush to eradicate IS from the face of the earth" and ALL just in under 110 days?
Even Obama did not stumble this badly....
THIS goes to the heart of all the Trump lies.....remember he bashes constantly the "failing and fake news NYTs" on just about anything....
The failing @nytimes added 308k new digital/print subscribers in the first quarter of '17, according to our latest Fake News press release
308,000 new subscriptions in one quarter and MSM is :failing and fake"?
Last edited by OUTLAW 09; 05-04-2017 at 08:43 AM.
We both know that the MSM rarely gets war and international politics right, if ever.
By Lister on the Kurdish Question in Syria:
Yet in his recommendations, Lister calls for:The United States should use its significant diplomatic leverage with Turkey to push for consideration of a ceasefire with the PKK inside Turkey, which may help ease tensions with the YPG across the border in Syria. As part of a package deal with Turkey, the United States could offer to include a select portion of its anti-Assad forces – the majority of which have already been vetted either by the CIA or by CENTCOM – into a broader offensive on Raqqa. This would be a similar arrangement to that worked out for Mosul, where zones of responsibility were pre-arranged between rival or competing factions.
Well, which is it?...the formalization of a zone of stability under SDF influence in northeastern Syria.
Should the U.S. resolve the Turkish-Kurdish conflict first before advancing on Raqqa?
If FSA units are to be included in the SDF to dilute the YPG's influence, then should the U.S. resolve the FSA-Assad conflict first? Or after the Turkish-Kurdish one?
Lister has a very good grasp of the situation, but he is unable to proffer good recommendations because there are too many moving parts.
He makes the mistake of suggesting a level of U.S. involvement "that sits in-between" regime change and the status quo. As you may have noticed in South Vietnam, and which younger Americans have noticed in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, there is no "in-between".
The U.S. had the ability to effectively deny all of these countries to their adversaries with little effort, but it could not establish strong and friendly states without making a total commitment. Note that the Marshall Plan was less expensive than the development costs for Afghanistan, adjusted for inflation.
Moreover, the "zones of calm" that Lister calls for, backed ostensibly by U.S. airpower, are unprecedented in that such a dynamic with internal and external warring parties has never occurred before:
- In Iraq, Iraqi forces had already been decimated by the war with Iran (financially) and then the Gulf War, both of which involved major ground combat
- In Bosnia, the Bosnian Serbs were already under pressure to negotiate, including by Yugoslavia
- In Kosovo, the Serbs believed that a land invasion was imminent and were under pressure from Russia
What is wrong with the status quo, if supplies to the vetted FSA units are increased and efforts are made to reorganize the SDF to include more non-Kurds?
From a public relations perspective, Daesh will probably need to be defeated on the battlefield first before the U.S. can quietly restructure the situation. If Daesh is not a priority, there will be domestic confusion and anger.
And again here is what you simply are not getting...you can "defeat" IS on the ground...BUT again in Iraq I watched the US military claim they "defeated" AQI by 2008/2009...only to have them disperse and go into a very good form of guerrilla warfare working together with the other Sunni insurgent groups....and actually began beating up on Army units in well
carried out swarm attacks....
Which is what both Lister and Orton are pointing towards again happening in both Iraq right now and is coming in Syria...
Please read my comments fully before replying. I specifically and explicitly referred to defeating Daesh “on the battlefield”. If you have read my past comments, you will see that I have consistently asserted that Sunni Arab supremacism cannot be defeated by other ethnic and sectarian groups nor without resolving Sunni Arab grievances. I have also asserted that only Sunni Arab egalitarians, such as elements of the Free Syrian Army and Iraq’s Golden Division, can defeat Sunni Arab supremacists such as Al Qaeda and Daesh.Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09
However, there must be the perception of victory over Daesh before Americans will countenance efforts to deal with the Turkish-Kurdish conflict.
As a historical parallel, in 1944 Stalin delayed the Red Army’s drive towards Germany in order to conquer Romania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia and Hungary. He did not have to justify this deviation, or his vision beyond Germany’s defeat. Yet what Briton would have tolerated Churchill pondering conflict with the Soviet Union, or Operation Unthinkable?
Thus, we need a publicity stunt so that the real work can begin. Who better to deliver on that then the current president?
Lister is pleased with the airstrike on Shayrat.Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09
Regardless, millions of Americans now believe in a new lost cause: the “stolen” election of 2016. Prior to the campaign, I had considered the current president to be vain, vapid and venal. Now, I would say that his former opponent exhibits those qualities to a far worse degree.
And? One could question whether the MOAB is more powerful than the MOP. I didn’t realize that a single MOAB was supposed to defeat Daesh in Afghanistan. Why did Obama keep it in storage for so long, then?Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09
Isn’t guerrilla warfare and subversion preferable to conventional mobile warfare?Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09
Curious. I would imagine that they would remember the bloody hands of Iran and Russia, to say nothing of China watching with disinterest, while the West at least made some effort. The leading Sunni Arab state is a U.S. ally, whereas Iran and Russia are adversaries.Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09
Bookmarks