Syria in 2018-2019

[AdamG]

Moscow (AFP) - Russia has sent over 63,000 troops to Syria over the course of its involvement in the conflict, the Russian defence ministry said Wednesday. A total of 63,012 Russian personnel have "received combat experience" in the war-torn country, the ministry said in a video about Russia's campaign to support the Syrian regime dating back to September 2015.

This number includes 25,738 ranking officers and 434 generals as well as 4,349 artillery and rocket specialists, it said. Previously Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said in December 2017 that over 48,000 military personnel had taken part in the Syrian campaign.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-sa...141424820.html

[AdamG]

Moscow (CNN)Syria antiaircraft fire downed a Russian military plane after an Israeli attack on Syrian positions, killing 15 people on board, Moscow said.

Russian state media said Syrian missiles shot the maritime patrol aircraft down amid an attack by Israeli jets in the Latakia region of northwest Syria.
Moscow blamed Israel for putting its aircraft in the line of fire and said it had only a minute's notice of the strike.
"As a result of the irresponsible actions of the Israeli military, 15 Russian servicemen were killed, which is absolutely not in keeping with the spirit of Russian-Israeli partnership," said Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov, spokesperson for the Russian military, according to RIA-Novosti.
In a rare acknowledgment of its military activity in the region, Israel expressed "sorrow" for the loss of Russian life, but blamed the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/17/polit...ane/index.html

[AdamG]

ANKARA/AMMAN (Reuters) - Turkey will send more troops into Syria’s Idlib province after striking a deal with Russia that has averted a government offensive and delighted rebels who say it keeps the area out of President Bashar al-Assad’s hands.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-m...KCN1LY0T9?il=0

[AdamG]

Iran's Revolutionary Guards said Monday that they had launched at least six ballistic missiles into eastern Syria, targeting those responsible for the recent attack on a military parade in Iran, in order to "convey a clear message to Saudi Arabia, the US and Israel," according to the Hezbollah-affiliated Al Mayadeen news channel

.
https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,...361444,00.html

[davidbfpo]

An article written after President Trump's policy statement via Twitter and the author concludes:

Walking away now is a remarkable gift for Isis, whose leaders can say they saw off the Americans and their allies. Even without the withdrawal, the group would likely have held out for many more months as an organised entity, able to defend what it still had. With its most formidable foe leaving the fray, Isis may well be reborn.

Link:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/19/has-isis-been-defeated-in-syria-as-trump-claims

I do wonder if any of the USA's allies and partners had thought this new policy was a possibility? Not only an exit for those US forces on the ground, the likely end for air operations.

How will the Kurdish allies respond? Sadly I expect a few of them knew this would happen one day; after all their recent history shows allies suddenly exit. Will they release the reported thousands of ISIS prisoners, even kill them?

The FT reports:

The political wing of Kurdish-led militia groups backed by the US have held talks with the Syrian regime as part of efforts to protect their hold over a stretch of territory in the war-torn country. The negotiations underline the shifting dynamics in Syria’s seven-year civil war as President Bashar al-Assad reasserts control over much of the country. They also illustrate how the Kurdish militants in north-east Syria now view their future interests as being tied to the regime.

Link:https://www.ft.com/content/3012a3c2-...a-eeb7a9ce36e4

[davidbfpo]

An article by a lady academic / policy analyst (who is a Forum member too), which has had compliments on Twitter. So a couple of passages, near the start:

This has brought to the fore a confusing set of aligned and contradicting responses. It is almost as difficult to keep track of the politics of the comments and commentators as it has been to figure out where and how to stand on the war itself.

She ends with:

This analysis may feel unsatisfying, may seem to leave readers with few answers and more uncertainty regarding their correct apprehension of the current situation, and those challenges to come in the future. That is as intended. And as paradoxical as it may seem, such a state of enlightened confusion will serve the U.S. and the international community better to hedge against hubris, partisanship, or propaganda in national security policies.

Link:https://theglobepost.com/2018/12/24/syria-us-lesson/

[CrowBat]

An article by a lady academic / policy analyst (who is a Forum member too), which has had compliments on Twitter. So a couple of passages, near the start:

She ends with:
Link:https://theglobepost.com/2018/12/24/syria-us-lesson/

By all respect for the author, and while I know the way of thinking in that article is widespread, I find it nothing less than appalling. See here:

In late 2015, he chose to join the conflict in Syria in firm support of Assad and his regime. Whether this was against ISIS is entirely debatable, but also irrelevant at this point, as their defeat was not the necessary requirement to sustain the regime. Like it or not, irrespective of any opinions on the Syrian leader, this was a realistic strategy with the best chances for success. Assad had the political heft to be a reliable partner in the war. At that moment, the policy and strategy calculus had changed in the Syrian leader’s favor.

...the only thing missing here would be to declare the war in Syria for 'over'...

'Assad' - is no 'partner', but a 'representative figure'; a 'front' or 'corporate identity' without any capabilities, powers, or money to govern. It took the Russians three years of plentiful and costly 'learning by doing' to save him from a bunch of - supposedly - 'loyal' warlords, not to talk about saving him from insurgency. Even the much famed Republican Guards cannot be described as 'loyal to Assad' any more.

Instead, the result of the Russian intervention is - at most - a temporary stalemate between the Russia-supported Assad-Makhloufs axis, and the Iran-supported Maher-IRGC/Hezbollah axis.

So, the only 'realistic strategy' in all of this is that Putin can comfortably conclude that the West is more than happy to continue falling for his scam in Syria.

What remained to be decided was how and when ISIS’ state demise would be orchestrated and what a post-civil war Syria would look like. ISIS’ defeat in Iraq was on the march but would struggle so long as the former’s strength of position remained in Syria. In that moment, I would have recommended the difficult choice to side with Putin on Assad (and I did so at the time, on CNN International, with Hala Gorani).

...typically short-sighted view of the situation. It makes me wonder what amount of illusions people prefer to simple acceptation of reality.

Firstly: all the Western powers have given up on Syria even before Putin launched his gamble. Everybody was only too happy to say, 'Syria's not our problem, leave it to the Russians (and Iran), we only fight Daesh there'.

Secondly: neither Putin, nor Assad have any kind of solutions for Syria, nor are they solutions for Syria. On the contrary: Assad is the core reason for all the problems there - including all the religious extremism.

The most they're going to manage is to run a para-state with official representative to the UN, buying plenty of time for the IRGC to complete its take-over of the country.

In whose accounting is that a 'solution' - and for what exactly, please? For creation of another failed state and a never-ending conflict - and then one certain to remain active and more destructive than those in Afghanistan and Lebanon (combined)...?

Instead, in early 2016 the U.S. led the middling position to fight ISIS in Syria (with airpower and aid to local forces) without full support to Assad. This has enabled the defeat of the ISIS territorial state but has left undetermined the thornier problem of the enduring civil war in Syria and the role ISIS can continue to play in it.

Why is it so hard to call a spade a spade...? Once again, the USA decided to fight the effects of disease, instead of the disease itself.

Well, at least you can congratulate yourself for one thing: 100+ years since Sykes/Picot, and the US decision-makers learned absolutely nothing at all - especially not about the Middle East. Man, that's some stamina.

There is a military mission that plays an important role in the continuing fight against ISIS in support of critical allies like the Kurds, but which is difficult to explain or justify insofar as its broader policy objectives are concerned.

Two questions here:

1.) Since when is PKK = Kurds?

2.) Since when is it 'broader policy' to let Pentagon circumvent US law prohibiting cooperation with the PKK through re-naming it into 'Syrian Democratic Forces'?

Indeed, what kind of 'policy' is that...?

This analysis may feel unsatisfying, may seem to leave readers with few answers and more uncertainty regarding their correct apprehension of the current situation, and those challenges to come in the future. That is as intended. And as paradoxical as it may seem, such a state of enlightened confusion will serve the U.S. and the international community better to hedge against hubris, partisanship, or propaganda in national security policies.

Oh, special thanks: this with 'enlightened confusion' reminds me of Rumsfeld's 'unknown unknowns'. Really, the perfect recipe for creation of never-ending conflict like those in Afghanistan or Lebanon, though 10x bigger by scale and intensity.

Best of all is that thanks to such viewpoints like those expressed in this article, all the Western politicians and other sorts of talking-heads are going to remain 'proud forever' for all of the 'solutions for Syria' they've 'found' - while sitting on millions of Syrian refugees, and convincing Turkey it's good for it to continue sitting on millions of Syrian refugees, too.

[AdamG]

In the night of December 25th, The Israeli Air Force (IAF) delivered its first clandestine strike on Syrian targets after President Trump announced the withdrawal of U.S. troops. As assessed in our latest policy impact analysis and recently reinforced by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, the U.S. withdrawal will force Israel to ramp up its counter-Iran operations in Syria. The “Christmas raid” is as much a political statement as it is a continuation of the over 100 Israeli covert airstrikes in Syria. The Syrian Air Defense Forces (SADF) showed a mixed performance, but managed to intercept the majority of Israel’s air-launched missiles.

https://t-intell.com/2018/12/30/isra...DyA9BJSLEw6Nbo