SMALL WARS COUNCIL
Go Back   Small Wars Council > Conflicts -- Current & Future > Other, By Region > Middle East

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 1 Week Ago   #741
CrowBat
Council Member
 
CrowBat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Haxbach, Schnurliland
Posts: 223
Default

Despite the usual bunching of insurgents with extremists and insistence that 'moderates' are not fighting, that whatever one sends to insurgents is reinforcing extremists, that one cannot trust them etc., etc., etc. (like in the video below)...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DveDwEk122Y

(BTW, typical in this style of argumentation is Rand Paul's explanation about 'JAN, ISIS, al-Qaida' being 'stronger' - in sense of more numerous - than the FSyA. This is nothing but nonsense. Firstly, and as usually, he completely ignored the IF, which is the most numerous insurgent group. Secondly, even if all combined, these groups do not count even 50% of either, the 'FSyA block' or the IF. Thirdly, while about 50% of the JAN is Syrian, the rest of extremists are simply not, and thus it's dishonest to mark them as such and explain 'we don't know who they are'.)

U.S. Congress approves arming Syrian rebels, funding government
Quote:
...The U.S. Senate approved President Barack Obama's plan for training and arming moderate Syrian rebels to battle Islamic State militants on Thursday, a major part of his military campaign to "degrade and destroy" the radical group.The Senate voted 78-22, in a rare bipartisan show of support for one of Obama's high-profile initiatives.
...

Last edited by CrowBat; 1 Week Ago at 09:15 AM.
CrowBat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #742
Dayuhan
Council Member
 
Dayuhan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
Posts: 3,122
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrowBat View Post
Despite the usual bunching of insurgents with extremists and insistence that 'moderates' are not fighting, that whatever one sends to insurgents is reinforcing extremists, that one cannot trust them etc., etc., etc. (like in the video below)...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DveDwEk122Y

]
Paul is well out on the fringe on any subject and well beyond the fringe on foreign policy; his views would hardly be thought "usual". A more mainstream view, a better illustration of the arguments for non-intervention that actually carry some weight in DC, would be those of Mark Lynch, for example:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...islamic-state/

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrowBat View Post
But, with this 'demand' we're back at the start of the 'off topic' part of discussion here: that's not going to happen as long as the US (and the West) continues insisting on upholding reactionary police states that are its 'allies' there.
Are the US and "the West" really "upholding these regimes? Are they really that dependent on either, and is there really as much influence there as you think? I suspect not: the mantra of "dependent on the west" has simply been repeated until it's accepted without question or thought.
__________________
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”

H.L. Mencken
Dayuhan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #743
CrowBat
Council Member
 
CrowBat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Haxbach, Schnurliland
Posts: 223
Default

Sigh...what you've posted is the same line - including all the same, lame excuses and speculation. Indeed, the kind of speculation you're complaining about?!?

You've got this all explained, long ago: you prefer to ignore all I wrote in reply and thus it makes absolutely no sense in discussing anything with you (even if, I would be repeating myself for '1.977th time' ).

*************

Meanwhile, in the real world, French making it official they're flying combat sorties in Iraq: Irak Premieres Frappes Francaises (in French),

...and Saudis 'making it official' they've got DF-21s:

Saudi Arabia has Acquired the DF-21 Missiles says Saudi General (in Arabic).

Now let's see if intermediate range (1.700km) ballistic missiles might ever help them at least move their small finger to fight the Daesh....
CrowBat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #744
AmericanPride
Council Member
 
AmericanPride's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: "Turn left at Greenland." - Ringo Starr
Posts: 842
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
That doesn't mean concern doesn't exist in other places as well. You don't have to be an autocrat to notice that transitions out of autocracy, especially those initiated by external meddling, are a very difficult and very dangerous time for many countries, and are often followed by violent competition for power and/or a slide back into even worse autocracy.
I'm not sure about your qualifier of "often". Violent transitions do in fact occur - American Revolution, for example. However, there are also many peaceful transitions. A Freedom House report analzyed 67 democratic transitions and found that 32 of them were won by non-violent means. You could also say that non-violent transitions occur almost as often as violent ones. So let's try to be careful in defining the problem here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayuhan
Considered by who? Nobody who isn't a Saudi has a right to an opinion on the value of Saudi territorial integrity, any more than anyone who isn't Iraqi has a right to an opinion on whether or not Iraq should remain as a single state. These are matters for the people of the countries involved to resolve.
That's increasingly becoming an 'old world' view. The emerging structure of international law is producing a new paradigm where human rights (among which include participation in a pluralist governmental process) are more important than states' rights. This is the ethical and legal basis of the responsibility to protect which while now focused on the most egregious violent crimes, it also sets the conditions for encompassing all recognized human rights. This is the ideological reason why Republicans in the U.S. Congress not too recently rejected the U.N. treaty on disability rights.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayuhan
The ones I know are typically in business, not on the top tier and with no connection to the royals, but reasonably well off. They've traveled and in many cases studied abroad. Many are open to Western ways and admire democracy, but are very worried about how a transition would be managed and about the rather grim possibilities of a transition that's mismanaged.
Those are legitimate concerns but are they sufficient justifications to persist in injustice?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayuhan
As long as money is flowing, there's a lot of hesitation about rocking the boat. A fair number of people have a stake in the system and are reasonably comfortable, but are also not secure enough in their comforts to take them for granted and want to risk them. There's certainly discontent, but whether that discontent is anywhere near the level needed to initiate change remains to be seen.
And that's the fundamental problem in a centralized, autocratic, patronage state like Saudi Arabia. Compliance with the political system is not an endorsement or acceptance of it, and the royal family is acutely aware of the simmering discontent beneath the surface of political niceties. Where is the tipping point in KSA? I don't know - short of some kind of internal upheaval or catastrophic external conflict, the next major event will be succession of the next monarch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayuhan
Islamic fundamentalism and its violent offshoots are less a reaction to autocracy in the Muslim world than to a widespread perception that Muslims in general and Arabs in particular have been repressed, abused, manipulated, and maltreated by the West... the syndrome Bernard Lewis calls "aggressive self-pity". Emasculating and humiliating military defeats at the hands of Israelis, Americans, and practically anybody else have left a lot of people itching for payback..Have you ever wondered why Osama's calls for fighters to rise up against infidel invaders from the Soviet Union and the US got such a response, but his efforts to rouse jihad against the Saudi royals fell so flat? The "expel the infidel from the land of the faithful" narrative has a lot more traction than the "rise up against your effete rulers" narrative.
This is not entirely true. Many people answered the call to arms against the KSA - but the Saudis also have a fairly effective internal security service. And many of the sponsors of Islamic fundamentalism are the Saudis in power in the first place. Who writes the school text books, organizes training camps, and so on? So when 9/11 occurred and the chickens came home to roost, the KSA had already distanced itself from bin Laden - and the rest of the patronage state followed the al-Saud lead for the reasons you described in your previous comments (you don't sh*t where you eat).

Quote:
"Diplomatic and social pressure" accomplish nothing beyond getting people annoyed at foreign meddling.
That's an oversimplication.

Quote:
One thing we need to recognize, but often don't, is that in many autocratic countries even people who hate their governments do not want the US meddling in their internal affairs... US criticism of a government is often the fastest way to get people rallying behind the government.
That's also an oversimplication.


Quote:
In much of the world, particularly the oil producing world and most especially the Arab world, accepting money or support from the US instantly discredits a political group: they are seen as sellouts to manipulative Western imperialists. Somehow people have got it into their heads that we typically act to advance our own interests, not theirs.
True. And we've consisently made the mistake that backing 'stable' autocratic regimes is in our own interests - but I don't think history bears that out. It could be on a case-by-case or limited basis but not as a matter of policy, and certainly not with the aim of preserving that status quo for any significant amount of time. Why did Eastern Europe welcome the U.S. and E.U. with open arms after the fall of communism but the Arab Spring did not offer the same warm welcome? It's a consequence of U.S. policies in those regions, not any cultural or social disposition towards autocracy.

Quote:
Ok, we declare ourselves patron of the system and defender of the faith, and that gives us a moral obligation... to whom? Whether or not we think it's "our business" is not the question: do the people of the country involved think it's or business?
These questions operate on multiple levels. First, on a principled basis, those with the power to act of an obligation to do so. Whether or not the exemption carved out for political decisions is legitimate is open for debate. Second, from a political theory point of view, the U.S. has an obligation to itself to fulfill the obligations it claims to have in order to maintain its own credibility.

Quote:
I have yet to hear any credible suggestion of how American political and economic means can effectively be used to compel change in other countries.
That this discourse is not mainstream does not mean no 'credible suggestion' exists. And 'compel' is the wrong word. The discourse has moved to a paradigm of 'multi-track' diplomacy that includes upwards of nine lines of effort (depending on the model used). The U.S. has frequently but selectively shaped conditions through political and economic means (i.e. Ukraine) to promote democratization.


Quote:
When a transition is externally initiated, that is not the case, one reason why externally initiated transitions typically fail so miserably. You cannot lump internally and externally initiated initiatives together.
You can't?

Quote:
Pluralistic government has to evolve, and its evolution is a process that we cannot dictate or control. If we try to skip or accelerate that process to suit our own objectives, we end up with a government that can't endure and a mess that can and does endure.
Yes - those are problems, evidenced by Iraq most recently. But those problems are not inherent in the process of pluralist reform, even if externally sponsored. Political conditions in the U.S. may prompt these mistakes but that's a consequence of governmental politics and not the actual process of pluralist reform.

Quote:
There may be times and places where the US can assist internally initiated transitions, but it requires subtlety, restraint, and deep awareness of local conditions, none of which are American strong points.
I agree - but that's not a reason for the U.S. to ignore the problem of autocratic regimes entirely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayuhan
No, I make the inference that you're suggesting that the US meddle in the internal affairs of other countries. I think that's something we should avoid to the greatest possible extent... not because of any moral principle, but because we generally make such a mess of it.
The U.S. does this on a regular basis. That's the job of diplomats. It's only a question of degree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayuhan
Strengthening political institutions in other countries? You redefine the term "hubris".
That's often a stated goal for many international organizations so how is that 'hubris' for the U.S. to recognize it can play a major part in that process?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayuhan
If we can't predict or control what's going to happen when we start rocking the boat - and we certainly can't - it might be better not to start.
And it's that risk-aversion that often leads to loss in long-term relative security. Attempting to preserve the status quo out of fear of 'rocking the boat' is a losing strategy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayuhan
It's not our damned boat to begin with.
That depends on how you define 'the boat'.
__________________
The Watch Officer at Tipping the Balance

We are marching to the field, boys,
We're going to the fight,
Shouting the Battle Cry of Freedom,
And we bear the glorious stars
For the Union and the right,
Shouting the Battle Cry of Freedom.
AmericanPride is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #745
davidbfpo
Council Member
 
davidbfpo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 7,916
Default The one thing that could stop Isis

Patrick Cockburn, of The Independent, is known to have a different viewpoint on what is happening and his article starts with:
Quote:
If the United States and its allies want to combat the Islamic State jihadists (IS, formerly known as Isis) successfully, they should arrange a ceasefire between the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and the non-IS Syrian opposition. Neither the Syrian army nor the “moderate” Syrian rebels are strong enough to stop IS if they are fighting on two fronts at the same time, going by the outcome of recent battles.



A truce between the two main enemies of IS in Syria would be just that, and would not be part of a broader political solution to the Syrian crisis which is not feasible at this stage because mutual hatred is too great.
Link:http://i100.independent.co.uk/articl...is--l19FZ6G1Hg
__________________
davidbfpo
davidbfpo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #746
CrowBat
Council Member
 
CrowBat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Haxbach, Schnurliland
Posts: 223
Default

Yeah, it's 'obvious' that the idea of making friends with a regime that's responsible for provoking a multi-enthnic and inter-religious civil war, wholesale slaughter of 400.000 Syrians, deployment of chemical weapons against civilians and destruction of most of major Syrian cities, making 10 million of - supposedly - its own population into refugees...

...but especially for importing Daesh and helping it grow so it can present itself as 'fighting extremist Islamists and thus a preferred friend of the West'...

...is simply 'brilliant'.

The next on that menu would be making friends with Khamenei's clique in Tehran: then provide air support for their- and Assadist hordes so these can clean up the entire mess in Iraq, Jordan, Israel, then Saudi Arabia and whatever else might find itself in the way... Ah, ups: Israel is 'friends', sorry.

Whatever: call it a 'speculation' if you like, but it's obvious that such an enterprise would be much easier to organize but finding out what insurgents are 'good ones' in Syria, then training and arming them, and guiding them through a war and politics. Not to talk about finding out what party in Iraq might be acceptable to cooperate with.... Doh, that's all too complex. Instead, make friends with two regimes that are excelling at squashing peaceful protesters that demand such nonsense like human rights, dignity and pluralism: who to hell cares about the latter factors? Nobody. On the contrary, organizing such an alliance would remove all the problems caused by corrupt and bigot regimes in the GCC, and foremost it could be completed within as little as one year (which in turn would remove the need for something as absurd as demands for GCC regimes to stop being as oppressive as those in Damascus and Tehran, but also finally cut off the financing they're providing for extremists all around the world). Simply fantastic.

And then the Middle East will be pacified - 'once and forever'.

Last edited by CrowBat; 1 Week Ago at 02:41 PM.
CrowBat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #747
CrowBat
Council Member
 
CrowBat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Haxbach, Schnurliland
Posts: 223
Default

While the fans of the Assadist regime can't stop bragging about all possible air strikes on the Daesh, there is simply no evidence of these.

Instead, all one gets to hear are reports about strikes on civilians - and, if at all, then moderate insurgents in the Talbiseh-Rastan pocket.

Here one of related reports:
Nearly 50 dead in Syrian airstrikes on Homs province.

Anybody curious to make friends with such characters? Perhaps some want to check who is actually fighting the Daesh in Syria, before coming to such ideas:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSnyQYy5SE
CrowBat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #748
CrowBat
Council Member
 
CrowBat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Haxbach, Schnurliland
Posts: 223
Default

Here is something like a summary of US air strikes on targets in Syria, flown the last night - as reported from the locals, and sorted out per province:

* Raqqa
- 7 strikes in total on targets inside the city were recorded during the night
- three locations in Tel Abyad area, north of this city, were hit
- the governor palace in Raqqa was completely destroyed during the night; this area was hit again early this morning, causing a huge fire
- Tabqa AB was hit five times
- Base 93 was hit three times - by Tomahawks

* Idlib
- JAN HQ in Idlib (no specific place mentioned)
- JAN HQ at Khirbet Ghazala (where the CO Mohammed Brigade, Abdu Ismail Mohammed was KIA)
- Activists are reporting that the strikes in this Province have hit the Ahrar ash-Sham HQ too, but 'only killed civilians'.

* Dayr az-Zawr
- no specific targets mentioned yet, but given 'several air strikes' were reportedly flown there, and all by night, it's clear these were undertaken by the US: SyAAF is not known to have flown a single nocturnal air strike in three years of war.

I purposedly write 'US air strikes' here, because it seems the US are alone in striking targets inside Syria: UK has promised to join, but didn't do so yet. Except for fighter-bombers, Rear Adm John Kirby has mentioned involvement of 'bombers and Tomahawk missiles'. Jordan is the only Arab nation to officially acknowledge involvement of its air force so far, but what the official website of the General Command of the Armed Forces of Jordan (in Arabic) says, seems to indicate RJAF flying strikes against targets inside Iraq.

Furthermore, locals are reporting rather weak presence of the Daesh in most of targeted areas: seems that majority of extremists went slaughtering Kurds in the Kobane pocket...

Last edited by CrowBat; 1 Week Ago at 08:12 AM.
CrowBat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #749
CrowBat
Council Member
 
CrowBat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Haxbach, Schnurliland
Posts: 223
Default

More news on US strikes on the Daesh in Syria: majority of these seem to have targeted a large convoy of extremists moving in direction of Kobane and Tel Abyad. Supposedly, most of this was obliterated. The YPG then launched a counterattack and mopped up.

Another Kurdish force - which seems to have entered Syria from Iraq - is moving from Ras al-Ayn on Mabroukah, and should have captured the latter town. YPG is claiming that this offensive is to go westwards, in direction of Tel Abyad.

With other words: except for targeting the Daesh and Ahrar ash-Sham, the US is presently supporting a pincer-attack by the YPG which should help ease the pressure upon Kobane pocket.

*************

Separately from this, the Israelis have shot down a SyAAF Su-24MK2 this morning.

According to the IDF, the Sukhoi penetrated the airspace over Israeli-occupied Golan Heights at around 08.57hrs local time, and crossed into the Israeli-controlled airspace by about 800 metres at an altitude 'between 10,000 and 14,000ft'. 'From the moment that the decision was made until impact, 1 minute and 20 seconds passed'.

The photo below should be showing the crew that ejected. Video below was taken at Khan Shih, which is half-way between Damascus and Qunaitra: while insurgents claim they've shot down the plane in question, I would say this is the Su-24MK2 shot down by the Israelis:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7YM8hwwwco

The IDF confirmed that the crew ejected successfully.

This is a loss that will be felt by the SyAAF: although originally in posession of only 21 aircraft, No. 819 Squadron (their only Su-24-unit) flew up to 30% of all strikes recorded over Syria since July 2012.
Attached Images
 
CrowBat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #750
Dayuhan
Council Member
 
Dayuhan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
Posts: 3,122
Default

It seems inevitable that intractable problems will generate utterly unrealistic "solutions" from onlookers, but this conflict seems to be doing more than its share. This has to be right up there near the top:

Quote:
If the United States and its allies want to combat the Islamic State jihadists (IS, formerly known as Isis) successfully, they should arrange a ceasefire between the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and the non-IS Syrian opposition.
If we're going to presume omnipotence, why not just "arrange for" the ISIS guys to shoot themselves and/or each other, and have done with it?

Obviously Assad has no interest in a truce with "the non-ISIS opposition". His interest lies in annihilating the non-ISIS opposition, so he can pitch himself as the only alternative to ISIS. Why would Assad go ahead with a truce and focus on ISIS when he knows perfectly well that as soon as ISIS is out of the picture he'll be the next target? Makes no sense. Assad seems perfectly happy to have ISIS in the picture, as well he might be: as long as they're around, he's no longer the least attractive alternative.

The proposal is every bit as unrealistic on the other side. "The non-ISIS opposition” is anything but cohesive and unitary: you're talking about hundreds of divergent and deeply conflicted factions, from relative moderates to full blown Islamist loonies like al-Nusra, which is among the most obvious demonstrations that "non-ISIS" does not necessarily mean "moderate". Even the thought of trying to get all or even most of them to agree to or observe a truce is far beyond the bounds of absurdity.

So we propose to “arrange a truce” between those who haven’t the capacity to agree on a truce (or anything else) and those who have no reason whatsoever to want a truce, and we expect this to happen… why? Because we decided that it should be? Again, if we were omnipotent we’d have easier ways of solving the problem.

Another prevailing utterly unrealistic proposal goes back to the old “find the good guys and make them win” mantra, also known as “arm and fund the moderates, and guide them through war and politics”. The obvious questions about whether a proxy war is really an advisable strategy, whether a suitable proxy exists, and (most of all) what we propose to do when our proxy doesn’t win are generally not answered, or even acknowledged: it’s just assumed that there have to be good guys, that they will surely win if we support them, that they will of course willingly submit to our “guidance”, and that of course they would never ever dream of applying our money and resources to any purpose not approved by us.

Given the number of times we’ve been burned in that particular fire you’d think we’d know better than to stick our faces back into it… but I guess we’re slow learners.

And then of course there’s the old reliable proposal that America should “demand” that the GCC regimes stop being oppressive and do as we say, as if they give a rat’s ass about our demands, and as if they need to.

All of these “proposals” have one thing in common: they assume capacities that do not in fact exist. That makes them quite useless for any practical purpose, though they do provide us with a way to make an unrealistic suggestion and then accuse others of incompetence for not following it. Why anyone would want to do that is something I’ve not quite figured out. Different strokes, I guess…
__________________
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”

H.L. Mencken
Dayuhan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6 Days Ago   #751
CrowBat
Council Member
 
CrowBat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Haxbach, Schnurliland
Posts: 223
Default

Sigh, more of usual speculation and guessing...

In all of your regurgitation, there is only thing that's making me curious, Dayuhan: you're all the time emphasising how disunited the insurgents are.

Provided you are able to at least once answer a question: who has ever told you that 'Assadists' are 'unified'?

Assad is meanwhile an Iranian puppet, upheld for the purpose of representing Iranian interests in Damascus and holding together a bunch consisting of different militias.

On the battlefield - and that's all that matters in Syria presently - his regime is supposedly represented through the 'Syrian Arab Army'. Where is this Syrian Arab Army, please? Can you mention me but a single brigade, not to talk about any division of the former Syrian Arab Army that is still existing?

Yes, there is a Ministry of Defence and the usual chain of command, but officers of these have representative roles only: their main duty is to listen to IRGC-QF officers and follow their orders. Technically, the 'Syrian military' (including intelligence services) is under the control of IRGC-QF officers: much of it is actually run by various families that are siding with Assad in interest of their own survival. Result is a mafia-like organization, not a 'military': even somebody with Soleimani's authority has experienced all sorts of problems in attempting to exercise battlefield control of all the diverse forces. His staff has launched seven different offensives through 2013 and in early 2014, and couldn't complete even one of these because of 'disruption' by various of cliques - which often withdrew their forces from the battlefield in disagreement with him. And since Soleimani was sent back to Iraq, the cooperation between different cliques only worsened - which is why we haven't seen any of glorious large-scale offensives being undertaken since months.

The air force is receiving orders from the Ba'ath Party HQ, not from the MOD or down the usual chain of command: the Ba'ath Party is primarily consisting of Sunnis and maintaining its own militia which, at least according to Iranians, has proven more combat effective than any other elements of regime's military. Should it then be surprising the SyAAF proved most-effective in providing CAS when doing so in support of BPM units - which include several former Special Forces regiments? None of BPM-members I managed to contact so far would say he's fighting 'for Assad': 'for Syria', 'defence of my family' etc., but not for Assad. And, they dislike Iranian presence and influence too. So, they're one 'clique' there.

Air Defence Force was disbanded already before the war, and integrated into the SyAAF: majority of its former units were disbanded and their personnel integrated into the NDF.

Theoretically, the core of what is left of the Army would be the Republican Guards Division. This is meanwhile down to only two 'special' brigades, plus air defence assets (most of those operating 'high-tech' systems, like SA-17s and SA-21s) and few artillery regiments equipped with MLRS' and SSMs. One of 'special' brigades has a sole duty of keeping Alawites under control: during the fall of Tabqa, the regime flew out all of its favourites, but left behind hundreds of soldiers to get slaughtered by the Daesh. This caused renewed unrest and some public protest even within supposed 'core support base', which were squashed only through mass-arresting of anybody who expressed critique. And that's the next point of conflict here: loyal Alawites vs. disloyal Alawites (and where one should keep in mind that Alawites are traditionally disunited, and held 'together' only by sheer violence and brutality of the Assadist regime).

Out of RGD's former three mechanized brigades only one remains existent: the 104th (that is: its remnants after three years of war) was sent to save Dayr az-Zawr. The equipment of the other two is now manned by Hezbollah and Iraqis, under command of IRGC-QF officers, of course.

The 4th AD was broken down into detachments that were put in command of countless detachments from various Army units already back in 2011 (in order to prevent defection). All of these were - together with all that's left of the Army - reorganized by the IRGC-QF into the NDF. The NDF is operated in form of about 100+ battalions, sometimes bunched together into makeshift brigades and even divisions for specific tasks, but majority of these are 'territorial' by nature: capable only of limited defensive operations within the area where their members are living. There are ex-intelligence, ex-Army, ex-Shabiha, ex-air defence, and then 'other' battalions, each of them run by their own clique and with its own level/degree of loyalty to the regime. Nobody knows to what side would which of them turn should Assad fall.

Except for the BPM, the other two most effective 'military forces loyal to the regime' are the militia of the Syrian Nationalist Party's (SSNP, which has Nazi-like ideology) and the Palestinian Liberation Army (PLA was established already back in the late 1960s, and is meanwhile largely recruited from the West Bank). In essence, the regime's military can barely survive without them (and the BPM): they're involved in every single 'successful' offensive operation of the regime since this spring. The SSNP and the PLA are fighting 'on regime's side', but not for Assad either.

Now try to arrange a 'truce' between these forces and the insurgents: even when Iranians were arranging truces with specific of insurgent held pockets around Damascus and Homs earlier this year, they first had to remove specific regime units from the given area in order to negotiate. Whenever they didn't there were renewed atrocities, looting, raping and all of that sort. Just like on the insurgent side, there are 'commanders' that are disobeying any corresponding orders - if for no other reasons then because they know they have too much blood on their hands and are afraid of retaliation (whether by their own or the 'other' side). And that's 'just for the start'...

And for those shedding crocodile tears over non-cooperation with the Assadist regime... Bashar and Iranians can only thank to Obama, but not complain about him. It's not only that this intervention comes much too late, that Obama has left them three years to save the regime from the collapse, and grow the Daesh for their own purposes. The Daesh's advance on Mosul came just about when the IRGC was about to go bankrupt because of US sanctions - by pure accident, I guess? Thanks to Daesh's advance, they're now free to finance themselves through Iraqi purchases of Iranian arms and ammo, Russian arms and ammo and wholesale raise of Shi'a militias in Iraq.

But 'no', I guess you'll say: that's taking things into context. We're discussing Syria, so who cares about Iraq here.

OK, then let's go back to Syria: this intervention in Syria is coming just about when the Daesh was preparing a major assault on Dayr az-Zawr. Thanks to this intervention, the extremists are never going to launch that attack - and thus Bashar is never going to find himself facing such fierce critique from within 'own' ranks, like after the fall of Tabqa.

On the contrary: withdrawal of major FSyA, SF and SRF contingents for 're-training and re-equipment' in Jordan and KSA is opening major gaps in insurgent frontlines. US attacks on the JAN are likely to open additional gaps in these frontlines, which other insurgent groups can't close on their own: for this, they lack troops, armament and supplies - and they are already lacking troops, armament and supplies to fight both, the Daesh and the regime at the same time. And the US is doing nothing from curbing ever fiercer air strikes by the SyAAF against FSyA, SF, SRF and the IF.

What do you think: attacks on the JAN and the Ahrar are improving position of the FSyA and the IF? On the contrary: given how disillusioned by the USA (and the West) majority of insurgents became after three years of waiting for them, it's no surprise they're all very sceptic about results of this intervention. Indeed, should it turn out the US air power is continuously killing civilians while missing various of Ahrar's and JAN's HQ, it is going to be not the least surprising if insurgents turn against the USA too: such actions are therefore an ill-advised va banque game.

So, where is actually the problem? USA are already 'cooperating' with the regime in Damascus, though indirectly. Run the way it is, the US-led action in Syria is saving that regime. I have said it already, and I'll repeat it: sooner or later, Bashar is going to decorate Obama for his achievements in saving his regime. Khamenei, Vahid & Co are then going to stand in line right behind Bashar...
CrowBat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6 Days Ago   #752
Bill Moore
Council Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,389
Default

I think further disunifying Assads security forces should be a primary effort by the resistance and their supporters, and this can be done if the resistance is willing to compromise. As for a temporary alliance with Assad Sec Kerry said Assad was not fighting ISIL, so much for that realist approach.

No doubt we can defeat Assad, but should we until there is some hope there won't be a worse blood bath when he falls and everyone is vying for power and seeking revenge? We will end up taking the blame and our foreign friends who insisted we help remove Assad will imply we the morning after problem also.

We can't defeat ISIL unless the masses in the region turn on them and we turn a blind eye why they slaughter them. We can certainly weaken them, but just as much effort should be directed at psychological operations to facilitate decisive operations.
Bill Moore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5 Days Ago   #753
CrowBat
Council Member
 
CrowBat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Haxbach, Schnurliland
Posts: 223
Default

Bill,
all this theory, guessing and speculation is not going to help anybody. One can't go demanding from some insurgents to do this or that like if they are a state: they are insurgents, not a state, otherwise they wouldn't be insurgents but the state. So, clean the table first (and the backyard too, then obviously the table is never going to get clean without the backyard getting cleaned), help the insurgents become a state and then demand things from them.

Though the idea with destabilizing the 'Assadist coalition' is a sound one (definitely a much better solution that launching a military intervention at least two years late and then in entirely wrong fashion... sigh... why is that Churchill's statement 'you can always count on Americans to do the right thing, after they've tried everything else' - not leaving my mind today...). In three years of war, absolutely nothing has been done in this regards: opponents of the regime within Assad's 'very own' ranks are simply left on their own device... On the contrary, internet is full of BSPR thrown up by Assad fans, and they threw up so much... 'dirt', that even serious politicians have lost direction....

************

Whatever, now comes a wonderful illustration for how misguided this operation is. The US is bombing the Daesh now the third night in succession. Apparently, USAF B-1s, F-22s, F-15Es and F-16Cs, and USN's BGM-109s have manwhile been joined by RSAF F-15S' and UAEAF's F-16s. Surprise, surprise, the GCC decided to move their small finger, after all...

Saudi prince flew jet in Syria ISIL attacks
Quote:
...The son of Saudi Arabia’s crown prince was among the pilots who carried out attacks against ISIL militants in northern Syria this week.

Photographs released by the official Saudi Press Agency yesterday showed eight Saudi air force pilots at an undisclosed location after returning from the mission.

The pilots included Prince Khaled bin Salman, son of Crown Prince Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud.

Dressed in flight suits, the beaming pilots posed for a group photo in front of a fighter jet parked in an airplane hanger. Two of the pilots were also seen sitting in a two-man fighter jet, and there were additional shots of the pilots examining helmets and other equipment in a dressing room.

The fighter jet was marked with the crossed swords ensign of the Royal Saudi Air Force.

“My sons, the pilots, fulfilled their obligation toward their religion, their homeland and their king,” SPA quoted Crown Prince Salman as saying.
...

UAE’s first female fighter pilot likely dropping bombs on ISIS militants in Syria
Quote:
...Maj. Mariam Al Mansouri, 35, joined the United Arab Emirates' air force once the military branch accepted women. She graduated the academy in 2008 and now pilots an F-16 Block 60 fighter jet, likely among those taking part in the air strikes against Islamic State terrorists in Syria.

She’s raining bombs on terrorist thugs.

The first female pilot in the United Arab Emirates' air force is reportedly taking part in the coalition air strikes against ISIS militants hiding in Syria.
...
By all theoretical commonality of the deployed hardweare, it would be interesting to find out how did they sort out the control and the IFF: then this is anything but sorted out even between friendlies (i.e. USAF and the USN), and if somebody gets a nervous finger, or some SyAAF idiot runs in between all of them...

And now comes the bitter part: except for one of two B-1B-strikes during the first night (these have hit one of Daesh columns converging on the Kobane pocket), all that all these planes are hitting - are empty buildings. All the videos released by the CENTCOM so far are showing no outside movement, few vehicles around, and some show that no sentries were posted nearby. Reports indicate that majority of objectives were vacant:

Syria Rebels Say They Were Told of Airstrikes Against Islamic State
Quote:
...Syrian opposition figures said the U.S. military informed them over the weekend that American airstrikes against Islamic State would begin this week, advising the Free Syrian Army to prepare its forces while a covert arming program run by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency provided fresh weapons.

The U.S. bombarded Islamic State-held towns and cities overnight Monday to provide support to the FSA and pave the way for the allied opposition to attempt to clear and hold territory held by the Islamist militants. So far, more than a dozen airstrikes have hit Islamic State military targets and administrative buildings in Aleppo and Raqqa provinces in the north as well as al Qaeda's official arm in the country, al Nusra Front in the northwestern city of Idlib, the opposition said.

A statement from the U.S. Central Command, which is spearheading the operation, confirmed the airstrikes in Raqqa and Aleppo and added that it also targeted Deir Ezzour province in eastern Syria, where Islamic State has been siphoning off oil and selling it on the black market to finance its operations. The statement made no mention of airstrikes targeting Nusra in Idlib,

But Islamic State had also been preparing for the airstrikes, moving its top leadership and most sophisticated weapons from Raqqa, residents said, after the U.S. announced earlier this month that it would target the extremist group in Syria.

Residents of Raqqa said they didn't know where the weapons and leadership were relocated to, but Monday's night's airstrikes hit at least four Islamic State military bases and an administrative building in the province. Raqqa is the only province that is fully controlled by Islamic State and serves as operational headquarters for the group.
...
So, more or less, this is all 'shock and awe' - all over again. Useless blasting of empty structures...

(to be continued...)
Attached Images
  
CrowBat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5 Days Ago   #754
CrowBat
Council Member
 
CrowBat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Haxbach, Schnurliland
Posts: 223
Default

Throughout this time, the Daesh is attacking the Kobane pocket and has - according to Kurdish sources - reached a point only 5km outside this town, during the afternoon. And this after overrunning the local YPG HQ, as shown on this video (warning: GRAFFIC in some places!):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRLPs1L22cE

Coalition raids prompt ISIS advance on Syria Kurdish town
Quote:
...ISIS has reinforced fighters who are battling Kurdish forces for control of a Syrian town at the border with Turkey, a redeployment triggered by U.S.-led air strikes on the group elsewhere, a Kurdish military official said.

Ocalan Iso, deputy leader of the Kurdish forces defending the town of Kobani at the Turkish border, said more ISIS fighters and tanks had arrived since the U.S.-led coalition began air strikes on the group on Tuesday.

"The number of their fighters has increased, the number of their tanks has increased since the bombardment of Raqqa," Iso told Reuters by telephone. He repeated calls for the U.S.-led coalition to expand its air strikes to ISIS positions near Kobani, which is also known as Ayn al-Arab.

"Kobani is in danger," he said.
...
So, the Kurds are crying for help, but all they've got so far is from the nearby pocket held by the FSyA (yes, there are two FSyA-held pockets north of Raqqa, no matter how much is this ignored by almost everybody), and from those Kurds that brought their families to the safety in Turkey, and then returned to fight the Daesh. Contrary to the extremists, though, neither the FSyA nor the YPG forces there have tanks and artillery: only RPGs and machine-guns.

Meanwhile, Twitter reports from this evening are indicating new waves of air strikes - but not in support of YPG/FSyA forces at Kobane: instead, those that 'know better' are blasting empty 'HQs' and 'storage sites' around Abu Kamal, Mayadin, and Markdah near Dayr az-Zawr...

This is making damn lots of sense. Especialy because the Daesh has withdrawn so many of its forces from this area, that its lines there are held by Arab tribes that used to fight for the FSyA already since 2011 (they nearly liberated all of Dayr az-Zawr in summer 2012), until they found themselves sandwiched between the regime and the Daesh (by the ISIS advance into their backs), then had all of their leaders killed by extremist suicide bombers - and were left without a choice but to submit themselves to the extremist command...

Congratulations to whoever is writing that frikkin' targeting list: this is reminding me of similar air strikes on Bagram AB back in October 2001, when somebody was so eager to spend several dozens of GBUs (the cheapest went at something like US$500.000) to blast rusty hulks of long-since abandoned MiG-15UTIs, MiG-17s and Il-28s at the local junkyard... while a look into one of old issues of the World Air Power Journal could've provided clear and undisputable evidence that such target selection is simply stupid.
CrowBat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5 Days Ago   #755
Bill Moore
Council Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,389
Default

Crowbat

Quote:
all this theory, guessing and speculation is not going to help anybody. One can't go demanding from some insurgents to do this or that like if they are a state: they are insurgents, not a state, otherwise they wouldn't be insurgents but the state. So, clean the table first (and the backyard too, then obviously the table is never going to get clean without the backyard getting cleaned), help the insurgents become a state and then demand things from them.
This approach will lead to a huge humanitarian disaster, if insurgents are just insurgents, then they're just thugs, and I don't think they're just thugs. They have a political agenda, unfortunately too many competing ones to be successful. We can help them establish a shadow government now and begin training/educating those who will need to fill critical positions to avoid a vacuum. I understand your point about cleaning the backyard, but they can and should begin the critical preparation work for the next phase. If they don't those with the plan like MB will take over.
Bill Moore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5 Days Ago   #756
Dayuhan
Council Member
 
Dayuhan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
Posts: 3,122
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrowBat View Post
Sigh, more of usual speculation and guessing...
That's... entertaining, given your own habit of simply declaring that early American intervention was "the right thing", while presenting no supporting evidence or logic beyond variants on the "because I said so" theme.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrowBat View Post
Provided you are able to at least once answer a question: who has ever told you that 'Assadists' are 'unified'?
Nobody told me that, neither have I said that. You have a way of putting words into other people's mouths, and assuming opinions that aren't there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrowBat View Post
Now try to arrange a 'truce' between these forces and the insurgents: even when Iranians were arranging truces with specific of insurgent held pockets around Damascus and Homs earlier this year, they first had to remove specific regime units from the given area in order to negotiate. Whenever they didn't there were renewed atrocities, looting, raping and all of that sort. Just like on the insurgent side, there are 'commanders' that are disobeying any corresponding orders - if for no other reasons then because they know they have too much blood on their hands and are afraid of retaliation (whether by their own or the 'other' side). And that's 'just for the start'...
Yes, that's why "arranging" a large scale truce to serve our strategic purpose seems so far outside the realm of credibility.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrowBat View Post
The Daesh's advance on Mosul came just about when the IRGC was about to go bankrupt because of US sanctions - by pure accident, I guess? Thanks to Daesh's advance, they're now free to finance themselves through Iraqi purchases of Iranian arms and ammo, Russian arms and ammo and wholesale raise of Shi'a militias in Iraq.
Certainly the rise of ISIS has been very convenient for Iran and for Assad, and certainly they've taken full advantage of the opportunity. That doesn't necessarily mean they created ISIS to serve their own purposes: it could just as easily mean that they simply took advantage of events as they emerged.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrowBat View Post
But 'no', I guess you'll say: that's taking things into context. We're discussing Syria, so who cares about Iraq here.
You'd guess wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrowBat View Post
So, where is actually the problem?
IMO the problem is that there's no viable end state goal and thus no real strategy, just an attempt to show some visible action against ISIS without excessive commitment. I think the actions being taken are aimed more at the domestic audience than at achieving any particular impact on the ground.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
I think further disunifying Assads security forces should be a primary effort by the resistance and their supporters, and this can be done if the resistance is willing to compromise.
Is there any evidence that the resistance is willing to compromise, and do we have any viable and realistic way to disunify Assad's forces?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
No doubt we can defeat Assad, but should we until there is some hope there won't be a worse blood bath when he falls and everyone is vying for power and seeking revenge? We will end up taking the blame and our foreign friends who insisted we help remove Assad will imply we the morning after problem also.
That's been the problem from the start, no? If Assad falls, that leaves a vacuum with an infinitude of factions fighting to fill it. That's not a reason to actively support Assad, of course, but it is a reason not to wade neck-deep into the scheisse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrowBat View Post
Throughout this time, the Daesh is attacking the Kobane pocket and has - according to Kurdish sources - reached a point only 5km outside this town, during the afternoon.
Is it realistically possible to provide effective CAS to ground forces in Kobane or elsewhere without properly trained and equipped forces on the ground communicating with the air forces?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrowBat View Post
Congratulations to whoever is writing that frikkin' targeting list: this is reminding me of similar air strikes on Bagram AB back in October 2001, when somebody was so eager to spend several dozens of GBUs (the cheapest went at something like US$500.000) to blast rusty hulks of long-since abandoned MiG-15UTIs, MiG-17s and Il-28s at the local junkyard... while a look into one of old issues of the World Air Power Journal could've provided clear and undisputable evidence that such target selection is simply stupid.
If you assume that the purpose of the exercise is to degrade and destroy ISIS, it makes no sense. If the purpose of the exercise is to put on a show of "doing something about ISIS" for domestic consumption, while allowing the Saudis to get some princes into combat with minimal risk and the Emiraltis to showcase women's participation and earn some warm-and-fuzzy points in the west... maybe in that context it makes a bit more sense.

If an action seems supremely irrational it's often because the purpose we assume is not the actual purpose of the action.
__________________
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”

H.L. Mencken
Dayuhan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5 Days Ago   #757
CrowBat
Council Member
 
CrowBat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Haxbach, Schnurliland
Posts: 223
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
That's... entertaining, given your own habit of simply declaring that early American intervention was "the right thing"...
Since you obviously have never carefully read even one posts of mine: mind pointing at the place where I have said anything of this kind?

Quote:
Nobody told me that, neither have I said that. You have a way of putting words into other people's mouths, and assuming opinions that aren't there.
That's a very precise explanation for what you're doing with my posts, and that all the time, thanks.

Seems you don't like the same being done to you?

Quote:
Yes, that's why "arranging" a large scale truce to serve our strategic purpose seems so far outside the realm of credibility.
Oh, really?

Quote:
Certainly the rise of ISIS has been very convenient for Iran and for Assad, and certainly they've taken full advantage of the opportunity. That doesn't necessarily mean they created ISIS to serve their own purposes: it could just as easily mean that they simply took advantage of events as they emerged.
...which is a well-formulated excuse for 'at best the regime was negligent, and at worst they facilitated the rise of the Daesh'...

Quote:
Is there any evidence that the resistance is willing to compromise...
Do I really need to find you all of their corresponding statements?

Quote:
...and do we have any viable and realistic way to disunify Assad's forces?
Nope: the US is completely powerless in this regards - as it is in all other similar regards... Makes one wonder who to hell came to the idea to call the US a 'superpower'...

Quote:
That's been the problem from the start, no? If Assad falls, that leaves a vacuum with an infinitude of factions fighting to fill it.
What kind of evidence can you provide in support of this speculation?

Quote:
Is it realistically possible to provide effective CAS to ground forces in Kobane or elsewhere without properly trained and equipped forces on the ground communicating with the air forces?
Ever heard of something named 'INTERDICTION'?

Rumour has it that this should've been a part of some 'air-land-battle' concept of the US military...

Half the Daesh is presently converging on the Kobane, and nobody is attacking all of their columns moving in territory where there is nobody else but the Daesh to find.

Meanwhile, they're assaulting YPG/FSyA positions 1 kilometre outside the town...

Quote:
If you assume that the purpose of the exercise is to degrade and destroy ISIS, it makes no sense. If the purpose of the exercise is to put on a show of "doing something about ISIS" for domestic consumption...

If an action seems supremely irrational it's often because the purpose we assume is not the actual purpose of the action.
Who said the action is 'supremely irrational' (except you)?

If one doesn't destroy these refineries, one is not going to get contract to rebuild them. That's 'perfectly rational'.

The problem is that if the declared purpose of this operation is 'destroying the ISIS', then why destroying the Syrian infra-structure? If some princes there want 'show', they can keep on flying air shows - or crashing F-15s against sand dunes while flying supersonic at minimal altitudes for fun...
CrowBat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5 Days Ago   #758
CrowBat
Council Member
 
CrowBat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Haxbach, Schnurliland
Posts: 223
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
Crowbat

This approach will lead to a huge humanitarian disaster, if insurgents are just insurgents, then they're just thugs, and I don't think they're just thugs.
Bill,
If 10 million of Syrian refugees (inside and outside the country), 400,000 dead (arguably, 'only' 200,000 of these 'confirmed'), and deployment of chemical weapons is no 'huge humanitarian disaster' already, I don't know what else might ever become one.

The insurgents haven't had any other political agenda except removal of the regime. It was Turkey, followed by the USA and the West (France, UK, Germany, etc., etc.) that began requesting from them to declare political agendas - even imposing ultimatums on then to do so. Even as of mid-2012, when they were assaulting Aleppo for the first time, insurgents continued attempting to avoid any such declarations. And thus they received no aid when there was time to provide it - and thus prevent the spread of extremism.

Instead, they were left to their own device - and exposed to extremists that arrived with pockets full of cash.

Then, in autumn 2012, there was something like a 'last ditch attempt' - a series of efforts by different parties to 'sort insurgents out'. The only result of this was friction between insurgents along all imaginable lines, precisely because of insistence upon their declarations of political agendas.

Syria is not functioning that way. Syrians do not think 'well in advance': grossly oversimplified, it can be said that 'they do and then think'. That might not sound 'logical' or even 'reasonable' to us, but that's the way they function.

Correspondingly, one can't demand (or, better said: one shouldn't have) from them to state political agendas before they remove the regime: that's begging for precisely the kind of trouble we've seen emerging there ever since.

Next point that should be kept in mind is this: Syria is never going to be something like 'unified political entity'. Syrians are traditionally diverse, not only in regards of their ethnic groups or religion, but especially in regards of their political interests. They are insistently (yet respectfully) 'pluralist' by their nature, history and tradition: 'insistently' because they insist on their own standpoints, 'respectfully' because - with few exceptions (see Jadid, Assad Sr. etc.) - they know to respect differing standpoints. This means: they'll always quarrel about politics. Always. Now, tomorrow, in 10 and in 100 years.

Therefore, there is absolutely no need to now go 'teaching' them about establishing shadow governments, filling critical positions etc. After three years of all sorts of failures in doing exactly this, I would say it is about the time to realize: this is NEVER going to work.

Again: they do not function that way.

This does not mean there would be some sort of 'political vacuum' and 'anarchy' if the insurgents would topple Assad 'tomorrow in the morning'. Syrians are very good at self-organizing themselves, even with bare minimum of resources (or none at all). Despite all they went through, they're reasonable too, and know to reconciliate. In that sense, some recommended 'viewing':

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=al2fXeAvg38

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSnyQYy5SE (Probably the best part is one guy's definition of 'moderate Islam' in this report)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FavaA3w6eXw

Last edited by CrowBat; 5 Days Ago at 09:21 AM.
CrowBat is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
air power, al qaeda, chemical weapons, civil war, croatia, fsa, israel, jordan, lebanon, peacekeeping, syria, terrorism, turkey, wmd

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Israel confirms talks with Syria JJackson Middle East 46 10-17-2011 09:22 PM
US troops conduct op inside Syria? Entropy The Whole News 35 11-04-2008 11:33 PM
Israel Plans for War with Iran and Syria SWJED Middle East 10 11-01-2006 09:29 PM
Abu Bakar Bashir Released Soon SWJED Intelligence 1 06-11-2006 11:16 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8. ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Registered Users are solely responsible for their messages.
Operated by, and site design © 2005-2009, Small Wars Foundation