Probably the latter. In the past coalition aircraft have been forced out of an area by GBAD tracking them on radar.
War Against ISIS
- Thread starter spikehades
- Start date
2007yellow430
Active Member
I think there is going to be trouble. At some point Putin must react. The Drone was west of the river, and therefore wasn't in the area that is under attack. This isn't going to end well for anyone.
We might get to see how well the S400 works, I hope not, but see it coming.
Art
A better question might be what right the US has to be in Syria in the first place. I'm also not sure what gives you the impression that Syria is interested in such a conflict. The recent rapid moves by the SAA haven't been against US positions, they've been aimed towards establishing a solid land route to Iraq, allowing Iranians and Iraqi reinforcements to enter Syria without having to be flown in (like they have been in the past). In the meantime the US has been desperately and actively trying to prevent the Syrian government from regaining control of it's own eastern provinces, hoping to use the SDF and the NSA as a buffer between Syria and Iraq, making it a lot harder for the Iranians to move troops and supplies into Syria.
What's even more interesting is that Russia has significantly less interest (objectively speaking) in this arrangement. Russia's primary supply line is sea and air, and has been for nearly two years.
What makes you think they were ''pushing'' the Americans? If the Syrians were to base all their actions with need to not ''push'' the Americans; Assad might as well flee abroad and declare Damascus; an open city leaving IS and all the other groups to fight it out.
It's not as if the drone/UAS was over San Diego or over the U.S. base at Qatar. It was flying over sovereign Syrian territory, as was the jet that was shot down. It will be interesting to find out whether the drone/UAS was snooping on IS or U.S. supported rebels.
The ''ultimate loser'' will be ordinary Syrians. The Russians and Americans having a go at each other could be to Assad's advantage. The U.S. claims that it wants to defeat IS but having a go at Assad benefits the IS; thus the question is what does the U.S. really want?
Meanwhile more civilians have been killed in Yemen. It goes without being said that Saudi and its allies won't get any warnings or reprimands from the U.S. State Department or the White House.
[EU: Saada Bombing Shows Civilians Bear Brunt Of War]
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/...civilians-bear-brunt-war-170620103938640.html
gazzzwp
Member
Interesting. Why are the US desperately trying to prevent this? Obviously to stop Iran from expanding Iran's sphere of influence for a starter. If successful presumably it puts Iran on Israel's doorstep. That could be exceedingly dangerous.
Is there anything I have missed? My other question would be why is Iraq pushing for this land bridge? What is in it for them?
And why are Saudi and all the other Gulf Sunni countries so eager to do away with Assad? To further isolate and weaken Iran. Same reason why they're in Yemen and were so happy when Trump gave the impression that Iran was solely responsible for all the terrorism and wars in the region.
I'm not sure about Iran wanting to expand its sphere of influence but for sure helping Assad and Iraq is in line with Iranian national interests. I think it's more of a case of Iran preserving or safeguarding its interests in Syria and Iraq rather than expanding its sphere of influence; like it did in Lebanon.
The fall of the Alawites in Syria and the defeat of the Iraqis at the hands of IS would be a major disaster for Iran [hence the speed in which the Pasdaran deployed to Iraq]. Like the Shias the Alawites in Syria are viewed as heretics by the Gulf Sunni Arabs and Syria was the only Arab country that stood by Iran during the 1980's war that Saddam started. An irony of course is that quite a number of Saddam's troops were Shia. For that matter quite a bit of Assad's troops are Sunni.
Iraq has been heavily under Iranian influence for some time now. Iranian support has played a key role in Iraq's fight against ISIS and with the de-facto independence of the Kurds, Shias are an overwhelming majority in Iraq. With emergency equipment buys in Russia, a coordination center for the Iraqis, Iranians, and Russia in Baghdad, and the deployment of Iraqi militias to defend Damascus, Iraq has been on the same side as Iran and Syria for a while now.
Consider the trails leading from ISIS to the Gulf States. There are elements of a major Shia-Sunni conflict here.
gazzzwp
Member
Initially I think it was to fight ISIL. Now that everyone has a clearer picture of Iran's intentions it could well be that the fight against ISIL is nothing but a smoke screen. The prospect of Iran dominating Syrian and Iraqi territory is probably a worse prospect to the US.
This would be my guess.
The prospect of an Iran with is less isolated compared to previous decades and an Iran which has more influence is what worries the U.S. and Saudi. Iran does not seek to ''dominate'' Syrian and Iraqi territory; merely to safeguard its interests there by defeating IS and ensuring that Alawite and Shia governments in Damascus and Baghdad do not fall. Had IS succeeded in taking over Iraq they would have been on Iran's border. It's also for the same reason that Iran has long had a presence in Lebanon and has close links to Hezbollah; to safeguard its interests.
If the U.S. were to base it's Iranian policy based on logic and realpolitik; it would reach for some kind of accommodation with Iran rather than taking sides with the Sunni Gulf states and continuing its longstanding policy of trying to isolate Iran; which if viewed objectively hasn't really achieved much. Like it or not; Iran is an important regional player that can't be ignored or sidelined.
Not too long ago Trump called Qatar a sponsor of terror but now the State Department is ''mystified'' why the Gulf States haven't made clear their issues/grievances with Qatar.
[US 'Mystified' By Gulf States' Position Towards Qatar[
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/06/mystified-gulf-states-position-qatar-170620185107951.html
I won't go too far into this because this is probably not the place, but if you are expecting a coherent strategy in the middle east from trump, you're going to be disappointed.
I was just surprised that such a statement would come out so soon after the announcement by Trump that Qatar was a sponsor of terrorism. After putting so much effort to ingratiate itself with the Saudis now the U.S. has issued a statement which is contradictory to what was earlier said and will no doubt anger the Saudis. Will be interesting to see what the Saudi response will be.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I seem to recall a recent announcement of a possible purchase of F-15s by Qatar, rather strange if Trump thinks they are a terrorism promoter but perhaps business "trumps" everything else.
Talking about business; it seems Trump and daughter were in Qatar 7 years ago to seek investment.
[Did Donald Trump Denounce Qatar As A ‘Sponsor Of Terrorism’ Due To Failed Business Deals?]
Did Donald Trump denounce Qatar as a ‘sponsor of terrorism’ due to failed business deals? | The Independent
Did the Saudis inform trump of what they were planning to do when he was in Saudi and gave his preposterous and hypocritical speech? Also did, Trump at the spur of the moment decide to call Qatar a sponsor of terrorism or whether it was pre-planned in consultation with his advisors. Apart from earning additional brownie points with the Gulf Arabs I can't figure out what was the intent in saying that. The right thing to do now would be to immediately withdraw all U.S. military personnel from Qatar, it would not do to have a U.S. military presence in a country that sponsors terrorism :]
Time and time again it's been shown that the U.S. has gained nothing from taking sides in conflicts/disputes that not only has it nothing to do with but also in which it doesn't understand' unfortunately things haven't changed. In a few years from now we'll look back and see how successful the U.S. was with its Syria and Middle East policy. Unless there's a significant change; it's likely that a Baathist government will still be in power in Damascus and that IS will still be around.
[Did Donald Trump Denounce Qatar As A ‘Sponsor Of Terrorism’ Due To Failed Business Deals?]
Did Donald Trump denounce Qatar as a ‘sponsor of terrorism’ due to failed business deals? | The Independent
Did the Saudis inform trump of what they were planning to do when he was in Saudi and gave his preposterous and hypocritical speech? Also did, Trump at the spur of the moment decide to call Qatar a sponsor of terrorism or whether it was pre-planned in consultation with his advisors. Apart from earning additional brownie points with the Gulf Arabs I can't figure out what was the intent in saying that. The right thing to do now would be to immediately withdraw all U.S. military personnel from Qatar, it would not do to have a U.S. military presence in a country that sponsors terrorism :]
Time and time again it's been shown that the U.S. has gained nothing from taking sides in conflicts/disputes that not only has it nothing to do with but also in which it doesn't understand' unfortunately things haven't changed. In a few years from now we'll look back and see how successful the U.S. was with its Syria and Middle East policy. Unless there's a significant change; it's likely that a Baathist government will still be in power in Damascus and that IS will still be around.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I think it is indeed likely that a Baathist government will be in power, likely with Assad still in charge, at least for awhile. Any potential alternative will likely not have enough support or could in fact be worse than Assad. As for IS, too many players want them exterminated, the only correct solution IMO.
Despite declaring war on the whole world, IS has managed to survive this long because its enemies are divided.
As long as no serious attempt is made to address the root causes as to why groups like IS can survive, it will make no difference as to how many IS fighters are killed and how many tonnes of ordnance the coalition drops. The RAF, RAAF, USN and USAF will probably still be flying combat sorties in the region 10 years from now. If indeed IS is ultimately vanquished or diminished - like AQ - there will probably be another group to take its place.
Last edited:
2007yellow430
Active Member
Trump isn't making the decisions himself in many situations.
from foreign Policy mag
On Tuesday it was widely reported that Trump had given Secretary of Defense James Mattis the power to determine U.S. force levels in Afghanistan. This revelation comes after reports in April that the Defense Department had been similarly authorized to determine force levels in Iraq and Syria.
It hasn't been reported as such but it appears that a similar situation is going on at the state department. Tillerson and trump rarely appear to be presenting the same message. It's been questioned as to how often Trump and Tillerson actually discuss issues like this. Trump only listens to a small number of people most of whom really don't have the expertise necessary to be advising him.
If you haven't seen it already, trump is prone to kneejerk reactions without understanding the ramifications of his words.
New details on US shoot down of Syrian jet - CNNPolitics.com
So according to this narrative from a named Navy officer an AIM-9X (I presume) was launched from half a mile away and got countered by flares and they then used an AMRAAM.
Must be a little disappointing not being able to immediately down a fully loaded su-22 rustbucket.
So according to this narrative from a named Navy officer an AIM-9X (I presume) was launched from half a mile away and got countered by flares and they then used an AMRAAM.
Must be a little disappointing not being able to immediately down a fully loaded su-22 rustbucket.
I'm more curious as to why a decision was made to launch AMRAAM rather than a 2nd Sidewinder. Another question that remains unanswered is whether the Sidewinder was indeed decoyed or malfunctioned.
I recall reading somewhere that Soviet Cold War doctrine called for the release of 2 AAMs to increase the hit probability if the target was conducting evasive maneuvers and was using decoys. Same went with ground based missiles. It will be interesting to find out if USAF/USN doctrine also calls for the release of 2 AAMs simultaneously under certain conditions.
I recall reading somewhere that Soviet Cold War doctrine called for the release of 2 AAMs to increase the hit probability if the target was conducting evasive maneuvers and was using decoys. Same went with ground based missiles. It will be interesting to find out if USAF/USN doctrine also calls for the release of 2 AAMs simultaneously under certain conditions.
Tsavo Lion
Banned Member
Five takeaways from Iran’s missile strike in Syria
Very well put! The US is now trying to salvage what it can in carving & dividing up the "Syrian pie". I doubt that it's presence there, if long enough, will be much different than in S.Vietnam, if not worse! Turkey made the right decision to cooperate with Russia and Iran to fight common enemies over ousting Assad.
Very well put! The US is now trying to salvage what it can in carving & dividing up the "Syrian pie". I doubt that it's presence there, if long enough, will be much different than in S.Vietnam, if not worse! Turkey made the right decision to cooperate with Russia and Iran to fight common enemies over ousting Assad.