War Against ISIS

[STURM]

Trump says US troops to get out of Syria 'very soon'

Trump has declared that U.S. troops will be out of Syria soon. This will delight Assad, the Iranians and the Russians but is certainly the last thing the Kurds and U.S. allies such as Saudi and the UAE want to hear. He spoke of the U.S. getting ''nothing'' in return for trillions spent in the Middle East. He should also have mentioned the billions provided in aid to Egypt and Israel over the decades and whether the U.S. has received a good return in investment from those 2 countries.

Meanwhile, rebel fighters in Ghouta have been allowed to leave; watched by Russian troops.

Watching on as Islamist fighters are evacuated from war-torn Eastern Ghouta

 

[John Fedup]

One can't help but wonder what the ME would like now had the shale/ fracking revolution occurred a generation ago. The same old crap perhaps but maybe the West wouldn't have had to pi$$ several trillion dollars away for bugger all in return. Iraq and Iran holding each other at bay today would be ok IMO.

 

[STURM]

Iraq and Iran holding each other at bay today would be ok IMO.

Well it depends. Are we talking about an Iraq ruled by Sunni Baathists or one ruled by the Shi’a majority? When Iran was ruled by th Shah there was less Sunni/Shi’a tensions and the Gulf Arabs didn’t have an issue with the Shah’s Iran being the dominant player in the region.

Coming to the present, recent events have shown that although the U.S. is still the dominant outside power in the region, it is in a weaker position than it previously was. How Trump decides to conduct future policy in the region will determine how things play out in the coming years.

 

[John Fedup]

I think what you are saying is if the Shah or his successor along with Saddam might have made for a better situation down the road. I guess the real problem was Saddam’s successors. Neither were very positive, to say the least but would they be worse than what we have now? FIIK but hard to imagine a worse situation than what we have now. Upon reflection, the younger son probably would be worse.

 

[STURM]

The state the region is in is largely due to decisions made by outside powers without consideration for the locals and for decisions made by the locals themselves at the behest of outside powers and for other reasons including regime survival. In a decade or so from now; if IS and groups like it were totally defeated and if Iran was no longer a ''threat'' what reason would the West and others have to continue having a military presence in the region? Over the past few decades has the foreign military presence in the region actually benefited the locals or has it mostly benefited their rulers and the outside powers?

 

[John Fedup]

I think it was a decision by a local that caused the $hitstorm that has been continuing to this day, namely Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. Now I guess a claim could be made that it was the Iran-Iraq war that led to Saddam's decision to invade Kuwait (he did claim Kuwait's theft of HIS oil was reason). As to who encouraged the Iran-Iraq war, the other Sunni states with the blessing of the West would be my guess.

As to who benefited, locals or outsiders, after 15 years since the Gulf War 2 start, I say neither.

 

[Feanor]

Update.

Eastern Ghouta is almost finished, only Douma remains and negotiations continue regarding the conditions of the rebel's departure. Meanwhile one of the green buses evacuating the rebels seems to have gotten into a traffic accident.

Восточная Гута. 29.03.2018
Дорожные приключения
САА полностью восстановила контроль над всеми населёнными пунктами Восточной Гуты

As Trump declares a US withdrawal from Syria, the French are preparing to deploy their forces in Manbij, presumably to protect the Kurds from the Turks. The French currently have forces in Syrian Kurdistan but have not crossed west of the Euphrates until now. This comes as one US and one British service member are killed by an IED in Manbij.

США уйдут из Сирии
Французские позиции в Сирии
https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/4090896.html
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...ery-soon-let-the-other-people-take-care-of-it
https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/4086127.html

Leaflets have been dropped on the Ar-Rastan pocket urging the rebels to surrender. These usually precede an SAA offensive, and it's possible that this is the next target, following the fall of Eastern Ghouta.

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/4075386.html

It appears that another deal is in the making between Turkey and Russia, trading the former Kurdish town of Tal-Rifaat for the city of Dzhisr al-Shugur in Idlib, as well as some other territories. The first link has a map of this supposed deal.

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/4081579.html
https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/4085202.html

Two A-50s have been once against spotted in Khmeimeem, and two Su-34s have arrived in Syria, following a Tu-154M.

https://diana-mihailova.livejournal.com/1794683.html
https://diana-mihailova.livejournal.com/1816224.html

Russia has shut down an attempt to hold a UN Security Council Session regarding the human rights situation in Syria.

http://classic.newsru.com/world/20mar2018/komissar.html

A look at Syrian armor losses throughout the war.

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2018/03/27/saa-vehicle-losses-2011-2017/

A US LP OP in Manbij.

https://diana-mihailova.livejournal.com/1805261.html

 

[STURM]

I think it was a decision by a local that caused the $hitstorm that has been continuing to this day

And what were the conditions in place that led Saddam into believing that after taking Kuwait; the Gulf Arabs would attempt to buy him off again? Which they did attempt to until the Yanks convinced the Saudis that Saddam posed a direct threat to the survival of Saudi Arabia. Saddam also believed that the West would let him get away with invading Kuwait; that he would later be allowed to leave Kuwait after making certain concessions. After all; for years the West supported him against Iran by doing all it could to help him win [the U.S. provided intel and USN ships in the Gulf provided the Iraqis with early warning] or at least to prevent the Iranians from winning and conveniently turned a blind eye to his lack of human rights/democracy and his use of gas.

As to who encouraged the Iran-Iraq war, the other Sunni states with the blessing of the West would be my guess.

The Iranians with their revolutionary rhetoric provided a good excuse but Saddam was itching for a fight [to boost his standing in the Arab world and his ego] and the West and Gulf Sunni Arabs were keen to see him roll back the Iranians. The biggest fear on the part of the Gulf Sunni Arabs were the Iranians pushing their revolution westwards.

As to who benefited, locals or outsiders, after 15 years since the Gulf War 2 start, I say neither.

Courtesy of Bush Jr. and a compliant Blair; the Iraqi Shias came to power and Iraq/Iran ties are now at an all time high - to be expected given that both have a Shia majority and ties that go back for centuries. The post occupation conditions in Iraq [at one point about 200 Iraqis were being killed daily in sectarian violence] led to a Al Qaeda gaining more relevance and the later rise of IS. The Iraqi exiles milked the gullible Americans all they could and various arms companies made money. So yes, some did benefit.

 

[John Fedup]

One other factor to contributing to the post GW 2 mess was the stupid decision by Paul (Brenner?) to disband the Iraqi army, the second worst decision made, the first being to start GW2.

 

[STURM]

Trump has now announced that U.S. troops might stay on in Syria but that Saudi must foot the bill. The questions that come to mind are what exactly are U.S. troops achieving by staying in Syria (now that IS is largely defeated) and if the Saudis foot the bill; what do they hope to achieve by maintaining the U.S. presence there?

Naturally the Syrian government (it will - with justification - see the presence of U.S. troops as intended for other reasons than the need to defeat IS) will have zero say on the matter but the Russians might be more vocal.

John,

The biggest mistake was believing that Iraq’s oil would help it quickly get back on its feet without significant outside help and overlooking the potential for Sunni/Shia issues in a country where a Sunni majority had long ruled over a Shia majority with everything held in place by Saddam’s rule.

 

[John Fedup]

I wonder how many minutes his latest decision on Syria will last? As for Saudi Arabia paying the costs, duh, about as likely as Mexico paying for his wall! As for US presence in Syria, FIIK. Assad isn't going anywhere short of a US invasion and that would be political suicide for republicans.

 

[STURM]

The effects on US. internal politics is the least of my concerns. Direct regime change in Syria would be devastating in a region already unstable. The locals will end paying the price, as usual. Israel, Saudi and others of course would welcome regime change as they’re fixated on Iran; they realise however that no matter how bad things get; Uncle Sam will have to stick around. IS also will be delighted.

As for Saudi covering the costs; it isn’t as far fetched as it sounds. A few more million here and there will be small change for them and a price well worth paying to undermine Syria and Iran. They spent billions on Afghanistan in the 1980’s, millions on the Taliban, contributed funds for the Contras when Congress blocked spending, spent billions on Saddam and billions on U.S. arms as gratitude for the U.S. protecting them against external and internal attempts at regime change. Not to mention the billions wasted on their Yemen adventure. What’s a few million more to have U.S. troops in Syria? Doing so also further ingratiates them with Trump.

 

[John Fedup]

Perhaps Saudi Arabia will throw a few dollars to Trump but the amount won't cover the wall let alone an invasion cost. Just think what opportunities a Syrian invasion would provide for China, NKorea, and Russia in areas they care about, Taiwan, SCS, Ukraine, SKorea, and maybe even the Baltic if the US blogs itself down in Syria. It's so not in US interests.

 

[STURM]

Certain actions the U.S. has undertaken has benefited countries like Israel and Saudi; yet have been detrimental to U.S. interests. Things are unlikely to change. We can also argue that the U.S. is already bogged down. What has it achieved in Syria and what does it now hope to achieve? This is in sharp contrast to Russia and Iran which have achieved most of their objectives.

The U.S. appears not only to lack a realistic policy but it is also tied down by its various commitments to various countries. Actions undertaken by Israel and Saudi could drag the U.S. into a war. Russia and Iran don’t face the same problem with Assad. Should open conflict erupt in Syria I doubt China and Russia would take advantage of the situation by taking direct action over Taiwan, the Ukraine and the Baltic’s; both have a history of being more selective than the U.S. when it comes to starting wars.

 

[John Fedup]

Certainly Russia and China do want to recover Taiwan and Ukraine respectively at some point although Ukraine could be a bridge to far for Russia now. In China's case, invasion when the US is massively over committed may be an option. However China plays the long game and waiting for the US to bankrupt itself is an even better option I guess.

 

[STURM]

Unless it really has to; why would China invade Taiwan and risk a war with the U.S? China is more than contend to let the status quo remain unless Taiwan does something really drastic. As for Russia; it has mostly got what it wants in the Ukraine; I really doubt if it desires the whole of the Ukraine and war with NATO.

 

[John Fedup]

Considering China's provocative actions in the SCS, possible military action against Taiwan isn't out the question. As to why, it might be due to internal politics and nationalism but I sort of agree short of some stupid move by Taiwan or the US, the status quo will be tolerated.

 

[STURM]

It certainly isn't out of the question but for China; using military means to regain Taiwan is a last resort. No doubt China has resorted to military means before, especially when it feels it has no other option but at present it has nothing to gain and all to lose by invading Taiwan. China's leadership can view with satisfaction China's rise as a superpower and its increased influence worldwide whilst the U.S. remains bogged down in the Middle East and Afghanistan and is committed to various alliances with NATO and non NATO allies.

 

[gazzzwp]

Missile attack on Homs airfield April 9th. Russia blames Israel. US and France deny any involvement. Syria claiming to have shot down 5 out of 8 missiles. Russia stating that 2 F-15's were involved.

So could this have been a coordinated strike involving cruise missiles and F-15's. Israel launching CM first to saturate the air defenses while the F-15's carried out surgical strikes? How could Israel know that there were no Russians around? They apparently work there along with Iranians and Syrians.

Where are the Russian air defenses? Did they engage any targets or are they turned off? This must make the Russians feel that if the Israeli's could do it, the US certainly could.

Russia claims Israel behind missile strike on Syria

 

[STURM]

This must make the Russians feel that if the Israeli's could do it, the US certainly could.

The Russians by now are well aware that that that the U.S. is fully capable of conducting such a strike. In fact the U.S. has conducted similar strikes before.

Irrespective of whether it was Israel or somewhere else; they would have gone out of their way to ensure there were no Russians around. There real question is whether the strike was a PR exercise or did it really cause significant military damage? How would the country that conducted the strike react next if there was another chemical attack?