War Against ISIS

[STURM]

Hezballoh has stuck their neck awfully far out there for Bashar al-Assad. Israel is watching two of it's most bitter enemies getting chewed up in an insurgency.

Is Syria really Israel's greatest enemy? Under Assad the Elder, Syria's priority was internal security, safeguarding its key interests in the Lebanon and keeping an eye on other Arab countries, like Iraq, not confronting Israel. When Assad the Elder entered Lebanon, on the side of the Christians, the Israeli's gave their consent. And as long as Assad was not willing to ditch Iran and meet other conditions set by the Israeli's, the Israeli's could hold on to the Golan. With a dictator in power the Israeli's know what to expect but with a liberal democrat in power, the Israeli's might be placed in an uncomfortable position.

As for the rebels it's all or nothing. The second the Syrian army troops deserted to the FSA they signed their own death warrant. Everyone tied in with that lot are marked for death. They no longer have a choice, they have to win.

The same could also be said for the Alawites, in that they have no choice but to win because their fortunes are tied to Assad staying in power. The Alawites haven't forgotten that prior to the Baathist seizing power, the Alawite community weren't treated very well by the Sunni majority, who viewed them as country bumpkin heretics.

It was only to be expected that the longer the war dragged, on that '' other''elements [what the West calls ''extremists'' and ''Islamists''] would enter the picture. Things would be much more simple if the ''FSA'' [who portray themselves as secular non-Islamists''] were the only players against Assad.

Bashar al-Assad is in too deep now, if he turned back some months ago he could had probably negotiated his freedom. If he is lucky the ICC will get him though I imagine he will probably die like Gaddafi.

As far as he's concerned, why should he cut and run, given that the business elite, the security services and the army as a whole [and the minorities] are sticking by him? Running away was never an option as there was no guarantee that he wouldn't be dragged to the ICJ at a later date.

 

[Feanor]

Is Syria really Israel's greatest enemy? Under Assad the Elder, Syria's priority was internal security, safeguarding its key interests in the Lebanon and keeping an eye on other Arab countries, like Iraq, not confronting Israel. When Assad the Elder entered Lebanon, on the side of the Christians, the Israeli's gave their consent. And as long as Assad was not willing to ditch Iran and meet other conditions set by the Israeli's, the Israeli's could hold on to the Golan. With a dictator in power the Israeli's know what to expect but with a liberal democrat in power, the Israeli's might be placed in an uncomfortable position.

After the clusterf*cks of Libya and Egypt, you really think the opposition will create a liberal democracy if they come to power? Your greater point is correct, it does seem that the opposition could end up being more problematic both for Israel, and for the region, then Assad, who is after all a known quantity.

TAs far as he's concerned, why should he cut and run, given that the business elite, the security services and the army as a whole [and the minorities] are sticking by him? Running away was never an option as there was no guarantee that he wouldn't be dragged to the ICJ at a later date.

Or just murdered. Winning is really Assad's only viable option.

 

[STURM]

After the clusterf*cks of Libya and Egypt, you really think the opposition will create a liberal democracy if they come to power?

No I don't have any illusions that the FSA and the other rebels will be liberal democrats.This whole idea of using or backing ''nice'' chaps - who in theory would later establish Western friendly semi-democratic governments - to topple Western ''unfriendly'' regimes, was dreamt up by outsiders who are living in gagaland. I firmly believe that the main factor holding back Uncle Sam, Britain and France from providing the ''rebels'' with arms is not the Russian factor but worries about what will happen later - we saw this in Afghanistan and later in Libya.

The Saudis on the other hand - despite their past experience in supporting ''extremists'', ''jihadists'' and ''Islamists'' and later having these ungrateful chaps bite the hand that feeds them - appear to have less concerns. The Saudi aim of overthrowing Assad, which in turn will leave Iran further isolated and weakened, overides their concerns of what will happen in a post-Assad Syria, controlled by various groups who can't agree on the kind of government that should be formed. And it goes without saying that the Saudis and Qataris will not complain if a post-Assad Syria is not ruled by liberal democrats, as a real democracy there [in Syria] might result in some ''democratic'' ideas flowing back to Saudi and Qatar, which is the last thing the rulers in both these countries want.

 

[Feanor]

No I don't have any illusions that the FSA and the other rebels will be liberal democrats.This whole idea of using or backing ''nice'' chaps - who in theory would later establish Western friendly semi-democratic governments - to topple Western ''unfriendly'' regimes, was dreamt up by outsiders who are living in gagaland.

Or by cynical manipulators, to justify western support to the rebels.

I firmly believe that the main factor holding back Uncle Sam, Britain and France from providing the ''rebels'' with arms is not the Russian factor but worries about what will happen later - we saw this in Afghanistan and later in Libya.

Maybe. But the whole Syria-Libya situation had the look and feel of a backroom deal, with Russian conveniently selling Libya down river, after the unloyal back and forth Gaddafi did with the rights to the oil and gas fields, as well as the defense contracts, while protecting Syria to the last. But maybe I'm getting paranoid, or maybe it was a tacit understanding rather then an explicit agreement. One thing I would consider is that the Russian factor, and the consequences are not two separate issues but one and the same. The reason they're listening to the Russian factor is because they understand the consequences of a misstep.

The Saudis on the other hand - despite their past experience in supporting ''extremists'', ''jihadists'' and ''Islamists'' and later having these ungrateful chaps bite the hand that feeds them - appear to have less concerns. The Saudi aim of overthrowing Assad, which in turn will leave Iran further isolated and weakened, overides their concerns of what will happen in a post-Assad Syria, controlled by various groups who can't agree on the kind of government that should be formed. And it goes without saying that the Saudis and Qataris will not complain if a post-Assad Syria is not ruled by liberal democrats, as a real democracy there [in Syria] might result in some ''democratic'' ideas flowing back to Saudi and Qatar, which is the last thing the rulers in both these countries want.

Saudi politics are very complex and Byzantine. I would not attempt to read their actions. Maybe you're right.

 

[spikehades]

One of the main concerns is that the longer the rebellion continues the more likely that it will spread. Already in Iraq May has been one of the bloodiest since the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom .

Over 1,000 killed: Iraq sees deadliest month in 5 years, UN says — RT News

There have been clashes in Lebanon and unrest in syria, a downing of a Turkish jet, exchange of fire in Turkey, (not to mention Israeli incursions into Lebanese and Syrian airspace).

There have also been credible reports that rebels have gained access to substantial amounts of chemical weapons and are fully intent on using them;

Turkey finds sarin gas in homes of suspected Syrian Islamists – reports — RT News

So, not only is the conflict expanding in terms of scope but also in intensity. It is with this in mind that a more aggressive stance form Syria and Russia can be understood.

 

[Feanor]

Assad just retook Al Qusayr, a major opposition stronghold. It really looks like he could still turn it around, though it's kind of hard to tell from here. I wonder if there are any reliable sources of what the actual situation on the fronts is there.

 

[STURM]

We are presented with a highly bizzare situation in which Al Qaeda and the West have the same aim, both want Assad gone. The key difference is that Al Qaeda want the masses to overthrow Assad and establish a strict Muslim state [as opposed to the secular state that has long existed under the Baathists] and the West wants the masses to form a 'democratic' state which is 'friendly' and 'non-threatening'.

Al-Qa'ida head Ayman al-Zawahri posts video call for Syrians to topple President Assad after fall of border town Qusayr - Middle East - World - The Independent

There have been clashes in Lebanon and unrest in syria, a downing of a Turkish jet, exchange of fire in Turkey, (not to mention Israeli incursions into Lebanese and Syrian airspace).

The country most vulnerable is Lebanon.... We can only hope that sectarian clashes there do not get worse, that would be the last thing the country's already fragile socio-political enviroment needs.

Assad on the arms deal -

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrK2-OXdPrU"]Syria President Bashar Al-Assad: I will honour weapons deals with Russia - YouTube[/nomedia]

 

[surpreme]

Assad just retook Al Qusayr, a major opposition stronghold. It really looks like he could still turn it around, though it's kind of hard to tell from here. I wonder if there are any reliable sources of what the actual situation on the fronts is there.

One thing I can tell you ever since the Iranian and Party of G-d sent in
advisors and fighters the tide has change. This just show you how well-trained the Party of G-d. If Syrian Army keep up the pressure they might take back Homs and Allepo.

 

[STURM]

This just show you how well-trained the Party of G-d

''Well trained'' is a relative term. Compared to those amongst the rebels who had no prior military training prior to taking up arms against Assad, Hezbollah fighters are indeed ''well trained'' but against rebels who were career soldiers in the Syrian army, the difference might not be that great. Not every Hezbollah fighter has years of experience clashing with the IDF. Bear in mind that Hezbollah is now fighting in unknown territory. The main value - apart from the show of solidrity - in having Hezbollah there is that they can replace Syrian army units which are worn out.

We just don't have enough information to be able to say for certain that is was largely due to the presence of Hezbollah that Al Qusayr was re-taken by Assad's side. The loss of that town could have been due to other factors.

 

[surpreme]

''Well trained'' is a relative term. Compared to those amongst the rebels who had no prior military training prior to taking up arms against Assad, Hezbollah fighters are indeed ''well trained'' but against rebels who were career soldiers in the Syrian army, the difference might not be that great. Not every Hezbollah fighter has years of experience clashing with the IDF. Bear in mind that Hezbollah is now fighting in unknown territory. The main value - apart from the show of solidrity - in having Hezbollah there is that they can replace Syrian army units which are worn out.

We just don't have enough information to be able to say for certain that is was largely due to the presence of Hezbollah that Al Qusayr was re-taken by Assad's side. The loss of that town could have been due to other factors.

The Syrian Army is right now having issue with itself anyway. You must look at it from another view. Any Army in the world who has lots AWOL, abandon posts, units that switch sides , and etc gonna have problems period. The(Party of G-d) Hezbollah is the only group that is well organized to assist them in that area that is close by and they know not to bite the hand that feed you. The Syria units are stretch out and its wearing down the morale of Syrian army. Hezbollah pretty much trying get Syrian Army back motivated again sometime unit need other unit to assist them and motivate them this is what Hezbollah is doing. Assad strategic options he need assistance in getting his Army on the offensive after couple years of fighting some of your own units and armed citizens. @sturm that is true to replace units that are wore out, and also to motivate the Syrian units. I will said this and then I'm outta here If Hezbollah is truly a good force you will see some improvement in Syrian units in the next 6 months as Hezbollah assist them with there morale.

 

[Feanor]

I think that Assad may have managed to turn things around across the board. It's no coincidence that he retakes Al Qusair, Hezbollah joins the fight on his side, and Russia announces that they're resuming deliveries on old contracts, and announces a new one, within a fairly small amount of time. Russia has inside information on the situation, and the fact that they're back to supporting Assad with material deliveries is telling. When it coincides with a major military victory, and the entry of a new ally, I think it's likely that Assad is gaining ground.

 

[STURM]

The Syrian Army is right now having issue with itself anyway. You must look at it from another view. Any Army in the world who has lots AWOL, abandon posts, units that switch sides , and etc gonna have problems period.

No doubts the Syrian army has ''issues'' but at the end of the day it has rallied around Assad and contrary to what some may believe - or like to believe - not all the Sunnis in the army have rallied to the rebels. It is 2013, and the Syrian army has not collapsed.

The(Party of G-d) Hezbollah is the only group that is well organized to assist them in that area that is close by and they know not to bite the hand that feed you.

Hezbollah only has so many fighters and most will be retained on Lebanese territory. As I mentioned before, the main value in having Hezbollah fighters fight alongside the Syrian army is political, it demonstrates solidarity, that Assad is not alone. Bear in mind that Hezbollah now finds inself operating in unknown territory and can't always depend on a friendly local population. When it comes to fire support and local intel, Hezbollah fighters in Syria will rely on the Syrian army. They may even rely on the Syrian for resupply of food and ammo. And I don't get what you mean by well organised. Not well organised in comparison to whom? The rebels? The fact that the Syrian army has not managed to defeat the rebels is due to a number of factors and organisation may not be a vital or a decisive factor.

You mentioned in a previous post that Hezbollah fighters were well trained, maybe, but in comparison to whom? Not all the Hezbollah fighters in Syria are veterans from previous engagements against the IDF - in 2006 Hezbollah prevented the IDF from achieving its obejectives but losses amongst Hezbollah field units were high. IMO, taking into account that some senior Syrian army NCOs and mid-level officers will have had previous experience fighting various factions [Fatah, the Phalangist, Druze, Amal, etc] in Lebanon, and also against the Israeli's, on paper it is the Syrian army that is more experienced than Hezbollah! And it is the Syrian army that has all the trappings of a real army to enable it to maintain/sustain protracted combat operations - which it has been doing.

Ultimately, Hezbollah's open participation in the war in Syria will not turn out to be a game changer but that is not to say that their presence is not welcomed by the Syrian government and army. It will be a mistake to think that Hezbollah will provide what is needed for Assad and his forces to finally defeat the rebels.

If Hezbollah is truly a good force you will see some improvement in Syrian units in the next 6 months as Hezbollah assist them with there morale.

Is morale the main issue? Judging by articles written by foreign journalists who have visited army units [I dislike the word embedded] and videos, many units do not suffer from morale issues and are highly motivated to take on the fight against what they call terrorists and foreign elements.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...t-fisk-reports-from-inside-syria-8590636.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...ombs-the-talk-turned-to-religion-8575647.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...ar-is-like-we-havent-seen-it-yet-8574139.html

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZJba1VSI34"]Embedded With the Syrian Army - YouTube[/nomedia]

 

[surpreme]

No doubt the Syrian army has ''issues'' but at the end of the day it has rallied around Assad and contrary to what some may believe - or like to believe - not all the Sunnis in the army have rallied to the rebels. It is 2013, and the Syrian army has not collapsed.



Hezbollah has only has so many fighters and most will be retained on Lebanese territory. As I mentioned before, the main value in having Hezbollah fighters fight alongside the Syrian army is political, it demopnstrates solidarity, that Assad is not alone. Bear in mind that Hezbollah now finds inself operating in unknown territory and can't always depend on a friendly local population. When it comes to fire support, local intel and probably even logistics, Hezbollah fighters in Syria will rely on the Syrian army.

You mentioned in a previous post that they were well trained, maybe, but in comparison to whom? Not all the Hezbollah fighters in Syria are veterans from previous engagements against the IDF. IMO, taking into account that senior Syrian army NCOs and mid-level officers will have had previous experience against Fatah, the Phalangist and other factions in Lebanon, and also against the Israeli's, on paper it is the Syrian army that is more experienced rhan Hezbollah! And it is the Syrian army that has all the trappings of a real army to enable it to maintain protracted combat operations - which it has been doing. Ultimately, hezbollah's presence in Syria will not turn out to be a game changer but that is not to say that their presence is not welcomed by the Syrian government and army.

One thing about military forces if your morale is low you will not get production from your military point blank. Overall the Syrian Army has problem with logistic, military airlift, and aircrafts. The Syrian Armed Forces lacks modern aircraft, helicopters, communication equipment, electric countermeasures and a good special forces. Hezbollah organized itself into a fighting forces and it starts with discipline and that what Hezbollah has that why its well trained it don't have to be compared to any army it already have the main thing all top military forces have. Having studying the Syrian Army they having show me that they are skilled and discipline as a armed force should be.

 

[STURM]

Nobody is disputing the fact that moral is an important factor and that the Syrian army has taken a beating. The Syrian army and Hezbollah are trained and equipped to fight different kinds of engagements - this is an important fact to consider. As a regular army, the Syrian army has many advantages over Hezbollah and the Syrian army - on paper - is better equipped and organised to conduct the kind of operations it's conducting now. Hezbollah independent anti-tank teams in 2006 displayed a lot of flexibility, innovativeness and initiative but we can also say with certain that the Syrian army has learnt a thing or two since the revolt started. Apart from 2006, has Hezbollah conducted any protracted operations similar to what it faces now, in terms of intensity? Hezbollah also has no heavy weapons that are essential for the kind of operations being fought, no armour and thus will have to rely on its Syrian allies.

​

The presence of Hezbollah no doubt will be welcomed, will be a psychological boost and will enable some Syrian units to be rotated out to re-equip and rest but will not be a game changer.

The notion that Hezbollah will be a major factor in defeating the rebels does not fit with reality - we can't even say for sure - for lack of information - whether the presence of Hezbollah proved decisive in the fall of Al Qusair. There is nothing to prove that Hezbollah is more disciplined, better trained and better organised - as you suggest - than the Syrian army. And who says that the overall moral in Syrian army units are low? Can we say that for certain? And who's to say that 3-4 months down the road, that Hezbollah units will not have moral issues if no decisive results are achieved from their presence in Syria and if the attrition continues?

I also dis-agree with your assessment that the Syrian army lacks good special forces. Again, in comparison to whom? By Arab standards, the Syrian commandos/shock troops actually performed quite well in 1973 and 1982. You mentioned that Syria lacks lacks modern aircraft and helicopters. The aircraft they have are more than adequate for the kinds of roles there are performing against the rebels. Ask the rebels who are at the receiving end of bombing and strafing runs......

Having studying the Syrian Army they having show me that they are skilled and discipline as a armed force should be.

You should get a copy of Pollacks 'Arabs at War'. It's probably the best available source - in English - on the various Arab armed forces and their combat performance in various wars fought..

 

[alexkvaskov]

I think that Assad may have managed to turn things around across the board. It's no coincidence that he retakes Al Qusair, Hezbollah joins the fight on his side, and Russia announces that they're resuming deliveries on old contracts, and announces a new one, within a fairly small amount of time. Russia has inside information on the situation, and the fact that they're back to supporting Assad with material deliveries is telling. When it coincides with a major military victory, and the entry of a new ally, I think it's likely that Assad is gaining ground.

Are they providing Assad's troops with intelligence on rebel movements/dispositions? Have they even got the capability for something like that? Also, are they delivering arms on all those BDKs out in the Med as rumor has it, or is it all delivered through Iran and Iraq or some combination of both?

 

[Feanor]

Are they providing Assad's troops with intelligence on rebel movements/dispositions?

It's likely, though I don't know on what level and in what form.

Have they even got the capability for something like that?

Using satellites, certainly.

Also, are they delivering arms on all those BDKs out in the Med as rumor has it, or is it all delivered through Iran and Iraq or some combination of both?

Neither I think. They use civilian shipping, to the best of my knowledge.

 

[Beastmode]

This isn't a intelligence war. It's an extermination compaign against an insurgency. The government knows where they are at [Aleppo], where their suppy routes are [Turkey], who they are comanded by, they built these troops after all. Aswell as their aproximate strength.

All that is left is to send his forces into the meat grinder and to make sure he has something left to defend his power with. And I would hardly call hezbollah "highly trained". I would chalk that reputation up to Israeli mismanagement.

 

[Feanor]

Some news, Russia has offered to send peacekeepers to the Golan heights, to replace the departing Austrians. Israel has consented, but the UN isn't keen on it, and current agreements make it impossible for a permanent Security Council member to deploy peacekeepers to that particular conflict zone.

 

It doesn't surprise me that Russia wants to increase its military presence inside Syria.

 

[STURM]

Israel has consented, but the UN isn't keen on it, and current agreements make it impossible for a permanent Security Council member to deploy peacekeepers to that particular conflict zone.

And it remains to be seen if the Israeli's will object to certain countries volunteering to have troops serve on the Golan. The Isreali's had previously objected to the participation of certain countries with UNIFIL but were overuled by the UN. Apart from Russia, probably no other country is willing to have troops sent there and understandably so. There is also the possibility that certain Arab countries will object to the presence of Russian observers in the Golan on the grounds that Russia is not an impartial party to the conflict.

And I would hardly call hezbollah "highly trained". I would chalk that reputation up to Israeli mismanagement.

'Highly trained'' is a relative term wouldn't you agree? Quite a few Fatah, Amal, Druze and DFLP fighters received only the most basic of training prior to the Israeli invasion in 1982. Compared to other guerilla groups the IDF has fought, Hezbollah fighters in comparison are ''better trained'' but in 2006 - no surprises there - they displayed certain characteristics and flaws that would not be evident in a ''well trained'' regular army. They have displayed a lot of innovativeness and small unit independence/flexibility that other groups failed to achieve, but to be fair, Hezbollah had or have a few key advantages other groups didn't have.

Objectively speaking, they did prevent the IDF from achieving its objectives in 2006 and their actions over a certain period did play a part in Israel withdrawing from south Lebanon - not all of it was due to Israeli mis-management. Another group I can think off - much smaller than Hezbollah, no political involvement and enjoying much less grassroot support - that gave the Israeli's problems, was Ahmad Jibril's Poplular Front for Liberation of Palestine - General Command [PFLF-GC].

 

[Beastmode]

Front page BBC is saying the U.S. has confirmed Syrian chemical weapons attacks. Obama is offering "military support" to the rebels

My guess is a portion of those Hezbollah formations were probably made up of Iranian QUDS and Washington has decided to step in before the inevitable collapse of the rebels.