War Against ISIS

[STURM]

Iran might have some common interests with the West but it's regime is hardly any better than SA, Qater, or UAE. The only thing that will fix the ME is the obsolescence of oil as an energy source.

Really? Why isn't Iran any better? Iran may not be democratic in the way that the U.K. or Canada is but it's more democratic than the likes of Saudi, Qatar and the UAE. The Iranian press isn't to the extent the press in the gulf states are, Iranian citizens have a greater say in how their country is run, the opposition in Iran has a louder voice and more freedom than their equivalents in the Gulf and Iranian women are allowed to work, drive and go out alone.

The only thing that will solve the mess is when outsiders stop interfering and let the locals sort out their own mess.

 

[John Fedup]

Really? Why isn't Iran any better?

They are all still undemocratic regimes.

The Iranian press isn't to the extent the press in the gulf states are, Iranian citizens have a greater say in how their country is run, the opposition in Iran has a louder voice

Perhaps, but sailing to close to the wind in Iran gets you into jail almost as fast and really push it and you will be just as dead.

Iranian women are allowed to work, drive and go out alone.

I concede that one.

The only thing that will solve the mess is when outsiders stop interfering and let the locals sort out their own mess.

If this had been done 100 years ago I think you would be right. The Arab Spring has shown us what happens NOW when the locals are left to sort things out. I guess the time is coming when the West will indeed walk away and let $hit happen. (some time between miracle batteries and nuclear fusion power).

 

[Boatteacher]

The only thing that will solve the mess is when outsiders stop interfering and let the locals sort out their own mess.

The essence of what is happening now is a sectarian conflict that is 1400 years old.

The Middle East has traditionally been full of strong men rulers and oppressive regimes because only they could suppress that conflict.

Yes the West may not have helped in the borders they drew, their interference or putting ideas of democracy ahead of peace. But the tension has long been there and only waiting for an reason to explode.

As John said, if you stop interfering, the Arab spring gives you some idea of what happens.

The mess will only be solved when the ME follows the West down a path of turning away from religion; and both Iran and SA are actually pushing the whole Islamic world the other way.

"This will be of no immediate relief to European countries who are flooded with refugees but the fact that these refugees decided to go to the West rather than go along with IS's fantasy of creating a caliphate is a very good sign as it shows that these people are rejecting IS"

They are rejecting living in a state at war and threat of dying. The extent to which they are rejecting a form of Islamic thought inconsistent with Western values is another matter (and therefore their future disaffection with their new country might be easily provoked in the future). There will be a wide spectrum of attitudes, but such superficial surveys as have been taken indicate that those whose views are completely inconsistent with Western norms might be in the minority, but it is a very large minority.

 

[STURM]

They are all still undemocratic regimes.

But the West and the rest of the world will still do business with these regimes and the West will still choose which dictator is a friend and should be tolerated and which dictator should be the subject of regime change.

If this had been done 100 years ago I think you would be right. The Arab Spring has shown us what happens NOW when the locals are left to sort things out. I guess the time is coming when the West will indeed walk away and let $hit happen. (some time between miracle batteries and nuclear fusion power).

As long as there's no attempt to address the root causes behind this mess and as long as the West is still selective with democracy and humans rights and is hypocritical ; the Middle East will continue to be unstable and it will not matter how many tonnes of ordnance are dropped by Western aircraft on the bad guys.

As John said, if you stop interfering, the Arab spring gives you some idea of what happens.

Does that mean that it remains up to the West as to the kind of government the locals choose? That it's perfectly alright if an Islamist government [being Islamist doesn't necessarily mean that the government intends on lobbing nukes at the West or will burn people alive] chosen by the masses is overthrown by a military leader who's friendly with the West but is despised by his own people and is less democratic than the Islamist government he overthrew?

They are rejecting living in a state at war and threat of dying.

Which is a good thing. If thousands of people were flocking to Raqqa to live under the IS banner, because they agreed with IS's ideology, it would - to put it mildly - be a problem. Living in a state of war and threat of dying often doesn't deter people if they're sufficiently brainwashed or motivated. The very fact that masses of people are not rushing to live in Raqqa or other IS held areas is very encouraging - it shows that the bulk of the population do not agree with IS's ideology.

 

[Boatteacher]

As long as there's no attempt to address the root causes behind this mess and as long as the West is still selective with democracy and humans rights and is hypocritical ; the Middle East will continue to be unstable and it will not matter how many tonnes of ordnance are dropped by Western aircraft on the bad guys.

In a way I don't disagree with anything you are saying. But, I'm not sure how you address the root cause; which is essentially religious and completely outside external control.

Does that mean that it remains up to the West as to the kind of government the locals choose? That it's perfectly alright if an Islamist government [being Islamist doesn't necessarily mean that the government intends on lobbing nukes at the West or will burn people alive] chosen by the masses is overthrown by a military leader who's friendly with the West but is despised by his own people and is less democratic than the Islamist government he overthrew?

I'm not sure that's an entirely fair view of what happened in Egypt if that is what you are alluding too.

The Egyptians found themselves with something other that what they thought they'd voted for and did something about it. I didn't see much Western involvement in that. Indeed I recall the West was somewhat hostile to the new development.

Which is a good thing. If thousands of people were flocking to Raqqa to live under the IS banner, because they agreed with IS's ideology, it would - to put it mildly - be a problem. Living in a state of war and threat of dying often doesn't deter people if they're sufficiently brainwashed or motivated.

Well actually many Sunni areas were actually originally pretty sanguine about the arrival of ISIS; considering them at least Sunni and thus better than being under Shiite control.

When they saw how off the planet they really were many (but not all) changed their minds. But that doesn't make them benign players once they move to the West.

I suppose the real point is, what is the West to do? Apart from Saudi oil I suspect the west would gladly ring fence the whole place and let them fight their own 100 years war until they reached their own peace of Westphalia. That would be the consequence of leaving them all alone.

But in reality that's just going to lead to a continuing flight of refugees to the West; Sunni's from Shiite controlled areas and Shiites from Sunni controlled areas (and everyone from places the Syrian army and Russians are bombing). There they'll likely come back together in the West and restart the fight all over again.

 

[Feanor]

Russia's vice-operational chief of HQ in their most recent briefing said that the US is failing to control the moderates, and prevent them from working with al-Nusra. A reminder, the current ceasefire does not apply to al-Nusra, meaning any rebel groups tightly interacting with them will effectively exempt themselves from the ceasefire. All three of the major jihadi groups (al-Nusra, Ashrar-ash-Sham, and Jaesh-al-Islam) have continued to fight against regime forces around Aleppo. Finally the Castello road, the humanitarian route into Aleppo, is being directly monitored by Russia. Meanwhile the Kurds are pushing against the rebel positions in the Azaz pocket, while the Turks are slowly pushing westward towards al-Bab. Some of the Kurdish units have begun putting American flags on towns they are holding, and on their positions, while US Marines were sighted among the Kurds of the YPG.

"Перемирие" в Сирии - Colonel Cassad

 

[PO2GRV]

Thatnks Feanor for gwtting us back on track

Russian carrier-based Su-33 fighters receiving new bombing computer | IHS Jane's 360

Snippet of article on Su33 upgrades allowing more precise strike options. I gotta say im genuinely excited to see Kuznetsov deploy in November :jump2

 

[Feanor]

Thatnks Feanor for gwtting us back on track

Russian carrier-based Su-33 fighters receiving new bombing computer | IHS Jane's 360

Snippet of article on Su33 upgrades allowing more precise strike options. I gotta say im genuinely excited to see Kuznetsov deploy in November :jump2

I posted on this earlier, in the Russian Navy thread. It's the SVP-24, the same new dumb-bomb system that drastically improves their accuracy, with the claims being that they're comparable/on par with (I'm aware that's not the same thing but both claims have been made) to older guided munitions. It was already used, with good results, on Su-24M and Tu-22M3 upgraded planes, in Syria. It's a combination of navigation and targeting aids that are claimed to make unguided munitions much more accurate.

 

[STURM]

In a way I don't disagree with anything you are saying. But, I'm not sure how you address the root cause; which is essentially religious and completely outside external control.

A way to start would be to ensuring that every country is treated and judged equally; not just on the basis of whether country 'x' is strategically vital or spends billions on arms. Another area to start would be to bombard countries with teachers, healthcare workers and doctors; rather than having Western military bases which don't benefit the locals but only their unelected leaders. Most people in the region don't hate the West or democracy or human rights but they detest the hypocrisy, double standards and meddling. On the subject of religion, the bulk of the people who support IS and groups like it were not initially drawn in by religious factors but because they were desperate for something better. If they had greater freedom, were free from sectarian strife and had better healthcare and employment prospects; they wouldn't have joined IS or have been so easily influenced by its ideology.

Well actually many Sunni areas were actually originally pretty sanguine about the arrival of ISIS; considering them at least Sunni and thus better than being under Shiite control.

In Iraq, given how Iraqi Sha militias have treated Sunnis in areas recaptured from IS, I don't blame Sunnis for wanting to live in IS areas. Something the U.S. could do would be to pressure the Shia dominated Iraqi leadership to start treating Sunnis as equals citizens rather than view them with suspicion.

 

[John Fedup]

Another area to start would be to bombard countries with teachers, healthcare workers and doctors.

I would think it will be a huge challenge finding a sufficient number of these professionals willing to risk their lives in places like Syria and Yemen without foreign troops for protection, troops that will be hard to get and likely unwelcome. The same applies to Iraq.

 

[STURM]

I was thinking more about in Iraq in Sunni areas. No point recapturing Sunni areas from IS if in the long run the central government fails to ensure that the population in these areas have the needed infrastructure and job opportunities. Granted, Western most NGOs will be reluctant to operate in these areas but the West can still ensure that the locals in these areas get what they need by providing funding [after all billions are spent hitting IS] and in pressuring the Iraqi government to rebuild these areas.

This was the main problem in Afghanistan where great efforts were made to secure Kabul and provide for its inhabitants but no similar effort was made in rural areas were the central government was weak and where the inhabitants didn't even have adequate water or power supply and no jobs. The result is they turned to the Taliban who were able to provide some of the services that the government in Kabul was unable to. It didn't help that there were never enough troops to secure rural areas, that many donor countries didn't live up to their promises and that the U.S. initially refused to get in the business of nation building and when it did it was a case of too little, too late; with the Pentagon and State Department having different ideas as to how to do things.

 

[PO2GRV]

Turkey demands role in Mosul battle, but coalition unconvinced

More friction between US and Turkey. This articlebdetails how Turkey wantsbto participate in action in Mosul which is directly contrary to US and Iraqi desires and further highlughts issues with the Kurds.

Again its a helluva tap dance going on the State Department vis a vis Turkey, NATO, Russia and polucy going forward

 

[Boatteacher]

I was thinking more about in Iraq in Sunni areas. No point recapturing Sunni areas from IS if in the long run the central government fails to ensure that the population in these areas have the needed infrastructure and job opportunities.

This was the main problem in Afghanistan where great efforts were made to secure Kabul and provide for its inhabitants but no similar effort was made in rural areas were the central government was weak and where the inhabitants didn't even have adequate water or power supply and no jobs. The result is they turned to the Taliban .

Again, while I agree with much (indeed all) of what you say, it all falls apart at the practical level. The entrenched corruption and sectarian (and clan/ tribal) attitudes of those who come to power are resistant to Western entreaties to act more reasonably even with funding the west provides.

It is much more than a money issue.

You either let the locals run their own country and end up with the result you're describing or you bend them to your will in which case the west is accused of interfering and gets caught in the middle of escalating sectarian or tribal violence as those who want something different kill a lot of people to destabilize the situation. And in the latter case Western armies end up being deployed and are in the face of the locals, the poor grunts being in the impossible situation of identifying those who they are there to help from those who would kill them; with all the grief that brings to both sides.

 

[gazzzwp]

A serious development. Russia is reporting:

https://www.rt.com/news/359678-us-strikes-syrian-army/

Very hard to believe that this was an accident with so many reported killed.

Is this the beginning of the US taking a more assertive stance signalling that they are no longer going to be respectful of Russia's position? Could this be a kind of retaliatory measure for all the bombing of rebel positions over the last year?

Whatever the case suspicion and lack of trust is growing and I see the co-operation between the two sides rapidly breaking down.

Time will tell what actually occurred here.

Edit to add:

There appears to be a blame game going on. The US claiming that they conferred with Russia before the strike and halted as soon as they realised that Syrian vehicles were being targeted.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/17/m...lition-airstrike-hit-regime-forces/index.html

 

[STURM]

Ironic isn't it? Even assuming that the RT report is not accurate and that only 5 or 15 Syrian troops were killed and irrespective of whether the strike was intentional or not; the fact that Syrian troops were killed ultimately benefits IS and the group that was formerly AL Nusra.

I would think that the U.S. and Russia are trying their best not to step on each other's toes given that both have brokered a ceasefire deal and are trying their best to make it work. It remains to be seen however how much influence the U.S. and Russia have respectively over the the FSA and the Syrian government as really depends on the FSA and Syria whether the cease fire will last.

 

[chris]

Edit to add:

There appears to be a blame game going on. The US claiming that they conferred with Russia before the strike and halted as soon as they realised that Syrian vehicles were being targeted.

Syria claims coalition airstrike hit regime forces - CNN.com

Strange. If someone takes a look at one of the numerous maps showing the situation in Syria, he or she will realize that that place is a Syrian army position completely surrounded by ISIS and ISIS only. No moderate rebels anywhere in every direction.

So, the US aircraft were there to hit ISIS and help the Syrian Army.

Is this an official change in US stance on the Syrian conflict?

 

[STURM]

Is this an official change in US stance on the Syrian conflict?

For what purpose?

The U.S. - like Russia - wants the ceasefire to hold. Changing its stance or doing something that will result in Assad 'misbehaving'' will only threaten the ceasefire.

 

[Toblerone]

It's hard to trust anything

For example, about the video I posted earlier
https://citeam.org/the-castello-the...n-mod-and-kremlin-tv-militant-attack-footage/

About this bombing of regime forces:
One could say that a mistake like this would force the US forces to cooperate with the russians fully on strikes. I think that's one of the main objectives of Russia. This could have been staged, unless a lot of deaths actually took place of course. Or maybe the russians screwed up and didn't communicate properly. Or maybe the Pentagon does not agree with this ceasefire that Kerry signed and made a mistake ... hard to tell.

Are there videos that show dead bodies in the aftermath?

 

[gazzzwp]

Syrian jet shoot down in Deir Ezzor. Apparently a MIG 21.

https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-shoots-syrian-jet-deir-ez-zor/

No word yet on how it was taken down but some speculation is rising here and there about American supplied weaponry. We will have to wait and see.

 

[STURM]

The U.S. Ambassador to the UN has questioned why Russia has requested a meeting to discuss the strike; calling it a classic magician's sleight of hand to divert attention from what's happening elsewhere. She also points out that Russia has never requested an emergency meeting to discuss civilian deaths. The Russians on the other hand are insisting that if the U.S. had agreed to better coordination, that such a mistake would never have occurred.

US air raid on 'Syrian army post' sparks Russia tension - News from Al Jazeera

The US and Russia have less influence in Syria than they think | The Independent

If the ceasefire in Syria is to hold, this is what needs to happen | The Independent