Military Events in Syria and Iraq thread #3

[joepistole]

Temper tantrum?

You trying to color the evidence?
The us and britain committed an act of aggression against Russia's ally.
"Oops it were a accident" without sharing more information seemed pretty lame.
By expanding the event to the security council and press, they made it undesirable for the us and allies to commit the same "mistake" again.

Do you really think that our air farce is that incompetent, or would you prefer the incident to be seen as an act of illegal overt aggression?

Color the evidence....? I think you are confused, the US isn't Mother Russia or Syria. It was an accident. Accidents do happen, especially when other nations don't communicate or don't communicate well. Further, Assad's isn't recognized as the legitimate Syrian government by many countries. Assad no longer controls most of what was Syria. Syria is a failed state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_the_Syrian_National_Council

And yes, Russia did pull a temper tantrum. There is no other accurate description. Your beloved Mother Russia has a very long history of juvenile behaviors. It's nothing new. It's not Mother Russia's first temper tantrum and unfortunately it won't be the last. I don't know about you, but as a parent I have found the best remedy for a temper tantrum is to ignore the perpetrator until they figure it out. And that is what the world has done with Mother Russia's temper tantrums. But this child, i.e. Mother Russia, isn't all that bright.

 

[Yazata]

Temper tantrum?

The ceasefire was in everyone's interest, Assad's as much as anyone.

But if the rebels weren't honoring it by separating themselves from Nusra Front/Jabhat Fateh al-Sham and were still participating in offensive operations against government forces, I can see why Damascus decided that the agreement was just tying their hands.

The US attack on the Syrian army position was serious and unfortunate, but the cease-fire wouldn't have collapsed unless both the rebels and the government wanted it to collapse. The fact is that despite all the humanitarian hand-wringing in the West, the Syrians don't want their civil war to stop, unless that cessation comes with the total victory of their own side. Nobody there is in any mood for compromise.

The us and britain committed an act of aggression against Russia's ally.

I saw that Assad's Syrian Air Force attacked the first UN aid convoy to approach the Aleppo area yesterday, killing the chairman of the Syrian Red Crescent and killing an unknown number of UN aid workers. That's pretty uncool too. I wonder what the excuse will be for that one.

"Oops it were a accident" without sharing more information seemed pretty lame.

By expanding the event to the security council and press, they made it undesirable for the us and allies to commit the same "mistake" again.

I think that it's abundantly clear that neither the US or the Russians completely controls their clients. Assad was ready to bail from the agreement so Russia went to the UN in hopes of wringing a few more concessions out of Washington and those supporting the rebels.

Do you really think that our air farce is that incompetent, or would you prefer the incident to be seen as an act of illegal overt aggression?

Flying air support for ground troops is extremely difficult and can very easily result in friendly fire incidents. That's doubly true when the situation on the ground is fluid and rapidly changing. Pilots need good information on where friendly ground troops are in real time and where enemy targets are located. Ideally, special forces are on the ground as forward air controllers to designate targets. But for whatever reason, most likely refusal to cooperate on both sides, that isn't the case with Syrian army forces. The Syrian army just doesn't seem to be competent in designating targets for air support on its own. (Even if they were, it's doubtful that they have the procedures to communicate data to the USAF.) That's one reason why Syrian AF air strikes are often so indiscriminate and badly aimed. Even the Russians have found it necessary to insert their own spetsnaz alongside the Syrians to designate targets for the Russian airforce.

 

[Schmelzer]

The "excuse" is quite simple, that there is up to now no evidence for an air attack, given the evaluation of the videos. There is, instead, proof by a Russian video which has observed the convoy until it has reached the destination, that near the convoy were rebels in a car with a grenade launcher on it travelling together with the convoy. Given that the "White Helmets" have been involved in the presentation of the case, this is almost certainly propaganda.

By the way, it looks like the Russians have answered the attack on Deir Ezzor: http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13950631000607 firing "three Caliber missiles at the foreign officers' coordination operations room in Dar Ezza region in the Western part of Aleppo near Sam'an mountain, killing 30 Israeli and western officers":

The operations room was located in the Western part of Aleppo province in the middle of sky-high Sam'an mountain and old caves. The region is deep into a chain of mountains.
Several US, Turkish, Saudi, Qatari and British officers were also killed along with the Israeli officers. The foreign officers who were killed in the Aleppo operations room were directing the terrorists' attacks in Aleppo and Idlib.

If this information is correct, then the next days may be dangerous. One has to expect some irrational Western reaction to this.

 

[Yazata]

The "excuse" is quite simple, that there is up to now no evidence for an air attack, given the evaluation of the videos.

Much has been made of the supposed lack of bomb craters. But rockets were likely used instead of gravity bombs. There were also reports of the sound of helicopters.

Given that the "White Helmets" have been involved in the presentation of the case, this is almost certainly propaganda.

So we should believe the Iranians instead?

By the way, it looks like the Russians have answered the attack on Deir Ezzor: http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13950631000607 firing "three Caliber missiles at the foreign officers' coordination operations room in Dar Ezza region in the Western part of Aleppo near Sam'an mountain, killing 30 Israeli and western officers".

How does the Fars news agency know how many "Western" officers were killed? Do they have correspondents on the scene? The inclusion of Israelis sounds like Iranian imagination to me. The Israelis are hated by all sides in Syria, so to associate one's opponents with them is to slander and discredit them. I can't imagine the rebels, virtually all of whom are rabid Islamists, cooperating with Israelis.

If this information is correct, then the next days may be dangerous. One has to expect some irrational Western reaction to this.

Since it probably never happened, I don't expect any response.

 

[Schmelzer]

So we should believe the Iranians instead?

Why, you should not. I found it interesting enough to post the information, but it is indeed not questionable. FARS is, indeed, not a neutral source. I would nonetheless rate it as more reliable than the White Helmets, which have been caught lying so many times that one would better ignore them completely.

For the three Caliber missiles to hit some command structures of the Aleppo terrorists I have seen independent confirming information. But what they have hit is, of course, not clear. A Caliber is, in comparison with a simple bomb, expensive, it will not be used for simple targets.

I can't imagine the rebels, virtually all of whom are rabid Islamists, cooperating with Israelis.

Sorry, but it is well-known that the Israelis care about wounded jihadists in the Golan heights, and the close cooperation between Israel and Saudi-Arabia (who pays all these islamists) is also well-known. Some prominent Israel politician has even openly declared that it considers ISIS less evil than Assad. So it is quite clear on which side Israel fights, and above sides obviously have no problems with this.

 

[sculptor]

Could part of it be as simple as the Israelis wanting the golan oil?

 

[Yazata]

Could part of it be as simple as the Israelis wanting the golan oil?

The Israelis already occupy the Golan heights. They formally annexed it to Israel years ago. (It isn't very big.)

To the best of my knowledge, there isn't any oil there, or next to none anyway. Syria's oil reserves aren't large and they are mostly in the northeast of the country, where ISIS tends to be.

I don't believe that Israel is deeply involved in the Syrian civil war. Their intelligence agencies are doubtless following it very closely though. There are known to be formidable comint (communications intelligence) capabilities focused on Damascus from Mt. Hermon, listening to Syrian government and military communications. Israel is prepared to launch airstrikes if they believe that Syria is transferring important parts of its weapons stopckpile to terrorist groups like Hezbollah, and have already done so several times. I believe that Israel even has contingency plans to insert special forces to secure any chemical or germ warfare wmds that might otherwise get loose from Syrian government control. (Unclear how many of those there are.)

But I don't think that their involvement goes beyond that. Though in the Muslim world, conspiracy theories about Israel abound and Israel is imagined to be the fountain of all evil. They all pretend that their enemies are in league with Israel.

All in all, I suspect that the Israelis are satisfied with the Syrian civil war as it is. They like the fact that the Syrian military has been so degraded that it is no longer a credible threat to Israel. But they don't want Assad to fall entirely, because they don't want a failed state filled with fanatical jihadists next door to them. So in a way, Russia is serving Israel's interests by propping up central government authority in Syria.

 

[sculptor]

Test wells are being drilled in the golan. (one estimate claims that there may be enough oil there to satisfy Israel's oil needs for "centuries"------------------most likely exceedingly optimistic)
...............
Israel doesn't need to be overtly involved in syria's "civil war" as long as the usa is willing to be the "frontman" in syria.

leaked email indicates HRC's intent to destroy syria to help israel.

http://yournewswire.com/clinton-email-we-must-destroy-syria-for-israel/
http://www.globalresearch.ca/hillar...or-israel-the-best-way-to-help-israel/5515741
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/hillary-clinton-and-the-s_b_9231190.html

 

[Schmelzer]

Civil war in all arabic nations around it is, indeed, what Israel likes to see. Jihadists winning these wars are nothing Israel is afraid of. Anyway, civil war or failed state is not a big difference - what they would not like are strong, successful arabic states. Zero sum gamers.

 

[sculptor]

And, we're doing or paying for most of the fighting.

Why?

 

[joepistole]

Civil war in all arabic nations around it is, indeed, what Israel likes to see. Jihadists winning these wars are nothing Israel is afraid of. Anyway, civil war or failed state is not a big difference - what they would not like are strong, successful arabic states. Zero sum gamers.

You mean like your beloved Mother Russia?

 

[Schmelzer]

The Syrian army seems to prepare an offensive inside Aleppo. For me slightly unexpected, I would have guessed that they would, instead, attack at other places, using the large losses of the terrorists during their failed "battle for Aleppo". Maybe the reason is that the forces inside Aleppo are now much weaker than one would expect - last but not least, even during the few days when they have has some access, there was no chance to send a lot of ammunition and enforcement to Aleppo, instead, they may have send a lot of forces from inside into the critical region and lost a lot of fighters there too, with others preparing to use this possibility to go out. And if the Syrian army knows about this, it makes sense to attack.

The strategy seems to attack at the same time at different places, with heavy preparations in the particular region of the attack. Makes sense, given that they have now more manpower than the terrorists, and if there are preparations for attacks at several different places, they have to split their remaining forces, or to give up some regions.

A first big success is claimed today, the Handarat camp, the most Northern part of the terrorist-controlled part of Aleppo, seems to have been taken. Claims https://www.almasdarnews.com/articl...n-army-capture-handarat-camp-northern-aleppo/ This is a heavily fortified region, fighting there has a long history. This would be, if true, essentially the entrance from the North into the terrorist-held parts of Aleppo.

Given the long history of the fightings in the Handarat camp, I have yet some doubt that this claim of taking it is the final one and would expect some more fighting. We will see. If not, then, indeed, it would look like the remaining terrorists in Aleppo appear weaker than I have assumed up to now.

 

[Schmelzer]

There is also some progress reported in the South of Aleppo, as well as in the very center, near the old castle. Looks also like the quite reasonable tactic to look for the weakest places of the terrorists defenses.

Some small progress has also been reached in Latakia along the main highway M4. Or, more accurate, in Idlib, because the village which has been taken is, if I have correctly identified the border line, already in Idlib.

The bad news is that Daesh heavily attacks Deir Ezzor. This would have been everyday news some time ago, they have always heavily attacked it. But the success they have been able to reach with the support of their airforce, a, sorry, the US airforce, may become critical, because what is endangered now is the airport, and this is the base of the defense as well as the supply line. So, one cannot exclude that this predatory attack leads to Daesh taking Deir Ezzor. In this case add hundreds of civilians murdered by Daesh when they take Deir Ezzor to the list of US victims.

 

[Schmelzer]

Actually it seems like the terrorist's defenses in the North of Aleppo have collapsed. At least some suspect this. So, two very different maps, this one more optimistic:

and this one more restrained:

and showing from where the offensive has started, to show that it indeed looks like a collapse in the North.

And there seems to be another important victory - the Al Kindi hospital - the place where the red arrow points on the optimistic map, while yet under terrorist control in the second one. Some sources say there is yet heavy fighting around it, other claim it has been taken now by Al Quds. These fighters are, btw, palestinians, mostly born in Syria, in the refugees camps. So, they fight for the liberation of their own homes here.

The Al Kindi hospital has become famous in the past, when it was defended by the SAA in encirclement from jihadists. All those who then have been taken by the terrorists as prisoners have, then, be killed.

Observers expect that the region in the West of this map will fall to SAA soon, for the simple reason that it would be hard to defend it once it is under fire control, and encirclement would be easy, so that it is simply reasonable for the terrorists to leave this region.

Bad news from Hama, where the terrorists have taken two villages.

 

[Yazata]

Civil war in all arabic nations around it is, indeed, what Israel likes to see.

Israel isn't a major player in this, they are more of an interested spectator. But many Muslims imagine them as a dark force orchestrating all the self-inflicted evils that befall the Muslim world.

What Israel likes to see is the military capabilities of potential adversaries weakened. That's certainly happened in Syria, where the regular military is less than half the size it once was, has lost much of the ability to maintain its forces (like its aircraft and their engines) or to properly train personnel. The Syrian army is often little more than a poorly disciplined rabble. In its present state the Syrian military presents little threat to Israeli forces. But there's also a danger of things going too far, the Syrian military becoming too weak, leading to all central government authority in Syria falling apart and the country becoming a total power vacuum. Israel doesn't want that to happen either.

Jihadists winning these wars are nothing Israel is afraid of.

I emphatically disagree with that. Israel is terribly concerned that if the surrounding Arab states collapse into anarchical failed states filled with crazy fanatical jihadists, it will spill over their borders and threaten them as well. They are also concerned that if Syria becomes a stateless vacuum like Somalia, dangerous bad-actors like a newly nuclear-armed Iran might try to fill the void.

Anyway, civil war or failed state is not a big difference - what they would not like are strong, successful arabic states. Zero sum gamers.

Russia has its fingerprints all over the Syrian civil war. (So does the United States, to say nothing of Saudi Arabia, Turkey and others.) Israel is notable by its absence from that list. They know that given the hatred for Israel in the Muslim world, if they supported anyone in that struggle, the ones they supported would immediately be discredited and become the enemy of the rest. And why should Israel be involved when Russia is serving its interests by defending Assad and preventing his downfall?

 

[Schmelzer]

I would not claim that Israel is very much involved. A characterization as low level involvement I would accept. But not of absence.

And it is clear on which side it is involved: Against Syria. It has, by the way, often enough attacked as the Syrian army itself, as, in particular, Hesbollah. The map, with a lot of terrorist-hold territory near the Golan heights, also speaks clear enough about who is supported. Clearly less than Turkey, the US, Saudi, Qatar, those main contributors to terrorism. But comparable with EU, Jordania.

 

[Yazata]

If this map is to be believed, the Syrian government/Iranian/Hezbollah fighters are busily attacking east Aleppo in three places: At the north end of the enclave, near the Castello road, where there's fighting in the former Handarat Palestinian refugee camp (it's changed hands several times already and is probably largely depopulated. At the south end of the enclave there's fighting in the Shaykh Said district, north of Ramouseh. And perhaps most significantly, there seems to be a push in the center of Aleppo from the ancient citadel, an ancient tell with a medieval Islamic castle atop it, long occupied by Assad forces who were surrounded on three sides by rebels. Now Assad's forces seem to be striking out from there. with another push opposite it on the east side of the enclave. The intention seems to be to squeeze the enclave in half. Bombing by Assad's air force has reportedly been the most intense of the war.

The cease-fire is well and truly dead. And from the rapidity with which he launched it, this offensive of Assad's was probably already in preparation while the cease-fire was theoretically in effect. Suggesting that he had no intention of honoring it.

 

[Schmelzer]

Claims that the terrorists defenses in Northern Aleppo have been collapsed completely have appeared to be too optimistic. They have even made a counterattack against the Handarat camp. It looks like a first attack has been repelled, but after a second attack, with even more attackers, Al Quds has withdrawn from the camp.

 

[Yazata]

While fighting continues in Aleppo, the Turks and their "FSA" surrogates continue to slowly push south along a broad front against northernmost Islamic State.

http://www.edmaps.com/Syria_Battle_for_Azaz_AlBab_September_27.png

My impression is that only a relatively small number of Turkish army troops are involved and that most of the fighting is being done by Turkish-supported rebels with Turkish (and American?) air support.

The SDF continues to fight eastwards south of Mare but doesn't seem to be making much progress.

 

[sculptor]

Is it wise to completely surround the 'rebels"?