Military Events in Syria and Iraq Thread #4

[Schmelzer]

It seems, the Deir Ezzor airport siege has been lifted too. It is not clear from which side, from the West or from the South, progress toward the airport has been made from both sides:

I doubt the progress in the South was really as big as presented here, because there has been information about the Syrian army reaching the entry of the Thayyem oil field already from the day before the siege has been broken. So I think they have been in that region already several days, but have not advanced further until ash Sholah was secured.

Further shrinking is reported also from the remains of the Aqerbat pocket.

The Kurds seem to have started their attack against Daesh in Deir Ezzor. Looks like they want to reach the oil fields before the Syrian army.

 

[Schmelzer]

The remains of the Deir Ezzor blockade have been removed. First, the whole road from Palmyra to Deir Ezzor is now under control of the Syrian army. Then, the Turdah mountain - the mountains which Daesh was able to take after a heavy attack of IS airforce, sorry, US airforce, and the control of which has endangered the whole pocket and allowed Daesh later to split the pocket into two parts - has been taken too.

 

[CptBork]

The remains of the Deir Ezzor blockade have been removed. First, the whole road from Palmyra to Deir Ezzor is now under control of the Syrian army. Then, the Turdah mountain - the mountains which Daesh was able to take after a heavy attack of IS airforce, sorry, US airforce, and the control of which has endangered the whole pocket and allowed Daesh later to split the pocket into two parts - has been taken too.

Comrade, are you speaking about the same US air force that just recently had 300 ISIS fighters trapped in the Syrian desert, until your leaders back in Moscow insisted on allowing them to pass through to Iraq?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/15/world/middleeast/syria-isis-convoy-us.html

 

[Yazata]

While the Syrian army and its allies have been approaching Deir Ezzor from the west, the SDF has been approaching from the north. They are currently fighting ISIS in an outlying light industrial area on the east bank of the Euphrates opposite Deir Ezzor, and have reached the river just north of the city. The bulk of the city of Deir Ezzor is west of the river and the SDF has no plans to enter that area, leaving it to the Syrians.

Apparently there have been some military confrontations between them and the Syrian army around the Euphrates river, which has long been the deconfliction line separating SAA/Russian on one side and Kurdish/Coalition areas of operation on the other. The SDF has told the Syrian army not to cross the river. Syrian and perhaps Russian aircraft have responded by launching small-scale air strikes on the Kurds east of the river and there's been some Syrian army shelling across the river. It isn't clear if this is the beginning of open Syrian army/Kurdish warfare or whether it was confusion in the fog of war where the Russians/Syrians thought they were attacking ISIS fighters.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-m...-backed-forces-in-eastern-syria-idUSKCN1BR09K

http://edmaps.com/Battle_for_Eastern_Syria_September_12_2017.png

 

[Schmelzer]

Comrade, are you speaking about the same US air force that just recently had 300 ISIS fighters trapped in the Syrian desert, until your leaders back in Moscow insisted on allowing them to pass through to Iraq? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/15/world/middleeast/syria-isis-convoy-us.html

Yes. about these, who tried to disrupt the peace negotiation process by stopping a transport from Lebanon, on the usual conditions of such peace negotiations, of some fighters as well as their families. To kill them, once their transport was part of a peace negotiation, would be a case of mass murder and a war crime. To block them is already something close to this. They were simply transported to the main Daesh-held areas. If they after this go to Iraq or not is their choice. Let's not forget that ISIS came to Syria from Iraq.

Yazata, who are these SDF to tell the legal government of Syria not to cross a river? They should be happy that they are not (yet) the target of a full scale anti-terrorist operation. ISIS is, yet, a much higher priority.

The news are as usual, the remains of the Aqerbat pocket are further shrinking, four or so villages being taken. The Syrian army has also taken the village Ayash North-West of Deir Ezzor (probably the last point in this direction with strong fortifications from the long fighting over the last years in this region), and some villages in the South-East along the Euphrat.

 

[Schmelzer]

There have been already several days unconfirmed claims that the Syrian army has crossed the Euphrat river, but today it became official that the river has been crossed South-East of the Deir Ezzor airport. Here the progress around Deir Ezzor during the last week.

There is also information that the Syrian army is in the process of clearing the Saqr island, the biggest island on the Euphrat river immediately East of Deir Ezzor, and are entering the Tabiya oil field on the other side of the Euphrat river. The region around the airport seems sufficiently safe so that today the first transport airplane has landed in the airport.

 

[Schmelzer]

The most interesting information today comes from the Russian MoD. It is about the reaction of the Americans. A short time after the Euphrat has been crossed there was a heavy increase of the water level and a doubling of the speed of the water. Given that there was no rain or so, the only explanation is that the Kurds - or, in other words, the US - have released a lot of water from the dams under their control to sabotage the crossing.

Moreover, the most heavy counterattacks from Daesh comes from the direction where the SDF and the American special forces are located.

The other big news is that former Al Qaida and friends have started a new offensive in the border region of Idlib and Hama. The first news are about heavy losses in material and fighters of joepistole's friends, at the main (most dangerous) attack direction they have reached no progress. But the front where they attack is quite wide, and there are also some points which they have taken.

 

[Schmelzer]

The Syrian army seems close to finishing the enclave of Daesh North-West of Deir Ezzor:

The main town which counts, Maadan, has been taken, and, given the fast progress in this region during the last days, there was not much Daesh there anyway. So, probably the area colored as ISIS-controlled on the West side of the Euphrat is simply not yet cleared completely, or even cleared but not yet officially announced as liberated.

Less clear is if the Syrian army has made a second crossing over the Euphrat near Shaymah, as presented on the map too.

The Syrian army is also now advancing in Northern Hama, after the failed Al Qaida (Hatesh) offensive. Two villages have been taken today.

 

[Schmelzer]

The Russian MO now accuses American special forces of direct cooperation with ISIS. They present satellite pictures of allegedly US special forces cars travelling through ISIS-held territory not only without being attacked, but even without attempts to defend themselves against possible attacks. https://www.almasdarnews.com/articl...reveal-us-forces-operating-freely-isis-areas/

 

[Schmelzer]

The reaction of the US to the Russian accusations is interesting. Al Masdar makes in https://www.almasdarnews.com/articl...leading-units-isis-held-territory-deir-ezzor/ the following quote:

“The statement is false. For operational security, we do not comment on ongoing operations or the current positions of Coalition personnel and our partner forces,” the US-led coalition headquarters said.

In other words, not really a denial, but a refusal to comment.

There are now even more serious accusations, namely a video where ISIS fighters claim that they are ordered, by their emir, not to fight Kurdish forces: https://www.almasdarnews.com/articl...s-forbidden-attack-kurdish-forces-deir-ezzor/

It seems more and more obvious that the US fighting ISIS is in a great part fake, and that the US is able to control, or probably to buy, at least some parts of ISIS.

 

[sculptor]

curiouser and curiouser

 

[Schmelzer]

Yesterdays news was a large offensive of ISIS on a quite long front against the road from Deir Ezzor to Palmyra, combined with some terrorists attacks in the region of Palmyra itself and Qaratajn. The information was that for this offensive, a huge amount of ISIS fighters, inclusive tanks and elite forces, have been transferred from Iraq to Syria. The offensive reached some initial success, so the road was closed and some parts have been taken.

In the morning, the Syrian counteroffensive started. The road seems now again under complete control of the Syrian army, there are even claims that the road is already reopened. There are claims about very high casualties among ISIS fighters.

In Hama, the greatest remaining town in the ISIS pocket, Soha, has been taken.

 

[Schmelzer]

The remains of the Aqerbat pocket are decreasing, there are some claims that it is already split in two parts, as in the following map, but this is not yet confirmed. Anyway, the end of this pocket is nearby.

The big ISIS attack has continued some time, but seems finally over now. In Qaratajn the situation was more serious than initially reported, some reinforcements had to arrive, and there is yet some fighting inside the town. It is speculated that one of the explanations was a former transfer of a large number of former fighters to Qaratajn in connection with a ceasefire or peace agreement.

The fighting in Raqqa, which was already claimed by the US to be almost finished, continues. Looks like a lot of SDF has been transferred to other fronts, and now ISIS is quite successful against the remains.

 

[Schmelzer]

The Northern part of the Aqerbat pocket has been cleared.

The situation around Qaratajn remains unclear, there is fighting in the mountains around it.

 

[iceaura]

http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176...eedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3

- - -
- - -
. The infamous “surge” of more than 20,000 additional U.S. troops into Iraq in 2007 only accelerated the flight of Iraqis from their homes: more than a million of them were displaced within that country, while close to a million more crossed the border into Syria.

Those Iraqi refugees generally had more money than their Syrian counterparts. With their arrival, schools and hospitals became overcrowded, food prices in Damascus rose 30% and rents 150%. Hard-pressed Syrians moved to run-down neighborhoods in Damascus, finding themselves second-class citizens in their own capital. - - -
- - - -
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, having opened borders to Iraqis, feared the subversion of his own regime. He had always run a tight ship, much like his fallen autocratic neighbor Saddam Hussein. With the surge of Iraqis into Damascus, he doubled down. When I worked in the city in 2008, you could smell surveillance in the air. The same guy lounging in different neighborhoods. The lock picked. Papers rifled. A camera gone. The rising sense of something worse about to happen. The shadow of the war in Iraq fell across Damascus like a prediction. Less than three years later, in March 2011, peaceful protests began after 15 young boys were arrested and tortured -- a 13 year-old died -- for having written graffiti in support of the Arab Spring. Assad responded with deadly force and, by July, civil war was underway. To date, at least 465,000 Syrians have been killed, one million injured, and 12 million -- half the country’s population -- displaced like the Iraqis before them.

As for the U.S.: in 2016, we dropped 12,192 bombs on Syria although we are not officially at war with that country. That’s more than the 12,095 bombs we dropped that same year on Iraq, with which we are no longer at war, and more than we have dropped on any country since the war in Vietnam. It’s all about the unlimited license the war on terror has given the U.S. military. We now bomb “terrorists” wherever we “see” them (often among civilians), and currently not just in Syria and Iraq but also in Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, Libya, and Somalia. Donald Trump, during his first six months in office, set an all-time presidential record, dropping 20,650 bombs on seven Muslim countries for reasons he did not explain, even as he nearly doubled the number of civilians being killed. And he’s just getting started. - - -
- - - -

Something to keep in mind while tracking the military maneuverings of Assad and the various factions.

In other words, not really a denial, but a refusal to comment.

The declarative sentence "The statement is false" is a denial, in English. I realize neither English nor clear declarative sentences in general are your native mode of communication.

It seems more and more obvious that the US fighting ISIS is in a great part fake, and that the US is able to control, or probably to buy, at least some parts of ISIS.

Buying off jihadists and Islamic fundies would be a common US tactic since at least as far back as 2007, when it was part of what was called "The Surge" in Iraq.

 

[Schmelzer]

The declarative sentence "The statement is false" is a denial, in English. I realize neither English nor clear declarative sentences in general are your native mode of communication.

It is a denial, of course. But not really - else they would have made clear statements which part of the statement is false, and what is the truth. For example, a real denial would have been "The statement is false, on the places shown in these fotos where are no US troops - these are Daesh with machines they have probably conquered in Iraq". So that Russia would have been able to respond "ok, thanks for the information, we will bomb them away". The statement as formulated prevents this. "The statement is false" without any explanation what is false (the punctuation?) is what I think is not really a denial.

What if Russia now bombs these positions? And, in case when these appear to be US forces, says "oh, sorry, we have initially thought these are US forces, and have said this, but you have officially said that our statement about this was false, so it became clear that these are not US forces." This "denial" means, in reality, that these are US troops. Else, a clear statement that they are not would have been part of the response.

But I recognize that this type of "denial" is quite typical for your style of argumentation. The "you are wrong" without any explanation what is wrong, or any justification for this, is what I have seen many times. In this sense, this is a clear case of an iceaura denial.

Buying off jihadists and Islamic fundies would be a common US tactic since at least as far back as 2007, when it was part of what was called "The Surge" in Iraq.

Buying jihadists and Islamic fundies is common US strategy since the time of the Afghanistan war of Soviet Union.

News of the day is that the Syrian army is now close to Mayadin, which is sometimes named the Syrian capital of Daesh.

 

[iceaura]

It is a denial, of course. But not really - else they would have made clear statements which part of the statement is false, and what is the truth

It is a denial, of course. Really. Right there.
You are free to contend that it is a lie.

For example, a real denial would have been

Your imagination is overlooking a few issues.

So that Russia would have been able to respond "ok, thanks for the information, we will bomb them away". The statement as formulated prevents this.

Russia is not an honest or reliable party here, and has already as much information as it needs to bomb people. Nothing in any "formulation" prevents Russia from bombing anyone.

The US is not the only liar involved, and Russia is not the only party with bombs. You are attempting to deflect consideration of Russia's role in supporting Assad through all of this.

But I recognize that this type of "denial" is quite typical for your style of argumentation.

It is not. It isn't mine here, either - no argument appears, merely the observation that you are once again misrepresenting Russia and its behavior.

In this sense, this is a clear case of an iceaura denial.

Yes, it is - something not said by iceaura in the first place, misrepresented by you in the second, and acting to deflect attention from an uncomfortable (for you) observation: Russia's role here is not a good one, and your propaganda-addled choice of US President is doing the bad stuff we told you he would do - some of it in support of Russia's concurrent atrocities, apparently, or at least not diligently in opposition, which should be a warning bell for you.

Buying jihadists and Islamic fundies is common US strategy since the time of the Afghanistan war of Soviet Union.

Yep. An earlier example of ugly Russian imperial ambition and ugly US imperial ambition, ugliness and foolishness and atrocity and lies all around. (In Iraq of course it was specifically denied, and heroic soldiering highlighted: that has become immediately relevant now in Syria.)

 

[Schmelzer]

It isn't mine here, either - no argument appears, merely the observation that you are once again misrepresenting Russia and its behavior.

I have, of course, not claimed that you have made it - it is simply the same scheme. A denial, but no information what is the real situation, what is wrong in the statement and what is not wrong.

Russia is not an honest or reliable party here, and has already as much information as it needs to bomb people. Nothing in any "formulation" prevents Russia from bombing anyone.
The US is not the only liar involved, and Russia is not the only party with bombs. You are attempting to deflect consideration of Russia's role in supporting Assad through all of this. ... acting to deflect attention from an uncomfortable (for you) observation: Russia's role here is not a good one, and your propaganda-addled choice of US President is doing the bad stuff we told you he would do - some of it in support of Russia's concurrent atrocities, apparently, or at least not diligently in opposition, which should be a warning bell for you.

And then add some personal accusations, as against the Russians (Russia not honest, atrocities), as against me (deflect of Russia's role), both without the slightest evidence. I have no problem at all with Russia's support for Assad, and see no reason to deflect. Your fantasies of atrocities (all these twenty something "last hospitals of Aleppo", gas attacks and so on) are simply propaganda, and bad propaganda, because they do more to destroy the reliability of the sources which distribute them than to discredit Russia or Assad.

An earlier example of ugly Russian imperial ambition and ugly US imperial ambition, ugliness and foolishness and atrocity and lies all around. (In Iraq of course it was specifically denied, and heroic soldiering highlighted: that has become immediately relevant now in Syria.)

Russian? Russia was, at that time, part of the USSR, which was ruled at that time by an Ukrainian, and never by a Russian.

 

[iceaura]

I have, of course, not claimed that you have made it - it is simply the same scheme. A denial, but no information what is the real situation, what is wrong in the statement and what is not wrong

Then perhaps for the same reason - unreliability in a dishonest and agenda-driven claimant, after a long record of their making claims in bad faith as a form of chaff.

And then add some personal accusations, as against the Russians (Russia not honest, atrocities), as against me (deflect of Russia's role), both without the slightest evidence. I have no problem at all with Russia's support for Assad, and see no reason to deflect.

You claim no evidence after all these months of your behavior, and then immediately - very next sentence - provide more. Comedy.
And still more:

Your fantasies of atrocities (all these twenty something "last hospitals of Aleppo", gas attacks and so on) are simply propaganda,

Your bad faith tactics illustrated. None of that stuff is from me, all of it is chaff here, and you cannot post honestly on this topic because you are committed to defending Putin's behavior in Syria.
That's why none of Assad's forces are "terrorists", and nothing Assad does is terrorism, and no terrorism is plausibly Assad's doing, in your posting here.

Russian? Russia was, at that time, part of the USSR, which was ruled at that time by an Ukrainian, and never by a Russian.

Ukraine held the power in the Soviet Union? I did not know that. Clearly it had recovered from the mass starvations and dingbat agricultural policies imposed from Moscow over the prior half century. Amazing what one can learn from Putin's social media operations.
Funny that it was Russia annexing part of Ukraine recently, rather than the other way around, then. And odd that Russia is the only "part" now re-expanding its influence in the Middle East and globally, not Ukraine or any other member of the Soviet Union.

Do you suppose the Syrians in general are grateful that Putin and Putin's choice of US President are helping them in their hour of need?

 

[Schmelzer]

Primitive personal attacks disposed.

Ukraine held the power in the Soviet Union? I did not know that. Clearly it had recovered from the mass starvations and dingbat agricultural policies imposed from Moscow over the prior half century. Amazing what one can learn from Putin's social media operations.

Here is an example of a primitive falsification from your side. I did not say that "Ukraine" ruled. I did say that at that time an Ukrainian (Breshnew) ruled. The Soviet rule was, at least officially, not nationalist at all, but internationalist.

And it was, at the beginning, quite openly anti-Russian. The Bolshevik elite troops were Latvian riflemen, the rulers of the Bolshevik Party were a mixture of Poles, Jews, Georgians and other nationalities which had some problems with the Russian tsarist rule, while the White movement was predominantly Russian. This slightly changed later, with time also a few Russians reached leading positions, but the Soviet Union was never ruled by a Russian elite suppressing other nationalities. With Chruschtschow, an Ukrainian, the Ukrainian mafia became quite powerful.

You also seem to believe the lie that the mass starvation during the collectivization was somehow anti-Ukrainian. It was part of the implementation of the communist rule in the agrarian sector. It severely damaged all agrarian regions of the Soviet Union. Given that the Ukraine was one of the main agrarian regions, this was especially harmful for the Ukrainian population. But a lot of Russians have died from starvation too.

Funny that it was Russia annexing part of Ukraine recently, rather than the other way around, then.

First, this was an annexation only in the Western propaganda. The legitimate government of the Crimea (in Kiew, there was no longer any legitimate government after the coup) decided to separate, and then, after a referendum, to join Russia. Note also that this part of Russia was given to the Ukraine by Chruschtschow, an Ukrainian.

And odd that Russia is the only "part" now re-expanding its influence in the Middle East and globally, not Ukraine or any other member of the Soviet Union.
Do you suppose the Syrians in general are grateful that Putin and Putin's choice of US President are helping them in their hour of need?

The Ukraine is now a de facto US colony, so that it has no influence at all. Russia needed some time to get rid of a similar de facto US rule, which lastet 10 years (Yeltsin time), but is now again a sufficiently strong state, able to defend itself against the US. And the majority of Syrians is grateful that Putin send support in their fight against US-paid jihadists. You think they prefer ISIS rule?

"Putin's choice of US president" is a funny joke, but not more. Live with the fact that it was the American population which elected Trump. You have to live with them, at least if you don't want to start a new civil war. Your problem.

The new meme in the Russian blogosphere is that the US becomes a new Ukraine. This is after they start to fight Confederate monuments, similar to the Ukraine damaging Lenin monuments (forgetting that it was Lenin who has given the Ukrainian Soviet Republic a lot of former Russian territory).