Syria September 2015 ~ What's up?

[CptBork]

I am heartened to know you think my thoughts absurd. I can now sleep easy at night knowing that IS are merely bluffing...and the world alliance against IS is deluded in believing IS is a significant and credible threat.

The USA alone is spending 10 million USD a day on a media hoax... bah!

Seriously, if IS was just another "common" terrorist organization why the global stink about them on such a massive scale do you think?
Why are the worlds Governments totally spooked by the IS phenomena?

World governments aren't totally spooked by ISIS, otherwise they would already have ground troops in Iraq and Syria fighting it, and they wouldn't be tolerating the various regional obstacles to ISIS' removal. What I'd like to have answered is why Turkey is allowed to bomb Kurds seeking basic autonomy while ensuring that ISIS continues to have a border crossing, and why no one is calling them out for it while we waste vast sums of money cleaning up the symptoms of the problems they're causing.

As I said, ISIS is certainly a global threat (as is any large, armed, lawless organization filled with fanatics), but that threat is vastly magnified by various governments for completely unrelated purposes. In the west, ISIS is used as a cheap trump card to stir paranoia and win support from voters with the attention spans of squirrels, who can't be bothered to learn about the events and history of the middle east and the vast scale of the atrocities committed by several other parties which numerically dwarf the much-publicized crimes associated with ISIS. ISIS also makes a maximal effort to publicize and even exagerrate its barbarism to the world, because this is an effective means of recruiting followers from amongst the dredges of societies, and it works to instill terror in these same societies (which is the whole point of terrorism), subjugating those at home, and spurring those abroad to alter their behaviours and lifestyle when it lacks the military punch to hit them directly.

Then on the other side of the coin, you have Russia and Iran using ISIS as a blatant excuse to support a Hitlerian dictator as a means of expanding their control and influence in the middle east by proxy, and (they hope) as a means of embarassing the United States and pushing it out of the region, actions which themselves are only intended as a means of covering up the shameful inadequacies they both suffer at home.

 

[Schmelzer]

I would recommend you to look at what changes. For example on militarymaps.info. Before the Russians have come, Assad was losing ground, on may different fronts (Idlib, Daraa, Palmyra). Now Assad became much more successful, again on many different fronts (Latakia, Hama, Homs, Aleppo, Damasc, Daraa). Yes, the advance is slow yet, but so what? Supporting someone who was loosing with air support changes a lot, but not everything, the terrorists support with weapons from the West will even increase. And the air power will need some time to reach a serious influence on infrastructure and supplies and so on.

To support Assad, and to fight all terrorists, even the "moderate" (means Western paid) terrorists, was the openly declared aim. So, this is what we have to care about if we want to evaluate if what is done is effective. For the Russians, there is no difference between Al Qaida and IS they would care about, so why they should care if the IS takes some Al Qaida territories? Who cares if the terrorists split into various factions and fight each other? This is nice for everybody (except the poor Western states who have paid them and see their money wasted).

At least the Russians have fun bombing them all during their fights with each other http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/islamist-rebels-fight-each-other-while-the-russians-bomb-them/

 

[joepistole]

I would recommend you to look at what changes. For example on militarymaps.info. Before the Russians have come, Assad was losing ground, on may different fronts (Idlib, Daraa, Palmyra). Now Assad became much more successful, again on many different fronts (Latakia, Hama, Homs, Aleppo, Damasc, Daraa). Yes, the advance is slow yet, but so what? Supporting someone who was loosing with air support changes a lot, but not everything, the terrorists support with weapons from the West will even increase. And the air power will need some time to reach a serious influence on infrastructure and supplies and so on.

To support Assad, and to fight all terrorists, even the "moderate" (means Western paid) terrorists, was the openly declared aim. So, this is what we have to care about if we want to evaluate if what is done is effective. For the Russians, there is no difference between Al Qaida and IS they would care about, so why they should care if the IS takes some Al Qaida territories? Who cares if the terrorists split into various factions and fight each other? This is nice for everybody (except the poor Western states who have paid them and see their money wasted).

At least the Russians have fun bombing them all during their fights with each other http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/islamist-rebels-fight-each-other-while-the-russians-bomb-them/

I think Russia becoming overstretched, fighting a war in Ukraine and now involving itself in another military adventure in Syria. At some point, Russia will find itself in another Afghanistan like event. Russia will continue to take losses in drawn out wars. It's economy will continue to deteriorate. Putin is distracting Russians with nationalism and easy vodka. But at some point, things will break. It might be in a year, two or three years. But Russia cannot sustain its current course. Russians are a very docile people so it may take a while, but at some point they will reach a breaking point. The only question now is how much Russian blood must be spilled and how much must Russians suffer before they break.

 

[CptBork]

I think Russia becoming overstretched, fighting a war in Ukraine and now involving itself in another military adventure in Syria. At some point, Russia will find itself in another Afghanistan like event. Russia will continue to take losses in drawn out wars. It's economy will continue to deteriorate. Putin is distracting Russians with nationalism and easy vodka. But at some point, things will break. It might be in a year, two or three years. But Russia cannot sustain its current course. Russians are a very docile people so it may take a while, but at some point they will reach a breaking point. The only question now is how much Russian blood must be spilled and how much must Russians suffer before they break.

I've seen estimates that, barring a dramatic rise in oil prices or a relaxation of existing sanctions, Russia's government will be forced into default by the end of 2016. Everything they're doing right now is on borrowed dollars and borrowed time, and the adventure in Syria is already costing them a fortune. Reportedly, the Caspian sea missile attacks on Iran used up most of Russia's stockpile of that particular missile, so let's see if they can manage a repeat (attempted) performance or if they really are that paper thin. The only force advantage Russia possesses is that it's actually crazy and stupid enough to use it, and Western leaders are too weak and self-interested to make Russia pay for it up front.

 

[Yazata]

So you're afraid of a power vacuum being filled by hundreds or thousands of disparate organizations and militias of questionable loyalty and intent

Yes. We've seen how successful that was in Libya, a failed state.

including the ones who've proclaimed from the start their desire for a secular democratic Syria representing all ethnicities and religions.

It would be great if Western-style modernist progressive Syrian rebels somehow got control of the Syrian government and the support of the entire Syrian population. But how does one transition from Syrian reality to that particular fantasy? Right now, modernist progressive "good" Syrian rebels are awfully thin on the ground. Most of the rebels are unsavory thugs of various sorts, the majority radical Islamists. So even if Washington DC can somehow engineer the "good" Syrian rebels getting control of the government buildings in Damascus if Assad falls, how do the "good" rebels get their former anti-Assad rebel allies to recognize their hegemony and their vision for the future of Syria? The Islamist rebels have very different visions. In other words, removing Assad isn't likely to bring peace to Syria, it will just usher in a new wave of rebel-on-rebel fighting, just like removing Qaddhafi did in Libya.

How do you then conclude that the one faction responsible for murdering more Syrian innocents than all the other factions combined, which operates a full machinery of Nazist torture and extermination

Now you're just repeating propaganda. Sure, hundreds of thousands of people have died in the Syrian civil war. Millions of people have been displaced from their homes. But all of that isn't an expression of the evil of Assad. It's the result of civil war, a war that Assad didn't start. The idea seems to be that by failing to immediately surrender to an "Arab Spring" uprising, and by fighting back instead, all of the violence that ensues is his fault.

is the one and only group capable of bringing stability to the country?

The Syrian army is the only force in Syria in a position to exert any central government control over an almost irreparably fragmented country and hundreds of rebel militias. It's the only force with manpower, heavy equipment and a functioning chain of command.

The Syrian army is also the only coherent conventional military force on ISIS' western flank. By trying to destroy the Syrian army and by forcing it to fight them rather than ISIS, the rebels (even the "good" rebels) are functioning as ISIS' military allies. ISIS can just sit back and let them do the fighting, then move in and pick up the pieces.

 

[sculptor]

... What I'd like to have answered is why Turkey is allowed to bomb Kurds seeking basic autonomy while ensuring that ISIS continues to have a border crossing, and why no one is calling them out for it while we waste vast sums of money cleaning up the symptoms of the problems they're causing. ... .

In a word: NATO.
NATO is a rogue end run around the United Nations. Members have privilege. Turkey is a member, the Kurds ain't.

.................
anecdote:
Long ago, I power shifted to take the triumph through a 6 way intersection before the light turned red. A couple plain clothes cops picked up and followed me, then pulled me over. I was on my way to a blues bar, and had only cash-no wallet---no ID-------one cop was hanging out by the car(trying to get me to let him look inside) while the other ran my plates. so we chatted while his partner struggled with 1980's computer tech. Then they got a call------(some code?). The cop said: "bigger fish to fry" as he headed for his car. I asked what the code meant. "Armed robbery in progress" he said as he climbed into the car------------then, off they roared into the night. That thin blue line between me and chaos.
.............
The Kurds ain't major players here---------NATO has bigger fish to fry.

.....................................................................
For those of you who don't know: "Bigger fish to fry" is an idiomatic expression denoting relative importance and has nothing to do with fish nor frying.

 

[Schmelzer]

I think Russia becoming overstretched, fighting a war in Ukraine and now involving itself in another military adventure in Syria.

There is no fighting in the Ukraine now, so there is not more than some humanitarian help and some tuition of the local military, that's all. Syria is not very expensive, a small number of planes, fuel costs, relatively cheap bombs. Today, I have read, some Dagestan emir has been killed - this translates into saved lives of people in Dagestan.

I've seen estimates that, barring a dramatic rise in oil prices or a relaxation of existing sanctions, Russia's government will be forced into default by the end of 2016. Everything they're doing right now is on borrowed dollars and borrowed time, and the adventure in Syria is already costing them a fortune.

I even know without having to read them where one can easily find such estimates - on Ukrainian Nazi propaganda sites.

http://www.cbr.ru/hd_base/default.aspx?Prtid=mrrf_m shows that during the last half year the reserves are increasing again.

Reportedly, the Caspian sea missile attacks on Iran used up most of Russia's stockpile of that particular missile, so let's see if they can manage a repeat (attempted) performance or if they really are that paper thin.

Nice try, but there is no point for doing this. This was an advertising operation for the export variant of these rockets, together with a political message to the US and a birthday present for Putin. The US has understood the point, the world market for weapons too, and Putin has had a nice birthday. For the US-paid terrorists cheap dumb bombs are sufficient. All one has to do is to kill them faster than the US educates them.

 

[sculptor]

Is it likely that the threat of imposing a "no fly zone" over Syria forced Russia's hand in this?
Russia's only naval facility(for repairs and refitting) in the Mediterranean was in Syria, though now, they have permission to build one in cypress and use a Cypriot military air base.

 

[Schmelzer]

Is it likely that the threat of imposing a "no fly zone" over Syria forced Russia's hand in this?
Russia's only naval facility(for repairs and refitting) in the Mediterranean was in Syria, though now, they have permission to build one in cypress and use a Cypriot military air base.

I would guess the naval facility played no role at all, but have read several articles claiming that the threat of imposing a "no fly zone" was the main reason for Russia to come.

 

[joepistole]

I would guess the naval facility played no role at all, but have read several articles claiming that the threat of imposing a "no fly zone" was the main reason for Russia to come.

Hmm...And you think that makes sense? A no fly zone is still a real possibility.

 

[Schmelzer]

Hmm...And you think that makes sense? A no fly zone is still a real possibility.

If you want a WW III, it is.

 

[sculptor]

Hmm...And you think that makes sense? A no fly zone is still a real possibility.

Some days, joe, you sound(read) like some of the war mongering nutjobs seemingly running for president of the united states.

 

[joepistole]

Some days, joe, you sound(read) like some of the war mongering nutjobs seemingly running for president of the united states.

And why do you think a no fly zone is war mongering?

The fact is after previously rejecting no fly zones in Syria, Russian intervention has caused the Obama administration and allied nations to seriously reconsider no fly zones to protect Syrians from Russian attacks. So instead of taking no fly zones off the table as Schmeizer wants people to believe, Russian intervention has put them back on the table. Syrian refugees are causing serious disruptions in Europe. So something has to give.

Do you seriously think Russia wants to go to war with NATO? Russians are full of bravado, but I don't think they are suicidal.

 

[sculptor]

"No fly zones" really did a great job in Libya?

 

[joepistole]

"No fly zones" really did a great job in Libya?

Actually, no-fly zones worked well in Libya. No-fly zones were implemented to prevent Qaddafi from using his air forces against his citizens. And they worked. What no-fly zones didn't do was solve all of Libya's ills. But they were never intended to solve all that ailed Libya.

I think too often people expect panaceas and if something isn't a panacea, then it's worthless. But that's not how the world works. There are rarely, if ever, panaceas. We should use the correct and appropriate tools to solve ailments and that is the debate. In Washington and in Western capitals the use of no-fly zones is being debated to solve a particular problem in Syria. No-fly zones won't fix all that ails Syria, but they might save the lives of many innocent Syrian civilians and in doing so ease the immigration burden in Europe.

 

[joepistole]

If you want a WW III, it is.

Hmm....that sounds like more bulling from Mother Russia. Here is one of the problems with your threat. You have to have the ability to back up your threats to make them credible, and Mother Russia doesn't have that ability.

Additionally, history has clearly shown appeasement is a failed policy. It didn't prevent WWII, and it won't prevent a WW III.

Let's take a look at what WW III would look like for Mother Russia. It wouldn't be much of a world war, it would be Russia against the rest of the world. Within minutes of war breaking out, Russia would lose its naval fleet, nuclear bombers, internet, GPS, and within the next few hours Russia's land based forces would become charred rubble. The war would be over in a matter of hours before a single Western soldier sets foot on Russia soil. Western forces would remain largely undamaged. Western naval forces would emerge completely intact. Russia's missiles would be have been completely destroyed. A few missiles might escape Western military defenses, but that's the best Russia could hope for, and Russia would lie in ruin. Day two, Western troopers would invade Mother Russia from the East, South and West to mop up what ever is left. So if Russia wants WW III, that is regrettable. But it is what it is, and history has shown the appeasement of petty dictators like Putin doesn't prevent war. It just makes war imminent.

If Russia wants to do something stupid. So be it, the West cannot stop it and is not responsible for it, but it can and will respond to it.

 

[sculptor]

Actually, no-fly zones worked well in Libya. No-fly zones were implemented to prevent Qaddafi from using his air forces against his citizens. And they worked. What no-fly zones didn't do was solve all of Libya's ills. But they were never intended to solve all that ailed Libya.
... .

I submit that Libya is much worse off today than it ever was under Qaddafi.
"No fly zone" is a false name -------what it really meant was unrestricted bombing of another country without a declaration of war.

 

[joepistole]

I submit that Libya is much worse off today than it ever was under Qaddafi.
"No fly zone" is a false name -------what it really meant was unrestricted bombing of another country without a declaration of war.

So you mean the bombing of Libya, not the No-fly Zones. Well, that is another matter. The problem with no-fly zones is they tie up military resources and that's why there is some reluctance to use them in Syria. It would require a prolonged presence. And I think there is little appetite for a prolonged presence in the region, just as there is little appetite for a prolonged presence in Libya.

 

[Schmelzer]

Hmm....that sounds like more bulling from Mother Russia.

Imposing no fly zones is bulling. It is a clear case of an aggression, a violation of international law. The only instance which can establish no fly zones are a state over its own territory and the UNSC. Above will not do this, so, the only possibility to do this is a war, an aggression.

Remember, if a plane is flying over Syrian territory without permission from the Syrian government, it can be shot down in full agreement with international law.

Here is one of the problems with your threat. You have to have the ability to back up your threats to make them credible, and Mother Russia doesn't have that ability.

You think so? I would not recommend to try if S 300 can shut down an american airplane.

Additionally, history has clearly shown appeasement is a failed policy. It didn't prevent WWII, and it won't prevent a WW III.

Yes, there is a large danger that appeasement of the US will not work. So, if US planes start to break international law in Syria and start to bomb some legitimate force, there may be no other reasonable choice except to shut them down.

Let's take a look at what WW III would look like for Mother Russia. It wouldn't be much of a world war, it would be Russia against the rest of the world.

The rest of the world does not matter. There will be two nuclear attacks, probably the first one from US, the second one from Russia, but this does not matter, and Russia as well as the US, as well as a large part of the remaining world (every US base will be a target in such a case, and they are in many countries) will be destroyed. If the prediction of nuclear winter after such a nuclear war is correct, this will be the end of mankind.

Within minutes of war breaking out, Russia would lose its naval fleet, nuclear bombers, internet, GPS, and within the next few hours Russia's land based forces would become charred rubble.

More or less. And exactly the same thing happens with the US. And the Russians, as well as the Americans, will be the happy ones who will be killed immediately, instead of dying during the nuclear winter. All humankind can hope for is that the nuclear winter prediction appears the same type of BS as climate science, then there would be a chance for survival.

So if Russia wants WW III, that is regrettable.

Russia does not want a war. But if necessary it is ready for war. Remember, it is the US which starts the war, by bombing or shooting on Syrian territory the Syrian army.

A nice observation about Obama and Clinton lying about their aims in Libya:
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2015/1...im-of-our-war-on-libya-was-regime-change.html

 

[sculptor]

Calling bombing anything but bombing is dishonest!
Instead of calling it a "no fly zone" they could have as honestly called it 'psychedelic orgasmic butterfly puke"
a rose by any other name.................................... shit by any other name would still stink!

following a link from Schmelzer's link:

On March 21, 2011, Obama announced that the United States would pursue the formation of an international coalition to protect civilians from the security forces of Muammar al-Qaddafi: "I also want to be clear about what we will not be doing…. We are not going to use force to go beyond a well-defined goal — specifically, the protection of civilians in Libya." One week later, as the first bombs fell, he further described the U.S. mission: "The task that I assigned our forces [is] to protect the Libyan people from immediate danger, and to establish a no-fly zone," the president said. To which he added explicitly: "Broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake." That regime change was not the U.S. objective in Libya was repeated by the White House, State Department, and the Pentagon

And, the bombs rained down on military and civilian alike. And chaos ensued, and continues still.
"Protect the Libyan people".....................................wow damned poor job on that one
From a man who promised "transparency in government" .....
So, I ask:
What in hell are our leaders playing at?